News of the Obvious:
17/6/14 09:02![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn today's news, people who are anti-gun decided to usurp the constitutional rights of the
"Board members and some in the audience argued that the ban violates their Second Amendment rights. Supporters said it doesn't make sense to allow people to openly carry guns as the area also tries to cultivate its image as a tourist destination for families.
"We've had a tough time over the years promoting Lake Ozark as a family area," said Alderman Larry Buschjost, who voted for the ban. "We want you on the Strip with families, everywhere in Lake Ozark with families. We want you to bring your kids down here and let them loose. For the life of me, I don't understand why I would have to carry any type of gun, concealed or otherwise."
So, as it turns out, the same mentality the NRA was for calling weird before it was against it is something that, when it cuts against the profit motive, takes a nosedive. Now, if the cargo cultists can explain why, if guns are so absolutely harmless, people would be afraid to bring kids into a town with a bunch of menchildren openly carrying their gun with them every single place they go, they're welcome to do so. Preferably an explanation that centers on why people with kids should not be afraid, as opposed to the idiotic idea that in the 21st Century small arms are decisive against the sheer firepower of the American military in the even that President Alexander von Doom decided to go Assad in some hypothetical dystopian future. Which is neither relevant to this nor germane to why the aldermen of this city issued the ban.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 16:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 16:55 (UTC)Area Total 7.95 sq mi
Population: 1600
...is trying hard to promote itself. Well done!
>>explain why, if guns are so absolutely harmless, people would be afraid to bring kids into a town with a bunch of menchildren openly carrying their gun...
Yeah, all 1600 menchildren with guns, ALL OF THEM!
This assumes people ARE afraid to bring kids there, and for this exactly reason. There is nothing in support of it in both articles referred.
>> I don't understand why I would have to carry any type of gun, concealed or otherwise.
If I don't do it - why would you? Flawless logic, let's leave it as is ;)
*takes popcorn, makes himself comfortable*
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 06:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 16:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 01:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 01:28 (UTC)Many of those pets are pretty hard to control if unleashed.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/14 01:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 17:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 19:26 (UTC)"Just because somebody felt scared is not a good enough reason to pass an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment," she said.
Well, she seems pretty stupid (regulation isn't a ban) and Gail is ignorant of District of Columbia versus Heller and what Justice Scalia and the majority wrote in their opinion. That by one of the most conservative justices on the most conservative Supreme courts this century.
(no subject)
Date: 17/6/14 22:25 (UTC)I guess it's a lose lose...but i'd take a handful of people with sidearms showing making everyone uncomfortable over a full-blown protest...
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 07:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 08:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/14 08:44 (UTC)