Friday, March 13, 2009

The Second Amendment

posted by The Vidiot @ 12:04 PM Permalink

Of course, with the shootings of late, the one in Alabama, the one in Germany and the one in DC, the bleating for more gun control has begun.
That was before the murders in Alabama. At this sad point, surely, Mr. Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to be able to muster enough votes to stand up to the gun lobby and its threat to the safety and democratic rights of the citizens of the nation’s capital. Surely they can provide that leadership.
While I don't think there's any sane reason for someone to own a semi-automatic assault rifle, once they start legislating any sort of gun confiscation, it's a slippery slope to confiscating ALL guns.

There are a few things the folks don't talk about when these gun rampages occur such as what would've happened if one of those victims had their own gun? Would they have been able to fight back, shoot the guy, thereby insuring that he didn't shoot anybody else? Or, how many crimes are thwarted because someone used their own gun to scare off a criminal? Those aren't reported because no crime has the chance to be committed. Or, were these people on any anti-psychotic drugs? Because we usually find out, way after the fact, that they were being treated for depression using a veritable cocktail of pharmaceuticals. And on top of all that, let's face it, in all of these shootings, the cops NEVER arrive to prevent the crimes. The only arrive after the fact to maintain social control.

And here's something you didn't know about the police. Back in 1975, a bunch of women lived in a D.C. rooming house. A couple of them heard the house get broken into and then heard one of the other women on another floor being sexually abused by the intruders. They called the cops. A few cops came around, didn't make much of an effort to get into the house, then left. The girls called again. THAT call was never routed to dispatch. When it got quiet, the girls figured the intruders had left and went to help the other girl. Turns out, the intruders weren't gone and the other two girls got sexually abused. This whole thing when on for about 14 hours, until the intruders got bored and left. Afterward, the girls sued the police department for negligence. And you know what? The case got thrown out.
The trial judges correctly dismissed both complaints. In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. Holding that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants in No. 79-6, Judge Hannon concluded that no specific legal duty existed. We hold that Judge Hannon was correct and adopt the relevant portions of his opinion. Those portions appear in the following Appendix.[fn1] [emphasis mine]
OK. So, take away the guns from the people, cops aren't there to protect and serve, (well, not us any way. Corporate interests yes, but not us) and what are you left with? A scared, defenseless and easily manipulated populace.

Sounds like a plan.

Labels: , ,


At 9:19 PM, Blogger nunya said...

The slippery slope has already been gone down.
Didn't they confiscate guns in New Orleans?

You miss this in the NYT article?

"In February, the Senate approved an amendment that would abolish not only an assault-weapons ban, but other gun control laws already on the books in the District of Columbia — including reasonable rules on gun registration and trigger locks."

You've never heard that epidemiological evidence suggests homes with guns are more likely to be the site of a suicide or homicide than homes without guns

At 12:11 PM, Blogger The Vidiot said...

And if there's a fire in the house, you're more likely to get burned than if there's NOT a fire in the house. Should we then ban gas stoves? Epidemiological studies like that piss me off. Quantoids are always manipulating data to prove a nonsensical point.

Guns shouldn't be banned. Most people who have guns are responsible and sane individuals. Additionally, I prefer to not live in a world where the only people with guns are criminals and cops.

But that's just me.

At 10:27 PM, Blogger nunya said...

Ok, I get your point, but frankly, I live in a border town and it pisses ME off that the drug cartels killed 7000 Mexicans with
90% of their guns bought in America last year. That and the fact that some of their targets moved into my city makes me understandably nervous.

That and my friend blew the top of her head off with a handgun her stupid paranoid mother had "for protection." In a nice, quiet safe suburban neighborhood. The kind of neighborhood where guns are stolen from frequently by fucked up, drugged out gang-bangers from outside the neighborhood.

At 2:18 AM, Blogger The Vidiot said...

Well then. You're problem isn't really with guns so much as it is with the 'drug war' The solution for that is legalize all the drugs.

And I'm sorry about your friend. It's rare that a woman does it that way. But you have to know, she'd have found a way to do it no matter what, the gun just happened to be there.

At 5:26 PM, Blogger nunya said...

My, how I wish I could be as glib and simplistic as you are.

At 6:05 PM, Blogger The Vidiot said...

some days i'm glib and simplistic, others, not so much.

Sorry if i offended.


Post a Comment

<< Home