Skip to main content

One of the most powerful pieces of feature journalism I’ve read in a long time is on the front-page of Sunday’s New York Times. It’s the first chapter in a series by Mike McIntire--who’s now obviously on a beeline to the annual Pulitzer finals--on “the gun industry's influence and the wide availability of firearms in America,” titled: “Selling a New Generation on Guns.” I’ll get to this “must-read” in a few paragraphs, but I’m going to “get a little tangential” first.

Question: If there’s a national protest against gun violence, and it’s not covered on Daily Kos, does that mean it doesn’t matter?

I’ve got to ask: What’s going on here?

Unless I’m missing something (and I hope I have), there wasn’t a single mention (please, tell me this isn’t so, and I’ll remove this section of this post) in this community regarding THIS national story, yesterday: Co-sponsored by the Washington Arena Stage and “One Million Moms for Gun Control,” thousands of protestors against gun violence filled Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C.; and according to Reuters, “…One Million Moms organized similar events on Saturday in about a dozen cities, including San Francisco and Austin, Texas.”

(Clarification, as noted in the comments, down below: This is  “One Million Moms for Gun Control,” and it's NOT affiliated with an anti-LGBT group with a similar name.)

WASHINGTON | Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:37pm EST

(Reuters) - Thousands of marchers rallied in Washington in favor of gun control on Saturday, including residents of Newtown, Connecticut, where a mass elementary school shooting reignited the U.S. gun violence debate.

Speakers - including Education Secretary Arne Duncan, lawmakers and actors - urged the protesters carrying such signs as "What Would Jesus Pack?" to lobby Congress and state legislators to back gun control measures…

"…This is about gun responsibility. This is about gun safety. This is about fewer dead Americans, fewer dead children, fewer children living in fear," Duncan said.

Organizers backed President Barack Obama's call for a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and background checks for all gun sales. They also urged safety training for all buyers of firearms.

Marchers stretched for several blocks along Constitution Avenue as they approached the rally site in the shadow of the Washington Monument…

Elsewhere in Washington, less than 48 hours earlier, as fellow Kossack Meteor Blades informed us: “Sen. Feinstein's assault weapons ban will face stiff resistance from some elected Democrats.”

As One Million Moms’ protestor Amy Journo, a Newtown, CT resident with two sons, five and seven years old, who attended Sandy Hook Elementary School, noted in the Reuters story (linked and excerpted above):  

"It's difficult to get laws changed when politicians are bought out, but we have to start somewhere…I want to ensure that they (children) are safer, not just my children but all across the United States."
And, this quote brings us (back) full-circle to Mike McIntire’s stunning feature story in Sunday’s NY Times.

As you’ll learn in the article--god forbid, if anyone was ever going to walk into an elementary school classroom with an assault weapon again—if the Newtown, CT-based National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has their way, eight-year-olds throughout America will be fully proficient with firearms, up to and including semi-automatic assault weapons; and, they’ll have the knowledge and skills necessary to take the shooter out!

I mean, “seriously!” Why waste taxpayer money on training educators how to handle guns, when you may accomplish the same end result by encouraging the parents of students in the second grade to pay for their kids to learn how to handle AR-15s and semi-automatic pistols, instead?

Apparently, as we learn in today’s NYT, this is the logic behind the NSSF’s “First Shots” program. And then, as it’s explained in Mike McIntire’s piece, you’ll learn more about folks like, “Larry Potterfield, the founder of MidwayUSA, one of the nation’s largest sellers of shooting supplies… who said his own children started shooting ‘boys’ rifles’ at age 4, getting young people engaged with firearms — provided they have the maturity and the physical ability to handle them — strengthens an endangered American tradition.”

You’ll also read about Junior Shooters, an industry-supported magazine that seeks to get children involved in the recreational use of firearms, once featured a smiling 15-year-old girl clutching a semiautomatic rifle. At the end of an accompanying article that extolled target shooting with a Bushmaster AR-15 — an advertisement elsewhere in the magazine directed readers to a coupon for buying one — the author encouraged youngsters to share the article with a parent.”

“Who knows?” it said. “Maybe you’ll find a Bushmaster AR-15 under your tree some frosty Christmas morning!”
And, then there’s this gem from Junior Shooters’ editor Andy Fink, who…
… acknowledged in an editorial that some of his magazine’s content stirred controversy.

“I have heard people say, even shooters that participate in some of the shotgun shooting sports, such things as, ‘Why do you need a semiautomatic gun for hunting?’ ” he wrote. But if the industry is to survive, he said, gun enthusiasts must embrace all youth shooting activities, including ones “using semiautomatic firearms with magazines holding 30-100 rounds.”

In an interview, Mr. Fink elaborated. Semiautomatic firearms are actually not weapons, he said, unless someone chooses to hurt another person with them, and their image has been unfairly tainted by the news media. There is no legitimate reason children should not learn to safely use an AR-15 for recreation, he said.

(Bold type is diarist’s emphasis.)

You really need to read McIntire’s entire article to get a sense of the truly savage, capitalistic nature of the matter.

In the meantime, speaking of capitalism and money, here’s the link to make a donation to “One Million Moms for Gun Control!”

Originally posted to on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:46 AM PST.

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

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 (123+ / 0-)

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:46:31 AM PST

  •  Imagine the Far Side cartoon (23+ / 0-)

    What's more dangerous:

    1) a three year old the a hammer
    2) a two year old with a sharpie near a clean wall
    X) an eight year old with an AR-15

    When did we start using tools for recreation?

    •  The Creator made us. Some of us think (5+ / 0-)

      they can imitate the creator by destroying what He made and then re-creating a better model. Because, you know, what the Creator made was fatally flawed, so it's up to man to do a better job. That's entirely logical to those of us whose primary mode is imitation and repetition. If the results are worse than the original, that's probably because some of us humans don't see too good. Imitation is rarely better than the original.

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:17:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can't find it now but Friday I saw (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, lyvwyr101

        a most touching post: a person of liberal leanings and a friend of conservative leanings, discussing an issue in which they used exactly the same words as they had used in discussing a different issue, previously.

        Except this time the liberal-leaning interlocutor found the words of the argument that the conservative normally employed appropriate, and vice versa. The  pair were discussing privately owned firearms -- and the liberal was using exactly the same argument the conservative normally used in opposing abortion.

        Sensible people can come to sensible agreement.
        People who refuse to see that there are points of view other than their own, often cannot reach agreement with others at all.

        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 Jan 27, 2013 at 11:16:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  XYY) NRA having generated $50-billion (9+ / 0-)

      of extra sales for the gun industry.

      That's over the last 20 years.

      They lie that Americans defend their homes 2,500,000 times a year with guns.

      But that would generate between 75,000 and 207,000 defensive shootings a year. And somewhere between 38,000 and 100,000 defensively-generated fatalities.

      The real number of defensive fatalities ???


      That's the FBI figure for 2010. Total justifiable homicide fatalities using guns for the whole country.


      Americans listened to NRA. Went out and bought 100,000,000 extra guns over the last 20 years. Spend $50-billion on this silliness.

      And most of that 232 fatalities was not generated at homes. Not by a long shot.

      10,000 to 12,000 is a likely number for all defensive gun uses, including shooting raccoons.

      $40-$50 on a large size "fire extinguisher" sized pepper spray canister is the right choice for home defense.

      Ask any security professional.

      "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

      by bontemps2012 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:00:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

        look at the FBI's crime victimization survey

        On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
        firearm to defend themselves or their property.
        The lowest estimate I've seen with any kind of credible basis was around 50,000.  Every estimate based on surveys of the general population falls around 1,000,000-2,500,000.

        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

        by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:21:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  apples to oranges (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The poster above gave the number of "defensive fatalities," meaning the number who died from being shot. You're giving the number of people who used a firearm for defense. This does not have any bearing on how many fatalities there were. In many of those cases, they no doubt missed or only wounded the person they were shooting at.

          •  FBI started out using police gun uses (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chantedor, Silvia Nightshade

            mixed in with civilian defenses.

            That 83,000 figure includes all police actions. There was no separation of police and civilian defenses prior to 1993.

            (Because the NCVS collects victimization data on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms. Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)

            Immediately afterward it was pointed out that those results conflicted with validated civilian justifiable homicide data and woundings. Police and civilian results cannot be combined usefully.

            Early FBI-supported surveys also concluded that "38%" of "crime victims" with guns attacked the offenders. Obviously, police officers attack the criminals they are facing.

            If they all hit their targets, that would produce 31,540 shootings. That's the kind of wild numbers you get from going with unfiltered, undifferentiated data.

            Imagine 38% of civilians attacking with their guns.

            Civilian defenses are a whole different ball game from police crime scene responses.

            Mean guesstimate for 83,000 gunfire defenses comes in at 2,800 fatalities, if that was civilians blasting away at armed robbers, rapists, burglars. Even that does not make allowances for the bodega experience.  

            Never, ever get in a gunfight in a bodega.

            Kill Zone.

            The real numbers go to 225-to-400 civilian-produced fatalities max (from civilian justifiable homicides back early 1990s during a crack epidemic.)

            Big result there: 341,000 gun thefts a year.

            That started to look like a major reason for armed burglaries. Go in there and steal guns.

            Word got out in 1987-1992 that you had expensive guns, good luck with that.

            All that's gone away today. Nobody dares steal guns. Guns are for safety !!

            O.K., fine.

            "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

            by bontemps2012 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:27:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  That is the exact FBI number: 232. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Silvia Nightshade

          Civilian justifiable homicides for 2010 using a gun.

          Not one body more.

          The problem with "survey" and "911 transcript" approaches is that there are individuals who are habitual 911 callers. These people generate fictional events -- reporting nonexistent gun-related encounters.

          Sorry, but validation against police reports tosses out their bull.

          Also, 232 fatalities maps to no more than 10,000 - 12,000 real crime-related gun defenses. And that is a generous calculation. The actual number should be even lower because bodega robberies generate one helluva lot of bodies. Shopkeeper guns come up, there's many bullets getting fired and the range is typically well inside 5 meters.

          Home defenses ??? Guns blazing to defend the homestead? A fantasy. Sorry to rain on your parade.

          "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

          by bontemps2012 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:33:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  so you think (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            no number is credible, except the one you pulled out of your ass?

            Home defenses ??? Guns blazing to defend the homestead? A fantasy. Sorry to rain on your parade.
            A study by professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed nearly 2,000 incarcerated felons and concluded that criminals are more worried about running into armed victims than law enforcement.

            According to the Wright-Rossi survey, 34% of the felons responding from state prisons said that they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured” by a victim armed with a firearm. The same percentage said they worried about being fired upon by armed victims, while 57% said they were more concerned with encountering an armed victim than encountering law enforcement officers.

            the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

            by happymisanthropy on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:51:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Buy yourself a gun. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Silvia Nightshade

              Put it under your pillow.

              Them felons do be quaking in their slippers for fear of you !!

              "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

              by bontemps2012 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:30:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  They have a fortune (3+ / 0-)

        to dump on all this---and they have been successful in linking guns to freedom---patriotism---the constitution---strength and power.

        It's sickening.

        "Hey----Hey---NRA---How many kids have you killed today?"

        by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:42:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The lying is amazing. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Look up a few comments to the guy who got sold on there being 83,000 gun uses a year.


          Well, yeah. Except that figure includes all police officer gun uses.

          The poor guy thinks that's civilian uses. Applicable to his needs, defending his home from a barbarian hoard of violent criminals.

          He's one of millions of Americans targeted for this crap.

          "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

          by bontemps2012 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:57:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  It really is difficult to pay serious attention (16+ / 0-)

    to people who talk about "gun responsibility" and "gun safety." Never mind that many more children apparently live in fear of their parents, from whom they run away by the hundreds of thousands each year, than fear the random madman who slaughters a bunch here and there.

    It is, however, typical to respond to a problem by restricting the potential victims or potential shooters, rather than the producers of the weaponry. For, while it is true that humans can employ all sorts of instruments or even their own hands to kill their fellow man, what we've got here is the production of tools whose main/only purpose is to kill and destroy. So, it really is impossible to take all the mewling seriously, unless and until the proposed solution is to ban the manufacture, distribution and importation of weapons of human destruction.
    As North Korea has proved, it is difficult to enforce a ban on weapons production, but the number of people having to be monitored is much less than otherwise.
    Also, since the manufacture of weapons of human destruction is rarely an individual enterprise, restricting the weapons industry would be a good example of how private corporations (artificial bodies) are different from natural individual persons and definitely not entitled to the same rights. The subordination of the artificial to the natural would also be a good principle to establish.

    This should, by the way, appeal to religious persons since the children of God are doubtless more precious than any weapon/tool they might manufacture.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:10:38 AM PST

    •  Those producers write the laws (6+ / 0-)

      I agree that it makes more sense to regulate those few who make, distribute, and sell guns, than to try and regulate the millions who buy guns.  Moreover, the regulation of the gun industry can not be argued to infringe on any individual right to bear arms.  

      This is the most straight-forward way to reduce gun availability (and BTW, I suggest you write this idea up as a spearate diary - it needs wider exposure).

      But sadly, the gun industry essentially writes the laws in America.  The gun industry uses their blood profits to sponsor candidates for public office who are willing to cast the votes the gun industry wants casted, and writes suggested legislation the bought legislators can turn into laws.

      Sadly, the gun carnage will continue at high levels until we the people change the system that allows private money to buy public office and laws.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:15:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We the people need to be more involved in (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OregonWetDog, lyvwyr101

        selecting candidates for public office. If we let the chamber of commerce groom and promote political candidates, then what we'll get is commercial men/women, whose commercial accumen is probably rather slim. It's the people who won't be missed at the office or on the shop floor who get dispatched to sit on committees and recite canned speeches.

        The 2008 Democratic presidential election was anomalous because we had a slate of good candidates. That's a shame. Every public office should have multiple applicants to choose from. Otherwise, if voters don't have a choice, how are they supposed to be enthused.

        The OBLIGATIONS of citizenship are multiple:

        to vote
        to hold office
        to draft laws
        to serve on juries
        to provide support
        to enforce the laws

        Of course, authoritarians have an interest to restrict the electorate as much as possible. But, there are enough of us that we can take turns. We should not let individual corruption denigrate the whole process of governing.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:40:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Inherent corruption (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OregonWetDog, Smoh, lyvwyr101, snoopydawg

          I agree with you that we the people need to get off the couch and involved more.  And that we the people have civic responsibilities, which we often ignore ("hey, I can't do that now, I've got to go to the gun store - they're going to take away our guns!!")  

          However, in many respects, voters' hands are tied.  As long as elections are determined by who has the most money (and since 2000, 90% of elections for public office are won by the wealthier campaign), and the money to run a campaign comes from a private source, our law-makers are dependent on wealthy interests to put thme and keep them in office.  Our law-makers are now required to engage in the inherently corrupting process of soliciting and receiving private financial gifts to be law-makers.

          So of course, the laws these law-makers write favor their wealthy patrons (like the gun industry), most often at the expense of 99% of voters.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:28:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  All money is public, unless one considers (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            green stamps and newspaper coupons to be as good.

            What I would say is that our lawmakers prefer to focus on telling the populace what to do, rather than focusing on the allocation of our natural and man-made resources for the benefit of all.
            We have elected a bunch of scofflaws who like to make people do things (that's why they're "makers") and consider the role of the electorate to be taking orders (that's why they're the "takers").

            The proper order has been reversed. Public servants perceive themselves as rulers, rather than stewards. As a consequence, they are insubordinate. Insubordinate servants need to be fired. That we have not fired enough of them is our mistake.

            We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

            by hannah on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:20:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Tax them (6+ / 0-)

        When LaPierre appears in public to say the solution is to provide armed guards in schools, someone needs to lay out the costs involved in carrying that out (almost 100,000 public schools in 2009) all over the country. Then ask him if he and the gun manufacturers support paying for that proposal out of THEIR MONEY, not the general public's money through increased property and income taxes. Private schools can determine whether they want to pay for it on their own. I'd be interested to see where that conversation leads.

        We will see just how much conviction he and the gun manufacturers have to "protecting our kids" vs. keeping money in their own pockets. They produce the weapons involved and have thwarted any liability routes back to themselves after school shootings occur. Social responsibility anyone?

        There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tzu

        by OHeyeO on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:05:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There have been (0+ / 0-)

        quite a few marches for gun-control and yet so few of them have been covered here...................

        "Hey----Hey---NRA---How many kids have you killed today?"

        by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:44:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  semi automatics not actually weapons????? (18+ / 0-)

    hey Mr FInk, in my universe they are so....

    a piece of kit that works to fire bullets out, that is a weapon - even if it is arguably not used as one when the bullets are only aimed at and hit a barn door.  Whilst I would see shooting at barn doors as (wierd, but) recreational - it is not a form of recreation that I would want to see encouraged.  I suspect One Million Mums - and a few sane Dads too - would agree with me.

    Try soccer instead.

  •  I for one (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    am not giving the "One Million Constipated Harpies bent on Creating the United States of Stepford" any fucking press.

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:23:06 AM PST

  •  "Scholastic" Speed Challenge (12+ / 0-)

    I'm sure there isn't any desire on the part of the partners of this event to be associated with this Scholastic the source of book fairs in schools all across America. Maybe it's just a coincidence but I doubt it.

    And yeah I'm sure the kids are having a ball learning to shoot and the competitions afterwards. But what are we training/preparing them for? Knowing kids as I do, they could have just as much fun learning how to build a better world through hands on learning about nature or landscaping or building shelters, the list is endless.

  •  Not One Single Mention.. (6+ / 0-)
    Unless I’m missing something (and I hope I have), there wasn’t a single mention (please, tell me this isn’t so, and I’ll remove this section of this post) in this community regarding THIS national story...
    The lack of response is another example of not what we know in our "progressive" heart of hearts, but unfortunately what we know in our politically realistic heart of hearts.

    In other words, one day of protest by a million moms demanding better/more gun regulation won't nearly be enough to move congress on this issue.

    Because the unfortunate reality here, and this is the main reason the million moms are ignored, is the fact there are pro-gun democrats in both the senate and house. they are not going to get on board with new serious/meaningful gun regulations-- because that's how they got their jobs in the first place-- by being pro gun.

