Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Gun Lobby Asks You to Please Lay Off the Mass Killings While It's Trying to Influence Legislation

By Martha Rosenberg, AlterNet. Posted March 26, 2009.


In a month filled with tragic shootings, lawmakers are not thinking of gun owners as an oppressed minority. But the NRA is hoping to change that.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Martha Rosenberg

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"The NRA is asking gunmen to refrain from mass shootings while key gun bills are before legislators," says a newscaster in a recent editorial cartoon.

Say that! On a month that began with the Alabama, Illinois church and Germany shootings and ended with the Oakland police killings -- a Miami mass killing, a Turlock, CA church shooting and the Mexico shootings not even making the public radar -- lawmakers are not thinking of gun owners as an oppressed minority.

In fact when police are killed with assault weapons it takes the wind out of the gun lobby's Good-Guys-Need-To-Be-Armed-Against-Bad-Guys argument, not to mention its AK-47s-Should-Be-Street-Legal-Because-We-Need-To Defend-Ourselves-and-Our-Families argument and its Enforce-Existing-Laws (Loopholes Though They Might Have) argument.

But even before the March Alabama, Illinois, Miami, Oakland and Turlock shootings Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president was on the defensive at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C. in February.

Mad at the Obama administration, the press, the United Nations and a complacent public, LaPierre couldn't decide whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was friend or foe -- first quoting her to prove President Obama is a gun grabber, then showing clips in which she was the gun grabber recommending trigger locks and licenses.

Ordaining that Mexico needs more guns not less and that lawmakers shouldn't legislate "on the fresh graves of tragedy," you'd never know the NRA realized its wet dream last year when the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amendment in District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Of course, for years the NRA's Just Folks position against effete elites has conflicted with its actual deep pocketed influence peddling with political campaigns and causes and turned off followers.

For years its hunter/rancher and rural constituents have recoiled at its paranoid secessionist/military weapon wing, which drives so much NRA policy. In fact Alabama's Michael McLendon -- who killed his mother, grandmother, uncle, two cousins and the wife and toddler daughter of a sheriff's deputy in March -- and Terry Sedlacek -- who shot and killed a pastor through the Bible he held at an Illinois church service -- were poster boys for the right to own an arsenal.

What is changing is that gun lobby laws that used to be slam dunks -- right to carry a concealed weapon in churches, on campuses and in state parks -- are no longer sailing through legislatures. Nor is the D.C. Voting Rights Act that would legalize assault weapons, eliminate the city's firearms registration system and ban all future gun restrictions airborne.

What is also different is newspapers like the Memphis Commercial Appeal are publishing searchable bases of state permit holders so people can see if their daycare worker or dentist is armed.

And even though concealed carry permits are "Good Guy Cards" that tell law enforcement they'll have no trouble with you, says Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Bryan Hendricks and even though the worst thing that can happen to you in life is that people find out you or your house is unarmed, the NRA is, well, scared.

Someone may break into your home and not hurt you or your family -- that's why you're armed after all -- but steal your firearms! In fact you better get more weapons to defend your weapons.

Even while the Arkansas state legislature is considering a bill to block similar release of permit holder public records, the Commercial Appeal found 70 of 154 permit holders it checked had criminal records including Bernard Avery -- arrested 25 times with a murder charge dismissed on mental competency -- and Reginald Miller -- a felon with 11 arrests. Oops.

Still, worse for the gun lobby than the PR problem of helping to arm felons through the lax gun laws it pushes, is the image of it being afraid of you and I.

Or as Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA executive director wrote to the Commercial Appeal "Your decision to publicize the personal information of Right-to-Carry permit holders in Tennessee is unjustifiable, disgraceful, and dangerous."

And worse than that is the image of the gun lobby asking the government to protect it from you and me. Whatever happened to the tough guys who don't need no %$#$% government interference?

And why are they so scared, anyway? Isn't that backwards? They're the ones carrying lethal weapons!

Why is it that people all across America get to work without the help of a gun -- taking trains, working night shifts -- but gun extremists are afraid to be in church, on college campuses and on state parks without being armed?

It makes you think of Larry Singleton who attacked and mutilated 15-year-old hitchhiker Mary Vincent near Sacramento in 1978 because he was "afraid of her."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: nra, guns, shootings

Martha Rosenberg is a columnist and cartoonist who frequently writes about the impact of the pharmaceutical, food and gun industries on public health. A former medical copywriter, her work has appeared in the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, as well as on the BBC and in the original National Lampoon.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Being prepared is not the same as being afraid.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist... on Mar 26, 2009 12:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would you call someone that owns a fire extinguisher, a first aid kit, or an alarm system afraid?

None of the gun owners I know spend their nights rocking back and forth in the fetal position while clutching their AR15.

Unless the thief has an acetylene torch and a few hours or can lift my 550lbs gun safe, no one will be stealing my firearms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Unarmed, Armed Citizen Posted by: NoPCZone
Tantrum every day
Posted by: Perry Logan on Mar 26, 2009 2:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, most gun enthusasts are white males who have a tantrum every day.

