General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: TAX THE AMMO!!! [View all]calimary
(81,323 posts)Honestly, that kind of tyrant I wouldn't mind being. It'd damn well be a public service. It would stop this obscene insanity and jones for wanton useless violence and pointless carnage and death. And it would save innocent lives.
The harder and more inconvenient and time-consuming and hassle-prone, the better. The discouragement factor might not work for everyone. But it'd work against enough of 'em.
When the assault weapons ban was in place, a statistic I heard today indicated that mass murders and multiple gun deaths dropped by 60 percent. True enough, not perfect. Didn't prevent them all. But that was enough to keep at least a few grieving loved ones from sobbing themselves to sleep for the next few decades. That'd be more than okay by me.
Gee, let me think. WHAT A SHAME that some nutcase might be prevented from taking out his frustrations and murderous intentions on a dozen or more innocent people.
WHAT A SHAME that somebody with ill intent might be stopped, or at least slowed down. HOW TRULY, MONSTROUSLY HORRIBLE!
WHAT A SHAME that some sadistic asshole with a hard-on against something and a chip on his shoulder or a Rambo complex or mad at the world and itching to seek some cosmic twisted revenge prompted by some voices in his head or other imagined "grievance" against those good ol' black helicopters and imaginary New World Order meanies would be hampered or hamstrung in his murderous plans.
WHAT A SHAME that such a gutwrenching and unfathomable tragedy should be prevented from befalling on other mothers and fathers. Or sisters. Or brothers. Or grandmas and grandpas. Or nieces. Or nephews. Or young husbands. Or young wives. Or maybe another several six-year-old girls who never did anything wrong except spill ice cream on their party dresses. Whose lives are non-essential? Whose lives are dispensable and disposable so any Tom Dick and Harry can go play Shootout at the OK Corral for real? Who should we sacrifice for the sake of preserving somebody else's right to kill?
I didn't like monster-scale weapons of mass destruction being in the hands of bush-cheney and fiends. I don't like handy-dandy smaller-scale personal-use weapons of mass destruction widely and easily available to the hands of some civilian nutcase or lone wolf with some weird-ass score to settle, either.
I just hit a tipping point with this one, justanidea. This was it. Sorry, but I'm done. My tolerance for gun ownership just dropped down below zero with this one. I tried for years to see the other side's point of view. Tried for YEARS to stay mellow about it. Even tried to get to know firearms up close, myself. Most unsettlingly, I discovered to my dismay that I'm a rather good shot, too. I don't want any part of it. I'd love to be able to take all the guns from everywhere, load them all into a rocket, and launch that rocket straight into the sun so they're all incinerated.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to questions posted days ago - HOW MANY MASSACRES IS ENOUGH for the gun-loving community? HOW MANY? HOW MANY IS ENOUGH? HOW MUCH WANTON SLAUGHTER IS TOLERABLE AND EXCUSABLE for the sake of the almighty "freedom" to shoot people? How many more massacres is it okay for you to shrug off, and say "oh well. Too bad. Second Amendment. End of argument. Suck it up." Sorry, but that's NOT the end of the argument for me.
And every time I see or hear or read - here on DU or anywhere else, that we should just give up on it. End of argument. Don't even ask. Don't even pursue it. Won't happen. All those fabulous guns and weapons of mass destruction are here to stay. NRA too powerful. Don't even bother bringing it up. Nothing will EVER change. It's a dead issue and a closed case - that makes me all the more determined to press ahead with it. And NOT give up.