Gun Morality, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #321 | @MDWorld
April 8, 2013 Mike Gold 16 Comments
“I just read where somebody was killed with a paper bag and a knife. Now, are they going to ban paper bags and knives?”
This was the brilliant utterance of one of my fellow Nutmeggers in response to the passage of the new gun control laws in Connecticut. Since he was courageous enough to voice the argument, I’ll take it seriously and respond accordingly.
Yes. If a paper bag and a knife can kill 26 people inside of five minutes, then by all means, ban the lethal paper-bag-and-knife combination.
The NRA and its shill, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (amusingly located in Newtown Connecticut), predictably has been up in arms about the new laws in Connecticut that would prohibit sales of high capacity ammunition magazines, require universal background checks, establish a dangerous weapon offender registry, require eligibility certificates for the purchase of long guns and ammunition, expand the state safe storage law, increase penalties for trafficking and illegal possession will be increased, and add a mental health professional and a retired Superior Court Judge to the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners.
Of course, these organizations took out ads in newspapers here in Fairfield County that were fraught with panic-inducing lies: absolute lies; not just typically extreme interpretations of truthiness.
And then the NRA and the NSSF did something else. These purveyors of paranoia made robo-calls to people in the area, including people in Newtown, including people in Newtown whose kids were in those classrooms, including parents and relatives of kids and teachers who were killed in those classrooms, telling them that if these laws passed we might all wind up dead. Non-profit organizations are exempted from no-call lists and, yes, the appropriate response to this is “define non-profit.”
The move backfired completely. Last Wednesday, these laws were ratified by the Connecticut state congress.
As Nelson Muntz would say, “Ha, ha!” Or to refer to a more time-honored animation meme, that stick of dynamite blew up in their lying faces.
“Guns don’t kill. People kill.” Yep, that’s absolutely correct. Guns don’t kill. People such as Adam Lanza who decided to discard his 10 shot magazines for those containing 30 shots and take a half dozen of those magazines to a public school and fire 154 bullets at teachers and small children within five minutes and killing 26 of them – these are the people who kill.
There is absolutely no doubt that had Adam Lanza had to reload more than three times – he would have had to reload at least 15 times if he took the standard magazines, assuming the percentage of magazines that jammed remained consistent – he could not have slaughtered as many people. Certainly not before the police arrived.
The NRA’s response is to put armed guards in the schools. Well, many schools have armed guards, so their purported use as intimidation factors is non-existent. Besides, if I wanted to slaughter a gaggle of children and I was concerned about being shot (and recent history has shown us this killers are not so concerned), I’d just drive my pickup truck to the parking lot and wait for the school bell to ring. From a crouched position, I could probably take out that armed guard during my spree, probably before I had to reload.
Whereas I’ve long identified rabid Wayne LaPierre as a great evil on par with Josef Stalin, in the past I have defended much of the National Rifle Association’s work and I have, and I remain, a supporter of the right to own guns. But now, after their recent actions, to support the NRA is to support LaPierre’s mindlessly deadly agenda. In their post-Newtown actions the NRA has proven themselves to be more than simply imbeciles who think the paper-bag-and-knife argument is clever or salient.
The U.S. criminal code defines “aiding and abetting” as “(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal, (and) (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.”
The NRA has proven itself to be guilty of accessory after the fact. They are aiding and abetting Adam Lanza and his ilk.
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 MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
R. Maheras
April 8, 2013 - 8:20 am
Both sides of this whole gun rights argument spin the truth and omit important facts, so the term “liar” should be used carefully, methinks.
For example, anti-gun folks never mention that, according to the FBI’s latest homicide data for the year 2011, more than 32 percent of all homicides in the United States do not involve firearms of any type.
Second, they never mention that limiting magazine capacity from 30-round clips to 10-round clips won’t do a damn thing to prevent a serial killer or psychopath bent on making a statement from murdering masses of people. The fact is, if there are no 30-round clips around, they’ll simply find some other way to wreck mass carnage.
