jsbowden: (Default)
jsbowden ([personal profile] jsbowden) wrote2009-04-14 08:38 am
Entry tags:

Stuffage, Comma, Random...

On Saturday, I have my final test for second degree. I hope I pass. I was making stupid mistakes in my forms on Saturday during class. Little things like a closed fist instead of an open hand on a block or strike here and there. Hopefully, this coming Saturday will be better.

On another random topic, Newsweek was annoying me yesterday. We got a free *mumble* month subscription for some reason I can't remember, and this week's issue has an article on how Obama is a huge pussy for not pushing for more gun control.

The article starts off with a story about a recent incident in Pittsburgh where some guy shot some cops with his AK-47 and how the assault weapons ban would have prevented this. Now, I've never met a gun that WASN'T an assault weapon. A gun is a weapon. Period. That's the whole fucking POINT. All guns operate on the same principle and in the same fashion. The only differences are caliber, barrel length, and action. Even leaving all that aside, a fully automatic AK-47 is ALREADY NOT FUCKING LEGAL without the appropriate FFL, which this person did not have. The ban on Scary Looking Guns (which is what this article was primarily focusing on) wouldn't have made one fucking bit of difference in this instance.

Dear Left Wing Idiot Reporters:

Please, just fucking stop. You only make yourself look stupid to people who actually have a clue, and the rest are so numb to fear mongering thanks to the last eight years that this will no longer have much impact on driving them into a frenzy.

This is one of those areas where I hate being associated with the left leaning side of the political spectrum. Fear politics are just as fucking repugnant from the left as they are from the right, and the lefties have been pushing this particular button for decades.

[identity profile] publius1.livejournal.com 2009-04-14 02:57 pm (UTC)(link)
The truth of the matter is, gun proponents won the argument a long time ago.

[identity profile] prince-corwin.livejournal.com 2009-04-14 03:29 pm (UTC)(link)
And this wouldn't-- I'd have thought-- be a fight that risk-averse politicians would want to open up again. Didn't Clinton himself come right out and say that it cost way too much capital for way too little effect with the added benefit of losing the Democrats control of Congress in his second term?

(One of these days, I need to buckle down and actually read his autobiography.)

this is all so weird to me

[identity profile] askesis.livejournal.com 2009-04-14 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)

The position of the average Texas liberal on guns is: "When are we headed to the range?"


[identity profile] voltbang.livejournal.com 2009-04-15 12:58 am (UTC)(link)
Some democrats will be tempted to spend their current political capital on gun control. Most of those will get spanked as a result. It's part of a two party system, when one team wins, all of their causes win, even if some of those causes are wildly unpopular. I suspect it will take a few more spankings to really carve that one issue out as political suicide.

Clinton said that it was gun control that lost congress, that beat Al Gore, and that finished off what's his name, that guy who lost to Bush the second time around. A monkey in a suit could have beat him, but they still lost.