Skip to main content

Not a day has passed since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre that some idiot on the right hasn't made an excuse for why we shouldn't take a different approach to gun violence. The Patriot Of The Day happens to be John Hawkins, a "professional blogger" who runs Right Wing News, but writing a column Saturday for TownHall.com. He seems to be under the impression that we're the only ones calling for change, despite evidence to the contrary:

There are now calls from the Left for gun control legislation in response to Adam Lanza's unconscionable mass killing of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary.
He asks us to consider this:
However, very few people seem to be asking the most basic question of all before getting started: What gun control legislation could have stopped Adam Lanza?
To which he answers rhetorically:
The answer is "none."
Putting aside this opening "one-size-fits-all" nonsense, let's take a look at those ten rather flaccid 'facts' he has for us:
1) The school was already a "gun free zone;" so obviously that wasn't effective. Of course, the sort of people who would respect a "gun free zone" in the first place are the very ones you wouldn't have to worry about carrying a gun; so it's an almost useless designation.
His solution is to do nothing. Don't create more gun-free zones, because they failed to scare-off Adam Lanza, and because his armed citizen posse can't protect us as well with all those restrictions in place.
2) What about closing the supposed "gun show loophole?" Well, since Lanza killed his own mother and used her legally acquired guns for his rampage, making it harder for googly-eyed loners to acquire weapons wouldn't have changed a thing.
An open loophole will enable his citizen posse recruits to expedite their weapon acquisition process, allowing them to begin security duties much sooner than they'd be able to otherwise. A closed loophole, by contrast, couldn't possibly prevent a lunatic who did choose to acquire his weapon this way from doing so. Of course.
3) Some people are calling for a ban on automatic weapons. Setting aside the fact that the regulation of fully automatic weapons is already tighter than Spandex, Adam Lanza didn't use a fully automatic weapon.
Who could possibly think a ban on weapons so essential for hunting and home defense would prevent their use by a future lunatic? Not to mention...

Adam Lanza didn't use one...

4) Then there are calls for the "Assault Weapons Ban" to be reinstated. One problem: the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle that Lanza used wasn't covered by the bill. So, his mother could have bought that exact same gun with a sheriff looking over her shoulder while the ban was in place.
How about an assault weapons ban that does include the Bushmaster .223 rifle, and every other variation thereof? Would that help solve the problem?

No, because he finds a reason why that wouldn't work either:

5) We could, of course, pass a newly updated "Assault Weapons Ban" that covers the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle. Then, gun manufacturers would try to create weapons that can get around the ban. They would probably be successful. Even if they weren't, it's not as if Lanza was battling Marines. When you're a coward who's attacking unarmed children, any gun will work.
In that case, maybe we should set our sights even higher and clamp-down on the gun manufacturers themselves, since their insatiable appetite for revenue appears to be a problem that needs an intervention.

Besides, who needs all this heavy firepower anyway? It's a question he himself answers when he says, "its not as if Lanza was battling Marines." Indeed, and neither is anybody else who owns these weapons, until the secession thing happens, at least.

6) We could also ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, but given the 3-5 second reload time, that would have been a minor inconvenience to Adam Lanza at worst. After all, it's not as if a group of small children were going to be able to scamper away or gang up on him during a four second window.
Maybe he can tell us why high-capacity magazines are necessary for anything other than maximizing body count at minimal inconvenience.

But...but...but Adam Lanza didn't use one...

The author of the article now invites us to have a look at what a Hellish world we'd inhabit without the Second Amendment, and even more frightening, with gun control laws:

Let's also pretend that the American public would go along with the following laws and attempts to implement them wouldn't lead to wide scale violence and unrest.
Translated: All the terrorist cells militias with their military-grade weaponry would activate. Yet another point in favor of putting an end to this Mr. Macho Commando Weapon idiocy.

The idea of legions of lunatics armed with near-military grade weapons rising up to defend against the war on guns, and all the "collateral damage" that would inevitably result, really makes me wonder if their priorities are in the right place.

