Skip to main content

I'm going to make a prediction: there will be no rally from Wayne LaPierre and his Hestonites to point out how more loaded guns in the hands of "responsible" gun owners would have stopped the Binghamton massacre.

The targets were largely immigrants (although "real" Americans were also victims), and the shooting was done by an immigrant. You know it - and you can't bring yourself to think it and I don't blame you -

The RWingers are throwing parties about what happened in Binghamton.

For my first twelve years, my mom would drop me off at my Aunt Marie's house, which was about eight blocks where this shooting took place. I'm very dark and cold and sick inside about all of this. It's too close to what was once my real home.

little more below

I just want to ask you to keep your eyes and ears open for the lack of outrage from the Right Wing over this shooting.

Virginia Tech? More guns would have stopped that, they said. Responsible gun owners, with a sidearm on their person at all times would have been Johnny on the Spot to save any if not all at Virginia Tech.

Let's see if the same advocates for concealed-carry make their case again this time around.

I hear crickets.

Those who read my stuff know I'm dark and solemn when I'm not ranting and outraged. This killing is carving out my soul in ways I can't really describe; the best I can do is show you the comment I wrote in an open-thread the night it happened. Binghamton used to be my home; where I live now is only two hours from there, and the house my mom used to drop me off at when she ran errands once stood about eight blocks from where the massacre happened.

I'm too bewildered and grim right now to put up the links for you; I'm in  a denial of my own because my emotions are strong and I know I can paint myself into a bad state of mind. But you've got Google News - count the number of shootings in the last two weeks; the last month, the last year.

How many of them were done by people who lost their jobs or couldn't find one?

In the Great Depression it was "brother, can you spare a dime" - this time around the slogan seems to be "FUCK IT!! SOMEONE WILL PAY!". This really is unfolding in front of us and each shooting is so horrible we cant' grasp how the larger pattern is unfolding.

And I want to ask you something: We're dealing with a political party that is reeling from a brutal defeat. Not just the election, but a demonstrable failure of the Reaganesque ideals of de-regulation and lower taxes that to the educated is undeniable. But to the uneducated who was told lower taxes would put more money in their pockets and regulation means fascism, do you believe they will ever blame their heroes?

Not a chance.  

The Right Wing base which has been cultivated to say the things about Democrats which we heard during the election weren't faking it; they really are that rabid. But Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Malkin have built programmed drones who have kept their powder dry all these years because they were fed a dream that Republicans can make them all rich and happy with low taxes and no regulations.

Now, after that experiment blew up in all our faces, they have got the same people who lost everything believing that it was always liberals who made it happen; and they believe it is still liberals who caused their current plight and will keep it from recovering unless we follow the same Reagan dream.

This shooting in Binghamton, I am afraid is just the beginning, even though I admit it's nowhere near the first even in the latest string of them.

Remember - this was an immigrant who aimed at immigrants. The RW will wash their hands of this because it was not one of their own, and they will blame the Democrats because of course we use immigrants as pawns to win elections. I want you to watch for this.

Have you been able to keep track of all the other murders and murder/suicides in the last year? There have been at least three in the last two weeks and it looks like there was yesterday that was specifically about Obama and assault weapons,  another one since we all went to sleep last night.

Help me - the Right is just going to dig deeper and amplify the messages that have brought us here - how do we stop this?

Originally posted to snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:41 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

    •  ya, it's good. (5+ / 0-)

      a downer, but it's good.

      http://www.sbac.edu/~werned/DATA/RESEARCH/journals/Excep%20Children/inclusion.pdf

      by TexMex on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:24:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but I think to day I will (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snafubar, chrome327, AuroraDawn

        cut some branches off my apple trees to try and force some spring flowers early.
        :)
        Gotta stay up. Been down too long.

        http://www.sbac.edu/~werned/DATA/RESEARCH/journals/Excep%20Children/inclusion.pdf

        by TexMex on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:26:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You'll notice a large time-gap in my comments (3+ / 0-)

          the weather was nice today, and I went out and worked in the yard.

          Seeing some of the comments here, I think that was a good idea.

          This is the "far left" blog - i bet if I could sneak into RedState or Freep long enough to post this, they'd have me googled me and burned down my house before sundown.

          Can't say that would bother me much at this point.

          If I could make it all stop by throwing myself at them to feast on, i'd have been there long ago.

          But then again there was this guy Jesus who was sacrificed to teach the world the lessons they should know to behave amongst each other, and that hasn't panned out like they thought it would.

          Ok...that wasn't directed at you. Just needed to vent.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 06:01:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know the feeling... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snafubar, Black Leather Rain

            Usually I am a calm, civil person (or at least I try to be), but I've found myself unable to calmly discuss this issue with pro-gun people during the last few days. My comments have been strident, shrill, but it's only because this issue really cuts me to the core.

            It's just so damn tragic that we seem to be unable to progress as a nation with regard to gun control. Most Dems won't even discuss this subject for fear of losing votes. Meanwhile, massacres just keep happening. Have we ever suffered this many acts of mass murder via gun violence in one week or one month before? How many attacks have there been in the last month? I've lost count. It must be at least six or seven.

            Reading your diary at least made me feel that I wasn't alone in my sadness and frustration over recent events.

            I defy the tyranny of precedent. I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past. ~ Clara Barton

            by AuroraDawn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:44:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've said often that comisseration sometimes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Black Leather Rain, AuroraDawn

              carries more weight than anything else.

              I appreciate your openness as well.

              Two of those SAT prep words that really turn my stomach lately are "innured" and "habituated" -

              I'm 41, and the watershed in my life was the same year when Nike came out with "Just Do it" and it seemed like right after that when Bud Dry launched their ad campaign that said "Why ask Why?"

              If we Just do it and never ask why, then we have no reason to act surprised when we end up in times like these.

              I like your tagline. You sound like someone I would enjoy meeting.

              Let's hope the world continues to rotate long enough there's still a chance.

              It's like the summer of the DC snipers (Boyd/Malvo) and I started to wonder if it was not the "end of days" - which, being an atheist, does not mean the same thing to me that it does to most people.

              Thanks for your comment.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:48:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you... (0+ / 0-)

                I also feel at times that we are teetering toward the edge of the abyss, or maybe we have already fallen off of it, but we have to keep trying to improve things. The alternative is pretty grim. It's just so overwhelming, we are facing so many problems all at once. Commiseration is very useful. I think more than anything empathy, friendship and cooperation, are what all of us are going to need to survive the mess we're in. It helps to realize one isn't alone.

                I don't think I'll ever become inured to violence. Some may get used to it, but it will always shock me how cruel human beings can be toward one another.

                I came across my tag line the other day when reading about Barton. It perfectly sums up my feelings and it reminded me of a quote from Bobby Kennedy:

                Some people see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream of things that never were, and ask 'Why not?'

                Change isn't just a slogan, it must become a reality. We have no choice but to change.

                I defy the tyranny of precedent. I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past. ~ Clara Barton

                by AuroraDawn on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:03:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Sad thing, Pro-gun diary is on the rec list & not (8+ / 0-)

      this one.  That is the true tragedy of this website.

      Have you forgotten about jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

      by uc booker on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:35:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for collecting all the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dgil, kyril

      anti 2nd Amendment people here.

      Gun control is Republican control. If the Democratic party pushes gun control most of the country, except for a few coastal states, turn a deep red.

      Capital is only the fruit of labor, [...] Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
      President Lincoln, December 3, 1861

      by notrouble on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:07:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, you're right. I should stop mentioning this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Black Leather Rain, AuroraDawn

        kind of shit.

        It's not good for our party.

        Tell you what....

        Since I'm suicidal, if any of you can find a way for me to be put in front of the next motherfucker who snaps so that I can be his target and same someone innocent who wants to live, sign me up, OK?

        I don't give a flip happy flying fuck about keeping my mouth shut about things that are contentious issues because we might lose a few votes -

        Do you really think if I just unplugged my keyboard our chances in the next election would go up?

        Thanks, but I'm not interested.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:31:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This issue is (0+ / 0-)

          the Democratic party's version of the Republican's abortion issue.

          Capital is only the fruit of labor, [...] Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
          President Lincoln, December 3, 1861

          by notrouble on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:08:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Tipped and rec'd (6+ / 0-)

      Some good analysis of this horrific shooting from the other day in Binghamton.  It portends of a worsening and sicker society; there seem to be several of these mass shootings each week.
      We live in an armed madhouse.

      Strength through Peace.

      by Billdbq on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:15:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All this recent gun violence (3+ / 0-)

      and the accompanying debate has frankly made me rather post traumatic about my own family tragedy involving a gun.  And to further my fears is the rampant talk of how the wingnuts are being whipped up by the RWNM which as a liberal in Arizona does not do my own feeling of well-being any good.  

      I think your right about the prevalance of gun violence and how we as Americans dismiss these deaths.  If they had died any other way it would be real news.  I am sure it has something to do with the how much of a stranglehold the corporations have on the the reporting and the interests to be served.

      •  You're right about the corporate connection... (0+ / 0-)

        I am sure it has something to do with the how much of a stranglehold the corporations have on the the reporting and the interests to be served.

        Take just one corporation, GE. They own CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Mun2TV, Sci-Fi channel, Trio, and USA network, among other things. They are also one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers.

        I defy the tyranny of precedent. I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past. ~ Clara Barton

        by AuroraDawn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:48:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was waiting for more details on this. (0+ / 0-)

      I figured it was another right-wing whack job misplacing his anger.  I am disturbingly pleased that it was NOT another pissed off RWer.

      What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin. They don't gotta burn the books, they just remove em while arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells.

      by Black Leather Rain on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:51:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're so right (13+ / 0-)

    The RW is busy now quoting Thomas Jefferson's famous line (from memory here), "The tree of liberty must be bathed from time to time in the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    And they fashion themselves as true American patriots with visions of bloodbaths.

    "Getting (re)elected is politicians' only true moral imperative."

    by zackamac on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:46:34 AM PDT

    •  Hey, if their blood all over the place would be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zackamac, AuroraDawn

      good for the country, I'm more then happy to let them show us how it works.

      After all, they're the "patriots" and tyrants.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:28:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The frightening part is that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zackamac

      I had someone tell me something similar HERE at Kos. Some nonsense about needing their guns to fight our "enemy" the government. I expect that sort of wingnuttery at Free Republic, but not here. I mean if you want to own a gun to hunt, fine, say so. I'm not into that, but I realize many Americans are. However, to admit that they feared the government, and were arming themselves because "one day" they might have to fight the Feds?!! I find that kind of talk alarming...deeply so.

      I'm not suggesting that comment was the norm, but it really took me aback. It's also absurd because no imbecile is going to be able to combat the government. Do these people on the RW - and even a few here on the left - really believe that their automatic guns can take on a tank or a fighter jet?

      I defy the tyranny of precedent. I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past. ~ Clara Barton

      by AuroraDawn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:58:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Coming from the country (12+ / 0-)

    I have always had guns, dad made sure all his six daughters were professionally instructed.

    I keep mine in a locked cabinet with the firing pins removed, ammunition is stored in the safe. The Gendarmerie insist on inspecting every couple of years.

