Skip to main content

Last night, Jon Stewart looked at the news about Chipotle banning guns inside their stores and how the pro-gun crowd has gone to extremes to try and stop the smart gun.

STEVE DOOCY (4/9/2014): Now in the middle of the night, when somebody breaks in, before I can shoot my gun, where's my bracelet?? I gotta go downstairs!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! .... No, that does seem like an awful lot of hassle to go through before getting to shoot someone. You know, it's so onerous. Oh, what am I supposed to do, reach for my gun with this hand and use my other hand to get this other thing? I mean, it's a fucking wristband, it's not a Victorian corset! (Jon mimics putting corset on) "OK, now where's my gun?"
Video and transcript below the fold.



Guys walked into a Chipotle brandishing assault rifles.  Now, we all know the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  But here's the problem with open carrying of assault rifles.  No one else in that Chipotle knows you're a good guy.  They just know you have a gun.  And here's the thing, even if you put your gun up and go, "Don't worry, everybody, we're good guys!" — that's the type of thing a clever bad guy might say.  (audience laughter)

Of course, Chipotle's assault on assault rifles is just one part of a larger attack on firearm supporters, as Maryland gun store owner Andy Raymond learned when he was targeted by extremists just for trying to sell guns.

JAN CRAWFORD (5/6/2014): One caller warned Raymond's business would be burned to the ground.  Another threatened that Raymond would get what was coming to him.

ANDY RAYMOND: So anyway, obviously, I received numerous death threats today, I really fucking appreciate that, that's fucking classy.

Well, for the record, the death threats that he received were really fucking classy.

That's embossed 80-lb. paper, very thick.

Look, I support reasonable gun safety measures as much as the other 90% of all Americans, but there is no excuse for anti-gun people to threaten anybody.

NEWS REPORT (5/2/2014): The hate mail wasn't from anti-gun folks, but from gun owners accusing Andy of being a gun rights traitor for being willing to sell a weapon some owners see as a threat to the Second Amendment.
What the fuck?  (audience laughter)  What kind of gun is a threat to the Second Amendment?  A gun that shoots other guns?  A gun that goes back in time and kills amendments?
5/6/2014:

CHARLIE ROSE: A new weapon called the smart gun uses computer technology to prevent anyone other than the gun's owner from shooting.

JAN CRAWFORD: Made in Germany, it requires users to wear a radio-controlled watch to fire it.

5/5/2014:

CHRIS HAYES: Belinda Padilla leads the American division of Armatix.  She met me at a Maryland gun range.

BELINDA PADILLA: So red means you are not the authorized user.

CHRIS HAYES: I'm putting the ammunition in.  I can fire.  (shoots gun)

Wow!  That is something I never thought I would live to see — an MSNBC host at a shooting range.  (audience laughter)

But this smart gun sounds good too.  It protects your home, it does your kids' algebra, and it cannot be turned against you.  Who wouldn't want that?

STEVE DOOCY (4/9/2014): Now in the middle of the night, when somebody breaks in, before I can shoot my gun, where's my bracelet??  I gotta go downstairs!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!  Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!  Yeah, fuck yeah!!!!!!!

No, that does seem like an awful lot of hassle to go through before getting to shoot someone.  You know, it's so onerous.  Oh, what am I supposed to do, reach for my gun with this hand and use my other hand to get this other thing?  I mean, it's a fucking wristband, it's not a Victorian corset!  (Jon mimics putting corset on)  "OK, now where's my gun?"

Look, if you don't want one of these smart guns, don't buy them.  How is this a Second Amendment threat?

CHRIS HAYES (5/5/2014): In 2002, New Jersey passed a law requiring that once a smart gun goes on the market anywhere in the country, gun sellers in New Jersey must move within three years to only sell smart guns, taking traditional guns off the shelves.
Whoa.  Point, gun nut.  Unless once that New Jersey law's sponsor realized her law was not making all guns safer, but preventing any safe gun from being sold, and she had a change of heart.
SHARON CROWLEY, FOX5 (5/12/2014): New Jersey state senate majority leader Loretta Weinberg is offering to repeal a gun law she sponsored twelve years ago, if the NRA agrees to stop its opposition to smart guns.
Yes!  It's a win-win!  Everybody is holding hands and singing "Gunbaya".  Which is like "Kumbaya", but with shooting.  Just to be clear, NRA, this is a deal where New Jersey will repeal a gun control law if in return you consent to let people sell more guns.  It's like your wet dream.  I mean, we all know how pro-choice you are gun-wise.
DAVID KEENE (3/27/2014): The fact is, we believe in free markets and free choice.  That's what this country's about.