Continuing down the author's dark path into post-gun Hell, we at last reach the climax of their collective hallucination—so far removed from what anyone is even contemplating at this point in time, that I'll just truncate and list them:

7) Congress could ban the manufacture and sale of bullets and magazines. [...]

8) Congress could also ban the manufacture and sale of guns. [...]

9) Then, there's the most extreme step of all: Congress could ban the ownership of guns. [...]

10) Let's go Steven Spielberg on this problem and assume space aliens show up and use some bizarre technology to get rid of all guns. [...]

After that last one especially, there should be little doubt left in anyone's mind that these people prefer doing nothing, out of irrational fear for the "lives" of their guns, over taking any steps that might prevent future Adam Lanza-like individuals from threatening the lives of actual people.

Originally posted to DeadHead on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:13 AM PST.

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

Poll

Do you think assault weapons are sexy?

24%25 votes
52%54 votes
22%23 votes

| 102 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:13:13 AM PST

  •  do you sleep? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, mindara

    just wondering

    lol

  •  No More Semiauto. Period. Fixed 3-round magazines. (24+ / 0-)

    Instead of using the term "assault weapon", which the gunneratti love to get all pedantic about, start using the phrase High Capacity Rapid Fire weapons. Get rid of semiauto. No need for it.

    Click on image to enlarge.

    You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty.
    - Jessica Mitford

    by Swampfoot on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:32:51 AM PST

    •  Perfect. /nt (8+ / 0-)




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:37:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's (7+ / 0-)

      stick to things that CAN be accomplished.
      This can't.

      •  Yes we can (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phil S 33, ichibon, Johnny Nucleo, mindara

        and yes we will...

        Perhaps not 3 round bolt actions, nor completely banning semi-automatic handguns, but there are certainly areas where we can reduce the types of weapons available.  The practical need for a semi-automatic rifle with 30-100 round capacity is virtually nil.

        Far more importantly, we can reduce the availability of any weapons to those folks who should not be allowed within 100 meters of one.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 03:19:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This (5+ / 0-)
          Perhaps not 3 round bolt actions, nor completely banning semi-automatic handguns
          was what I meant, as depicted in the Facebook meme.

          Please limit your responses to my comments to what I mean rather than what you would like them to.

          •  Limit my responses? (8+ / 0-)

            Given the hundreds of comments that you have made in opposition to virtually any limitation for ownership of weapons?  In the most obnoxious and sarcastic tones possible?

            Don't make me laugh...

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 03:38:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (7+ / 0-)

              Respond to what I actually said intsead of what you would like to make others think I said.
              Is a little personal integrity too much to ask?

              •  Fine... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mindara

                Let's see just how reasonable you can be.

                Where would you draw the line?

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 03:44:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know yet. (7+ / 0-)

                  I'm beginning to think that ALL firearm sales -private or otherwise- should go through NICS via an FFL. That creates a couple of procedural hassles, but there's a way to do it.
                  I'm open to discussing a number of things.
                  Going to look at what legislation is introduced - which there will be - and go from there. But one thing I'm going to be looking for is correct nomenclature and facts.

                  You will not find "partial-birth-abortion" in any medical textbook.

                  •  NICS is woefully inadequate (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ichibon, Johnny Nucleo

                    as you well know. We have been over this ground before.

                    For example, as of 31 July 2012, there were 717,165 individuals listed in NICS as ineligible because of felony convictions.  Yet there are an estimated 5,850,000 convicted felons in the US.  NICS has just over 12% of the names that it should if all the states were reporting.

                    Similar examples exist in the other categories as well.

                    What we need is a true background investigation system, particularly for concealable weapons.  

                    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                    by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 04:01:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  WW, we're in agreement (6+ / 0-)

                      It's all fine and dandy to claim the NRA is responsible for the "loopholes" but to insist on "closing the gunshow loophole" and not fixing the NICS database is idiotic.

                      This has been a matter of associated "mandate" costs, patient privacy, a lack of mental health care, and low levels reporting compliance by local government bodies.

