Home | About | Donate

Yeah, Sure, Let's Give Away Friggin' Assault Rifles As Raffle Prizes 'Cause One Mass Shooting A Day Just Isn't Enough


#1

Yeah, Sure, Let's Give Away Friggin' Assault Rifles As Raffle Prizes 'Cause One Mass Shooting A Day Just Isn't Enough

Aaaargh. The blood had barely dried on the Pulse bathroom walls when upstanding husband, father, Christian, "unapologetic conservative" gun-lover and Tennessee Rep. Andy Holt defiantly announced he'll give away not one but two AR-15s - the assault rifle used in all our favorite mass killings - as a door prize for his upcoming Hog Fest and Turkey Shoot (featuring, yes!, shooting) because he's sick of liberals attacking his right to self-defense. Coincidentally, in the wake of Orlando, Samantha Bee is sick of asshats like him. Her meltdown is glorious to behold.


#2

"It's not about the gun," he says. "It has everything to do with the position and condition of that person’s heart that’s behind the gun pulling the trigger."

He's absolutely right. A gun is inert without a human being to pick it up, load it, and pull the trigger. The issue isn't "gun" control, but human control. That is, control of human access to guns. As a community, we have the right to keep the wrong humans from owing and using weapons. The more dangerous the weapon, the more we need to scrutinize the humans who want access to it. Certain weapons, such as artillery and nuclear weapons, are so dangerous that we have the right to a priori assume the motives of those who want to own them. That they are cool toys is not a valid reason to own such weapons, so, given the suspect motives of potential private owners, we simply ban their ownership outright. Assault weapons are dangerous enough that if we are unable to ascertain the motives of potential owners, we should err on the side of caution, and ban all humans from owning them.

And, guess what you Constitutional "scholars" who tout the absolute right to own firearms. Constitutional rights are NOT absolute. That includes freedom of speech and freedom of religion, where those "rights" impact others. For instance, we are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater (or even, innocuously, hold a sign in public with the phrase "Bong hits 4 Jesus" -- Morse v. Frederick). We are not allowed to use drugs or kill people in religious rituals. Our Constitutional "rights" are subject to reasonable regulation when they impact the rights of others, such as the right to life (the same folks argue for the right to life of a fetus vs. the right to privacy of a pregnant woman, so don't come at me with how absolute Constitutional rights might be). The same applies to the "right" to bear arms. If the popular will ever moves to the position that assault weapons should be banned, and our politicians' balls ever descend from their collective nutsack, you will find out just how absolute the right to bear arms is. It isn't, period.

As for Holt, maybe he can obtain the weapon used in Orlando as a prize at his turkey shoot. What a great toy to own, heh?


#3

Andy Holt is a nut job. Sorry for insulting nuts. The NRA thinks one gun in the home is not enough. So many of their supporters have more guns than clothes. So many gun nuts have bumper stickers saying: " Gun Control Means Using Both Hands".


#4

I read you loud and clear. And I am in agreement. Please share your thoughts on this. If we're going to start giving up firearms, then the only folks who will have them are crooks and the government, aka: police & marshals, and the armed forces. So, how well do you trust the government? I ask because this is a reason many folks use to justify owning battlefield weaponry. Many of the law-abiding folks that I know of who try to obtain and master as many big firearms as they can get cite this in their justification. Hell, I have personally met 3 people who own .50 caliber rifles! Crazy cool toy that they can't even afford to shoot. And they all, if not openly acknowledge it, have make statements to the effect that they have them to protect themselves against their government. Our government! And they are mostly all card carrying republicans. Some deranged person shooting up theaters, restaurants, schools or nightclubs is just another reason for them.

I like the angle that since we can't control someone's behavior, we can and must control the access. Australia had a buy-back, but it wasn't enough to cover the cost, so how we eliminate them is something that must be figured out. Grandfathering isn't going to work here. Great comment.
And way to go Samantha Bee!


#5

Thanks Abby - didn't realize Samantha Bee has her own show. The woman is a living treasure.

Just one thought - her articulation and pointing out - especially of the biblical text - the utter dark-place inversion of where heads are being put strikes me as the polar opposite of a melt-down.

I'd call that grabbing the flint, laying out the tinder in full display and in a single flick showing how the NRA screams fire before the spark ever appears - BECAUSE it IS the theater and plays its vaudeville unmentionables up inside the political media - and boy is it a great distraction loved by any who benefit from it.


#6

So why are often these the same people who have allowed the government to take away almost all of our rights. It's just blather. It sounds good but the government is taking away the rest of the Constitution.


#7

Your comment is outstanding...eloquent, compassionate, and informative. Thank you!