Yeah, dude, you need to take a five. You don't need to turn this into a dick measuring contest with a grandma over who's more badass. A gang of armed people in seven trucks driving onto your property (not a "park"), brandishing weapons and threatening to kill you and your children under a flag that's been a symbol of oppression for your people, and under which scores of people like you have been killed in the last 50 years; that's a traumatizing thing. Fear of being murdered, plus you can't even feel safe at your home. That's a traumatic thing.
Arsen, I love you buddy, but seriously, you need to STFU.
I'll definitely be watching the Skins game! This, to me anyway, is almost as big as a Panthers game. We could find our way to 1st place in the division while resting. How can you not want to root for that? Skins are definitely my "pulling for" team this year. They've been such a wreck, and between that and the Nationals collapse, listening to DC sports radio is just getting depressing. This town needs a little sports optimism.
I get it, you're trying to make it a class issue now. But I also find it kind of amusing that you think it's a good idea to make sure that the desperately poor are able to have firearms. I mean, what do you think will be the outcome of that scenario? Someone is poor, but has a gun. Use your critical thinking skills here.
As a white male, I just have to say that after a Summer of news events centered around institutional racism and police brutality, I find it a relief that the Fall series of violent tragedies has shifted everyone's attention to the gun issue. When everyone's talking about the second amendment rather than white privilege as the problem that half the population wants to fix and the other denies is a problem at all, and both sides know will never change, I find I don't have to deal with the internal struggle checking my own privilege. It's kinda nice actually.
Okay, so I see that overnight the thread went bonkers. So let me make a few wholesale rebuttals: This first one is an important point, so I'm bolding it: Second Amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Okay, so let's think this through. Right now, everyone is saying, "The mentally ill shouldn't own guns. But taking guns away from the normals is infringing on constitutional rights." Um, I'm sorry, but I missed the caveat in the Constitution that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the mentally ill. Where does it say that the mentally ill don't get the same protections under the Bill of Rights; second amendment included? Where does it say that once you are diagnosed with bi-polar disorder or depression that you are not longer guaranteed the rights of an American citizen? So right now the Republicans are making a big fuss that taking away guns from people is a violation of the second amendment. BUT at the SAME TIME they are saying that the mentally ill should be SCREENED OUT in a background check! And NOT BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. That is a patent violation of the Constitutional rights of anyone with a mental illness. So which is it, Republicans? Do you want to ban a potentially dangerous portion of the population from owning guns? Or do you want to say that the second amendment is SCRIPTURE, and should be interpreted in the STRICTEST, and MOST LITERAL interpretation conceivable. you cannot have it both ways. My point is, there's already a precedent for taking away someone's second amendment rights, like convicted criminals and the mentally ill. So stop acting like the constitution is so infallible that the very fabric of the universe would collapse if its altered or not obeyed to the letter. The Second Amendment is imperfect, broad, and BADLY in need of updating and clarification. It seems that conservatives (since the desire not to get gunned down is apparently a partisan issue) are employing a delay tactic."Don't talk about this right now, it's too soon after the shooting," "we need more information," "aww shucks there's nothing we can do." It's all part of the same strategy; try to delay the conversation, try to postpone the changes, and hope eventually it blows over. I know delaying tactics so well because I do the same thing when my wife tells me to clean the bathroom floor. Just keep pushing it back, and hoping eventually she forgets. But I ask of you "it's too soon to talk about it after the shooting, wait until the blood dries" knuckleheads. WHEN THE HELL CAN WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION! We have had hundreds of mass shootings this year! The blood never dries!Mental screenings. How do you think people are diagnosed with a mental disorder? Peeing in a cup? Do you think they take your blood pressure? Whatever method they use to diagnose people with mental disorders, use that thing."I've learned that liberals are caring and compassionate people...until you do something or own something that they don't like and then they think they can run things like a dictator ship." Like abortions? Are liberals really inflexible when it comes to that and want to take people's rights away? Oh, no. Wait. That's that other one. The opposite of liberals. You know. What are they called? Conservationists or something like that? I can't remember. Anyway, it seems silly for someone from that group to accuse liberals of dictatorial restrictions on individual decisions.
Are you being intentionally thick? First of all, duh-yeah, bullets are faster. I'm really not sure what you were trying to do there except look foolish. Second, yeah people were absolutely killing each other 200 years ago. That's not new. What changed is people have easy access to firearms that can unload 30 aimed shots with greater killing power in the time to took to fire one round 200 years ago. Even for you, stirs, that was a lazy post.
There's only one solution. And that's the full on banning of all firearms. But we've established that it's never going to happen in this country. So I'm just coming up with a plan that should be agreeable, common sense, (I need bi-partisan support once I send this plan wrapped in gossamer to my local delegate to send up the chain to Barack) and will at least marginally reduce our absurd gun violence death toll.
BUT, I grant you this; you make a compelling point that my previous plan did leave some wiggle room for a kid to find dad's gun. Therefore, my plan in the OP will be amended.
Seriously? Did you seriously just write that? You had a good ole think and committed that thought to writing. That a secular society is going to fail to live up to the standards of morality set by "religious societies." I mean after all, religious societies produced the crusades, a thousand years of zero scientific progress, the inquisition, slavery, witch trials, book burnings, cross burnings, about five hundred wars in the last 200 years, restraints on research for life-saving treatments, and terrorism both foreign and domestic. Honestly, I'm willing to give secular society a crack at it, because clearly it can't get much worse than all that!