    Better background checks and mandatory training will save us a great deal of grief.

    Assault rifles are just sheer stupidity.

    I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.~Terry Pratchett [-4.88. -6.97]

    by LaFeminista on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:51:37 AM PDT

    •  In this country those steps you follow will (7+ / 0-)

      inspire cries that the gun can never be unlocked, assembled, loaded, and fired in time to make a difference.

      I have my own gun story: My Grandfather was once the town constable in the 40's. He had his gun in an unlocked dresser drawer in his bedroom.

      My father and his sister found it one day, my father pointed at my sister, paused, and said "BAM!"

      He did not pull the trigger and he put the gun back.

      When my grandfather got home, he noticed something had been disturbed.

      There was a bullet in the chamber.

      I've been told that story since I was old enough to know what a gun was. I realize my grandfather was to fault for not locking up the gun, or for a simple error in realizing there was one bullet left -

      but that's the point, isn't it?

      All gun violence is excused because we need guns for defense; all gun accidents are excused because the person never meant to harm anyone and feels sorrow forever.

      I've never been able to figure out why it is every time there is a plane crash the country stands in shock and vows to investigate for as long as needed so that it will never happen again. That conversation seems to be avoided frequently when it comes to guns.

      The gun deaths don't even make the front pages any more in some places; and we never allow ourselves to say anything.

      I don't have an answer that will solve everything; what I do wish is that the conversation could continue and strive to be more productive.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:38:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, Black Leather Rain, AuroraDawn

        When my grandfather got home, he noticed something had been disturbed.

        There was a bullet in the chamber.

        This is why you always assume that a gun is ready to fire, and never point it at anything you're not willing to kill or destroy.

        I wish we could get PSAs out to instruct people on this.

        "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
        Finding God in a Dog

        by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:54:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Two lessons... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Black Leather Rain, AuroraDawn

          I'm Canadian, so up here in order to own firearms you must pass a safety course that teaches you how to handle them.  When it came to the part about checking to see if a gun is loaded, my instructor told me two things;

          - A gun isn't of much use if it's not loaded, so always assume that it is.
          - Plenty of people get killed with "unloaded" guns.

          So I've always been diligent about checking a gun to see if it was loaded.

          ... Where is Baldwin?
          ... Où est Lafontaine?

          by Wisewood on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:55:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Do you know any seven year olds who think that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Black Leather Rain, AuroraDawn

          far ahead?

          The point about gun safety is that it's always claimed by the gun owners that they know all about it and practice it habitually;

          like Dick Cheney did.

          PSA's don't change human behavior, which seems to be lazy, careless - or even the most attentive and cautious person can just plain forget.

          But hey - it's always worth it, because someday it might come in handy.

          I've never seen anyone - from the NRA or anywhere else - hold up a poster with a big bar chart on it that shows last year there were 5,000 acts of violence prevented by guns and only 5 accidental shootings.

          I would like to, but somehow they haven't produced that chart yet.

          Dunno why.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:26:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  o_0 (0+ / 0-)

            PSA's don't change human behavior, which seems to be lazy, careless - or even the most attentive and cautious person can just plain forget.

            Actually, yes they do change behavior, if the message is properly tuned.

            "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
            Finding God in a Dog

            by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:54:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So we're going to say that a PSA is a PSA (0+ / 0-)

              even though the subject is gun violence vs. drug use?

              Well we're back to comparing Oranges to Top Fuel Dragster Piston Rings.

              I mean they're almost identical.

              "Here's a gun. Now everyone be nice and not use it unless there's a real good reason, all right?

              Now, you kids go play".

              Sorry. I'm not on board.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:59:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You made a blanket statement... (0+ / 0-)

                ...about PSAs. I was addressing that.

                As far as I know, PSAs have never been tried for gun safety. I'm saying we should try it. If you have some evidence that PSAs would NOT work to address gun safety, please present it.

                "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
                Finding God in a Dog

                by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:10:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK...now I retire. (0+ / 0-)

                  The NRA puts out PSA's on gun safety to cover their ass that the people firing them for the most part are deliberately hoping to kill someone, and the "few" and "rare" occasions where an innocent loved family member dies in a tragic accident is the domain of the "responsible" gun owner...

                  ...therefore they can excuse those too by simply making a bogey out of "irresponsible" gun owners...who remain sadly anonymous until the tragedy unfolds - and then it's a little late.

                  You know, like Dick Cheney. Lifetime member of the NRA, but we all know that Harry Whittington, one of Cheney's lifelong friends was shot because it was his fault he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                  At least that's what Whittington said days after the shooting.

                  George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                  by snafubar on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:04:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  "assault rifles." (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, notrouble

      Can you define an "assault rifle" for me?

      "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
      Finding God in a Dog

      by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:52:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think she means automatic weapons. (0+ / 0-)

        We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

        by Texas Revolutionary on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:32:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Assault weapons (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Texas Revolutionary

          Automatic weapons are already very tightly controlled. Since 1934 there have been almost no incidents involving registered NFA firearms.

          In common usage since the so-called "assault weapons ban" and assault rifle means any semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military rifle or is a semi-automatic version of one. Say an AR-15 for instance.

          Two problems with this is "military looking" is hard to define legally and certain military style semi-automatic firearms are popular for sport shooting (especially AR-15 variants).

          Compared to handguns, long-arms (rifles and shotguns) aren't involved in many crimes, suicides, or accidental deaths.

          Unfortunately a lot of spree killers do use long-arms which tends to put those types of firearms in the headlines.

          •  I should have thought my answer through more, (0+ / 0-)

            it's firearms that have features that make them easier to use in close quarters or against human targets. Pistol grips, extended magazines, semi-auto firing, short overall length, ability to attach a suppressor. Firearms with a certain number of these features are supposed to be heavily regulated.

            We rely on your donations to bring you sigs like this. If you contribute today, we'll send you this free T.R. tote bag. (-10.00,-8.87)

            by Texas Revolutionary on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:56:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, that's exactly the problem. (0+ / 0-)

              Some of these are the same features that make a so-called "assault rifle" useful in a SHTF situation.

              If you propose taking these out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, you're de facto calling for disarmament. Mutatis mutandis for a ban.

              "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
              Finding God in a Dog

              by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:51:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for posting that.... (0+ / 0-)

      You have the same policy that my grandfather did. He owned guns, he loved to hunt, but he was a responsible gun owner and supported regulations. If everyone was this reasonable and responsible we wouldn't have so many problems.

      The media projects this image that all gun-owners are steadfastly against regulation and that all those in favor of regulation are against all forms of gun ownership. That isn't true. I think most of us would like to achieve a happy medium.

      I defy the tyranny of precedent. I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past. ~ Clara Barton

      by AuroraDawn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:03:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chicago lost its (11+ / 0-)

    31st student to gunfire this term.

    The level of violence is increasing across the country. In just the last 30 days, how many events of gun violence occurred? I lost count, I am ashamed to say.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:52:18 AM PDT

    •  Odd that. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shadan7, agnostic, notrouble

      I guess gangbangers don't pay attention to gun control laws?

      Maybe we need to concentrate on the gangs?

      "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
      Finding God in a Dog

      by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:56:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice. So because criminals don't obey gun (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AuroraDawn

        control laws, the laws are a waste of our time?

        I think that's where the argument goes nowhere; we aren't going to change gang behavior until we change the overall attitude in society on about a dozen levels.

        But since that's not going ot happen by Tuesday, let's also say it's a waste of our time to pay any attention to the means that the gang-bangers use to slaughter each other.

        If they were using anthrax and not 9mm's, do you think we'd say, "oh, nevermind, the weapons are irrelevant"?

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:22:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We could do both... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snafubar

        Are you certain all thirty-one deaths were caused by "gang-bangers?" As I recall, the killers at Columbine weren't gang-bangers. Let's not be too glib. Both sides (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone at times) tend to get defensive.

        Banning guns won't solve all of our problems. We need to take a more comprehensive approach. Our failing (non-existent?) mental health care system needs to be addressed. Our crumbling economy needs to be addressed. The way we punish and detour crime needs to be addressed. I would also like to see stricter regulations regarding just who can legally possess firearms. No one with a history of violent crime, for example, should ever be allowed to own a gun in my book.

        There will always be criminals who break the law and harm others. Many individuals who commit gun crimes, however, own their guns legally. Regulations won't completely obliterate gun crime, but as part of a larger strategy, they could lessen the number of injuries and deaths.

        I defy the tyranny of precedent. I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past. ~ Clara Barton

        by AuroraDawn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:14:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read of six separate cases of kids being caught (0+ / 0-)

          in cross-fires by roving gangs. Several were shot on the way to or from school.
          It has been truly heart wrenching here.

          What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

          by agnostic on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:44:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I call your attention (8+ / 0-)

    to the diary right above yours.

    The officers killed yesterday were not just fodder for your arguments about guns or what the right-wing crazies said.  They were real people, and had real families.  Sometimes we forget that.

    Think about it.

    In the battle of meaningless political terms, my assault weapon beats your partial birth abortion. - Eddie Garcia aka kestrel9000

    by kestrel9000 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:56:13 AM PDT

    •  My argument is not about guns Kestrel (8+ / 0-)

      Its about the rhetoric that causes people to fire them at all the wrong targets.

      Think about it.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:01:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In other words (0+ / 0-)

        what the right-wing crazies said.

        In the battle of meaningless political terms, my assault weapon beats your partial birth abortion. - Eddie Garcia aka kestrel9000

        by kestrel9000 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:10:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm really lost about what you're faulting me for (7+ / 0-)

          So because it's too soon after the last innocent person got killed because some rabid lunatic with a microphone stoked an angry and willing crowd and that provoked one lunatic to do something unthinkable, I'm supposed to sit quietly in the corner?

          Why? Because we need to grieve?

          The whole point is that we don't have time to do grieve anyway before we've forgotten the last innocent to get killed because the horror at the next one has already showed up at our door.  

          Kestrel, I admire your work here and you for writing it, but what exactly are you asking of me?

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:30:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  wtf? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, AuroraDawn

      I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

      by labradog on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:42:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I do think about it... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snafubar, Black Leather Rain

      I buried someone I loved very deeply because of a crime like this. I don't lose sight of the fact that human lives are at stake. It is because human lives are at stake that I feel so passionately about this issue.

      No one is deliberately trying to be insensitive, but the reality is that there have been four or five mass shootings in the last week. Not one month, not one year, but one week! Those are only the mass shootings. There were undoubtedly countless individual shooting deaths around the nation during the same time. I know of at least one in Oregon. When would the appropriate time be to address the fact that we as a nation have a serious problem? I don't see how silence, or pretending that this didn't happen, helps anyone. Yes, if we went to their wakes and started screaming about this that would be inappropriate, but we aren't at a wake, we're on a political blog.

      As for the rightwing crazies, they are encouraging violence. Just listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly for an hour one day...it's scary the amount of hate they propagate.

      I defy the tyranny of precedent. I cannot afford the luxury of a closed mind. I go for anything new that might improve the past. ~ Clara Barton

      by AuroraDawn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:24:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Private Guns, Public Health" (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.press.umich.edu/...

