I was very excited for about a minute. For a fleeting moment, I experienced what I've heard outsiders refer to as "joy". There's a big blogger gathering planned for the Spring, to be held right here in Louisville! I was thinking I could get some of my blogger friends to attend, and also meet some well-known bloggers I admire.
Well, fuck that with Hitler's dick, because it turns out to be The Second Amendment Blog Bash. Yeah, like I'm going to hang out with a bunch of blogging gun nuts. I'd rather spend the weekend watching foreign-dubbed episodes of She's the Sheriff.
But wait, it gets much worse. The blogger get-together is being held to coincide with the National Rifle Association's 2008 Convention, which is also coming here. Allow me to go on record as saying I don't fucking approve of this. Of course, this was arranged by our recently defeated douchebag governor. He never did a god damn thing for this city his entire term; he couldn't even get our bridges painted, for the love of incompetence. Maybe he got us the blood money that 60,000 visiting NRA members will bring because he felt a twinge of guilt. Who knows?
Frankly, I have no use for guns, but I have nothing against hunters and people who feel they need extra protection. I don't want to pal around with the gun bloggers, but I welcome them to the city. The NRA, on the other hand, is a completely unreasonable fringe group. They oppose basic common sense proposals such as criminal background checks, waiting periods, and the ban of armor-piercing "cop killer" bullets. In case you were wondering, the main objective of a cop killer bullet is to kill a cop. I'm against that sort of thing.
Well, fuck that with Hitler's dick, because it turns out to be The Second Amendment Blog Bash. Yeah, like I'm going to hang out with a bunch of blogging gun nuts. I'd rather spend the weekend watching foreign-dubbed episodes of She's the Sheriff.
But wait, it gets much worse. The blogger get-together is being held to coincide with the National Rifle Association's 2008 Convention, which is also coming here. Allow me to go on record as saying I don't fucking approve of this. Of course, this was arranged by our recently defeated douchebag governor. He never did a god damn thing for this city his entire term; he couldn't even get our bridges painted, for the love of incompetence. Maybe he got us the blood money that 60,000 visiting NRA members will bring because he felt a twinge of guilt. Who knows?
Frankly, I have no use for guns, but I have nothing against hunters and people who feel they need extra protection. I don't want to pal around with the gun bloggers, but I welcome them to the city. The NRA, on the other hand, is a completely unreasonable fringe group. They oppose basic common sense proposals such as criminal background checks, waiting periods, and the ban of armor-piercing "cop killer" bullets. In case you were wondering, the main objective of a cop killer bullet is to kill a cop. I'm against that sort of thing.
15 Comments:
You have been lied to.
A lot of the "common sense" gun laws have really good sounding titles, but when you dig into the meat do a lot more.
Background checks--The bigger problem is that the list of disqualifications gets bigger and bigger--You can now be banned for life with no appeal if you get in a fight with a sibling as a teenager. Proposals that the NRA objects to could give you a lifetime ban if you are committed to a mental hospital for observation, even if you are found to be OK. It is also a way to force all gun sales to go through dealers, adding considerably to the expense. Criminals don't do background checks, they steal guns from honest people.
Waiting periods are more likely to keep someone from getting a gun when legitimately threatened (by a psycho ex?) than to delay someone long enough that they come to their senses and decide not to shoot someone after all. They also inconvenience honest people--I've already got several guns, why do I need to wait to get another?
Cop killer bullets in handguns is one of the bigger gun control myths. Cop killer bullets in rifles is...most of it. The version of the law that the NRA opposed would have banned nearly all rifle ammunition.
...and the main object of the bullets that started the controversy was for cops to use against criminals in cars.
I've looked carefully at both sides. From what I've seen, the NRA is a little shrill at times, but they don't outright lie like the Brady Center and other gun control groups.
Full Disclosure: I am an NRA member and have a concealed handgun license.
sevesteen,
nothing I say is going to change your mind, so when you're in Louisville next spring these are the restaurants in the downtown area that I recommend.
Proof on Main
Mayan Cafe
Primo
Jeff Ruby's
There are a lot more if you decide to rent a car. Let me know...
I bet work will be a whole lot of fun that weekend.
I'm not likely to be there--It is a 3 hour drive, and I'm not quite that into the NRA.
I'm actually disappointed that you aren't willing to discuss. I'd like to be proven wrong, or at least see where the pro-gun side lies and exaggerates.
It seems to me that anything counting against a person when buying a gun would be on record. If someone were denied a gun because of a sibling fight, I imagine it would have to be one reported to the police with charges pressed (in other words, a hell of a fight).
As for psycho exes, I would think an "immediate threat" would preclude a trip to the gun store. And why introduce a gun into that situation anyway? Really, really shoddy example.
I don't buy the argument that gun laws protect only criminals. We require licensing and registration for everything from cars to cutting hair, and yet not for objects whose sole purpose is to kill living things?
Finally, that line about cop-killer bullets being made to pierce criminals' cars would seem to clash with the typical right-wing belief that Big Cops shouldn't tread on us. How do you reconcile that, sevesteen?
Yournamehere, I don't blame you for picking your battles. The frames of reference between your average gun nut and your average person are so far apart that it's almost dangerous to engage.
I'm confused about the "waiting period" argument. If you already have several guns, why would having to wait a few days really matter? And isn't it possible that you've committed a crime since you bought the last gun, and this law could help prevent you from creating an arsenal for your next crime? (Not YOU, I mean you in general). And yes, criminals steal guns. But that is no reason to relax the laws. That's like saying criminals rob banks, so why bother with security in banks anyway.
Who needs a gun when you have a sharpened broom handle?
It's both transportation AND a weapon for me.
blogger doesn't make sense to me. they promote stupid blogs and the "next blog" button only gets me to spam.
they really need to work on that....
i agree with ubie.
I don't think Yournamehere is interested in this argument, so I've put my responses in my blog rather than clog his up. If he thinks I'm trying to steal readers and wants to keep the discussion here, I'm fine with that, too.
It doesn't bother me at all if you have the discussion on your blog, sevesteen.
I prefer gunless nuts to gun nuts.
But I far prefer Almond Joys to Mounds.
One of the many layers of my hypocrisy.
She's the Sherriff... good one! Wasn't that on right before Mama's Family??
Nick: Yes they are!
Nice response in return of this query with solid arguments and explaining all concerning that. facebook login
Post a Comment
<< Home