By Way of Introduction

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him vote. They would have to modify the booth to accommodate his horse shape.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Bullsh*t Overdrive

Well, the gun debate is finally over. Bruce Willis himself has come out in favor of unabridged access to nuclear weapons.

"I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone. If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?"

So I think we can all go back to wondering why Fox thinks that Germany is sunnier than America. That's like saying that if you can't hate homosexuals then you can't hate murder or bestiality either, as Supreme Court Justice Scalia claims.

But seriously, if John McClane had not had firearms aplenty at his disposal, the line "Yippi ki yay, (expletive deleted)" would not have had the same effect, thereby rendering Die Hard just another completely forgettable action movie.

Does Stallone's top billing make his opinion more valid than Bruce's?
Such a ban would have halted this franchise dead in its tracks, where Charlton Heston could then have pried the dull butter knife out of its corpse-y, no guns allowed hands. Plus, think of all the disasters we've averted thanks to McClane and his heroic antics. And it's all delivered with (sometimes) snappy one-liners - justice AND entertainment!

Imagine my surprise when during the course of research (googling The Expendables) I discovered that Sly Stallone actually supports reinstating the assault weapons ban. There is no context for the previous remark, I just found it interesting, in a dichotomous sort of way.

Here's the thing: I enjoy target shooting. I am not a hunter, but I respect the hunter. I would hunt if I needed to. I do not believe the government has the right to take my legal firearms from me. However, I am not in favor of assault weapons. They are weapons made for war and for SWAT teams. If the idea is that we've got to be able to protect ourselves from out own government, then why can't I buy a damn tank? Or an assault helicopter? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that on the cautious side of the weapon built to cut down waves of soldiers is the right place to draw it. You can disagree with me, but I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of what one might need a machine gun for. If it turns out that someone actually does have a good reason, they should be able to apply for a special license. Perhaps we license them to firing ranges so that people can still go and enjoy shooting them. The firing range makes out, the taxpayer makes out, and the guns are still there in case of that zombie apocalypse. 

I believe that the mentally ill and convicted felons should not be allowed to own guns. I am in favor of background checks. I believe our laws should reflect these things. Just because people will break the laws does not mean we should abolish them. That's idiotic. Does the same apply to murder, or anything else we  currently have laws against, just because people will do them regardless? Or is it that if something is illegal then it makes it less likely to happen? Of course it is. Therefore, making murder legal would necessarily increase the rate of homicide, just as removing seat-belt requirements would increase traffic injuries and fatalities.

Just quit acting like regulating firearms is the same thing as taking them away. It isn't. Period. FYI - the same day that the shooting took place at Sandy Hook some nut job in China injured 22 people at an elementary school there. He used a knife, and there were no fatalities.

Today's Divine Wisdom: Don't be stupid.

No comments: