My Cold, Dead Hands, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #309 | @MDWorld
January 14, 2013 Mike Gold 16 Comments
If you’re a gun dealer, you’ve made a real killing. Ever since the Newtown Massacre, them lethal buggers have been selling like condoms at a blind man’s fuckfest.
My position on self-defense and gun ownership has been well-stated in these precincts: the former is natural law and the latter is a needed part of the former. But there are two positions that really piss me off.
The first is the argument that gun laws limit our ability to stave off a dictatorship created by our government. In order to do this, we would have to press our military into action against the populace. Sorry, gun fans, but I have way, way too much respect for the men and women in our armed forces to believe that will happen. Yes, it’s happened elsewhere. This isn’t elsewhere. And it hasn’t happened anywhere that is even remotely like the United States of America.
The second is that there is a force greater than our government that wants to take over our nation. If you are following this part of the debate on the Internet – and I don’t recommend doing so after a hearty meal – you would quickly learn that these protagonists are the Jews, the blacks, and/or the socialists. You may know them as Democrats.
Gun fans, your owning a Bushmaster assault rifle will not protect you from these imaginary forces of evil. However, our armed forces will. We’ve got nearly one and one-half million people in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force – even eliminating the 5,000 who are Jewish – plus all those cats in the sundry National Guards. The latter is also known as the “well regulated militia” you’ve been hearing so much about.
It’s tough listening to the wild ravings of Wayne LaPierre and Alex Jones. These people act insane. Maybe they are; I don’t know. They argue with both the passion and the complete lack of reason as Hitler and Stalin during their PMS time, and I suspect there’s more going on there than the two of them merely shilling for the gun industry. Jones acts so completely bugfuck he actually pulled off the impossible: he made me feel sympathetically towards Piers Morgan.
There are many others. Connecticut state Rep. DebraLee Hovey (R) represents the Newtown area. She condemned former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ recent visit to Newtown. A survivor of a lethal mass attack, Giffords gave aid and comfort to town residents who need all they can get. Hovey babbled “Gabby Giffords stay out of my towns… It was (for) pure political motives.” Lacking the courage of her convictions, Hovey cowardly took down her post after she started getting shit for it.
Amusingly, Ms. Giffords is no longer in office and she’s not running for office. Yes, she might in the future I suppose – but so might I. Many local politicians joined her in Newtown that day, Republicans as well as Democrats.
But LaPierre, Jones and Hovey are not alone in their tantrums. In total they are by no means anywhere near the majority, but they are well armed and very dangerous.
All of this simply hardens my position about gun ownership.
We need something to protect us from monster enablers like Wayne LaPierre, DebraLee Hovey and Alex Jones.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times. Gold also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Doug Abramson
January 14, 2013 - 8:07 pm
What’s “funny” about the “We need guns to protect ourselves from the gubernet!” people is the fact that its a pointless exercise. If Washington turned into a dictatorship and if the military either led or went along with it (Very big ifs and I agree with you that it ain’t very likely.), all the assault rifles and high capacity magazines in the world wouldn’t do any good. The possibility of the US military being defeated on home soil, especially by a civilian rebellion, has been highly unlikely since the adoption of mechanized warfare around WWI. Since Hiroshima, its been impossible.
Mike Gold
January 14, 2013 - 9:53 pm
Not only does our government operate a couple squadrons of drones, but now TMZ has applied for permits for their own drones.
Presumably, TMZ’s won’t be allowed to carry bombs — please don’t tell Wayne LaPew — but you know the military drones have that capability.
Rene
January 15, 2013 - 8:26 am
Mike, I made the exact same points in a libertarian board I frequented. That I was in favor of gun ownership, based on my belief on individual freedom. But that I thought people who thought the US government would turn evil and take over and/or that amateur gun nuts could do much IF the government turned evil, were delusional.
Of course, being that that was a libertarian board full of paranoids about the evil government, I was called an “agent” playing at “memetic warfare” to weaken the will of the brave libertarian warriors that one day would be all that stood in the path of the evil socialist liberal dictator taking over the US.
You can’t argue with those people. They have completely mythologized themselves.
Neil C.
