There's a famous saying that, "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."
I can't recall the originator - but with recent events in America - and the resulting pathetic rhetoric about political behavior, ignoring the smoking gun/elephant in the room - can America ever shed its historical feudal right to bear arms? Does anyone else think its about time it did?
There really is no need for a civilian to bear arms in the modern USA and despite all the laws - and the impenetrably powerful gun loonie lobby - isn't it about time American politicians grew spines and decided that this really is enough.
A little girl, born on 9/11/2001 lost her most basic and precious right, life itself because another man had the right to carry a gun. Americans you have Megan's law - how about a law to remember this little girl and abandon your primitive right to hold a tool which serves no purpose than to take life.
I note the the people most pro guns are also the most right-wing, pro-Life and pro-God - and if that doesn't prove what an anachronism this law is, I don't know what does.
It is more than just belief, it is the unevaluated state of living, the magical or careless thoughts disjointed from reality which bring so much pain.
Atheism is incidental to a grander world view. Violence is not within the purview of a rational discourse or and is never naturally fertilized by an open and logical mind.
Ideas can be more dangerous when spread by commanding witnesses - like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin.
I wonder how many lives these asshats have destroyed?
So how do you kill someone with an idea? By spreading it among people who have access to guns.
There's a lot of confusion about the second amendment. It clearly links the right to "keep and bear arms" (to "bear arms, in the 18th century, meant to "go to war) with the need for a militia--a well-regulated militia--to protect the country. The founders knew that standing armies were handy tools for tyrants, so they didn't want one. They would raise an army in time of war, just as they did during the revolution, but rely on militias in emergencies. (The various militias had not been effective during the revolution, which was won by a trained professional army.) Gun enthusiasts often seem to think they have the right to hunt, and maybe they do, but it's not in the Constitution. Many think they have a right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government, but 18th century militias were actually an arm of government. They existed for the "security of a free state."
By anti-vax, did you mean anti-vaccination? (Sorry if that's a dumb question.) A friend of mine told me yesterday she never got vaccinations, and only got shots for her dog because the vet wouldn't treat the dog unless it had a rabies shot. What the hell is she thinking?
That's one of the many ways, yes. But there are so many other ways for a determined person to kill a bunch of people, it's more effective to go after the idea that sets off the nutcases, rather than the tools they use.
Guns should also be controlled more, since they allow people to kill someone more easily and abruptly, without having time to cool off and realize it's a bad idea. But removing guns wouldn't necessarily stop people like the nutcase we're talking about in this thread, for example. He'd have found some way to make his 'political' statement.
Yeah, anti-vax is shorthand for anti-vaccination. I can't remember if it was adopted by the anti-vax movement itself or those who mock them, but it's in common use now.
And holy crap, that's even worse with pets. There are all kinds of horrible things that pets are even more prone to than humans, because you can't explain to them why they shouldn't do the high-risk activities. They can't grasp the fact that even if you kill the raccoon, you still lose.
By having someone on FOX who incites violence.