Hopefully this post won’t get me hunted down and shot by some crazed National Rifle Association member, but I need to get this off my chest.

I’m sick and tired of hearing of these American idiots who refuse to vote for candidates simply because they support gun control. Every single one of these voters, without fail, thinks that “gun control” means the government will take their guns away, or worse yet, that the candidates in question have already concocted a nefarious scheme along with radical anti-gun groups in order to steal their firearms in the dead of night.

One of my favorite comedians, David Cross (no relation), has a simple thing to say about single-issue voters like this: “You’re ignorant, and you shouldn’t vote.” Democracy is great, but he’s right. Voting like that completely breaks the system, and their ignorance is appalling. Gun control does not mean the government, or anyone else for that matter, will take away your guns. In fact, the Second Amendment that the NRA and other pro-gun organizations hide behind prohibits just that. No political candidate has ever stated a platform in which they’d take away all legally purchased firearms. What they have stated is limiting purchases (based on one’s record), background checks, and federal databases of gun owners. Sure, it could be construed as restricting gun ownership…but that’s still completely different than actually taking guns away.

On the other side of the debate, the slogan “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” carries equal weight. Gun rights activists are perfectly legitimate in claiming that they should be allowed to own firearms to protect their home and loved ones. But much more often than not, this is used as a bullshit excuse in order to carry a gun around at all times, or scarier yet, to acquire a private armory. You don’t need fifteen guns to protect your family! This recent article on the BBC aggravated me, mainly because of a single quote (the last line, which I’ve italicized):

“Since that day, Carol’s attitudes have changed completely. Having moved to Phoenix permanently, she now runs classes teaching other female shooters how to hone their skills and heads a group called the Arizona Women’s Shooting Association. Every time she leaves the house she reaches for her handbag, her keys and her gun.”

While her commitment to gun safety is commendable…why the hell does she need to tote a gun around at all times? You live in Arizona, not Detroit! That’s not safety, that’s a sickness.

After the horrible Virginia Tech shootings last year, pro-gun pundits and the NRA came right out and said that if students were allowed to carry guns on campus to protect themselves, the shooting never would have happened. The leap in logic there astounds me; sure, I suppose it’s possible, but it’s a pretty big assumption that another college student would have the courage to stand up and blow away another human being, crazy or not. You’re also legally introducing deadly weapons into a culture where drinking, partying, and fighting are very common. I don’t think I need to paint a detailed picture for you here; the ramifications of guns in the hands of drunken frat boys aren’t pleasant. Yes, I know not all college students are like that, but as we’ve seen, it only takes a few. When you’ve got guns thrown into the mix, the threat of death, accidental or otherwise, is going to skyrocket.

It’s a shame, because the NRA used to be a gun safety organization, and we certainly need those. Over the past few decades, though, it’s become nothing but a lobbying group for gun nuts. The guys who run it should never, ever be allowed near a firearm. They’re clearly a danger to society. Don’t believe me? Listen to some of Charlton Heston’s insane speeches while he was president, or the rantings of CEO Wayne LaPierre. (Even Heston decried some of those as “extreme rhetoric.”) The NRA has even hired security firms to spy upon and infiltrate anti-gun protest groups. What the hell are they, the FBI? If you’re so secure in your position, then why wage a cold war against your opponents? That’s not to say that there aren’t anti-gun nutballs, either; trust me, we’ve got plenty of those. However, they don’t have anywhere near the power or reach that groups like the NRA enjoy; they’re strictly relegated to the lunatic fringe.

What scares me the most is while many of these gun nuts proudly proclaim patriotism and the Second Amendment, their gun fetish — and that’s really what it is, a sick fetish — proves that they have no compunction about pulling the trigger against a perceived enemy. We’re talking about ending a human life here; it doesn’t get more serious than that. For an entire group of “enthusiasts” to be so casual about killing is frightening beyond compare. I believe that they can keep their guns, but the rest of us deserve a strong measure of safety as well; we need a freely accessible database of not only every gun owner, but exactly how many guns they own, as well as their criminal records (if any) and mental health. Furthermore, if you commit crimes and/or aren’t in the best mental shape, you don’t get to own a firearm. Period. (You lose your driver’s license for DUI, after all.)

On a final note…there’s no need to own assault rifles. Ever. Those are for the military to use, not you. If you think you need an assault rifle to protect yourself, then you need to check in for psychiatric care immediately.

Holy shit, I actually started using Twitter. You can click that link to go directly to my page, or view my five most recent tweets in the column on the right (below Links).

As a longtime fan of both LEGO® toys and Star Wars (don’t worry, I still hate the prequels), it’s only natural that I’d collect many of the LEGO® Star Wars building sets. While there’s plenty to love about them, there’s also an equal number of things to gripe about. The 800-pound gorilla in the room is the often-high price of the toys, but we’re going to focus more narrowly on a specific part of the LEGO® Star Wars that really blows the financial aspect out of proportion, and that is the miniature figures (commonly known as minifigs).

