Skip to main content

This morning, I watched Joe Scarborough neatly dissect the causes for the Sandy Hook tragedy.  Our gun culture and mental illness were mentioned, along with a finger pointed directly at Hollywood and the manufacturers of violent video games.  But perhaps it's time that Joe turned that finger back on himself and on much of the overheated rhetoric that he and his party puts out there regarding the future of our country.  Maybe Joe needs to re-examine his part in our "fear culture."

For anyone who watches Fox News, or listens to conservative media, anyone who reads FreeRepublic or RedState, you know the drill.  Be afraid.  Be afraid of everything and everyone.  Be afraid of our Muslim Socialist Kenyan president.  Of illegal aliens.  The U.N.  Of economic collapse and FEMA camps.  The government is out to get you and you have to protect yourself.  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Fear is a prominent part of any speech by the NRA.  They use it as a marketing tool.  It's no surprise that gun sales spiked after the elections in 2008 and 2012.  People were afraid.  But we have to ask ourselves if those fears are rational and based in fact, or if they are being driven by a need much more mercenary -- corporate greed.  Like the gun culture, the fear culture in this country rakes in big profits.  Without fear, gun manufacturers wouldn't be enjoying their most profitable years ever.  Without fear, Fox News wouldn't top the ratings.

Was Nancy Lanza afraid?  Did her fears drive her to arm herself?  According to her aunt, she was preparing for the coming economic collapse.  Was that why she bought at least four semi-automatic weapons?   Why she taught herself and her sons how to use them?  Why she bought enough ammunition to kill a hundred people?

I don't know what was running through Nancy Lanza's mind.  But I do know that there are thousands of Americans who are gathering guns and ammo, certain that their fears are all about to come true, paranoid, irrational people who are driven by ultra-conservative rhetoric.  Are some of these people mentally ill?  I have no doubt.  We kid about Obama Derangement Syndrome, but I have seen friends and family members who have turned their minds over to Fox News.

So as we discuss violent video games and Hollywood movies, maybe it's time to add another subject to that list.  Fear-based right-wing political rhetoric.  Joe Scarborough, maybe it's time to re-examine your part in the "fear" culture.  If we want to reduce the need for guns in the country, we need to reduce the fear in this country.  And the only way to do that is to point a finger at Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media that created this current culture and hold them accountable, too.

Originally posted to kate12345 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:16 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

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

  •  It starts at the top with Bush and Obama. (15+ / 0-)

    As a country we settle all our disputes with violence. Our kids see how "adults" settle their disputes with war and violence and "justice" and learn from what they do. The leaders of this country have a "do as I say not as I do" type personality. Until the our leaders change their ways you can't expect 20 Y/O to not use violence to settle their disputes. It starts at the top. We reap what we sow.

    "Nothing preserves Democracy better than the stupidity of its opponents" - KO

    by buckshot face on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:14:03 PM PST

    •  Or at the side with Fox, Beck, Limbaugh... (7+ / 0-)

      time to add those to the mix as well.

      cheerleaders need not apply.

      by kravitz on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:27:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Add violence in sport. Violence = entertainment (4+ / 0-)

        in the USA.  But what would football be without mano al mano violence?  And even basketball?  Yes, we can change our culture to one which abhors violence in all forms rather one which enjoys violence in all forms.  WE can get rid of guns.  WE can find ways to identify and treat or at least isolate the violent mentally ill, which in my  view includes the mother gun nut.  But this will take at least a generation, maybe 100 years.

        GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

        by SGWM on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 01:23:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It starts with each of us, any other view is moot. (0+ / 0-)

      Pointing fingers across tables is an act of proving that point.

      I've said enough on this elsewhere, I will let that stand.

    •  Perhaps on a completely (0+ / 0-)

      impersonal level this is true, but I'll be damned if I'd expect any structurally sane 20-year old to kill a whole classroom of first-graders just because politicians are soulless war mongers and greedheads. This guy had no empathic capacity. But even so, you don't have to personally identify with ANY of those frightened children to know they shouldn't be murdered in cold blood.

      No matter what [sometimes relative, sometimes absolute] 'good' or 'evil' any President or Congress or SCOTUS does during their Constitutionally limited time in power, there is a difference between 'good' and 'evil' and we should all know what the fuck it is by the time we're old enough to vote. Unless there is something structurally wrong, and this I suspect to be the case in this awful tragedy. This kid had mental health care, had his diagnoses and a family with enough love and money to seek out proper care for him. Looks to me like maybe we need a mental health care delivery system that recognizes and acknowledges structural deficiency well enough to at least make an honest effort to prevent such evil from acting out on the real world stage.

      We do not allow the mentally ill/unstable to purchase guns in this country. If their names are in the databank and if the seller cares to obey the law. This young man should have been on that list, and maybe even was. Why his mother chose to purchase guns and keep them where this kid could get hold of them is a whole different question. Should his mental illness have prevented her gun purchases so long as he lived with her? Just while he was a juvenile? Forever? Should she have been required to secure her guns (as property she legally acquired) in a safe location outside the home so long as he was in her care? After he's grown and ostensibly on his own just because she's his Mom?

      There's some rather large questions here that haven't been asked, and need answers before society can even begin to properly address what went wrong here.

