web
counter


Maggie from 'The Walking Dead' Does Maxim, America Goes to their Bunks

By Dustin Rowles | Pajiba Love | September 19, 2013 | Comments ()


Screen Shot 2013-09-19 at 2.13.24 PM.png

Someone is intelligently and passionately advocating Chris Rock’s bullet control theory, which is to say: Screw gun control. Levy a huge-ass tax on bullet, so if someone wants to go on a huge shooting spree, they at least have to mortgage their house to do so. (Midwestballadreview)

Of all the shows that I have to recap each week, the one I enjoy doing the most is for The League, because it’s just a lot of killer one-liners and exchanges. (Uproxx)

Screen-Shot-2013-09-19-at-9.50.12-AM.png

J.K. Rowling speaks about the “single-parent stigma,” which I’m sure is very real, although the label itself is probably not nearly as difficult as actually being a single parent. Second of all, in my single days, I had one crazy weird fascination for single moms. When you’re in your 20s, they’re like shooting stars, and single mom law students? They’re like one in a million, and I nearly destroyed a few lives (including my own) for one. I still think, on the whole, that single moms are the most stable, put together people on the planet. Anyway, J.K. Rowling, right? (Celebitchy)

Sandra Bullock is a single mom now, right? The 49-year-old star of Gravity looks striking on the cover of Vogue this month. (GFY)

Idris Elba very humbly gives all the credit to his The Wire character to the writing. ” You know, Stringer Bell is a great character that was written. I happened to play him, but it could’ve been anybody playing that role. ” Also, I had no idea Elba had a public beef with that Oasis guy. (LaineyGossip)

When the NAKED model from Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” music video is calling Miley Cyrus’ VMA performance “distasteful” and “appalling,” man, I just don’t know. Really, naked model lady? (Jezebel)

No knock against Latino Review, whose scoop accuracy runs somewhere between Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow’s completion rate, but I’m a bit suspect on their report that Soirse Ronan auditioned for Star Wars, if only because they also claim Benedict Cumberbatch is still linked to the franchise’s seventh installment. (Blastr)

I don’t pay attention to “Big Brother” because there’s a line, y’all, but I’ve heard plenty about the racism in the house this year. Well, apparently, two of the racists in the house have seen The Help, and now they are hip to what’s up. (DListed)

Is Ted Mosby a slut? (Vulture)

For the record, I’m not the only one that’s been raving about this season of The Newsroom. I am not alone. Thank you Indy Zoeler. (Unreality)

I’d like to think that Lauren Cohen has better taste than Maxim magazine, but I’d also like to think that I’m above checking out Lauren Cohen in Maxim magazine. (WG)

Justin Timberlake didn’t think this Brazilian entertanment reporter that gifted him with a mold of her ass in a box was crazy at all. Nope. He thought it was very funny, which is clearly why he was staring offstage at his publicist with a look that said, “Please. Get me out of here before this lady consumes my soul.”




Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


Cher Admits She Might Not Be Flawless, Becomes Flawless in the Process | 5 Shows After Dark 9/19/13





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • Yocean

    That Brazilian woman with Buddha mole is so hot yet so Cray Cray ....

  • All I can really say about that prank show is, why does that woman have a nipple growing out of her forehead?

  • Mr_Zito

    The Brazilian "reporter": that's actually a comedy show, it's a prank. And just so this post goes full circle, she started her TV carreer as a contestant on Big Brother.

  • Bert_McGurt

    Liam's just lucky Idris didn't give him a five-knuckle seminar on what happens to a**holes who f*ck with a man's hat.

  • WhoDeyKY

    wow. I feel a burning in my lady bits with that new header photo....

  • Tom

    I think there were a lot more where that came from.

  • anikitty

    Thank you Dustin for the occasional football reference.

  • WhoDeyKY

    I know right?!? I thought the same thing when I read The League shout-out.

  • TheOriginalMRod

    I am kind of jealous of: "It’s trying to take an Optimism Shower under a Friendship Waterfall in the Vale of True Love And Journalistic Ethics." I wish I had written that.

