My fellow 2a supporters, does this bug you?

[eqfan592]

I hadn't noticed the message from Skinner until today, nor had I noticed the bumper sticker that the message was selling until another DU'er posted it, but take a look at this bumper sticker.

http://www.cafepress.com/du_store.421744449

One of the things I've liked about DU is that their administration, for the most part it seemed to me, has tried to remain nutural on this issue. But seeing this really dismayed me. They may as well have placed a few anti-vaccination and Moon land hoax bumper stickers up there as well. It honestly irritated the shit out of me to see it, and to also take note of the fact that it's the first damned one on the main bumper stickers page.

Now I may be over-reacting as I'm not feeling all that great today so am in a bad mood to begin with, so I welcome you guys that join me here in the "gungeon" to tell me if I am. ;)

[notesdev]

1. If that's meant to be anti-2a

then it's a pretty poor job of it. One could potentially even read it as pro-2a.

Probably not worth getting worked up over.

[eqfan592]

4. Hmmm, interesting. I had initially read it as being more sarcastic...

...but I do see your point. Like I said, I'm not feeling well today, so I wanted you guys to point such things out to me, so thanks :)

[droidamus2]

2. Funny

My first (and only) impression of this bumper sticker is as a statement on 'health care' being seen as a privilege for those that can afford it not a right. I guess anytime somebody mentions guns (especially an a liberal site) you 2a guys just gotta get up in arms.

[eqfan592]

5. lol, that's an interesting take on it actually.

It does, inadvertantly I would assume, make a statement about health care. Or maybe that was also the intention? The more you guys talk on this, the more confused I get about the bumper sticker and it's meaning. lol

And please don't be so insulting. If you had just left it at the first part of your sentence, things would have just been much more amiable all around.

[droidamus2]

10. Not intended

I am not anti-gun so the second part was not intended to be rude. I was just pointing out that some people that have strong feelings tend to have knee jerk reactions to anything that remotely addresses their issue or issues. On the other hand I have no problem with having reasonable expectations of gun owners such as registering their firearms. Look at it this way if you are a hunter and you are not required to register your gun you still have to get a hunting license for the particular season you want to hunt so it is pretty obvious at that point that you have at least one gun. That gun could reasonably be determined to be of a certain type depending on what you are hunting. So you have an implicit registration of your gun whether you like it or not.

[SteveM]

11. "registering firearms" is not "reasonable..."

Since less than 20% of gun owners do NOT hunt, then an implicit registration scheme would not incorporate more than 5 times the number of citizens who own guns. Further, with explicit registration, the government can infer that this 80+% of people have guns which are NOT "of a certain type" generally utilized in hunting. I do not want the government to have a list of my firearms. That is not what the framers of the Second Amendment wanted, and for good reason.

BTW, hunting (or any transport of a firearm outside of the home) is regulated to some extent since the state has some interest in competently handled firearms in a minimally public setting. I would also point out that a government having record of a hunting license does not mean that the license-holder has only a shotgun, or only a rifle. He/she may have many more. The government has no interest in knowing who has these weapons -- unless they wish to confiscate arms in the future, or restrict the rights of those on an explicit or implicit registration list.

[rrneck]

15. A lot of people buy hunting licences

to support state wildlife management.

[tucsonlib]

14. "Inadvertantly"?

This bumper sticker is obviously addressing health care. I don't see it as pro or anti 2A. It merely points out the incongruity and basic immorality of viewing health care as a privilege rather than a basic human right (like the rest of the civilized world views it).

As a politically progressive gun-owner, I don't find it the least bit insulting. On the contrary, I admire its originality and agree with the message it sends.

[iverglas]

16. duh, eh?

Mind you, I have to admit I didn't get it until I read it upthread. Given as how having a bullet removed, like having a whole bunch of goddamned eye surgery, is a right where I'm at.



That Dark Side of the Moon, hahaha, that was a good one!

[eqfan592]

17. It can also very easily be taken as a sarcastic comment...

...with nothing at all to do with health care in the least. And I'm not the only person who read it that way.

I do agree that it's original, however, and I also agree with the sentiment on health care, but given the apparent ambiguity, it may not be as effective as originally intended. That's the danger when trying to get cute with bumper-sticker slogans.

[JonQ]

18. That was my first impression when I read it

it was about healthcare rather than guns.

[safeinOhio]

3. Being paranoid does not mean

that some people are not really out to get you.

[onehandle]

6. It simply says that gun rights overwhelmingly outweigh health rights in the U.S.

Which is true and an opinion shared by the vast majority of DUers outside of the Gungeon.

[eqfan592]

8. It's shared in here as well onehandle

If that is truely the message it's promoting. Or do you have evidence to show otherwise?

[Euromutt]

12. How does the former supposedly outweigh the latter?

It's not like there are federal and state programs that provide financial support to people who want to buy firearms and ammunition, fund the establishment of shooting ranges, etc. The closest you'll get is the government selling off reserve stocks of obsolete military rifles through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

The law doesn't recognize any right to endanger--let alone inflict injury upon--others by irresponsible handling and discharge of a firearm, even unintentionally; there are quite a few laws on the books which you may be charged and prosecuted for violating (e.g. unlawful carrying or handling aka "brandishing," reckless endangerment, all the way through to manslaughter and murder), and invoking the Second Amendment, or any state constitutional provision regarding firearms ownership, will not serve as a defense.

And to the best of my knowledge, there's no law that limits citizens' access to health care, provided they can pay for it. In that regard, health care rights are stronger than gun rights. The problem we have with health care is that a lot of people can't afford it, but that's not the same as being prevented by law from getting it.

[proteus_lives]

7. It's asinine, I agree. But it's their right.

Do they have any pro-2nd bumper stickers.

[slackmaster]

9. I see that as completely ambiguous

Sometimes people need to be shot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. You can go on cafe press and make your own bumpersticker.