Whitlock Triples down on Gun Control

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Dave

Guns are only a problem when they are used by morons.

And im 100% sure that JWhit would agree. Basically he feels there needs to be real discussion to reexamine the usefulness of the 2nd amendment. Heres the MEAT of the column:





I further argued that our Second Amendment is outdated. The right to bear arms no longer protects us from a government armed with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks, nuclear weapons and all the other knickknacks James Madison and Co. couldn’t envision when ratifying the Bill of Rights in 1791.





Recognizing his culpability for his girlfriend’s murder and moving on to make a deeper, more nuanced point isn’t irresponsible or an effort to excuse Belcher’s gross criminality. It’s a bid to probe alternative remedies that might lessen the probability of another Belcher tragedy. History has taught us that human beings are flawed, volatile, irresponsible and violent. What can we do to safely manage these human characteristics beyond the obvious?



I believe we should re-examine our love affair with guns. They don’t protect us from tyranny. Guns are toys in America. Guns are a dangerous hobby. Guns are a macho accessory, no different from a shiny sports car.

We can’t see this or even have a discussion about it because the propaganda-political-lobby-machine, the NRA, has hoodwinked America into believing handguns make us safer. The NRA, like the KKK, has brainwashed us through fear and division.

I don’t believe individual NRA members and/or gun owners — and I’m quite aware the NRA has members of every race — are racist. I do believe the NRA capitalizes on and promotes racial fears and ignorance that swings all directions. People of every race are buying guns to “protect” themselves from their own race or other races. It’s an unhealthy arms race. The NRA is powering it by promoting unnecessary and harmful stand-your-ground laws. The message isn’t subtle: Strap up, the other guy is out to get you.

The NRA traffics in fear, division and the seductive power of guns — the same tools used by the KKK. Other than money, I don’t think the NRA has a dog in the race. It just wants all sides armed to the hilt and convinced the other side is ready to shoot. That’s the recipe that left a 17-year-old Jacksonville kid dead over loud music blaring from a car.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

And im 100% sure that JWhit would agree. Basically he feels there needs to be real discussion to reexamine the usefulness of the 2nd amendment. Heres the MEAT of the column:





I further argued that our Second Amendment is outdated. The right to bear arms no longer protects us from a government armed with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks, nuclear weapons and all the other knickknacks James Madison and Co. couldn’t envision when ratifying the Bill of Rights in 1791.





Recognizing his culpability for his girlfriend’s murder and moving on to make a deeper, more nuanced point isn’t irresponsible or an effort to excuse Belcher’s gross criminality. It’s a bid to probe alternative remedies that might lessen the probability of another Belcher tragedy. History has taught us that human beings are flawed, volatile, irresponsible and violent. What can we do to safely manage these human characteristics beyond the obvious?



I believe we should re-examine our love affair with guns. They don’t protect us from tyranny. Guns are toys in America. Guns are a dangerous hobby. Guns are a macho accessory, no different from a shiny sports car.

We can’t see this or even have a discussion about it because the propaganda-political-lobby-machine, the NRA, has hoodwinked America into believing handguns make us safer. The NRA, like the KKK, has brainwashed us through fear and division.

I don’t believe individual NRA members and/or gun owners — and I’m quite aware the NRA has members of every race — are racist. I do believe the NRA capitalizes on and promotes racial fears and ignorance that swings all directions. People of every race are buying guns to “protect” themselves from their own race or other races. It’s an unhealthy arms race. The NRA is powering it by promoting unnecessary and harmful stand-your-ground laws. The message isn’t subtle: Strap up, the other guy is out to get you.

The NRA traffics in fear, division and the seductive power of guns — the same tools used by the KKK. Other than money, I don’t think the NRA has a dog in the race. It just wants all sides armed to the hilt and convinced the other side is ready to shoot. That’s the recipe that left a 17-year-old Jacksonville kid dead over loud music blaring from a car.

tl;dr

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I believe we should re-examine our love affair with guns. They don’t protect us from tyranny. Guns are toys in America. Guns are a dangerous hobby. Guns are a macho accessory, no different from a shiny sports car.

But see here's the point...I totally agree with this. I own guns, I'm not particularly a fan of the self defense aspects and I'll probably never be interested in hunting. I'm interesting in firearms like I am in cars, I target shoot them and experiment with novel new mechanical technologies. They are my hobby, my toys, and how I express myself.

Would the government think it's ok the ban sports cars too? That hobby is potentially dangerous also. We have 'assault weapons' bans in certain states that ban features on guns that are realistically cosmetic only. Should we also ban spoilers on cars and aftermarket rims because street racers do that to their cars to and they kill people with them?

I change how my firearms look depending upon how I feel, maybe I'll build an AR with wood furniture and a stainless barrel. Or maybe I'll change up for a more traditional black rifle, depending upon how I feel. How is that different than you waking up in the morning and choosing to wear a blue shirt instead of a red one? Frankly you don't 'need' to wear a colored shirt at all, an uncolored one is perfectly functional and saves money.

Hell why would anyone need a gun that looks like

Or this??


The funny thing is, in a number of states(and from 1994-2004 nationwide), certain guns are prohibited...not because they were any more dangerous...but because they looked different. The fact that in this day and age we are banning things solely because they look different should frighten anyone....

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

But see here's the point...I totally agree with this. I own guns, I'm not particularly a fan of the self defense aspects and I'll probably never be interested in hunting. I'm interesting in firearms like I am in cars, I target shoot them and experiment with novel new mechanical technologies. They are my hobby, my toys, and how I express myself.

I agree. I like them too... just saying, if they did not exist I truely believe that less people would be dead today. Belcher made a spur of the moment stupid decision. Had he not owned a gun, I'm guessing he would've beat her to a pulp, but she would've lived.

I do believe guns don't kill people; people do.... but also Whitlock makes some valid points.


ps: I was going to buy this for the wife.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

I agree. I like them too... just saying, if they did not exist I truely believe that less people would be dead today. Belcher made a spur of the moment stupid decision. Had he not owned a gun, I'm guessing he would've beat her to a pulp, but she would've lived.

I do believe guns don't kill people; people do.... but also Whitlock makes some valid points.

Or he could have grabbed a kitchen knife and gone OJ on her too. Crazy sometimes can be hard to predict.

I agree that if guns didn't exist we'd probably have fewer dead people today...probably less than people think but likely fewer. The problem is that it's also true that if we didn't have cars we'd also have fewer dead people today.

No one needs a car, build out the public transportation some and people could get around without them. But personally I think that would suck, sometimes you want the freedom of running on your own schedule and personally I enjoy just driving at times.

The point I'm trying to bring up is that often we will apply harsh standards to things that we don't approve of, but then not apply those same standards to things that we do like. To be fair we have to apply the same standards to everything whether we like it or not.

If banning firearms is an appropriate response to preventing unnecessary firearm deaths then why is banning cars not an appropriate response to preventing unnecessary automobile deaths? I know people will say it's crazy to even think of banning cars, but is it really that different?