No, ban illegal car racing. Cars are designed to take people from a to b. Guns are designed to kill and maim. Which is fine when used by the army in wartime, and by police forces, if they must. But, otherwise, not so fine.
I think they already did…
spooje beat me to the obvious point. Illegal car racing, is, well, illegal. In America we still have enough sense to know that something illegal is, by definition, banned. And anything that is banned? Well, it’s usually illegal.
Cars are designed to take people from one point to another? You obviously live in a country that doesn’t have the insane amount of open spaces spaces to drive that us Americans have. Seriously, look at a map of the US and compare the danger of someone in Brooklyn versus me up in North Dakota driving 75 mph. Notice how it may be different? Other than the fact that Brooklyn to my city is further than most European countries are from each other, let’s assume most of the US has access to open spaces where non-Autobahn situations are the norm.
I could race anyone on a 2-mile stretch of highway, with 100-beer drinking spectators, and never give a second thought to the Highway Patrol that would never show up. (There are some bennies to living here) 
Oh, and the guns? We’d be shooting them as well. In fact, the two races I drove (among the many I attended) held on ND Hwy 15 west of Northwood (look it up, damnit!) went off without a hitch.
Guns, booze, cars, racing. I guess we’re just manlier men. Nobody has ever been hurt. (Yet. OK, yet. I’m not doing it now. Have you seen the idiocy of kids these days?) :smack:
A mother who kept a gun in her purse where toddlers had access to it? You have got to be kidding me. I don’t even keep lip blam where my little ones can reach it!
This is all on her. I know she feels horribly now (at least I hope so) but the fact is that it is all her fault that her 4 year old got to that gun.
I grew up with guns in the house (and in my dad’s truck). They were kept well out of my reach, and before I was old enough to touch them, I was taught respect for them. I learned to shoot when I was 13, but only with my dad.
A gun in the house is not an automatic tragedy in the making. A dipshit parent sure seems to be, though.
Well, if moving the debate forward is your objective, would be so kind to let us know how your irrational rodomontade, your inane harangue, your senseless screed, is a step in that direction?
Number 5 is ALIVE!
Remember folks, Guns don’t kill people!
Tiny little baby fingers kill people.
“None of your lip!” BLAM!
No, you dolt. Guns are designed to fire a projectile out of the barrel at high rates of speed. They can be used for a great variety of uses, including as paper weights and dust collectors.
Yes, but should collectors have legal access to assault dust?
I’ve got an asbestos fiber; don’t make me use it!
As long as they have a feather duster.
Or Pledge.
Mmmmm, Lemon Scented Pledge…
When tiny little baby fingers are outlawed, only outlaws will have tiny little baby fingers.
I’m waiting for the new bumper stickers to come out. Imagine “You’ll get my purse when you pry it from my cold dead (tiny little baby) fingers”
I think my ignorance is slowly being squeezed out of me, albeit at gunpoint. I had indeed forgotten the burgeoning paperweight industry. Now that I think about it more rationally and less subjectively, I can see that an automobile is effectively a bullet. Both CAN kill or maim when they strike a fleshy object, but ONLY when they are aimed at such soft fleshy object, or, I suppose, hard not so fleshy object in the case of the cranium. (A 2-year old’s skull has hardened up, I’m assuming.)
Only a maniac or a Muslim suicide killer would aim an automobile at a group of people with the intention of harming them, while a wide range of folk, ranging from God-fearing Militiamen to paperweight collectors to nutters to Chuck Heston to Michael Moore to 4 year-old children, would use an automatic handgun in defence of their 220-year old Constitutional Rights. Lots has changed in the United States since Jefferson and his band of brothers dipped their quills in their inkpots (rumour has it that slavery has been abolished, and the descendants of slaves allowed to sit on buses next to white folk, but I have no cites, so I’m not going to come right out and assert that). These changes, though, I am forced to agree, are no reason why Americans should change their Constitution and amend their Amendments. After all, slavery - and those pesky blacks - wasn’t even mentioned in the Constitution, and didn’t merit any Amendment.
Now, of course, things might change if the grandchild of an incumbent President was shot in the head, but American politics having never been influenced by irrational rodomontades, or indeed legalistic humbug (Madison’s three-fifths rule comes to mind), before, will doubtlessly take such a tragedy in its stride. Or blame the Arabs.
Well, if the maniac aimed the car at a group of people, how would that make him suicidal? Seems that as long as he isn’t driving some piece of shit Yugo, he may have protection from hitting a person or four.
As for the rest of your post trying to guilt us Americans over slavery, save it. Millions of families, including mine, didn’t emigrate here until after 1870. Oh, and considering both sides of my family left Ellis Island and went directly to Minnesota and North Dakota, let me give you a double fuck you.
And I’m still amazed that I liked your previous posts and tried to defend you. I guess our board’s lefties are right, I’m an idiot.
Hehe. I didn’t think anyone would respond to that. Here’s a bottle of Dom for the effort.
A side note to everyone else. You may have noticed a mini-debate earlier about guns or children killing people. Neither are correct based on what has been said here so far.
It’s the bullets that kill people. Jeez, I thought that joke was so old everyone would know it. :smack:
But why get so hot and bothered about mt views about a piece of metal that fires bullets? I think countries like Britain are much better off without them, and it’s one serious issue that I feel deeply about. Now, if I was right, and it would reduce the number of people killed and injured in America if handguns were banned, and if this would also lead to other social benefits, then isn’t it okay for me (or others - though I can’t see too many of them) to say what we think.
In fact, isn’t it just on those issues where public opprobrium is overwhelming and seemingly almost unanimous that we need to be on our guard to ensure that contrary views are aired. And even encouraged. To me, that’s what the open society is all about.
Well, the word “slavery” might not have made it into the Constitution, but everyone knew who the “other Persons” in this sentence referred to:
And i’m not quite sure what you mean when you say that slavery didn’t merit any Amendment. I refer you to Amendment XIII, passed and ratified in 1865:
Amendments XIV and XV were also closely tied to the issue of slavery and emancipation.
Damnit mhendo, stop bringing up the 13[sup]th[/sup] Amendment. It only takes away a facet of 'Merkin bashing! There are so many arguments made about The Evil White Man [sup]TM[/sup] that started this country and using the Constitution as a cite, we need not mention silly little things like Amendments!
this whole slavery aspect being used yet again to make Americans feel somehow guilty for past wrongs is pissing me off
My apologies. I reckoned that since it was carefully and assiduously avoided in the Constitution, there would have been no requirement to draft an amendment dealing with it; given that it hadn’t been “legislated” for or against.
Let’s invoke the spirit of the FFs then, and amend the 2nd.