My Dream

That this country could wake up from its gun fetish.

The gun industry,  its manufacturers, ammo producers and its advocates eat up enough money to stamp out many societal ills, but all of the money is wasted on toys people will only ever shoot at a target at a gun range.  They should all go the way of the carriage:  just a novelty of fake wild west shows.  Let the real entertainers — the thespians — take over to show us how it was in the day.

Having a handgun didn’t seem to help Michael Berry.

Advertisements

12 responses to “My Dream

  1. Olsonus Maximus

    Assuming that anything causing society ill can be cured with money thrown at it. Really, are you five? As for the “toys people will only ever shoot at a target at a gun range” comment, I hope you’re right. I never want to have to use my firearm to kill another human being, but if I need to, it’s there. I keep a fire extinguisher in my house; not out of the hope that a fire will erupt in it, but out of the comfort in the knowledge that it is there should I need it. Also, are you implying that the personally earned money people spend on firearms — freely– should be taken and used in programs they may not want or agree with? Wow. You realize that the carriage didn’t just go away, right? It evolved and was developed into what is now known as something called the “automobile”, which consequently causes more deaths per year than firearms in our nation. The firearms of “carriage days” have done the same thing; they’ve evolved and developed. Another thing — what the hell does some conservative talk show host getting carjacked have to do with a gun fetish? I don’t see how your original point and the article you posted connect. No where in the piece did it mention a firearm at anytime. Why would you put it up there?

    I seriously hope you aren’t serious about this, I really do, but you’re entitled to your opinion just as much as me — which is frightening.

    • Did you mean societal ills?

      You realize my point, right? Why didn’t Michael Berry use his gun when he was carjacked -ahem — forgot where his car was parked?

      Your defense is lame and a little late. Michael Berry has already proven my point.

      As to yours, well, times are changing. My hope is that you all shoot each other and leave folks like me alone.

      • Olsonus Maximus

        Well I’m back. I saw your responses to my comments so I’ll do the same for you, point by point, if that’s okay.

        >Did you mean societal ills?

        No. In the context of the sentence I had made where I stated, “causing society ill”, the word “society” is a noun, not an adjective.

        >You realize my point, right? Why didn’t Michael Berry use his gun when he was carjacked -ahem — forgot where his car was parked?

        No, I didn’t get your point. I have, or had, no prior knowledge of Micheal Berry. You made an attempt to educate me — your audience — by placing a link in the comment you posted. The webpage linked was that of an article on Micheal Berry, who had been carjacked and who then had his car found later on in the evening by police. Is Micheal Berry an outspoken proponent of firearm ownership and usage (more specifically concealed carry)? Has he stated in the past that he carries or has access to a firearm at all times? As I have said, I don’t know Micheal Berry or his personal habits. I’m assuming (which is a dangerous thing to do in this case) that he is somewhat of a well known individual in your area and you have been made aware of his views on firearms. With the intimate knowledge of his views, you decided to put a link up that supposedly supported your view on how Micheal Berry’s access to a firearm didn’t help him when he was assaulted. In the future, should you wish to get a point across, a little more background information would be wise. This is especially important when trying to express your own opinions to a large audience; i.e., the internet.

        • Olsonus Maximus

          >Your defense is lame and a little late. Michael Berry has already proven my point.

          If you could possibly expound on what classifies my defense as “lame”, it would be much appreciated. I do admit that I went a little overboard when I suggested that you were five. That was not the correct way to go about an adult discussion of ideas and opinion. I had forgotten the first rule of debate, and that is to never insult your opponent personally. A simple tearing down of their logic is the proper way to go about debate.

