It didn't take long for someone to Blame Bush for the shootings at Virginia Tech. And low and behold, it was renowned Bushaphobe Keith Olbermann. Of course he had his facts wrong, but we can't hold that against him.
Story
Also. I'm no gun expert. Hell, I'm not even a fan of the things, but I'd heard that a 9MM uses magazines rather than clips and that there's a real difference between the two. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but could someone let me know.
One last thing. Dr. Phil is blaming video games for the killings. What?!?!? We'd just learned who did this and Dr. Fraud is blaming video games? I sure would like to know how the good Dr. knew this guy even played video games.
Categories:
Democrats/Liberals,
Idiots,
Law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think you'll find it depends on the pistol. Some 9mms use clips, some use magazines.
Shoulda waited for a bit before posting that - I'd like to point out that Olbermann blamed Congress as well.
Oh, and blaming video games is common these days. Ever heard of Jack Thompson?
Za is correct on the clips and magazines thing. Since I have not heard the brand of weapons the idiot used; I cannot say which is the right one clips or maggies.
BTW: Dr. Phil has a doctorate in only one thing and it has nothing to do with people. Veternary Medicine. He's a vet; thats all.
And; I stopped watching or listening to Herr Oberman's hate filled rants long ago.
Okay. I stand corrected about the clip vs. magazine thing. Just wondering.
And about Dr. Fraud. He stated that video games are to blame for this before even knowing if this guy played them or not. And Jack Thompson is a douche. I play these kinds of games. Have for years, and I've never felt like going on a killing spree. They, for some reason, forget to mention the fact that these people are already predisposed to actions like this. A video game, movie or song isn't going to make you wake up one day, take a Glock 9mm and kill 32 people.
Forgot. Doesn't matter if Olbermann blamed Congress as well. He was wrong. There's one person, and one person alone to blame for this. Cho Seung Hui. Not the school, not the gun manufacturer, not Bush, not Congress, not our "gun culture". Cho Seung Hui planned this out, he bought the weapons, he made his tape, took his photos and wrote his ramblings, he send them to NBC and he killed 32 people in cold blood. To put any kind of politics into this is sick and Olbermann should be ashamed of himself.
And Jack Thompson is a douche.
Huzzah to that.
Forgot. Doesn't matter if Olbermann blamed Congress as well. He was wrong. There's one person, and one person alone to blame for this. Cho Seung Hui. Not the school, not the gun manufacturer, not Bush, not Congress, not our "gun culture".
That's a fairly closed view of the subject. Yes, Hui is the only person who could control his actions, but there are a few different ways he could have been stopped.
He'd been taken in by mental services before; what's the sitch on people with known anti-social behaviour and anger issues buying weapons?
I'm not going to agree with Olbermann about the ammo issue, since he probably would have just bought a different kind of gun, but I do have a related question for you - is that constitutional right really applicable anymore?
Tasers are just as effective for house-defense (and they have wireless tasers in the works now too), and it's not as if the American public could really take down the US armed forces should the US government become despotic (the reason that right is in there)... which is one of the reasons why prior to the World Wars, it was considered unconstitutional for the US to have a standing army. And local public weapon depos could substitute in the case of invasion (which is what they have in Switzerland I believe).
Those were a few things that came to mind anyway.
You're talking to the wrong guy about that. I don't like guns. In my view, the only people who should be allowed to carry a gun are police and military. But, to think that abolishing the 2nd amendment will even come close to even starting to fix the problem is a closed view in itself. There are over 240 million guns in this country of 300 million people. So, outlawing them like other countries have isn't going to do anything.
No, you're absolutely right. It requires more than just a legislative solution in America's case.
The Australian government did a cash-for-guns thing, where people would be paid to hand in their weapons. It worked for the most part, but there are a reasonable amount of people who still have their semi-autos stashed away (mostly farmers I imagine).
And you have the added issue of ease of import. Nations like Japan and Australia have no direct borders with anyone else, and our ports are relatively well monitored. In Japan's instance, it's only the Yakuza who have guns, and they (for the most part) only kill Yakuza.
This famous constitutional right at the centre of it all, I was wondering if someone with a solid understanding of it's development could clear something up for me. (I don't know where I heard this), but I heard the claim that the original intention has been lost or subverted. (Za hinted at some of it) That it was merely a provision to assemble an organised militia, if the need arose, in the absence of a standing army, that it wasn't the intention to have a public armed to the teeth, but as a redundant defence provision (since the establishment of full-time armed forces), it has become something that was never intended by the phrase: 'the right to bare arms'?
... and I get that altering/removing the 'second amendment' (regardless of its original purpose) isn't going to fix the problem as 'the horse has already bolted', but as for the other matters raised here, if someone tried a qualitative comparison of clips and magazines on Dr Phil, maybe you'd get satisfaction on both questions.
I hate to think it, but an Australian-style buy-back scheme wouldn't put much of a dint in the problem, or at least it would only be the first stage of a many-pronged solution. In all seriousness, I can't see how guns and tragedy aren't going to hand-in-hand for many years to come in America
Close. The American founding fathers were very big on keeping the government in check - to the point that they actually stated themselves that it would inevitably become despotic.
The right to bear arms is a twofold principle. Firstly, yes, it was for defense; so that America could form militias as needed. Secondly though, it was so America would not need a standing army and thus the American government could never use one against its people.
Of course today, neither of those principles would work.
And yeah, in the US you'd need a massive change in public opinion about guns before a buy-back scheme could even hope to be successful.
Post a Comment