  •  I have right wing and left wing radio on the same (11+ / 0-)

    button on my radio. I used to play a game. On R wing I'd switch the first time I heard the word fear, afraid, scary, etc. with the lefties I'd switch first time they bashed Obama. After I got sick of pushing the buttons I'd listen to C+W.

    That said, lefties aren't completely innocent with the fear thing.  They love outrage most but winding up the ol fear machine is ok too. My town is quiet as the graveyard, but to hear it on the radio of late there are scary black guns poking out every door and bullet flying willy nilly.

    Maybe it's a coasty thing, but here in flyover country the most excitement is the storm that's rolling down off the mountains this minute. Might get a foot, two up high, they say that all the time, sometimes they're right.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:14:25 PM PST

    •  Strange all of the liberal radio I've listened to (13+ / 0-)

      has been very careful to distinguish between reasonable gun ownership, and over the top military weaponry.

      Many of the commentators on the liberal radio stations I frequent are gun owners themselves.

      Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

      by mungley on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:03:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are guns and there are guns (0+ / 0-)

        There are certain types of guns I fancy - late 19th century Winchesters and Colts.  They are classic designs, mechanical inventions, historical pieces, and some even works of art.  They are even fun to shoot.  But these military type guns like the one the shooter used are just ugly killing machines and there just is no need for them - unless you are preparing for war or police work.  And this woman. who had this gun, the shooter's mother, got it because she was a paranoid and was legally able to purchase it, but obviously did not have a real appreciation for the lethality of a gun or sense of responsibility that goes along with owning it.  The guns should have been locked up.  She probably had no real training.  In my judgment, she had these guns for all the wrong reasons.  I had two guns once but they were for recreational shooting, not self defence.  I would never even keep any ammunition in the same house as the guns for fear someone else would hurt themselves.  I had a small amount of ammunition hidden in the lining of the trunk of my car where no one could find it.  The point is, I was aware of the potential danger of a gun and never wanted to be responsible for harm to anyone.  This lady was a loose cannon.

    •  You're right to point out fear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kutting

      Fear is universal.  Where liberals and conservatives differ is that mainstream liberals fear real and harmful things, while mainstream conservatives fear unreal (death panels) or harmless things (gay marriage).

      Anchoring in the real world makes all the difference.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:00:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fear is so universal, 'sides' barely matter. (0+ / 0-)

        The bulk of my liberal friends and family are effectively certain mankind is doomed. For half a century I have listened to - and as a young man believed - the "truth" about the "inevitable" destruction of us all due to nuclear war, overpopulation, greed and destruction of the environment. At this point I have seen any number of known extinction points pass without wiping us all out, and along the way war has become increasingly less common as has hunger and uncontrolled environmental impacts.

        It would be hard for me to say whether the actual people who make up the right or left - as opposed to their pundits - are more fearful/cynical. Many of my conservative friends are actually among the most positive of outlook while it continues to surprise me how many of my liberal friends share their absolute belief in the coming (often "well deserved") fall of mankind.

        I have conservative friends who have guns [sic]"to protect them from people, who are intrinsically evil" and liberal friends who are quick to state they would never have a gun but go on to say they have big dogs: [sic]"to protect them from people, who are intrinsically evil".

        I agree that conservative media spews more fear than mainstream or liberal media, but as demographics I would be hard pressed to say that those on the right are more fearful or have a worse view of humanity than those on the left.

  •  Fear (15+ / 0-)

    Sorry to say but I have been afraid of Republicans and the crazy stuff they believe for a long time. However, I don't run out and buy guns because I can't imagine how they could solve any problem.

    PBO is doing a competent job, but he needs to be more liberal.

    by jimgilliamv2 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:15:20 PM PST

    •  We live in a culture where all the crazy gun nuts (4+ / 0-)

      are going out and adding to their weapons collections.....in order to protect themselves form all the other crazy gun nuts.  And why?  Because they know better than anyone just how pathological the brain of the crazy gun nut can be.

      GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

      by SGWM on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 01:26:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If guns aren't the problem... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      backwoodsbob

      they aren't the solution either.  Because guns don't protect people, people protect people.  Right?  

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:01:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  President needs Offers Murdock cannot refuse (0+ / 0-)

    Like the heads of his (fill in the blanks with his most values). He is not an American and runs his News Crime Syndicate tod estroy America.

    Make the SB a few Offers he cannot refuse.

  •  " Be afraid. Be afraid of everything & everyone" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soarbird, VectorScalar, fuzzyguy

    Very foolish. Very foolish indeed.
    So why should people that has done no wrong give up their Constitutional Rights?
    I said it about Warrantless Wiretaps, I said it about Gitmo, I said it about torture...and now I say it again.
    "Those that would sacrifice Liberty For Security, deserve neither."

    •  Good one. I'd like the liberty to not be murdered (4+ / 0-)

      by some angry person with more fire power than a well armed marine.

      Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

      by mungley on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:06:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thus, you are afraid of 'everything & everyone' (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VectorScalar, fuzzyguy

        Should we have some 'Warrantless Wiretaps' as well?
        After all, 'some angry person' whom has 'more fire power than a well armed marine' is already breaking the law.
        We better find out, shouldn't we?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:14:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are being silly. Assault weapons serve (6+ / 0-)

          no useful purpose.

          Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

          by mungley on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:45:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The same could be said of religion, privacy, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Canis Aureus, VectorScalar, fuzzyguy

            Freedom of the Press, etc.
            This reminds me of when the right-wing tried to tell me that 'warrantless wiretapping is fine, so long as you are doing nothing wrong'.....I assume you agreed with them.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:06:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you know what happens when you assume? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kutting, Laconic Lib, Kevskos

              Unrestricted gun ownership is a stupid idea.

              Conflating a desire for reasonable regulations on the ownership of weapons of mass destruction and the invasion of privacy or free speech makes you look insincere at best.

              Reread the second amendment, where it says "A well regulated militia."
              That's the opposite of "Lawless pretend cowboys with high powered rifles."

              Good luck to you.

              Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

              by mungley on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:51:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Gun ownership isn't unrestricted currently. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy

                "weapons of mass destruction" If you consider firearms as WMDs, then you must conclude that GWBush was honest when he said Iraq had WMDs.....you had may as well, you are already coopting his rhetoric.
                "Read the part where it says 'well-regulated milita"
                I have. And it makes no mention of a well-regulated milita being a prereq for the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

                You are willing to sacrifice Constitutional liberty for the perception of security.
                I am not. Not with Gitmo. Not with warrantless wiretapping. Not with torture. And not with the 2nd Amendment.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:00:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  When you assume you demonstrate that you are (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib, Kevskos

                  either unwilling or unable to engage in a reasonable dialog.

                  By assuming that a believe something, you are putting words in my mouth, so that you don't have to listen to the actual words I say.  

                  This is poor rhetorical device, and one that always leads to failure.

                  You can bludgeon me over the head with your opinion, while never listening to me, but you will inevitably fail at whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

                  Assuming that you know what I think gives you license to dismiss my opinion out of hand.  It is essentially the assault weapon of rhetoric.  I will end the debate by telling you how you feel.  That is the path of fear and cowardice, just like the use of assault weapons is the path of cowards.

                  I have no idea why you engaged me in 'conversation."

                  We need to regulate the sale of 'assault' weapons.

                  Thank you for nitpicking the definition of weapons of mass destruction. I meant "mass mayhem," and will take the time to type the correct word in the future.

                  You can hide behind your interpretation of the Constitution all you want, and you can repeat your opinion until we all vomit, but the reality is that assault weapons and high volume cartridges are a threat to my liberty and the liberty of those I love.

                  Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

                  by mungley on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:39:28 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't bother trying to engage this troll (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Laconic Lib, Gorette, mungley

                    in rational discourse, mungley.  He's a troll of the first magnitude.  He published a diary yesterday designed to do nothing more than stir up shit.

                    Funny thing, I saw a post on Facebook today from FrankRose.

                    Frank Rose First of all my heart goes out to all of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary school and the families. This was a horrific act by a disturded individual who unfortunately had access to fire arms because of a Negligance of a gun owner. Fire arms of any type need to be Safeguarded at all times to assure they do not get into the wrong hands.

                    In the very near future there will be attempts
                    to limit the types of fire arms we should be allowed to own. They will attempt to limit the types of magazines amminition you can own and how much you should be allowed to own. They will attempt to place extremely high taxes on both and require registration. The will attempt to limit How, When and Where you can purchase your guns and ammunition. The reasoning will be that, we as gun owner should be okay with this becasue it will not be a direct Infringement of the 2nd Amendment Rights, as well as, for public safety.

                    The anti gun movement will be coming at the gun owning commuinty from all directions. However, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation there are more than 30 million individuals in America who enjoy some form of the shooting sports. Now more than ever we need to support each other and respect each others choice of shooting disciplines.
                    We can not allow them to pit one group against another.

                    We can not allow any compromising of our Rights.

                    Pretty sure it's the same guy, aren't you Frank?  You know, the one with the cartoon on your FB page showing someone pissing on a liberal.  You seem to have lost your way and turned up on a website that supports progressives.  The sooner ou disappear from this site the better off we'll be.

                    A petty criminal is someone with predatory instincts but insufficient capital to form a corporation. --Clarence Darrow

                    by stlsophos on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:04:58 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Lets just say that your detective skills are (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fuzzyguy

                      lacking.
                      'FrankRose' is a play on President FDR's name.
                      As for 'trolling' asking a question on a word definition is not an example of 'trolling'
                      However, using invented words to dismiss and/or ridicule generally is.

                      I plan on staying as long as I like. Sorry that hurts you so.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:14:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Didn't suggest it was your name. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Gorette, mungley

                        But I see you do not deny that you're the FB poster to whom I referred.

                        Several Kos members gave you sincere and easily understandable responses to your question yesterday, yet you rejected them all (of course without offering your own definition or even a statement that "gun fetishist" is an unintelligible bit of jargon).

                        It won't hurt me to have you on this site.  I'll ignore your meaningless drivel as I do all trolls here.

                        A petty criminal is someone with predatory instincts but insufficient capital to form a corporation. --Clarence Darrow

                        by stlsophos on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:37:00 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I assumed nothing. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy

                    I simply used  YOUR definition of 'WMDs'
                    You claim firearms are WMDs
                    Bush claimed WMDs were in Iraq
                    Iraq had firearms
                    Hence, by YOUR definition of the word 'WMD', Iraq had WMDs

                    "Threat to my Liberty"
                    No, it is a threat to your percieved security. So was the 9/11 attacks.
                    The right-wing backed sacrificing liberty protected by the 4th Amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
                    You support sacrificing liberty protected by the 2nd Amendment.