January 15, 2013 - 9:19 am
Yeah, if you disagree with guys like Alex Jones you’re either “a mindless follower” or “in on the conspiracy.” There’s no way they could just be, well, wrong?
R. Maheras
January 15, 2013 - 10:25 am
I used to think anyone who said the government would someday try and conficate everyone’s firearms was a raving loon.
Then Katrina happened, and “the government” tried to confiscate everyone’s guns at precisely the time when they were probably needed the most: During a period of disaster, when local law enforcement had broken down and looters and other riff raff was emerging from the woodwork.
Now I’m not so confident the loons were wrong…
Rene
January 15, 2013 - 11:30 am
It’s not crazy to assume that, under some circunstances, the local authorities would confiscate guns. It is insane though to believe that the US government would turn into a evil dictatorship.
It’s also crazy to believe the gun nuts would manage to stave off the government taking over. They couldn’t even deal with the U.S. Army National Guard in Lousiana, could they?
Mike Gold
January 15, 2013 - 12:52 pm
Good luck trying to confiscate all the guns. Even with the full support of our armed forces, which, I reiterate, ain’t gonna happen, they’d have to do a thorough house-by-house of every home, apartment, office, car, truck, cemetary and cardboard box in the nation, and then they’d have to till over all of the land and check into all the wells and caves and open up all the bowling alley lockers.
What can we point to that came closest to this level of search-and-seizure? Ummm… I guess the War on Drugs. Which, as we all know, was won by Drugs in a first round knockout.
And even if they did such a search, anybody with half a brain — either half — could make guns and bombs. There isn’t even an enormous amount of skill involved: painting the living room is harder. Most of us could weaponize our kitchens during the commercial breaks on Bill O’Reilly’s show.
The idea of the government seizing all the guns is ludicrous. Anybody who thinks that’s possible is too insane to be allowed to own one.
Neil C.
January 15, 2013 - 1:05 pm
It’s nice to see after ‘gun confistication’ that the ‘riff raff’ now rule over the Empire of Louisiana, and those taking them away have done so and established militia law in the rest of the country. Oh, wait. That didn’t happen.
R. Maheras
January 15, 2013 - 3:25 pm
Neil — I find it remarkable that you are so cavalier about a Constitutional right being trampled on.
What you apparently fail to realize is that if this one can be so easily circumnavigated, than ANY Constitutional right — even the ones you support — can be ignored.
A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right.
If you forget that important fact, then you soon may have no rights at all.
Mike Gold
January 15, 2013 - 5:38 pm
“A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right.” Really? What about blue laws? What about all those mosques that have been prevented from being built? They bleep the hell out of people on broadcast television and radio and fine stations into the next dimension — is that freedom of speech? Anybody who takes the Constitutional rights afforded under the Fifth Amendment is automatically perceived as guilty.
In other words, why is the Second Amendment — and we can put off the debate about the phrasing of the Second Amendment — a sacrosanct Constitutional right, but the rights afforded under the First Amendment are something we wipe our ass with?
Get real. When was the last time 20 first-graders died because Craig Ferguson said “fuck” at 1 in the morning?
Neil C.
January 15, 2013 - 7:11 pm
You don’t need an assault weapon unless you are an 80s action people. Nobody is taking away registered guns. They’ll take away social security before they take away guns.
Neil C.
January 15, 2013 - 7:12 pm
Action hero I meant.
Mike Gold
January 15, 2013 - 7:24 pm
I like action people. Sounds like a chewing gum commercial from the 60s.
That’s really a great line — “They’ll take away social security before they take away guns.”
Neil C.
January 15, 2013 - 7:55 pm
Mike,
I can’t take credit for it, I think I saw it on an FB post.
Doug Abramson
January 15, 2013 - 8:10 pm
Mike, Mike, Mike… you’re using logic again, where apparently abject paranoia is called for.
R. Maheras
January 15, 2013 - 9:13 pm
Neil — That’s bullshit. It’s not about assault weapons, and never has been. It’s about guns, period. During Katrina, they confiscated ALL guns. In Chicago, all HANDGUNS were banned for more than 25 years. Chicago’s handgun ban was in effect 10 years before the city got around to banning assault weapons.