    "On an average day in the United States, guns are used to kill almost eighty people, and to wound nearly three hundred more. If any other consumer product had this sort of disastrous effect, the public outcry would be deafening; yet when it comes to guns such facts are accepted as a natural consequence of supposedly high American rates of violence."

    Sailing on a sea of angry words and insults is no fun at all .

    by indycam on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:56:16 AM PDT

    •  What people fear will kill them never does (5+ / 0-)

      I wrote a diary last year that shows how absurd it is to be afraid of dying from a terrorist attack;

      What are you afraid of?

      the number of people killed in this country by their own bad habits, apathy, and indifference is so staggering we've been trained to ignore it.

      And yet the fear is still directed at "them".

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:59:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "any other consumer product" (0+ / 0-)

      how's that automobile ban doing?



      The Fear Machine has been turned up to eight.

      by ben masel on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:23:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the past (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snafubar, AuroraDawn

        cars were much more dangerous .
        The car manufacturers said that when the car was used as they should be , no one got hurt or killed .
        They said that the car as designed , was not at fault , that the problem was with the people who misused the car .

        Some people said that the car manufactures should improve the safety of there products , the manufactures said no thank you .
        Laws were past to force improvements .
        Todays safer cars are the outcome .

        Cars were not banned .
        Rules were written to improve the safety .

        Are you against improvements to safety ?
        Or are you thinking no improvements can be made ?

        Sailing on a sea of angry words and insults is no fun at all .

        by indycam on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:39:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Inspection, licensing, registration... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AuroraDawn

        ...control, obviously, does not equal a ban.

        I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

        by labradog on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:43:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I've seen you throw some pretty loaded (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AuroraDawn

        comments into what could be an otherwise reasonable argument.

        The point is not to ban automobiles, but to recognize the danger and deal with it beyond simply building safer cars; say dealing with driver behavior. Try to talk about automobile safety by changing the habits of the drivers and you get exactly the response you get when you talk about responsible gun ownership or dealing with "ownership" in the hands of criminals who are obviously not worried about licensing and safety if their day to day activities are already legal.

        You can take away guns and not shut down the fucking country, so to say that a "ban" on autos is a reasonable argument to deal with the absurd number of deaths is...

        ...well, it's the kind of comment somebody makes when what they really want to say is "I don't like this argument so I'm just going to lay a turd in the punchbowl and leave"

        But thanks for reminding us what we're up against.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:16:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And you don't appreciate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snafubar

          that my "loaded comment" gives you an opportunity for a nicely nuanced response?

          btw, I don't own any firearms, I'm a "rights nut,' not a "gun nut."



          The Fear Machine has been turned up to eight.

          by ben masel on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 07:39:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sure I admitted openly in the diary and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AuroraDawn

            again many times in the comments that I'm particularly raw about this event; so I'm not really in "nuance" mode as much as I am venting full-steam to keep from smashing my head through a window.

            Sorry if you got in my crosshairs, so to speak.

            However...on the issue of "rights", I read Doestoyevsky at a young age; I'm well aware that men require freedom to do something they know will harm only themselves simply to prove that no one can ever take that freedom away from them.

            I'm just not impressed by it any more. Sometimes when I run up against a full-throttle "hey yall, watch this!" Libertarian I think of the chimpanzees sitting in the cages throwing their own shit at each other and communicating to one another,

            "So what's the big deal about evolution, anyway? Some of the humans that got the big brain don't seem to be putting it to any good use anyway..."

            George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

            by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:40:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The only (5+ / 0-)

    time the right wing is patriotic is when a republican is in the White House. Just like their ethics, their patriotism is "situational" as well. Now-with their constant calls for violent revolution these people are no longer just a disgrace-they're an actual danger to all of us. The rhetoric is not just horrific, it is downright dangerous and irresponsible as all hell. Truly unconscionable. "Have they no shame?" Literally-"Have they no shame?"

    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal

    by lyvwyr101 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:00:48 AM PDT

    •  Well that's the point; right? (2+ / 0-)

      if they believe that they have God's own plan for what God wanted this country to be, then their man can do no wrong and to speak out against him is Treason; when the opponent wins an election, it is then a patriotic defense of the country to speak out and protest and take him down to save the country.

      And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how "free" societies eat their own.

      We won't be able to see where we're going until we arrive and have a chance to look back at us, but many of us are sure this is the "end of days" - and I am an unabashed, unapologetic, unrelenting atheist. I'm just honest enough to see how it can all go wrong, except without Jesus to put it all back together again.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:05:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Their entire culture is screwed up (5+ / 0-)

    When the social right initiates a movement to hide  their children from public schools in order to shield them from "secularists, evolutionists, and liberal  teachers" you know they are not about to let a little light in anywhere.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:07:03 AM PDT

  •  The last time around.... (5+ / 0-)

    the people killing themselves were the ones who caused it. Having over-leveraged themselves, and in many cases, companies, they realized that they were responsible for their own mess.

    But this time around, the people who caused this are getting paid. We're not asking who's responsible, just throw money at it. It'll go away.

    So, because the government won't hold anyone responsible for the millions of lost jobs, there's no sense of shared sacrifice. "the system's fine, it just needs a little TLC." But we know that's not true.

    The government attacks auto assemblers, and rewards Wall Street gamblers. It's not the fault of 'financial instruments' designed to fail, it's greedy workers. "We can't let the system fail." Even though it already has. "The unions killed the American corporations." It's not the greedy executives who sent it all somewhere else, because they don't like the rules.

    Will we see more of this? Unfortunately, every bailout will bring more. It's unfocusable, tangible anger that can't be focused. It can't be focused, because myriad fingers are pointing in myriad directions.

    And the one body that has the responsibility to examine all aspects, determine culpability, and ensure that it's not repeated, are ignoring their responsibility. Because they're hands are dirty.

  •  Good diary (9+ / 0-)

    Back in the day I was a member of the NRA. That was before the R stood for Repug, the organization was a mouthpiece for the Repugs and I had ever lived in an urban environment. That experience really put the zap on my head and fundamentally changed the way I looked at 2nd Amendment issues.

    The level of gun violence in our cities is unacceptable by any standards except those of the NRA which reduces it to unavoidable social costs in order to conveniently avoid the fact that these incidents are primarily fueled by the ease with which firearms may be procured.

    This is primarily an urban vs. rural issue. 2nd Amendment be damned, the primary responsibility of any governmental organization is to ensure the protection of those who live within their boundaries. Our cities have to be allowed the flexibility to take measures to restrict the flow of firearms in order to fulfill this most basic responsiblity.

    The NRA band wouldn't want this to get out but that's exactly what the founders would have done.

    Tipped and Recced.

     

    •  Your username is a little six-degrees ironic. (3+ / 0-)

      One of my favorite songs was/is "Great White Buffalo" by Ted Nugent.

      I think Nugent is a completely unforgivable ******* now, but I'm not going to start burning his records.

      And I wrote a diary about Nugent about the irony that if he really did love White Buffalo and feel the need to remark about "...the White Man with his thick and empty head couldn't see past the billfold..."

      Nugent is backing a very strange party to uphold those ideals.....

      Thanks for your comment.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:26:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In short (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snafubar, kyril

        Native Americans considered the birth of a white buff, about a 1 in 6 million chance, to be a powerful harbinger of significant events. There's much more to it but too much for this format to due it justice.

        Ted can play a guitar but his misunderstanding and misrepresentation of several similarly related items which he supposedly considers dear to his soul in defense of the Repugs is nothing short of disgusting.

        Remember when they had a disco sucks party in Chicago and blew up the records...  

        •  Nugent is an idiot, one hit wonder. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snafubar

          I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

          by labradog on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:44:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I like his music, and I'll leave it there. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            labradog

            I've just discovered that so many of hte people who I used to call friends found me on facebook...

            ...and whether they were always of the mind they have now or they changed that much in 25 years, I can say I'd never be able to stand in a room with them now without having the feeling I wanted to claw their skull open with a hammer.

            So...one of my future diaries is how we only maintain what little peace we do have in this country because most of our relationships are so pathetically shallow we simply don't realize how much we would hate each other.

            But yeah, if we had a larger population of Teds in this country, Iraq would be peaceful by comparison.

            George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

            by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:10:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  NRA is quiet because of Pittsburgh cop shootings (12+ / 0-)

    3 of Pittsburgh's finest were shot dead by a man barricaded in his home yesterday.  His best friend says the guy was obsessed with Obama taking away his guns.  The NRA and Bachmann, et al, have been talking up this line and now, finally, they've gotten a reaction:  Multiple Murder.

    Of course, you've got to read down to the 19th graf to find it.  Maybe we can raise it to the headline?

    http://news.yahoo.com/...

  •  Guns are okay & an integral part of American life (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wufacta, BachFan

    However, you do not need an AK-47 to kill Bambi.  We need to start implementing laws to moderate gun ownership.  

    Have you forgotten about jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

    by uc booker on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:23:49 AM PDT

    •  how exactly do you define 'integral'? (3+ / 0-)

      Slavery was once an integral part of this country too, and although the argument was the economy would shut down and everyone would go broke we seemed to have found a way to get right back to labor cheap enough we can afford without all the shackles and bullwhips.

      Sorry. I'm a little "loaded" today.

      Just because stupid things were done yesterday is not a reason to keep doing them tomorrow, and on the issue of gun ownership and regulation, the pro- camp has established a de-facto natural law that if a gun can be used for good in one case out of ten thousand, then we can afford to bury the other 9999 and still wave the flag and sing God Bless America.

      Sorry.

      "Integral part of American Life" can be taken in a lot of ways; I doubt that you meant that they are the leading cause of death for some narrow demographic segments of the population...

      but that's how it can be taken.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:58:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We have laws to moderate gun ownership (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      The Bush administration didn't enforce them for crap. That's a huge part of the problem we have right now.

      "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
      Finding God in a Dog

      by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  problem is "assault weapons" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snafubar

        are so-called. They're just Semi-auto and functionally no different than a .270 or 30-06 used for deer hunting. if you banned all of the ones that look like military weapons nothing would actually change, except the looks, and maybe the fact that you can't get 30 round magazines for a Remington 270 .

        The fact of life is that we have millions of guns in this country (I have...a few... myself) and they will never go away. I haven't fired any of mine in over ten years, since I stopped competitive shooting, and they are properly secured, bolts and ammo under lock and key. I don't have any Semi-autos. In fact, I grew up hunting as a teenager for years with a single shot rifle and a double-barrel shotgun. If you can't get the game in the first or second shot the rest are worthless.

        But they are attractive to those who are freaking out for one reason or another, and I do think we'll see more of this. It's incredibly ironic that the guy obsessed with someone taking away his guns becomes a walking advertisement for doing just that.

        And definitely, right-wing radio and careless elected officials need to be held to account.

        "red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson

        by blindcynic on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 01:31:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have a little bone in my throat about those who (0+ / 0-)

          dismiss assault weapons by pointing out that "fully automatic" is still illegal.

          And I salute you for being yet another in a very long and mysteriously unbroken list of responsible gun owners who go to great lengths to tell me how you personally always do the right thing.

