Secret Police
Oct. 9th, 2007 03:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pasitheahttp://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1035832#articleFull
Well.. Okay. Do you think it's secret police or do you think it's a clever new dodge for HMOs? How easy it'd before them to say, "Oh! This person falsified information to their doctor. They had a drink last Tuesday. Obviously an alcoholic in denial."
Generally I'm all for making parents suffer (particularly the ones across the way from me with about 18 children that all ride around on electric dental drill toys and have very loud bad sound samples on them, and they fight a lot and scream at their kids at 6 in the morning to get ready for school. Oh, and did I mention the parrot? PRETTY BIRD! (Note to self, borrow Atari from Ashy and leave it running in the window to reprogram neighbor's bird)
But seriously. Creepy, neh? I must also admit I find the focus on guns rather dull from both sides. On the one, WAH GUNS LIBERALS COMMIES! And on the other, who cares if some idiot has a gun. Wars in the US are fought with TV stations. Guns are useless against satellites and nuclear missiles and aircraft flying at mach, and tanks. They're not even very useful against modern riot armor. Oh sure, the militias yap about how they could take a military compound or have military people join them but take another look at the first 2. There were huge protests at the start of the Iraq war but they got no air time on TV. They were played down to be 'small groups of angry protesters' on the national news. Guns are useless against media.
Coming back around, I think the thing that bothered me most about this article was the focus on guns and the implication that gun-control (read as liberals) were behind this and that's all that any of the other articles online seem to care about. Guns guns guns! WAH!!!! But you know what. It took joint approval for this kind of crap. The BATF and the increase in power to the FBI was the work of conservative christians regulating morality during prohibition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by democrats, right wingnuts are fond of pointing out. Though if you were talking about racism instead of guns, they'd happily tell you that most KKK members at that time were democrats. Oh, and the Brady bill... Signed by majority of democrats and Clinton.. Named after the secret service guy that died taking a bullet for Ronald Reagan. Take a closer look at the way the votes went down on that one, and fucking wake up.
A so-called liberal may have pulled the trigger in Massachusetts but conservatives are every bit as guilty for setting up an environment with so much fear that stuff like this could be approved. From what google searches tell me, I suspect they'd make scarcely a peep if kids were just reporting on the drug and alcohol use of their parents or if they were gay or commies. The right will continue to blame the left 100% for gun control issues and simultaneously scare people into accepting more and more control. Run sheep run!
Well.. Okay. Do you think it's secret police or do you think it's a clever new dodge for HMOs? How easy it'd before them to say, "Oh! This person falsified information to their doctor. They had a drink last Tuesday. Obviously an alcoholic in denial."
Generally I'm all for making parents suffer (particularly the ones across the way from me with about 18 children that all ride around on electric dental drill toys and have very loud bad sound samples on them, and they fight a lot and scream at their kids at 6 in the morning to get ready for school. Oh, and did I mention the parrot? PRETTY BIRD! (Note to self, borrow Atari from Ashy and leave it running in the window to reprogram neighbor's bird)
But seriously. Creepy, neh? I must also admit I find the focus on guns rather dull from both sides. On the one, WAH GUNS LIBERALS COMMIES! And on the other, who cares if some idiot has a gun. Wars in the US are fought with TV stations. Guns are useless against satellites and nuclear missiles and aircraft flying at mach, and tanks. They're not even very useful against modern riot armor. Oh sure, the militias yap about how they could take a military compound or have military people join them but take another look at the first 2. There were huge protests at the start of the Iraq war but they got no air time on TV. They were played down to be 'small groups of angry protesters' on the national news. Guns are useless against media.
Coming back around, I think the thing that bothered me most about this article was the focus on guns and the implication that gun-control (read as liberals) were behind this and that's all that any of the other articles online seem to care about. Guns guns guns! WAH!!!! But you know what. It took joint approval for this kind of crap. The BATF and the increase in power to the FBI was the work of conservative christians regulating morality during prohibition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by democrats, right wingnuts are fond of pointing out. Though if you were talking about racism instead of guns, they'd happily tell you that most KKK members at that time were democrats. Oh, and the Brady bill... Signed by majority of democrats and Clinton.. Named after the secret service guy that died taking a bullet for Ronald Reagan. Take a closer look at the way the votes went down on that one, and fucking wake up.
A so-called liberal may have pulled the trigger in Massachusetts but conservatives are every bit as guilty for setting up an environment with so much fear that stuff like this could be approved. From what google searches tell me, I suspect they'd make scarcely a peep if kids were just reporting on the drug and alcohol use of their parents or if they were gay or commies. The right will continue to blame the left 100% for gun control issues and simultaneously scare people into accepting more and more control. Run sheep run!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-10 12:43 am (UTC)When I was a child, we did a lot of sustenance hunting and fishing. Guns were important to our family's food. However, we used black powder weapons and cast our own bullets. They were about as cheap to operate as earthly possible and they were single-shot rifles and shotguns. The general rule being that if you couldn't hit what you were aiming at in one shot, you had no real business shooting at it in the first place. For all practical purposes, these were the only types of guns available at the time of the constitution and one could argue they're all the 2nd amendment really allows.
On the other hand, I agree that guns are generally pretty silly for defense. Most robberies are committed by people who know the victim and break in when they know you aren't home. Guns are an item that's small, has a high value, and is easy to sell so they're a prime commodity. Also, unless you sleep with a gun under your pillow, odds aren't so great that you'll be able to get to it and use it to 'defend'. I especially find the idea of a gun in the purse for self-defense against rapists silly. It takes me a good 20 seconds to get my wallet out of my purse and it's in a pouch right on the front. A gun, being heavy would be at the bottom and tangled up in other stuff. Rapists don't wave to you from across the street and say, "I'm going to come over there and rape you." they jump out from behind a corner. Or... Much more frequently, they are, once again, someone you know.
Also, I feel it fair to note that I've been in a few bad fight-or-flight situations. One even where I was attacked by a man who was high on cocaine and had a blood alcohol of 0.25 and a string of priors. I defended myself with the nearest thing I could find (a stick) and I was taken by the police for 'attempted murder', even though I had called the police and was screaming for help when he yanked the phone cord out of the wall. The charges were eventually dismissed but not before spending several days in jail. It was a really horrible experience and I can't imagine how much worse it would have been if I shot him. Also... I'm not a violent person. I still have nightmares about all the blood. I can't imagine how much worse I would FEEL if I'd shot someone.
So anyhow.. I've suggested to people they take a compromise position. If they really feel they need a gun, how about a Starter's Pistol. If you're attacked you can still point it at someone and intimidate them and it goes BANG BANG BANG! And let's face it... I've had a gun pointed at me before. It's a high-stress situation. If you see gun and hear BANG BANG, you're NOT likely to stick around and see why they missed. Plus, if they get your gun, you now know something they don't. You know they don't have any bullets and that gives you a huge advantage in finding some other means of defending yourself.
Anyhow. That's my 0.02.