Trayvon Martin.

Yeah, I hear you plan. On one hand, I think it's a good thing to bring awareness to the issue as I do think, based on my understanding, that this particular law has some problems. On the other hand, I can easily get numbed as I have to ask whether this is in the same vein as the Lamestream Media freaking out when a pretty white girl goes missing, while ignoring all the other people/children/etc that go missing on regular basis. The classic question: Does the sheer overwhelming amount of shittiness in this world make it ok to ignore the small amount of shittiness that you might actually be able to do something about? I think not, but I can understand the cynicism. Happens to the best of us...

 

Is it cynicism? Is that what we call this? The reason why it's easy to focus on the Trayvon case is because it's today's media sensation: step aside little white girl, we've got one coulda-been-something kid with a relatively unique (if nearly vampire) name that got gunned down by a so-called vigilante with a legal handgun. Race issue. Gun issue. It's remarkable because it was a non-black citizen with a legal gun instead of the usual statistic.

And we don't like hard. Hard is the realization that it's 2012 and in places like Syracuse, NY, African-American parents get their 8th graders a no-shit limousine ride to their dress-up middle school "graduation" because half of them won't make it out of high school. Hard is the percentage of racial minorities in college versus those incarcerated. Hard is the fact that we're kinda okay with it. We're so "outraged" but too comfortable to change.

"We can't fix those things." "Too much money." "I don't want to pay more (any) taxes." "Those people will never change." Shit I hear at work.

As usual, this shooting has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with people.

But we can't fix people, can we? As individuals. As groups. So we fix guns.

The adult legislative temper tantrum.

More bullshit and fairy dust.

And the beat goes on.

 

This whole "the brady campaign wants to take my guns away, so I am going to lobby for no restrictions at all" is such a non-sequitur. First, because in a post Heller world, the danger of that happening simply sin't there. A few cities might restrict carrying in public, but other than that, there is no one taking guns away. Recent cases have even given some felons their right to have a gun back. If anything, we are at a point where gun rights trump other rights (in some states you are allowed to take guns into work even if the employer objects, or places additional burdens on private property owners who want to restrict guns in their property, or have laws prohibiting doctors from even asking about guns - making it so apparently the second amendment trumps both the 1st and 5th). So let's just stop with this "I go over the top because of the Brady campaign."

 

dippin,

It helps if you quote previous posts instead of shotgunning a 22 page, 400 post thread.

 

considering that the reference to "took all the guns away" and brady campaign stuff is literally less than 10 posts above mine and took the bigger part of a page, I thought it was obvious.

 

Equine corpse is black and blue all over. Sorry for missing your one particular black spot. Quoting shit doesn't hurt.

 

dippin, this is a one-track thread. no one is going to touch that with a ten foot pole.
I think I finally figured it out.

 

it's obviously hard to argue from counter-factuals. what one might imagine a response to lindy's question is a function of what you imagine this situation to be about. personally, i think this largely about vigilantism in the context of a legal frame that basically legitimates it. defenders of syg laws have little choice but to emphasize the particularities of zimmerman's actions and the police dept's initial (non) response to it. opponents of syg laws are inclined to argue a direct relation between this law and the police department's (non) response as opening up unnecessary and dangerous space for vigilante action. i don't see this as particular about race, but i can see why folk would latch onto it as if it were a factor--white petit bourgeois victimhood has an appeal, it seems....but i think that's beside the point here. a distraction. if the counter-factual matter of how press coverage would have gone in a very different situation, it'd be better to find one rather than spin about speculating, don't you think? and such a case would likely raise questions that would questions that would, not surprisingly, entirely obscure the issues raised by this case.

it's also largely uninteresting to argue about aesthetic positions concerning violence in general and what might constitute a sensible response to them because they're aesthetic positions, vague senses of how people are or how things are that have no particular analytic content to them. to my mind, you want to think about violence you have to think about american class warfare. i see the explanation for why people might imagine violence could be visited upon them to the point where they'd be inclined to walk around strapped is a matter of whether one imagines class warfare to be normal or not. maybe that's why there's so often a right/left divide on the question of whether it makes sense to allow people to wander about with artillery. hard to know.

so far as this case is concerned in particular, i'm interested to see how the game in the courts plays out. maybe i'll revisit the thread at that point.

 

How rich is the white guy? Remember, poor white males are the new stat: forgettable-boring-common yet without the race stigma.

...

Ya know, I've never thought about carrying a firearm for self-defense as an extension of class warfare.

I wonder if I can replace the variable "gun" with "healthcare" and "education" and "social safety net."

I'm armed with all sorts of shit.

 

And yet none of it is pertinent.

Inasmuch as we can all agree that media sensationalism is bad, vehemently arguing that things would be different if they were indeed different is just plain trolling.

I've enjoyed following this discussion and the links provided but you're now causing the same sort of echo chamber you set out to disrupt. Knock it off please. Thanks.

xx

 

...

WEB FORUMS:
"If it's all so blatantly obvious then why waste the keystrokes?"​

...​

 

Lest we think that Florida has a corner on the armed douchebag market:

Employee faces charges after shooting at fleeing shoplifter » Knoxville News Sentinel



Seriously, a shoplifter? And the boss is a complete moron.

 

"God was totally in charge of that whole incident."

Please... please just me kill me now. With a bat.

And it wasn't even a bottle of Blue Label. WTF?

 

I agree the store owner is in the wrong here but when I read-

I can't help but think "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." I'm not at all saying he was justified simply that I can see a possible root of the lunacy. Which in no way makes him (her?) less of a lunatic who shouldn't be in possession of fire arms in my opinion.

But the bottom line is this is the point where responsible gun owners and irresponsible ones differ. Much like many things people own and use a gun must be used responsibly and I'd think that even the most ardent NRA supporter would agree that "you just can't go out shooting everywhere." Just because you've been robbed in the past does not give the a free pass to use the "spray and pray" method of weapon discharge in public. No more so then being stuck in mind numbing traffic day after day or dealing with crappy drivers who cut you off, flip you off... whatever would give you the right to drive 65mph on the sidewalk.

​

 

God works in mysterious ways. Sometimes he even confounds himself.

God had no comment when we called him. However, sources close to God said, "It was way cool".

 

God, as a witness for the defense, will testify that the old man was never in control of his own actions. God will admit that He set up the whole thing. He can't help Himself. He gets such a big kick out of near misses.

 

Quoi? You rang?

 

Picture is improperly labeled. The pistol in the strong hand of our LORD and Savior is a Beretta M9, not a Glock.

Artist is obviously a douche bag. He doesn't know guns worth a shit and gave Jesus a horrible, horrible pistol.