                      The means of preventing another Virginia Tech, Tucson, or Aurora is to have a valid database, one that should be accessed for sale of other items used in making explosives.

                      We finally fixed the five drivers licenses in five states phenomenon, and clamped-down on suspended operators driving under another license.  The same integrity has to be applied to the NICS database.

                      I'm not a fan of revolvers, as they're too simple for a small child to load and operate.  YES - children should never have access to such items, but when and if they do, a semi-automatic with the stiff recoil spring makes it impossible for a child (and some adults) to operate.
                      As to the 3-shot bolt rifle... re-engineering of existing hunting-legal 5 shot rifles and shotguns would be of what value?  Harassment?

                      There is of course, one other option, which right now has all the traction here on DKos:  BAN ALL THE GUNS.  NOW.
                      Second Amendment?  Bah.  Courts?  Fuck 'em.  Just do it.

                      Here's a though broached at a holiday party last night.
                      The comment was:  "We did it to the Japanese and Japanese-Americans in World War two, so why not now?"

                      I commented on the wrongs of doing so, and the official apology issued decades later, and was told:

                      "Fine.  Let's apologize in 50 fucking years.  Until then, I WANT MY CHRISTMAS PRESENT - NO FUCKING GUNS - AND I WANT IT BEFORE END-OF-DAY MONDAY."  
                      The spouse intervened, and my "Speducator" S.O. managed to keep her cool when told:
                      "Oh and fuck the NRA.  Just what we need, teachers with guns... so 'going postal' has 'going educational' as the new buzzword?  Pamela Smart, in a classroom, with a gun, fucking great."

                      The details, after a brief intermission:
                      I've fleshed it out with appropriate E.O. numbers.

                      Executive Order #13633
                      Directive on Domestic Terrorism - Prohibition on Semi-Automatic rifles, with detachable magazines.  Revocation of NFA weapon licenses.  10 day window for surrender, ending January 7, 2013.

                      Executive Order #13634
                      Directive on Narcotics and Homeland Security - prohibition of all handguns.  10 day window for surrender, ending January 7, 2013.

                      Executive Order #13635
                      Limited declaration of Martial Law, vacating the requirement for Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment compliance.
                      Federalization of National Guard Units of the Respective States. State and Local Police subject to the direction of the Department of Homeland Security.  
                      All Guard units to report to duty for collection of surrendered weapons 27 December 2012.  Other duties: house-to-house inspection, confiscation and intermodal interdiction of prohibited civilian weapons.

                      All citizens should report to work per usual, any disruptions to commerce will not be acceptable.
                      Citizens may not gather in groups of greater than 3 persons, lest they be charged with Riot, and/or Sedition.
                      No citizen may refuse entry, nor fail to stop when so directed for search and seizure, when so directed by the National Guard, or respective DHS Authorities, under penalty of arrest.  Use of force and/or use of lethal force by Agents so-assigned hereby authorized.

                      By my hand, this 24th day of December, 2012.  BHO.

                      I voiced some concerns over gutting the Bill of Rights.

                      "Oh, sorry my bad.  I can see this didn't sink in.
                      Even Scott Fucking Brown gets it.  YOU DON'T???
                      Until then, and I'll be long-dead, the teabaggers get it up the ass and have to fucking like it or live up to their claim:  "MY DEAD HAND".  Which I'm fine with.

                      You'd do this to fellow citizens?

                      "FELLOW?  There's nothing FELLOW about GUN OWNERS.  Strip their citizenship.  Enemy Combatants.  Isn't that what we do for the guys who join Al Qaeda?   Same fucking thing.
                      And it they're gonna shoot back?  DRONE their asses to HELL.  Kill them, their friends, their families - I don't fucking care.  THEY ARE NOT MY FELLOW ANYTHING."

                      The spouse, gathered the glasses, and they left the party - who was, for the most part, silenced and open-mouthed.

                      My S.O. piped up:  "How 'bout them Red Sox?" and life went on.

