so i have this to say - if you didn't get a chance to read the comments: that woman that responded to my post yesterday and was very upset at me for (supposedly) advocating flag burning is exactly what i was referring to. people reacting out of the gut with absolutely no attention to what is really being said.
i guess to put a generalization on it - hypocrisy and ignorance just drive me bonkers. and judgementalness (i know it's not a word) but that is a topic for another day.
today's example: i saw a bumper stick that said "criminals prefer unarmed crimes". i mean, really! and i'll bet dollars to donuts that the asshole driving that truck gets pissed off that he has to press 1 for english - well, ya know what??!! ya dumb em - effer . . . english is apparently your second language too. hopefully you all realize that i am not talking about the sentiment which i assume goes something like - if we all had guns then there would be no criminals.
i mean i could argue against that a bit. in fact, again, let me make a point that people who claim to be red white and blue all the way through routinely miss. the intention behind the right to bear arms is to ensure that the government not be able to take over its citizens through might. the obvious point there is that the ammendment needs be revisited because in order to meet that criteria we would all have to be granted equal access to a-bombs and nuclear (not nucular) weaponry and biochemical weapons. the more subtle thing i might point out there is that our founding fathers were against the idea of might winning on sheer merit of strength alone.
anyway, even if i don't argue against the sentiment. that statement is grammatical wrong in so many ways it's almost a new language. and in that scenario there were at least two idiot - one printed the bumper tag and one bought it and stuck it on there.
i'd say there's a better than even chance that someone writes to give me shit about supporting illegal immigration.
BATH TIME!!!!!
2 comments:
Oh, God(dess). Gun rights... first flag burning, and now gun rights? Cassie, it's like you are sending me an easter egg basket of my favorite things to rant about.
While it is true that the federal government has the means to fully pacify the American public eventually, the question is, "at what cost?" See, with at least 120 million firearms and at least eighty million private gun owners in this country, we are the most armed people in the history of the planet.
Moreover, we have the various state National Guards, which are nominally federally controlled. They may not take too kindly to seeing their friends and family oppressed.
Granted, an insane federal government vaporizing Miami might put the fear of God(dess) into those that survive, but it would expose the federal government as insane and corrupt (I would hope), and eventually, power would be returned to the people.
Or not. After all, in a democracy, people get the government they deserve.
actually, i am in favor of gun rights - with some controls.
my point was/is that again people do a lot of fist pounding about things and don't necessarily have the first clue what they are ranting about.
i do think gun rights should be revisited because if we stick to the spirit of intention every american citizen has the right to firepower equal to the government.
as to the rest - idk; i mean, the whole country stood by when the japanese; italians and germans were rounded up into internment camps. no, i'm not equating the severity of the vaporization of miami (o dear goddess let it be miami - or houston) except in the sense that it was a government acting corrupt and no one blinked. and don't even get me started on the mccarthy trials.
Post a Comment