- Posted January 17, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
Ad Absurdism: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Assault Weapons.
Thousands of Americans are killed every year by reckless and/or callous individuals misusing dangerous machines. In particular a certain subset of these devices with certain key features should have no place on America's streets. Of course I'm referring to "racing style sports cars", which I'll define as any automobile with over 200hp and two of the following features:
- a spoiler
- ground effects
- a manual transmission
- rear wheel drive
- a supercharger or turbocharger
These "racing style sport cars" are intended for the race track, not America's highways. Don't be fooled by the NHRA's propaganda machine. They have no purpose other then to achieve the fastest possible speed in the shortest possible time with reckless disregard for public safety. Only trained government police and emergency responders should ever have a need to travel at such a high rate of speed.
Some will say that this measure is extreme and does nothing to address the real issues of automotive accidents, but if even one life could be saved by banning "racing style sport cars", shouldn't we do it?
In fact, I don't believe this proposal goes far enough. Perhaps we should change the definition from two of the listed features to only one, as well as limit the size of all gas tanks to no more then 7 gallons. Furthermore we should seriously ask ourselves if we really need to own motor vehicles at all. Wouldn't it be a much safer country if only government approved taxis and buses where on our roadways? In may prove slightly less convenient for those living in rural areas, but isn't human life more important then the freedom to drive over 60mph?
While I'm on the subject of public safety, I'd like to briefly address the the weapons issue as well. We must do something about the stabbings in this country. Since bladed weapons are protected, I say we go after "assault swords". Of course we must define "assault swords" carefully, because we don't want to outlaw machetes, which are useful sporting tools. I think a good definition would be a bladed weapon in which the blade is longer then 10" and with two of the following features:
- a pommel
- a guard
- a double edge
- a sharp point
- a handle that can support a two handed grip
True the majority of people in this country are stabbed with knives, but the rare mass sword stabbings are of special concern since they shatter people's long held sense of security. Of course this probably won't stop the next crazy person from just using a machete, but hey - we tried! Background checks on all blade purchases would be a good idea though.
All kidding aside, when the militia met the redcoats at Lexington and Concord, they weren't armed with crossbows. They had the same muzzle loading muskets the British had. Therefore, "assault weapons" are exactly the kind of weapon we should have protected by the second amendment. That being said, I'm pretty sure the militia didn't have cannons, and I don't believe an civilian should have crew served and/or area-effect weapons like a machine gun, rocket launcher, or a howitzer. I support background checks, and I'm kinda indifferent at the moment to limiting magazine capacity, but I hope this "report" helps illustrate the absurdity of banning "military style assault weapons." It's equally as ridiclous as banning certain breeds of dogs, such as pit bulls, rottweilers, or german shepherds because they're "agressive". Thanks for reading! This is my first iReport! :-)