    The season finale of the Newsroom made me cry... I am a sap and I am not ashamed to admit it.

  • Guest

    Maggie for Batfleck's love interest? Maggie for Wonder Woman?

    *Original Post Title:Saoirse for Star Wars? Yes, she needs a franchise, is talented, and more deserving then most.

  • Do you think that's a good follow-up role after Downton Abbey? Dame Maggie would certainly raise the profile of the new Batman film, and the choice for a December-May romance would be edgy, to say the least.

  • Guest

    You've wrinkled my brain. A December-May romance would be awesome for Supes vs Batfleck and it would definitely lend some cred to Affleck's casting.

  • GDI

    Spree shootings are insignificant as terrorist attacks to your overall health (if you live in the US, of course). You are twice as more likely to commit suicide than homicide if you own a firearm.
    Providing more avenues of help for the mentally ill isn't as asinine as stopping mass shootings; it should be streamlined to help those pondering about suicide and/or acting on it.

    Bullet control? Laughable, as it won't help with the segment of the population that could more readily helped, and won't as concerned with bullet prices, given that they are planning to exit the world via firearm.
    They'll just end up making damn sure that it only takes one shot.

  • DataAngel

    I think Liam Gallagher has a beef with just about everyone. If he doesn't, Noel does. And Noel and Liam have them with each other.

    Beef. It's what's for Gallagher.

  • RE: bullet control. That works great...right up until you realize that it's fairly easy to learn to make your own bullets and once learned, fairly easy to do. I mean, it's not as easy as say making a pie, but I would say it's easier than making your own beer.

    It's been my experience that guns are a lot like dogs, or children. It seems like it's always the people who don't have them who know THE best way to control them. And they're always more than willing to share that knowledge, too.

  • googergieger

    Step one get liquor. Step two, make it taste like ass. Step three, enjoy your beer.

    NEXT!

  • foolsage

    You're right; people can make their own bullets. Hell, they can also make their own guns. The fact remains though that the vast majority of people who use firearms aren't interested in manufacturing their own weapons; they want someone else to do all the work. See also: everything else Americans could make for themselves, but choose not to.

    It's vitally important that we not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Which is to say, you're right that we won't completely solve all gun violence with any of the measures being proposed. I don't however think that completely solving all gun violence should be our goal. Rather, I think we should try to lessen gun violence without preventing the public from lawfully and safely using firearms.

    There is a happy middle there. There are reasonable steps we can take that will lessen the number of deaths by firearms, without trampling the spirit of the Second Amendment. It's possible to make progress on this issue.

    And no, I no longer own any firearms. I used to, though, not that I agree that ownership is the only way to be informed about something.

  • abell

    I'm always in the market for good ideas. What do you propose to "lessen gun violence without preventing the public from lawfully and safely using firearms?"

  • foolsage

    Frankly, there are a lot of decent ideas in this regard. Again, none of them will solve all gun violence, but each has potential to help.

    I realize that each of these ideas is open to fierce debate. I'm not particularly interested in debating the details of each idea, largely for the same reason I don't spend my time arguing with fundie Christians about what the Bible says about homosexuality. Which is to say, not everyone is equally reasonable, and there are a LOT of unreasonable gun lovers out there. Notably, there are also a lot of reasonable gun lovers, but they're not generally the most vocal ones.

    Ideas include but are not limited to:

    * Implementing UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, just like 9 out of 10 Americans support (i.e. close the freaking loopholes already)

    * Requiring (by law) safe storage of guns and ammo; educating the public about the topic and implementing massive penalties for failure to comply

    * Limiting clip sizes

    * Taxing ammo considerably more steeply

    * Ending sales of armor-piercing ammo

    * Ending all concealed carry laws

    * Ending all stand your ground laws

    * And yes, we clearly need massive reform of our mental health system; that's a huge underlying problem, but it's not the only problem here

    Each of the above steps would directly reduce gun violence. None of the above would prevent citizens from using firearms in a safe and responsible manner, and none violates the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, many vocal gun lovers hate and will violently decry every one of the above ideas (and literally every other idea that in any way limits their freedom to use the weapons they choose when and where they choose).

