Image Hosted by

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Million Mom March - Against Guns?


Just against YOUR guns.

The head of a chapter of the organization that pushed the 'Million Mom March' (which wasn't any more a million than the others of that ilk, but anyway) has been arrested for illegal possession of a handgun. Apparently she hangs out with gangs, too. Nice.

Remember, the only guns that would go away are those held by law-abiding citizens. Don't you find it odd that the areas with the highest crime rates prohibit the average citizens from carrying concealed?

Hat tip: Eric


  • Hammer,

    And there is that dishonesty again.

    By Blogger David Hunley, at 3/04/2005 04:45:00 AM  

  • Hey Hammer,

    You probably know that last fall a U.S. District Judge overturned a part of that despicable McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act--unfortunately it was the part that exempted the internet! Now a commissioner for the FEC is saying bloggers might be faced with fines if they link to a campaigns web page or forward any email from those candidates. Here's a link if you're interested. I hope I'm not intruding with this stuff.

    By Blogger David Hunley, at 3/04/2005 10:43:00 AM  

  • I have no idea if this is as bad as it looks or not, but I do want to point out that she should be involved with gangs. All community leaders in such areas should be. Those are the kids causing the problems and those are the kids they need to work with.

    By Blogger Mark, at 3/07/2005 01:20:00 PM  

  • Mark,
    I never considered that gangs can be "worked with"? How do we do that?

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 3/07/2005 04:20:00 PM  

  • David,
    I had heard of that, and blew it off as nonsense. Maybe I should be excited, but I just don't see it as possible.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 3/07/2005 04:23:00 PM  

  • I don't understand the question. How do you not work with them?

    Maybe what I said would make more sense if I said "gang members" instead of just "gangs". These are the people causing the problems so these are the people that need to be convinced to stop causing problems. One can suggest many different ways of 'convincing' but none of them involve ignoring the gang members.

    I actually have a lot more to say on this, most of it very controversial, but so far I don't think anything I said should be considered controversial.

    By Blogger Mark, at 3/08/2005 01:24:00 AM  

  • Hammer,

    It isn't so much that it might actually happen (although it might)...but that it was proposed in the first place.

    By Blogger David Hunley, at 3/09/2005 06:17:00 AM  

  • Mark,

    If you've written on the subject of gangs somewhere, I'd be interested in reading it.

    By Blogger David Hunley, at 3/09/2005 06:18:00 AM  

  • I haven't written about gangs. I just believe attacking "gangs" generically is counterproductive and the opposite of promoting personal responsibility. It's the illegal actions taken by members that is bad, not the funny name and handshake.

    If someone attacks a group you're in what's your reaction? Do you quit and walk away with your tail between your legs thanking those that pointed out your group was bad? Or do you stick with your group even stronger than before, defend it to the end? Exactly.

    An no, I'm not saying gangs do bad things because people say bad things about them -- that isn't the point at all. But attacking "gangs" is easy for politicians, because gangs are scary and it makes the politician look tough. It's also counterproductive because it makes the gang stronger, not weaker.

    Two things are required for people to consider taking responsibility for their actions seriously. One, they need to know there will be negative consequences for negative actions. (Conservatives are good on this half.) And two, they need to know there will not be negative consequences if they don't perform negative actions. Gang members don't believe this second half.

    Did you know the Hell's Angels have been used by the Forest Service to build trails? Or to paraphrase another organization, gangs don't kill people, people kill people.

    By Blogger Mark, at 3/10/2005 12:44:00 PM  

  • On a completely different track I find gangs fascinating as a philosophical talking point. From the point of view of a gang member, the gang is his tribe, his government. Gang members constantly use government like language to describe their actions like 'war'.

    Is killing in war morally okay, or is it murder? If it is morally okay, why? If your country only had a million people, would it still be okay? How about 1000? How about 100? 10? Does it matter?

    Does it matter if the leader was elected versus appointed versus inherited?

    If there is a larger governmental body then the one we choose to identify ourselves with, does that change the equation? Is that why gang warfare is murder? How is this different than the US's relationship with the UN?

    While we can all come up with rationalizations for answering these questions the "correct" way it's hard (for me, at least) to get beyond the feeling that's all they are, rationalizations.

    Ultimately, I think there is only killing; sometimes justified, sometimes not. War versus individual killing may be a pragmatic dichotomy, but I don't think it is a moral dichotomy.

    By Blogger Mark, at 3/10/2005 01:06:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home