Why Should Gun Nuts Violate the Rights of the Average Person?
Florida Governor Rick Scott thinks it’s a good idea to arm up the Republican National Convention in Tampa later this year. With an eye on safety, the city of Tampa has banned foreign objects like crowbars, water guns, and string.
However, an attempt by the Mayor of Tampa to also ban handguns during the RNC was shot down by Governor Rick Scott his week. A 2011 law passed in Florida prevents cities from regulating firearms, and Governor Scott refused to offer an exemption in this case, arguing that it would violate the Second Amendment.
So get ready for this year’s RNC – where Occupy protestors can be arrested for carrying string or water guns – but Republican delegates are encouraged to stick a .38 in their pants.
So an occupy protestor can be carrying a gun and a 7" long string... and they'll be subject to arrest for having the string?
Also wondering about the whole phallic implication here... did they want to make sure that all the doughy white men's penises wont be mistaken for illegal string since the average length of said units are under 6"?
I know it sounds funny.. until a protestor gets arrested for having too long a schlong.
In the 18th and prior centuries, the right to self-protection was unquestioned. Nat Hentoff went through the writings of the Constitutional framers and decided that Pat Buchanan was correct when he spoke of 2nd Amendment rights in 1992.
I have a probably large collection of weapons - and I'm not just talking about handguns. I have shotguns, rifles, some pistols, water pistols, slingshots, swords, folding and sheathed knives, and a few basball bats and baseballs (Sen. Franken takes three baseballs with him on airlines), and shoelaces. I'm thinking about getting a crossbow - shoulder injuries prevent me from using regular bows. I also have rocks from my back yard.
Note that the Tampa Bay ordinance will allow the arrest of anybody who posesses shoe laces. I can also see a protester wearing a bodice getting arrested, and then wonder how the cops will disarm such a person (assuming a woman). These folks are just plain crazy. I hope the people who unfortunatly voted for them will come to their senses. Restoring public education might help.
It might be more convenient to strangle someone with a shirt sleeve or a belt than using a unit only available to half the population (and on average too short to qualify as a weapon).
When I own a navy, army, and air force, I might think I have some strength against oppression. That being impossible, I think it might be better if I own the government.
Money in politics? We're looking at the results.
Sorry to be off topic, but when Thom had the big discussion the other day about world peace with he and callers basically stating that it is not possible (essentially because “human nature prevents it”), I just kept thinking that you all should read a statement issued in 1985 by the Universal House of Justice (the elected, 9-member supreme governing body of the world-wide community of the Bahá’í Faith) entitled “The Promise of World Peace”. This document outlines a workable, realistic plan for establishing world peace – although it would be a difficult and long process – no magic involved.
Here is an excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:
"To the Peoples of the World:
The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet -- in the words of one great thinker "the planetization of mankind".
Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity's stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the shole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionable irresponsible."
To see the whole document -- for free -- go to: http://bic.org/statements/promise-world-peace
This statement was sent to top-level government leaders of most of the nations on earth at that time, including a personally delivered copy formally presented to then-President Ronald Reagan.
If only those nations had taken the advice in this World Peace Statement back in 1985. We may have avoided so many tragic conflicts and the suffering they caused. This Statement is as relevant today as it was in 1985.
Some additional excerpts:
"For legal standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be crucified for the preservation of the integrity of any particular law or doctrine."
"Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable.... With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the harrowing apprehension tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and reciprocity."
Just an offering to try to expand the spectrum of ideas on how to achieve world peace....
"Why Should Gun Nuts Violate the Rights of an Average Person"?
Are you kidding me? What is a "Gun Nut"? What rights are the "Gun Nuts" violating?
What an insulting and disrespectful blog!
Are voters violating my rights? No? That's how absurd this blog is.
Wow, two in one day! Oh, and don't forget the drones that will likely be flying over carrying hell-fire missiles with Occupy demonstrators in their cross hairs. Where are you Guy Fawkes? Get them from under their infrastructures..not be visible martyrs.