                    Words have meaning, mungley. Those meanings do not change at your whim.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:25:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Remember when I thanked you for correcting me? (0+ / 0-)

                      I conceded your point and you continued to attack me for my admitted mistake.

                      You either have no interest in discourse, or you do not understand how conversation and language work.

                      I suspect the latter.

                      Have yourself a merry little solstice.

                      Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

                      by mungley on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:45:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My mistake. My apologies. (0+ / 0-)

                        When you accused me of 'assuming', I thought it was entailing the point about Iraq.
                        However, I have no idea why you think the invented phrase "Weapons of mass mayhem" adds any credibility.
                        Generally, if you have to invent words, your argument isn't very strong.

                        "how language works"

                        "Liberty--- lib·er·ty NOUN:
                        1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                        2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                        3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

                        You want to surrender Liberty for Security.
                        I do not.
                        Not for warrentless wiretapping, not for Gitmo, not for torture, not for the Patriot Act.....and not for limiting the 2nd Amendment.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:44:42 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Owning a gun increases your chances of being (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mungley, spacejam, Laconic Lib, Kevskos, Gorette, Em

          killed by one.  

          Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
          http://www.newscientist.com/...

          If you want to own a gun, be prepared to pay the cost, baby.

          •  Fine. (0+ / 0-)

            So long as I have the LIBERTY to decide.
            Neat how 'liberty' works, isn't it?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:07:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But then we get into the whole smoking debate (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mygreekamphora, Laconic Lib, Em

              If gun owners, like smokers, could keep the damage to themselves, no one would be up in arms about it.

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:03:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The 9/11 attackers used phone lines to coordinate (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy

                the damage they caused.
                Does that make you support warrantless wiretapping?

                I have already heard these arguments in the wake of 9/11, to justify Gitmo, torture, warrantless wiretapping & the Patriot Act.
                I rejected those arguments to surrender Constitutional Liberties for the perception of security then.
                And I reject them now.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:09:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It seems we're at an impasse. (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib, Kevskos, Gorette, MKinTN, luckydog

                  You're talking about surrendering real liberties for perceived security.  We are talking about surrendering perceived liberties for real security.  

                  I don't know if there's any way around that.

                  Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                  by nominalize on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:55:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Easy solution. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy

                    Learn the definition of 'liberty'.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:05:27 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You suffer from presupposition failure (0+ / 0-)

                      like I said: Impasse.  

                      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                      by nominalize on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:20:02 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Let me help. (0+ / 0-)

                        "Liberty NOUN:
                            1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                            2)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                            3)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. "
                        You want to sacrifice Constitutional Liberty for Perceived Security...as per the definition of the word 'Liberty'.

                        I was against surrendering Liberty for perceived security when it came to the Patriot Act, to Torture, to Gitmo, and to Warrrantless Wiretaps.
                        And I am against it now.

                        Words have meanings. You can't change their definitions in order to feel better about your position.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:56:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  You and Bush both love that word. Some company (0+ / 0-)

              to enjoy.

              "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

              by Gorette on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:52:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yes and the liberty for NO American to be murdered (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos, Gorette

        nor anyone anywhere else either. Which is pretty much the most basic human right, civil right, and most important ethical tenet of all of society for all of time. Not that any human society has gotten it right yet, but ours has got some real work to do.

        •  Hence, murder is illegal. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          Not seeing your point with this comment.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:11:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ciao, y'all. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Em

            With trollery like this, why bother reading?

            Off to a saner discussion.

            (-7.62,-7.33) l'Enfer, c'est les autres.

            by argomd on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:07:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ain't it the truth! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              argomd

              Meh! Makes me appreciate by contrast how vibrant, interesting, good-spirited/good-faith, intelligent, and generally awesome discussion is here generally!

              The good news is that it really feels like a turning point on the gun discussion. Even the intellectual emptiness and lack of salience of the emergent trollish ones is a sign that they got nuthin'!

            •  A statement of basic fact isn't 'trolling' (0+ / 0-)

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:12:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's all in the delivery, son. (0+ / 0-)

                Ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, and dogged repetition don't usually work as well as one might think.  If you'd spent much time here, you'd have seen how judicious folks deal with strongly-held but minority opinions.  

                Making your arguments stick needs some degree of understanding your audience.  Don't you agree?

                You may indeed see your arguments as facts, and I found several valid points throughout that thread.  Sadly, though, what is fact to you is apparently seen as unsupported opinion by others.  "Evidence!"  says the scientist.  "I want evidence!"

                (at least that's the view of an ol' fart and relatively dispassionate scientist)

                (-7.62,-7.33) l'Enfer, c'est les autres.

                by argomd on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:35:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Very well. (0+ / 0-)

                  1)What 'ad hominem'. Quote me.
                  2) What is the evidence that you seek? I will be glad to accommodate you.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:24:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't wanna fight. Other issues boiling just now. (0+ / 0-)

                    Don't enjoy engaging in pissing contests, particularly when they're more semantic than substantive.

                    Peace?  

                    (-7.62,-7.33) Carbon footprint 12.6 metric tons. l'Enfer, c'est les autres.

                    by argomd on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:54:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You bet (0+ / 0-)

                      I really don't think of it as a 'pissing contest', but I do engage those whom disagree with me far more often than those I do agree with.
                      I can see how a person could mistake that as 'combative' or a 'pissing contest', however I find far more use out of engaging those I disagree with....but I realize that isn't everybody's cup of tea,
                      Thanks for the civility.

                      .......and I really don't believe I ever used an ad hominen (sorry, 'new tricks' 'old dog' and all that) ;)

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:52:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks! (0+ / 0-)

                        Greatly appreciate your forgiving me for going beyond my own definition of courtesy.

                        I'll be more mindful and careful next time.

                        --bc

                        (-7.62,-7.33) Carbon footprint 12.6 metric tons. l'Enfer, c'est les autres.

                        by argomd on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:16:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  'forgiving', 'mindful', 'careful' (0+ / 0-)

                          Geeez, its not like you fucked my wife, or shot my dog. There is no need to 'forgive' nor to be 'more mindful and careful'. If you disagree with something I say, or if you simply feel the need, just let 'er rip!
                          Is that not what the internet and talking politics are both for?

                          On a side note, you are either the most classy, or the most passive-agressive person I have ever conversed with.
                          In either case consider me respectfully impressed and somewhat intimidated.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:53:34 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Cheese! I don't think I'm P-A... (0+ / 0-)

                            but it's hard to tell.  Only see humans 2-3 times a month.

                            Like I said, I'm an ol' fart, so I grew up before electric typewriters and related rapid communication devices.  And taught 300+ undergrads at a time.  Try being passive with footballs being thrown at you from the peanut gallery (by the varsity QB, no less!).   That changes one's response time markedly.  Probably changed some actual responses, too, but who's counting?

                            And I've never claimed (or wanted) to be classy, though  someone suggested I should act that way after I was verbally eviscerated on DK months ago.  So that must mean -- oh, no!   I did ask him to throw that football, as I recall....

                            Take good care of you and yours, and thanks for your time and good humor.

                            (-7.62,-7.33) Carbon footprint 12.6 metric tons. l'Enfer, c'est les autres.

                            by argomd on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:05:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You sneaky and/or frightening sonuvabitch. (0+ / 0-)

                            Teach me your ways.
                            Top notch, friend. Top fucking notch.

                            "varsity QB"
                            What school? I just gotta know.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:34:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  UNM (0+ / 0-)

                            University of New Mexico (in Albuquerque).

                            The old joke is "spell Albuquerque exactly how it sounds." No one laughs.

                            That football broke one of the slate blackboards just behind me in the lecture hall.  All 300+ students went suddenly silent.  I walked up the long stairway to the back row, walked over and stood right in front of the thrower for a few seconds, then shook his hand.  Class roared.  Back then I even had good timing.   The stroke took everything.

                            But that young man did have a good arm.  Shame we seldom beat UTEP in all my time there.  Occasionally beat out NM State.  Like two old drunks trying to have a fist fight.  

                            Has the world ended yet?  Wasn't that supposed to happen this morning?  

                            (-7.62,-7.33) Carbon footprint 12.6 metric tons. l'Enfer, c'est les autres.

                            by argomd on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:42:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Dont forget the media turning shooters into celebs (7+ / 0-)

    In my own diary on the subject, someone posted this video of British comedian Charlie Brooker summing it up beautifully:

    Last night, I was utterly DISGUSTED when NBC had Bob Costas plugging The Today Show's Sandy Hook coverage during halftime like it was a big interview or musical performance. Ebert was right. The most damaging form of media when it comes to inspiring Spree Killers is BY FAR the round-the-clock media coverage. They need to stop this shit. But they won't, because its big ratings big attention big money. And as you can see in the above vid, even the BBC can't resist the temptation.

    Adam Lanza is the most famous 20 y/o in America right now.

    "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

    by TheHalfrican on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:56:11 PM PST

  •  HEY, HEY NRA HOW MANY KIDS GOT SHOT TODAY? (8+ / 0-)
  •  Not sure if it boils down to $$. Sensationalism . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soarbird

    I'm not sure if I could render the issue of gun crazes down to corporate greed. I wonder if it may pertain, perhaps more fundamentally, to a mode of sensationalism. I would not like to sound crass in explaining my point of view, as such, but I wonder if some people may "Get their rocks off" about guns - and if so, I think it would be sad, frankly.

    I think, here's to stronger liberal arts programs (and educational standards overall) even in rural public education programs.

    •  They aren't the ones suggesting sacrificing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VectorScalar, fuzzyguy

      liberty for security.
      You are.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:33:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? Really Frank? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:26:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're confusing 'liberty' with 'lifestyle' (7+ / 0-)

        You can dress it up in all the tricornered hats you want, but that's all your defending anymore--- we rely on each other for our freedom in the 21st century.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:06:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  'Lifestyles' aren't enshrined in the Constitution. (0+ / 0-)

          Liberties are.
          'Lifestyles' are protected by those liberties.
          "freedom"
          'Freedom' isn't infringing on Liberties.
          You are supporting sacrificing freedom for security.
          I rejected that notion with Warrantless Wiretaps, and I reject it now.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:41:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Security for our children. Yes, I'm willing to (0+ / 0-)

        sacrifice my right to own an assault weapon and 100-round clips.

        I'd even toss in my right to play with violent video games that involve assault rifles blowing people up.

        •  "sacrifice my right" (0+ / 0-)

          Others (perhaps you as well) were willing to sacrifice the Right against illegal search and seizure, in order to support warrantless wiretaps for 'security for our children'.