          Now, about the lateness of my reply I only have to say this; do you really think I saw your original post all the way back in January, 2011, and have spent the interim period thinking of a rebuttal? Honestly. I was made aware of your post yesterday and I felt moved enough by your opinions to submit a reply. I earnestly hope that you didn’t just post an opinion like that on the internet in the hope of only finding people who agree with you. If you did, there are numerous “members only” websites that have very good ways of keeping people out who wish challenge thought systems or beliefs. Yet, as it stands, you put your thoughts onto a public webpage, where literally anyone with a computer and internet connection can respond, and it will stay that way until either you remove your post or the internet dies.

        • Olsonus Maximus

          >Your defense is lame and a little late. Michael Berry has already proven my point.

          If you could possibly expound on what classifies my defense as “lame”, it would be much appreciated. I do admit that I went a little overboard when I suggested that you were five. That was not the correct way to go about an adult discussion of ideas and opinion. I had forgotten the first rule of debate, and that is to never insult your opponent personally. A simple tearing down of their logic is the proper way to go about debate.

        • In the context of the sentence I had made where I stated, “causing society ill”, the word “society” is a noun, not an adjective.

          Your problem is with the verb cause. One can cause something or cause someone to do something, but cause + noun + adj doesn’t work grammatically. You should know your audience when writing 🙂

          Also, one might write or craft a sentence, but I doubt you can find anyone who made a sentence.

          I apologize if English is not your first language. Perhaps you speak some Southern variety of the language?

          You commented on a post about guns with a link to Michael Berry. Why you would do so is a mystery to me if you don’t even know who he is. Unless you are simply trying to defend your narrow view of the 2nd Amendment.

          Face it. You saw someone on 4chan link to something I wrote and came in to this blog to state your rights.

          I get it. Just keep your damned guns in your house and unloaded. If you feel the need to stock up on guns because a Democrat is in the White House, then you are a sucker of the first order. You probably tried to order this too.

  2. 1. Not everyone that owns a gun has a gum fetish.
    People that own guns ususally have them because they may need them, that is for self defense. God bless them if that ever happens.
    2.The gun industry has done nothing wrong with people and has produced no ills within society. If anything, people will probably be using these “toys” to defend themselves (God bless them if they need to).
    3. Guns are far from toys and should not be treated that way. You can shoot yourself if you are being an idiot with it.
    4. Guns will most likely never be replaced, unless people don’t need to provide for their family (hunting) or crime stops and there is no need to defend oneself.

    • Even after that, guns still won’t go away. A father can use a rifle to teach his son discipline, such as to treat every gun as if it is loaded.
      5.So you are saying that if everyone were to give up their guns, and crime continued, that life would be perfect and we would have a perfect nation? Criminals don’t care.
      6. Just because someone had a handgun while getting mugged doesn’t mean they will always use it. Your point is invalid.
      7. If society produces ills from guns, why dkn’t they just ban Call of Duty? Because apparently kids these days are being taught the wrong things by society, not guns. The goal of the game is what is teaching them the wrong things, not the fact that guns can kill people.

      • Sorry for any misspellings, I’m saging this from a smartphone.

        • You can leave God out of any of this. God didn’t say anything in his many books about guns. That the Constitution of this country has been used by people like you to arm this country against itself is a travesty. Like I said, you all are just going to shoot each other. Texas A&M just published a study that supports my point of view. You should look it up and enlighten yourself.

          I have little problem with you gun fetish types offing each other, just learn to shoot straight and don’t shoot kids, ok?

          • Why am I even doing this? Your mind probably won’t change. Ill just leave it up to the guy who breaks into your house, rapes you, takes everything and kills you. But hey, I can’t change your mind anymore.

            You said that there was some study or something that I should look up. Well, here’s a gun facts PDF download for you.
            https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11029167/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

            And of right now, I could care less about your blog. Also probably the last time I’ll post.

  3. Olsonus Maximus

    Well I’m back. I saw your responses to my comments so I’ll do the same for you, point by point, if that’s okay.

    >Did you mean societal ills?

    No. In the context of the sentence I had made where I stated, “causing society ill”, the word “society” is a noun, not an adjective.

