Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
I like the Hello Kitty gun, but I suspect it is not a licensed Sanrio product. That's okay, a friend of mine found a Hello Kitty bong on eBay and it wasn't licensed either....
I'm going to be the first to say that I am no firearm expert. The gun on the left looks like a hunting rifle to me, and the one on the right looks like an assault weapon. Based on that, I'd say the left hand gun is okay. Obviously this is likely to be a trick question and plays on my ignorance- but you knew that already.
Maybe this statement will make a few folks feel better. Here goes,keeping in mind this is holiday season and we should be beating our swords into plowshares, or at least objects that resemble plowshares...
We (and men in particular) have fascination with hobbies that involve dangerous toys- cars, ATVs, boats, motorcycles, planes, guns- you name it. I participate enthusiastically in a lot of those hobbies and I am the first to admit I love them. Although I've done recreational shooting, I am not a gun owner (currently) but I have enjoyed it in the past. I am certainly not one of the folks who think that no one ought to have firearms except police officers, military, etc. Not in this country.
I do feel that our hobbies ought to be pursued in such a way that they don't endanger other people- that's my gripe with assault weapons and their related hardware. I think someone who flies down the road in their fast car and endangers everyone else's life is wrong.
We don't have an acceptable and strong enough method to regulate guns in this country. We have "laws" that require the gun shop to ask stupid questions like "are you mentally ill?" when you buy a gun. Ridiculous. Who answers "yes" to that?
What we need is a way to protect the population, and arming everyone is not the answer. It isn't fair to thrust gun ownership and gun use on all the people who are NOT interested in having guns around, who don't shoot, who are not gun hobbyists- that's the reason that the argument that ends with everyone carrying a firearm is a bullshit argument. It doesn't work. I'm an emergency doctor. I don't want to carry a gun to work- or anywhere else.
If you accept the idea that you can't make the population totally safe- that there is no way to do that- then you have to say, okay, what can we practically and reasonably do to make the population safer? And what measure are most effective, if you accept that there are ALWAYS going to be crazy people who want to kill a lot of folks and get on the news?
Well, there are some things we can do: we can make guns harder for mentally ill people to get- we can't make it impossible, but we can make it harder.
We can make guns safer, by removing semi-auto guns and assault weapons from the general population.
We can make vulnerable populations, like children, safer by stepping up guarding and protection around schools.
We can make mass murder less attractive to crazy people by imposing a set of rules which restrict media coverage and prevent them from celebrating (in effect) the mass murderers themselves.
And if you think gun owners don't want restrictions, wait til you try to shut the media up! They've turned Newtown into a media camp for the last week. But their attention paid to the shootings is beyond doubt what Adam Lanza wanted, and got. Hopefully he's too busy being broiled alive in hell to pay attention to the television down there.
The argument that a gun is a device which is solely for killing people is unfair to guns and gun owners. I think the real question here is this: where's the balance point in all this? I will suggest that far from beating this to death, these kinds of debates are what we need to get to an area of common ground which everyone can live with.
I am not, incidentally, a control freak, and although I am liberal on some points, I am not liberal on all points. I agree that our law allows us the right to own firearms. It's up to us, fellow car enthusiasts, and everyone else, to interpret that law in a way that preserves maximum safety for the maximum number of people while allowing the free exercise of that right for anyone who wants it.
We are past the point, at least I think we are, where a well-regulated militia is essential. The Founders did not likely see that their experiment in democracy would result in the founding of the most powerful country in world history. What we now have to do, as a unified group, is determine what the Second Amendment means in the 21st century and apply that meaning.
I'm going to be the first to say that I am no firearm expert. The gun on the left looks like a hunting rifle to me, and the one on the right looks like an assault weapon. Based on that, I'd say the left hand gun is okay. Obviously this is likely to be a trick question and plays on my ignorance- but you knew that already.
Maybe this statement will make a few folks feel better. Here goes,keeping in mind this is holiday season and we should be beating our swords into plowshares, or at least objects that resemble plowshares...
We (and men in particular) have fascination with hobbies that involve dangerous toys- cars, ATVs, boats, motorcycles, planes, guns- you name it. I participate enthusiastically in a lot of those hobbies and I am the first to admit I love them. Although I've done recreational shooting, I am not a gun owner (currently) but I have enjoyed it in the past. I am certainly not one of the folks who think that no one ought to have firearms except police officers, military, etc. Not in this country.
I do feel that our hobbies ought to be pursued in such a way that they don't endanger other people- that's my gripe with assault weapons and their related hardware. I think someone who flies down the road in their fast car and endangers everyone else's life is wrong.
We don't have an acceptable and strong enough method to regulate guns in this country. We have "laws" that require the gun shop to ask stupid questions like "are you mentally ill?" when you buy a gun. Ridiculous. Who answers "yes" to that?
What we need is a way to protect the population, and arming everyone is not the answer. It isn't fair to thrust gun ownership and gun use on all the people who are NOT interested in having guns around, who don't shoot, who are not gun hobbyists- that's the reason that the argument that ends with everyone carrying a firearm is a bullshit argument. It doesn't work. I'm an emergency doctor. I don't want to carry a gun to work- or anywhere else.
If you accept the idea that you can't make the population totally safe- that there is no way to do that- then you have to say, okay, what can we practically and reasonably do to make the population safer? And what measure are most effective, if you accept that there are ALWAYS going to be crazy people who want to kill a lot of folks and get on the news?
Well, there are some things we can do: we can make guns harder for mentally ill people to get- we can't make it impossible, but we can make it harder.
We can make guns safer, by removing semi-auto guns and assault weapons from the general population.
We can make vulnerable populations, like children, safer by stepping up guarding and protection around schools.
We can make mass murder less attractive to crazy people by imposing a set of rules which restrict media coverage and prevent them from celebrating (in effect) the mass murderers themselves.
And if you think gun owners don't want restrictions, wait til you try to shut the media up! They've turned Newtown into a media camp for the last week. But their attention paid to the shootings is beyond doubt what Adam Lanza wanted, and got. Hopefully he's too busy being broiled alive in hell to pay attention to the television down there.
The argument that a gun is a device which is solely for killing people is unfair to guns and gun owners. I think the real question here is this: where's the balance point in all this? I will suggest that far from beating this to death, these kinds of debates are what we need to get to an area of common ground which everyone can live with.
I am not, incidentally, a control freak, and although I am liberal on some points, I am not liberal on all points. I agree that our law allows us the right to own firearms. It's up to us, fellow car enthusiasts, and everyone else, to interpret that law in a way that preserves maximum safety for the maximum number of people while allowing the free exercise of that right for anyone who wants it.
We are past the point, at least I think we are, where a well-regulated militia is essential. The Founders did not likely see that their experiment in democracy would result in the founding of the most powerful country in world history. What we now have to do, as a unified group, is determine what the Second Amendment means in the 21st century and apply that meaning.