          I am unwilling to sacrifice Constitutional Liberties for Perceived Security in both cases.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:46:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "liberty" does not equal "convenience" (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry if it will inconvenience you to have to go through a few more steps to get a hundred-round magazine for your assault bazooka.

        Sorry it will inconvenience you to have someone look up to see if you're a criminal before they sell you a tool you can use to rob, maim, and kill.

        Sorry it will inconvenience you if you'll have to become a better shot so it won't take you twenty rounds to hit the broad side of a barn.

        Put plainly, your convenience in accessing assault rifles, high-volume magazines, and weapons access any time anyone gets a wild hair is bought and paid for with tiny coffins and heartbroken parents and kindergarten teachers. Sorry if the rest of us are starting to believe that dead little kids just might be too high of a price for us to pay for your convenience.

        How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

        by athenap on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:30:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lets just find out what 'liberty' does equal (0+ / 0-)

          Liberty:
           NOUN:
               1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
              2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
              3)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

             I remember the GOP, when defending warrantless wiretaps, saying "If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear"
             Did you find warrantless wiretaps to be simply 'inconveniences' as well?

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:50:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  There's more than one gun culture (9+ / 0-)

      There's the old rural one with low firepower and safety rules passed down from one generation to the next.

      There's mechanical nerds who probably enthuse about cars for the same reasons and who don't have actually using the guns for anything on their radar.

      There's sick pukes who are on power and abuse trips, and people terrified that Those People are going to drive to their suburb and riot. That's the only branch that's the fear culture.

      •  There was a great diary about this earlier (5+ / 0-)

        You can read it here.  It points out what you point out, but in more detail.

        It's important, too, to note this, because if those of us who practice the healthier aspects of gun culture (like hunting) can get in on the conversation, we can focus on eliminating the unhealthy aspects (like the paranoid paramilitary culture).  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:08:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is an alternative to the NRA (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos, fuzzyguy

          I was reading the post you mentioned, and it is clear that the NRA has long gone past its "fresh sale" date. Which is a shame as it used to be a safety and sports organization rather than a wing of the tea party (or maybe the tea party is a wing of the NRA).

          The national shooting sports federation (nssf.org) is much more focused on safety/sports (legitimate things) and basically tries to represent the sane, normal, people (or at least appears to).

  •  When s John McCain going to blame Susan Rice? (6+ / 0-)

    Obviously he wants a thorough investigation.

    2012 presidential election. Never has so few spent so much to have so little effect on a national election. Citizens United and Corporations are not American Values.

    by Blackhawks on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:18:33 PM PST

  •  Great points! Fear sells (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gorette

    It sells news, videogames, movies, protection systems, wars, guns, etc. etc. Tales of danger, however sensationalized (especially the more sensationalized, lurid, extreme, and hyper-realistic), compel our attention.  

    I think there's something hard-wired about the human tendency to focus on bad sh*t happening to others -- partly because we are empathetic and partly because we want to learn patterns and risks and avoid harm.

    However, in the same way that we are getting fat on sugary drinks, the manipulation of our most basic survival drives is bad for us.

    The biggest conservative frame is fear. Fear is a basic tenet of conservatism, and more fear encourages more authoritarian, more violence-justifying, and more anti-democratic tendencies.

    Hence I personally believe it is our patriotic and democratic duty to reduce fear -- among ourselves and our neighbors and our compatriots -- and thus to increase social cohesion, trust, and enable constructive problemsolving.

    I remember really internalizing this concept in when I saw Fahrenheit 911 in 2004. In the opening scene, my congressman, Jim McDermott, a Vietnam-era army psychiatrist, said:

    You can make people do anything if they're afraid. --US Rep. Jim McDermott D-WA, quoted in Fahrenheit 911, in 2004
    Personally, I don't think fearful citizens ought to be shamed as cowards; it is very human to be afraid, and the drive of safety is a very human drive. You are exactly right, though, that the crass commercial purveyors of exaggerated fear ought to be very well ashamed of themselves.
  •  Along the same lines (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tampaedski, Laconic Lib, Gorette, MKinTN

    This article was written by a guy who has spent 10 years travelling around the world learning different languages.

    http://www.fluentin3months.com/...

     It is a good read.... His thoughts ...

    This is about both day-to-day life and especially about how bad other countries are. My time in North America was indeed the one place I’ve felt the least safe out of an entire decade of travelling to over fifty countries, for a few reasons I’ll give below, but also simply because of all the fear mongering the states does so well anyway.

    I see one consequence of this aspect of American culture to be its need to have so many such easily accessible guns, which creates obvious terrible events that do nothing but promote even more fear.

    The reason everyone has so many damn guns in the first place is because of America’s fear of everything in the world, that has never been challenged as it has elsewhere. Or when they sometimes claim the guns keep them safe, and other countries are more dangerous, this makes me even more confused.

    There's room at the top they're telling you still But first you must learn how to smile as you kill If you want to be like the folks on the hill

    by taonow on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:09:19 AM PST

  •  Facebook post (11+ / 0-)

    I am rendered speechless by the gun owners I know having such callous disregard for the poor dead babies in Connecticut, they started a petition to the President about THEIR "right" to own as many automatic weapons as they want.
    20 babies, dead for what, 3 or 4 days? Teachers. Moms. The world stares in horrified silence, except the gun owners are already clamoring for someone to pay attention to the (not happening) attack on THEIR second amendment rights.

