

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
I'll give the gun-rights supporter on NPR this morning one bit of credit in his comparison of bookstores to gun stores: books can be dangerous.
Books force you to consider different perspectives from your own. They show you worlds you've never been to, create futures that don't exist, stretch and twist and test new ideas and make you consider the fact that you just might be wrong.
Books don't, of course, kill people. I suppose you could try if you dropped enough of them from enough of a height, but they normally don't. Guns are designed for killing. That's the point. And handguns and automatic weapons are designed for killing people. You don't take 'em on a hunt.
So when the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to bear arms, first in the Heller decision two years ago and again this week, where the Heller ruling was applied to state gun control laws in McDonald v. Chicago, they upheld an individual's right to own a killing tool.
Should anyone have that right? That's where the law suits probably go next. States and the federal government say no to the very young, or mentally disturbed. We regulate gun sellers. At least, that's currently how it works.
Why, said the source on NPR the day after the decision -- should gun sellers be singled out, when book sellers aren't?
Uh, Courts have taken up the case of books from time to time. How dangerous are parts of Ulysses, or Hustler? But really -- are we really going to argue there's no distinction between a gun and a book. Really? What next? Why guns are safer than swimming pools or gym clubs? The Illinois Rifle Association's already making that argument. Happy summer, everyone.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
I'll give the gun-rights supporter on NPR this morning one bit of credit in his comparison of bookstores to gun stores: books can be dangerous.
Books force you to consider different perspectives from your own. They show you worlds you've never been to, create futures that don't exist, stretch and twist and test new ideas and make you consider the fact that you just might be wrong.
Books don't, of course, kill people. I suppose you could try if you dropped enough of them from enough of a height, but they normally don't. Guns are designed for killing. That's the point. And handguns and automatic weapons are designed for killing people. You don't take 'em on a hunt.
So when the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to bear arms, first in the Heller decision two years ago and again this week, where the Heller ruling was applied to state gun control laws in McDonald v. Chicago, they upheld an individual's right to own a killing tool.
Should anyone have that right? That's where the law suits probably go next. States and the federal government say no to the very young, or mentally disturbed. We regulate gun sellers. At least, that's currently how it works.
Why, said the source on NPR the day after the decision -- should gun sellers be singled out, when book sellers aren't?
Uh, Courts have taken up the case of books from time to time. How dangerous are parts of Ulysses, or Hustler? But really -- are we really going to argue there's no distinction between a gun and a book. Really? What next? Why guns are safer than swimming pools or gym clubs? The Illinois Rifle Association's already making that argument. Happy summer, everyone.
I'll give the gun-rights supporter on NPR this morning one bit of credit in his comparison of bookstores to gun stores: books can be dangerous.
Books force you to consider different perspectives from your own. They show you worlds you've never been to, create futures that don't exist, stretch and twist and test new ideas and make you consider the fact that you just might be wrong.
Books don't, of course, kill people. I suppose you could try if you dropped enough of them from enough of a height, but they normally don't. Guns are designed for killing. That's the point. And handguns and automatic weapons are designed for killing people. You don't take 'em on a hunt.
So when the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to bear arms, first in the Heller decision two years ago and again this week, where the Heller ruling was applied to state gun control laws in McDonald v. Chicago, they upheld an individual's right to own a killing tool.
Should anyone have that right? That's where the law suits probably go next. States and the federal government say no to the very young, or mentally disturbed. We regulate gun sellers. At least, that's currently how it works.
Why, said the source on NPR the day after the decision -- should gun sellers be singled out, when book sellers aren't?
Uh, Courts have taken up the case of books from time to time. How dangerous are parts of Ulysses, or Hustler? But really -- are we really going to argue there's no distinction between a gun and a book. Really? What next? Why guns are safer than swimming pools or gym clubs? The Illinois Rifle Association's already making that argument. Happy summer, everyone.