    Thus it's simply easier to ignore the million moms, then admit this is another example of no difference between the "two" political parties.

    "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:29:38 AM PST

    •  Both my senators (CO) are temporizing. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Superpole, lyvwyr101

      I think they hope the assault gun ban will fail without them having to take a stand.

      •  Right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Inertia is the m.o. of congress now.

        as I've been pointing out, it took congress well over a year to finally pass a long term (two year) transportation bill in 2012.

        Duhhhh, roads and bridges. if congress can't get it together regarding fundamental infrastructure you and I use every day, I'm skeptical they're going to be serious about new meaningful gun regulation.

        "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

        by Superpole on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:39:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you know of one politician that is hoping (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        for a full on "assault gun ban" fight?

        Udall has been a huge force for Pittman Robertson funds for shooting ranges, wrote the bill.

        I hand shook Bennet when he came to Hunting and Fishing day up in Longmont. Yup, my 7 year old boy shot a 22 there. Mike said all this nice stuff about hunting traditions.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:51:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well then, the mission becomes building a big (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bisbonian, lyvwyr101

      enough coalition to threaten their jobs if not eliminate them altogether.

      And that would be by getting more "gun control" voters to the booth than "pro gun" people.

      Surely in any given district there might be the potential?

      Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

      by Pescadero Bill on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:08:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've Been Posting Here for Years (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bisbonian, lyvwyr101

        from the beginning, I stated blue dog democrats in congress are a big problem. The thought and the response then typically was "any democrat is better n' a republican".

        I don't read that as much lately- apparently people are finally getting it.

        I've also been stating 80-90% of congresspeople need to be booted from office, and yes, this includes numerous democrats.

        I've also been predicting things were going to get worse in our nation unless these changes were made soon. Unfortunately I was correct on that one, too.

        "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

        by Superpole on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:28:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's your objective? (3+ / 0-)

    Gun safety or the elimination of youth shooting sports?

    •  Gun safety, which includes tighter reg's... (12+ / 0-)

      ...limiting the equipment used in youth shooting sports, and enforcement of age limitations that would limit the sport to children at least 12 and older. Rolling out shooting sports programs with virtually unlimited equipment to youth, no matter what their age, is very problematic, IMHO.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:44:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you arrive at that judgement? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, PavePusher

        Where are the statistics expounding the dangers of under-12 exposure to shooting sports?  What's so nefarious about an Army staff sergeant carefully and safely instructing junior shooters on the operation of the M4 rifle?

        Where are your facts?  Or is it problematic because you simply don't like youth competition shooting, despite the fact it's been a tradition since before your grandfather was born?

        •  Don't you think your time would be better spent (12+ / 0-)

          (if you do indeed want facts to be in the forefront of this discussion) with other gun advocates, out on the streets or on blogs, where people are perpetuating the myth that regulating certain guns and magazines that are not necessary for hunting or self protection or "sport shooting" will ultimately end in them having ALL of their guns taken away?

          Because we aren't going to take your toys away. We just want you to be responsible and limit yourselves a little bit in the interests of less dead people. I don't think that's too much to ask.

          •  Tipped. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, PavePusher

            Because it is important to be responsible, and it is important to get a hold of the carnage.  And I'm well aware of the danger posed by poor understanding of firearms and legitimate shooters.

            I suggest to you that we can do so without implementing a series of arbitrary restrictions, or depriving young people the opportunity to gain a healthy respect for firearms.  I want fewer Adam Lanzas and more Kaci Cochrans.  What's wrong with that?

            •  I repeat (4+ / 0-)

              No one is going to take all the guns away, or prevent anyone from teaching their children on how to shoot a handgun or rifle responsibly.
              Having organizations that are hellbent on allowing any and every gun/magazine capacity/open carry available to the masses as sponsors/providers of childrens' shooting skills is wrong, not necessary, and ripe for criticism imo. It's a set up used by lots of different causes to accomplish the same goal of recruiting future advocates by "hook".

              •  Never said you were taking away *all* the guns. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

                That would be impractical and you need not repeat yourself on an issue not raised.

                I see your problem is with the particular organizations and firearms involved.  I acknowledge that and accept it, but I also point out I have different interests.  I want to encourage the next generation to safely and responsible exercise their Second Amendment rights, and providing  outlets like shooting competitions is one way to achieve that end.  We'll have to agree to disagree, since we're at the point where our difference boils down to this than personal taste.

                •  sorry (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Smoh, lyvwyr101, FogCityJohn

                  my repetition was meant to say that your time fact checking would be better spent with those that expouse that myth than questioning people here, who by and large  imo are a pretty well informed and well intentioned bunch.

                  •  The ones who believe that are few. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

                    And largely irrelevant.  And more importantly, it doesn't matter since they still obviously have their guns and aren't going to do anything until somebody actually tries to take them away.

                    On the other hand, I do feel obligated correct mistakes your side makes, especially since they do bear directly on matters near and dear to my heart.  After all, we are on opposite sides of this issue.

                    •  But their voices are louder and nuttier than (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher, Smoh, lyvwyr101

                      ...the voices of respectful, common-sense gun owners.
                      You guys have to speak up too, lest people classify ALL gun owners as being in league with the nuttiest fringe among you.

                      Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

                      by Icicle68 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:50:03 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am speaking up. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

                        I resent that I have to, because thinking people should know better than to paint with a broad brush.  I know others who won't precisely for that reason; there's a lot of mistrust, the demagoguery is hardly one sided, and when you get down to it we really are of opposing views on this.

                        •  I understand what you're saying, (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PavePusher, Smoh, lyvwyr101

                          ...but thinking that way won't solve the problem. This is democracy, and those who choose not to be involved in it will not get favorable results by assuming that those who control the levers of power will remember that their group exists.
                          I think it would be quite constructive if responsible gun owners would take a stand for the ground that they hold, and differentiate themselves from the crazies. Otherwise, as I said, the loudest, craziest noises will be drowning out everything else.

                          Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

                          by Icicle68 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:29:30 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, it is a democracy. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, PavePusher

                            And it can easily go the other way.  And gun owners are considerably more engaged on these issues than others, which is why we've been winning for the past decade.  I'm not here to defend Wayne LaPierre or the NRA to people who are hardwired to hate them, and for my part I'm not impressed the fecklessness of their accuracy, or by the overpriced buffoonery from GOA.  SAF does good work in the courts, but that's about it.

                            That said, I'm also not here to grant quarter to the gun control lobby or budge an inch on the 2A.  Still, this debate raises legitimate issues.  We can't simply say "well, it's not our problem" for the simple reason that it surrenders the stage to people who know a hell of a lot more about despising gun owners than protecting the public from gun violence..  So we have to be proactive, and that's the sort of activism I hope to see blossom on this site.  If we actually achieve something, we'll have the additional benefit of splitting yet another currently natural consistuency for the GOP.

                          •  Hello new user (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bobswern, Burned

                            Since you've only been here a few days, please allow me to offer some gentle advice about DailyKos etiquette.  It is generally not considered good form to attack those with whom you disagree by characterizing them as somehow emotionally disturbed or incapable of rational thought.  Thus, statements such as this are to be avoided:

                            I'm not here to defend Wayne LaPierre or the NRA to people who are hardwired to hate them[.]
                            Most of the people here on DK are not "hardwired to hate" anyone.  We disagree with the NRA's positions on policy grounds, which is why we find LaPierre and his ilk unpersuasive.  Your attempt to cast valid policy disagreements as the result of some kind of unreasoning, emotional response is inappropriate.

                            For similar reasons, the following statement is out of bounds:

                            We can't simply say "well, it's not our problem" for the simple reason that it surrenders the stage to people who know a hell of a lot more about despising gun owners than protecting the public from gun violence..

                            Again, you attempt to frame a policy disagreement as something other than that.  Instead, you claim people who favor gun control simply "despis[e] gun owners."  In addition, you also claim those who favor gun control don't know much about protecting the public from gun violence.  Since you've complained elsewhere about people painting with too broade a brush, you should be able to understand why your comment is uncalled for.

                            I hope you'll take this advice to heart.  Charging that those who disagree with you do so only because they suffer from some kind of emotional disturbance does you no credit personally.  Nor is that kind of argument ad hominem considered persuasive in these parts.  Indeed, it tends to suggest that your susbtantive arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own, so you have to resort to name-calling.  And you wouldn't want to make that kind of first impression, would you?

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:59:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Adam Lanza's (Newtown Shooter's) Mother (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bontemps2012, Debby, lyvwyr101

                decided that teaching her troubled anti-social son to shoot and handle firearms was a good idea.

                I'm surprised that bobswern didn't mention that factoid in his diary - did the New York Times?

                I don't subscribe so I can't see the article.

                •  the link takes you there (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bontemps2012, lyvwyr101

                  or it did it for me whereas going to the times itself blocked me.

                  I don't think that we can deny all people the right to teach their kids how to handle and shoot "regular" hand guns and rifles safely because Adam Lanza's mother either had no idea her son would end up in the state of mind he did or used extremely bad judgement. There might be some things that could be done through regulation to prevent that sort of tragic mistake. I strongly believe that some of the organizations recruiting kids to advocate for further out of control gun rights and unregulated "freedoms" are NOT the ones to be teaching them.

                  •  The proposition above suggests (5+ / 0-)

                    that these gun advocates are interested in teaching all children in schools about guns.  I think that Adam Lanza is a perfect argument against that idea.  People wanting to teach their kids as a private, personal family decision is a different question.  However, I do believe that there should be limitations on what kinds of firearms kids would be allowed to have and supervisory regulations.  Let's face it, the frontal lobe (where empathy and a sense of mortality are housed in the brain) is not fully formed until people are in their early 20's.  There are reasons that our society has opted to define adulthood at 18 having to do with both protecting kids and protecting the society.

                    Giving a 15 year old an AK-whatever to run wild with is madness.  One need only to look at the history of the civil war in Cambodia where they enlisted teen-agers to fight their war expressly because they were at an age where their conscience and sense of mortality were at a low point in their development.

        •  pick a useful cutoff age (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          124NewYork, anana, lyvwyr101

          I would suggest that at least some of the traditions from the past should be updated to account for our better knowledge of behavior and development. It would seem that a good cutoff age for training children to use guns would be the age at which children finally develop an effective understanding of consequences and have the ability to control impulses. Simply put, they know right from wrong and can follow the rules.
          Any younger than that critical age, and the only training they should receive is avoidance. Don't pick it up, don't point it at people, do tell an adult.

          Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

          by IndyGlenn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:22:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I started at 8. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

            But I think picking a cutoff age is probably counterproductive.  Instead, I'd prefer parents, educators and officials make determinations on a case by case basis.  A good rule of thumb is when a child is sufficiently mature and competent to participate in instructed competition.  Some children may be fit as young as I was, maybe younger.  Others may never be fit (a group we should pay very close attention to).  The overwhelming majority, however, will probably fall in the age range when they begin to get involved in team and individual sports.

            If not, avoidance is very important.  And by avoidance, I mean avoiding even depictions of firearms as anything other than a dangerous tool that should only be handled by someone with judgement and care.  This is one reason why I encourage shooting sports as soon as practicable; we have tens of millions of children whose sole exposure to firearms comes from television and video games.  I'd be less worried about how they'd behave around a real firearm if they'd been taught from an early age to respect them, and that's extremely hard to do without cultivating a degree of proficiency and commitment.

          •  BTW. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock, PavePusher

            Organized shooting sports would provide a great nexus for parents, teachers, coaches and mental health professionals to intersect.  

          •  5 yrs old? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:59:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pro gun control (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock, PavePusher

        everyone is.  all those rabid gun nuts would not allow a non-white person to buy a tank. my family shoots for fun at the target range. my kids started shooting at about 6 y.o..  anyone who thinks my kids shouldn't be able to shoot a little single shot .22 rifle is also a gun nut.   i think it is a better use of time than video games.

      •  ha ha, my kid starts hunter safety tomorrow (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        evening. He is 9, I'll post a diary.


        has to take the course to shoot animals.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:54:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Shooting isn't a sport. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Unless it is done off the bare back of a horse or something while going faster than a canter. I mean really. It's generally a stationary exploit. I know it's in the Olympics, but it is not a sport. Archery is a sport. Throwing a javelin or a discus is sport.

      Hunting isn't really a sport either. Unless we're going back 400 years ago with Irish wolfhounds and lackeys to drag our kills back to the castle. It's an interesting walk or ride with some dead animals mixed in.

      Deer hunting has to be the most boring thing on the planet.  Guys in camo sitting up in stands getting cramps and trying not to pass gas for hours on end. Or duck or goose hunting which entails sitting for hours in low level blinds waiting for stealthy birds. Not sports.

    •  Shooting sports (4+ / 0-)

      Those people who want to engage in shooting sports do not need an explosive device that sends deadly projectiles over distance.

      If kids want to enjoy "shooting sports" they can go to just about any arcade anywhere and target practice to their hearts content.  The only danger involved is to the kids' carpal tunnel sheath, their school work, and the supply of quarters.

      "Saving shooting sports" is simply another talking point used by the gun industry to increase their profits by getting their unpaid spokespersons (i.e. gun enthusiasts) to tell Americans to go out and buy more stuff from the gun industry.  

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:30:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You mean like this? (4+ / 0-)

        Great idea, Hugh.  Forget about having qualified instructors teaching discipline, ethics, and commitment and let's just leave the video game industry to teach our kids about shooting.

        •  Instead of, not along with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Yes, combining easy access to gun along with the ethos of video games is a recipe for more gun deaths.

          As I said before, you don't need a gun if your interest is target shooting.  If your interest is target shooting, you can accomplish that without deadly projectiles flying through the air.

          So the needs of target shooters IS NOT an argument for free access to guns.

          "Saving shooting sports" is simply another talking point used by the gun industry to increase their profits by getting their unpaid spokespersons (i.e. gun enthusiasts) to tell Americans to go out and buy more stuff from the gun industry

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:33:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Since no one is proposing a total ban on guns (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, PavePusher

            you're already frustrated on the point of easy access.  So the question is whether we adopt the recalcitrant model of abstinence-pushers on the right and try and shield our children from the corrupting knowledge of a rifle or pistol team coach, or we partner with a force for teaching proper respect and care for firearms.

            I'm for more Americans owning firearms, so there's not much use in us debating that point.  It's a matter of taste, and I doubt either one of us is interested in entertaining the personal preference of the other.

      •  That was a very stupid idea. (0+ / 0-)

        I award you no points.

      •  Good luck on getting the International Olympic (0+ / 0-)

        Committee to eliminate seventeen events.  

        There are also a couple of new events for the Junior Olympics in 2014.

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:06:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are many activities that (0+ / 0-)

        teach the same lessons as shooting  skills--you're right.

         It doesn't have to be about guns.

        "Hey----Hey---NRA---How many kids have you killed today?"

        by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:13:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Joined DKos just a couple of days ago, seemingly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, lyvwyr101, bobswern

      speifically to advocate for limiting regulations on firearms owners.

      What's your objective? Because if you're single issue, you're definitely in the wrong neighborhood.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:16:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck (3+ / 0-)

    M. Scott Peck is the author of the best seller "The Road Less Traveled." The famous first sentence of that book is "Life is difficult."

    Less well known is his book

    People of the Lie
    The Hope for Healing Human Evil

    published in 1983.

    Evil in this book is basically lying. One of the examples is a family with a son who commits suicide with a shot gun and the gun was given the following year as a Christmas present to a younger son who used the same gun to kill himself.

    How much of the right wing in particular, and the whole political system, based on lies?

    A side note a comment above violated holy writ. They said that on far too many issues, both parties are on the same side.

  •  What is wrong with youth shooting sports? (4+ / 0-)

    Teaching kids to safely and responsibly handle firearms can only help, from a safety standpoint. Make weapons a commonality with a burden of responsibility attached, and you remove the alluring taboo that leads to so many children seeking them out and accidentally harming themselves.

    •  Personally, I don't think it is appropriate (4+ / 0-)

      for everybody - which is what these nuts are proposing - it would have been really great had Adam Lanza's Mother not opted to teach her son how to shoot, for instance.

      •  True, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock, PavePusher

        But imagine all the hundreds of children's deaths that may have been prevented had those children known:

        1. That guns aren't toys
        2. Not to point guns at anything they didn't want to shoot

        These are the two tennants first imparted on anyone learning to handle fire arms, at any age.

        To your point about this not being for everyone, I agree. But everyone in a home with a firearm needs to teach their children not to play with it- in a way that doesn't simply shroud it in the allure of taboo.

        •  I have never handled a firearm beyond (4+ / 0-)

          a water pistol.  I have always known since I was very young that guns are not toys which is exactly why my parents made the firm decision not to allow me to have either a toy gun or a real gun when I was a kid.  My father went to military school, was in the Reserves and is completely versed in all things guns.  We never had a gun in our house.  My father who was for most of his life a wiry man of only 5'10" took down a man who had broken into our house who was 6'4"  and probably outweighed him by 100lbs by using his wrestling training and bending the man's thumbs back - forcing the man out the front door.  You don't need a gun to protect yourself.  I didn't need to learn how to handle guns.  And the single worst experience of my life when I was violently attacked by a group of people thankfully did not involve a gun because had there been one, I am sure I would have been dead or at least wounded by gun fire.  In that case, it was me and then help from a dog that got me out with my life - someone was trying to cut my throat.  Had I had a gun - I would have lost possession of it very shortly into the attack.

          I would strongly oppose a universal mandate for every kid in America to learn about guns as proposed above.  It is a bullshit idea for a multitude of reasons Adam Lanza being one of them.

          •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

            And what's wrong with teaching kids to play the piano--instead?

            And yes--I'm being humorous--here---but anything that teaches---perseverence---the value of practice and excellent hand to eye coordination---would teach the same skills---wouldn't it?  

            Does it have to be guns?

            There are so many things our young people could be taught---why guns and shooting skills?

            If a public place is the scene of a sudden piano recital  I 'm sure everyone will survive.

            "Hey----Hey---NRA---How many kids have you killed today?"

            by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:28:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  In the perfect black and white world maybe. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          When I was a kid, my best friend's father was a hunter. Taught his kid how to shoot and respect firearms at an early age. But being a kid, that is, a boy of 12 or so, he couldn't help but figure out how the open his father's gun safe (by watching his father do it) and then show his friends all the neat guns. I can remember the situation as being less than safe. "It's not loaded" was then and is a common, and all too often, fatal assumption made by both the young and the old.