    They couldn't even wait a whole week.
    They couldn't even wait for the proposed legislation to be brought to Congress.
    They selfishly and prematurely bitch about a change on the horizon to curtail gun violence... and they don't even know the specifics yet. They simply want what THEY want. To arm themselves against what? Bambi? The Zombie Apocalypse? The Government? Get a clue, if the Government comes for you, you don't stand a chance with your tiny little AK-47 against the weaponry the Government will bring to that fight. Just get in your bunker and eat your canned beans and hope you don't piss off the sullen teenager with an impulse control problem that you raised around all those rifles.

    Go ahead gun owners, jump up and down, call attention to YOUR perceived problem, while 6 year olds are being buried. Very Classy.

    We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

    by Patriot4peace on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:19:17 AM PST

  •  Fear indeed ! (4+ / 0-)

    They pedal fear because they know what moves the conservative mind.  Fear is part of the right wing psyche:
    fear of change, fear of government, fear of death (hence they are religious), fear of uncertainty (they prefer religion to science because science is dynamic and changes, and comes up with new facts), fear of the other ( racists and bigots are prevalent), fear of loosing their resources (hence they fiscal hawks and are always concerned about gov't taking their taxes and giving it to freeloaders), fear of aggressors ( hence they are military hawks).  Most of these traits have been demonstrated in psychological tests compared to liberals or progressives.  They even process more information in their amygdala (the seat of the emotion of fear) than liberals.  Not a pretty picture is it ?  By God, they are just a bunch of hideous cowards, lolololol

  •  I'm glad people are looking at this (0+ / 0-)

    as well as firearms laws; I've been worried that firearms laws were going to be seen as a panacea when there are so, so many overlapping problems that go along with it-- mental health but also the fear culture of right-wing paranoia.

    That's not to say gun laws don't need to be looked at. They do. We just need to make sure that they are smart ones and not weird knee-jerk things that, in the long run, don't make sense.

  •  Oh, I guess I was wrong about this diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy

    I thought it was going to be about the culture of fear of firearms that has been running rampant on this site.

    I guess that's a debate most aren't willing to have (not that what gets said here would pass for debate).

    A pity, that.

    •  Why shouldn't we have fear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      harchickgirl1

      of the machines used to kill people? We have enough fear of the danger a two-thousand pound internal combustion engine and its body have when operated at moderately high speeds that we require the operators of said machines to pass several tests in their safe operation, have renewable licenses to legally operate them, and require them to carry insurance against their misuse.

      Yet to ask the same for the much more dangerous machines whose primary purpose is to kill is outrageous? Hysteria?

      Yes I fear guns. I fear what they as implements of harm can do to a person's body. I fear what they do to our minds as people and a society. I fear the near-fetishistic focus we have on them as a people. And I fear the people that most want them are the ones who'd do the most damage with them.

      Still, I'm not going to run out and buy a gun, thinking it'll protect me from my own mind.

      How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

      by athenap on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:38:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Admitting you're driven by fear is the first step. (0+ / 0-)

        Starting to think rationally and not being dismissive of opposing viewpoints is the second.

        Are you there yet?

        •  I can have fears without letting them drive me (0+ / 0-)

          to feel I need to walk around with a deadly weapon. I can accept that other people need guns to feel safe. Can the people who need their guns keep their fears from driving the rest of us to believe that school shootings every few months are an acceptable risk?

          How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

          by athenap on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:52:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm glad you can control your fear. (0+ / 0-)

            And I appreciate that you are respectful of people with opposing views.  Too bad that isn't par for the course here.

            What regulations are you contemplating that would address both of our needs?  Are you suggesting that we proceed logically and create laws regulating ourselves on the basis of the greatest demonstrable need?

            If we can agree to that premise, we can continue.

  •  Excellent diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    el dorado gal, Gorette

    Glad to see it on Community Spotlight.

    Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it... in summer school.

    by cassandracarolina on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:30:04 AM PST

  •  I used to work with a guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gorette

    He's since retired but when I first started working with him he told me that the US was going to have a huge race war and it was going to be the whites against the blacks. This was 20 years ago.

    Well when Obama was elected I could hear him (he sat next to me) ordering thousands of rounds of ammo cause he was sure it was coming and Obama was going to pass gun control and then he wouldn't be able to get it.

    Now don't get me wrong- I buy ammo in bulk too to get a lower price- but this guy was probably spending a couple thousand at a time when Ammo was at an all time high. Stupid f-k.

    Anyway the whole apocylapse end times porn fantasy that some gun owners have dovetails in nicely with the wingnut gov't is coming to take your freedom and the racist thing too.

    This guy was a democrat actually although I'm sure he didn't vote for Obama and he wasn't particularly liberal.
    He also was afraid of disease and anytime anybody would sneeze he would spray lysol and he also kept a fan going even in winter to keep peoples germs going in the other direction.

    But he's not alone. So many people think that they need to arm up because of some perceived attack.

    I know paranoia is as american as apple pie but in part it's due to the NRA and gun industry.  

    If the right to own guns is safe there's no need to join the NRA, and also with so much of the population urban gun manufacturers have to open up a new market and the paranoid and fantasy segment is the growing one.

  •  Fear is an absence of faith (0+ / 0-)

    Of course faith doesn't go very far when someone is pointing a Mac-10 in your face.

