Setting The Assault Weapon Standard, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #310 | @MDWorld
What is the difference between guns and bombs? Speed? Efficacy in fulfilling their mission?
If our right to bear arms should include assault weapons and 100 bullet magazines, I argue that for the sake of consistency bombs must be permitted as well. Most hand-made bombs are far less dangerous than assault weapons: you can aim an assault weapon, but most accessible bombs have a more generalized killing pattern. Indeed, when it comes to the so-called Molotov cocktail – by the way, Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov never used one – the vast majority of these devices ignite well before they reach their targets, often blowing up while still in the pitcher’s arm. This puts a different spin on the “right to bear arms.”
If assault weapons are more powerful and more destructive than Molotov cocktails and other locally produced destruction media, and assault weapons are legal, then shouldn’t these less-dangerous devices be legal as well?
In most precincts, it is perfectly legal to sell weapons to people who clearly are under the influence. However, a person who sells a drink containing alcohol to that very same drunk in that very same condition is likely to lose his vocation, possibly his business, and maybe even his freedom. That certainly seems unfair. Bartenders are working stiffs; let’s be consistent here.
If a legal assault weapon can cut down 100 people each and every minute, why are we so uptight about “suitcase” bombs – a.k.a. “dirty” bombs, which is a stupid name because every successful bomb leaves quite a mess. In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has great difficulty defining dirty bombs as weapons of mass destruction. So let us not worry about such things; since assault weapons are okay, suitcase bombs must be okayer.
We now have to stand in line at the pharmacist in order to buy non-prescription cold medicine. We have to fill out forms, show picture ID, and assure everybody that we’re not using pseudoephedrine and ephedrine to make crystal meth. Whereas estimates vary widely, reputable sources report about 1000 people die each year from crystal meth. Nearly 30,000 people die from guns each year. So, I ask you, why the hell do I have to wait in line at Walgreens?
And how many people will die from all that coughing and sneezing in public places? The flu multiplies like horny amoebas. Why is the flu legal?
Because we can’t stop it?
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times. Gold also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
![[Facebook]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
January 21st, 2013 at 9:04 am
I would note that Sarah Palin, as governor, took away people’s guns: http://www.adn.com/2008/10/28/570834/defense-commander-resigns-after.html
January 21st, 2013 at 10:11 am
Glad you found something to like about Palin.
But if I read that story correctly, Palin did not take away any individual’s personal guns. She made a decision that a part-time armed civilian force was a legal liability to the state and that arms would no longer be part of their service. If they were using their own weapons, they would now not be allowed to use them for this volunteer force. But I suspect that the state had been providing the weapons and now no longer would. Seems very reasonable to me.
January 21st, 2013 at 10:36 am
“In most precincts, it is perfectly legal to sell weapons to people who clearly are under the influence. However, a person who sells a drink containing alcohol to that very same drunk in that very same condition is likely to lose his vocation, possibly his business, and maybe even his freedom. That certainly seems unfair. Bartenders are working stiffs; let’s be consistent here.”
But Mike, booze is sinful (not that it says that anywhere in the Bible). Those bartenders are evil enablers. Guns, however are our God given right as Americans! (Again, not that it says anything in the Bible about this either.)
January 21st, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Did Fox Noise renew Sarah’s contract? If so, I can hardly wait to see her debate their new employee, Dennis Kuscinich.
January 21st, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Many (most?) states have no laws against drinking and hunting. In some states, blind people can hunt. And in some states, you can legally own grenades and grenade launchers. Presumably, it’s okay to operate one one those puppies while blind drunk.
I’m still waiting for the final injury count from gun appreciation day.
January 21st, 2013 at 4:31 pm
You know, I’m really not as concerned about drunk gun owners and blind gun owners as I am about idiot gun owners. And I’ll bet most gun owners and an even higher percentage of hunters feel the same way. A lotta idiots messing it up for everybody.
There’s this really bizarre and rather large animatronic-filled supermarket about a mile from my place that attracts tourists like shit attracts flies (and I’m sure they’ll appreciate the comparison). The joint is almost always crowded, their parking lot is mammoth, and there’s usually a tour bus or two or three. Their security is armed. It’s a very, very confined space.
25 years ago, I asked the owner (before he went to federal prison for using a Commodore Amiga to cheat on his taxes) why he arms his guards and what he thought it would look like if there was a firefight. He just smiled, pumped my hand, and gazed upon my countenance with a look that would make “Bob” Dobbs wince.
A few weeks later, I put the same questions to one of these guards. He instinctively put his palm on his weapon (and his other one on his gun; thank you and tip your waitress) and then smiled and gazed upon my countenance with a look that would make his boss wince.
January 21st, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Looking from the outside on (from my prism view) the foaming at the mouth “LEAVE MY GUNS ALONE!!!!” angst that has been fomenting around the 2nd amendment…it’s been more than a little disturbing to watch.
I’m still waiting to hear anyone present a rebuttal to Rachel Maddow’s breakdown of what is actually in the President’s new measures that he’s seeking to enact.
And secondly, if historical research supports the contention that the idea and development of ‘well regulated militias’ owed a lot to motivation of slave holder states to suppress the potential of rebellions and/or insurrection from said population in addition to Native Americans, I wonder if this element will be incorporated as part of the discussion.
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:42 am
Mike,
I assume the store you’re talking about has the initials SL. There’s one by me in Yonkers, haven’t gone there in ages.
January 22nd, 2013 at 7:34 am
Neil — Yep. Right on the money. Their store in Yonkers isn’t quite as surreal as the old place in Norwalk, partially because the Yonkers store was designed so that it’s a bit easier to get from point A to point B. In Norwalk, you’re trapped.