HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » FlynnArcher72 » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

FlynnArcher72

Profile Information

Member since: Wed May 15, 2013, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 12

Journal Archives

A Sensible Alternative to Guns

I wrote this a few years ago. Thought I would let it see the light again in lights of the last few months... Enjoy!


A Sensible Alternative to Guns
(A Proposal)

Recent political discourse and media coverage have, as of late, been largely focused on pounding everyone about the head with the idea of the government playing doctor with everyone in the country. As a result, many of the other important issues and talking points have been unceremoniously brushed aside like a bad case of dandruff.
I would, thus, like to take a moment to re-visit one of these recently abandoned topics and present what I feel would be a solution that would be suitable for all involved.
Gun Control.
While being a subject close to the hearts and minds of Red-neck Christian Nut-jobs and Racist Second Amendment Freaks everywhere, I firmly believe the government –and our beloved leader– can take a strong and commanding role in leading our country in the right direction in beating the Right-to-Bear-Arms into a bloody pulp once and for all. If done with care and understanding, we could well see the day when we are finally rid of gun-toting maniacs wandering the streets.
But how will the common man defend himself against the violent thugs, criminals, and conservative evil-doers once guns are no longer available to the public at large? The solution is simple: Federal Regulation. The powers that rightfully plot the course of our lives can help lead us in the proper direction, as it has always done since the days of Woodrow Wilson. It can all be summed up in a single word:
Puppies.
You have read correctly, dear reader. Puppies.
Allow me to elaborate. Upon being confronted with a gun-wielding maniac intent on depriving one of life, money, or NRA membership card, simply throw a puppy at the underprivileged individual. Distracted by the cuteness of said canine and disarmed by the sad eyes and wagging tail, the misguided malcontent will immediately give up all attempts to incite further harm and duress upon their intended victim. After all, what self-respecting human being could possibly resist the allure of a loveable, adorable puppy?
The Federal Government can play an important role in helping American Citizens to better defend themselves. I propose a two-part program that can easily be funded without raising the taxes of the average American by one cent.
The first phase of this program, called “Greenbacks for Guns”, will present each individual a credit voucher for each weapon required to be voluntarily turned in. These vouchers can then be used toward the purchase of a new puppy of that individual’s choice. In order to ensure proper and fair distribution of puppies among Americans who represent minority and/or underprivileged areas of society, the choice of breed should be broken down as follows:


African American Citizens
Beagle, Jack-Russell Terrier, Labrador, or Alaskan or Siberian husky pups.

Hispanic or Non-Registered Working Citizens
Basset Hound, Collie, German Sheppard, or Cocker Spaniel pups.

Asian, Middle Eastern, and Single Mothers
Golden Retriever, Boston terrier, Doberman, or Saint Bernard pups.

White People (Income $0 - $25,000)
Pug or Chihuahua pups

White People (Income $25,000 - $200,000)
Bulldog pup.

White People (Income $200,000 and up)
One adult cat. *

*A $30,000 annual charge for litter disposal will be charged to the cat holder. This money will go toward the funding the Cash for Greenbacks and other related programs.

The firearms collected during these trade-ins will be carefully packaged and shipped to Mexico for safe and proper disposal.
As is obvious to any layperson, this program is only effective so long as the puppies in question remain cute and cuddly. Since the puppies will eventually grow into adult dogs, they will naturally be of no further use. This will then bring us to the second phase of the program, called “Cash for Canines”.
American citizens may trade in their old, outdated mongrels for new puppies. For each adult dog traded in, another voucher good toward the purchase of a new puppy will be awarded. Due to the need to ensure fair distribution of funds, cats will not be accepted under this part of the program as they have no legitimate value anyway.
All adult dogs turned in through this manner will be packaged and shipped to the soon-to-be-commissioned Michael Vick Institute for Animal Retirement for proper and humane disposal so as to help keep the stray population under control.

