Skip to main content

The following I received from my daughter, a recent convert to the gun culture and now the owner of several guns.  We had a conversation about guns which prompted her to send me a rant from a talk show host that begins a few paragraphs below.

I've now read this three times and with each reading, I become more incensed. Not because the author misses the point, or that much is inaccurate both as to fact and conclusion, or that the assumptions seem to be straight from the N.R.A., but that such a strong point of view is so common.  This simple belief driven diatribe, so very uniquely American, is thoroughly drenched in the common paranoid delusion of the great conspiracy of gun confiscation.  The shooting of children is not the tragedy; it is the President's words reflecting the tragedy. Because, reading between the lines, these words only mean that the President is saying he wants to take all away all guns.  Be scared.  Be vary scared.  Be petrified, because the government is coming.  

I consider myself a moderate on the gun issue, believing that guns and background checks should be required for all transactions and that large capacity clips should be illegal or highly regulated.  I'm ambivalent regarding assault weapons.

The following is this frightening view of our world.  The first line is from my daughter.

* * * * * * * * * *    
This is from a soapbox written by Rob from the Rob, Arnie and Dawn show.

For many people, it is hard to define exactly what was the most disgusting part of Friday’s elementary school shooting in Connecticut:

o   The act itself, resulting in the cold blooded murder of 28 people total, 20 of them children under the age of 10.

o   The horrendous news coverage of the event, which ranged from being devastatingly underreported in the beginning, to stunningly exploitive in the end. For the first two hours of the story, there was barely a blip of information and only “one person, the gunman,” reported dead. Once the truth emerged, sickening parents couldn’t run to the news networks fast enough to offer up their 6 and 8 year old children to be interviewed on the specifics of the death and blood they had just witnessed.

o   The media pulling a “Richard Jewel,” (Google it), by mis-identifying the shooter’s brother, as the shooter, for about 4 hours, including plastering the brother’s picture all over the nation. Well done.

o   The predictably pathetic way parents across the nation reacted to the news by scaring the living hell out of their children. While no one can begrudge someone the empathy they felt imaging such a horror happening to their family, the myriad of stories from across America of parents rushing to their children’s elementary schools (in states nowhere near Connecticut) to pull them out for the day were pathetic beyond words. What a fine message to send to the future of the nation: When tragedy strikes (nowhere near you), panic!

While those are all wonderful candidates for the “most disgusting part of the story,” they are not the winner.

At 3:15 Eastern time, president Obama addressed the nation. To be fair, he seemed genuinely devastated by the weight of the totality of the news. While cynics might claim he was “acting,” I will not. I believe the man was truly affected emotionally by this event and it showed, and there’s nothing wrong with that. His style may not be my first choice when it comes to how a man leads, but to criticize him merely for the purpose of criticizing him is both small and unnecessary, for it wasn’t his demeanor or tone that mattered. It was his words. His subtle, yet disgusting and ominous words.

  "As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."

There it is, folks. Shots fired. No pun intended.

Obama is right in the sense that his presidency has seen its’ share of mass shootings. He didn’t even mention some of the others (Tucson, Fort Hood, to name a few) and he also didn’t mention the screams out outcry from the large (and growing louder) anti-gun crowd in America who have been clamoring for him to use these tragedies as springboards for advanced gun control in America. He has refused, until now. (

Obama may be an idiot, (and I have always believed that he is, for there is a vast difference between being educated and being intelligent), but he is also a cold, calculating political opportunist who knows when to lie in the weeds and when to pounce. Just ask Hillary Clinton about that. Obama knew that of all the controversies he took on in his first term, none would be as dangerous and galvanizing as gun control. Politically, an attempt to outlaw most assault weapons is what destroyed the Democratic Party’s rule of congress in 1994, and socially, we are still and have been, a mostly gun-friendly, gun supporting nation. (

But now the tide has turned. Obama never has to run for anything ever again. Additionally, the anti-gun crowd has done a masterful job over the last decade of sneaking in the phrase “semi-automatic,” to every conversation about guns, making the public at large envision massive killing machines that no one would ever “need,” in order to hunt or protect themselves. And now, most chillingly, we have dead children; lots and lots of dead, young, innocent children who were doing the most basic of American things, going to kindergarten.

