The mass shootings that plague us, and the daily individual acts of gun violence and death should, however, lead us to make access to guns more difficult. We should, that is, seek to “control” access to them and their use. But even that’s not going far enough. We should get rid of them, that is, ban them. Guns create too many problems, promote too much fear, and lead to too many deaths to not consider banning them. Perhaps they were necessary at some point in our history, but let’s declare that that time has run its course.
Hollis Phelps
December 4, 2015
The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Another Damned Pissant.
It is wearying to continuously quote FBI and CDC statistics to waterheads like this who prefer citing Mother Jones and Gallup as sources. No matter how much factual evidence you present to them they will always disregard that evidence and cling to the nonsensical alarmism pushed by their favorite talking heads. If this weren’t such a monumental issue I’d have given up long ago, but I realize that as goes the second, so goes the rest. Fight on.
“We ban lawn darts”? I suppose anything is possible in places like Massachusetts and California, but even for those fascist states that sounds a bit implausible.
Tell that to the CPSC. You want lawn darts, you have to smuggle them into the USA from a freer country like Canada.
I keep forgetting that the CPSC was designed to bring socialist “values” to the whole USA, courtesy the communist senator from MA.
I could agree with the statement, with one little change. Replace the word guns with government…
I “might” have some lawn darts and I do live near Canada in case someone would like to make some “arrangements”.
How long have you been with the Feds?
Busted. “Last and Curious” down quicker than the blanket of a lake effect snowstorm.
My suggestion is similar to Peter’s except it involves another enumerated right … replace the words gun, guns, firearms with the word (or it’s equivalent), free speech, or perhaps, freedom of association… and see how that flies.
Well, except that we already have the speech police, what with “triggering”, and “micro-aggressions”, and free-speech “zones”, and as for freedom of association … well, that, I fear will be next.
Yes, that’s the problem. They oppose the 2nd amendment for the same reason that they oppose the 1st, and the 4th, and the 5th. They might oppose the 3rd too, if they had enough brains…
Translation;
“Liberty is old-fashioned. It’s time to go back to the even more old-fashioned authoritarianism.”
I don’t think they would be content with mere authoritarianism.
They want complete control.
That’s right, because groping, rapes, assault, strong-arm robbery, knife-attacks, baseball-bat attacks, and all that will never happen, and young men will never use their greater strength, speed, or aggression in a counter-productive way that might ever possibly be deterred by self-defense with a gun. It’s your duty to live on bended knee, peon, rather than ever have a reasonable chance at fighting back.
“let’s declare that that time has run its course.”
The delusion that such a declaration would trump reality and human nature seems to be central to post-modern leftist thought. I think that is one aspect of what Joe sometimes calls crap-for-brains.
As I typically respond to such decrees:
Let’s do this on a trial basis first. Disarm all police and Secret Service personnel first, and we’ll see how that works out.
The question a sane adult would be asking is “Why do we ban lawn darts, and under what authority?”
The author does not ask this question.
The conclusion is left to the class. Discuss.