          Boy "they" sure are screwing up bad, right? "Those people" who somehow are not as astute, aware, deliberate, conscientious and responsible just keep hiding in the shadows somehow and no one knows who or where they are...until somehow a newspaper reporter prints their name after they become famous for all the wrong reasons.

          You know, like giving your kid a micro-uzi and reaching for a camera so you can watch him shoot himself.

          The gun dealers can still somehow legally sell modification kits that turn "semi-" into "fully-"; and you can be sure the black market in how to do it under the covers is as busy as the drug trade.

          If you want to see for yourself, watch the "full-auto shoot" from Wyandotte OK, and then try to convince me that those are only "semi-" automatic weapons that are "functionally no different" than something used for deer hunting.

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          Keep in mind the people who show up at Wyandotte somehow know that fully automatic weapons are still illegal and don't even mind being captured on video firing one.  

          Want to tell me the serious killers are still going to say, "Well only semi- automatic weapons are still legal; I had better not go to full auto or I might be skirting the law the next time I shoot up a bank"

          ????

          I just don't get it.

          "But they are attractive...for one reason or another..."

          I won't argue with you there.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:33:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "how do we stop it?" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snafubar

    we don't, not directly.  But, as a website, we continue doing what we have been doing.  We document the rhetoric and when applicable connect it with the violence it has engendered.  Our hope is that eventually the mainstream media gets ahold of it and exacts a price from the hate-mongers and the political party wedded to them.  This may already be happening with respect to Glen Beck.  Shepard Smith and Joe Scarborough have already mocked him on air and Charlie Blow has written an op-ed in the NYT denouncing his rhetoric as dangerous.  As more and more mainstream media outlets start covering this, pressure will build to ratchet down the rhetoric.  It's not much, but it's all I've got. Crap, it's even less then it seems, because even if all hate media were banned tomorrow, we'd still probably see an increase in the incidence of violent crime, given the severity of the economic downturn.

  •  The Pittsburgh shooting (4+ / 0-)

    The Pittsburgh shootings, with, very sadly, police as victims, completely belies the NRA meme that an armed populace can somehow prevent these tragedies.  These were well-armed and well-trained professionals who were killed by the criminal.  If these dangerous people can get the drop on and kill policemen, what makes these loonies think that they can do better?  

    The NRA are a bunch of losers living in fantasy lands constructed from scenes from John Wayne movies, with themselves as the hero.  Walter Mitty on a wild west theme. The reality is much more stark and grim and showed itself in both Binghamton and Pittsburgh.  

    No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. H. L. Mencken

    by jim0121 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:26:28 AM PDT

  •  I've been noticing the silence (6+ / 0-)

    regarding Mexican drug cartels' rights to own and bear arms. Why aren't the pro-gun folks out there cheering and huzzahing everytime gun violence breaks out south of our borders? Everybody has guns, so everybody is protected, right?

    Now that you've gone Galt, I get your stuff.

    by pucklady on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:29:41 AM PDT

    •  I've heard them say that they want troops on... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      notrouble

      the border to stop the smuggling.

      •  I've heard them say they want troops (0+ / 0-)

        on the border for a long list of reasons that don't even consider smuggling.

        Much of the people I hear who are so willing to shoot anything that moves near the border are smoking and snorting much of the stuff that makes it across and they don't care who brings it.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 07:56:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You'd think (0+ / 0-)

      that when a commodity from a first-world country is smuggled into the third world and exacerbates third-world problems, its proponents would be concerned enough to want to stop it.

      (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

      by john07801 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:19:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What does a mentally ill Vietnamese immigrant (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shadan7, VClib, kyril, SgtRocky1, morbie5

    shooting up an immigrant resource center have to do with Wingers?  Seriously.  

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:29:41 AM PDT

    •  Po-tay-toe v. Po-tah-toe And, was that in Philly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snafubar, Texas Revolutionary

      or New York?

      Have you forgotten about jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

      by uc booker on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:31:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  he was reportedly being taunted (4+ / 0-)

      by people who were criticizing his lack of English skills.  Who do you think ginned that up?  It certainly wasn't the immigrants.  

      Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic. --The Onion

      by mem from somerville on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:36:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I stand corrected. HAD to be Wingers. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        Progressives never display any prejudice.  

        Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

        by SpamNunn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:42:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •   Bin laden must be so goddamned happy (4+ / 0-)

          because here we are with the motherfucking war between two Americans now based on their goddamn political views

          and the fucking terrorists are over there in a cave playing cards watching us punch each other in the mouth?

          CAN WE FIND A FUCKING TARGET THAT ISN'T ANOTHER AMERICAN FOR ONCE

          THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT

          FUCK.
          FUCK.
          FUCK.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:52:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for making my point. (10+ / 0-)

      I wrote the diary, if what was in it did not make the point, you either didn't read it or I could not reach you if I hit you with a brick.

      There have been five shootings in the last two months

      10 dead in Alabama
      8  dead in North Carolina
      6 dead in California
      Binghamton,

      and the three police officers shot yesterday in Pittsburgh.

      But we're nto allowed to talk about what they were killed with - guns.

      if they were all killed on a plane, we'd have investigations for upwards of two years to find the cause.

      If they were killed by food poisoning there would be nationwide recalls

      And if 38 people were killed in two weeks were killed by terrorists?

      Do you really want me to finish this for you?

      Gun violence is the only way someone can get killed and get so goddamn many people to roll their eyes and say "so what".

      Because as long as the shooter was Vietnamese and not American, and we know he was mentally ill...

      ...well then, nothing to see here, move along.

      But I gotta ask you - if a mentally ill Vietnamese immigrant stayed home for three months and built a weapon out of balsa wood and bailing wire, we'd sure as shit be having a conversation about that.

      But he used a gun, so let's just stop talking about it already, because lots of people use guns to kill, so where's the headline?

      Wow.

      Seriously, indeed.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:48:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What was your point, in ten words or less? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, kyril

        I am hard pressed to see it.  [ducks at the incoming brick]

        If the point is that we need better gun control laws, I get it.  

        If the point is that no one should be allowed to buy a gun, I don't get it.  

        I live in an isolated area, and I know how to properly handle a gun.   It provides me with security, until the police can arrive.  We have had home invasions in my town.  God help the guy who kicks in my front door.  

        Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

        by SpamNunn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By your logic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snafubar, SpamNunn

          you should have a nuclear weapon in your garage because Russia has one.

          Knowing how to use a gun is no guarantee of knowing when to use a gun.

          •  No, in my missile silo. It won't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blindcynic

            fit in my garage.  

            Of course we need to have them if other countries have them.  If Iran had nukes, but Israel did not, how long do you think that Israel would continue to exist?   That's a rhetorical question, of course.

            Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

            by SpamNunn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:00:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By your logic, because Israel has nukes and Iran (0+ / 0-)

              does not, Iran shoudl have ceased to exist by now.

              Funny how we always know we'd never do what our enemies surely will.

              That was a legitimate train of thought before Bush declared war on Iraq and we threw away two centuries of integrity and principle.

              I don't care what you have in your garage, your silo, or your bedside table for that matter. Mere posession does not guarantee that whatever it is will be used for it's intended purpose, used responsibly, or even aimed at a deserving target.

              And that's the point - it's bizarre to think that somehow all the people who have guns know that they are going to something rotten with it from the moment they obtain it; surely that many own the gun because - and only because - the other guy has one, and we KNOW the "good" people would never fire first but only in self-defense.

              And if the numbers bore that out, i wouldn't be here. Still waiting for that to be revealed in the numbers.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:47:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have my gun to kill any person who tries to (0+ / 0-)

                harm my family.  I have proper training in the use of firearms. My gun?   I wouldn't event take it out if I did not intend to kill someone with it.  

                My gun can be misused, for sure.  So can my car and the meat cleaver in my kitchen drawer.  What's your point?  You just don't like guns.  Tough.  They are here to stay.  

                Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

                by SpamNunn on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:00:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Drop dead spam. (0+ / 0-)

                  My point is if we saw thousands of deaths by meat cleavers, you know good and godddamn well in that dark heartless soul you don't have that this conversation would be a lot different.

                  There's no second ammendment for meat cleavers, right?

                  Are you making that same bullshit argument that since you know how to do it right then it's certainly still excusable that somehow a tragic lot of other people didnt' follow your example, and that's just too bad that other people will die?

                  I'ts not that I don't like guns. That's what you say to hide behind the point - I don't like the argument that justifies guns because it's fucking bullshit.

                  Now get over here and shoot me already I'm ready.

                  I've never met a gun owner - nor even read about one - who said,

                  You know, I don't really know how to use this thing. It's not locked up, and my kids don't even know to stay away from it.

                  Somehow that happens though; it's just we don't hear anyone brag about it.

                  That's either because they're lying about all that training and preparation because they either dont' have it or it's harder to apply in a real life situation that anyone can acknowledge until they're in it, and then it's a bit late to learn - -- -

                  or all those other tragic deaths are at the hands of a bunch of other cocksure and arrogant people like you who are absolutely, unconditionally, without question, sure beyond any doubt that they have everything under control.

                  You don't give a fuck what my point was. Your own mother could be shot by a gun held by your own kid, and you'd defend you're right to have one to the end.

                  So let's not talk about "I just don't like guns" as if I'm the only one here with a belligerent attitude.

                  George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                  by snafubar on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:14:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I don't (0+ / 0-)

                    You don't give a fuck what my point was. Your own mother could be shot by a gun held by your own kid, and you'd defend you're right to have one to the end.

                    My kids know how to handle a gun, too.  Guns are for killing people.   That's not something that anyone should take lightly.

                    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

                    by SpamNunn on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:49:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you think I'm taking any of this lightly (0+ / 0-)

                      then you're getting better drugs than I've ever been introduced to.

                      I have no desire to ever get anywhere near being able to appreciate a single thing you've said in this thread, and I hope

                      I hope

                      Some day you get the chance to show the world just how proud, capable, quick, safe, and diligent you are with your guns so you can save somebody.

                      But no matter how many electrons you waste trying to point out how wrong you think I am, I will scream until I am out of fucking breath and you drag my dead body away when some innocent person gets shot by a gun and everyone starts to pull out their copy of the Constitution.

                      It's like Christians who take a book that's got thousands of pages in it and all they can do it talk about the four verses that condemn homosexuality =

                      of all the things our founders sacrificed and fought to establish this country in order to achieve, how the fuck the Second Amendment always gets as much press as it does given the rest of what is in that document - and to the exclusion of all the consequences that come with the Second Amendment, I will forever be as disgusted by it all as any gun lover is indignant or outraged by my attitude.

                      I'm still suicidal, so I'm ready for my close-up, Mr Demille. I'd rather be shot in my own home while unarmed than deal with all those consequences that every gun lover is so utterly convinced will never happen to them...but somehow happens to somebody.

                      God does work in mysterious ways.

                      Which is yet another reason I've got no time for his bullshit either.

                      You really want to keep going?

                      Why don't you show me how the more mature and stable person just lets the unhinged lunatic go on ranting after everyone else has left the room.

                      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                      by snafubar on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:02:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I just re-read that again, and I'm chilled to the (0+ / 0-)

                  bone.

