Slashdot Mirror
Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled
Repton writes "Thanks to the Second Amendment, even the elderly have the right to keep and bear arms. The problem is that many of the guns out there are a bit unwieldy for an older person to handle. However, the inventors of the Palm Pistol are planning to change all that with a weapon that is ideal for both the elderly and the physically disabled. In a statement submitted to Medgadget, the manufacturer, Constitution Arms, has revealed the following: 'We thought you might be interested to learn that the FDA has completed its "Device/Not a Device" determination and concluded the handgun will be listed as a Class I Medical Device.' Physicians will be able to prescribe the Palm Pistol for qualified patients who may seek reimbursement through Medicare or private health insurance companies."
to get my prescription for hand grenades filled. while i'm there I might pick up some over the counter RPGs.
Better yet, see their heads shot off.
Exactly. It's 200 years old and out of date with the modern world. I can't think of any other country that has something so archaic at the centre of it's political/justice system - and even if they do, they will have updated it over the years.
Listen to my latest album here
First of all, stop acting like all Americans are all alike. We're no more alike than all Brits are.
Second of all, mind your own business.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
They didn't like the way the world was run 200 years ago. The problem is, you now have an outdated system that is struggling to cope with the modern world.
Listen to my latest album here
Oh please, you know damn well what I meant. Yes you have amendments, but those amendments need changing to bring them up to date. Just look at how many of those amendments of yours are over 100 years old?
Listen to my latest album here
"Now I don't care to argue the merits of an abortion."
That's funny, because you do just that. In addition your innocent claim that you don't want to argue the points is a slimy rhetorical technique intended to at best hamstring the opposing view and at worst force that view to be suppressed.
Of course such sophomoric rhetoric is often used by people who can't win an argument based on the merits of their argument alone.
So given that your starting volley is rhetorically sleazy as well as being a logical fallacy extravaganza, I won't debate you on that point. Credulous wingnuts are simply not worth the time.
Yes, archaic.
1) Electoral colleges, not people voting directly for President = archaic
2) Right to bear arms = archaic
It's also archaic because of what isn't in there, for example:-
1) Free healthcare at the point of treatment (viewed as a human rights violation in most of the civilised world)
2) Loser pays court system (people can't afford to defend themselves against legal bullies - you win, you still lose)
3) Equal access to the media for ALL political parties during an election (stops there being an advantage based on wealth)
Listen to my latest album here
In WWII, US soldiers entering the UK could not carry their weapons when disembarking from their ships. They had to have their weapons handed to them after they were on UK soil because of the gun regulations at the time.
The second amendment is there to protect that right. Remember, the first 10 amendments were added immediately after the constitution was signed, it wasn't years later and the old fogeys of the day deciding, hey, wait, we need to protect the things we stood up for because the young whipper snappers are trying to take that stuff away.
If you were part of an invading army, would you expect that old guy acting like he was confused and disoriented to be coming up to you for the purpose of shooting you and taking your weapon?
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
If a gun owner could find a way to shoot a foetus in "self defence", as opposed to having some "librul doctor" perform an operation, I think they'd be fine with it.
Are you saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to own a gun because they might use it illegally at some point?
The point is that there are no legal uses if you're out in the street. What are you going to do, use it to mix your coffee?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
So how is a gun any different than a screwdriver, brick, hammer, etc.?
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People or animals. On the streets of most countries you do not find animals, at least not animals one would want to eat (the only valid reason to kill an animal imho). And almost certainly no animals that would want to eat you.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
And that is the difference between a gun and the other objects you mentioned: those objects do have a valid function in modern day life.
Has anyone else noticed that non-hunter, non-military or non-law enforcement types who are into guns tend to be pussies or closeted homosexuals?
I'm serious. If you look in the sock drawer of any civilian member of the NRA you will find faux-police or paramilitary paraphernalia along with a copy of Blue Boy magazine. Probably a rubber ball-gag, too.
And if you confront them physically when they are not armed, they will always back down and often wet themselves.
I'm absolutely serious.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If I could get elected in the first place, I'd do it. See, that's part of the problem with democratic process. Your vote counts the same no matter how much money you have. "Poor" people will vote that they be given benefits funded by the rich. OTOH, one of the good things about democratic process is that people have equal political power even if they don't have equal economic power. I guess there's no perfect system.
Constitutionally Correct
P.S.
Bishop Rock also said, "Castle doctrine and all that. But I suspect you would be tried for murder, and I hope you'd get convicted,"
So in other words he doesn't really believe you have a right to defend your home.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.