                      •  I think people might be disappointed soon (6+ / 0-)

                        In the present state of politics, I don't think Congress could get it together to ban Twinkies if they were killing more people than guns. (maybe they do)I am entirely pessimistic they will get it together on anything, anything at all. that wold take actual leadership and how much of that do we see anyway?
                        I see a lot of people around with the "We'll take them out of your cold dead hands" meme but thats as lalaland as when the NRA says it.  the NRA has a fantasy about the cops coming up and taking their guns too.  Its paranoiad bullshit when the NRA says it---its sociopathic bullshit when you see it here.
                        Cops won't take anything from my cold dead hands, if they have a warrant I'll give it to them and then offer them coffee.  I think the chances of this happening are somewhere between zero and .00000056. I will only fight the laaw in court, where I can win---I got money and my brothers a lawyer.
                        Theyre not going to come up with a law that will stop the next Adam Lanza, sad to say.
                        Not that its impossible but its impossible for that Congress/president

                        Happy just to be alive

                        by exlrrp on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 07:01:10 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  The topic of guns in Japan at the end of WWII is (0+ / 0-)

                        quite different. Japan was a conquered country. Did we not also demand that the Confederacy disarm? That is a part of unconditional surrender. Eliminating guns in America would require a constitutional amendment. Repeal the 2nd amendment then there is no constitutional problem. But according to many people we do not have the 1st amendment right to discuss a constitutional amendment.

                        As for gun ownership in Japan see linkhttp://www.guncite.com/...

                        The gun issue is culturally different in Japan. And nobody apologized for disarming Japan. The Japanese were not that really into guns in the first place.

                        •  kmackle, it was here, not Japan. (0+ / 0-)

                          The forced internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans, displaced from their lawful homes and dispossessed of their lawful property, by the Roosevelt Administration, in the months immediately after the Pearl Harbor bombing.

                          •  There was no justification for what the US (0+ / 0-)

                            government did to Japanese Americans during WWII. But those outrages are more comparable to what has happened since 9/11 to our civil liberties. Why do I not gun rights defenders screaming about the rest of the constitution. My right to be free from government surveillance and eavesdropping much more important the the 2nd amendment. For one thing the purpose of the "well regulated" militia was failed to be met and the US adopted a standing army anyway. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to avoid having a standing army. The War of 1812 proved that the militia idea was a failure. Because the states refused to form militias or outfit them the way they were supposed to by federal law.

                            The 2nd amendment is as relevant as a law that prevents you from hitching a camel next to a horse. Conditions change and some laws become obsolete. Because the whole "well regulated" militia was a failure.

                          •  You'll find a lot of 4th and 5th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

                            conversation coming from the Dkos RKBA crowd.
                            Myself and Elmar*, as non-RKBA.

                            Frequent comments from BuddaBelly, TheatreGoon, kestrel9000, KVoikamas.
                            Facts not opinion from Otteray Scribe, Gerrilea, Blue Jersey Mom, Denise Oliver Velez, and OmWordTHRUtheFOG.

                            There's five, fifteen or fifty more that I haven't mentioned, who see the excesses of the USA PATRIOT Act as being the greatest threat to this nation since Tailgunner Joe and the Great Red Scare.

                            That's ignoring COINTELPRO which Denise is well-qualified to speak on.

                            No, kmackle... if there's gun owners who conveniently ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights, it's not here on DKos.

                            If anything, I am having issues where Kossacks say critical things about the police when OWS is the topic, but give over absolute power for kicking doors of gun owners, including unquestionable warrantless searches.

                            The agents of the banksters and the corporate overlords become islands of safety and freedom gun violence in the next sentence.

                            NYPD's Stop and Frisk is bad, but kicking my door in, if not answered promptly and meekly, is totally justified.
                            Gun owner.  Guilty.  No warrant required.
                            I'd expect that if Romney was President, and I had an unregistered vagina.

                            *bojo'd as being a little too Libertarian with a capital L.

                  •  Background checks don't cut it. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Johnny Nucleo

                    Zimmerman passed a background check.
                      You don't find out that these guys have a screw loose until they shoot somebody.
                       We need real restrictions on the type of weapons that are available.