Mike — Did I ever support blue laws? No. Do I care if Ferguson swears on TV? No. I support all of the amendments, and look with suspicion at anyone who seeks to circumvent them “in my best interests.”
Rick Oliver
January 15, 2013 - 10:18 pm
The second amendment is special because the NRA has made it special. The NRA is little more than the public face of the gun lobby, which exists solely to ensure that gun sales and profits continue to rise unimpeded.
Regardless of what the purists believe, the second amendment is open to interpretation, and the court has made numerous interpretations over the years. Recent court decisions boil down to two salient points: 1) the court has ruled that the second amendment protects your right to own guns for self-defense, even though the second amendment says nothing about self-defense, and 2) The court has also ruled that the second amendment does NOT exclude “reasonable regulation” of guns, although the court has declined to expand on what might be considered “reasonable”.
And just my two cents: The second amendment doesn’t say anything about “guns”. It says “arms”. 200 years ago, the “arms” available to the average citizen were the same “arms” available to whatever military force the government could muster, and it’s not unreasonable to conclude that part of the intent of the amendment was to ensure that the people could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. There’s plenty of evidence to indicate that some of the original states were extremely wary of a centralized federal government and that part of the impetus for the second and fourth amendments was to make sure that our new government couldn’t do what our old government (Britain) did: search our homes without warrants and take our guns.
As has already been pointed out, taking up arms against the government today without the support of the military would be a largely futile endeavor, but this a distinction between the intent of the second amendment and the practical application of the amendment — a distinction the court has been delicately dancing around for years.
Neil C.
January 15, 2013 - 11:34 pm
Double down, R., double down.
Rene
January 16, 2013 - 3:42 am
The Second Amendment has become anachronic, because as Rick says, 200 years ago the private citizens could own the same arms as the military.
If we respect the INTENT of the Second Amendment right now, it would mean that every private citizen should have access to nuclear weapons, so they could deter a US government gone tyranical.
But that is also clearly absurd. Things changed a lot since 1787. Technology marched on. A “libertarian” world where every private citizen had the means to physically fight off government coercion would be a world in the edge of armageddon.
Neil C.
January 16, 2013 - 8:11 am
Here’s an interesting thought: liberals are more interested in regulating things (guns, etc.) that they will believe that will cause harm, whether you agree or not, but conservatives are more interested in regulating people (abortion, immigration, gay marriage).
Rene
January 16, 2013 - 8:38 am
Conservatives also want to regulate things. For instance: some drugs, magazines and books with explicit content, etc.
The main difference among them, IMO, is that liberals want a world free of violence and strife (sometimes they even go so far that they appear to want a world free of any competition and discomfort). Conservatives, on the other hand, want a world free of “immoral pleasures”.
When you have this is mind, it becomes clear why liberals seek to forbid some things, while conservatives want to forbid a different set of things.
Neil C.
January 16, 2013 - 10:27 am
Rene, and as with everything else, too much either way is too much.
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 11:33 am
Rene — How many private citizens owned cannons, mortars, forts or warships in colonial days?
Rick — Any deent lawyer will tell you that almost ALL portions of the Constitution and its amendments are “open to interpretation” to those seeking to water down or circumnavigate it. Obama’s staffers are doing seeking ways to do that as we speak. Many presidents have sought ways to increase executive power — something most of the Founding Fathers would have frowned upon.
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 11:33 am
deent = decent
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 11:36 am
Neil wrote: “Double down, R., double down.”
Great non-answer.
Rene
January 16, 2013 - 1:59 pm
Russ – You can’t carry forts and warships with you, you can’t “bear them”. But you CAN carry a suitcase nuke. So, if the right to “bear arms” is a safeguard against tyranical government, why not campaign for suitcase nukes for all American people?
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 2:54 pm
Rene — That’s a silly argument, and it seems like you, and others, are trying to obscure the real issue here: The Democrats are using a horrible tragedy to push politically-motivated anti-gun legislation that simply could not have prevented the tragedy in the first place.
It’s a pretty despicable move, really.
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 2:56 pm
The ironic thing here is I’m defending gun ownership and I don’t even like guns.