                  You actually typed it out -

                  I have my gun to kill

                  Maybe you have yet to appreciate that not every American is ready to admit that at some point in their life they may have to kill another human.

                  Maybe - just maybe - any country where so many people feel that they may someday encounter that moment should be a little more careful about consistently bragging about being "the greatest country in the world".

                  "Come to the USA - the Greatest Country in the World! (*warning: you should be armed and ready, because you might have to kill someone. But it's all good, cause we've got laws to cover you on that one)"

                  Maybe, just maybe, we might have an intelligent and honest conversation that not every human is ready to grasp the meaning and consequences of having that gun ready and waiting for the moment they suddenly realize they might have to kill someone because - well, because not everyone is able to grasp that concept. And obviously the judgement to know when that moment has actually arrive is has been compromised and sacrificed on more than a few (hundred thousand) occasions in our history and instead of defense, it was someone else shot in cold blood.

                  But we can still ignore that, because that one in a million shot where the bullet might stop the right person -

                  ...well that's all that matters.

                  The Greatest Country in the World, I tells ya!

                  George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                  by snafubar on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:24:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Right ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril, SpamNunn

            By your logic you should have a nuclear weapon in your garage because Russia has one.

            ... because a citizen living in a cul-de-sac somewhere in Middle America is perfectly analagous to a sovereign nation.

        •  I live in an isolated area, too AND i have a 500 (0+ / 0-)

          pound black bear who routinely shows up to rip apart my bird feeders.

          I do not own a gun.

          For two reasons  -

          I'm suicidal and my writing would cease pretty fucking quick if saying "FUCK IT" was that easy.

          but most of all -

          If I felt my life was in danger to the degree that I needed to be armed in order to stay alive and that thought crossed my mind on a daily basis...

          ...I'd turn the gun on myself because who wants to believe that things are already that fucking bad?

          If I really believed things were so bad that a gun was my only way to "pursue my happiness" - I'd never be able to find my happiness in all that fear and angst.

          I've got enough of both without ballistic assistance.

          I also don't believe in God, and surely you don't give a fuck what God thinks of the guy who kicks in your door, so saying "God help him" is clearly an empty expression anyway.

          Spam - if this supposed claim that we are the greatest country in the world is actually true, then surely I don't need a weapon in order for me to believe it, now do I?

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:01:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am actually deeply religious, so (0+ / 0-)

            I would pray for the departed soul of anyone who was bold enough to try to hurt my family.

            I have smoke alarms and CO2 detectors in my house.  I have homeowners insurance, too.  Firearms are the same thing.  I pray that I may never need any of them, but I sleep better knowing that I have them.

            Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

            by SpamNunn on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 06:25:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nice try. (0+ / 0-)

              I'll wait for you to publish the long and tragic list of smoke alarms that have killed small children when they found it loaded on the ceiling and pointed it at their little brother.

              Even seen a smoke alarm used in a crime of passion?

              How about homeowners insurance policy that was picked up by the adjuster and used to kill the homeowner?

              How many unemployed truck drivers or IBM engineers run home to grab a pile of CO2 detectors before they run back to work and try to kill their boss with it?  

              Can we find a better comparison than oranges to top fuel dragster piston rings?

              There's a difference between chosing to sleep in fear and take reasonable precautions to be safe and financially compensated when the worst happens. The examples you gave all have failure rates in the fractions of percentages: a gun as a method of protection is one that surely does give the owner comfort and confidence, but the truth is that so rarely it can be found in the right place, at he right time, in the right condition, handled by the right person, and be used against the right target.

              But we all believe it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I understand that. I've driven over a quarter million miles and only needed my seat belt for about 400 feet of it.

              But the statistical evidence that a gun is as effective as a seat belt just isn't there.

              If I ever saw the numbers, I'm a pragmatic person and I would not argue with you. But there's a big difference between logic and passion, and I do not accept that they are interchangable.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 07:53:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really? Too bad. (0+ / 0-)

                The Supreme Court says I can have my guns.   You can protect yourself with your attitude when someone breaks into your home.  I prefer lead.  

                Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

                by SpamNunn on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:40:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're the kind of asshole who would (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SpamNunn

                  get shot by someone else with a gun just because you enjoy being so obnoxious.

                  I'm guessing that anonymously on a blog your balls are much bigger than they are when everyone is standing within arms reach or ballistic range.

                  I wish justice and fate were actually as precise as the faithful would lead us to believe, and people with that "come and get me, I'm ready for it baby" attitude found themselves in a VIrginia Tech classroom, an retirement home in North Carolina, or a foreign language classroom in Binghamton instead of those foolish dolts who don't know that they needed to be armed and ready on that day.

                  I guess "G"od had other plans.

                  Spamm?

                  GO fuck yourself.

                  And use something sharp and poisonous, OK.

                  I wrote this diary as an act of expression and outreach becuause I was depressed and anguished over this killing and here you are dancing around naked with a falming torch and a copy of the second amendment in your hand claiming to have the fucking Supreme court on speed-dial.

                  I really loathe you.

                  And if you want to show me how shiny and loaded your gun collection is, you heartless motherfucker, I'll give you my street address so you can come show me.

                  I'm ready do die but don't hhave the balls to do it by my own hand, so maybe we can work something out. You're going to have to clear it with "G"od because I'm sure he was never there, but you can talk to him as his followers are wont to do and see what he says.

                  I don't know how you do it, or what part of your soul feels that kind of desire to be such a prick that Cheney would blush, but the day I figure that out I will have found the courage to blow my own fucking head off. I'm so introverted I'll just take myself out without the need to make anyone else i've never met pay for my angst.

                  I realize that once I post this I can't take it back and I'm going to read it tomorrow and forever more and think it was way over the top, but that's the point, isn't it? People like you say and do whatever they want because they know the law won't stop them, and just because you can, you wash your hands of what it might mean to anyone else.

                  You don't know or care what it means to anyone else because we live in a "G"od bless America free country, and it's all part of "H"is plan.

                  How's that working out? It's not like people are dying from senseless violence, suicide, or outrage killings, is it? Boy, "G"od's plan sure is fascinating to watch. "H"is message has got to be huge if it's this esoteric, contradictory, and tragic. But there's streets paved with gold and harps all over the place for those who can make this wretched misery look like it had a purpose, right?

                  By the way - what was your number in the pool when I asked a year ago how many people would die in senseless shootings?

                  Was it over 100?

                  I gotta have a talk with that "G"od of yours and just ask him straight out why "H"e never seems to think there might be a purpose in arranging that a loaded-gun fanatic would always be in the right place at the right time to save all those people, because despite the claims of people like you that your purpose in having all the guns is to save themselves and all those other people - despite the staggering, sickening, and horrifying numbers that prove it works out that way so rarely that "G"od is either asleep at the wheel or he really likes it when we kill each other in ways that make no sense. Maybe "H"e's trying to reach you to arrange the screenplay, but you were busy mouthing off about all the things your guns are good for and missed the call.  

                  What do you think "G"od was trying to tell us in Binghamton, Spam? He knew you and ten thousand other lifetime-members of the NRA were ready and willing to be just the hero we need, but since you were busy shining your gun collection "H"e said, "Oh, well. I guess not this time "?

                  Just shut the fuck up, or google me already and let's get this over with. I'm not hard to find.

                  Note to Kos and Admins: I write this with a purpose. If someone like me is being honest about their feelings and their opinions and someone else reading it can feel comfortable and obviously encouraged to just keep pouring salt in open wounds, I'm here yet again (Spamm, you can read the five diaries I wrote about it) to show that some people have no use for yellow lights.

                  I believe that discussion might have some bearing on our current national and world scene. But I might be the only one from the feedback I'm getting.

                  Whatever your explanation is, at this point, I will never understand where all that antagonism comes from or where you think it goes after you get done pissing it all over us. I know where it goes, and it sucks being wet and trying in vain to wash out the smell just because you enjoy showing what a prick looks like when it empties out.

                  Thanks for enlightening me about all the things I never knew guns were good for, and why they're still such an indespensible part of our American life.

                  George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                  by snafubar on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:51:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Tell me what you really think. (0+ / 0-)

                    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

                    by SpamNunn on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:36:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Too late. (0+ / 0-)

                      Now, please - by all means, act indignant and shocked as if somehow you were just sitting alone in the dark watching your watch dial glowing and I burst into the room and picked a fight you weren't interested in.

                      Or were you busy feeding the bears and bragging about how much fun it was to say "fuck the sign" until you noticed you were missing a finger.

                      Come on, Spam....you enjoy this and you got exactly what you came for and what you were expecting.

                      Here - this was written before you came along, but you obviously aren't alone.  

                      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                      by snafubar on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:12:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  objects, and the individuals who use them.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpamNunn

      The above comment, What does a mentally ill Vietnamese immigrant have to do with right wingers? is a very good question.

      Because there's no correlation whatsoever. People are hurting bad. Many are broke, with no means of support. I myself am about a month from being totally broke.

      And, I own a gun. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go try to find people whom I thought have wronged me in the past. And that I'm a liberal democrat doesn't have anything to do with that decision.

      Every individual is responsible for his or her actions. I'm not saying that there aren't outside influences, but that's what it boils down to.

      This diarist is using the act of an unstable individual as a starting point for an attack on people who had no culpability in the situation mentioned.

      It's like using a gun in the wrong way.

      •  TIME OUT. (0+ / 0-)

        "The diarist" is not using the act of an individual as a starting point for an attack on people who had no culpability on the situation.

        "The Diarist" is pointing out that the world as we know it is fucked up beyond our ability to admit it and be honest about it, and the diarist is pointing out that if the whole goddamn place is bathing in gasoline then having a bunch of flares within easy reach might be part of the problem we're seeing?

        This country is way too obsessed with the word blame - I guess I could have written a diary about the last unstable individual who used a gun to fuck up a chunk of the world much larger than himself, and that too would be a distraction, wouldn't it?

        Until the next shooting. Well, it's just an unstable individual.

        Until the next shooting. Well, it's just an unstable individual.

        "The Diarist" pointed out something that you ignored rather conveniently - you show me any other cause of death where the public and government in such large measure is content to say "Yawn...oh, yeah, more people died...but we know we've got the right attitude on the method of death".

        Funny how the Right Wing who loves guns so much because it's people who kill and not the guns that kill are the same fascist assholes who think that we should lock up everyone who gets stoned...after all, it's the people who are dangerous, right...not the marijuana?

        If the Right wing or the 2nd Amendment fans showed any sense of their consistency of philosophy about who is responsible for what, I wouldn't spend all this energy calling them duplicitous liars.

        Looking forward to that.

        Yes, every individual is responsible for their own actions. Except the political party who wants to make "pre-emptive" arrests of people who MIGHT do something dangerous when they're on drugs, but can't be bothered to have the same attitude for people who have loaded weapons at the ready.

        I'm quite comfortable with what I've written here.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:55:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The shooter liked to joke about... (0+ / 0-)

      ...shooting politicians and the president.

      I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

      by labradog on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:49:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and? (0+ / 0-)

        So somehow your argument is that everyone knew this guy was a ticking time bomb and they just said,

        Hey! "Deal or No Deal is on"!

