Skip to main content

A response to a comment I received on the blog, "A man tries to make gun-control proponents look dumb through his 'smart' aleck experiment, but makes himself look dumb in the process"

On April 12th of last year, I wrote a blog, entitled, "A man tries to make gun-control proponents look dumb through his 'smart' aleck experiment, but makes himself look dumb in the process," which can be viewed here - http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-man-tries-to-make-gun-control.html?showComment=1398357016839#c8342953763320375809.

A few days ago, I received this response to that very blog:

"He was not saying it for people who think that it is both the gun and the person who are killing is saying this for the people who want to take guns away even from people who are totally capable with a gun. If you don't want a gun fine have it your way but I have every right by the law to have a gun and I would gladly use it in protection and defense of my family. Even so, if gun laws were passed the types of people who shoot up people, do you really think a law against guns is going to stop them it will hinder them but it won't stop them it just takes guns away from the people who would use them to protect themselves who would follow the law. And just so you know if my spelling is off I am a dyslexic 16 year old boy, so sorry."

Shortly thereafter, I responded to the comment, but have yet to hear back and am uncertain if he/she saw it, so I thought I'd post a separate blog about the matter, just in case this person wasn't notified about the reply.

In my response, I wrote the following:

"With regard to your comment, I have just a few questions:

1) How would expanding background checks and the like take guns away from law-abiding citizens, as it seems you contend they would?

2) Are you in favor of written, vision, and driving tests before one is able to attain a license? If so, why shouldn't there be similar-type tests in order to entrust a person with another potentially deadly weapon, such as a gun?

3) If we go by the philosophy that there would be no point in strengthening gun-control laws because it's inevitable that criminals will break these laws, what point is there of having any laws? Isn't it inevitable that any and every law will be broken at least once? Given that, isn't the point of laws to lessen the likelihood, and with that, the frequency, that such unruly acts occur?"

If the individual whom wrote the comment would like to provide answers for these questions, feel free to do so, and I'll attempt to reply shortly thereafter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...