The pro-gun side has blocked gun violence research since the results of that research " may be used to advocate or promote gun control". Let's not forget all the rest of the disinformation put out by the "pro-gun side".
The pro-gun crowd fears people taking matters into their own hands with property owners banning guns on their properties and businesses. They don't want people using their first amendment rights to thwart their non-existant and fictitious "Second Amendment Right" (On the other hand, if you want to join the National Guard--go for it: that is your Second Amendment right if you REALLY want to exercise it).On the other hand, Comics have been subversive and have had an impact on gun laws. For example, the Batman Comic: Seduction of the Gun was supposed to have shamed the Virginia Legislature into adopting the one gun a month bill. The issue had been a created since a DC Comics executive's son was shot to death at a New York City pay phone.
The reality is that everyone in the United States is effected by gun violence whether they consciously realise it or not. Embracing the object which terrorises them is not a sign of "freedom"--it is a sign that they have been enslaved by their fear.Anyway, will something like a comic book character such as Archie, who is the symbol of American innocence, being shot be the wake up call which brings the debate about guns in American society to a crashing reality? Archie is the 1950s vision of the US which the right wants to somehow "bring back", yet he has fallen victim to their sick politics and distorted nostalgia. The only people who carried guns in the 1950s were cops or criminals with very few people feeling the "need" to carry. It was not seen as some sort of symbolic gesture that it has become in recent years.
Archie will die. Archie will die by someone shooting him.
America's innocence will die with him.
Unlike other acts of gun violence, this one is fictional and we know about it in advance. Let the furore commence.
The bottom line is that people have been using every trick in the book to not address this problem: from claiming that the Second Amendment somehow had nothing to do with a "well-regulated militia" to providing fake data to somehow prove that guns benefit society.
Maybe this will shock them into sense.
Wow Laci, in one post, you've managed to show two instances of being behind the times. The first in regard to that harbinger of vigilante justice known as Batman, since the one gun a month law was repealed a couple of years ago.
ReplyDeleteThe second in regards to your continued linking of the right to bear arms to membership in the National Guard. All I can say to that is, District of Columbia v. Heller, and Heller won.
And of course, you repeat the tired lament of gun violence research being blocked, when just the other day we discussed one of the first studies to be conducted as a result of executive action from the President. Unfortunately, the results of the study seem to support the usefulness of armed self defense.
"Comics have been subversive and have had an impact on gun laws. For example, the Batman Comic: Seduction of the Gun was supposed to have shamed the Virginia Legislature into adopting the one gun a month bill. The issue had been a created since a DC Comics executive's son was shot to death at a New York City pay phone."
"Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law was repealed this last General Assembly session. You can read “Seduction of the Gun” free online or buy a copy on the internet for a dollar or less."
There's still an Archie comic? And people still read it? And someone thinks it can be a vehicle for social change?
ReplyDeleteAnd you use Lt. Col. Robert "Bob the Mastur" Batemean as a source?
The laughs are coming thick and fast today!
Archie Comics--were those the boring ones people would give you that you'd look at for a few minutes and toss? After all, what kid wants to read a comic about a teenage soap opera?
DeleteIm going to ask a question i have asked on several occasions and have yet to get a logical answer to. How does it make sense to say that all of the other amendments are rights of the people and are massive restrictions on the government, but the 2nd amendment only applies when in service to, and on behalf of the government? You seem to believe that we dont see the problem and you are completely wrong on that assumption. The reality is that we see the problem, likely far more clearly than you do, and we have significantly different ideas on how to handle the problem.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
Since Laci's preferred reference materials are comic books, let's address your question with an illustrated answer. ;-)
DeleteExactly right, Kurt and MikeZ.
DeleteMikeZ,
DeleteNo point in even asking. The incongruity, the errors, and the flat out distortions in Laci's legal analysis have been pointed out in the past. His responses are to post facebook quizzes showing what an awesome barrister he is and to call people stupid for pointing out the glaringly obvious flaws in his analysis...if he even responds.
Best to just smile and nod and let him pass through shouting his garbage.
Another example of Laci's scholarship. He read it in a comic, so it must be so.
ReplyDeleteLaci, you must be appalled at the clear violation of our soldiers' right to keep and bear arms that happens at Fort Hood and every National Guard base in the country.
ReplyDelete