On a day when several weak-kneed senators acquiesced to the NRA’s whim, and defeated a chance at making some progress in reducing gun violence, we have a stark contrast to how our country is dealing with the atrocities of Monday in Boston.
On a day when several weak-kneed senators acquiesced to the NRA’s whim, and defeated a chance at making some progress in reducing gun violence, we have a stark contrast to how our country is dealing with the atrocities of Monday in Boston.
It is incredibly disturbing how quickly some loudmouths are calling the bombing a “false flag”, as if the FBI or other government agencies planted bombs with some ulterior motive. It is even more disturbing that some people are so paranoid that they believe these theories.
I’ve been told by some people that raising the minimum wage: a) would reward lazy employees; b) would be a disincentive to work more or harder; c) would be a disincentive to move “up the ladder”; d) was never designed to be a “living” wage; e) was designed for teenagers and those just starting out.
Can we get past the hammer/chainsaw/baseball bat/etc. talk? Guns are meant to shoot living or inanimate targets, period. They serve no other purpose. People will kill with whatever tool they have if they are determined enough. However, guns kill much faster; they require much less intimate association/contact with the victim. They are a much more effective tool than a hammer, bat, knife, chainsaw, icepick, etc., if a sick soul wants to cause carnage. The “if he had used a baseball bat they would outlaw baseball bats” argument is facetious.
Consider that the amendment was ratified back in 1791; the weapon they used back then was a musket. There were no atomic bombs, tanks, AR-15s or M16s or RPGs or SAMs around at that time. Did the Founders intend for the amendment to apply only to the musket? It doesn’t say that in the amendment. No specific weapon is identified. This is open for interpretation.