    The simple truth though is that the Second Amendment is already limited, just as the First is. We're not, after all, free to carry flamethrowers and rocket launchers around in public, anymore than we're exempted from the consequences of speech that incites people to riot, or that is treasonous. Refining those limitations is NOT the same as undermining or weakening the Second Amendment; rather, it's part of the ongoing process by which our government (by design) updates itself as time passes.

  • abell

    I'm going to respond to these points individually, despite your efforts to bow out by painting anyone who disagrees as the equivalent of a religious fundamentalist. I really don't like the logic that anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable. Please don't do that in the future. We agree on 2 items.

    Also, I agree that there is some wiggle room with the Amendment, and am not going to push to make flamethrowers readily available etc. However, I will defend the 2nd with all the vigor I defended the 1st from SOPA, etc and for the same reasons.

    1. Background Checks. Nope. You're referring to the 'gun show loophole,' I believe? According to the Justice Dept. less than 1% of offenders had purchased the weapon they used at a gun show. 40% were obtained illegally, and 37% from family. How you intend to stop family members or friends giving each other weapons is beyond me, unless you go all the way to a Registry, which is a non starter.

    2. Safe Storage/Use/etc. Yes, yes, 1000% yes. The number of negligent shootings are truly disgusting and entirely preventable. All the way behind you, lets make this happen.

    3. Clip sizes. Nope. They're effectively meaningless if not outright harmful. Mass shooters come prepared with extra clips, weapons, and training in reloading. (see Virginia Tech, Aurora,etc). From a self-defense standpoint, however, they're a huge handicap as the number of rounds it takes to put an assailant down varies wildly from 1 shot to well upwards of 20.

    4. Taxing Ammo. Nope. Effectively a poll tax, which, we've all agreed is illegal as hell. Adds a ridiculous cost to those of us who shoot recreationally.

    5. Armor piercing rounds... Nope and mostly a myth. What qualifies as an armor piercing round depends on what sort of armor you're wearing. The vest a cop wears is not going to stop a .308 hunting round. Period. But, it will stop just about any handgun round short of a .44, and its ilk. So, in effect, you're interested in banning hunting/rifle rounds? Not going to get any support on that. Unless you're referring to hollow points, which is entirely different and definitely not armor piercing.

    6. The increase in concealed carry states and owners correlates with the decrease in gun crime we've seen. Right to carry states are per capita safer than non right to carry states. Nope.

    7. Stand your ground. Not going to support any laws that legally requires someone to flee their attacker. Nope.

    8. Mental health reform. Yea, not sure the best way to approach that either. Needs to be worked on, very delicately.

    Links
    1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    6. http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/...

  • foolsage

    To start, I didn't state that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable. I did state that there are unreasonable people with strong views against gun control. Those two statements aren't identical; nuance is important.

    I'll go ahead and respond, though I'm unsure how much room there is here for a constructive conversation, given your outright rejection of a number of ideas that seem quite reasonable to me. Worth a shot anyhow.

    1. Your reply is predicated on the idea that, if a proposed law would not have prevented a specific atrocity, that law is worthless. That's hardly a reasonable basis on which to judge the efficacy of a proposed law. Again, the goal should be to reduce gun violence, not to prevent ALL gun violence, and certainly not to hypothetically prevent past gun violence. Some progress is better than no progress, and a complex problem like this cannot possibly be solved with a single approach, so we need to consider multiple options. The gun show loophole is only one part of the loophole in background checks, as you doubtless know already. Private sales of guns, in general, are unregulated now, and this is a problem.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04...

    3. Sport shooting doesn't require large clips. Neither does self-defense, despite your claims to the contrary (Biden was right in this regard: buy a freaking shotgun if you feel you need to be able to stop an intruder). On the other hand, large clips do facilitate shooting a lot of rounds very quickly, which is generally one of the top goals of mass shooters.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new...

    4. You reject this without any reasoning whatsoever, though it seems likely that your argument centers around what is convenient to you, personally, rather than what can save lives. Clearly taxing ammo would affect gun violence.

