Yet another gun thread?!
Instead of guns, this thread is now about that (purr) Tiger of Style, Tim Gunn.
(Yeah, I’m worn out on gun threads too)
Peter Gunn!
Charles Gunn!
Gun(n)s. We’re takin’ em back. (Dodges flaming tomatoes)
Needs more Noise.
Wait, we’re in favour of the terror watch list now?
And while we’re on the subject, was it super-duper necessary to feed into the “all terrorists are Muslims” thing by drawing a swarthy guy with a beard being the first in line for an assault rifle? Like I kind of think that the Muslim-American population has had the shit kicked out of it enough this week.
No, we’re not.
But it does rather speak to the utter logical and intellectual incoherence of ammosexuals. On the one hand we’re apparently so shit-scared of some folks that we can’t even have them sitting next to us on a plane, yet on the other hand they’re such stand-up folk that they can have all the firepower they want. Wait, what?
Meh, what’s one more bit of illogic, when the real goal is just to SELL MORE GUNS!!!
But, uh, people guilty of travelling while brown are the main population of the NFL, no?
That’s true, but they don’t account for the majority of gun crimes in the U.S.A., and only a fraction of rampage shootings. I think it’s lazy design if the shorthand you’re going for is “potential terrorist.”
Granted, it’s tricky, given that the NFL is a pretty horrible institution on its face–but since it’s being framed negatively in this context (“the government won’t let these people on planes but they give them guns?!”) it just seems sort of problematic to feed into that right-wing image of the snickering, hand-wringing Arab, ready to grab a gun and go shoot a bald eagle or something.
That’s a pretty concise summary of the sloppy thinking at work.
My somewhat detached concern as a foreigner is this: either firearm ownership is a constitutional right or it is not. (You can argue you about whether it should be, on which I’m not going to comment, except to say that I’m British and I like the fact that our police are generally unarmed, so draw your own conclusions.) But if it is a constitutional right, then allowing the government to arbitrarily deny it to certain people, on the basis of a list the government gets to draw up without review or appeal, is a very slippery slope.
Bonus points for the use of a crazy wall.
Yeah. There are conditions and limits on everything stated in the Constitution, but in general yeah. Let’s take Voting for example:
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
So yes, even though it is an enumerated right, it can still be revoked (felony disenfranchisement).
As a nation we need to be very careful. And we have gotten it wrong before.
But the moment you use race/creed/orientation/ability as a basis of law, you had better have a damn. Good. Reason.