But, while I don’t like guns, I like dishonesty and politically motivated bullshit even less.
Mike Gold
January 16, 2013 - 3:22 pm
As opposed to culturally motivated bullshit? One person’s bullshit is another person’s grail. Oh, why can’t we all be exactly the same?
There are plenty of cannons around these parts — something I suspect Russ will find out when he moves out east. This past week, it was discovered one formerly British cannon (from the HMS Hussar) that was occupying a small very public spot in Manhattan’s Central Park was still loaded with powder and ammunition. Dated back to the Revolutionary War. Don’t know if it would still work, but the appropriate authorities didn’t want to take any chances.
Still, you gotta figure: if the Brits could schlep a cannon across the Atlantic 235 years ago and it remained a danger to this day, then we shouldn’t be so sanguine about weapons of mass destruction such as assault rifles.
Neil C.
January 16, 2013 - 10:16 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/16/maddow-on-new-nra-ads-trolling-a-key-aspect-of-conservative-media/
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 10:59 pm
Neil — You’re really desperate, aren’t you? So now I’m an NRA troll?
I’ve never belonged to the NRA in my life.
Let me repeat, with emphasis: “But, while I don’t like guns, I like dishonesty and politically motivated bullshit even less.”
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 11:01 pm
News flash: Rachel Maddow is about as objective as Sean Hannity.
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 11:16 pm
Mike — Did you really just compare “weapons of mass destruction” (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) to assault rifles?
The mind reels at such hyperbole.
R. Maheras
January 16, 2013 - 11:17 pm
I guess you may as well then call motor vehicles “weapons of mass destruction.”
Neil C.
January 16, 2013 - 11:56 pm
Not you specifically, but in general.
Neil C.
January 16, 2013 - 11:58 pm
So you’re basically taking a position you don’t believe in just because other people are against it?
R. Maheras
January 17, 2013 - 12:47 am
For a lot of good reasons, there’s wisdom in an armed populace — of which the Founding Fathers were well aware.
But the biggest reason, I believe, was to ensure people had the right to defend themselves, as a gun is a great equalizer.
Recently, career criminals did the happy dance when the names and addresses of gun owners were published by that New York newspaper. Why do you suppose that was?
Anyone, like me, who has lived in a crime zone knows that if one is unarmed during a home invasion, they will likely be dead long before police arrive.
And publishing such lists identifies where there are guns to steal, but, more importantly, where the unarmed folks live.
Which is why, I suppose, that even though New York rammed through a tough new gun control law as a knee-jerk response to the mass shooting in Connecticut, they added a provision where gun owners could no longer be publicly identified.
I voted for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, but when she tried to release the names of gun owners in my state in 2011, she went too far. I wrote her a pointed nasty-gram, and the Illinois legislature (and state police) apparently agreed with me, because her attempt was quashed.
Rene
January 17, 2013 - 2:49 am
Russ – What are you talking about? I also believe in gun ownership and in a citizen’s right to defend themselves. I never said I didn’t. I also believe that gun laws do little to inhibit career criminals. What I was criticizing was the crazy idea that gun ownership would matter if a First World government decided to turn tyrannical.
Rene
January 17, 2013 - 3:36 am
I also don’t like guns, personally. But if a man wants to own a gun and he got a clean record, fine. What I call dishonest and sickening, not say paranoid and delusional, is the gun nuts that go for self-aggrandizement, calling themselves heroes and guardians against tyranny.
The American Right has specialized in trying to pass individualism as heroism, but newsflash: they’re not the same. Heroism is more than just looking for number one. That is called worrying about your own skin.
Neil C.
January 17, 2013 - 6:17 am
Pretty much what Rene said.
Mike Gold
January 17, 2013 - 7:14 am
“Did you really just compare ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (nuclear, biological and chemical weapons) to assault rifles? The mind reels at such hyperbole. I guess you may as well then call motor vehicles ‘weapons of mass destruction.'”
Define mass. Many people using assault weapons have slaughtered masses at a time — 6 or 26, it doesn’t matter. The purpose of assault weapons is to kill a mass of people within a short span, so it meets my definition just fine.
