Greetings good citizen, while few of you have personally experienced a physical 'gun to the head' in real life, it's a common enough analogy that it needs no explaining...it is also attributed with the current level of, er, 'tolerance' we enjoy as a society. Before guns, know early on as 'equalizers', the ancient wisdom reigned supreme, one BIG man could slay many small ones.
Guns 'leveled' that playing field.
But I digress, what we're really examining here is the individual's right to defend himself. Under the [mythical] 'rule of law' the individual doesn't need to protect himself, the law does that for him...but we don't have the 'rule of law', do we.
No, that's not a question but a statement of fact. Worse, there is a whole subset of not necessarily rational personality types out there with both badges and guns who will shoot whoever they're told to shoot without question.
That is also a fact.
You don't need me to tell you we live in a far from perfect world...but anyone who has a facebook account is wondering what happened to the kids they grew up with when those 'kids' post clips from OAN [Fox in disguise] espousing candidate Trumps' assertion that had someone in that bar been armed, the carnage would have been far less!
Logic 101: Guns and alcohol...what could go wrong?
Seriously people? Some of you SHOULDN'T BE ARMED. How scary is it those are the same people who are set to elect a man to the highest office in the nation that thinks packing heat in an environment where everyone there is suffering from diminished judgement and almost nonexistent fine motor skills is a 'good idea'?
This is the stuff 'Cranium up the ol' rectum syndrome' is made of; which is where the expression 'excrement for brains' comes from!
I share a lot of 'out there' [non-mainstream] observations but if you think about them, I'm right. Contrarily, I also subscribe to that other sage bit if wisdom, better to keep one's mouth shut and have people wonder if you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove their suspicions!
But I digress. The question is whether or not we should remove guns from the general population?
The answer is a resounding NO. Remove an individuals' ability to defend themself and you turn the individual into a chattel. PRISONERS aren't allowed weapons. They must do whatever the armed demand of them...and that's a line we're NOT ready as a species to cross.
The trust isn't there and 'the legendary' is still too close for comfort.
Worse, removing weapons from the law abiding WILL NOT improve a rapidly deteriorating social environment.
The 'crackpots' who commit these acts will still find ways to, er, 'vent' [and removing the 'simple' way will only force them to step up their game!...what if Bobo had an IED? We'd consider 50 a 'small number.' If he had a big enough bomb or some kind of incindary device, the carnage would have been total.
The real question here is what do sitting and hopeful legislators hope to accomplish by removing weapons from the law abiding? Are they really saying they aren't fit to govern?
It is the perfect example of flawed logic!
Although nobody is suggesting 'disarming the public', they are simply pointing at the system being 'flawed'.
Why can't they admit what we already know? life isn't perfect and no amount of legislation (or technology for that matter) is going to change that.
Like so many other aspects of modern life [and modernity really has nothing to do with it] you have to roll with the punches and get back up when life knocks you down.
And maybe you should really think twice about voting for somebody that isn't bright enough to recognize an insoluable situation.
We can no sooner outlaw weapons than we can outlaw insanity [because if they did a whole bunch of us would be instant outlaws...hee-hee!]
Once again we see the danger of allowing the self-interested to draft our laws...
Thank you for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
Guns 'leveled' that playing field.
But I digress, what we're really examining here is the individual's right to defend himself. Under the [mythical] 'rule of law' the individual doesn't need to protect himself, the law does that for him...but we don't have the 'rule of law', do we.
No, that's not a question but a statement of fact. Worse, there is a whole subset of not necessarily rational personality types out there with both badges and guns who will shoot whoever they're told to shoot without question.
That is also a fact.
You don't need me to tell you we live in a far from perfect world...but anyone who has a facebook account is wondering what happened to the kids they grew up with when those 'kids' post clips from OAN [Fox in disguise] espousing candidate Trumps' assertion that had someone in that bar been armed, the carnage would have been far less!
Logic 101: Guns and alcohol...what could go wrong?
Seriously people? Some of you SHOULDN'T BE ARMED. How scary is it those are the same people who are set to elect a man to the highest office in the nation that thinks packing heat in an environment where everyone there is suffering from diminished judgement and almost nonexistent fine motor skills is a 'good idea'?
This is the stuff 'Cranium up the ol' rectum syndrome' is made of; which is where the expression 'excrement for brains' comes from!
I share a lot of 'out there' [non-mainstream] observations but if you think about them, I'm right. Contrarily, I also subscribe to that other sage bit if wisdom, better to keep one's mouth shut and have people wonder if you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove their suspicions!
But I digress. The question is whether or not we should remove guns from the general population?
The answer is a resounding NO. Remove an individuals' ability to defend themself and you turn the individual into a chattel. PRISONERS aren't allowed weapons. They must do whatever the armed demand of them...and that's a line we're NOT ready as a species to cross.
The trust isn't there and 'the legendary' is still too close for comfort.
Worse, removing weapons from the law abiding WILL NOT improve a rapidly deteriorating social environment.
The 'crackpots' who commit these acts will still find ways to, er, 'vent' [and removing the 'simple' way will only force them to step up their game!...what if Bobo had an IED? We'd consider 50 a 'small number.' If he had a big enough bomb or some kind of incindary device, the carnage would have been total.
The real question here is what do sitting and hopeful legislators hope to accomplish by removing weapons from the law abiding? Are they really saying they aren't fit to govern?
It is the perfect example of flawed logic!
Although nobody is suggesting 'disarming the public', they are simply pointing at the system being 'flawed'.
Why can't they admit what we already know? life isn't perfect and no amount of legislation (or technology for that matter) is going to change that.
Like so many other aspects of modern life [and modernity really has nothing to do with it] you have to roll with the punches and get back up when life knocks you down.
And maybe you should really think twice about voting for somebody that isn't bright enough to recognize an insoluable situation.
We can no sooner outlaw weapons than we can outlaw insanity [because if they did a whole bunch of us would be instant outlaws...hee-hee!]
Once again we see the danger of allowing the self-interested to draft our laws...
Thank you for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you can't stay on topic then don't say anything...