The latter is the most persuasive, of course. Plenty of people who were on the fence previously about gun control have now already swung the other way under the hysterical umbrella of “save the children.” It is an understandable, yet inexcusable reaction to the horror that most of us can’t even comprehend, but it is not, of course, the answer. No matter, since it is powerful. The funerals of these children will be paraded before us all week, each one a reminder that they were killed by guns.

That narrative, combined with the phony-baloney sales job you’ve been handed for the past ten years about “semi-automatic weapons,” will culminate with a massive push to control or even ban handguns in America. Semi-automatic weapons, you are supposed to believe, are these massive rifles with 30 round ammunition cartridges that the Expendables use. When in fact, every one of us who owns, favors, or uses a nine millimeter (think Bruce Willis’ weapon of choice in the Die Hard movies), is packing a semi-automatic weapon. The gun allows us the ability to stand before a home invasion of four masked rapists and with nine continuous compressions of the trigger defuse the situation and save our family, something that happens thousands of time per year in America, yet is never widely reported. The gun crowd, however, would like us all to believe that a hunting rifle will somehow magically accomplish the same thing.

Logic and reason will have no place in this argument, however for it is all emotions-based, and that brings us to the final piece of this losing puzzle; those on the side of gun rights have no effective messenger. President Obama is, in and of himself, a master salesman. He will come armed with dead children and scary stories and statistics; and the other side will offer asinine arguments like “if we all carried guns, there would have been someone armed at the school to stop the gunman.”

Wild West arguments don’t work. The American public will not eat that argument up, they will run from it, and you will lose and you will lose badly. More common sense arguments about protecting your home and pointing out that criminals will always get and have guns, leaving law abiding citizens unarmed, are the only way to win the day. And that argument has no effective speaker ready, willing, and able to stand before the nation and persuade the stupid.

Your guns aren’t going away today, tomorrow or early next year. But the playing field has been set, the battle lines drawn, and the games are about to begin.  States with already asinine gun control laws (California) and the ability politically to push through tougher restrictions will do so almost immediately as a show of support and will, and the argument will get louder and louder nationally every time a gun is used for anything other than law abiding purposes.

Meaningful action is on the way. For the first time in twenty years, this nation is going to have a loud, impactful argument about the second amendment and our right to protect our families. The gun lobby is a powerful one, and will bring all they have to bear. But the separatist “us against them” quality of the nation is strong. It’s the Unions against the fat cats, the middle class against the one percent, the tolerant versus the bigots, and now the gun owners against the gun controlists. No longer will people be able to take a position that says “I don’t really have a position on guns.” Dead children are at stake. Everyone must take a side. Oh, and you may want to stock up on ammo and firearms while you can. Just sayin’…


Originally posted to ribeye on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:49 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, BlackSheep1, deedogg
    Additionally, the anti-gun crowd has done a masterful job over the last decade of sneaking in the phrase “semi-automatic,” to every conversation about guns, making the public at large envision massive killing machines that no one would ever “need,” in order to hunt or protect themselves.
    he has absolutely right.

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:00:20 AM PST

  •  Block-quoting the article would be a big help,hard (7+ / 0-)

    to separate the parts ...

    But the main point is well taken....a rant gone crazy...
    blame everyone but those involved-the shooter and the gun culture of our society.

  •  While I happen to think that the gun is a (0+ / 0-)

    coward's tool -- designed to injure with little or no risk of injury to the user, fact is that many more people are killed and injured in and by automotive vehicles each year, than by guns. Also, if I am not mistaken, more people are prematurely dead as a result of ingesting or injecting legal drugs than as a result of gun shots or car "accidents."
    That said, I think too much attention is paid to intent and too much attention is paid to death (which we will all experience and about which nothing can be done after the fact).
    We would probably all be better off if we paid less attention to death and more attention to abuse. How many more children are suffering near starvation or persistent mal-nourishment because of the nutritionally deficient food stuffs we permit industries to produce and distribute? How many children are born with birth defects into a life of pain and hardship because of industrial pollutants' impact on their genes?
    Humans have been killing their own kind almost for ever. Recently, we have been persuaded that exploiting them systematically ala human husbandry is somehow better than killing them on the spot. I don't think so. Personally, I'd rather be killed on the spot than tortured.
    If there is one thing to be said for the Sandy Hook killer, it's that he shot to kill. Which, presumably, is what he was taught.
    The notion that authorization makes a difference is bunk. A person killed by the state of Texas is just as dead as the dead at Sandy Hook. Reserving legal killing to the state is perverse. Calling it "capital punishment" does not make it better.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:19:22 AM PST