WAYNE LaPIERRE (3/6/2014): There is no greater freedom than the right to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want.

So it's a deal!
SHARON CROWLEY, FOX5 (5/12/2014): The NRA, for its part, is not showing any signs it will back off its tough stance against smart guns.
Holy shit!  Finally, the NRA's fight to protect the Second Amendment has met its match — the NRA.  We'll be right back.
He then looked at ways the human race could go extinct.

Meanwhile, Stephen talked about members of the Chinese military being accused of spying on U.S. companies before turning to the GOP's latest attacks against Hillary Clinton.


He then looked at how Europe wants to be able to force Google to hide certain stories about people who don't want others to learn about their past.

Stephen talked with Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner, and Jon talked with Aneesh Chopra, which went long.  Here's the unedited interview in FOUR parts.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Originally posted to Electronic America: Progressives Film, music & Arts Group on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

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

  •  Hell, we had a gun lover here who was essentially (27+ / 0-)

    ... in favor of banning "smart" guns until such time as they were deemed "safe," whatever that means.

    Yes, a gun aficionado promoting a gun ban!

    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

    by Bob Johnson on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:32:42 AM PDT

    •  And promoting regulation until guns are safe. (9+ / 0-)

      Bwahahahahahaha!

      •  "NRA Roulette" tells us the odds on that. (7+ / 0-)

        There are folks even here at dkos who have not seen the real cost-and-benefit mortality numbers. What your family is risking in gun deaths? What you gain in critical defensive gun uses?

        If you were operating a jewelry store or a bodega, you might very well face armed robberies. "Home defense," not so much.

        "NRA Roulette" -- FBI Updates Gun Ownership Cost-And-Benefit Ratio. The Costs Win Big Time

        "NRA Roulette" breaks down buying a "home defense" gun to two spins of statistical roulette wheels.

        First spin, your family risks getting hit with one of the 28,853 lives lost to suicide/murder/accident (as of 2012, stats from FBI and CDC.) You have to play this game every year, as long as you keep a gun in your house. Over a decade make that 288,530 deaths.

        Second spin, you get to try for one of the 84 justifiable homicides that happen at residences (also 2012, from FBI.) The lucky winners get to kill somebody. How many of those 84 are "intruders" is being investigated.

        That leads us to the cost-and-benefit ratio for buying a "home defense" gun. Along with spending $2-billion a year, here's book on the investment:

        343:1 Negative Pay-Out.

        That's 343 "bad" deaths for every 1 critical/lethal at-home defensive gun use.

        NRA asserts that between 1,000,000 and 2,500,000 "defensive gun uses" happen in the U.S. every year. Other sources estimate 100,000 up to 240,000. Importantly, these figures include gun uses at businesses and "other" locations -- the home "DGU" events are a tiny fraction of the totals.

        Gun defenses against intruders go with armed robberies.

        Thing is, armed robberies happen where there are cash registers. And it's a rare home that has a cash register. Homes are not the jewelry stores, bodegas, etc. where you find high value goods and the cash registers.

        Until homes install cash registers, the NRA propaganda will demonize Blacks and "illegals" with lethal consequence to gun buyers and their families.

        One more point: actual gun buyers form a minority of the people who use "home defense" guns to kill themselves. These deaths spread out heavily to 10-14, 15-24, 25-34 year olds. Youth suicides are facilitated as impulse acts -- 2nd and 3d most common COD for those age groups.

        "Home defense" is a lie. Pure and simple.

        Defenses happen, sure. But with 110,000,000 households in the country, you are taking on a 1 in 400 chance per decade of a gun death in your family in order to provide protection against a 1 in 1,310,000 arguably critical threat.

        And that 1 in 1,310,000 situation per decade, where a justifiable homicide can happen, might well have been handled by keeping a yappy dog, deploying MACE, or simply calling "911" first off when a threat is detected.

        Amateurs trying to do S.W.A.T. work are more likely to get themselves shot than they are to apprehend armed criminals. Call "911." As of 2012, overwhelmingly, that's what the real numbers tell you to do for home defense. The "Rambo" approach is fantasy.

        "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

        by waterstreet2013 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:02:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then don't own one. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc

          Just let everyone else make that same decision for themselves.

