A modest proposal for solving the gun debate
I don’t usually post about political controversies. But I’m bored with the gun debate, so I came up with a solution that should satisfy everyone. It’s a three-part solution.
1. Every civilian has the absolute and unconditional right to buy, own, and carry any sort of firearm and ammo anywhere and anytime.
Why? The Second Amendment, hippie!
2. Any civilian carrying a gun has the absolute and unconditional right to shoot any other civilian who is likewise carrying a gun, anyplace and anytime.
Why? Two reasons.
First, as the NRA has explained, possessing firearms protects responsible gun owners from violence. So if you are one, and you’re carrying, you can rest easy knowing it doesn’t matter if others take the occasional potshot at you. You’ll be fine.
Second, as the NRA has also explained, only ready access to firearms protects responsible gun owners from violence. Every other conceivable measure is useless. So let’s 86 the legal prohibitions that currently pertain to this situation. Imagine how we’ll ease the burdens of the courts and the prisons. Think of the savings to the taxpayer.
3. If a civilian carrying a gun shoots a civilian who is not, it will be SOP for the police to shoot and kill him.
Why? Sportsmanship. If you have an itch to shoot someone, you have armed targets to choose among. If you instead open up on someone who can’t return fire, that’s unsportsmanlike conduct and should be penalized.
Also, it’s safer for the cops to gun you down than to try to take you alive.
There. Problem solved. Who decides who receives that Presidential Medal of Freedom? Somebody give them my email address.
1. Every civilian has the absolute and unconditional right to buy, own, and carry any sort of firearm and ammo anywhere and anytime.
Why? The Second Amendment, hippie!
2. Any civilian carrying a gun has the absolute and unconditional right to shoot any other civilian who is likewise carrying a gun, anyplace and anytime.
Why? Two reasons.
First, as the NRA has explained, possessing firearms protects responsible gun owners from violence. So if you are one, and you’re carrying, you can rest easy knowing it doesn’t matter if others take the occasional potshot at you. You’ll be fine.
Second, as the NRA has also explained, only ready access to firearms protects responsible gun owners from violence. Every other conceivable measure is useless. So let’s 86 the legal prohibitions that currently pertain to this situation. Imagine how we’ll ease the burdens of the courts and the prisons. Think of the savings to the taxpayer.
3. If a civilian carrying a gun shoots a civilian who is not, it will be SOP for the police to shoot and kill him.
Why? Sportsmanship. If you have an itch to shoot someone, you have armed targets to choose among. If you instead open up on someone who can’t return fire, that’s unsportsmanlike conduct and should be penalized.
Also, it’s safer for the cops to gun you down than to try to take you alive.
There. Problem solved. Who decides who receives that Presidential Medal of Freedom? Somebody give them my email address.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Brittany
(last edited May 05, 2013 10:15PM)
(new)
May 05, 2013 10:14PM
All gun control laws will do is put innocent people more at risk for violence from criminals. Not to mention that criminals can get guns no matter what the laws say. They can get drugs off the streets, right? Why wouldn't a criminal be able to get a gun. Plus if they are outlawed, wouldn't a criminal who knows the harsh penalties for carrying be more willing to put lives in danger to get away from cops? If you don't believe in owning guns, that's fine, but trying to force your beliefs down our throats just because you don't like ours is plain wrong. By the way I am not directing this at you, just at anti gun people in general.
reply
|
flag
Brittany, first off, I was not trying to force my beliefs down anyone's throat. I was expressing my own opinion in satirical form. The Constitution guarantees that right, too.Second, it's interesting that the arguments you just made to me are pretty much the same arguments that, for purposes of the article, I accepted as absolutely true. Then I simply derived a rational, efficient way for our society to operate based on those "truths."
Anyway, sorry if the piece didn't strike you as funny. There may be a reason that I don't write comedy professionally. No hard feelings (I hope), and have a nice day.
Richard wrote: "Brittany, first off, I was not trying to force my beliefs down anyone's throat. I was expressing my own opinion in satirical form. The Constitution guarantees that right, too.Second, it's interes..."
Okay so apparently you didn't read my last line. I said it was NOT directed at you, Sir. I was AGREEING with you. I meant "you" as a collective group that makes the pro gun control argument, not "you" as in you, the creator of this blog. I thought I was pretty clear...
I did read your last line but didn't give it as much weight as what came before it. After all, the whole darn message is a message to me. Plus, you said, "If YOU don't believe...but trying to force YOUR beliefs," etc.It felt to me that like a lot of people, you were trying to have your cake and eat it too when it came to saying something negative about somebody (in this case, me.) Haven't you ever communicated with people who slam you and then finish up with some comment that's supposed to make it awkward for you to respond in kind? I've communicated with a lot of those people. If you're not one of them, I apologize for inferring that you were.
