newcritics - Latest Comments in Melt The Guns

Re: Melt The Guns

stroketreatment — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:17:18 -0000

Nice song and nice lyrics. Awesome work. Thanks.

Re: Melt The Guns

phonecreditcards — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:14:57 -0000

If you read my first comment, (no. 2 if you care) you would also know that I'm not an extremist. I live in the south and I understand the gun culture. Some of my best friends are gun-owners and pose no threat to anyone. What I don't understand is that there seems to me no room for discussion. Why is it always presented as either we live in a oppressive dictatorship where no one is allowed to have even a water-pistol, or we have what we have now? Do you think the 2nd Amendment means that we as citizens have the right to bear hand-grenades? How about laser-guided missiles? Why not neutron bombs? Sounds like hyperbole? That's my point. We must draw the line somewhere, and what I see and hear is the NRA and the rest of the pro-gun extremists saying saying "No - you can't draw the line anywhere. No government regulation on the private ownership of firearms."

Re: Melt The Guns

Best pistols — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:04:54 -0000

great stuff. pure genius. more!

Re: Melt The Guns

SusanMc — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:27:45 -0000

People who live in other countries think we are insane about guns. I have been asked this question by a friend who lives in the Netherlands: Are you afraid to be outside at night? My friends in Japan are appalled when I tell them about the close calls I've had with armed nutjobs.

To not admit that other countries have better and more effective policies-- that they got this right, and we got it wrong-- is stupid and tragic.

Re: Melt The Guns

Viscount LaCarte — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:18:47 -0000

Part of the wisdom of the framers is knowing that citizens must also be empowered to resist the excesses of government itself. When those in power take steps toward fascism, removing citizensÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ rights, including gun ownership, then we have more to worry about than a few psychopaths who stray beyond reason.

You're right. I can't tell you what a comfort it is to know that Bubba down the street has his 12 Gauge at the ready in case the neo-cons decide to start rolling tanks down the middle of Highway 41 and fly cluster bomb toting napalm spewing stealth bombers overhead.

I wonder if our forefathers ever considered that perhaps the type of citizen who bought a gun to protect us from the facists might not recognize them when they showed up because the facists actually appeal to them and they instead decide to use those guns in support of them?

I think that is why the 2nd Admendment gives the states the right to organize a militia. I believe the writers of The Bill of Rights deliberately chose that word, and never intended for the the 2nd amendment to mean that firecrackers could be regulated, that drugs and alcohol could be regulated, that the speed of automobiles could be regulated, that lawn-darts could be regulated, but any uneducated fool could arm himself to the teeth with any and all weapons that remotely fit the definition of "arms" in the late 18th century.

Re: Melt The Guns

Brutus — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:14:54 -0000

Re: Melt The Guns

Viscount LaCarte — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:41:34 -0000

This is America. We all have a right to express our opinions.

I've been to Canada and England many times. The Canadians and the English (and no doubt the citizens of all the free nations of the world that do regulate private ownership of firearms) are at least as free as we are. The madness in this country will continue in spite of the fact that there are many of us who see it for what it is. No 2 bit wannabe critic (or aforementioned musical genius for that matter) is going to make a difference. I still choose to exercise my right of free speech to call what it is: madness.

There is wisdom in that, whether you understand or agree.

If you think I don't understand the arguments you are mistaken. I don't underestimate the wisdom or the intelligence of the founders of this great nation. Indeed Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin are personal heroes of mine.

I'm with the folks who believe that the word "militia" was carefully chosen. I believe the men who framed our constitution couldn't possibly have imagined at the time that the second amendment would eventually result in people arguing that it guaranteed that virtually anyone who wanted to could easily purchase automatic or even semi-automatic weapons capable of killing scores of innocent people at shopping malls in a matter of seconds.

Or a loving wife and mother who simply wanted to put some gas in her car on the way home.

