Salon.com just wrote the most mind-numbingly anti-gun screed I’ve ever read. I’m not even angry about it so much as confused by the fact that somebody legitimately thought this proposal would be a good idea.
Prior to this, the dumbest buzz-argument was the whole “people should only be allowed muskets like when the 2nd amendment was written.” Of course, made from people who miss the irony that they are making these statements on venues that weren’t around when the 1st amendment was written. Tweet a lot from your printing press lately? Not only that, but there were plenty of high-capacity, rapid-fire weapons available at the time of the 2nd amendment. Learn about the puckle gun, Belton flintlock and Girandoni air-rifle here. You’re welcome.
But Salon? In order for you to legally be able to purchase a gun, they want you to get shot first. No, really.
I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.
If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop.
Other than giving a coward the heart to stand tall, what’s the positive part of gun ownership?
Gun praisers are just like the people who were in favor of slavery back in the day–– the elite, lazy and ignorant who weren’t being beaten, raped or in the field doing the work, so they were perfectly okay with involuntary servitude, which is a problem and why I think gun owners need to feel more––they need a taste of the other side.
Yes really. Demanding that all gun-owners be shot…
Yeah, I can give you a point by point debunking of what Salon claims are “points” and “facts.” Instead, I’m just going to let them overreach. Because everyone knows…