Motor vehicles are built for a different purpose. Actually, several different purposes. But they could be used as weapons of mass destruction, which is why, since Oklahoma City, most federal buildings and a great many other buildings now have big ol’ concrete barriers to dissuade people from putting a shitload of fertilizer (and other stuff we don’t care to mention) in their trunk and ram the buildings at top speed.
Oh, as for Rachel Maddow. Yes, she is more objective than Sean Hannity. Absolutely. But, Russ, one of the many things you and I agree on is advocacy for the members of our military, and broadcasting right now has no greater advocate for our military than Rachel Maddow. When Sean Hannity is the last reporter out of Iraq, I’ll consider reevaluating that statement.
Disclaimer: Ms. Maddow has read and seemingly enjoyed a lot of comic books with my name on ’em. So, while there’s no person on Earth I agree with 100% of the time (including myself), I do admire her taste.
Rick Oliver
January 17, 2013 - 10:43 am
“But the biggest reason, I believe, was to ensure people had the right to defend themselves, as a gun is a great equalizer.”
Well, Russ, although the Supreme Court apparently agrees with you, there is absolutely nothing explicit or implicit in the second amendment concerning self-defense — and from an historic perspective, there is absolutely no evidence to support this interpretation as being part of the founders’ intent.
And there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting you from building a fort — or granting you an explicit right to build one either. That particular analogy is utterly specious in the context of the second amendment.
Neil C.
January 17, 2013 - 1:42 pm
Gotta love the consistency of the GOP: On one hand, Obama is ‘becoming a dictator’ yet he ‘lack courage.’ That’s like the time he was both a Muslim and a thrall of Rev. Jeremy Wright. Pick a hate reason and stick with it!
Doug Abramson
January 17, 2013 - 4:08 pm
“Pick a hate reason and stick with it!” Aww Neil, where’s the fun in that?
R. Maheras
January 17, 2013 - 4:51 pm
Mike wrote: “Disclaimer: Ms. Maddow has read and seemingly enjoyed a lot of comic books with my name on ‘em. So, while there’s no person on Earth I agree with 100% of the time (including myself), I do admire her taste.”
No kidding? That’s cool. My respect for her just went up a notch. But I still don’t think she’s politically objective. Like most folks on MSNBC, she unabashedly skews left.
But the skewing has advantages. One of the reasons I watch both Fox and MSNBC is because I want to know the views on a given topic from both extremes. Then I’ll try and fill in the blanks by cycling through CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, Christian Science Monitor, etc.
Cycling through the news this way helps give me the most objective view possible, and helps me filter out most of the partisan bullshit.
Reg
January 17, 2013 - 5:08 pm
Russ, despite your antipathy towards Rachel Maddow, I’d be very interested to get your take on what appears to be a very cogent and accurate breakdown of the President’s proposed legislation.
Rachel Raps
R. Maheras
January 18, 2013 - 7:55 am
Reg — sorry, but during the past week, my normal routine has been messed up. I am literally in transit from LA to DC with a several day stay in Chicago en route. Thus I haven’t seen maddow’s detailed breakdown. I’ve seen snippets of Obama’s 23 recommendations elsewhere, and while some are fine with me, others are obviously an overreaction.
One other thing I’ve wanted to badly do this past week was write my thoughts about the demise of “Comics Buyer’s Guide” — a publication I’ve had a fond association with for nearly 40 years — but the story broke the day my movers came and just a few days before I left LA for good.
R. Maheras
January 18, 2013 - 8:01 am
The good thing about flying to DC today is I’ll be in town in time for the inauguration. I’ll probably wander over and watch, as I’ve never been to one before.
Mike Gold
January 18, 2013 - 8:51 am
I’d been to Clinton’s — an interesting event, but the interesting stuff was all in the restaurants. Lots of high-power people of all political persuasions, from all over the world. Washington looked like a Brooks Brothers convention.
I, too, am saddened by CBG’s passing. Been in touch with Maggie Thompson and Tony Isabella; Maggie is quite thrilled that she can get to a lot of stuff she’s wanted to do for a while (and that, in and of itself, is exciting). Tony’s having more of the fanboy response the rest of us are having, but he’s doing fine. Good people, both. The best.