    5. Here we are again; you reject the idea because you claim it won't make enough of a difference, though you offer no argument for why anyone needs to have access to armor piercing rounds. And, once again (sing along if you know the words) the goal is not to prevent all gun violence with a single step, but rather to make progress with a number of small steps.

    6. Gun violence is a complicated thing. It's disingenuous (and I think you're quite aware of this) to suggest that one state has less gun violence than others because of one specific law or ordinance. Having said that, there is absolutely no need for anyone to carry a concealed weapon for purposes of sport shooting. Carrying hidden weapons around in public, and expecting that others will do so as well, is part of the disease that afflicts this country. Not only should concealed carry be illegal, but the penalty should be confiscation of the weapon and a massive penalty. You want to carry a weapon in public? Put it in a locked gun case. You want to carry a concealed weapon and feel like a big man? Too fucking bad. That right is not, in fact, enshrined in the Constitution.

    7. Most states don't have stand your ground laws, and amazingly, there's no perceived need for them either. In states that have stand your ground laws, those laws become the basis for people to act more aggressively than they otherwise would, which is almost never a good thing for society. Yes, you SHOULD actually try to avoid conflict. Everyone should. Being a tough guy who doesn't back down to anyone or anything is not only terribly stupid, but also a destructive attitude that poisons our interpersonal interactions.

    I don't hold out a lot of hope for a constructive conversation here, because you didn't offer a single reason, in any of your responses, for why responsible sport shooters NEED any of the privileges that I propose limiting. Instead, you rejected the solutions because they weren't comprehensive (which I pointed out would be the case, and indeed MUST be the case with a complicated problem like gun violence). You also didn't like the idea of being inconvenienced apparently. Fair enough. That's understandable, but it's not a compelling argument against gun control.

  • abell

    I think the main difference between us is the potential ratio of potential lives saved to inconvenience/invasion of privacy/rights. You seem to accept any lives saved as justifiable, whereas I require a much larger potential lives saved to sway my vote. That's just basic risk tolerance differences and I respect that. You do have some holes in your logic though, so, allow me to respond.

    1. Private sales are unregulated because the infrastructure needed to track that would be massive. Even if you were tracking point of sale on every firearm, I don't know how you'd keep them out of the hands of criminals, because it requires self reporting, which someone who's illegally buying a gun won't. I don't see a way around that problem. Also, I don't want people tracking guns but that's a different issue.

    3. I don't think we're going to get anywhere on the clip size, because, we just disagree on the lives saved by requiring a mass shooter (note that these make up a tiny percentage of shootings) to reload in comparison with the need/value that large clips provide recreational self-defense shooters. I'll agree to disagree on that.

    3b. But, no, Joe Biden is fucking wrong about his shotgun quip. It is illegal to fire a warning shot. It is illegal as hell. That's called reckless endangerment. Since you don't know where the bullet is going to go, and you're not shooting at a legitimate target, and it might hit a bystander, it's a felony. Link below. Furthermore, a 12-gauge shotgun is not the right weapon for most people. They're cumbersome and difficult to shoot and have a vicious kick. A 5'0" 115-125lb woman would seriously risk being knocked over. That's a part of the reason why the AR-15 is so popular, particularly amongst women. It's a lot more controllable and in comparison with a 12 gauge provides a gentle tap. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20....

    4. I thought a poll tax would be self explanatory. If owning/operating a gun is a right (I believe it is) then, the government forcing extra costs on you is infringing that right by making it available only to those who can afford it (like a poll tax). As for the inconvenience aspect, I shoot several hundred to a thousand rounds a month (no I'm actually not even a high volume shooter). At a thousand rounds, every additional cent is $10. So, when someone says add a dollar tax to my $0.10 per round ammunition, I push back at the 1,000% increase to my shooting costs that would prohibit me from shooting nearly so much as I like. Finally, I have a moral issue with sin taxes, what with the issues of the government trying to limit your behavior and create a revenue stream at the same time. But that's just me.

