So all concept of the media massaging events is to be thrown out entirely, or can only discussed when pushed into extreme hyperbole? The intelligent thing to do is to immediately push all nuance out of the discussion? It is possible to criticize the media without running straight into "Lizard people who control the world want your guns" territory.
As soon a someone discusses a large disparate group of journalistic entities that compete with each other as "the media", and then assigns a singular "agenda", then yes lizard people are clearly involved.
If by "nuance" you mean inherent bias that you disagree with, then you have something to discuss. That's far different than a cohesive shared agenda and it says more about your disagreement with the bias and your insecurity about where your values are compared to the majority
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I appreciate an effort to ban assault weapons, but why not ban all hand-held weapons? Some kid brings a Beretta to school and offs a clip in his class, at close-range, isn't that just as dangerous? There just simply isn't a need for guns of any type. Most people in the world live their day-to-day lives without even the remote need for ownership of killing machines, which guns are. Ban them all.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
I appreciate an effort to ban assault weapons, but why not ban all hand-held weapons? Some kid brings a Beretta to school and offs a clip in his class, at close-range, isn't that just as dangerous? There just simply isn't a need for guns of any type. Most people in the world live their day-to-day lives without even the remote need for ownership of killing machines, which guns are. Ban them all.
That's no realistic. There is a second amendment that has been interpreted allowing people to own guns. In retrospect it hasn't gone well, but it's a right nonetheless and I'm not one for flippantly giving up constitutionally protected freedoms.
That said, there are ways to make gun ownership difficult that clearly the US isn't interested in hearing.
I do not own guns, I don't hunt and I'm Canadian but even I'm offended by suggesting an outright ban on guns.
That's no realistic. There is a second amendment that has been interpreted allowing people to own guns. In retrospect it hasn't gone well, but it's a right nonetheless and I'm not one for flippantly giving up constitutionally protected freedoms.
That said, there are ways to make gun ownership difficult that clearly the US isn't interested in hearing.
I do not own guns, I don't hunt and I'm Canadian but even I'm offended by suggesting an outright ban on guns.
That's cool. For me, I just don't see any need for them at all. Guns are inanimate objects designed to injure and kill, and I still don't understand why, in the 21st century, they have a constitutionally protected freedom. Again, many people, well, most people - live their lives day to day without feeling the need to own these inanimate objects.
Also, if guns are constitutionally protected, they should write a new amendment to protect pizza. Pizza brings happiness and joy to all, and is worthy of a 21st century amendment to the constitution.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
That's cool. For me, I just don't see any need for them at all. Guns are inanimate objects designed to injure and kill, and I still don't understand why, in the 21st century, they have a constitutionally protected freedom. Again, many people, well, most people - live their lives day to day without feeling the need to own these inanimate objects.
Also, if guns are constitutionally protected, they should write a new amendment to protect pizza. Pizza brings happiness and joy to all, and is worthy of a 21st century amendment to the constitution.
But then it could turn into an argument to ban other things deemed needless.
Like the pitbull debate in this city. What is the need for a pitbull?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I appreciate an effort to ban assault weapons, but why not ban all hand-held weapons? Some kid brings a Beretta to school and offs a clip in his class, at close-range, isn't that just as dangerous? There just simply isn't a need for guns of any type. Most people in the world live their day-to-day lives without even the remote need for ownership of killing machines, which guns are. Ban them all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
That's cool. For me, I just don't see any need for them at all. Guns are inanimate objects designed to injure and kill, and I still don't understand why, in the 21st century, they have a constitutionally protected freedom. Again, many people, well, most people - live their lives day to day without feeling the need to own these inanimate objects.
Also, if guns are constitutionally protected, they should write a new amendment to protect pizza. Pizza brings happiness and joy to all, and is worthy of a 21st century amendment to the constitution.
Shooting is a lot of fun.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
If it's just for the entertainment value or hobby of shooting couldn't we do like bowling alleys and go to a shooting range and renting a gun by the hour?
If it's just for the entertainment value or hobby of shooting couldn't we do like bowling alleys and go to a shooting range and renting a gun by the hour?
Why the need for ownership?
Ownership of anything is always better. Serious bowlers have their own balls.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
True but a bowling ball is less likely to kill someone when it isn't secured properly. I just feel that all these guns cause paranoia and quick triggers because Americans don't know who else is carrying.