Don’t Tread on Ted

6 Replies to “Don’t Tread on Ted”

  1. I totally agree. The same argument may be made re: “torture

    i totally agree! the same argument may be made for “torturing” people who have sworn to destroy us. bah! humbug!

  2. For all of the reasons and cases that Ted just mentioned, there ought to be limits on gun ownership. People who aren’t criminals are inherently less violent (because they’re less willing to employ violence as a means of achieving their ends). It’s just a fact. And if you’re more willing to use violence to achieve your ends, then you might fall into the category of a criminal. The odds might have been better that these victims of violence would have gotten out alive, but it is no guarantee . . . but I can appreciate the right to at least having better odds.

    However, Ted’s theory also seems like an incredibly more violent response to issues that could ultimately be addressed (in the long run, I grant you), by better education. If you think that people have an equal opportunity in public education, I strongly suggest doing research on the public schools in the United States. Of course, everyone hates teachers and public funding for schools, so it ends up being a non-starter (why bother educating kids who clearly aren’t interested? . . . see Ted’s rage at the “maggots”).

    This is not to say that some relativist sentencing (“you had a hard childhood and deserve to be treated nicely”) should be employed. But I’m arguing that I’d rather spend the $15K/yr now on education than the unknown damage that a sociopath has on society. Others, clearly, would rather not.

    I believe law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns, no question — the government has no business telling people with a track record of good judgment what they can and cannot do. However, living in an incredibly violent area myself (where there are no shortage of guns), I can say with total confidence that cross-cutting gun “ownership” has done very little to stop violence in my neighborhood. There need to be limits, and there needs to be enforcement of those limits.

    Of course, I also know a law-abiding citizen who owns a sawed-off shotgun for the (no joke) impending “zombie war.” So, just remember, Ted it takes all kinds. And sometimes those people are much quicker on the draw than you or I’d be.

  3. Sorry but I can’t agree. I came of age in Alaska, where it’s not unusual to pick up hitch-hikers with pistols strapped on and a rifle in hand near Denali.

  4. but can you acknowledge that different places call for different laws? (i.e., a state-by-state or even city-by-city system)? Or are all places equal, with equal needs, equal issues that can all be addressed with the same approach?

  5. Sure, the local people elect local officials, and they should be able to control local laws. There is a clear constitutional line that must be drawn: You can’t outlaw owning a weapon. The outcome of the case coming to the Supreme court soon will be interesting.

Comments are closed.