Collectors knew from the get-go that not only would it be great to have LEGO® representations of their favorite Star Wars ships and locales, but also the legendary characters that the saga has given us. While the cost of various sets goes up considerably over time (after they’re phased out of the primary market), the prices of the minifigs alone really rockets up into the stratosphere. I’ve known more than one fan who has purchased a $50 set, then turned around and sold one of the minifigs inside for $20 or more! Many times, LEGO® will purposefully place a random, exclusive minifig in a set just to boost its collectors’ value. A perfect example of this is the Jedi Starfighter with Hyperdrive Booster Ring. Kit Fisto never flew that ship, yet there he is along with the set. And as expected, he’s quite sought after!

While it certainly makes sense from a business standpoint, from a “I just want some cool minifigs to display” standpoint, it pisses me off to no end. It’s not like the minifigs are rare; LEGO® produces a ton of each set. It’s just a combination of slick marketing and collector retardation that’s driving the value of these things up, and like many other collectors’ items, I can’t stand that shit. Look, I can understand when a highly-detailed statue that they only made five thousand of sells for a high price. But a tiny plastic figurine, of which tens of thousands were likely created, commanding prices over $15? Please.

I’ve been trying to bolster my droid collection lately, and one of the items that tops my list is a black astromech droid that came with the Imperial Star Destroyer. For a few tiny pieces of black plastic…we’re looking at around $12-15. Ridiculous! I suppose I could tide myself over with the key chain…

You know, just once I’d like to see a presidential candidate actually have the courage to go up on a podium and say this:

“My opponents have attacked me, claiming that I’m going to raise taxes. Well, they’re correct: I am going to raise taxes. Why? Because freedom isn’t free. We all want improvements made to our great nation. Someone has to pay for it, and it’s time for all of us to do our part. Taxes will be fairly charged based on one’s income. The more you make, the more you’ll be required to pay. If you can afford multimillion-dollar mansions, then you can afford to give something back to the country that made it all possible in the first place. Thank you, and God Bless America.”

I make no bones about the fact that I’m a Luigi fan. I even dressed up as Luigi five years ago for Halloween! (It worked perfectly, since I’m a beanpole like Luigi, and not short and fat like Mario.) But it annoys me that he’s treated as such a world-class joke. I understand that the games are called Super Mario Bros. for a reason; Mario’s the star of the show. But that’s no excuse to treat his brother Luigi with such flagrant disrespect! Gamers may have been annoyed by his wonky jumping in Super Mario Bros. 2, but over the past decade, Nintendo’s gone to great lengths to turn Luigi into a total pansy.

An accurate portrayal of Nintendo’s treatment of Luigi.

Let’s start with a Gamecube launch title starring our green-clad whipping boy. Luigi’s Mansion was either underrated or overrated, depending on who you ask. Regardless, Luigi was the protagonist, and he whined and shivered his way through a haunted mansion to save his brother Mario. (Of course, 99% of the time, Mario has to save his ass from the Koopas and other assorted baddies.) Now, Luigi going and getting himself captured is no big deal. It’s the fact that he cries like a bitch when it happens that irks me. C’mon, what kind of of Italian New Yorker is going to act like that?

Was it really necessary to make him so wimpy? Even though he was the hero of Luigi’s Mansion, he sounded like the damn damsel in distress. Which brings me to my next point: when he’s not whining, his regular speaking voice just grates on the nerves. Has Luigi been gargling with razor blades? Mario’s voice can get annoying…after a while. Luigi’s voice is irritating right off the bat.

The biggest insult to date is when Mario made Luigi dress up as Princess Peach in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. (It was to trick their enemies into kidnapping the wrong person, but perhaps it says something about Mario’s secretly perverse nature.) Seriously…what the fuck?! Luigi finally gets to share the spotlight, and he’s reduced to dressing in drag? The rest of the game was loaded with anti-Luigi commentary, as well; granted, it was done for the sake of humor, but give the poor guy a break. The second fiddle jokes get old after a while. (Besides, as we’ve seen in the Paper Mario games, it’s Bowser who’s the real funnyman in the series.)

And how about Luigi’s Final Smash in Super Smash Bros. Brawl? Completely fucking useless. He gyrates around like a belly dancer…which slows down opponents. Even when you’re playing a team game, it’s useless. Last but not least…Luigi unfortunately gave rise to one of the most worthless characters in the entire Mario pantheon: Waluigi. His brother Wario is most certainly badass. Waluigi is a worthless sack of polygons, and his voice manages to be even more annoying than Luigi! Someone needs to stick him, Yoshi, and the Mario Babies in a submarine, and scuttle it over the Mariana Trench.

We can only hope that one day, Luigi will finally get the respect he deserves. I doubt it, though; Nintendo’s wider audience focus tends to relegate the Mario crew to cameo appearances and non-platformer titles. We got the flawless Super Mario Galaxy last fall, but Nintendo themselves have said that there won’t be any more of their “core” titles for at least two to three more years. Not even a DS game, people; for Pete’s sake, New Super Mario Bros. was two and a half years ago! At this rate, our favorite brothers might have to reopen their plumbing business out of sheer boredom.

? X

• Bookmarks

More »