        Columbine anyone? A whole lot of people recognized something was wrong before that nightmare, and look how many people rolled their eyes and changed the channel...who were the very same people who said "WHY DID NO ONE STOP THIS!" when it was over.

        Yes, lets blame it all on the shooter.

        ...because otherwise we live in a cosmic utopia where everyone has no worries and is happy as a clam...

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:05:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The shooter and his inciters get to share blame. (0+ / 0-)

          So somehow your argument is that everyone knew this guy was a ticking time bomb and they just said,

          No, that was not my argument at all.

          I responded to

          What does a mentally ill Vietnamese immigrant shooting up an immigrant resource center have to do with Wingers?  Seriously.

          by alluding to his desire to "shoot politicians and the president". In 2009, that sentiment IDs one as a wingnut.

          I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

          by labradog on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:27:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Let Face It People (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShempLugosi

    we are a nation of violence and greed. Listen to any repug radio or tv show and all they promote and encourage is violence and greed. From the founding of this country, America is pro war, pro guns, kill kill kill is the way to reach your objective. They promote Liberalism is the opposition and must be killed. This kind of mindset will start to heal when WE all admit/realalize that republicans ideology is NOT based on CHRISTANITY but CAPITALSTANITY.
    CAPITALISM MUST BE ACHIVED THROUGH VIOLENCE, and STEALING.

  •  Guns are the problem. Those fanatics (3+ / 0-)

    who oppose gun controls should have the integrity to acknowledge that they are helping foster a culture of murderous violence.  Guns kill people, people with guns kill people, people without guns kill almost nobody.  So these fanatics who hide behind the second amendment are just selfish, they are willing to risk the lives of innocents so they can get off on their guns.  They are deeply troubled.

    They need to be reminded when they claim constitutional protection that the constitution also protected slavery, but slavery was still wrong.  So the constitution protects gun ownership, that does not make it right.  It is clearly wrong.  It is murderous and the fanatics have the blood of innocents on their hands.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:40:33 AM PDT

    •  Question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Collideascope, kyril

      Do you think comments like that help or hurt the proposotion that 2A advocates are somehow paranoid?

      "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
      Finding God in a Dog

      by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 09:52:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't matter (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxomai, shrike, kyril

        Once a poster has established those who disagree are:

        fanatics

        selfish

        deeply troubled

        murderous

        have the blood of innocents on their hands

        Why bother saying anything else?

        When someone has decided that those who disagree are the vilest of scum who care nothing for anyone but themselves, they have decided that they are absolutely correct and anything anyone else says is meaningless, because it by definition is being said by someone who is evil and utterly without worth.

        In other words, the poster isn't remotely interested in dialogue, only in ad hominem attacks to cut off all discourse with which the poster disagrees.

        •  I meant every word I said... (0+ / 0-)

          The old ploy of seeking "discourse" is phony.  The fanatics don't seek "discourse" they just want to change the subject.  So instead of refuting my position you attack me.

          Do you deny that there are fanatics who are vehemently opposed to gun regulation?  If you do then you are either a fool or a liar.

          Do you deny that guns contribute to a culture of murderous violence?  If you do then you are either a fool or a liar.

          Do you deny that these fanatics will not acknowledge that their selfish desire to indulge their dark attraction to guns hurts other people?  If you do then you are either a fool or a liar.

          Do you deny that those people who work to keep guns available in the marketplace have responsiblity for the deaths that result, and that they therefore have the blood of innocents on their hands?  Well, by now, we know what you think.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

          by hestal on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:16:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The ad-hominem fest continues ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maxomai

            I meant every word I said...

            I don't doubt that you did.

            So instead of refuting my position you attack me.

            No, I didn't.  I attacked your characterizations.  I don't deny that there are fantatics.  But you characterized as fanatics those who oppose gun control.  Thereby, you aren't claiming that some are fanatics, you're saying that all who disagree are such.

            And you're can't even reply without descending into the ridiculous "agree or you're a fool or a liar!" childishness.

            Do you deny that those people who work to keep guns available in the marketplace have responsiblity for the deaths that result, and that they therefore have the blood of innocents on their hands?  Well, by now, we know what you think.

            Yep, just like I deny that people like you who don't support Prohibition (I'm guessing - you're free to correct me if I'm wrong) have the blood of the 75,000 who died last year from alcohol.

            Grow up and we'll talk some more.

            •  Yes, you did. Your attacks are so (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ulookarmless

              typical of the gun fanatics.  They, like you, claim that they are being personally attacked, but what they, and you, don't have the integrity to acknowledge is that their fanatical support for guns is making an even more personal attack on society at large.  I am only using words and that is as far it goes, but the words you, and gun fanatics, use lead to violence and bloodshed.  So what you support is a personal attack on me and my loved ones.  You should be ashamed.  And I mean every word of it.

              So you still haven't attempted to justify your position in support of culture of murderous violence.

              Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

              by hestal on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:05:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                I'd just like to point out that, given that you're basically fulfilling the claims of some of these nutcases on the right through these comments and others, you have zero standing to claim that they're being paranoid.

                "Do What Thou Wilt" isn't in the platform of either party; it's just The Law.
                Finding God in a Dog

                by maxomai on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:54:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  It depends (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maxomai

            I am opposed to stupid poorly thought out laws passed in a panic by people who don't know the first thing about the topic they are attempting to regulate.

            Sadly much in the way of gun regulation falls in that category.

            I believe people have a legitimate reason to own firearms for collecting, target shooting, hunting, and self defense. I also believe legal gun owners have an obligation to behave in a responsible manner.

            I believe there needs to be better enforcement of existing firearms regulations. I also believe there needs to be an effort to get guns out of the hands of criminals. Neither of which requires any new laws or infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

            Perhaps there need to be some additional regulations and restrictions, but prove to me everything that can be done under the existing law is being done first.

            •  I am under no obiligation to prove anything to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ulookarmless

              you.  The burden of proof falls on those who want to risk the murder of innocents because of their wish to indulge their attraction to firearms.  You have just listed the weaknesses in the present system, each of which makes it possible for guns to get in the wrong hands, and you have no suggestions for making the system foolproof.  You just say that by sounding reasonable you have washed your hands of any violence done to innocents simply because you and others like you think that your hobby is more important than human life.

              Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

              by hestal on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:09:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't know me (0+ / 0-)

                First I wasn't saying you personally have to prove anything to me. But I don't think it is unreasonable to ask what shortcoming a new regulation or restriction addresses, especially when it is in regard to a Constitutional Right.

                I don't see how additional regulations and restrictions will do any good when the ones currently on the books aren't being properly and fully enforced.

                Second no system will ever be foolproof. Even in totalitarian states innocent people get killed for reasons other than state action. Frankly all private ownership of firearms could be banned tomorrow and there still would be gun violence. The millions of guns out there aren't going to disappear overnight.

                Third I'm not washing my hands of violence. I'm saying that when it comes to lawmaking it is best to proceed in a rational fashion. We don't need more stupidity like the drug laws, the PATRIOT ACT, or any number of other bad laws passed in the midst of a panic. Law based on emotion is rarely good law.

                I understand you are upset about gun violence. However alcohol, tobacco, and automobiles kill far more people in this country than guns do. Furthermore alcohol, tobacco, and automobiles aren't in the Constitution.

                Let me state for the record that I do not personally own a firearm. However I know people who do. I have also done target shooting, skeet shooting, and hunting. I have considered getting a target pistol for the range and a shotgun for skeet, but I don't really engage in either activity often enough to really feel the need to own a firearm for either. I can see the attraction of hunting, but found that fishing is personally more my speed.

                I think you grossly mischaracterize a majority of the firearms owners I've met. Most own only a few firearms. Most are not "gun nuts". Most are for responsible ownership and use of firearms.

                Even people who are a bit obsessive about firearm ownership and own a large number of firearms aren't about to go out and start shooting people. They aren't interested in seeing the weapons they own fall into the wrong hands.

                I believe the personal protection argument is legitimate. The police can't be everywhere and largely show up in the aftermath of a crime. This is of particular concern in areas where the police are a long way away.

                As a final point, I believe passing any further Federal firearm legislation is a political loser. I remember the electoral backlash after the passage of the so-called "assault weapons ban". I believe any new firearms restrictions would cause a similar backlash. I think there are far more important things to spend political capital on than passing gun control laws.

                •  You don't know me either. I have not (0+ / 0-)

                  suggested doing anyting stupid, but I have suggested stopping the stupid thing we are doing today which is to promote a culture of murderous violence.

                  I am glad that reforming this world of gun-induced violence is not in your hands, because you clearly are not up to it.

                  Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                  by hestal on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 01:25:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have other priorities (0+ / 0-)

                    I am glad that reforming this world of gun-induced violence is not in your hands, because you clearly are not up to it.

                    Not exactly, I just think there are bigger fish to fry which also happen to get to some of the underling causes of violence.

                    Making sure every child has proper nutrition, access to health care, and a proper education will do much to reduce violence and crime in this country.

                    Working to enlarge the middle class and provide greater opportunity rather than continuing down the road of have nots and have mores will reduce violent crime.

                    Stopping the stupid and insane war on drugs will reduce violent crime.

                    Gun control is the third rail for Democrats. It is a great way to ensure absolutely nothing else important gets done. Including addressing some of the underlying causes of crime and violence.

                •  "...kill far more than guns do"... (0+ / 0-)

                  Oh, I was hoping someone would not bring that up.

                  I wrote a diarylast year about how our own bad habits kill so many more people than terrorists; and look at what lengths and at what cost we are willing ot fight terrorism but not change our own habits at all.

                  And so it is with guns.

                  But I grow tired and intolerant with the idea that as long as we can find some example of a worse problem than the lesser problem can be excused.

                  The US used to be a country that did not torture; honored Habeas Corpus, and did not unilaterally declare war in controvention to world opinion. Then we said, "oh, but Al Queda is an enemy we haven't seen before" and suddenly we sacrificed our most sacred and honorable principles because too many people were convinced that as long as our enemy was bad enough we could afford to lower our standards and still be above that of our adversaries.

                  So to them I said, "to claim the high road, one must actually travel on it; to merely claim the 'higher' road is not the same thing"

                  So I'm intolerant of hearing that because it's politically not expedient to try to adjust our laws then we should not try.

                  We just tried a twenty-year experiment of de-regulation in the financial environment because we thought that less rules would allow new ideas to flourish. That didn't turn out too well.

                  And to hear that because our laws have not yet had the desired effect that we should blame the law and surrender the effort to find the right law, in my mind leads to anarchy.

                  we're still here debating a political backlash as we bury the dead.

                  And they wonder why I'm suicidal.

                  I'd rather die by my hand than by someone elses, and since human life is so fucking cheap to begin with, I find the objection to suicide rather perverse.

                  The last guy who shot ten people did it out of fear that Obama was going to pass an assault weapons ban.

                  So we're going to cave into that?

                  Just shoot me.

                  George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

                  by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:41:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  "I believe".... (0+ / 0-)

              "I believe people have a legitimate reason to own firearms for collecting, target shooting, hunting, and self defense."