    5. You didn't really understand what I said. Armor piercing rounds don't exist. They're not real. They're just a thing said by the news and politicians to sound scary. Tell me what ammunition you want to ban. Pick a cartridge size. Tell me what your problem is with the jacket, or maybe the load? Armor piercing doesn't tell me what you want to ban and the only thing that makes sense is hunting rounds, but, I don't know that for sure. Please elaborate.

    6. On this one, you seem to be making some sort of a moral statement without any statistical defense of why that would save lives. At this point concealed carry is correlated with greater safety. I know how statistics works, that it's not necessarily a 1 to 1, but, you need to provide some sort of counterpoint to that. Stating that concealed carry is a part of a disease and should bear massive penalties as the basis of your argument does not make you seem like the reasonable one. Also, clearly no, there's not a sport shooting reason for concealed carry, it's for self defense. I understand that you feel strongly about CC, but, you didn't make any sort of a case as to why I should. BTW I don't conceal carry (Los Angeles, it's freaking impossible) and doubt that I would if I could.

    7. Yes, you should try to avoid conflict. Definitely agree with you. However, I will not support passing legislature that requires a victim to retreat, to run away from an attacker. I find the idea as morally despicable as you find these puffed up children with their guns. My position is that these laws need to add a reckless endangerment/escalation clause, to the point of saying that if you're carrying and you pick a fight, you're responsible for the outcome, even if the other guy came at you. Almost like how medical professionals aren't protected by Good Samaritan laws. Would you be willing to look at a compromise?

    So, there we are. I hope that I laid out my reasoning more clearly, and you'll respond in kind.

  • foolsage

    You're right that I see saving any lives as important and valuable. If the cost to save lives is a small amount of inconvenience, then that, to me, is a very small price to pay indeed. So… if it's true that a step can be taken to save lives, and if that step causes no more than minor inconvenience to gun owners, then, yes, in general I'll support that step.

    1. A common argument I hear from people opposed to gun control is "criminals don't obey the law". This essentially suggests that it's futile to have any laws at all, which is prima facie ridiculous (see e.g. the effect of drunk driving laws on the number of fatalities caused by drunk drivers; the number plummeted dramatically once the laws were implemented). Yes, people will still sell guns illegally, but if we can reduce that number and make the people buying and selling weapons illegally more fearful of being caught, this is a good thing.

    3. I was referring to the value of a shotgun, not the idea of firing a warning shot. Yes, some people are smaller than others, but then a 12-gauge isn't the smallest shotgun available, either. Get that dainty little lady a 20-gauge or even a 28-gauge if the 12-gauge is too much. The recoil is substantially less with those sizes; that's why those sizes remain popular among smaller people.

    4. I don't care for sin taxes, either. I hear you about your concerns that any price increase for weapons and ammo is a barrier to some people's use thereof. To be clear, that barrier already exists; someone with no money cannot buy bullets. The question, then, is: where should that barrier be, for the best outcome? How much should people need to pay for bullets? If we agree that increasing the cost of ammo is a disincentive for people to use ammo, and we agree that ammo is required for gun violence, then I think there's a constructive conversation to be had in finding the right balance.

    5. You're right, and I apologize. This issue is problematic and best approached with more precision than I offered. My concern is principally with tungsten and tungsten-carbide hardened rounds for small arms, and HEIAP in general (though obviously the latter is harder to get).

    6. Back in my university days, I had to take quite a few courses in statistics. I actually had an introductory textbook in one class called "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" (quoting Mark Twain). The point of the title, and the book itself, was basically that one can use statistics to "prove" all sorts of clearly untrue things; the essential thing is to make sure that you're asking the right questions. So, sure, there's a correlation between concealed carrying and personal safety, but that's under the operating assumption that OTHER PEOPLE are already carrying concealed weapons. See also: "criminals don't obey the law" above. The bigger point here is that, most places in the world, there is no expectation that a stranger you meet will have a concealed firearm. Why do we have that expectation here?

    7. I'm comfortable with modifying the laws to include a reckless endangerment/escalation clause. My point was that it should never be acceptable to pick a fight then claim that the other guy became threatening, and you had to shoot him in self-defense.