          Freedom sure is neat, innit?

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:34:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Which decision is that? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, Yoshimi

            Your right to shoot the weapon of your choice anywhere you please and anytime you please? Or perhaps, to keep a weapon available that very young inqusitive children could get their hands on, or to enter Chiholte with your AK-47, brandishing it in the air like some troubled Rambo?

            •  You must be confused. (0+ / 0-)

              There is no right to "shoot the weapon of your choice anywhere you please and anytime you please".

              But in answer your question, the decision to own a firearm; waterstreet seems absolutely petrified of firearms, he is free to choose not to own one.
              And everyone else is free to make that same decision for themselves.

               

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:29:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  NRA is promoting guns as the Vegomatic of home (4+ / 0-)

          safety and self defense. They are advertising a gun as a 360 degree, 24/7 safety defense tool, which it is not and never will be. It may be used in some circumstances but its effectiveness depends on timing of the event and skill of the user.

        •  It's not quite that simple. (3+ / 0-)

          I agree that your chance of death or injury go up with a gun in your home, but the defence use isn't quite so clear as you make it seem. The argument isn't that you should have a gun so you have the chance to commit justifiable homicide, but for defense. "Winning" NRA Roulette isn't getting to kill someone, but saving lives using your gun.

          For a more fair comparison, you'd have to analyze not just justifiable homicides, but also non-fatal justified shootings and cases where intruders ran when shots were fired or just became aware the home-owner was armed. How many deaths/injuries and other assaults are prevented by incidents that don't show up in your 84 justifiable homicides?

          That's much more complicated to parse out of the available data. It's almost certainly higher than your "Roulette" comparison, but far less than the suicide/murder/accident numbers.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Wed May 21, 2014 at 10:54:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well written, but logically weak. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joffan, WednesdaysChilde, CenPhx, Yoshimi

            The categories of "cases where intruders ran when shots were fired or just became aware the home-owner was armed" are close to nonexistent.

            And including gun woundings makes the ratio even higher, still with Negative Pay-Out.

            Setting the grain for this analysis at fatalities has the virtue of focus. And people buy "home defense" guns for much the same reason that they play video games. It's the "Rambo" fantasies, not real threats.

            If there were real threats, the number of residential justifiable homicides would be larger.

            Threats where the real number for lethal defenses is 1 in 1,310,000 per year ??? What threats? The NRA fantasy threats....

            And lord knows what fraction of that is against "intruders." We could be talking 1 per 2,500,000 (or higher) for lethal defenses against "intruders." This is very rare at no-cash-register residences.

            Against that, you're paying 1 in 4,000 a year for "bad" gun deaths involving family.

            As a concept: "Bad Bet."

            [The original posting failed 4th Grade math. The 1:1,310,000 annual lethal defense rate should change to 1:131,000 for a decade. When in haste, I ain't nobody's idea of perfect.]

            "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

            by waterstreet2013 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:55:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You must realize that responsible gun owners have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          waterstreet2013

          no desire to kill people.  For us, success is chasing the bad guy away.  But to do that, you must be ready to use the weapon, and if your life is threatened you must be ready to respond with lethal force.  According to Massad Ayoob, there are dozens of cases where a gun prevents trouble for every one where you have to shoot someone.  HE gives data - please give YOUR references for the claim that "cases where intruders ran when shots were fired or just became aware the home-owner was armed" are close to nonexistent.

          Where did you get the 84 justifiable homicides per year across the entire USA?  That sounds WAY to low.  Please give the reference.

          Yappy dog is helpful, since people who are run off by a dog are rarely a real threat.  Everyone should have a dog - you get unconditional love if you treat the dog decently, nice apart from self defense. But an armed home invader will kill your dog in seconds.  
          Calling 911 is necessary, but police rarely take less than 10 minutes to intervene at the scene of the crime.  Police have to be careful for their own sake.  Think what home invaders can do to you and your family in that time.  
          Mace has its place.  But not against an enemy with guns.  

          •  Well written. And how does Major Depression (0+ / 0-)

            as it presents with millions of Americans know about this "no desire to kill people" ???

            How do the facilitated suicides, the impulse suicides using Home Defense guns, make any sense of this?

            Google [ FBI justifiable homicide 2012 ]. Why pretend that this is anything but the obvious and automatic public link ???

            FBI CJISD Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen 2008-2012

            258 total civilian JH's using firearms. In the item level analysis this yields 84 at residences including attached property.