          Nothing happened that day, but...

          As an adult gun owner with teenaged children running around, you have absolutely no idea what they're doing when you're not there.

          Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

          by Pescadero Bill on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:32:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But arms manufacturers are selling them as toys (5+ / 0-)

          I am all for firearms education that teaches young people to show appropriate respect for firearms.  The problem, as revealed by the NYT article, is that the arms industry and its front groups are, under the guise of "firearms education" promoting a culture in which young people are being encouraged to view guns as toys.  I would love to see traditional gun owners take on the "guns as toys" culture being promoted by the arms industry.

          •  Hell, I'd love to see it even on DKos, but it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lyvwyr101, Joel in Duluth

            ain't ever going to happen that way with folks of a certain mindset.

            My family in the fifties were hunters top to bottom, and we still had a rule that no one even touched a gun under the age of 12. After that, proper gun safety training, etc. And then, even with this sort of background and commitment, one of the adults accidently fired a high powered rifle in the middle of our hunting camp.

            After that, all of the rules got alot stricter.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:33:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Because some things are just too dangerous. (0+ / 0-)

      We don't permit the sale of alchohol to minors, because we acknowledge that most minors lack the maturity to handle drinking.  (Something which is also true of many adults.)

      Guns are extremely, extremely dangerous, and the consequences of a mistake or a moment of inattention can quite literally be fatal.  Putting deadly weapons into the hands of children just isn't a good idea.  We've seen how many tragedies occur because of the failure of adults to handle guns properly.  Adding to those numbers by having kids play with devices that are designed to kill human beings simply doesn't make sense.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:27:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Making weapons a forbidden object of power (0+ / 0-)

        is not the solution.

        If weapons are in the house, children need to be educated. Very early. They need to know how to handle a weapon responsibly and how NOT to handle a weapon.

        Allowing children supervised access to a firearm, and imparting the burden of responsibility that comes with that access, will help mitigate the desire to seek out and play with the weapons when adults aren't around.

  •  Need An Old Fashioned Political Deal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Give companies like Bushmaster big military contracts so they can get out of the consumer market.

  •  "An AR is not a weapon ..until it kills somebody" (3+ / 0-)

    Really, are these rabid gun nuts so insane as to really believe the shit they spout? Well, hell, if its not  a WEAPON, then it's ok to give one unconditionally to anybody who hasn't killed anybody yet, right? Convicted felons, mentally unstable people, 5 year olds,  those ragged people who stand in the middle of the park screaming at nobody, give 'em ARs -- then after the murdering is over the gun nuts can blame society, not the guns.
    You can rebuke me but really, but I care not one whit if gun violence overtakes the families of gun nuts this inhumane and uncaring. Otherwise there is no just punishment in this world.

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

    by fourthcornerman on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:56:57 AM PST

  •  The NYT gave it strong promotion before and after. (3+ / 0-)

    Gun-Control Advocate Looking for a Million Good Moms -

    The group, working with newly formed chapters from Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, plans to gather at 9:15 a.m. on Monday at Cadman Plaza Park in Brooklyn, march across the Brooklyn Bridge at 9:35 a.m. and hold a rally in City Hall Park at 10:30 a.m. Ms. Watts will speak, as will Jackie Rowe-Adams, a founder of Harlem Mothers SAVE, which assists parents whose children have been killed by gun violence.

     One Million Moms for Gun Control Stages Brooklyn Bridge March -

    Mr. Allen mounted the bridge for the march, along with a group of about 200 people, by some estimates, drawn together by a social media campaign begun by Shannon Watts, a mother from Zionsville, Ind., who founded One Million Moms for Gun Control after shootings at a Connecticut school.
  •  Progressivism + Populism = Good Policy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We can't always rely on the kindness, wisdom and courage of ruling elites to do what's right without broad popular support. Sometimes they do that, e.g. Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln. More often than not, though, they don't, e.g. Hoover, Nixon, Bush II. Only when pushed by, or even better replaced by, populist progressives, do they usually do what's right, e.g. TR, FDR, LBJ.

    We're not going to get anything we don't effectively demand.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:22:40 AM PST

  •  Savage, capitalistic (4+ / 0-)

    This applies to almost everything in our present day. We as a society have trouble believing that people aren't good hearted and kind, that they don't want the best for us.

    We are disposable labor and replaceable consumers to them, nothing more.

    I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

    by CFAmick on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:52:19 AM PST

  •  Some days Family Guy is just prescient (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nominalize, lyvwyr101

    Pardon the quality but the taped from TV videos tend to be the only ones that survive the copyright cops on Youtube.

  •  Give 12-year-olds condoms (6+ / 0-)

    If you can trust an 8-year-old with an ak-47, you can trust a 12-year-old with a condom, and you can trust a 14-year-old to make her own decision on getting an abortion without her parents permission.  

  •  Let's hear it for marketing and consumerism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nominalize, oldpotsmuggler, lyvwyr101

    The profit motive hard at work - that's what this is. It's no different than the strategies pursued by the alcohol industry and the tobacco industry: move the product by building the customer base. Block anything that might get in the way of that.

    We can't eliminate guns entirely, but we can try to negate the propaganda, misinformation, outright lies and rationalizations. These people are selling a firearms fantasy. We need to inject reality into the situation.

    • Safe use
    • Competent ownership
    • Responsible ownership
    • Controlled sales
    • Sensible limits

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:20:34 AM PST

  •  Final piece of "assault rifle" puzzle (20+ / 0-)

    Reading the NYT piece this morning solidified a conclusion I had been coming to regarding the "assault rifle" issue.  As the NRA loves to point out, semi-automatic assault rifles aren't much different, in terms of functionality, from semi-automatic hunting rifles.  Why then the obsession of the NRA and others with protecting weapons whose chief distinctive characteristic is their military styling?

    The answer, it seems, is marketing.  With gun-owners a declining proportion of the population, the arms industry needs to find ways to sell gun ownership to the next generation of consumers, and military styling is a way to appeal to adolescent male fantasies.

    In other words, "assault rifles" are the Joe Camel of the arms industry.

