Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled

[Louis]

<a href="http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid ... escription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled</a>

Honestly, if you are elderly or disabled should you be firing a weapon? Should it be classified as a Class I Medical Device? This means Medicare and/or your insurance company would pay for your firearm.

[Zeus]

And which is the most advanced culture in the world again?

[Louis]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to own weapons. I personally own several. What gets me is the safety involved with a disabled or elderly person firing a gun. I mean, even though it is designed for this group of individuals, is that really the smartest thing to do?

[Zeus]

Think of what it takes for an elderly person to fire a gun. Then try to apply that to other age groups.....

[Tessian]

How is this a medical device? I won't even bother disputing it's need, it's a gun for people who would otherwise have trouble operating a normal gun... but a MEDICAL DEVICE? What possible justification is there for that?

[Imakeholesinu]

This sounds like they are just trying to take more people with them. I mean, for christ sake they already drive cars worse than people in Illinois, now you want to give them handguns???

[SineSwiper]

And which is the most advanced culture in the world again?

The one with a well-armed populace. The US's Second Amendment was never ratified so that people could shoot deer. It was never ratified so that people could defend themselves from criminals (despite being a good side effect). The Second Amendment was ratified so that a well-armed populace could overtake the federal government, should it try to impose tyranny on its citizens. (Don't believe me? Read the history of the Amendment.)

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Granted, I'm not sure about this whole "medical device" thing, but if that means that a robber is less likely to rob an elderly woman, so be it.

[Zeus]

You don't need a well-armed populace to overtake the government. You need a dedicated populace that's willing to sacrifice to do what's right regardless of consequences.

That's the problem, people in North America are too damned self-centered and selfish to do what's necessary for real change

[Tessian]

You don't need a well-armed populace to overtake the government.

Yes, sometimes you do. I find it funny that you forget the best example and the whole reason FOR the amendment- the US Revolutionary War. Would Britain have given up its very profitable colonies it spent many years and tons of resources developing? Fuck no, we'd have gone the route of Hong Kong or something and been "given" independence in the 20th century by being given to Canada... ick!

There have been over cases throughout history where this was also necessary, but really the US was just trying to ensure that it didn't happen again.

[Zeus]

You don't need a well-armed populace to overtake the government.

Yes, sometimes you do. I find it funny that you forget the best example and the whole reason FOR the amendment- the US Revolutionary War. Would Britain have given up its very profitable colonies it spent many years and tons of resources developing? Fuck no, we'd have gone the route of Hong Kong or something and been "given" independence in the 20th century by being given to Canada... ick!

There have been over cases throughout history where this was also necessary, but really the US was just trying to ensure that it didn't happen again.

You're talking about the past here, it hasn't happened in a century at least. It's a relic of an archaic time period and is no longer necessary. Isn't that what this last election was supposed to represent with the election of Obama, a "new-age" way of overthrowing the gov't by sayin' "listen you fucks, you all are ridiculous and we ain't takin' it anymore. We're putting a black man in charge"? Even if it wasn't, you don't need the people to have guns to overthrow a government.

And show me ANY example of how the government in the US shows a shred of fear from the populace simply because they're armed. I'm sure Bush and Co. sat back and said "Ya know, ya'll should be careful about starting a fake war to blatantly steal the oil supply from the second-richest oil-producing country in the world 'cause them folks may take exception and could possibly overthrow us from office". Yeah, OK.....

[SineSwiper]

You're talking about the past here, it hasn't happened in a century at least. It's a relic of an archaic time period and is no longer necessary. Isn't that what this last election was supposed to represent with the election of Obama, a "new-age" way of overthrowing the gov't by sayin' "listen you fucks, you all are ridiculous and we ain't takin' it anymore. We're putting a black man in charge"? Even if it wasn't, you don't need the people to have guns to overthrow a government.

I love how everybody uses that as their excuse. It hasn't happened in a while, therefore it's unnecessary. Slavery hasn't happened in a while, so the law that bans it is unnecessary. Right?

Wrong. We're overused to our stableness. All it would take would be, say, all of the credit card data to go up in smoke (to take the Fight Club example), or several well placed EMPs to disable the electrical grid, or a major country like China to invade. At some point, the government will think that its law is above the needs of the people, and the people will need a method to fight back. The threat of martial law is countered by the threat that people have guns.

Sure, you don't need guns to start a riot, but riots are disorganized emotional displays of power in anger over their government. A well-armed militia is an organized rational display of power over their government. It's important to have both options available, because in this day and age where our armies have the latest technology available, the populace will need all of the help they can get to start a revolution, if the need arises. It's always been that more than the size of the military is needed to do something like that, but the scales should not be so unbalanced that it's impossible for even a 1/10th of the population to stop an army.

And show me ANY example of how the government in the US shows a shred of fear from the populace simply because they're armed. I'm sure Bush and Co. sat back and said "Ya know, ya'll should be careful about starting a fake war to blatantly steal the oil supply from the second-richest oil-producing country in the world 'cause them folks may take exception and could possibly overthrow us from office". Yeah, OK.....

I can think of two examples, though admittedly, they don't exactly involve guns: the New York Irish riots, and the LA riots. Again, this is part of that unorganized display of anger I was talking about. Part of the problem is that the amount of the population that actually owns a gun is much much smaller than what we had during the Revolutionary War. (I'll admit that I'm part of that problem, too. At least I support the right.)