And I can’t believe you honestly think that police response time is truly a deterrent to a person who is mentally screwed up enough to do something like the Newtown Massacre. If they think about it at all, all it MIGHT do is coax them to change their target to a location where they know they’ll have more time. For example, the kook in Norway chose a remote island where, in terms of police response, he had all the time in the world. He could have had an 1800s-era Colt revolver, a machete, or even a baseball bat, and he still could have murdered the same number of people.
As I mentioned once before, a machete is the mass killer of choice in many parts of the world. and why do you supposed beheadings are — even in places where guns are available — the “statement” murder of choice?
Response time, my ass. Unless a cop is right next to you when a perp decides to strike, or at least in shouting distance, you’re screwed.
Rene
April 8, 2013 - 9:22 am
Russ –
You are simply too emotional in your rage against “stupid gun-grabbers” if you really think the Norway killer could have killed the same number of people with a baseball bat.
The machete was used in genocides, yes. But don’t forget that those machetes were in the hands of militiamen numbering in the thousands. I’m not sure I ever read about a lone “macheteman” killing hundreds of people in a spree, as it happens in American schools.
Michael –
But the response by the NRA is not really as insane as it looks. They took a position of zero tolerance because they suspect, perhaps correctly, that the restrictions are incremental. If they cave to perfectly rational restrictions now, they open themselves for further restrictions down the long road.
One Conservative guy used anti-smoking laws to justify their position. Better to sound crazy, paranoid, intolerant right now than to open themselves to what they see as an erosion of gun rights.
The problem with that approach is the same of other Conservative-led initiatives. It alienates the majority of people that don’t belong in that 20% of hardcore conservatives.
R. Maheras
April 8, 2013 - 12:49 pm
Rene — I’M emotional? My god! Haven’t you been following the anti-gun folks on the issue? Every single argument from the anti-gun side is emotional, which is why the vast majority of what they proposed as law to date wouldn’t have made a darn bit of difference in the Newtown Massacre case.
As I mentioned before, in general, this is not about preventing another Newtown. It’s about ratcheting up gun control any way possible until ownership for the average person becomes almost impossible.
That’s certainly what they were trying to do in Chicago. And despite the recent Supreme Court decision, Chicago is still trying to find ways to skirt around the Constitution — the same way the Southern states did regarding blacks after the Civil War: Taxes, and very restrictive anciliary laws.
I was being a smartass in the Norway baseball bat example, but the other two weapons could have easily done the same damage to an unprotected island full of kids.
A well-sharpened machete is one scary and brutally efficient killing tool. Ask any Filippino insurgent.
Neil C.
April 8, 2013 - 1:07 pm
Russ,
Why shouldn’t there be some form of gun control? Are you that paranoid about “the government” coming to take them, a government which has a military budget which they use to buy these weapons which would allegedly be used to take your freedom? But I bet the military budget isn’t considered a problem….
Rene
April 8, 2013 - 1:46 pm
Yes, a machete is a brutal, efficient weapon. Still, if you are a lone guy going up on a spree killing, an automatic gun is vastly superior. Now, if you happened to have a vast militia, all armed with machetes, then maybe a case could be made for it (no friendly fire, etc.)
And thanks for confirming what I told Michael about conservative response. You guys see any anti-gun laws as the beginning salvo of an incremental attack on gun rights. It’s one of those issues where 20% of commited conservatives can’t see eye to eye with the other 80% of the public.
Mike Gold
April 8, 2013 - 5:23 pm
So, Russ, you are saying that since only a mere 68% of homicides involve firearms, we could let mental patients, convicts, and terrorists buy them. That’s an interesting argument. You’re saying that we should continue to have open gun festivals that permit people to buy guns to resell to gang members at a considerable profit so those gang members can continue to slaughter all who oppose them as well as those who get in the path of their bullets. You’re saying that since 10 bullet magazines kill people as well as thirty bullet magazines, we should allow those who choose to commit mass murder to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that saving the lives of even a few of them is beyond our concern.
Don’t worry. The gun nuts and NRA whores in Congress will filibuster away any further sanctions. You’re safe.
Oh, and speaking about “safe.” Didn’t you just move to Washington DC? What’s the crime rate like there? Because if the reason for that is because we have sanctions against free and open gun ownership and possession… Well, then. Let’s go tits to the wind. Congress should start by taking down the metal detectors in all of their buildings and repeal the laws that prohibit concealed weapons in government buildings.
After all, when was the last time anybody shot up Congress while in session? 1948. That was a long, long time ago. Forgive and forget. Cap a Congressman TODAY!
R. Maheras
April 8, 2013 - 7:16 pm
Neil — Oh, yes. Why not have some gun control laws? It’s the reasonable thing to do, blah, blah, blah. The fact is, there already ARE gun control laws. Lots of them. But for the anti-gun crowd, some is never enough. I will again cite Chicago, because they glommed onto the anti-gun mantra, Constitution be damned. They made it illegal to own handguns, and 10 years later, assault weapons, and to what end? Chicago’s murder rate increased. Democrats in power didn’t care, because they made it clear their goal was to eliminate any private weapon ownership.
If one believes in the Constitution, such unilateral, unconstitutional actions are wrong.
R. Maheras
April 8, 2013 - 7:22 pm
Rene — Nice try, but I’m not a conservative. I am an independent.
And if 80 percent really agree with you, then where’s the frickin’ Constitutional amendment banning the private gun ownership?
If you need to resort to hyperbole and distortions, maybe your anti-gun stance isn’t as righteous as you think, and does not have the support you imply.
Mike Gold
April 8, 2013 - 7:35 pm
Russ, your argument about the gangland murders in Chicago just doesn’t wash. Those murders are happening with guns purchased illegally, mostly at gun shows where background checks aren’t happening, mostly in one or two states. The Connecticut laws (which include severe sanctions against those shills who can pass checks buying guns on behalf of those who cannot) specifically address these issues.
Will they be 100% effective? Of course not. The Christian bibles have that “thou shakt not kill” thing in them, and that hasn’t been 100% effective either. But will those laws save a lot of lives? Absolutely. Anything short of 100% isn’t enough, but every life we can save is a very good thing.
R. Maheras
April 8, 2013 - 7:39 pm
Mike — C’mon. A little critical thinking here. The US has far more guns, per capita, than most other countries, yet it has a lower homicide rate, per capita than scores of countries with gun ownership rates that are a small fraction of ours.
To hear the anti-gun crowd tell it, one would think that a country with the gun ownership rate the US has would have a much higher murder rate, per capita, and that the murder rate from guns would be 99 percent.
But it’s not. That’s because those who have the capacity to kill will use any weapon they can lay their hands on. And what do the anti-gun filks want to do? Take guns from law-abiding citizens who use guns for deterrence and defense.
Daley and his gang proved quite conclusively they didn’t want common sense gun rules; they wanted no guns, period.
I don’t mind background checks, and I said as much. But that apparently doesn’t matter.
Mike Gold
April 8, 2013 - 7:44 pm
Trust me, buddy, you’re conservative. No question about it. You say you’re an independent and I agree. You are not a Republican, you are not a Democrat, you’re not a Tory. We can talk about reviving the Bull Moose Party, which would be cool … but unlikely, because your philosophies are, by and large, conservative.
Personally, I’d be proud of that. It means to me that you have a well-thought out philosophy that you formed through your own thinking and not by toeing any group’s line.
R. Maheras
April 8, 2013 - 7:52 pm
Mike — If most murders are gang murders, using guns gotten illegally, why did Daley take guns from law-abiding citizens?
You know as well as I do that, historically, most Democratic leadership in Chicago didn’t give a rat’s ass about what happened in gang-ridden parts of Chicago, just as long as the violence didn’t spill over to the gentrified or white neighborhoods.
That is part of the Democrat hypocrisy that caused, and still causes, my blood to boil.
The fact is, Daley took away the guns from law-abiding citizens because he is a good Democrat, and gun control is a Democrat platform issue.
It did not matter that it was unconstitutional, and even worse, it simply did not work.
Mike Gold
April 8, 2013 - 8:03 pm
Ask Richie. I don’t understand half of what he did in the last two terms. To blame Chicago’s woes on the Democrats is disingenuous. The last Republican administration also gave the keys to the city to the gangs, but in Thompson’s day those gangs were run by white guys. And the death rate took a lot more forms than mere guns… But a solution to that was, in part, the banning of the assault gun of its time: the Thompson submachine gun.
Although the submachine gun remained in use by law enforcement. I held one — unloaded — in Sheriff Dick Elrod’s office in the 1970s. With Elrod giggling. It was quite a bonding moment.
Neil C.
April 9, 2013 - 5:43 am
Everything in the world is obviously the fault of Chicago Democrats. They are the only people who don’t deserve The Gift of Guns.
Rene
April 9, 2013 - 8:26 am
“Rene — Nice try, but I’m not a conservative. I am an independent.”
You are an independent and a conservative. They’re not mutually exclusive.
“And if 80 percent really agree with you, then where’s the frickin’ Constitutional amendment banning the private gun ownership?”
Because your binary mind misrepresents my position. I don’t remember talking about banning private gun ownership. Yet, you automatically jumped to it because that is what all liberals are supposed to stand for, right? They all want to ban all guns.
A very committed, very connected minority has more political representation than a weakly committed majority. This is the case all over the world. 80% of Americans want tighter restrictions on guns (no, they do not necessarily have the sinister purpose of banning all guns), but they don’t want it as fanatically as the 20% of commited conservatives who want no anti-gun laws whatsoever.
“If you need to resort to hyperbole and distortions, maybe your anti-gun stance isn’t as righteous as you think, and does not have the support you imply.”
You’re one to talk of hyperboles. As for my anti-gun stance, it’s non-existent, because I’m not anti-gun.
“The US has far more guns, per capita, than most other countries, yet it has a lower homicide rate, per capita than scores of countries with gun ownership rates that are a small fraction of ours.”
That is because the NRA is right, to some extent. Righteous, hyperbolic, and distorting I may be, but I am able to see when my opponents have some right ideas. Anti-gun laws don’t stop most murders. They never did, and never will, and some liberals delude themselves.
Still, tighter anti-gun legislation would be effective in some cases. The suburban-unbalanced-lonely-middle-class-male-spree-killer variety. It wouldn’t do squat for urban violence, for gang violence, that make most of the statistics.
R. Maheras
April 9, 2013 - 11:01 am
Mike and Neil — Blaming Chicago Democrats for their policy failures is not disingenuous, nor is Chicago in some sort of vacuum when it comes to policy failures that are part of the national Democratic platform. I know of no other place in the US as large as Chicago where Democrats have had such total control for such a long period of time. So looking at what has failed, and what has worked, is both reasonable and smart.
When it comes to living conditions and opportunities for minorities during the past 50 years, Chicago has barely raised the bar in many ways, and in other ways, such as education and the murder rate, the bar has collapsed.
What’s most troubling about this is the fact that the percentage of minorities in the city is much larger than ever before: 58 percent, and counting. Yet Chicago leadership during most of the Democrat’s reign has been white.
Sure, there have been notable figurehead successes for minorities in Chicago, such as Michael Jordan, Oprah and President Obama, but this “trickle-down celebrity” effect hasn’t translated into a better life for many Chicago minorities.
For example, my old neighborhood of Austin is still a crime-ridden afterthought to Chicago’s power elite, and there are other parts of the West Side that have had empty lots, “food deserts” and no growth or prosperity since many of the businesses in the area went up in flames during the 1968 riots. That was 45 years, eleven mayoral terms, and nine presidents ago (four of them Democratic).
Parts of the South Side are even worse, and they were crime-ridden afterthoughts even before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
The fact is, Democrats have not simply failed minorities in Chicago, they failed them miserably.
And the reason they continue to fail is because they are too f**king arrogant to admit that some of their pet policies simply don’t work.