  • abell

    1. I understand your position about the criminals don't follow laws conversation. However, limiting private sales doesn't make it any more illegal for criminals to own a gun or to sell one to a criminal. It's already illegal and we've already reaped whatever disincentive that comes from that. We're not talking about making it illegal for criminals to own guns, we're talking about how to prevent them from owning them. More enforcing laws than legislating them. And from an enforcement standpoint, I see no benefit, since it's already illegal, and plenty of hassle for law abiding citizens. If you still disagree, I've got nothing else on this topic, and I'll let it go.

    3. Yea, I'd definitely recommend a smaller shotgun for just about anyone, but, we're getting into the endless 'what caliber is best for self defense' argument and I think no one wants to do that right now. (Though Biden definitely referred to a 12-gauge)

    4. If I believed that we could keep that ammo tax some sort of a middle ground where it would have a disincentivizing effect and not be prohibitively expensive, then I'd look into it. However, that kinda undermines the actual point of the idea, and even if you and I agreed on a number, I definitely wouldn't trust congress/state legislatures not to raise it every few years the way they do with gas and cigarettes.

    5. Though I still think this is not such a problem as to be a primary focus (I couldn't find any news items about anyone ever using armor piercing rounds against a cop, etc) I'd agree to tungsten cores being treated as a destructive device. Definitely would agree to that for HEIAP rounds. As you say, there is a point where it's unreasonable to own a weapon, and that shit's unnecessary.

    6. Well, you're definitely making an assumption about what part of the world you're looking at. Western Europe, they're probably not armed. Eastern Europe, maybe. Etc. I'm really not sure that an assumption of safety is something we can or should expect. I guess that comes down to a question of humanity's fundamental nature. I'm not very optimistic on the topic.

  • foolsage

    Fair enough. Thanks for a civil discussion. We don't agree on everything but there's still a fair bit of common ground. I'll only address two points, as I think we've covered everything on the other points for now.

    3. Biden's statement about using shotguns for self-defense kinda spun out of control as he was making it, which used to be a problem Biden had all the time; he sometimes doesn't know when to shut up. ;) Anyhow, I meant to agree only that shotguns are generally better suited to home defense than small-caliber handguns, and that small shotguns are available for smaller people; I certainly don't agree that everyone ought to use 12-gauges or fire warning shots. I also don't think that most people need any sort of firearms to protect their homes, nor do I think it's healthy for our society to assume we all ought to live in fear and be armed. That's however more pertinent to the other point below.

    6. As to public safety, I've lived in Australia and spent a lot of time in Europe (though relatively little in far Eastern Europe, i.e. the old Soviet block). Culturally, those places are very close to America, so they're a reasonable basis of comparison. Concealed weapons simply aren't an issue in those places, yet the public is (and perceives itself to be) safe. The gun industry has worked hard to convince Americans that we cannot be safe unless we're armed, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are fearful and carry a weapon to protect yourself, then others around you have cause to be fearful in turn, and desire their own weapons. Now there's a (small) arms race! That's of course precisely what the gun industry wants.

    I like firing guns. I'm more of a bow and arrow guy myself but, hey, I truly do understand the appeal of a firearm. Having said that, I think America has a very unhealthy relationship with firearms overall. I think we need to take a number of small steps to improve the situation. I don't advocate anything too drastic, but I also am quite convinced that doing nothing will lead to many more senseless deaths. Again, there's a happy medium to be found; I think you and I just proved that with our agreement on several different points.

    Take it easy. :)

  • Bert_McGurt

    I've also had the experience that guns are a lot like dogs and children - those you'd trust the least with them seem to have the most.

    For the record - I don't think you're wrong, either. It's a complex issue that won't be solved by just a fell swoop ban on this or that. And the input of responsible, reasonable, real live gun owners WOULD be valuable - it's just there's so few who want to contribute to a solution, ostensibly for fear of undermining the vaguely defined parameters of a two-century-old piece of legislation.