            D'oh.

            Meanwhile, the artificial and induced paranoid fantasy of "what home invaders can do to you and your family in that time" is noting near to what the 28,853 "bad" gun deaths are really/honestly going to do to you each year.

            Those deaths present at 1 in 400 rate for American households on a by-decade basis.

            NRA and pro-gun ads and the broadly based gun-hugger culture prefer waking dreams that feature heroic defenses of home and hearth. Which dreaming is an activity that does not connect to reality. S.W.A.T.'s not like that. (And "hypervigilance" is a disease symptom unless you're doing S.W.A.T.)

            Sorry about that.

            Burglars operate by stealth. Home invasion gangs exist from time to time and there's definitely armed robbery, but home burglaries are what generate a big number: 1,567,058 a year.

            The total for in-home armed robberies comes in at 59,889 a year. That's of 354,520 total robberies -- 17% of the total. Those in-home robberies result in an estimated 230 murders. (Rounding up.)

            One thing unclear about that statistical experience is how many of the 230 murders happened where drugs were transacted? Also, how many involved use of alcohol? Once we get done digging the 84 residential JH's, that'll be on the list for research.

            So... 84 people die from civilian gun defenses at homes and 230 are murdered in their homes during robberies. Not great odds, eh? And clearly, not all the 84 CJH's connect to robberies -- we won't know the situation particulars for another coupla weeks.

            The big number is 28,853. People killed with guns from suicide/murder/accident events that (including the 230 home-robbery-murders) are simply "bad" killings.

            If you want a video game, spend the $60. Kill 'em all. Do it again tomorrow. If you want to avoid seeing somebody killed at your residence, it's the 28,853 you need to avoid.

            Try to play S.W.A.T. against an armed robber, or a team of them ??? That's what "deh55" recommends. Those guys get to train playing video games too. Good luck with that.

            "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

            by waterstreet2013 on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:48:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I would more fully support the 2nd Amendment if... (0+ / 0-)

          there was some way of assuring me that the only people killed or injured would be people those that eliminate the first part of the 2nd Amendment and toally endorse "the right to keep and bear arms". Given time the number of unnecessary gun deaths would diminish drastically of its own accord.

          •  Why be cruel in your intents ??? (0+ / 0-)

            “The true hero is one who conquers his own anger and hatred.”
            - Dalai Lama

            The most of the gun-huggers are tricked into believing that homes are attacked "1,000,000 to 2,500,000" times a year in America.

            Actually, armed robberies at residences (including attached property) totaled under 60,000 in 2012. That was 17% of the total for armed robberies.

            You know it if you live in a high-crime neighborhood. Overall there are 110,000,000 households and the 60,000 armed robberies at residences; that's roughly 1 in 2,000 per year. But again, the most of these crimes happen in the high-crime areas.

            "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

            by waterstreet2013 on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:11:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  "essentially in favor of banning" (5+ / 0-)

      You mean that one comment from somebody who thought they "weren't ready" but clarified that he DIDN'T want to ban them?  That comment?

      Because there's a reason you weaseled "essentially" instead of actually in favor of banning.

      222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:47:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, you are wrong. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, WednesdaysChilde, CenPhx

        As I pointed out to you previously. The author of that comment wrote directly that he was against the guns being sold. Only when I pointed out that he was supporting a gun ban, did he "weasel" out of his previous statement by saying that, of course, he didn't support banning the sale of the gun.

        The "weaseling" in this case was done by poster I highlight, above. Or perhaps you're doing a bit of "weaseling" yourself.

        "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

        by Bob Johnson on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:03:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here is the relevant exchange: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, WednesdaysChilde, CenPhx

        My question and his answer:

        Do you think these sorts of weapons should be

        ... unavailable at this point?

        by Bob Johnson on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:57:56 AM CDT

        I would not recommend distribution

        until some of the issues raised with the technology are addressed.

        by Neo Control on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:00:07 PM CDT

        "Not recommend distribution" means "not sell."

        I then went on to point out that essentially what Neo Control was arguing for was a ban on the sale of the "smart" gun. Then, of course, Neo Control backpedaled furiously, realizing what he had done.

        "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

        by Bob Johnson on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:17:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  recommendation = ban (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          clearly, Bob. You totally saw through our code language.