                  •  Hey kestrel9000 remember all the debates (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Johnny Nucleo

                    in RKBA where a lot of people flat out refused to answer direct questions and refused to address studies which discredited studies that claim guns are useful for personal protection?

                    You guys are not ones for proper nomenclature and facts except to obscure issues and deflect arguments and avoid real debate. I know this from personal experience with you guys. You are not NRA. But you make the NRA's argument in the way of the NRA. So when you clean up your act and stop the cheap high school debate tricks you might have something to add. You have in fact persuaded me that most people can not be trusted with firearms.

          •  sure it can, if the vast majority of the people (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SoCalSal

            want it to be. if politicians know they risk losing an election, because they oppose gun controls, they will change their tune. that's the great thing about elections, they do have consequences.

            i'm not suggesting it'll be easy, and i'd also go for a 5 round clip, since that's the standard target shooting number, but it can be done. most people are reasonable, and most people are horrified by the damage these unnecessary weapons cause. if enough of them demand gun controls, and put enough pressure on their elected representatives, it will happen.

      •  Kestrel9000: they think my .22's an assault weapon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros

        they're going to win.
        We're going to be turned into a country with even more insurance-mandated regulations.

        I'm glad I'm over 50. I don't have any grandkids yet, and now I hope I never do, because the America they grow up in won't be real.

        It will be a "safety zone."

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 11:28:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How about if you want to own anything bigger (0+ / 0-)

      Fine. You can BUT you must use it at your local gun shop and when you're done it stays there locked up.

      Ask top al Qaeda leaders about Obama's foreign policy. Wait, you can't. They're dead. -Paul Begala

      by Fickle on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 03:51:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  actually, the best weapon for self-defense, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Phil S 33, Johnny Nucleo

      especially in the home, is a .12g shotgun, with buckshot.  you're going to be all nervous, and your aim isn't going to be that great, especially if you don't think to turn the lights on. with a shotgun, great aim isn't critical. at close range, you will hit your target, i guarantee it. true, you might take the wall behind them down as well, but that's a minor inconvenience, where the safety of your family is concerned.

      if you're considering taking down a tyrannical gov't, you're going to need a bigger gun. something on the order of an M1A1 Abrams tank, and maybe the odd F-18 or two. otherwise, you're wasting yours, and everyone else's time. sadly, too many people who saw Red Dawn mistook it for a documentary, instead of the grade B fiction that it was/is. those people should never be taken seriously.

      •  at 23 feet (diagonal of a 13 step staircase) (6+ / 0-)

        a shotgun (20 gauge > 10 gauge) with any form of shot will make a single ragged 3 to 6 inch hole depending on shot size and barrel constriction ("choke").

        The street perception is that it fills a 4 foot diameter circle, something cops promote as fight-enders.  

        "I don't even have to point this at you, and down you go."

        If armed with a shotgun, the Sandy Hills ES shooter would have been as-lethal.

        •  How many rounds does a shotgun hold (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          43north

          until it has to be reloaded? One or two? Or are there semiautomatic shot guns?

          •  Semiauto shotguns (5+ / 0-)

            for hunting generally hold five rounds, in a tubular magazine that is a fixed, non removable part of the gun. To load it you stuff shells one at a time into the magazine until it's full. Duck hunters in some areas are limited to three rounds, for reasons known only to game managers.

            Semi automatic guns are the majority, or close to it, of guns in circulation, for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. It's an old technology.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:02:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a federal regulation (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              43north, happy camper

              Waterfowl and other migratory bird hunters must follow the following restrictions in all 50 states--it's not arbitrary:

              "RESTRICTIONS - No person shall take migratory game birds:
              With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun larger than 10-gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine gun, fishhook, poison, drug, explosive or stupefying substance.

              With a shotgun capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler which is incapable of removal without disassembling the gun."

              There are detachable magazine options in shotguns as well--the Saiga brand from Russia is built along the design of the AK-47. Available magazines can hold up to 20 rounds.

          •  Pump-action defensive shotguns hold up to 9 rounds (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1, annecros, 43north

            and there are magazine-fed semi-auto shotguns.

            There are even some lever-action ones out there.  That tech dates back to 1887.  They are popular in some competitive shooting events.

      •  You aren't familiar (7+ / 0-)

        with how a shotgun operates... even a short barrel shotgun has to be aimed. And no, a load of buckshot will NOT "take down the wall".

        It's a 12 gauge, not .12 gauge.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:21:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's not pedantry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happy camper, Johnny Nucleo

      "Instead of using the term "assault weapon", which the gunneratti love to get all pedantic about, start using the phrase High Capacity Rapid Fire weapons".

      "Assault weapon" is a made-up propaganda term like "partial birth abortion", except the latter at least refers to a specific medical procedure. Start pressing for a definition of "assault weapon", and there's an infinite regress of phrases like "military style", as if style mattered. That's why the 1994 ban included things like pistol grips and heat shields which look scary but don't affect the danger level at all

      Mike Royko said it pretty well at the time. I can't match his writing style, but he pointed out that a gun looking macho and scary is a lame reason to ban it, just as it's a lame reason to buy it.

      I really, really like "high capacity rapid fire". That's a reality-based phrase. It describes measurable, relevant characteristics. It highlights what actually matters for mass shooting atrocities. Quibbles are possible: there are people who can shoot and reload a revolver faster than you would think possible: but such people are so rare that they can be ignored for purposes of lawmaking.

  •  i love my penis and i absolutely hate guns- (6+ / 0-)

    is there some way that the issues around gun control can be expressed without having to revert to dick cliches?

    bring your own petard.

    •  It's ok for "Man Card" and the like (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      to be used by others, but mine crosses a line that compels you to comment about it.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 02:04:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dull knife

        I take your point and will adjust accordingly.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
        ~ Jerry Garcia

        by DeadHead on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 02:08:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  really, now- if you want to equate your life- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        creating tool with someone else's murder weapon, i guess it's o.k, but please try to be a little considerate of mine. that is, if you don't want to hit 'disconnect' with your readers. if someone else is fool enough to equate their own sense of self with firearm possession then let that be their problem. or to loosely paraphrase gertrude stein: a dick is a dick is a dick, a gun is a gun is a gun.

        bring your own petard.

        •  How you managed to pick one or two phrases (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Nucleo, mindara

          out of the entire diary and turn it into an afront on your genitals, I'll never know.

          May I ask you, have you been making these same observations to the countless other comments and diaries that have suggested similar comparisons, or was mine the last straw?

          Apparently you think I pulled this comparison out of thin air, as if the gun manufacturer's ads themselves don't appeal to this same sense of masculinity, which I was trying to mock.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 03:47:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  sadly enough, it stands out (pun intended) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1, DeadHead

            and ends up being the takeaway from your diary. possibly a last straw that i will have to encounter every time someone thinks the equation is clever, whether they are attempting to be 'hip' clever or 'stupid man-card' clever. i guess i would have to say that i simply don't find the frame at all useful from either perspective, and that in future i'll walk away from what promises to be a pre-degraded discussion.

            bring your own petard.

    •  so says "dull knife" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead

      :-)

      recommended.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 04:57:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "all those militias rising up" (6+ / 0-)

    would have the life expectancy of the berlin brigade, in the event east germany had come over the wall. that is to say, roughly 10 minutes. and the berlin brigade had the type of firepower those militias can only have wet dreams over.

    we already had the national "discussion" over what the first part of the second amendment means. the other side lost, badly. just ask robert e. lee and jefferson davis.

    the whole "well, no law will make our society perfectly safe, so basically, we should have no laws." argument only seems to be taken somewhat seriously, with respect to guns. why is that, he wondered? if a PR flack for the drug industry were to publicly assert something similar, everyone would look at them as if they were a crazy person. everyone would be right to do so, and no PR flack for the drug industry would actually be crazy enough to make such an assertion, at least not in public. yet, "all kinds of guns, for everyone, all the time!" proponents make this claim repeatedly and, instead of being called the insane people that they clearly are, by the president on down, "thoughtful, very serious people" act like they take them seriously. this has to stop, right now, this very instant!