  • 'Responsible' and 'reasonable.' Aye, there's the rub. Reasonable and responsible by whose definition? Yours? Mine? Rand Paul's? Rachel Maddow's? That's probably four different definitions of reasonable and responsible right there and two of those people also have market shares to protect and constituencies to consider. This may be unfairly cynical, and I don't mean anything personal by it, but it's been my experience that when people talk about 'reasonable and responsible contributions', or 'sober and fair-minded citizens' and other such phrases, what they mean is 'people who think like me.'

    Secondly, It's not a 'two century old piece of legislation'. Well, technically, it is that, yeah. But it deserves more than to be dismissed so flippantly. The Constitution is the foundation and bedrock not just of our government, but also of our society. If there are places where it is less than blisteringly explicit(and I would submit that the 2nd Amendment is not one of those places), it is because the Founding Fathers expected their descendants to be wise enough(or if not wise, at least clever enough) to not need everything spelled out 1A-2B-3C.

  • Bert_McGurt

    Both fair points. In this case, I meant reasonable as in "willing to discuss the merits of conflicting viewpoints and willing to consider compromises" (and to be fair, this applies to BOTH sides); and responsible simply meaning those who value proper training and store and use their weapons safely.

    The second part wasn't meant to be flippant - just to point out that the concept of "bearing arms" has changed a LOT in the intervening years and was a little loose in the first place. There's been amendments to retract previous amendments and amendments to clarify previous amendments, covering ground at least as important as gun ownership - three of them clarifying suffrage rights alone. Yet this one amendment is treated as if it's immune for some reason.

  • abell

    There we go. There have been amendments to amend the amendments. As a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment (actually, of 1 through 10, 13,14,15,19,21,and 22) I completely agree that the Constitution is not written in stone or sacrosanct. It can be changed, and we have very specific procedures for doing so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    What upsets me is that gun control advocates understand that they cannot get an amendment passed to modify it and so attempt to subvert the amendment with language about what the founders had in mind, militia vs individual, muzzle loaders, etc. It degrades the Constitution, which is the same document that guarantees us freedom of speech, of trial by jury, etc.

  • BlackRabbit

    And there you're using another common phrase that springs up in these discussions: "what the founders had in mind." You don't know for sure. Neither do the gun control folks. The world the founders lived, the weapons for sale, and the nation they were building is much different than ours. The amendment should, at least, be updated. For example, the "well regulated Militia" part.

  • abell

    Absolutely. With an amendment. As required by law. Also, fun fact, did you know that I'm a part of the militia? True beans. Not the National Guard mind you, but, the 'Unorganized Militia.' According to law, all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 not in the Armed Forces or the National Guard are members of the Unorganized Militia. Link below. Now, clearly, we need to update this to include women, and I think we can push that age back to the mid 50's, what do you think?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

  • BlackRabbit

    Yeah, that looks like fat for the trimming right there.

  • Also, it sort of curtails the sports aspect of shooting, and considering the only thing I shoot is targets, I would be sad to lose that opportunity simply because it was out of my price range. I don't want the rich to have one more thing I can't have.

  • abell

    I've always been frustrated by this. In California, we've started making certain lanes of the freeways effectively toll roads during certain hours and it drives me up a wall that the state would give the wealthy a way to 'opt out' of traffic by paying more. Rabblerabblerabble

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Same thing at the airport - pay for your speedpass through the TSA.

  • Repo

    Right. You also run into the issue of people who still own firearms for home defense or hunting being even more unfamiliar and inaccurate with the guns they own, leading to more accidents and issues. A sin tax on ammunition really isn't the answer here.

  • JJ

    I'll give you my pie and beer when you pry them from my cold, dead gullet.

  • lowercase_ryan

    start a rumor on theblaze.com that the presses are sold with tracking devices planted in them.

  • Legally Insignificant

    Growing up in Central PA, I encountered the opposite problem, i.e. people against gun control doing crazy things in the name of fighting gun control. If you want some concept of what I had to deal with, search for the terms "Gilberton," "police officer," and "video." The target practice video should be illuminating.

  • GDI

    I think he was being sarcastic.

blog comments powered by Disqus









Follow Us





Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins