At the same time, the unrelenting meme being pushed by the right that Obama will mount an assault on the Second Amendment has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms. According to the F.B.I., there have been 1.2 million more requests for background checks of potential gun buyers from November to February than there were in the same four months last year. That’s 5.5 million requests altogether over that period; more than the number of people living in Bachmann’s Minnesota.
Coincidence? Maybe. Just posturing? Hopefully. But it all gives me a really bad feeling. (Where’s that Pepto-Bismol?!)
That sounds like an increase from 4.3 million to 5.5 million (a little over 25%). There may be other causes besides Beckism for this but a 25% year-over-year is certainly significant.
CalD
Still fighting the cold war…
BruceFromOhio
This trend, coupled other news, doesn’t bode well. It’s starting to feel like the Archie Bunker solution to hijackings: arm all your passengers.
North Carolina,New York,Pennsylvania,California.
Coming to a place near you soon …
enrico
The wingnuts buying guns to defend themselves against ACORN are the same ones who couldn’t be bothered to enlist in GW’s holy war against Iraq, a cause they supposedly were passionate about.
sgwhiteinfla
Charles Blow practically predicted what happened today in Pittsburgh.
Rosali
Here’s the logic- People are buying guns, and using them, because they’re afraid that Obama is going to take away their guns. Therefore, the solution is to not have any gun restrictions.
John S.
Ooh, I like this logic. Let me give it a spin…
People are buying marijuana, and using it, because they’re afraid that Obama is going to take away their pot. Therefore, the solution is to not have any restrictions on marijuana.
WIN!
Emma Anne
When I was young and naive, I thought that people who believed untrue things (like Obama will take your guns) would notice that they didn’t happen and learn something. Sigh. If only that were true.
joe from Lowell
FAIL! No one is buying marijuana "because they’re afraid that Obama is going to take away their pot." Nobody has said that they are doing so, as opposed to gun buyers; nobody is asserting that Barack Obama intends to tighten marijuana laws; marijuana is illegal, so the threat that it will be made illegal makes no sense; and nobody is killing people with baggies of marijuana.
But, other than that, great comment.
Snail
Actually, there is a gun show going on in my town (Concord, NH) this morning. It is being held at the local ice arena, and when I drove by this morning, there were more cars there than I had ever seen at that place. It was actually a little disturbing. I’ve got to think that part of the high turnout has been driven by this fear of Obama stealing their guns.
J. Michael Neal
Economic stimulus, baby!
Brick Oven Bill
Perhaps the Obama Administration should apologize for blaming the American people for supplying 90% of the illegal firearms used in Mexico. To the casually-observant viewer, this is a set-up for a move on the 2nd Amendment. This, along with Obama’s record, is responsible for many of the concerns and the jump in sales. The reportedly accurate number is:
83%: From Russia, China, South America, etc.; and
17%: From the US; which probably means:
12% from Federal government transfers of arms to the Mexican police and military; and
5% from gun shows.
An honest apology would go a long way towards quelling the anxiety in the population about upcoming restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, which have contributed in large part to the rise in gun sales.
The thing I do not understand about the modern left is that empowering the individual is a traditional Liberal value. The modern left seeks to concentrate power in the state, which is kind of a flip.
joe from Lowell
So, when Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress do absolutely nothing to take away people’s guns, then what?
joe from Lowell
Perhaps it demonstrates the lack of a soul and brain to be discussing the provenance of a particular statistic before the bodies are cold from the lasted right-wing maniac who decided to take the next step from cheering Sarah Palin to "direct action" against the mythical gun-grabbers.
Church Lady
I guess I inadvertently contributed to the rise in the gun sales statistic when I bought my husband that muzzle loader he’s been wanting for Christmas. Since I know absolutely nothing about guns, I had to enlist one of his hunting buddies to help me select it.
There is a bright spot to this particular purchase – it will never be used against a human.
someguy
Gun ownership is just a symptom of paranoia. Even the self defense arguments are premised on the wildly statistically unlikely case that any given individual is likely to be a victim of a crime. It’s paranoid to act on those odds (or to set public policy based on those odds), just as it is insanely paranoid to search and do a background investigation on every poor bastard who wants to get onto a plane.
It seems to me that if you’re the kind of person who feels this kind of illogical paranoia and wants to have a gun, you’re probably just the kind of person who probably shouldn’t be allowed to have one.
MikeJ
Then the right wingers will beat their chests and say they scared the wimpy liberals out of doing what they so desired.
DanSmoot'sGhost
@joe from Lowell:
Well, just like George Bush and the WMDs. The believers will keep believing whatever they believe.
And then presumably Obama will make a funny video where he has a huge gun closet in the White House filled with confiscated guns, and laugh his ass off while eating watermelon, and tap dancing.
joe from Lowell
Actually, for most people, it’s a symptom of having grown up in a home where Dad owned some guns, and probably hunted, and enjoying that sort of thing.
The thing to remember about people like Brick Oven Bill, the Pittsburgh shooter, and other citizens of Glenn Beck’s America, is that they aren’t actually accurate representations of ordinary American gun owners. It’s like the Palin People declaring that they’re the "Real Americans." No, they’re a small minority of Americans, who’s politicized self-image requires them to believe that they represent the bulk of the population.
There’s no reason why we should buy into their delusions. They’re nuts.
joe from Lowell
Mike J, Dan,
I think they’ll just move onto to wetting themselves over something else, like they did with the dreaded Fairness Doctrine.
J. Michael Neal
Bill, your own material is better than recycled crap from PaulL. Don’t lose your creativity.
Chuck Butcher
Here’s the problem, Congress shows no inclination to do anything like banning weapons, but the problem is that both Obama and Holder stated point blank that they would like to ban assault weapons.
By military designation an assault weapon is a machine gun, which are heavily regulated, the weapons commonly called and previously banned as assault weapons are the civilian semi-automatic versions of the military one.
They could have kept their traps shut, there was no upside to making those statements but Paul Helmke’s crew needed pacifying.
Marc with a C
I’m a liberal gun owner. I also reenact, and as such need military-style guns in order to accurately portray the fighting forces of WWII.
However, while I may side with the GOP on the issue of gun ownership, it’s not a one-issue ballot with me. If I happen to agree with the GOP on guns and side with the Dems on 95% of all the other issues, then I’m not going to vote for McCain and the Snowbilly queen because Chief Calif Barack Hussein Zulu Obama X is going to take away my K98.
BruceFromOhio
"An honest apology" about right-wing fantasies? Why bother? This has the same acrid stink of the Fairness Doctrine fantasy.
Here’s some honesty for you – if crazy people with guns keep up the mass slaughter, a lot of innocent people will die horrible, violent deaths. Go ahead and try to pin it on the President, the left, the liberals, or any other strawman you care to conjure up, it changes nothing. The precious Second Amendment is in full frontal display in today’s newsfeeds for all the world to see, and it’s probably going to stay that way until the rabid insanity that pushes people to senselessly and brutally slaughter eachother crawls back into the dark hole from where it came.
And no one is going to offer any apology for any of it.
Graeme
As an erstwhile GOP voter and as an NRA Life member, I can attest to the fact the NRA is really flogging the idea of a gun ban. I’ve un-subscribed from all their lists, because it’s all quite pathetic.
All interest groups do it: fear-mongering. Drives membership and donations, you know. Happens on the right and the left…
The trick here is not to ban guns. It seems to me that the Obama Admin folks who have been talking about solutions to the violence in Mexico are doing everything BUT proposing new laws. I think this is good. They can basically use the GOP/NRA talking points against those groups by ‘enforcing the laws already on the books.’ It’s a win for everyone except those stoking the fires of fear.
It’s the same thing with the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ the Limbaughs of the world have been hyperventilating about. Doing nothing just makes the Right look like a bunch of whiny chicken little bitches, which is what they increasingly seem to be.
DougJ
That’s fairly accurate and it makes this sudden increase that much harder to explain.
BruceFromOhio
@joe from Lowell:
Thank you. There are plenty of folk that hunt, sport shoot, re-enact or just like plinking cans. Mom uses her .22 to keep the groundhog population in check.
But Rep. Bachmann, Beck, et al, aren’t speaking to them.
srv
Time for the Red Dawn sequel: Black Dawn
Jihadi’s in black helicopters in the rockies. But I’m not sure what would be different in Colorado Springs under Sharia Law.
Leelee for Obama
@Chuck Butcher:
So, let me get this straight. If Barack Obama and Eric Holder hadn’t said they’d like an assault weapons ban, then this yahoo in Pittsburgh would not have developed his paranoid fantasy that all his guns could be taken?
I have always wanted to know why anyone who isn’t in the military wants an assault weapon. I have come to the conclusion that these people want to be able to kill many things ( or people) at one swoop. That shouldn’t be an option for a civilian gun-owner. Period.
joe from Lowell
Bruce from Ohio,
I used to argue a lot with extremist libertarians on the Reason blog. You know what they call people like like your mother?
"Elmers."
These gun-nut extremists, like the NRA, have a militant, anti-left, anti-government ideology, and believe in widespread gun ownership as a way to use or threaten force to get what they want.
They have nothing but contempt for the ordinary gun owners they hide among.
The Raven
For the record:
Changes in annual number of applications
2000 -595,086 (# 2000 apps – # 1999 apps)
2001 367,154
2002 -455,869
2003 27,266
2004 206,083
2005 265,274
2006 1,083,988
2007 1,140,402
2008 1,531,688
2009 2,563,213
(2009 to-date figures annualized)
(posting software ate my formatting–sorry.)
Notice that the serious rise started in 2006. But there’s been a jump in the first part of this year. Now, maybe that will subside. But it is worrisome. This obsession with violence you hominids have means…
More food for corvids. Krawk!
BruceFromOhio
Elmers! That’s hilarious. She’ll get a kick out of that, for the sole reason that for years she was avidly anti-gun. My brother the NRA member would literally taunt her about it, because it was so easy to get a rise out of her. What’s interesting is that he moved to Columbine, CO, in 1996, and isn’t quite so vocal anymore.
JD Rhoades
Don’t own one, but I’ve shot them on the range, and I can tell you why some do: they’re huge fun.
(It’s one great thing about writing the stuff I do: some of the research is a fucking hoot).
kommrade reproductive vigor
@joe from Lowell: Scream about the Fairness Doctrine some more.
BruceFromOhio
@The Raven:
It would interesting to compare and contrast that timeline with the reach and content of NRA fundraising materials. As noted in another comment, the fear-uncertainty-doubt fundraising can net the biggest bang for the buck (pun intended).
It also interesting to see the decline in 2002.
JD Rhoades
@BruceFromOhio: For the record, I live in the North Carolina town where that nursing home massacre occurred, and there hasn’t been a hint that the shooter had any political motivation.
SpotWeld
People who buy guns quickly will also sell them quickly. (Like any other impulse purchase). Guns are generally pretty long-lifed (assuming the usual proper care is taken with them).
So this summer, when gas prices go up (even if they don’t spike) and people are looking for ways to cover other expenses the used-gun market is going to be glutted.
Cabelas and other chain stores are really killing the "small town gun and hunting shop", so expect the sudden drop in gun prices to really kill them.
The expect NRA response "this is all Obama’s fault"
ploeg
At what point did it become Bachmann’s Minnesota? Seven-eights of Minnesota voters have never had the opportunity to vote for or against Bachmann.
Minnesotans have always liked their guns, but that doesn’t make them xenophobic psychos.
SqueakyRat
Time for the left to gun up too. The wingnuts aren’t kidding. We’re going to have to fight for it, folks.
Iowa Housewife
My wingnut brother-in-law is selling guns on the internets due to the fact Obama will confiscate all guns. Being a racist/homophobe he moved from central California to Arizona. But now it is too liberal there, so must move to Idaho. Sheesh. I am so glad he has guns. Really I am glad he does not live near me.
DougJ
I think they are for the most part. Most aren’t deranged enough to murder, just silly enough to talk about it.
Corner Stone
@Leelee
Why would Obama and Holder even bother mentioning it? It’s a dead set loser for every Democratic Congressman in a swing district. Lose! Fail! Done!
There’s simply nothing to be gained here.
Your use of the words "assault weapon" indicate how clearly you’ve been indoctrinated. Please define what an assault weapon is. Something you can fire more than once before reloading? More than 5 times? Full auto?
Corner Stone
Ack. Block quote fail on #41. Mine starts after the word Period.
BDeevDad
Guys at work say the gun shops cannot keep shotguns in stock and ammo is difficult to find. And I live in California.
joe from Lowell
Shotguns.
Barack Obama is going to take your shotguns.
Holy jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, that’s stupid.
JD Rhoades
@SqueakyRat:
Way ahead of you, bro.
Leelee for Obama
@Corner Stone:
An assault weapon is any firearm that can "street-sweep" I think the description is?
I don’t have an issue with gun ownership. My Dad and my Brother had guns, they hunted and were members of the NRA. Dad’s gone, and my Brother dropped out a few years ago. He was, or maybe still is, competitive as a pistol shooter.
If there is no law enforcement or military imperative, there’s no reason to have a weapon that can kill or injure more than one target at a time.
If that make me benighted, I can live with that.
The Raven
Croaking out dividing lines: the NRA is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization, forbidden by law from political activism. Most NRA members are just people who own firearms and have joined for training. The NRA would lose its exemption if it, for instance, directly endorsed candidations. The official activist organization is the NRA-ILA–Institute for Legislative Action–which is a PAC. However, the far-right leadership of the groups interpenetrate and the NRA, like many 501(c)3 organizations, propagandizes its membership.
Krawk!
The Raven
Oof! This posting software is not my friend.
Church Lady
So far, nothing I’ve read about the recent shootings indicates any kind of political agenda. In Oakland, when four policeman got shot and killed, it wasn’t politically motivated. Instead, it was done by a violent criminal that didn’t want to return to jail. In New York, no one yet knows what made a Vietnamese immigrant go into a center catering to immigrant needs and kill or wound almost forty people. Since he also killed himself, we may well never know. Somehow, however, I doubt Glenn Beck influenced him in any way. The shooting, this morning, also remains a mystery as of now. What we have is a few friends opining on why the shooter did it. Since this guy was actually captured alive, perhaps we will find out why he did what he did. Again, I doubt it is politically motivated. Mentally disturbed would probably be a more reasonable explaination.
It seems to me that when some crazy ass actually says that watching or listening to Glenn Beck made them do it, then we can all point a finger in Mr. Beck’s direction. Until then, he’s just a guy with a TV show that a few people watch and most people don’t.
joe from Lowell
Well, Raven, there’d better be some serious gun-grabbing over the next few years, or certain members, leaders, and affiliates of a certain organization are going to look like idiots.
joe from Lowell
Church Lady,
I guess you didn’t see the post DIRECTLY BELOW THIS ONE.
A tidbit:
So, no, not political. Not at all.
Church Lady
Joe,
I guess you also can’t read. His friends OPINED. Until the shooter actually says that he shot three policemen because he was afraid Obama was going to take away his guns, then we don’t know that this is the case, do we?
My money is on crazy.
The Raven
Real assault weapons are full-auto and heavily restricted. There’s a civilian firearms marketing category (and legal category) called "assault weapon" that is, in fact, a civilian semi-automatic rifle, dressed up to look like a full-auto military weapon. Physically, it’s no more and no less dangerous than a civilian rifle marketed in some other way. The marketing caters to violent fantasies, though, and that’s a huge concern. You hominids are way too fond of violent fantasies. Sometimes you try to live them out, and then a lot of you become food for corvids.
Krawk!
Brachiator
@Brick Oven Bill:
One of the first references I find for this comes from an August 2008 news story ("ATF chief: Most illegal guns seized in Mexico are from U.S.").
You owe the Obana Administration an apology. Even Obama is not capable of the Jedi mind trick of bending the weak minds of government officials before he took office.
Of course, one of the issues that some gun people just can’t acknowledge is how some hard, working, otherwise "law abiding" citizens willingly sell weapons to criminals.
Capitalism by itself is amoral. Some people who will sell a gun to a guy who is exercising his Second Amendment right will also sell a gun to a drug dealer. Sellers want buyers.
I find it amusing that conservative bloggers and pundits are working hard to push the 90% issue on Obama, Hillar Clinton and liberals in general. They deliberately distort the facts and assume that the average Joe is too lazy to check the fact or will only get information from the conservative blog echo chamber.
But facts are your friends and the baby Jesus created google search to fight teh stoopid.
No, what this actually means is that you are making things up. But I want to thank you. I will use your example here in the lessons I do on logical fallacies, rhetoric and faulty reasoning. Conservatives like to do this a lot, pretend that they have access to hard data, and then substitute their supposed personal authority to be able to "prove the data." The whole point of your argument, of course, is to minimize stats that might show the degree to which illegal guns come from legal sources.
Nothing could quell this anxiety. The Obama administration has said from Day One that the economy is their top priority, and some still heard this as "Obama is going to take your guns away." They heard this because they needed to hear this, because it nurtures their anxiety that a liberal black man is president of the United States. They needed to hear this because the conservative blogs assured them that only Republicans could be real Americans and that the GOP is the only legitimate political party in the U.S.
Dick Cheney, shadow president of the United States, probably concentrated more power in the state than any other political figure in US history since FDR. And conservatives applauded this since they either assumed or were assured that this power would never be used against them, only the ungodly, unpatriotic "Other."
By the way, are conservative bloggers suggesting that the Mexican government adopt the Second Amendment so that law abiding Mexicans can own guns? Shouldn’t this be a major plank of the NRA?
joe from Lowell
He’s dead, you dumb bitch.
This is your theory – all of the friends providing FIRST HAND REPORTS about THEIR OWN CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM are making it up?
I’ve got you dead-to-rights on this. You spouted off, and didn’t bother to find out what you’re talking about first.
You can write "I guess you can’t read" all you want, you don’t have a let to stand on here.
joe from Lowell
The cop’s dead, that is.
Three of them, actually.
Corner Stone
I have a Remington 870 20 gauge that holds 5 without the plug, 3 with plug in. Is that an assault weapon? Can I effectively engage more than one target without reloading?
My point is that it’s a fallacy to start classifying firearms as "assault weapons". Going down that road, pretty soon anything but a single shot looks damn nefarious.
SGEW
@Corner Stone:
Yeah, but you do have to admit that there is a difference between your 20g Remington pump and an open-bolt autoshotgun firing HE rounds. Most people would prefer it if certain things (often lumped together under the admittedly imprecise term "assault weapons") were kept off of the open market, or are at least highly restricted. The question, therefore, is what gets put into the restricted category: LAW rockets and miniguns, obviously; pump-action shotguns and lever-action rifles obviously not; and weapons such as semi-auto (yet moddable) "assault rifles" with extended clips in the middle ground. As is most often the case, the policy division is about where to draw the line, not whether or not a line needs to be made.
Bootlegger
@SqueakyRat: I’m never paranoid about anything, but I’ve been seriously thinking about arming myself in case some local yahoos decide they don’t like college professors. I’ve been to ranges and tagged along on hunting trips and I’m a damned good shot. The wingnuts will be in for a surprise.
The wingnuts are armed and dangerous. Their news actors are filling their head with lies and their leaders pander to it. Not a good mix. I don’t think it will be too bloody or too widespread, but Beck’s Citizens will go Turner*, count on it.
*The Turner Diaries, one scary mother-fuckin’ book.
WB Reeves
As someone who spent seven years field researching the far right, I feel confident in saying that the longer media pimps such as Beck, Hannity, et al continue to broadcast their incendiary rants, the greater the likelyhood that we will see some really catastrophic domestic terrorism ala Tim McVeigh as well as the lesser mayhem and carnage typified by the likes of Eric Rudolph.
What to do? The harsh reality is that not much can be done in the case of the lone psycho, given the huge number of guns already in private hands. I own two guns myself, neither of which were purchased from a commercial dealer. I doubt that there are more than a handful of households in my urban neighborhood that don’t possess at least one gun.
The only practical action that can be taken is to attempt to change the general political climate so that it doesn’t actively encourage lunatic extremism. Pandering to the paranoid fantasies of the violence prone fringe has to become a liability rather than an asset for our political and media bottom feeders.
My own experience has taught me that this can be effectively done on a local and even regional level. The community organization I worked with began by monitoring and documenting the activities of extremist groups in our state. This placed us in a position to likewise document the links between such groups and supposedly mainstream political and media figures. Publicizing such info was often enough to disrupt these links while at the same time marshaling public opposition against panderers and extremist alike.
The speed with which those who had made a good thing out of pimping for the wacko right abandoned their erstwhile buddies was both instructive and gratifying.
If we had similar locally based groups combined in a national effort today, we’d stand an excellent chance of stoping the hellish political/media/extremist synergy before it spirals out of control.
Church Lady
Joe,
Obviously you can read, you are just unable to comprehend. Please re-read the reports on the Pittsburgh shooting. The shooter surrendered and is in police custody. Could you perhaps be confusing this particular gunman with the gunman in New York? That one is, in fact, dead by his own hand.
What his friends say is irrelevant to me. It will only be what he says is the reason he shot the policeman that I will consider to provide some type of explaination.
Your friends might consider you to be kind and even tempered. My observations, based on what you write, would differ. That’s not to say that I might be incorrect, but random flamethowing and name calling would seem to be an indication of your personal traits.
.
from the local paper
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm
Mr. Poplawski had supported Republican candidate John McCain in the presidential election and had "very spirited debates" about Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Mr. Vire said. Mr. Poplawski was opposed to Mr. Obama’s election, which he thought would result in the loss of his rights, Mr. Vire said.
"He wasn’t a racist but thought some of his amendments were overlooked," Mr. Vire said. Even though Mr. Vire is black and Mr. Poplawski is white, the debates over President Obama did not hurt their friendship, he said.
Mr. Poplawski told him he bought his guns "because he felt the quality of life was being diminished," Mr. Vire said.
"He said he’ll be ready if there’s ever an invasion of the United States and that he had stockpiled foods and guns for that eventuality."
Corner Stone
I’d argue that it’s not at all obvious that any firearm be classified as non-obtainable for a law abiding adult citizen.
On the basis that he/she *might* go nutso one day? I might flip out tomorrow and drive my 6000 pound car through a grocery store, easily injuring more than a dozen people.
I’m not diminishing any tragedy, I just find this to be a "collective punishment" analogy.
joe from Lowell
Oh, of course. How could a guy’s friends, describing his mental state and what he had been saying and doing prior to the mass-murder, possibly provide any useful information about his mental state, and what he had been saying and doing?
No, no, the only possible way to gain any insight into what might have motivated him would be his own words. After all, his friends probably got together and cooked this whole story up. For some unknown reason. Yes, that’s definitely the most reasonable assumption to make.
Sigh. If only there was some indication of what his motive would have been. His friends? All saying the same thing about his motivation? How utterly irrelevant.
joe from Lowell
We believe you!
Corner Stone
Yes Joe from L, we understand anyone here that fails comprehension and calls another poster a dumb bitch is worth listening to.
Thank you for your contribution here and elsewhere.
SGEW
@Corner Stone:
Huh. I wrote a rather extensive response, but teh internets ated it. It mentioned miniguns and smoothbore muskets and stuff. Bah.
Anyway, in a nutshell: Permeable and obtuse definitions such as "assault weapons" aside (a phrase that just means "restricted weapon"), surely some weapons can and should be restricted from general ownership, right? 155mm Howitzers? MOABs? Weaponized Anthrax? The Hydrogen Bomb? Right? So where’s the dividing line? Shifting that line one way or another (on a scale of restricting revolvers on one end to Hummer mounted .50 cal gatling guns on the other . . . hopefully closer to the former than the latter, imho). I was just trying to set some agreed boundaries.
joe from Lowell
I’ll make sure I give your opinion about my worthiness all the attention it deserves.
Nut case.
Chuck Butcher
@Leelee for Obama:
This is the closing line of an article about increases in buying.
This is you being stupid, please leave me out of your rants against the loon right. I made no such statement, nor implied it – so fuck you.
I have no idea why some of my fellow lefties lose their minds the second a gun is mentioned.
Corner Stone
@joe from dipshitville
Holy shit! It’s like you know me, accept me with all my faults and love me nonetheless!
This is heaven.
bob h
I just pray that the Secret Service is taking note of all this.
Leelee for Obama
@Chuck Butcher:
Not sure you’ll see this, but I was not making you the subject of my "rant", I was noting what was in your post.
If the Pres. and the AG think a ban on weapons that can cause multiple injuries and/or deaths is a good idea, they should be able to say so, w/o some nut case thinking he’ll lose his right to have a hunting rifle or a handgun. That is the point of MY post.
BTW-does yesterday’s loss of 3 policemen change your stand on the secretly armed hero at all?
Thanks for calling me stupid, and saying fuck you, because my opinion didn’t jell with you. I was reminded of all the reasons I don’t have a spouse anymore. It’s always a good thing to get validation when one goes over past decisions.
That is all.
argh
Church Lady: "Could you perhaps be confusing this particular gunman with the gunman in New York?"
Or the one in Califor… or was that Brighton, MA, or Atlanta, or wait, Philly, or no … maybe it was Pennsylvania … we just can’t know…
Sure, ChurchLady, you’re an honest player.
Joe, just give up on this con-job ChurchLady bingo game. She isn’t revealing her last trump card: if the shooter DID confess, well, he’s crazy, so you can’t listen to what HE says.
Corner Stone
@SGEW
I think that’s a strawman argument. I’m discussing firearms, not weapons as a whole category. See, that’s the problem. I’m for the right to own a firearm. Someone else calls it an "assault weapon" and the next thing you know reasonable people like yourself are way off the reservation talking about weaponized biological thingamajigs.
I’ll definitely agree with you that anything that needs a tracked vehicle to carry it around is too much for the civilian population.
But why can’t I have one of those neato mini-guns like The Governator’s special forces team did in Predator? Hmmm? I only want *one*.
Actually, with ammo prices where they are you’d have to be a millionaire just to light that thing up one time.
someguy
Pretty much any modern gun short of a black powder muzzle loader is capable of causing multiple injuries and/or deaths, and if you’re good with one of them, well, then you can cause 2-3 injuries and/or deaths per minute. They should all be banned. Per Kant, there’s no reason anybody but the state should possess that sort of coercive force.
invisible
Liberals ought to promote gun ownership, with special emphasis on getting liberals to keep and know how to use firearms, and tolerate those who do so responsibly. This has several advantages:
1. Will extinguish any belief among reasonable gun owners and centrists that undermining the Second Amendment is on the agenda. It is not, and if it ever were, it should not have been.
2. Remove the intimidation advantage that the right-wing currently enjoys every time they beat the drums of armed insurrection. They should have no monopoly on implicit threats to shoot, only on shooting off their own mouths.
3. Cause the extreme right to call for the disarming of "liberals" and "traitors" — in their insecurity, they would not hesitate to do this. They would be seen again for the hypocrites and nuts they are.
Liberals who think that banning weapons is all that important in the scheme of things are not being very clear about the root causes of violence in our society — inequality, social degradation, social isolation, economic hardship, mental and emotional pathology.
Nor are they being very astute politically. Gun ownership is very common, and the Second Amendment is quite clear to most people, despite tenuous counter-arguments made only by reading its guarantees more narrowly than we read any of the other freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
The answer to the paranoia of the right-leaning general population is not to fuel their paranoia, but to avoid counterproductive fights, and to counter the permanent right-wing media assault with our own permanent and very much enlarged presence.
Despite some inroads (mainly on a comedy network), the liberal left has yet to learn to use the mass media (cable and radio) as effectively as the right to reach those who are currently under right-wing influence. Look, not everyone is inclined to read the New York Times, let alone Harper’s or The Nation … but that fact doesn’t absolve progressives from the responsibility of trying to understand and attract supporters from outside its own circle.
One way is to rethink the old tropes about evil gun owners, Bambi-killing hunters, and murderous loons hopped up on Glenn Beck, unreachable by civilized men.
They are reachable.
We have to try harder. And change our knee jerk prejudices, to give them their space, and perhaps identify with their concerns a little more. And accept the hard fact that desperate, ill-informed men do desperate ill-informed things when they cannot conceive of alternatives — and we are not supplying them.
Corner Stone
@someguy
True:
Flintlock
The *state* should possess coercive force but the citizenry should not? Where did you grow up?