Also, you prove my point. Remember that million person protest we had in Washington several years ago. Did that change anybody mind in Washington about the war? Fuck no. It was useless and pointless. Nobody is afraid of a mass of wussy protesters standing in Washington.

Now, if they had guns...

[Flip]

The one with a well-armed populace.

When i glanced over this quickly i read it as 'the one-armed populace' which made me think of Dr. Richard Kimble. That is all....

[Zeus]

Comparing this to slavery is like saying the way to ensure there's no more slavery is to give all black people guns.

I'm all for laws taking over for the guns. That's part of the whole "new age" thing.

Hold on, you think that the people will organize a militia to overthrow the government-controlled one? HA!

And I think you're misunderstanding just WHY protests don't work. It's because there's no follow-up, no constant pressure until something is done. You do one protest, even with a million people, and no one cares. Not in the Internet age with people's attention spans so fucking short. If you keep it up for a while they're forced to change.

You guys might bitch and complain about how I don't pay for Live on "principle" (whie erroneously calling me cheap) but if people fought for what they felt is right on principle and kept it up, things might change. If you had people protesting day in, day out on a shift-basis for the last 6 months, the government would have no choice but to listen. Do it once and they don't give a fuck.

Give them guns and people will ignore the reason for the protest and call them "crazies" or "psychos". That would be completely counter-productive.

That's the problem, people don't believe in causes and stick to them. They get bored or disinterested faaar to easily.

[Tessian]

You don't need a well-armed populace to overtake the government.

Yes, sometimes you do. I find it funny that you forget the best example and the whole reason FOR the amendment- the US Revolutionary War. Would Britain have given up its very profitable colonies it spent many years and tons of resources developing? Fuck no, we'd have gone the route of Hong Kong or something and been "given" independence in the 20th century by being given to Canada... ick!

There have been over cases throughout history where this was also necessary, but really the US was just trying to ensure that it didn't happen again.

You're talking about the past here, it hasn't happened in a century at least. It's a relic of an archaic time period and is no longer necessary. Isn't that what this last election was supposed to represent with the election of Obama, a "new-age" way of overthrowing the gov't by sayin' "listen you fucks, you all are ridiculous and we ain't takin' it anymore. We're putting a black man in charge"? Even if it wasn't, you don't need the people to have guns to overthrow a government.

No, if you or anyone actually thinks that Obama will be drastically different from previous presidencies then you must be either retarded or smoking the good stuff. All this election said was "We're sick of the republicans fucking things up for the past 8 years and we won't want an older Bush clone, so we're gonna let the democrats fuck things up for the next 4 years... hopefully they'll do less damage this time around"

[Louis]

Yes, sometimes you do. I find it funny that you forget the best example and the whole reason FOR the amendment- the US Revolutionary War. Would Britain have given up its very profitable colonies it spent many years and tons of resources developing? Fuck no, we'd have gone the route of Hong Kong or something and been "given" independence in the 20th century by being given to Canada... ick!

There have been over cases throughout history where this was also necessary, but really the US was just trying to ensure that it didn't happen again.

You're talking about the past here, it hasn't happened in a century at least. It's a relic of an archaic time period and is no longer necessary. Isn't that what this last election was supposed to represent with the election of Obama, a "new-age" way of overthrowing the gov't by sayin' "listen you fucks, you all are ridiculous and we ain't takin' it anymore. We're putting a black man in charge"? Even if it wasn't, you don't need the people to have guns to overthrow a government.

No, if you or anyone actually thinks that Obama will be drastically different from previous presidencies then you must be either retarded or smoking the good stuff. All this election said was "We're sick of the republicans fucking things up for the past 8 years and we won't want an older Bush clone, so we're gonna let the democrats fuck things up for the next 4 years... hopefully they'll do less damage this time around"

I agree with Tessian here. Lets be realistic. Can one person completely change a country in four years? Or even eight? Its not going to happen. Now, granted, President elect Obama can introduce policy and appoint individuals to lead the country in a better direction but there will be no drastic changes.

And since I'm new, you all should probably know my political beliefs can be summarized as a southern conservative sans the Christian zealotry. Yes, I am a registered Republican.

[SineSwiper]

I'm all for laws taking over for the guns. That's part of the whole "new age" thing.

Hold on, you think that the people will organize a militia to overthrow the government-controlled one? HA!

If the situation is severe enough, yes. Fortunately, it hasn't been, but the option still needs to be there.

And I think you're misunderstanding just WHY protests don't work. It's because there's no follow-up, no constant pressure until something is done. You do one protest, even with a million people, and no one cares. Not in the Internet age with people's attention spans so fucking short. If you keep it up for a while they're forced to change.

Fine, a protest every day, like the ones in California, and still nobody cares. Or at least, the people who voted against gay rights haven't changed their mind.

Give them guns and people will ignore the reason for the protest and call them "crazies" or "psychos". That would be completely counter-productive.

One, it depends on the cause. Something involving the war, with threats to overthrow the government if they don't put a stop to it, would cause everybody to take notice.

Two, it's ungrateful people like you that have promoted that image of guns being only for the domain of criminals, "crazies", "psychos", and NASCAR-loving rednecks. You guys are about as annoying as the pro-life crowd.

I will say this once, and I will continue to say it: Why do both political parties cherish one Constitutional Amendment, and shit on the other?