Skip to main content

Gun with trigger at center of image.
Yay, now comes the part where various GOP deep thinkers say that if we don't want to regulate absolutely everything, we shouldn't consider regulating weapons designed to be actual weapons. Oh, what a very bold and not at all tedious stance:
[Tennessee] State Sen. Stacey Campfield joked on his personal blog Monday about “assault pressure cookers” in the wake of last week’s bombing in Boston. […]

The point of Campfield’s first post seemed clear enough. Under a headline that referred to U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, one of the leading proponents of gun control, Campfield cataloged the dangerous features on a pressure cooker, including a “muzzle break thingy,” “tactical grip” and “evil, black” color. Pressure cookers were, of course, turned into IEDs in the Boston bombings.

Oh, he's so clever. I bet you can kill someone with a comb, too, if you're sufficiently motivated! Let's ban combs! Tee hee!
He said commentators on the left should be calling for “crock pot control” if they meant to be consistent with their calls for gun control after December’s Sandy Hook shooting.
Let's imagine a scenario in which roughly 4,000 Americans have been killed by weaponized pressure cookers between last December and now. I'm willing to bet Campfield would be fairly beside himself demanding we stop bad people from getting pressure cookers, and the idea of letting people who have already have a history of assaulting people with pressure cookers buy more pressure cookers, due only to our own unwillingness to check up on those things, would sound so stupid that nobody would even propose such a thing. Let's imagine a world in which, whenever a child finds a pressure cooker under his parents' bed, there's a good chance that child dies. We'd damn well be figuring out what to do about parents who leave goddamn pressure cookers under their beds. Yes, you can kill someone with a pressure cooker, or a spoon, or a piece of stout twine—but there's nothing better for killing people than an actual weapon.

This really isn't a difficult question. We don't let your average citizens have grenades. We don't let them have surface to air missiles. We don't let them have machine guns. We're really not all that dumb about these things, we know that when it comes to weapons designed to be weapons, there are certain limits to be set for the public safety. All these debates are just about where the limits are. Now, however, we're hearing that signing a U.N. treaty to help prevent weapons from being sent to terrorists and drug cartels and child armies is an assault on our freedomz, and that checking—even merely checking—whether or not a particular American is a criminal, is violent or is an actual known effing terrorist before handing them whatever guns they want is a bridge too far. In other words, we've turned entirely stupid.

There are no reasonable arguments against background checks, which is exactly why the idea is so popular. The only arguments against the idea are, like Campfield's, either intentionally insincere or rooted in far-right antigovernment conspiracy theories. That's it. We're giving weapons to felons and terrorists, and the reason we're doing it is because we're ruled by morons.

As an aside, Tennessee is an especially good example of this. If it were up to them, they'd be regulating the possible religious implications of mop sinks. If you want to sell a felon an assault rifle, though, they'll still call you a damn Patriot.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:30 AM PDT.

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

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

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site