    •  But, fewer are dying every year from auto (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nascent orange, Laconic Lib

      Accidents, because we license, register, and insure them. There have been many safety innovations put in over the years, driven by the insurance corporations.

      Let's require insurance on guns, so the insurance corporations will drive safety innovations on them too.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:15:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        30,000 or more die every year. Hell, gas prices do more to save lives than anything else, those tend to tamp down on unnecessary driving.

        Besides, this is hypocritical. Gun deaths are going down too, as a result of the trend of lower violent crime over the past few decades. Surely if "but fewer are dying" is a valid argument, it applies to both guns and cars.

        Let's require insurance on guns,
        I've heard this alot lately, but it's punitive. Insurance is for those things we cannot prevent but cannot afford when they do happen. Since anyone can be involved in a car accident, they're required to have insurance (or post a bond) in case they injure someone else.

        With a gun, I can be 100% certain I won't shoot someone unjustifiably. At the end of the year, if I have murdered no one, will the government refund my premium? To have me pay premiums is to hold me responsible for those who do murder, and to do so even before the murder occurs.

        Why not use this in general? We could require everyone to carry crime insurance in general, just in case you use your claw hammer to murder the neighbor. And hey, if inner city blacks have it much worse than people in white suburbia paying their premiums, we can just threaten them with prison (since gun owners could give up their guns to forego paying gun insurance, but no one can give up everything necessary to forgo buying generic crime insurance).

        It's a flawed idea from people who just want the other side to lose, rather than fix problems.

        •  The point is to get big money in on it (0+ / 0-)

          So they will push for safer guns, better laws, and better regulations that lead to fewer deaths.

          That's what insurance corporations have done when it comes to auto insurance. Why not for guns?

          Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 02:02:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If forever is defined as the period of time that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Marti, Laconic Lib

      we humans are aware of, then we actually have been killing ourslves literally forever.

      But not all of us do it, and therein is supposed to lie the hope for the future.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:46:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. It's about the same. (5+ / 0-)

      Guns kill roughly 32,000 a year. Cars are a bit higher. Both are in the 30K range.

      Thing is, we've been working for decades to bring down car deaths, and it's worked. Seat belts, air bags, side impact panels, etc. They've all contributed to fewer deaths due to cars.

      And before that, speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights and so on.

      Plus, you have to get a license to drive a car, register that car, and you're in a database. And cars aren't built to kill. They're built as transportation. They're also necessities for many of us.

      Guns aren't. And they're made to kill. We've been prevented from regulating and restricting them in sensible, rational ways for far too long. The biggest reason for that is the misuse, exploitation and misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment.

      Since that is likely never going to change, we need to repeal it.

  •  Dude says masked rapists are prevented from (5+ / 0-)

    wreaking havoc thousands of times every year by citizens armed w/ a 9. Somehow this just never makes the news because, well, just because criminals getting blasted isn't news. I think dude is a liar. Furthermore, a shotgun will do quite nicely in the situation he describes. If you believe liars, you believe lies. If you accept a paranoid's premise, everything falls neatly into place.

    Who cares what banks may fail in Yonkers. Long as you've got a kiss that conquers.

    by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:34:24 AM PST

    •  Why do they have to be "blasted"? (0+ / 0-)

      If someone tries to mug you and you pull a handgun causing them to run off... you might inform the police, but most people won't. We don't know how often that happens, but it does.

      We already know that many women don't report rapes at all. If this is true of the attack itself, why would a woman report an attempted rape? If she pulls a gun and he decides to find one less assertive of her rights, is there any reason to believe anyone will hear about it?