As can be plainly seen, such a program can work to both ensure the safety of American citizens and redevelop a sense of trust in the Federal Government’s ability to manage the lives of it people. By working together, we can all build a brighter future and a safer tomorrow.

Posted by FlynnArcher72 | Sun May 26, 2013, 09:10 AM (0 replies)

This is just....wow

Okay, at the risk of showing just how big of a nerd I was growing up, I used to tie my jacket around my neck during recess and run around pretending I was "The Greatest American Hero" (a favorite show when I was a kid). We would also divide up into teams and play "GI:Joe". This always involved us kids running around like loons, spouting off cheesy cartoon rhetoric, and being all rough and tumble about it. Star Wars was also huge, with scavenged sticks and tree branches becoming powerful lightsabers. Anther favorite of mine was to pretend I was Spider-man. I would grab onto the swing set chain and imagine I was swinging to the rescue. We played dodge ball and recounted the tales of our glories in battle to all who would hear them. We got bruised up, scraped up, battered, and knocked around. It was an absolute blast. We of the generation of old would come home with our battle scars earned from going toe-to-to with Cobra agents, Sith lords, and other baddies and listen as our parents aked us what the hell happened. When told of the brave and fearless adventures we had embarked on, we would be promptly and properly bandaged and sent back out into the field. That was the whole pint of being a kid and letting your imgination run wild.
Now, kids in school cannot so much as stick out their tonue at another kid without someone crying foul and ranting about the potential harm it could do to our kids. It is as if the adults of today have forgotten what it means to be a child and how important such play is to their development into adults. I sincerely hope this trend over the last couple of decades comes to a crashing halt and people stop being so damned paranoid about such things.
Posted by FlynnArcher72 | Wed May 22, 2013, 10:13 PM (0 replies)

The ignorance here is staggering, but the law is the law

I understand the very good point Matthew made here. If they were to investigate the relationships at the high school, how many 17 year old boys are dating 14 or 15 year old girls? For that matter, how many 17 year old girls are doing the same with younger boys? If the letter of the law is to be followed, then it would be fair and just to weed out these relationships as well, but there will be nothiing done in this direction. The core of this is fear and hate, pure and simple. Had the younger girl's parents been more accepting of the life choice of their daughter, would thay have raised as much of a stink about this? Possibly, but possibly not.
I have a daughter who is 15 going on 16. If she were dataing a boy three years older than her while still a minor, I would have a few issues with it (admittedly, though, I tend to be a bit over-protective in this regard). Hwever, if the guy she was dating were to have proven himself to be honorable, decent, and not a total schmuck, then I would be a bit more tolerant (barely. Over-protective, remember?). It would be the same in my mind if she started seeing a girl. In either case, despite my fatherly tendency t not like anyone my daughter dates, her significant other would have to do something truly horrible to provoke the response thie parents in this story engaged in.
I noticed in the comments that the subject of sex was raised, although it was not mentioned in the actual story. I am not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. I understand that teens will veer off into the land of sex and, as parents, the best we can hope for is that they wait, but that is not always going to happen. If the two girls were simply involved with no sex in the relationship, then the charges are a bit over the top. If they did have a sexual relationship, the law is pretty clear on the matter and there is little that can be done at this point unless the 17 year old can find a way to beat the charges she has been ambushed with.
That is the key phrase here. The girl was ambushed, pure and simple. There was no effort by the younger girl's parents to desolve the relationship they did not approve of in aby other way. There were no prir cmplaints filed by the parents to the school, no effort to contact the older girl's parents too express their concerns and wishes, and no attempt made to speak to the girls themselves. The parents decided to bide their time and go for the throat. That is very low and reveals more about their lack of character than anything else.
I would have understood if the younger girl's parents, opposed to gay or lesbian relationships, refused to allow the girls to see each other. They have a right to their belief and opinion and the right to raise their daughter as they see fit while she is a minor. I would not have had a problem with this, even though I would have disagreed with their lack of tolerance. Thier family, their choice. What I don't understand is how they can be so paranoid, so hateful, and so vicious about it that they decided the best possible course of action is to potentially ruin the life of a young woman simply on the basis that she had fallen in love with their daughter. Above all else, that shows how mind-numbingly ignorant the younger girl's parents are.
Posted by FlynnArcher72 | Wed May 22, 2013, 09:44 PM (1 replies)

Tragic, but should we blame the cop?