    •  Whoops meant (0+ / 0-)

      to cancel but hit post. So anyway here goes. We have as a society had fear and violence pumped at us for the last 12 years nonstop. Endless wars against whatever threatens our life style. Not just hot wars of killing preemptively but cultural wars wars on women wars on drugs wars on the poor and the old.  

      What kind of people have we become in in the guise of keeping us safe. I went to the video store last night and almost every DVD cover had a big fucking gun or weapon on it. Looks to me like we slid down that slippery slope after 9/11 and are now living in Cheney's Dark Side. Axelrod called this viscous cruel NWO 'the world as we find it.' It's not. It's our own homegrown creation pumped as inevitable by those who make obscene profits off the dark side of our national psyche.

      Human rights the real universal ones are gone daddy gone. We gave them up to be safe in a nightmare world we are creating. Our politics are nothing but fear. Seems to me this whole society is mentally ill and homicidal to boot.. What ever happened to all we have to fear is fear itself? Were addicted to fear and violence. We need an intervention badly, where is the love?  Evil is not outside, not the other we need to kill, but a nightmare we have allowed to grow in the dark. Guns, violence and killing just feed the beast.        

  •  Except for the first thing mentioned (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kevskos
    Our gun culture and mental illness were mentioned, along with a finger pointed directly at Hollywood and the manufacturers of violent video games.
    the other factors are pure craziness since the USA doesn't have more mental illness than other countries, nor does it have less violent entertainment and video games.

    Frankly, I'm puzzled by all the Joe "dead intern" Scarborough diaries here of late - why/how is he an expert on anything?  

  •  Violent video games? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kevskos, fuzzyguy

    While I'm glad Scarborough has briefly taken a leave from his duties on Bullshit Mountain as chief villager idiot with trendy eyeglasses, his comments about violent video games are way off the mark.

    As another commenter noted the United States gets relatively the same entertainment as Other countries, yet for some reason gun violence is exponentially higher in the US. Violent video games and other entertainment are extremely popular in Japan and are published and distributed worldwide by many Japanese companies, yet we never hear about gun violence in Japan.

    The fact is that violent video games have no causal relationship with violent acts. Period. I would argue that contact sports such as American football and Hockey each contribute far more to our violent society than video games. Remember when that hockey Dad beat a man to death over their kid's peewee hockey game? That just doesn't happen in Halo.

    •  Focus on responsibility to community (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      athenap

      The difference in USA and other countries is that they give a nod to civic responsibility.  By that I mean what it takes to uphold the health of the community versus our own right to do whatever the hell you want.  What if you want to own an x-ray machine?  Are you going to subject all your neighbors to radiation?  No, because there are limits for the public good.

      It seems ridiculous to me that we require classes, licenses and laws around calling yourself a "therapist" or an "oxygen truck driver" but any twit can own an assault rifle with very little fanfare.  The guy in Southern California who just shot off 50 rounds in a parking lot said he was "letting off some stress."  Really?  We want to give everyone guns?  Honestly, not everyone should own a gun.  Homer Simpson, for example, should NOT own a gun.

  •  Thanks, everyone! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gorette, MKinTN

    I checked in this morning to find that my diary grew some legs overnight!  Thanks to everyone who rec'd it.  And rescued it.  I am humbled and thankful that you took the time to read it.

    •  Re your question as to the mother's state of (0+ / 0-)

      mind, was she fearful, etc. I did hear that. There was a report on Sunday somewhere that said she was not a survivalist, but had some expectation of a time ahead when people would need guns for protection. It was just a sentence or two and I don't recall the source or exact words and have not heard it since.

      I'm sure more will come out before too long. One article this morning did say that she and Adam had had gun practice sessions in "multiple" shooting ranges in the area, but not during the last six months which made me wonder if she had started to be fearful about his potential behavior re guns.

      "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

      by Gorette on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:02:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fear (0+ / 0-)

    I have been saying for a long time that FEAR is the cause of the gun culture in the US, the rampant xenophobia, the anti-Obama rhetoric and even the peculiar strains of fundamentalist Christianity seen here.

    Americans live in one of the wealthiest, most politically stable countries in the world.  

    What the hell are some of them so afraid of?

    ‘‘For Barack, success isn’t about how much money you make, it’s about the differences you make in people’s lives.’’ ~ Michelle Obama, DNC, 4 Sep 2012

    by harchickgirl1 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:06:34 PM PST

  •  not to mention the fear of 'crime' (0+ / 0-)

    Great article - only thing you didn't talk about was the typical NRA argument that if guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns.  Well, how many criminals have mass-murdered recently?  Aside from the fact that crime rates are way down everywhere in America.  When criminals kill they do it carefully (not wanting to get caught) and in limited ways, for personal gain, or to kill other criminals in turf wars (should we care?).  But millions of otherwise 'sane' Americans (like Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Dunn) arm themselves for defense against 'criminals' which don't even exist and if they did exist would be extremely unlikely to have reason to harm them.  That fear too is a result of right-wing rhetoric.

  •  Mark Warner's PBS/Ifill Interview was awful. (0+ / 0-)

    It was as if a rifle was aimed at his two things.

    cheerleaders need not apply.

    by kravitz on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 04:27:40 PM PST

  •  Without easy access (0+ / 0-)

    to guns Sandy Hook would not have happened. The rest is just kicking up sand as far as this particular debate is concerned.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site