          222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

          by happymisanthropy on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:29:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No distribution = No sales (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx

            No sales = ban (until such time as the gun is deemed "safe" or whatever it is that Neo -- and the NRA -- want from the gun)

            "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

            by Bob Johnson on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:52:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm confused, Bob (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kasoru

              I've been repeatedly told on these pages that the Assault Weapons Ban wasn't really a ban, so how can somebody recommending against selling these guns be a ban?

              222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

              by happymisanthropy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:44:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  This is bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          Not thinking a technology is ready for prime time does NOT mean desiring to ban said technology.

          There's a lot of things I "would not recommend" but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of banning them. The two are not even remotely equivalent.

          "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

          by DarthMeow504 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:09:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If by "essentially in favor of banning" you mean (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, Tominator

      "specifically stated he wasn't for banning".

      Bob Johnson-Giving reality the bird since 2003.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Guns that do not shoot unless you wear a ring (0+ / 0-)

      have been available for decades.  Check MagnaTrigger.  You have to wear a ring to activate it. If you want your wife to use the gun, get her a ring.  If you are worried that in a fight your hand will be injured, wear a ring on each hand.  The rings are cheap.  System is recommended by Massad Ayoob for safety to your kids yet keeping your gun handy.  This prevents shootings by unauthorized users - your kids, a bad guy who got hold of your gun, etc.

      One problem -rings have magnetic field so do not wear when using your computer or anything damaged by magnetic fields.  

       

  •  Wow, reclist with 2 recs, nice. (4+ / 0-)

    General opposition at an organizational level to smart guns is silly and counterproductive, and John Stewart stuck to that line of attack. It was well done.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:43:53 AM PDT

  •  What do you all think about the EU-Google thing? (0+ / 0-)

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:56:15 AM PDT

  •  wow, Doocy looks strangely like (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, lineatus, musiclady

    Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Wed May 21, 2014 at 05:57:28 AM PDT

  •  When it did become mandatory (7+ / 0-)

    To shoot someone in your house.  We have had two cases where kids have been lured into the house, and become shooting people has become mandatory, these kids have been shot with no or little repercussions.  Of course, there has been stories of fathers offing their kids, and I think what a clever way of legally murdering your child.  A parent shaking their kid can be put in jail for child abuse, conservatives want to put doctors and mothers in jail for abortions.  But a father 'mistaking' his kid for a bugler is free to kill.

    Here is the unfairness.  If one feels threatened by a open carry gun nut in Starbucks who speaks to you in a threatening way, and one puts, maybe strychnine, in his coffee to defend you and your family from this clearly unstable person who wants to murder everyone in the shop, some activist DA will probably try to send you to jail. But if you start a fight with such a guy, and he pulls, and you pull first, and he dies, you would probably be a hero, saving the shop from a mass murder.

  •  Actions, rhetoric, have results (4+ / 0-)

    "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

    by jimstaro on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:03:42 AM PDT

  •  I hope Chipotle stands its ground. (7+ / 0-)

    And if the gun rightists boycott the chain, that sounds like a Win-Win to me!

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Wed May 21, 2014 at 06:29:22 AM PDT

  •  "Gunbaya" made me spew my coffee. (2+ / 0-)

    "Let's stay together"--Rev. Al Green and President Obama

    by collardgreens on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:14:54 AM PDT

  •  "I couldn't use a smart gun to shoot a burglar..." (5+ / 0-)

    Another hole in that argument:  Back in the 1970's, somebody who knew a lot about guns told me that the majority of policemen who got shot trying to apprehend someone were shot with their own weapon.  If policemen carried 'smart' guns, any suspect who gets hold of the cop's weapon couldn't fire it.

    That statistic may be out of date.  Now that you can buy a gun with less hassle than renting a car, the typical suspect may already be packing his own weapon and not need to steal the cop's.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 07:23:19 AM PDT

    •  May depend on the particular technology... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      david78209, DarthMeow504
      If policemen carried 'smart' guns, any suspect who gets hold of the cop's weapon couldn't fire it.
      If the smart gun were RFID based (as the one currently on the market) then I'd expect it could be fired as long as the RFID key were in close enough proximity. So, it'd depend on whether they were struggling over it, or whether the gun had been moved a sufficient distance away from the officer with the key.
    •  Smart guns are for the 38,000 stolen guns (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, david78209, DarthMeow504

      a year.

      Thing is, guns go at 50% of retail price when burglars sell them. That's against 10% from fencing ordinary goods.