Gun control is only one of them.
R. Maheras
April 9, 2013 - 11:32 am
Time to ban Exacto-knives, I guess: http://abcnews.go.com/US/14-people-stabbed-lone-star-community-college-texas/story?id=18915596
Mike Gold
April 9, 2013 - 11:55 am
Then how do you explain that the black communities in Chicago have voted overwhelmingly Democratic since 1955? All of the black communities. Every election. Even well after the Shakman Decree in 1970, which effectively put an end to the Democratic Machine that ran the city from Cermak’s inauguration in 1931 to Daley Senior’s death in 1976 (oh, yeah, Bilandic sat in the big chair for a short while after his boss, The Boss, died — but he couldn’t even get the snow picked up).
On a local level (“all politics is local”) people reelect people who act in the community’s best interests. True corruption waits until you get to the state level, and many aren’t in it for that so they stay put where they can do some good.
How do you explain guys in power like Harold Washington (a congressman before he was mayor), congressmen Bobby Rush (a former Black Panther; you might recall they didn’t get along with Daley Senior) and William L. Dawson, aviatrix Bessie Coleman, media moguls Robert Sengstacke Abbott (perhaps the most influential black person of his time) and John H. Johnson, educator Michael Dawson, authors Richard Wright and Gwendolyn Brooks… and, oh, yeah, that Obama guy. That’s just the tip of the tip of the iceberg, but those names represent a hell of a lot of real power.
One thing more. These people were, and are, nobody’s fool.
Garsoniera
April 9, 2013 - 4:27 pm
Hi, i think that i noticed you visited my site so i got here to return the desire?
.I’m attempting to in finding issues to enhance my site!I assume its good enough to use some of your ideas!!
Rick Oliver
April 9, 2013 - 8:01 pm
Most of the guns used in Chicago murders were probably initially purchased legally, typically through straw man purchases, frequently right outside the city. Claiming that Chicago is proof that gun control laws don’t work is like claiming that the presence of pollution in Chicago is proof that anti-pollution laws don’t work when there are no pollution laws in Indiana.
And yes, there are many countries with higher murder rates than the United States, most of which fall in the category of “Not a nice place to visit, and probably a place you should avoid even flying over in case the plane develops engine trouble and you have to spend any time on the ground there”. Compared to most of western Europe and Australia, our murder rate is roughly four times higher.
Mike Gold
April 9, 2013 - 8:16 pm
Actually, guns and pollution are two of Indiana’s top exports to Chicago. Down in southern Illinois, you can jump across the Ohio or the Mississippi in any direction and you’ll hit a gun dealer on the riverfront.
There is only one reason why guns are harder to purchase than marijuana: guns are more expensive. But in Little Egypt and points south, west and east, there’s plenty of one-stop shopping. The funny part is, the only illegal part of the transaction is the weed.
R. Maheras
April 10, 2013 - 6:46 am
Mike — Why do blacks in Chicago vote overwhelmingly Democratic? Fear and resignation — they buy into the never-ending pandering from Democratic politicians that (a.) The Democrats are the only party that will look out for them, and (b.) Independents or Republicans are fringe lunatics and/or evil nutcases who want to eat their children and throw them all in chains. It’s the Stockholm Syndrome on a massive scale.
The other reason you already know: if one is running for office, the Democratic Party is the only realistic game in town. The Machine will crush any other party like a bug.
But any minority person in Chicago who ignored all of the Democrat propaganda and did even a modicum of critical thinking would come to the same conclusion I have: Democrats don’t have the backs of minorities in Chicago. In reality, they have their feet on their throats.
Guys like Harold Washington and Bobby Rush were isolated and marginalized. Washington managed to put together a coalition during the period after Daley the Elder died — a period when the party went through a bitter power struggle — and, for a short while, it looked like minorities in Chicago would finally have a champion who could make things happen. But even though this was the mid-1980s, the white, anti-Washington Democrats were openly racist, fighting him every step of the way — hence the nickname coined for Chicago at the time: “Beirut by the Lake.”