    >You realize my point, right? Why didn’t Michael Berry use his gun when he was carjacked -ahem — forgot where his car was parked?

    No, I didn’t get your point. I have, or had, no prior knowledge of Micheal Berry. You made an attempt to educate me — your audience — by placing a link in the comment you posted. The webpage linked was that of an article on Micheal Berry, who had been carjacked and who then had his car found later on in the evening by police. Is Micheal Berry an outspoken proponent of firearm ownership and usage (more specifically concealed carry)? Has he stated in the past that he carries or has access to a firearm at all times? As I have said, I don’t know Micheal Berry or his personal habits. I’m assuming (which is a dangerous thing to do in this case) that he is somewhat of a well known individual in your area and you have been made aware of his views on firearms. With the intimate knowledge of his views, you decided to put a link up that supposedly supported your view on how Micheal Berry’s access to a firearm didn’t help him when he was assaulted. In the future, should you wish to get a point across, a little more background information would be wise. This is especially important when trying to express your own opinions to a large audience; i.e., the internet.

    >Your defense is lame and a little late. Michael Berry has already proven my point.

    If you could possibly expound on what classifies my defense as “lame”, it would be much appreciated. I do admit that I went a little overboard when I suggested that you were five. That was not the correct way to go about an adult discussion of ideas and opinion. I had forgotten the first rule of debate, and that is to never insult your opponent personally. A simple tearing down of their logic is the proper way to go about debate.

    Now, about the lateness of my reply I only have to say this; do you really think I saw your original post all the way back in January, 2011, and have spent the interim period thinking of a rebuttal? Honestly. I was made aware of your post yesterday and I felt moved enough by your opinions to submit a reply. I earnestly hope that you didn’t just post an opinion like that on the internet in the hope of only finding people who agree with you. If you did, there are numerous “members only” websites that have very good ways of keeping people out who wish challenge thought systems or beliefs. Yet, as it stands, you put your thoughts onto a public webpage, where literally anyone with a computer and internet connection can respond, and it will stay that way until either you remove your post or the internet dies.

    And, as stated earlier, Micheal Berry has not made your point.

    >As to yours, well, times are changing. My hope is that you all shoot each other and leave folks like me alone.

    The second to last sentence is somewhat confusing. I’m assuming (again, a dangerous thing) that your statement “As to yours” meant, more or less, “to each his own”. This sentiment is a good one, if it was indeed the one you were trying to express. Yes, times are changing and as I mentioned in my first post, so have firearms. They will be here for the foreseeable future and most likely be here long after they have become obsolete. How will they become obsolete? By being replaced by a more efficient method of applying violence or the threat of it. Knives, swords, bows; none of these have gone away with the creation of the firearm, and I don’t rightfully think they ever will.

    Now your last comment where you hope that we’ll “all shoot each other and leave folks like [you] alone”, is rather nasty, at least in my opinion. First off, do you really want the mass murder/suicide of all firearm owners? Self inflicted or not, it is rather – dire. I mean, think about it for a second: The best estimation given to us by the U.S. Census Bureau (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America) is roughly 80 million people. That’s a lot of people to be shooting each other. Also, you wanted people who own firearms to leave “folks like [you] alone”. Is this a problem where you live? Are firearm owners bothering you and infringing your rights? I for one find this hard to believe. I’m going to assume (there’s that word again) that one of three things have happened to you to make you want this:

    1.) In your personal history, you have had someone endanger your life with a firearm.
    2.) You have heard and agree with brief or statistical data supporting the thought that firearms are excessively dangerous along with their owners.
    3.) Your egocentrism makes you think that people you don’t know honestly wish to bother you for no apparent reason.

    In each case it seems to me that selfishness, in one form or another, is the root for thinking this way. Now I fully support your right to not own or wish to own firearms, but are you so selfish in your way of thinking to wish that no one had the right to them?

    I look forward to your next reply! This dialog is rather fun!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s