      •  Did you actually read what this delusional fuck (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sponson, Laconic Lib

        wrote? I do believe compressing the trigger nine times at four masked rapists could be called blasting them. According to this guy it happens thousands of times every year. You feel compelled to defend this guys delusions, fine, make your case. Don't substitute your own.

        Who cares what banks may fail in Yonkers. Long as you've got a kiss that conquers.

        by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:22:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is the point here? (0+ / 0-)

        That sometimes having a gun prevents a crime?

        OK.  This seems obvious.  Why not leave it here? To try to put a number on this, arbitrarily, is part of the hyperbole.    

        •  That's part of the myth: just brandishing is enuf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to scare away bad guys.

          But in reality, it's more likely to just get yourself killed. If you're going to carry a gun for protection, you need to be prepared (mentally and physically) to kill them first, using split-second judgment that most civilians do not have the training for, and bearing the risk that your judgement will be off and you'll kill an unarmed (or innocent) person, instead. (And no, training for that is not the solution.)

          But my real point in writing, ribeye, is to express sympathies about the difficult relations with your daughter. I hope you're able to get along well in other areas, and not let this disrupt your relationship.

          Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

          by Sharon Wraight on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:09:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Where's your source on this? (0+ / 0-)

        You said:

        If someone tries to mug you and you pull a handgun causing them to run off... you might inform the police, but most people won't.
        You can't throw out a statement like that, and not back it up. "Most people don't" report pulling a gun on a mugger? How do you know that? How do you know it happens more than rarely?

        The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

        by LiberalLady on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:52:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This shit has nothing to do with gun culture. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpotsmuggler, sponson, BachFan

    It has everything to do with a right wing gun cult.

    "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

    by JesseCW on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:13:39 PM PST

  •  When I hear the word "clip"... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I know I'm talking to someone who knows only what bad Hollywood movies has taught them.

    You know the movie where Jesse Venture has the gigantic gun with the rotating barrels? That gun weighs about 600 pounds, without ammunition. No human can carry it, they're meant to be mounted on helicopters, or on turrents on a battleship (to shoot incoming missiles).

    He's carrying a prop. It's not a real gun.

    Alas, there are a great many gun prohibitionists who think that it is real, and that you can buy one without a background check.

    On any other topic, progressives would be aghast at the thought of uninformed, unknowledgeable people suggesting policy. Why now? Are you worried that if you learn about firearms you will somehow be transformed into a gun-lover?

    •  Are you saying clip is not common vermacular? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bhut jolokia, sponson, Laconic Lib

      Are you saying this term is only found in movies?  Is it that gun enthusiasts don't ever use this word.  My daughter does.

      And what a ridiculous statement that a great number of people equate some Hollywood prop with something they fear.  

      Oh no, giant lizards like Godzilla are coming because I saw it in a movie.

      Oh no, we are really in a coma being kept alive by machines because I saw it in a movie

      Oh no, if I drive too fast, my car will go to the future because I saw it in a movie.  

      Well, unless a great number to you is some fraction of a percent.


      •  It's not common at all. (0+ / 0-)

        It seems to exist only among those on the left who want more restrictive regulation or outright bans.

        No one that owns a magazine or has ever used one calls it a "clip".

        Everything you know about the terminology seems to come from really schlocky A-Team episodes from the 1980s.

        •  Because this only exists on the left (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib

          is not the same as learning this in a movie.  Nice shift.

          And even if it does, does this mean it is an invalid term?  

          Did you not understand what was being said?  Did anyone?    

          It is a term.  We all understand it.  Why get into the weeds?  

          •  I didn't say it exists only on the left. (0+ / 0-)

            Specifically, it exists only among those on the left who are for gun control.

            This is likely because you've learned the terminology from movies. That's speculative, of course, and if I was proven wrong on that point I'd gladly concede it. Where ever it's from though, it sounds ignorant.

            •  Since your post, I've researched. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sponson, Laconic Lib

              The term clips is often misused as it is only the "strip" of shells (called a stripper clip) used to feed a magazine.  I didn't realize the  terminology distinctions.  

