Remember These Names

[Professor Chaos]

Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dillon, Madeleine, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, Grace, Emilie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Benjamin, Avielle, Allison

Say them out loud. Memorize them. Print them and carry them with you. Then do something. Be angry. Be fucking furious. Fight for change. It won't be easy.

As a father of three, two of whom are in kindergarten and first grade, my blood has been boiling for a week, but this fucking "press conference" this morning was the tipping point. I'm fucking mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

I don't know what I'm going to do, but I have to do something. For now, I'm going to take a week off of work and enjoy the time with my kids. I'm going to hug them a little more. Be a little more patient with them. Spend a little more time just playing with them.

And when the holiday is over, I'm going to remember those names. And then, Wayne LaPierre, I'm coming for you.*





















*Given that this is teh internets, and given that gun enthusiasts are psychopathic illiterate cumbaskets, it should be noted that this is not a threat of violence. It's merely a promise that I will join in any fight to destroy the NRA as an organization.

[Smellyoldgit]

Professor Chaos wrote

.... gun enthusiasts are psychopathic illiterate cumbaskets ....

These fuckers have gone up in your estimation?

Breaking the hold of the NRA is likely to be a bigger & longer battle than kicking a non-existant god out of your country - but who knows, little acorns & all that. As a furriner, I'm head-shakingly astounded by the complete bollocks the gun nuts spout - where to begin?

[Irreligious]

Are flame-throwers covered under the Second Amendment to the Constitution? Booby traps? Cauldrons of boiling tar over one's doorway to protect the occupants from intruders?

Edited: My feeble point is: There are so many ways "to bear arms" in an attempt to protect one's self from one's fears-- real or imagined.

Which are covered under the Second Amendment? Only firearms?

[Smellyoldgit]

A bit of light background reading.

[nkb]

Wayne LaPierre is, very simply put, a gigantic asshole.

[Professor Chaos]

Irreligious wrote

Are flame-throwers covered under the Second Amendment to the Constitution? Booby traps? Cauldrons of boiling tar over one's doorway to protect the occupants from intruders?

Edited: My feeble point is: There are so many ways "to bear arms" in an attempt to protect one's self from one's fears-- real or imagined.

Which are covered under the Second Amendment? Only firearms?

NONE. It gives people the right to join a "well-regulated militia." Maybe get a fucking musket.

God, the irony of these cuntservative nutbag fuckers jerking off on the 2nd Amendment each day when it actually contains "well-regulated."

[Irreligious]

Smellyoldgit wrote

A bit of light background reading.

But, none the less, illuminating.

Thanks

I never could comprehend why any ordinary citizen would need access to semi-automatic firearms. As a so-called protective device, it's overkill, kinda like employing a boulder to crush a termite.

[Irreligious]

Professor Chaos wrote

God, the irony of these cuntservative nutbag fuckers jerking off on the 2nd Amendment each day when it actually contains "well-regulated."

That is a very good point. And seldom, if ever, acknowledged in public discourse about the merits of gun control.

I'm not sure the Founders thought this out very well, as they didn't say "who" or "what entity" would regulate firearms in the event of an armed insurrection. That is, if an armed insurrection is what the Founders were anticipating.

Were they, seriously?

[nkb]

Professor Chaos wrote

NONE. It gives people the right to join a "well-regulated militia." Maybe get a fucking musket.

God, the irony of these cuntservative nutbag fuckers jerking off on the 2nd Amendment each day when it actually contains "well-regulated."

I've seen some arguments for separating the two parts of the sentence, implying that the Founding Fathers were actually expressing two ideas in this amendment (i.e. the right to a militia, AND the right to bear arms).

It's a weak ass argument, mind you, but that's how gun nuts rationalize it.

[Professor Chaos]

I can't recommend this epic takedown of the NRA's presser enough. Bloody brilliant.

[Professor Chaos]

Irreligious wrote

That is a very good point. And seldom, if ever, acknowledged in public discourse about the merits of gun control.

I'm not sure the Founders thought this out very well, as they didn't say "who" or "what entity" would regulate firearms in the event of an armed insurrection. That is, if an armed insurrection is what the Founders were anticipating.

Were they, seriously?

Basically, the second amendment can be translated thusly, when incorporating the framers' intent:

"Englishmen and Indians may try to get this country back. Hell, maybe someday a gaggle of escaped niggers might rise against us. We can't let that happen. Now all of you farmers and merchants and stuff should be prepared to join your state or local militias, and should keep a musket in your house in case something like this happens."

That's it. Period. Who would think that a document written nearly 250 years ago by rich white slaveowners whose most advanced weapon was a musket wouldn't be infallible for all of time?

[ILOVEJESUS]

Professor Chaos wrote

Basically, the second amendment can be translated thusly, when incorporating the framers' intent:

"Englishmen and Indians may try to get this country back. Hell, maybe someday a gaggle of escaped niggers might rise against us. We can't let that happen. Now all of you farmers and merchants and stuff should be prepared to join your state or local militias, and should keep a musket in your house in case something like this happens."

That's it. Period. Who would think that a document written nearly 250 years ago by rich white slaveowners whose most advanced weapon was a musket wouldn't be infallible for all of time?

The same guys who think that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is monkeys giving birth to people.
The whole gun law thing is a bit odd, you are relying on people to hold onto weapons, and be responsible with them. Largely I guess people are, though I think the USA has 30 murders a day or year or something that are gun related. I see the argument that guns don't kill, it is the people that use them. This is a little bit of a red herring though. I understand the "right" to someone owning a gun for protection. I know we can't in the UK, and I also appreciate this argument too. As long as you are not likely dealing with armed invaders, you have less of a requirement to bear arms. Should there be regulation as to the nature of what arms are legal? I see this as being where legislation can actually take shape in the USA, as you would not be stopping or banning guns, but taking some of the more dangerous, ( yes I know all guns are dangerous), weapons out of circulation. If Obama plays this right here, he may have enough popularity to change things over time. Here's hoping. Also what is it with schools, (I know we also had a cinema recently?). Is there a sick notoriety catching on with the really fucked up? I also think it amusing, in a very astonished way, that the NRA is arguing that to sort out the problem you need to arm more people in more places. This way the"bad" guys will get stopped by gun bearing "good" guys. People have a right to defend themselves, and protect themselves and their families from other armed antagonists in my view. Either remove ALL guns or regulate the ones you have. I don't see any effective middle ground.

[Kinich Ahau]

if only we could go back to the original intent of the law and let everyone have just one musket.

[Smellyoldgit]

No doubt the NRA will soon be lobbying for the right to carry unregulated tactical nukes.

[Kate]

Do you think they'd grandfather that?