And the opinion of two Vegas magicians is important...why?
Because it's valid.
And the opinion of two Vegas magicians is important...why?
Freedom of speech and freedom to carry arms are so vastly different. The vocabulary of a weapon is far less sophisticated than the written word, and it centers around a single point of communication: fear.The same reason the right to speak freely isn't restricted to auditoriums with no sound system and single page, screw operated printing presses.
You might be surprised at the number of "normal people" in the US who keep a deadly arsenal at their homes. Having guns does not make a person abnormal. Or an abnormal person normal, for that matter.I'm poo-pooing the power of hand guns against the army of the supposed tyrant or a country mad enough to wage an open war on the US, not against unarmed school children.
I think it would be enough if you had to prove that you need a gun. Like, you have a shop in a dangerous area. And if you said "oh, I just collect them, machines built to kill and maim human beings, just like others collect porcelain cats" they would just laugh in your face.
edit: I mean, when I read in the news that "she was a warm, normal woman, not unlike her neighbors" I just want to scream: normal people don't keep a deadly arsenal at their homes!! Come on, has everyone gone insane?
Agreed. I just think that there are a lot of people who are legally allowed to own guns who should not. And the fetishism surrounding the second amendment makes that a very dangerous problem.
And the opinion of two Vegas magicians is important...why?
Freedom of speech and freedom to carry arms are so vastly different. The vocabulary of a weapon is far less sophisticated than the written word, and it centers around a single point of communication: fear.
And the opinion of two Vegas magicians is important...why?
"We're not saying you'll be safer if you have a gun, or that you might not get robbed. We're saying something much heavier. We're saying we need the government to be afraid of its citizens. We want our rulers to think carefully about what they try to take from us. And we need to remember they can only take from us what we give them. You see, maybe Mr. Smug [Roger Rosenblatt, journalist, writer, former Time magazine columnist, and outspoken critic of gun ownership] can call the police against a gang-banger, but who does he call against the police?
"We are discussing on a public TV show the idea of the violent overthrow of the country, and it's covered under Free Speech -- how cool is that? We can't trust the government to always be okay with that [to always be okay with Free Speech] we have to trust, well, the Americans all around us."
The way I read those two charts, the countries with the most firearm-related violence are not those with the most guns per capita. Indeed, the most heavily-armed country, the US, doesn't appear on that list until number 12.
In the US, we believe that the individual has the right (and frankly, the responsibility) to protect themselves and their fellow citizens from anyone who would do them unjust harm.
Completely wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
Though I can see how you've made that mistake. The video is just meant to help get the discussion rolling.
Here's the point of the thread, as was clearly stated in the beginning:
Zoombie:
This is a place for us to try and come up with solutions to the problem of guns and violence in the USA. And there is one.
I'm stepping out of the room to take a big deep breath, now. Because I am too emotionally/personally invested in this issue to think straight. Hopefully I won't be locked out when I come back.
We're talking about a democratically elected government turning against the people who voted them in?
That is absurd. It's paranoia. It's conspiracy theorists' fodder.
This is the 21st century, people. We're talking about the USA, not El Salvador or Rwanda.
Butl, if y'all want to wear your tin foil hats, stockpile goods for the end of the world and arm yourselves to the teeth then I guess you go right ahead. It's a free country, right?
I'm sure the parents of those children will be glad to know that you're more concerned with protecting yourself against a non-existent threat than ensuring that lunacy like yesterday's never happens again.
Have fun.
We're talking about a democratically elected government turning against the people who voted them in?
That is absurd. It's paranoia. It's conspiracy theorists' fodder.
This is the 21st century, people. We're talking about the USA, not El Salvador or Rwanda.
Butl, if y'all want to wear your tin foil hats, stockpile goods for the end of the world and arm yourselves to the teeth then I guess you go right ahead. It's a free country, right?
I'm sure the parents of those children will be glad to know that you're more concerned with protecting yourself against a non-existent threat than ensuring that lunacy like yesterday's never happens again.
Have fun.
Excuse me, while the right to fight back may be present, the responsibility to fight back is not. If we accepted that, then we would say that anyone who did not fight an attacker was partially culpable for the attack. This is a view that leads to some of the most appalling attitudes toward those who suffer.
The words, "Why didn't you fight back?" are heaps of coals loaded on the backs of many who have suffered already.
Tell that to the victims of the NSDAP
I'm gonna go ahead and Godwin the thread for the second time by pointing out that Hitler gained his position Germany all square and legal like courtesy of the election of 5 March 1933... in a democracy.We're talking about a democratically elected government turning against the people who voted them in?
That is absurd. It's paranoia. It's conspiracy theorists' fodder.
Of course you're right. After all, it can't happen here.
On the other hand, I will blame a man who does nothing save dialing "911" whilst watching a woman get raped and beaten to death.
Oh puleeze, not that again.
So the USA today is in the same situation as post WW1 Germany?
Then, for the purpose of protecting people, do you have a problem with government censorship, and a licensing scheme for authors and speakers?
That attitude isn't helping either.