              I  have no idea where, when, or how the term entered my vernacular, probably from something at Kos or Rachel or from one of those other evil leftists.  I never saw the Jesse Ventura movie you reference (though his politics is fascinating) and I thought the A-team was utterly stupid, so not there either.  It seems a silly point really.

              But my intention was not to misuse the term or use in in the pejorative.   I've been educated.  


            •  And gun enthusiasts didn't get "clip" from movies? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight, Laconic Lib, BachFan

              Show me a non-veteran gun enthusiast in this country and I'll show you someone who grew up (like the rest of us) on gun-saturated movies that use the term "clip" all the time.  Arguing that the term "clip" is obscure, technical, or has some connotation in its use at all, whether pro or anti-gun, is ridiculous.

    •  What's with the constant "clips" whining? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ricochet, Laconic Lib

      This is really getting really tiring.

      clip noun

      Definition of CLIP

      1: any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook

      2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm

      3: a piece of jewelry held in position by a clip

      You are confusing an ordinary word used in common everyday english with a technical term.

      For an example of the use of the word "clip" in a sentence by a native english speaker, please see 0:40 on the video below:

  •  Good luck n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Trade always exists for the traders. Any time you hear businessmen debating "which policy is better for America," don’t bend over. -George Carlin-

    by not4morewars on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:06:34 PM PST

  •  Gun control, "my way:" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ricochet, sponson, Laconic Lib

    I don't buy em; don't buy the ammo, or the murder-capacity clips, or any of the other gadgets and gizmos that the gun-berserkers are trying to force-feed my family.

    BUT --- I take it a step further:  I don't do business with the gun-berserker crowd.  I deny them my family's cash.  I deny them my physical presence in their business establishments.  I give my business to their gun-free competitors, and I point my friends and neighbors to those gun-free competitors, as well.

    The annual NMRA train show?  Walk right past the guy with the NRA signs next to the HO-scale locomotives.  He doesn't get my kids' business.

    Going out to dinner?  The owner who boasts about his collection of guns doesn't see me in his restaurant.  Ever.

    Stopping for cocoa after an afternon on the sledding hill?  Two coffee shops in town.  One shop owner belongs to the NRA.  The other --- hates guns with a passion.  Guess who gets our business?

    Deny the gun-berserkers the ability to fund their war against you at your eapanse.  Give them nothing.


    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:29:45 PM PST

    •  Your gun radar must be pretty sophisticated. (0+ / 0-)

      Many (most?) concealed carry folk don't self identify.

      •  Plenty do ID themselves as gun proponents (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharon Wraight, Laconic Lib

        I would absolutely like to identify, as Liberal Panzer probably would, every person who is feeding money to the gun manufacturing industry that I might do business with.  They're contributing to thousands and thousands of pointless deaths per year, all for money and nothing else.  I'm sick to death of the cult of guns, and since December 14th hundreds more Americans are too.  But they're dead.  Seven of them were children.  I'm tired of seeing military-style firepower being marketed to people in the same way that fast food as, and thrown around in such a casual way.  Increasing the supply is not the solution, unless you're a gun manufacturer.  And that's why I don't want any of my money going to them.

        •  I don't want any of your money going to them (0+ / 0-)

          either, if you don't want it to. I just have a problem with how those who think like you want to out them.

          Why not, for example, have anyone who buys five gallons or more of gasoline in a container have to register it. I see no difference in principle.

          •  Gasoline isn't designed to kill dozens (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharon Wraight, Laconic Lib

            Of people as rapidly as possible, although it certainly has plenty of deadly effects in the long run.  Assault rifles with 30-round clips are.

            •  It was in Breslan, Russia. (0+ / 0-)

              Every Molotov Cocktail ever made used gasoline, as did every napalm bomb. and many flamethrowers.

              •  A simple request, please. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I could walk down the street, wearing a long winter coat, and easily conceal within that coat several handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, an AR with a collapsible stock, and enough ammunition in high-capacity magazines to wipe out my entire neighborhod.  Please show me how you'd do that with a jerry-can of gasoline.  You don't think the great big bulge and the scent of 87 octane would give you away?