After Washington’s heart exploded (probably from the stress), Daley the Younger positioned himself into the mayoral position and the Democrati old guard took over once again. That a city with a white population of only 42 percent still has a white mayor speaks volumes about how non-diverse the “Diverse Party” really is.
The problem is there are no truly powerful minority leaders in Chicago — and anyone who thinks that’s accidental is either a fool or they simply have not been paying attention. When Emanuel recently ran for mayor in 2011, despite the fact he initially had little support from most minorities — no strong minority candidate ever emerged. Even former Senator Carol Moseley Braun, backed by Rep. Danny Davis, the Jesse Jacksons, and Bobby Rush ended up a distant third when the mayoral voting concluded. The reason? She did not have the endorsement of city’s Democratic Machine, and without that, candidates are powerless.
In fact, I’d say that minority candidates have less power now than they did even during the 1980s.
R. Maheras
April 10, 2013 - 7:01 am
Rick — Bullshit. Taking everyone’s Constitutional rights away because a small group of people allegedly abuse those rights is not how a democracy is supposed to function.
What if someone used your logic to curb the First Amendment? Or the Fourth? Or the Seventh?
R. Maheras
April 10, 2013 - 7:19 am
Rick wrote: “Compared to most of western Europe and Australia, our murder rate is roughly four times higher.”
Well, if your numbers are true, it means that if every single gun in the United States vanished tomorrow, and assuming none of those who currently use guns to commit murder would switch to some other leathal weapon (a very fanciful notion indeed!), the murder rate in the United States would still be at least 32 percent higher than Western Europe and Australia.
Which means that the root cause of our higher murder rate really isn’t gun-related.
The truth sucks, doesn’t it?
Doug Abramson
April 10, 2013 - 10:16 am
Russ,
You might want to leave the First Amendment out of any gun control discussions. It is not absolute and never has been. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect slander, libel or incitement to riot (Shouting fire in a crowded theater). That’s just enough wiggle room to undercut the point you were trying to make.
R. Maheras
April 10, 2013 - 10:51 am
Doug — True, but most amendments have some curbs. And, as I pointed out, I’m fine with a few curbs on the Second Amendment. But the anti-gun fanatics are always pushing for sweeping or ever-tougher curbs that seek to entirely eliminate private citizen gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. It’s clear from both their rhetoric and their actions.
Rick Oliver
April 10, 2013 - 11:01 am
Russ: You have an interesting conception of truth.
First. I think your numbers are slightly wrong. The murder rate in the U.S. is 4.8 per 100,000. In western Europe, it’s roughly 1.2. Removing the 68% of gun murders in the U.S. leaves you with a rate of approximately 1.536, with is only 28% higher. Well, why quibble about a few percentage points? So let’s look at the more relevant question: Is the difference statistically significant? My preliminary analysis indicates that it is not(partly because the sample size was small because there aren’t a lot of countries in western Europe), but I’ll leave that to the experts. The point is that you cannot make a statistically valid argument that because our murder rate even without guns is somewhat higher that somehow proves that we have failed to address the “root” problem in any way by removing guns from the equation.
Second: I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but regulating “arms” does not constitute a revocation of your second amendment rights. We’ve been doing it on a national level for quite a long time, and no one has yet succeeded in overturning the National Firearms Act of 1934 on constitutional grounds. Furthermore, in the most recent Supreme Court decisions, the court made it clear that “reasonable” regulation is NOT unconstitutional. We can, of course, have endless debates on what constitutes “reasonable”.
R. Maheras
April 11, 2013 - 6:23 am
Your whole argument about about murder rates collapses on itself because your argument appears to assume every gun murder eliminated would be a murder eliminated — which is absurd.
As I pointed out, despite the fact that guns in this country are easily accessible, murders by non-firearm means still outstrips the countries you cherry-picked. This makes it clear that people who have the capacity to murder will do so with whatever means is available — like the guy who recently used an X-acto knife to stab 14 people in Texas.