If you read my first comment, (no. 2 if you care) you would also know that I'm not an extremist. I live in the south and I understand the gun culture. Some of my best friends are gun-owners and pose no threat to anyone. What I don't understand is that there seems to me no room for discussion. Why is it always presented as either we live in a oppressive dictatorship where no one is allowed to have even a water-pistol, or we have what we have now? Do you think the 2nd Amendment means that we as citizens have the right to bear hand-grenades? How about laser-guided missiles? Why not neutron bombs? Sounds like hyperbole? That's my point. We must draw the line somewhere, and what I see and hear is the NRA and the rest of the pro-gun extremists saying saying "No - you can't draw the line anywhere. No government regulation on the private ownership of firearms."

And I think that is madness.

Re: Melt The Guns

Steve Snieder — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:45:25 -0000

Felons and people that have severe mental health problems should not be able to obtain guns. Everyone else should be able to and I will explain why. The law clearly states that police have no duty to protect individual citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28sc...
How is a single 120 lb woman supposed to protect herself from one or more large men attacking her ? Even if the police arrive within five minutes which most times they don't it wouldn't be fast enough to stop an attack. Do you all think that not only can we not count on the police to protect us but we also have no right to protect ourselves ? Cooperating with criminals does not always result in surviving an attack or robbery. A gun in the hands of a trained person can save lives. The media never mentions all of the crimes that are prevented with guns, only the ones caused by them. Gun laws only keep guns our of law abiding citizens hands. Criminals don't follow laws. If you think it is possible to get rid of every one of the 200 million firearms in the U.S. you are kidding yourself. In the U.K. crimes have gone up since outlawing firearms and now they use swords and knives when guns aren't available. Even without access to guns or knives large men will still attack women and how are they supposed to defend themselves ? How are you supposed to protect your home and property ? The 2nd Amendment is protects a right that we already had it does not grant that right. The right is for individuals just like the other rights listed.

If the Second Amendment read: "A well stocked library, being necessary to the education of a well informed people, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Would there be any people that would argue that only the state could keep and read books ?

Re: Melt The Guns

Brutus — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:07:06 -0000

Your anger over violent crime is understandable, but you're projecting your emotion onto the object rather than the action or the actor. Ownership of firearms may not be for everyone (I don't own one), but it is a basic right acknowledged in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There is wisdom in that, whether you understand or agree. It's a complex of arguments I won't repeat since they're so commonplace.

The development and production weapons of war interests me more than ownership of conventional firearms, and almost no one talks about it. The sheer number of A-bombs, H-bombs, bunker busters, stingers, daisy cutters, etc. that the U.S. produces, sells, keeps in its arsenal, and yes deploys against its enemies is staggering. Much more than with private gun ownership, they transform our thinking and our options for how to act and how to be in the world, since average citizens can't elect not to have them, which is to say, we all have them by proxy through our government. And for generations, our government has shown little hesitation to use them against our enemy of the moment to further American policies at the cost of many, many foreigners' lives.

The actions of a gun owner who snaps and shoots up a mall is puny in comparison to the institutionalized violence carried out in our names.

Re: Melt The Guns

Kevin — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:56:21 -0000

You know it's not the good guys with guns that obey the laws you have to worry about. And the criminals with guns would find another way to harm or intimidate you even if guns didn't exist. Pull your head out of the sand and see what you're really afraid of and why.

As for the men who have locked their guns away, what happens when one of the murderers you talk about shows up at one of their homes?

Re: Melt The Guns

Viscount LaCarte — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:58:32 -0000

Well, you know, if all people wanted was a rifle to hunt dear or to protect their family, I think that's a defensible position.

If only.

Re: Melt The Guns

Kathleen Maher — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:06:02 -0000

Both my father and father-in-law were one-time, big time "gun collectors."
They both have long since found another talisman. Both have finally realized they're not protecting themselves, their stuff, or their family, but rather inviting deadly crime. No one liked deer meat, anyway.
Men from a generation that never admitted they could be wrong, they've both quietly locked away their weapons, buried them in lead lockers somewhere. Even they no longer argue it's their right or hobby. Too many gratuitous murders have changed their brutally stubborn minds. And if those two get it--anyone can.