              We all once believed that. Of course the sad fact is that the original purpose we were granted the right to bear arms was to keep a check on a federal government run amok; anyone who thinks that the NRA is going to take on the Pentagon in 2009 is obviously getting better drugs than the DEA is allowing.

              Collecting, target shooting, hunting and self defense are all legitimate purposes for gun ownership; however, establishing a sanctuary in the law for those purposes at the expense of all the other purposes men and women dream up to fire a gun is not working out too well.

              I've said elsewhere in this thread, I find it hard to find any other product I can compare to guns, where the stated purpose can be defended at the cost of all the other purposes. When a plane crashes investigations are started; when a house burns down we look for a cause.

              When someone gets slaughtered with a gun we say "what? did you hear something?"

              "And so it goes"...(as Kurt Vonnegut was so fond of saying)

              We cannot legislate morality; so I'm not sure laws will turn us around; on the other hand, to so easily say that "laws are not changing things" is a rather unfortunate rationale - murder has been around since the beginning of time. Simply because passing laws has not stopped it does not to me signify that we should just give up on the law.

              And what constitutes a "stupid" law depends on who you ask; that's where the idea that "compromise" is now a dirty word and a sign of weakness is the first sign that as a country we may not survive.

              Thanks for the exchange.

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:29:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  But the mere political act of gun control (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      will intensify killings a hundred times over.

      If saving lives is your goal education is the only answer.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:21:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is an unsupported hypothesis. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ulookarmless

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

        by hestal on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:12:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's why banning ownership of wild animals (0+ / 0-)

        caused a huge increase in ownership of tigers!!

        •  not productive. Absurdist arguments is something (0+ / 0-)

          we already have too many of, don't you think?

          I don't know anyone who owns a wild animal who says their country will be destroyed if the animals are banned, or even gets so offended if the animals have reasonable regulations and controls placed upon them.

          Please don't throw ridiculous arguments into an issue like this; everyone is already ready to snap - what do you hope to accomplish by being that snide?

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 04:53:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Canada has guns, and less than half the murders.. (4+ / 0-)

      per 100,000 inhabitants. It's not the object, it's the culture.

      Canadian's watch American movies. You know the ones, where a guy is wronged in some way, and then goes on a killing spree.

      Canadian's see a story. American's see a 'lesson.' It's ingrained into us to strike out. Exact 'justice.' Seek 'revenge.' You cheer in the theatre, and cry when it actually happens.

      People have been killing people for as long as there have been people. First, with rocks and sharp sticks, then, rudimentary axes, bow's and arrows, cataupults, sharp sticks on horseback, swords, knives, polearms, maces, machetes, ballistae, cannons, infected blankets, guillotines, ropes, wire, electricity, water,.....

      But guns are the problem. Not the people behind them. Not the culture bred to glorify violence. Not the culture that puts the cart before the horse.

      The reason Canadians have guns, but don't kill each other as often with them, is because the Canadian culture is one of a shared sense of being. That live and let live is preferable to kill the opponent, no matter what.

      But it's the object that's the problem.

      •  Canada, truth be told.... (0+ / 0-)

        ... has a lot less guns per capita.  Especially handguns.

        I've said before, but a large part of why we have less gun violence up here is because we're simply not awash in firearms.  It's not the only reason why, of course....

        ... Where is Baldwin?
        ... Où est Lafontaine?

        by Wisewood on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:41:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Canadians have fewer guns (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wisewood

          but it's not because they're all that much more difficult to come by. Especially long guns. Again, it comes down to culture: Canadians don't feel the need to accumulate arsenals. Why?

          Actually, as a Canadian expat in the US who's now a gun owner, I think the reverse is a better rhetorical question: Americans and acculturated immigrants feel the need to accumulate private arsenals. Why?

          •  History, maybe? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            Owning a gun in Canada is pretty easy;  legally, even.  The "hoops" that our marginal gun lobby once cried about, are not a huge hindrance;  that fact has pretty much sidelined the groups who want to roll back the Firearms Program.  Even the Conservatives don't talk much about it, any more.

            But why don't Canadians accumulate arsenals?  By and large, I think it has to do with the fact that Canada doesn't have a strong and long-ingrained gun culture, where most people think it's "okay" to own firearms.  Especially in the cities.  I find many people, here, become visibly uncomfortable at any talk of firearms;  if someone mentions that they own a gun, a common reply often seems to be "Why?"  

            Not saying that's a bad thing, mind you.

            We also do not have any romanticized periods in our history where the gun was a major player - We canceled our Revolution due to lack of interest;  Our West wasn't that Wild.  Our Twenties didn't Roar, so much as Whined;  We went without the Public Enemies.  The Cocaine Cowboys didn't like the cold, so much.

            So the gun does not figure prominently in our national myth and consciousness.  I mean, in Canada, a "shoot-out" is something that happens at the end of a tied hockey game.

            ... Where is Baldwin?
            ... Où est Lafontaine?

            by Wisewood on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:11:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Good luck with that Constitutional Amendment. (0+ / 0-)

      2/3 of each Chamber, then the Legislatures of 3/4 of the States.



      The Fear Machine has been turned up to eight.

      by ben masel on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:30:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Guns don't kill people (0+ / 0-)

    bullets do. So ban ammo.

    "Come on, come at me with the banana." Monty Python

    •  But first ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      ... we need to ban alcohol, which kills far more Americans annually, so it should receive higher priority.  However, I suppose we could work to ban both simultaneously.

      •  Guns don't occur naturally in nature (0+ / 0-)

        In fact, some alcohol is necessary to sustain life.

        I agree that we misuse it but it's pretty hard to ban mother nature

        •  ... such logic ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, notrouble

          Guns don't occur naturally in nature

          Neither do martinis, cabernet sauvignon and imperial ale.

          The elements and compounds from which firearms and alcoholic beverages are comprised occur naturally in nature.

          And since when is "But ... it's not natural!" an argument for banning something?  (I mean, this side of Freeper "arguments" - to use the term loosely - as an excuse to discriminate against gays?)

          Alcohol kills 75,000 Americans per year.  Over twice as many people as are killed by firearms.  So if you're interested in banning something to save lives, why aren't you starting there?  I'm genuinely curious.

          I agree that we misuse it but it's pretty hard to ban mother nature

          Right, right.  And we can't ban nukes because uranium occurs in nature.  And we can't ban private possession of anthrax because it occurs in nature.  

          Is your "We can't ban possession of what consists of a naturally occuring substance!" really the response you want to stick with?

          •  Remember when America banned alcohol? (0+ / 0-)

            Worked really well, huh?

            Are you arguing that guns are OK because they don't kill as many people as alcohol, or starvation, or old age? Would you ban the use of medicinal alcohol?

            Where did I say this?

            "We can't ban possession of what consists of a naturally occuring substance!"

            We can "ban" anything we like, the difference is this: While people can use/misuse alcohol, uranium, anthrax, etc. only people can manufacture guns, bombs, etc.

            Grapes turn into wine without our help

            •  I agree - bans don't work well (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              notrouble

              Remember when America banned alcohol? Worked really well, huh?

              Thanks for making that point.

              Hint - I wasn't advocating banning alcohol.  Rather, I was doing the opposite.  See, I'm consistent.  I don't use the deaths from alcohol as an excuse to demand we ban it, then turn around and say about something else which cause even more deaths (like tobacco), "We don't need to worry about that!".

              Are you arguing that guns are OK because they don't kill as many people as alcohol, or starvation, or old age?

              Nope, I'm wondering about your blatant inconsistency.  You claim to want to ban firearms to save lives, yet you show no interest in wanting to ban alcoholic beverages, which take far more lives annually.

              We can "ban" anything we like, the difference is this: While people can use/misuse alcohol, uranium, anthrax, etc. only people can manufacture guns, bombs, etc.

              Grapes turn into wine without our help

              No, they don't.  They can turn into an alcoholic substance vaguely resembling wine.  And there was once a naturally-occuring nuclear reactor in Africa (google "Oklo" if you're interested).  But unlike you, I don't run around using that as an excuse not to prohibit private operation of nuclear reactors by individuals.

              The grape which produces cabernet sauvignon does not occur in nature.  Bud Light does not occur in nature.  Bloody Mary's do not occur in nature.  How about banning them?

              Why not, if you really want to save lives?

              Oh, I know the answer.  The deaths of four people wrapped around a tree in a DWI just don't upset you in the same visceral way as four people gunned down.  They're just as dead, their families are just as anguished, but some people are inexplicably more outraged by gun deaths.  So they want to ban them.  Besides, these people often don't want to own a gun but they do enjoy a glass of wine now and then and it's much easier to sacrifice something they never use.

            •  I love black-and-white, zero-sum arguments (0+ / 0-)

              they're just so productive.

              Gray is such a rare color in nature....it's all either jet black or snow white...

              It's all or nothing.

              Working out real well.

              I did not say one goddamned word anywhere in this diary about banning a fucking thing.

              What I would like is a reasonable discussion about the 4,718 factors that are all coming together right now and making this country an absurdly volatile mix of unstable people and suggest that maybe the current attitude on guns could use some adjustment.

              I didn't say "ban".

              I said, "Can we give reasonable consideration to the situation we're in right now?"

              And maybe you're comment, like others, is a way of just saying "apparently not".

              George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

              by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 06:08:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  How about automobiles? (0+ / 0-)

        Motorized vehicles kill far more Americans than guns do. Lets ban them too!

        •  Yea! More absurdist arguments! This will (0+ / 0-)

          surely lead to a productive solution.

          You're right,

          I never should try.

          Fuck it.

          Just do me a favor though - the next time a guy is loaded to the teeth and looking to shoot someone to make a political statement, give me a heads up so I can get in front of him and be his first target because I'm just so fucking tired of watching it all go on and on.

          Let's kill two birds with one...gun.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 06:04:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Stream of consciousness precludes spell-check (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rita in DC

      I just let it flow and hit publish...if I sat on it and was my own English teacher, I'd leave it in the "drafts" folder.

      Thanks for the gentle correction.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:43:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Until we make some sweeping changes in US (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snafubar, trueblueliberal

    society, this violence will continue. We need to change the message in our movies and TV programs. We need to teach our children reasonable problem solving and conflict resolution. We need to make mental health a priority and increase the medical facilities to heal rather than criminalize those who show violent tendencies. We need to level the educational/economic opportunites for our citizens. No other supposedly advanced country in the world has as many killings and acts of criminal violence as the US - something is very wrong. Even though I am a gun owner and believe in the 2nd ammendment, I strongly favor background checks and wait time to purchase a gun.  Obviously, those intent on committing a criminal act can get around these restrictions, but it might slow them down. Mike Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine" touched on this US mind set, but we need to investigate solutions with increased vigor.

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

    by moose67 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:49:45 AM PDT

    •  "...so concerned about whether or not they could (0+ / 0-)

      they didn't stop to think about whether or not they should..."

      That line is from Jurassic Park, spoken about the concept of cloning live dinosaurs from fossilized DNA...but it can be applied to anything in our current society.

