Thursday, October 09, 2008

NRA

The NRA have officially endorsed McCain for president. Here is the article:

NRA Article

I always suspected the NRA as an organization had a high RQ but here is some proof. Firstly, they like Palin!
"Palin, an NRA member, received an A-plus rating from the group when she ran for governor in 2006. That compares to an NRA grade in the average range for McCain in his last Senate race. McCain isn't an NRA member."

Second, did you notice the scale? A good score is an A-plus; McCain scores and average. I guess the scale ranges from a high of A-plus to a low of Hippie? This is a pretty big deal since the NRA do not always endorse candidates. Bush Sr. was never endorsed - perhaps the fact that he bombed Japan, had his plane shot down and still continued to fight is not enough for the NRA to think he likes ARMS? So what is wrong with Obama?

"Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment but doesn't think it precludes "some commonsense gun laws so that we don't have kids being shot on the streets of cities like Chicago.""

Yes! The NRA is pro gang violence - but only when guns are used. They don't want gangs to have to resort to the Nancy tactics of knife fights.


What are my view on guns? I don't really know. I guess I could see how hunting could be fun, I have shot guns before and it is exhilarating. Though, I don't know if I would want to kill an animal? That being said I do like the taste of Deer, Moose and the like. I fish and have no problem killing fish. They are really delicious. There is something to be said about the fact that restricting gun ownership only affects those who have them legitimately since the gangs are not exactly registering their guns.
Considering how many people the Canadian, and I presume American too, police kill with Tasers, I don't think they can be trusted anymore than the criminals to use their weapons safely. For military purposes it is understandable but I think that most people would rather live in a world without wars but that will probably never happen.
The idea that guns don't kill people, people kill people is especially stupid. If someone attacks you with a bat, you can run, you can scream for help, you can try to fight back; but with a gun you have no chance.

3 comments:

crazycatlady said...

quelle interesant. wheni was in nashville a couple months ago i saw a bumper sticker that said "Charlton Heston is my President" or something ridiculous like that - whoever that gun maniac guy is...it was on the back of a pickup truck too...ahahahaha. silly bastards.

not as interesting as my post about the slugs though.

j-rem said...

my stance on guns is the same as my stance on a lot of things. you can spend the money banning them, or you can let them be legal. either way - people will still have them, and people will still be killed by them.

the 2 key things about technology is that its 1) amoral, 2) irreversible.

\ said...

It is certainly irreversible. But if there are laws against say the possession of a hand gun it makes anti=gang police's job easier. If they try to bust a group of kids selling crack they may not be able to hold them for anything drug related but if the kid has a gun, its like a consolation prize.
I think it is amoral if the research being done is amoral - that is pure in its intent. If the research is being funded with an intent - ie to produce newer weapons - then the technology is no longer amoral. Not necessarily immoral but bound by morality.