    the manufacture/sale/possession/use of semi-automatic weapons needs to be make illegal, period. no grandfathering in currently existing weapons either, turn them in voluntarily, or face the consequences. you won't be compensated by the public treasury for your loss either; you took that risk, when you were stupid enough to buy them.

    the manufacture/sale/possession/use of ammunition made for those weapons needs to be made illegal as well. hard to shoot those guns, if there's no ammo available. i guarantee, most owners of those weapons are not packing their own ammunition, they're buying it. for that matter, include any packing supplies in that law as well. even if you are packing your own, a spent shell can only be re-used so many times, before it can't be anymore.

    there you go. problem not quite solved, but vastly reduced in scope.

  •  Having a gun in a locked desk drawer is a magical (3+ / 0-)

    life-saving genii, because all you have to do is find the key, unlock the drawer, find the key for your lockbox, unlock that, make sure the magazine isn't empty, insert the mag in the weapon...and aim.

    But 3 to 5 seconds isn't enough time to beat the ever-loving shit out of some crazed asshole while he reloads.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 05:36:25 AM PST

  •  Won't anyone think about the poor & oppressed (0+ / 0-)

    gun owners?  When will you liberals stop trying to oppress those defenseless citizens that are demonized by the left and realize that it is wrong to demonize gun owners - they should be demonizing those children that stopped the bullets in their little bodies just to spite responsible gun owners.  Darn children.  I mean, what's next? Are they going to try to take away the rights of gun owners to bring any gun into a national Park?  Now that would be too much.

    How much of this oppression must we take before gun owners are afforded the equality that Blacks, homosexuals and other minorities have?  Why can't gun owners be given equal rights to all Americans?

    (end of snark)

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:11:34 AM PST

    •  you know, DOC, your username's IRONIC (0+ / 0-)

      given your position.

      But maybe I'm just humor-impaired ...

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 11:33:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Once Near Civil Society and also Once U.S. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ichibon

    Gun sales once again skyrocketing, one gun shop owner very recently said reasons were 1} Christmas 2} Obama got re-elected 3} School shooting, in that order. Now State legislators, still dodging what they've run on the past couple of cycles and people actually hired them, jobs and the economy, find another dangerous distraction, like the already many, showing their mentality and it's state of!!!

    Gun dealers see sales surge with prospect of new restrictions on ownership

    After school shooting, some states move to ease gun rules
    After the Connecticut shooting, some state legislators aim to let school staff members come to work armed.

    These are the LaPierre 'good gun owners' in this once civil country, or seeking to be, should Really Worry About as their mental disorders grow from just once individual quirks into even deeper group think paranoia and more!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 06:31:37 AM PST

  •  Shorter Hawkins: step over the bodies, nothing... (4+ / 0-)

    to see here. Better to see rivers of blood than actually try to prevent the next atrocity. Because freedom. Or something.

  •  Answer logical questions with logic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Nucleo, mindara

    Calling an argument "flaccid" is what I'd expect from right-wingers.

    Here's one example:

    "What gun control law would have stopped Lanza?"

    Secure storage maybe, a civil war to confiscate all but a hard-to-find remnant of rapid-fire weapons, need-based licensing.

    Wrong question anyway, we're trying to stop the next one, or rather as many as possible of the next ones.

    "How is a law going to stop a criminal?"

    By changing the external environment to make the crime harder and by giving the authorities more chances to intervene in time.

    "Closing the gun show loophole wouldn't have helped."

    No, not this time. See above about stopping the next one.

    •  The entire premise of the article (0+ / 0-)

      was that because the mechanisms in place now, and any we might propose in the future to address similar behavior with dissimilar circumstances would be useless because they didn't happen to stop the perpetrator of this particular crime.

      I called the ten items he represented as "facts" that somehow prove gun control measures would be ineffective for stopping any future criminal "flaccid."

