More on guns

A recent Public Post on Facebook by Josh Fielder. I consider this reasonable.

To his statements, I would like to add the following.

The way we will finally get something done with regard to public policy on guns and gun violence is when reasonable responsible gun owners "take point" in this debate.

In addition to the usual but important topics like the size of ammunition magazines and assault rifles, background checks, etc., I would also like to hear something about gun manufacturers who, in my opinion, have skated under the radar in all of this.  Because most Americans who are not hunters or otherwise members of gun culture do not see advertisements on their television screens, they are likely unaware of the agressive and glamorized marketing of military style weapons. Also, I would like to hear about significantly higher taxes on firearms and ammunition. This should be specifically applied to dealing with the social costs resulting from the improper use of firearms. We think nothing of taxing the heck out of cigarettes largely because they come with a big social cost. It is clear that firearms are often used by responsible people who have no intention of breaking any law but asking them to bear some of the cost of the social negatives is well within reason.

Finally, what I would like to hear from the gun-huggers is- the truth about why they so desperately want to own these weapons. My interpretation of the truth: gun-huggers value the testosterone thrill of shooting these powerful guns more highly than they value the safety and security of their fellow citizens.

As a public service, I provide my definition of gun-hugger.

A gun hugger is distinguished from a sane reasonable responsible gun owner by the following factors: 

Gun-huggers (as stated above) value the testosterone thrill of shooting these powerful guns more highly than they value the safety and security of their fellow citizens.

Gun-huggers are likely to have more guns than the average gun owner by factors of three, four, five, or more. They have no reality based need for so many weapons. However, the sheer number often appears to correlate to their personal paranoia level.

Gun-huggers live in a dream world where the government is always about two minutes from sending their agents to gun owners homes to rob them of their freedom, their guns, and their right to fill their heads with right-wing radio 24/7. Furthermore, if their paranoia alone were not sufficiently high on the batshit crazy scale, they also operate under the laughable notion that their personal arsenal will protect them from that vividly imagined fateful day when agents show up at the door.

While we are all here and presumably paying attention, let me clear this up for any stray gun-hugger who may have wandered here. If the local sheriff or patrolman shows up at your door with a warrant or whatever, you may overpower that person. However, I can assure you that, the next iteration in this scenario will not go so well for you. In case you have failed to stay abreast of the facts regarding the personnel and firepower of your government, you may want to brush up on some facts before putting your faith in this course of action.

And, oh by the way... the following is on a personal note. If you own more weapons than Sylvester Stallone's character used in his latest action movie, perhaps, you may have slipped a gear and begun to fancy yourself as a character in one of these movies. If you feel this may apply to you but you fail to see how such behavior is a problem, well, that is a real problem.  Normal cultural behavior includes watching a movie or television show and engaging in a "willing suspension of disbelief". Failing to re-engage ones disbelief is not considered normal. Granted, this is only one interpretation but feel free to roll it around in your cranium just for shits and giggles.