Having read the comments to the news feeds n this, there seems to be very little blame being handed down in the direction of the officer. There are those who believe better training would have helped the situation and perhaps Andrea Rebello would still be alive, but training only goes so far. A gun battle of any kind is not like a Hollywood movie or television show. In these bits, yoou have the tough action hero ducking, diving, driving recklessly, and doing all manner of other crazy stuff while usually pegging the bad guys with perfect shots every time he pulls the trigger. In reality, there are so many stressors and variables involved that can affect the situation. There is fear and confusion, unexpected movements, unfamiliar environments, worry, adrenaline, and so forth. I have no doubt that the police officer who shot both this poor girl and the criminal was trying to do the best he could to do his duty. It would be a poor cop indeed who would enter that scenario with anything but the mentality of protecting and saving the innocent involved. According to a couple of news articles, the perp turned the gun on the officer at the scene, which prmpted the officer to open fire. The cop has just as much of an obligation to protect his own life as well as the lives of others. Had the officer not chosen to pull the trigger, he could have been killed, leaving the criminal in the position to continue holding Angela hostage, possibly leading to her deat as well anyway. Perhaps not. There are so many "what-ifs" and they are all effectively moot at this point. The officer, a 12 year veteran on the force, is likely beating hmself up at this point, running every possible scenario through his head, wondering himself what he could have done differently.

Here is the thing, though, there is another person possibly kicking herself and wondering if she could have done something different. The criminal, under threat of killing Angela, forced an unnamed woman at the house to go to the bank to withdraw money. She had 8 minutes to return or the criminal would kill Angela. On the way to the bank, she called the police. She has to be wondering if she had simply gotten the money and returned if the man wih the gun would have simply left once satisfied and Angela would still be alive. This is not to say she is at fault, not at all. But I mention this only to illustrate how "what-ifs" can dig into us and drive us crazy. We need to keep focused on the facts and the reality of what happened. What if the criminal had never been relaesed? What if there were stricter controls on guns? So on and so on. None of this matters. What matters is that we discover the truth of the matter and then work to correct the inequities that led to this in future cases to prevent it from happening again, which is a tall order considering there will be people on all sides pointing fingers, some with genuine concern, and others trying to promote some agenda. The investigation as to the officer's liability and performance is only beginning, so we will have to wait for the official report on this.

As for myself, I look at this situation and understand that the officer is not Robocop or some fancy action her. He is a human being who made a critical error that tok the life of a young woman. I do not believe he intended this, he was not the criminal holding the girl in a headlock and threatening to kill her. The officer did his best and failed. The criminal's actions are what created the situation, a point that evokes zero sypathy in me for his demise. If there is anyone to blame her, it is the actionas of the man who entered the home with his threats and his gun to begin with.
Posted by FlynnArcher72 | Sun May 19, 2013, 09:57 AM (2 replies)

If it were the end of the story, there would be an end to the subject

Yes, the subpoenas were granted. That cannot be argued. What can be argued is whether or not the subpoenas were granted with reasonable suspicion as to the AP leaks. Without reasonable suspicion, the subpoenas would be invalid as well as illegal and the DOJ would definitely be in hot water. Everyone is taking jabs at the subpoenas, but the real scruitiny should fall on the exact information and evidence that prmpted the actin to begin with. Follow the problem to the source and you will see if the AP is a victim of a judicial system run wild or if the system had letitimate backing to their actions.
Being a scientifically-minded person, I am all for questioning everything, but questions have to be balanced out with researched facts, not supposition.
Posted by FlynnArcher72 | Wed May 15, 2013, 08:09 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1