                Besides --- I interpret the Constitution to mean that I have a right to live free from the fear of tyranny.  If my neighbors can own an arsenal apiece, then wouldn't the dented logic in that also grant me the right to seek ownership of superior firepower to defend myself from them?  Where does the logical conclusion take this --- maybe an Abrams parked in the garage, or one of Reagan's old MX rail-based missiles out back?

                How about an old, first-edition Anarchist's Cookbook?  "Poor man's napalm," anyone?  Gasoline and styrofoam.

                The point is this:  The discussion right now isn't about things that have other uses; it's about specific items, designed for the unique environment of the battlefield, that have a singular purpose:  To kill human beings en masse with minimal effort.

                I think the safest, easiest, and fairest way to interfere with feedback-lop escation is to just pull these "dumbed-down military weapons" off the open market, and turn them into farm-industry components.  Swords to ploughshares, and all that.  Guns don't feed people --- harvests do!

                Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

                by Liberal Panzer on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 09:59:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Part of the trouble is the usual one: (0+ / 0-)

                  you want to use your own definitions. There is not a rifle sold to civilians in the US that was "designed for the unique environment of the battlefield" nor are any of them standard issue to American military riflemen. Those that are are prohibited from civilian purchase.

                  Those firearms sold to civilians don't have "a singular purpose". Their legal purposes includes target shooting, self defense, "plinking" in the desert or a gun range, among others. That they are used for illegal purposes does not make them unique instruments

                  So one is forced to wonder, why just focus on firearms? Since inanimate object have no agency, logically any weapon or substance that can or has been used to "kill human beings en masse with minimal effort" should be severely regulated. To do otherwise is to devalue the lives taken illegally by other than firearms.

                  I am reminded of the (quite potentially deadly) swords Naval and Marine personnel wear occasionally to this day on ceremonial occasions (including at the White House). They are not kept in some armory and issued for the occasion -- one keeps them in one's closet. In fact I recall no controls on them at all, other than when it was appropriate to wear them. Nor to I recall occasions when they were used by their owners unlawfully, though I'm prepared to admit it may have happened. But would you feel safer if they were banned?

                  So in boils down not to an issue of safety -- safety is in the hands of the human agents -- but control of the population. In this case, the purpose of the control can be nothing more than the governmental survival instinct.  

                  •  Correction: (0+ / 0-)

                    The AR-15 is a "dumbed down" M-16.  It was not designed separately.  A half-dozen components of the M-16's lower-receiver assembly were modified to prevent automatic firing of the weapon.  5 of these parts make up the "trigger group" and the 6th is the DIAS (Drop In Auto Sear).

                    The market is still full of pre-'81 DIAS units, and they're simple enough to manufacture from a block of steel on a hobbyist's bench-top mill.  The trigger-group pieces can all be manufactured by the metalworking hobbyist as well --- and the line-drawings for these components are readily available on the Internet, in old M-16 maintenance books, and at most gun shows.

                    Officially, it's "illegal" for anyone to own both an AR-15 and any of the above-mentioned components.  But since we're not allowed to track who owns an AR-15 in the first place (thanks to Mr. LaPierre of the NRA for that little gem), we'll have about as much luck checking on auto-fire trigger groups and DIAS components as --- shall we say --- making sure people with mental health issues don't buy guns at gun shows, or through the Internet.

                    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

                    by Liberal Panzer on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:32:37 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  How to get a real dialog on guns (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, BachFan, Sharon Wraight

    This post shows how far we are from talking reasonably about the horrible carnage that guns cause and the fears of those whose worldview requires having guns that they will be taken away.  I think that requiring insurance, if it is done in a way compensates all injured persons is a way to move forward.  It is possible to do without registering gun owners and with a reasonable cost.  See Gun Insurance Would not be Expensive for calculations showing the average cost for generous benefits is less that $60 annually per gun.

  •  I don't get it (0+ / 0-)

    So many people in America make this statement "I'm not against guns but" Why aren't you against guns. In Canada nobody would make that statement. The only people in Canada who can carry hand guns are police and Armoured car drivers. We like it that way.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site