Whilst I'm a libertarian and fully support people wanting to buy guns, oranges or green hair dye son, what I do not understand is being idiotic about risk. The question is about risk. The idea of defending against government tyranny using a gun when the government has got bombers and computers is so ludicrous that one immediately thinks that the man's a muppet.
Also just because you can doesn't mean you should. For example would you want to carry an open beaker of sulphuric acid? You can of course but is it safe? Same thing.
I was watching cnn over the last 4 days in Canada. And pretty much, for example, every day, I heard about shootings in the universities and schools. Hello? ERM. Why? What?
I've used guns and rifles son. Even hunted. But I wouldn't have a gun at home for the same reason I wouldn't have highly corrosive acid in the house. It's too risky.
Very strange. But very interesting campaign by the mothers, son. Take a lesson from them. The gun owners will loose of course. Never bet against a mother wanting to protect her child Kannu. Very powerful emotions and determination.
Love
Baba.
'Calculated to Alarm'
http://mag.newsweek.com/2013/10/11/calculated-to-alarm.html
The weapon he was carrying, an AK-74 assault rifle, measures three feet long, with a barrel of about 16 inches, and is capable of firing several dozen rounds per minute. Brian McCauley says he never meant to scare anyone. The state of Texas disagrees, and his upcoming trial has become a focal point in a dangerous new battle in the national debate over gun laws.
By the time McCauley walked into a San Antonio Starbucks in August, tensions had been building for years. The chain's corporate policy was to defer to local gun ordinances, many of which allow the open carrying of weapons, and gun owners from Virginia to California had been visiting the coffee shops with handguns worn outside their pants, as the songwriter Townes Van Zandt once put it, "for all the honest world to feel." In response, a gun-control group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, started promoting a national boycott called "Skip Starbucks Saturday."
Police officers arrested McCauley outside that Starbucks, charging him with disorderly conduct, which under the Texas penal code, covers 11 categories of behavior, including that of a person who "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm."
Those last three words – calculated to alarm – have inflamed passions on both sides. Leaders of the open carry movement, once regarded as fringe-y by more traditional gun rights organizations, are rapidly signing up new members and staging bolder public confrontations. Gun-control advocates, who failed to win legislative change following the massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School, are using the image of semi-automatic weapons in public places to reinvigorate their supporters.
As McCauley awaits his day in court, both sides are escalating their tactics. In September, two men wearing AR-15s walked through a farmer's market in downtown Appleton, Wisconsin. Gun rights advocates scheduled a major rally at the Alamo on October 19, to coincide with a national event called Guns Next Door, where gun owners are encouraged to "for one hour stand or sit in your front yard armed." In response, Moms Demand Action is advising supporters who encounter someone carrying a semi-automatic rifle to "call 911 immediately."
No comments:
Post a Comment