      As in "weak." Which they are. The necessity of providing any serious logical rebuttal to something so patently absurd right out of the gate was not my focus.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:52:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shock Doctrine? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper

    I thought that folks on this side of things were opposed to tactics as outlined in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". But this diary and those agreeing with sounds an awful lot like knee-jerk politics to me, especially from people whose outrage was nowhere to be seen on the day before Newtown, when 24 people were shot to death. It just happened to be nationwide, rather than in one place.

    If you are one of the people yelling the loudest, look inward before making an angry response to this. Were you working just as hard on this issue the day before as you are today, or did you only pick up your torch and pitchfolk afterwards?

    Plus, the weapon restrictions outlined by several of the commenters are severe enough that they would outlaw civilian firearms from the Civil War era. It is like saying we have to go back to telegraphs to stop terrorists from communicating via web forums or go back to manual typesetting to prevent copyright infringement. My great-grandfather's Winchester 94 (model 1894) has a larger magazine than someone like Swampfoot would allow, and it certainly is no "assault rifle".

    Given things like the Amadou Diallo shooting, I'd be more inclined to restrict the police to single shot weapons. It would make them a lot less trigger-happy, more careful and more accurate.

    •  You mean like gatling guns? (0+ / 0-)
      Plus, the weapon restrictions outlined by several of the commenters are severe enough that they would outlaw civilian firearms from the Civil War era.
      Sounds like the "commenters" got it right.  Nobody needs one of those.

      "To the English, I will not talk. To my ownpeople I will tell of the fighting." Gabriel Dumont

      by Johnny Nucleo on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 09:56:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why does the the 2nd Amend even exist? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    That is, why did it pass? What made it so critical to 18th Century Americans? I believe there were two primary reasons.

    First, within living memory, the Continental Militia had, at least in popular imagination, defeated the British and won our independence. So, there was strong support for the continued participation in state militias (i.e., to bear arms), as had existed under the Articles of Confederation.

    every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage
    However, the Constitution that replaced the Articles established a permanent US Army, which made the state militias redundant. So, mostly for sentimental reasons, there was strong support for the right of the People to serve in state militias.

    But this couldn't have been enough to motivate the amendment as one of the fundamental rights. There had to be some immediate threat that confronted the individual states rather than the nation as a whole. And in fact, there was one: emancipation. Since the 1770s and the Somerset Decision that established England as slave-free, American slaveholder had begun to fear that abolition fever would strike either the British (which motivated them to join their New England brethren in the Revolution) or the US government (which made them insist on maintaining state sovereignty and all of its woes with which we are still burdened). By the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being ratified, abolitionism had grown, the Haitian rebellion had happened, and there was a great threat that if the slave states gave into direct democracy and national unity, the federales would come in and forcibly emancipate their slaves. This is why to southerners the right to participate in state militias had much more than the symbolic value it had to northerners.

    A hundred and fifty years ago, the nation paid the price for this conceit, both north and south. And in the end, all of the machinery of state sovereignty and state militias was not enough to prevent the wave of emancipation that did free all of the slaves.

    But, we were left with most of the old constitutional machinery. We no longer have the 3/5 compromise, but only because everyone is now free. We still have state sovereignty, so every state has its own laws, its own taxes, its own education system, its own professional licensing system (or not), and so on. It's a putrid albatross around our neck.

    However, the role of the state militias did not persist. We now have the National Guard which is basically an emergency response force and an auxiliary to the US Army. These is no threat faced by individual states that is not also faced by the whole nation. The 2nd Amendment should have become completely vestigial.

    But politics abhors a vacuum. In the 20th Century, its original function long forgotten, lizard brains devised a new purpose for the 2nd Amendment: to sell guns and gun culture. The right to participate in well-regulated state militias became the right to own guns; currently this is being extended to a right to carry guns into churches, schools, bars, political rallies, and so on.

    But perhaps it isn't surprising how evil the current context-free interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is, since its origins were themselves truly evil: the need to convince slave-owners to join the revolution and later to stay in the federalized US government, all to maintain a “Union” based on the contradictory right of all men to be free.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site