    The whole culture surrounding assault rifles also strikes me as being fundamentally at odds with traditional firearms culture.  In traditional gun culture, firearms are not treated like toys.

    •  I'm nominating this for Top Comments (6+ / 0-)

      Hits the nail on the head on what's wrong with "assault rifles".  

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

      by nominalize on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:51:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the whole point... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      In traditional gun culture, firearms are not treated like toys.
      ... at least as far as I'm concerned.

      My dad, who was stricter than the NRA instructor we had in high school in the early 1960s in NW MN, kept his guns in a locked gun closet, and us kids always knew guns were not toys.  As far back as I can remember as a kid, I always knew guns were not toys and that they could kill people.  Dad took out his deer hunting rifle once a year a day or two before deer hunting season, sighted it in (as a teen I shot it a couple of times, hit the bull's eye, but I never went hunting).  Dad would shoot his deer on day one or two, then clean his rifle again, put it back in the gun closet.  He only ever took it out once a year.  No one would ever have known we had a couple of guns in the house unless they were around for the annual cleanings before and after deer hunting season.  Dad never talked about guns any more than he talked about the tools in the garage.  His deer hunting rifle was used to put meat on the table (and in the big freezer in the basement with the winter meats - beef, pork, chickens we had raised - that had been butchered in the fall), so the gun was a utilitarian tool.

      Oh... we all knew where the key for the gun cabinet was, had access to the key and the cabinet, but never really thought about it.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Dad was not obsessive about guns like the modern crop of gun owners are who have them out on display in glassed-in cases.  [I always think they must have small penises but can't show them off in public without being called a pervert, so show off their guns instead; they also seem to have big gas-guzzling pickups.]

      I do not understand the modern gun culture at all.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:56:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  endangered american tradition (5+ / 0-)

    is correct. the percentage of gun owners is going down, and the two fastest growing demographic groups have significantly low rates of gun ownership, and the only one of the two polled has a signiicantly high rate of support for gun control. it's only a matter of time and needlessly lost lives.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:07:52 AM PST

  •  I feel so deprived, my Dad only taught me how (4+ / 0-)

    to enjoy the great outdoors (hiking, sailing) without weaponry.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:02:43 PM PST

  •  8 year olds.....with assault weapons..... (3+ / 0-)


    Meanwhile PEANUT BUTTER is banned from some schools for being too dangerous.....

    What a world......

  •  One Million Moms for Gun Control (3+ / 0-)

    over at alternet:

    "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

    by Superpole on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:18:23 PM PST

  •  Good thing I actually read the article (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, PavePusher

    I read the NYT a lot more these days as DK kind of descends into the abyss. I seldom read anything knowledgeable about hunting or guns in the NYT but it's a big improvement on DK.

    Have to say though that I took the whole thing with lots of salt after reading that hunter #s are going down when actually according to the census that are headed up by 9% over the past 5 years.

    I don't know if this NYT writer is headed for any kind of award when he uses old data like that. Can't tell if he did it on purpose or not.

    In actuality the AR is used in long range low budget competitions because the bare bones version is the same for everyone, and the 223 is fairly flat shooting. Better to have kids compete with that than expensive bolt actions costing thousands of dollars.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:44:06 PM PST

  •  Actually--- there is support (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, bobswern

    But support from the public will be key Feinstein stated.

    "Hey----Hey---NRA---How many kids have you killed today?"

    by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:39:23 PM PST

  •  Senator Feinstein would have a much easier time... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    getting her bill passed if she hadn't opposed real filibuster reform.

    "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

    by 2020adam on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:44:40 PM PST

  •  In the end this is about people, specifically chil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    dren.  Nobody wants to take the guns away, all that we want is a system that provides accountability so that we start reducing the senseless carnage in our Country.

    I guess 1 person getting shot every 5 minutes is not enough for our Congress-critters to grow a spine and do something (don't worry as the death rate is "only" one every 15-20 minutes); what will it take before we can get them to renounce the NRA that owns/controls them so that they pass sensible regulations that bring accountability for manufacturers/dealers/owners - a person getting shot every 2 minutes (or over 1/4 million people getting shot every year instead of the 100k plus we have now)?

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:07:02 PM PST

JekyllnHyde, Alma, Radiowalla, hester, LynChi, Pescadero Bill, frisco, scribe, TheMomCat, bronte17, 88kathy, cyberKosFan, BlackSheep1, annrose, CoolOnion, splashy, jdmorg, roseeriter, jaywillie, lizah, inclusiveheart, randallt, lyvwyr101, Emmy, davidkc, rapala, joanneleon, denise b, UncleCharlie, LarisaW, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, ratzo, eru, Sun Tzu, Burned, FindingMyVoice, bookwoman, peacestpete, mightymouse, fhcec, bently, xaxnar, Over the Edge, poco, DiogenesTheElder, Son of a Cat, blueoasis, triv33, jguzman17, gooderservice, jerseyjo, middleagedhousewife, CA Nana, blueoregon, NancyWH, bstotts, pgm 01, Habitat Vic, HCKAD, rivamer, madgranny, Don midwest, mconvente, elwior, jamess, tofumagoo, smartdemmg, mofembot, JamieG from Md, SolarMom, statsone, maggiejean, OHeyeO, arendt, lostinamerica, earicicle, shopkeeper, DefendOurConstitution, papahaha, Munchkn, Ibis Exilis, sfarkash, angel d, Nannyberry, LookingUp, ruscle, FogCityJohn, JoanMar, gulfgal98, pixxer, elginblt, addisnana, science nerd, Plox, spooks51, slowbutsure, FarWestGirl, Ricochet67, floridablue, randomfacts, stevie avebury, ratcityreprobate, joanbrooker, DRo, No one gets out alive, BlueDragon, nominalize, anodnhajo, leathersmith, Williston Barrett, ahumbleopinion, Joieau, a2nite, Horace Boothroyd III, Leo Flinnwood, oldpotsmuggler, PowWowPollock, Glen The Plumber, dotdash2u, Joel in Duluth, SwedishJewfish, argomd, LaraJones, Icicle68, Smoh, Demeter Rising, Gary of Austin, bontemps2012, OregonWetDog, pianogramma, citylights

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site