      I think the "end" started with "Survivor" and all the (staged) reality-TV; they all have the same plot and it's a sick one - play nice, and bullshit your way into fake friendships so your "friends" will carry you right up to the doorstep of the prize; then lie, cheat and betray so you can cut them loose and take the winnings for yourself.

      Once that becomes an admirable (or at the least an acceptable) path to success, it's not far until we just start from the beginning by cutting your best friends balls off and smiling about it.

      I learned at age 14 "The secret to success is sincerity - once you can fake that, you've got it made." Only teh Google taught me it was said by Jean Giraudoux French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist (1882 - 1944)

      It sounded cute at that age; now that I'm over 40, it's all wrong.

      Thanks for the exchange.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:17:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'll say it (0+ / 0-)

    The Civic Center in Binghamtom was a "Gun Free Zone."  John Lott already wrote an article about this, other gun rights activists have said it, and I'll say it.  I support the right of the secretaries in that building and any immigrant who was here legally to carry firearms for personal protection.  I don't support rights strictly for citizens because our rights are endowed by our Creator and are not dependent upon citizenship.

    The Pittsburgh case couldn't have been stopped by more guns, because it was simply a shootout with cops.  Cops already have guns.  But when you shoot someone in the head when he's not expecting it, there's not much to be done.  The only thing that could have prevented that situation is if this abusive psycho had been put in jail long ago for abusing his mother and his girlfriend.  He was obviously a violent asshole and something should have been done about him.  But when no one is willing to stand up to domestic violence, the abuser will have a clean record and can buy guns freely.

    •  Lott? (0+ / 0-)

      The Civic Center in Binghamtom was a "Gun Free Zone."  John Lott already wrote an article about this, other gun rights activists have said it, and I'll say it.

      Let me preface this by saying that I am a strong supporter of the right of the average citizen to own firearms, including handguns.

      That said, citing John Lott is worthless, and not simply because of his dishonest and disgraceful "Mary Rosh" episode (actually, a series of episodes spanning years).

      Citing Lott is about as useful as someone citing Michael Bellesiles.

      •  I'm not citing Lott (0+ / 0-)

        I'm well aware of the controversies surrounding Lott.  But the name of this diary was "Note the silence..." as if we are afraid to speak up.  John Lott is a determined advocate of freedom even if he is a sock puppeteer and if his data is sometimes worthless.  He makes good rhetorical arguments but uses shady statistics.  I was merely quoting him as one prominent figure who advocated for firearms freedom to combat scenarios like the Binghamton shooting.

        I support this argument, but not because it's John Lott's argument.  I simply think carrying firearms is a good deterrent to mass shootings.  I can't think of a single scenario where concealed carry would make a mass shooting scenario worse.  The cops just waited outside until the shooting was over, anyway.  I don't say this to denigrate the police, but rather to point out that a shooting is usually over by the time the police enter the building, and if an armed citizen doesn't end it, then the murderer will just end it when he gets bored.

        •  show me the numbers. they must be out there (0+ / 0-)

          right?

          I mean are you really going to keep trying to convince the country that if more people had guns right there at their hip, loaded and easy to reach, that gun violence would go down?

          Are you out of your fucking mind?

          People simply beat the shit out of each other and smash beer bottles over their head now when they're pissed off and lose control of their emotions. I bet the bar scene would be as peaceful as a spring Sunday in the park once everyone had a loaded weapon.

          Please - take this bullshit argument and just stop.

          Or show me some numbers that don't rely on the argument that stars with "We'll show you how well it works as soon as we can have loaded guns on our hips"

          I don't know who John Lott is, nor do I need to in order to stand stalwartly in defiance of anyone who's head is screwed on so loosely to think that more guns and easier access to them will stop all the killing.

          Population control, sure - it will do wonders for that. But it won't control crime.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:41:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  After the last big shooting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snafubar, Black Leather Rain

    before Binghamton or Oakland, some nut on Becks' 912project site suggested that the killings were timed "too conveniently" becuase people immediately started ramping up the anti-gun rhetoric. Can you believe that someone on the right actually thought that the mass killings were a deliberate attempt by the left to make people want to ban guns. Unbelievable.

    Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

    by MA Liberal on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 11:32:31 AM PDT

    •  It's not probable, but it's not unthinkable (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yes, I do believe that. Because they have spoken (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Black Leather Rain

      those thoughts out loud and made them obvious.

      Can I believe that people are paranoid and delusional and looking for someone, something - anything to blame so they don't have to face their own demons?

      Most unfortunately, I can.

      But there aren't many like me. Denial is so much easier.

      Until days like Friday.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 05:36:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your observations are keen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snafubar, trueblueliberal

    It's the beginning of a Democratic Administration, following a long Republican one.  That is the point when right wing-identifying crackpots who have been unraveling all along, tend to snap.

    Republicans know that a substantial portion of their constituency is somewhat sociopathic or mentally unstable and feels entitled to murderous violence.  And out of fear of it they do everything to minimize the sense these folks have of hostility of the country toward them, offloading the problem onto Democrats.  Of course, that is Republican appeasement and only works in a limited way; some lesser proportion of them snaps anyway during their periods of governance.  Like that kid that did that college shooting in Virginia.

    When Democrats come into power, these somewhat marginal people feel a pressure toward rationality and orderly toleration and due process in American public life.  Most of them can, grudgingly and with a lot of whining, conform or restrain their egos sufficiently.  But many can't quite, and when there are some harsh individual hits on their egos (loss of a job, divorce and loss of child custody, that sort of thing) they, er, 'go postal'.  The present recession is of course a massive generator of ego hits and socioeconomic status falls, sadly enough.

    I think that's a fair description of the individual psychological element.  The political element is that there is a Culture War issue involved, usually defined as "gun control".

    I've thought about it for a while (I've been researching and outlining and partly writing a monograph on Culture War issues and their big picture politics) and I think "gun control" is not quite the right label for the issue or right the argument is about.

    There are two entangled Culture War issues in each of these right wing wacko multiple killings.  I believe the older Culture War issue, faded somewhat out of public recognition, is a perceived right (privilege, entitlement) to engage in annihilatory violence toward savages and "oppressors".  This is, I believe, a residue of the Settlement, of the constant dirty guerilla warfare between whites and Indians and between white settlers themselves.  When the Indians were conquered it morphed forms slightly into an overt "right" and habit to terrorism toward and acting to lynch, bomb, and burn other "savages", i.e. blacks, criminals, poorly assimilated immigrants, aka Undesirables.  Without regard for numbers of lives extinguished or damaged, either, which turns the attitude from immoral to evil.  In parts of the country federal government agents were/are locally defined as a criminal class of this kind, too.  For believers in this 'right', which is still in my assessment around 30% of Americans and mostly tacit now, the killing of the BATF agents in Waco is generally viewed as licit.  The "X needed killin'" attitude is a rather graphic statement of the notion.

    This 'right' was politically unquestionable until about 1940-45.  FDR tried to get anti-lynching legislation through in the 1930s but was thwarted by Southern (Democratic) Senators and a lack of popular majority support.  After WW2 it became incrementally questioned and taboo, starting on the left end of the political spectrum.  That change of opinion cut through the political middle in the late 1980s.

    The OKC bombing in 1996 is probably the last big public assertion of this right, and that is when the people who believe themselves entitled to it realized this 'right' was no longer acceptable to or tolerated by most political moderates.  I.e. the middle third of the political spectrum had largely turned against them.  Today, it's probably all moderates, forming a supermajority with which they can win no argument.  

    I think the "gun control"/"gun rights" argument is a derivative argument.  It seems to me actually about perceived individual right to use guns to kill individual Undesirables, e.g. criminals and savages/dangerous people outside society proper.  Scalia articulates the central political idea quite precisely in his Heller opinion, though couched in some jurisprudental jargon.  But he admits his claimed right can be regulated away in all but name, which is an admission that it's actually a privilege.  It is a privilege a large number- plurality or majority- of Americans evidently feel they need in the present condition of our society.

    As a right and idea, it's obviously a scaled down form of the lynching/bombing/massacring 'right'.   It's a later, second stage, Culture War issue, with the popular consensus and political unquestionability of gun use against other Americans enduring until about 1968.  That is when the progressive crumbling of that perceived right in the American political arena begins.

    My research suggests that most or all major Culture War issues have a 1% rate of fundamental, though often hidden, shift in American public opinion per year to the more civilized, i.e. liberal-taken, view.  Polling on gun issues is a problematic business with lots of bad data, much of it generated by people with agendas.  So I can't quite say this is an empirically verified assessment of the situation.  But I believe the gun argument is at present, 41 years after 1968, at the point where a low forties percentage of the population supports more "control", i.e. regulations and other actions to carve down the opportunities for and permitted circumstances under which people turn guns on each other.

    41% means the Democratic base proper- the leftmost 38% of the American political spectrum- are quite uniformly willing to be on the side of such a carvedown.  Around 60% popular passivity, passive opposition, or active opposition (some of it extremely loud) to such a carvedown says that The People feels the time for it nearing but has not arrived.  Democratic politicians act accordingly: the sense is that the time for it has not come.  Every right wing wacko loser shooting spree says the time is moving closer, not farther away.  So the talk of guns being an issue Democrats have given up on is true in a limited sense.  That it is "over" with victory of the gun champions is a good distraction, easily said by the likes of Markos, but in 5-10 years not likely to be the public truth.  Gay rights was at pretty much the same place after the Bowers verdict by the Supreme Court in 1986.  

    If first stage Culture War arguments are a guide, the psychologically violent and serious, politically embittered argument about guns begins when the liberal side has 45% to 50% support.  And on pattern it will remain bitter and acrimonious for 15-20 years, with the conservative side going all out and hanging in there until a sufficient supermajority has formed.

    Okay, I apologize for the length of this ramble.  Hope it was worth reading.  :-)  And if my predictions and assessments prove wrong, email me about them in 5 to 10 years.  ;-)

    •  I want to digest this for a minute...it's a diary (0+ / 0-)

      in itself and deserves some deeper consideration.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 06:02:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My opinion of the "culture war" is that our (0+ / 0-)

      founders would beat the shit out of Bill O'Reilly, barbeque the pieces and feed the scraps to the dogs.

      If our founders wanted us all to be conservatives, they had the quill pen in hand and the parchment laid out before them; all the had to do was write that down, and they did not. So they gave us to freedom to be what we wanted to be, and they gave us the right in perpetuity to change whatever that direction may be as time and culture directed.

      The will of the people is a perverse concept if we're supposed to live our lives in 2009 based on the culture of 1789.

      Anyone who talks of a "supermajority" has utterly lost the plot in the spirit of a free society - if we ever become a homogenous society who can all be content under the ideology of one party, then we have no need for democracy and will be perfectly comfortable in a totalitarian dictatorship.

      That's what Rove and the far right missed completely when they dreamt of a "permanent Republican majority" - any time one segment of the population feels 'permanently' shut out, then weapons will be drawn and the fire will start all over again.

      There must be compromise, the alternative is war. That reality can be scaled up or down to be applied to a marriage, a community, a state, or a nation.

      Why we seem to be getting farther from this and not closer is what has me so broken and cold.

      Thanks for the exchange.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 10:08:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site