      And then stolen guns turn up at crimes way more than normal acquisitions.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- after Paul "False Prophet" Ryan

      by waterstreet2013 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:31:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  OMGHAZIIIII. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy

    I can never un-see the Steve Doocy image above.

    Freakin' hilarious!!!

    I need not thank the rich for the crumbs they have tossed me, rather, I curse them for the bread stolen from our tables. -- MinistryOfTruth

    by sephius1 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:23:09 AM PDT

  •  You'd think, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, blue muon, WednesdaysChilde

    if it's so damned important to you to be able to shoot someone immediately:

    Now in the middle of the night, when somebody breaks in, before I can shoot my gun, where's my bracelet?? I gotta go downstairs!
    you'd keep track of where the activator device is. Sort of like the gun itself.

    “Poverty wants much; but avarice, everything” Publilius Syrus

    by gelfling545 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 09:27:21 AM PDT

  •  I reposted an article on the safe gun on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Johnson, WednesdaysChilde

    the book of face.
    The reaction was ridiculous. I posted it a week ago and people are still on the comments thread discussing it.

    The one gun I might want in my house, and the NRf'nA doesn't want to allow me to have it.

    "Non-violence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Gentle Giant on Wed May 21, 2014 at 12:28:33 PM PDT

  •  smart guns won't stop the "dumb guns" (0+ / 0-)

    The NRA shouldn't be worried about a smart gun mandate. It's pretty easy to make guns, 3D printer or otherwise, considering how high schools are closing their shop classes and selling lathes for a song.

  •  NRA uses KKK TYPE THREATS on BLACK DINERS (0+ / 0-)

    APALACHIANS, RACIAL SUPREMISTS and  RED NECKS
    have already MURDERED  unarmed HARMLESS CHILDREN
    but the NRA, REPUBICANS SARAH PALIN, RAND PAUL, and GEORGIA's GOVERNOR want MASS SHOOTINGS by KKK TYPE RACISTS.

    VOTE  REPUBLICANS OUT  OFFICE

  •  I am a gun nut liberal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tominator

    The NRA can go to a corner and have sex with itself.

    Stop screwing up America.

  •  I'm a pro-gun rights Democrat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tominator

    And I am absolutely 100% in favor of smart weapons technology. The more advanced, the better. I really have no idea WTF the NRA is thinking on this issue. Jon Stewart has nailed it as he so often does.

    Seriously, why would ANYONE not like the idea of a weapon that knows who it's owner is and won't fire for anyone else? How can that possibly be anything but a plus? If the moron quoted above is so worried about locating his bracelet in case of a break-in, he should just wear the damned thing to bed. Or keep it in the same place the gun is. This isn't rocket surgery.

    You know what else I'd love to see? An IFF system where you can give RFID tags to people in your home and the gun will lock out and refuse to fire when they are in the line of fire. How freaking awesome is that? It's like something out of Robocop.

    I for one welcome our new cyberpunk weapons tech.

    "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

    by DarthMeow504 on Wed May 21, 2014 at 08:25:05 PM PDT

  •  Stu Chisholm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waterstreet2013

    Check Conservative Supreme Court Justice, Warren Burger's statements on the 2nd Amendment made in 1992.
    As for the New Jersey Law, the author of that law has promised to have it repealed.
    Why is the first part of the 2nd Amendment, "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", often omitted when quoting the 2nd Amendment?
    Remember when the 2nd Amendment was agreed to most Americans felt they owed allegiance to their state and were more concerned with a central government being too powerful. Plus, people needed their guns for obtaining food and protection from marauding Indians.
    As for a too strong central government, sane people feel that was settled with Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania and even more obviously, in the Civil War. Federal law supercedes state law, just as state law supercedes county law.
    The 2nd Amendment seems to be sacrosanct to the NRA. What true hunter need an AK-47 in game hunting. I was taught by an Uncle that if you get one, possibly 2 shots at a game animal and miss, the animal has the right to live and you had better practice marksman skills.
    I am not against gun ownership, but I do resent the arguments used by gun enthusiasts against just about every safety feature that comes down the road. I further resent the implication that the government we must fear most is the same government that some of us have gone to protect.
    The NRA has proven itself a farce by opposing limited bullet magazines, background checks, and the manufacture and sale of "smart guns" to the extent that a gun shop owner who backed the manufacture and sale of such guns was given life threatening warnings. Do you need any more proof than way too many (to be kind) irresponsible people have guns?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site