Regarding amendment curbs and regulation, yes it’s a fact of life. But, as with any amendment, if people don’t speak out, an amendment can be “over-regulated” to the point it ceases to have any meaning. I’m simply speaking out about the fact that there are those who are trying to nullify the Second Amendment by any means possible.
Neil C.
April 12, 2013 - 6:12 am
Nobody wants to ‘nullify’ the Second Amendment anymore than people want to nullify the First Amendment part about establishment of religion (except North Carolina). But it should have controls, just like most other things in life. If it won’t do any good, then why are people so up in arms (no pun intended) about it?
R. Maheras
April 12, 2013 - 1:25 pm
Neil wrote: “Nobody wants to ‘nullify’ the Second Amendment”
Do you honestly believe that?
The Feb. 2013 video clip I link to below was secretly made by conservative activist, but despite the fact he’s obviously biased, and the video is edited, everything that Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) says to who she thinks is a fellow anti-gun activist is absolutly consistent with the anti-gun rhetoric I’ve been hearing from Illinois Democrats for 40 years.
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/handgun-ban/
In Illinois, as elsewhere, this anti-gun doctrine continually manifests itself in the form of anti-gun legislation passed by Democratic-controlled cities, towns and counties.
You would not believe the flack I’ve taken in llinois social settings over the years because I refuse to agree with people when the topic of gun control comes up.
Inevitably, someone touches on the subject and starts blaming all of societal ills on guns, and everyone except me starts nodding their heads furiously like a dashboard full of bobblehead dolls in a car driving down a cobblestone street. Invariably I sigh to myself and decide whether I should even bother to openly disagree. Depending on the setting, and my mood, I do or I don’t. That’s the way it is in the land of unchecked liberalism.
These anti-gun folks aren’t interested in “reasonable” curbs. In their minds, it’s all or nothing, and if it takes them a lifetime, they’ll keep pushing the envelope until they get their way.
Neil C.
April 12, 2013 - 10:50 pm
And nobody from the NRA is extreme about “everybody gotta gun?” Come us, Russ, do you really believe in the stuff you say?
Neil C.
April 12, 2013 - 10:50 pm
Come on, of course.
R. Maheras
April 13, 2013 - 7:29 am
Of course the NRA is extreme. They are a lobbying group. I’m not, nor have I ever been, a member of the NRA. But at least in the case of the NRA you know exactly where thet really stand. Lying Anti-gun advocates who misrepresent their real views to secretly get their way do not have the moral high ground here.
They are using a tragedy to further their political agenda, not take steps to prevent another crazy person from killing innocent bystanders. It’s obvious by the laws various anti-gun fanatics were proposing, because none address how the mental health system in this country was systematically neutered or destroyed by lawyers and human rights activists. Right now, it’s virtually impossible to put someone away until they actually kill someone (or many someones), and that’s certainly the bigger problem than what weapon they opt to use.
Mike Gold
April 13, 2013 - 8:31 am
Yes, Russ. So we should make it as easy as possible for these folks to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.
Being in favor of background checks (and the bill before Congress is completely impotent) and limits on magazine size and assault weapons does NOT make a person an “anti-gun fanatic.” Like most Americans, I’m pro gun ownership, anti-paranoid, and pro-reason.
Neil C.
April 13, 2013 - 10:53 pm
How dare people demand more information about owning a gun than getting a car! And as for ‘using a tragedy as an excuse for their agenda,’ it seemed quite all right when the GOP used 9/11 to push its warmongering agenda. …. I’d rather have an agenda about not killing people.
R. Maheras
April 15, 2013 - 10:49 am
Mike — I don’t mind background checks. Never said I did. But much of the anti-gun rhetoric I’ve been hearing went far beyond that. There was what I’d call an opportunist frenzy by the anti-gun crowd.
Neil — The difference between driving and gun ownership is simple: the former is not a constitutional right, while the latter is. And while I understand some curbs are prudent, as they are with other amendments, I am well aware that there are those who, if given the opportunity, would strip away ALL rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It’s those creeps I’m on the lookout for.