there's an article in today's washington post about the recent rejection of a ban on guns in government buildings in virginia by the virginia legislature. the immediate issue of the bill, guns in government buildings, seems too ridiculous to even talk about. hello? this is a proposal for a ban on guns *in government buildings* (how many hunters/self-defense advocates can honestly say that they need their guns in government buildings? not many deer there, last time i checked). but even the bigger issue, gun control on a larger scale, seems to me to be a no brainer.

gun advocates claim that it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people that kill people. yes, but we all know it's the *people with guns* who kill people. the sniper? not so much able to kill people without that handy rifle. the kids who find their parents' guns? a little less able to kill their friends with only a water gun.

gun advocates claim that we all have a right to self-defense. now, they say, you need guns for self-defense because that's what the criminals have. yeah, okay, but if the criminals didn't have guns, because they couldn't get them so easily, then you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. you could just go all bruce lee on their ass, and you'd (a) be fine and (b) have all kinds of sexy moves that the chicks really dig yo.

gun advocates claim that the second friggin amendment gives them the right to have guns now and forever. see? it's written RIGHT THERE. yeah, but buddy--if we went with what was written RIGHT THERE, we'd still be counting african-americans as 3/5 of a person, and women wouldn't be able to vote, and ... oh wait. maybe they'd like it that way. the fuckers.