The biggest supporters of unfettered gun rights are America's neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Klansmen, racists, anti-Semites, militiamen, homophobes, religious loonies, cop-haters, psychopaths, sociopaths, career criminals, serial killers, gun lobbyists, losers, stalkers, degenerates, and domestic terrorists.

M. Logan's Magic Book

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tantrum every day Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: Tantrum every day Posted by: clthompson
» RE: Tantrum every day Posted by: Juven
» RE: who is this perry logan idiot? Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
» RE: Tantrum every day Posted by: tjcoop3
Xpat observer
Posted by: davy on Mar 26, 2009 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What scares me as one who reads the news on the computer, abet from afar, is that these actions are becoming so commonplace they hardly get a mention anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

80 Million people can't be wrong.
Posted by: HBoyer on Mar 26, 2009 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a Democrat but gun control is a sham. It is intended to take arms away from citizens.

80 million people own guns in America and you think they bought the guns to go hunting?

No they bought the guns for personaL protection and to keep our government from making America a FASCIST STATE.

If the Democrats attack the 2nd amendment, I will vote against them like I did before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» @ AMVET Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: @ AMVET Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: the 2nd Amendment Posted by: Xynyx
» Three things.... Posted by: J-
» RE: 80 Million people can't be wrong. Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
The NRA is nothing but a giant corporate scumbag and actually gives law abiding gun owners a bad rap
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 26, 2009 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have mixed feelings about gun control as it is. I don't usually believe in outright gun control as in banning guns but I do believe there needs to be reasonable limitations at some point. That said, the NRA is the same corporation that pushes for drilling everywhere, tax cuts for the wealthy/corporate elite, more "free" trade and yes everything is imported straight from China's sweatshop labor, etc ... There are better local gun clubs that are more reasonable on matters like these and they would call for making it more difficult for thieves to grab the worst of the guns unlike the NRA which is nothing but an out of control lobbyist and a severe waste of taxpayer money. Plus, their take on the 2nd Amendment is absolutely ludicrous. Most local gun club leaders and members I talked to told me that the NRA doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" and explained their money-obsessions that had to do with this. I would also add that the NRA is to small local gun clubs as Walmart is to small mom-and-pop stores so don't let the NRA fool you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

defenseless population= slaves and murder victims
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Mar 26, 2009 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the best Google image i have ever seen!!!


troops obeying orders..citizens obeying gun laws.

http://www.saveourguns.com/deathcamp.jpg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scalar weaponry for everyone
Posted by: sunnywater on Mar 26, 2009 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string.”
Scott Adams

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hogwash !
Posted by: gjdagis on Mar 26, 2009 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lawmakers are not thinking of gun owners as an oppressed minority.

Oppressed . . . . YES ! A minority ? I hardly think so !

What is also different is newspapers like the Memphis Commercial Appeal are publishing searchable bases of state permit holders so people can see if their daycare worker or dentist is armed.

How about a list of women who have had abortions since there are many people who wouldn't want to entrust the care of their children to a daycare provider who doesn't respect even a right to live !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gun control versus gun violence
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 26, 2009 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a criminal assault or homicide, an attempted or completed suicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill or injure in self-defense. (Kellermann, AL et al, 1998 journal of Trauma, 42:263-67)

In the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed, and more than 47 are injured, by a firearm every day. (CDC, NCHS, December 2006)

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann, et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann et al, New England journal of Medicine, 1992)

A 1990 law banning the sale of "Saturday Night Special" handguns in Maryland was associated with reduced use of these guns by criminals, and a 9% lower rate of firearm homicides in the state between 1990-1998 than would have been expected had there been no law.

Policies that deny handgun purchases to individuals with prior misdemeanor or felony convictions are associated with a decreased risk of subsequent convictions. Misdemeanants who had allowed to purchase handguns prior to the passage of a California state law prohibiting such purchases had a rate of criminal offending 29% higher than that among misdemeanants who were denied handgun purchases after the law took effect.

Every day in the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed and more than 47 are injured by a firearm.

In 2005, 595 California children and youth under age 21 were killed with firearms and 1,554 California children and youth under 21 were hospitalized with nonfatal firerarms injuries.

One-third of U.S. children live in homes with firearms. Almost half of homes with children and firearms keep a gun unlocked.

68% of the attackers in school shootings obtained the gun(s) from their own home or that of a relative. 61% of the attackers used handguns.

Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire a handgun.

In 2004, guns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand
37 in Sweden
56 in Australia
73 in England and Wales
184 in Canada

and 11,344 in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gun control versus gun violence Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» violence is as Ameircan as Apple Pie Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» "guns murdered" Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: gun control versus gun violence Posted by: bandofotters
Why does rock star Ted Nugent own automatic rifles?
Posted by: xvictor on Mar 26, 2009 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During an airing of an episode of the series "No Reservations Necessary" on the TravelChannel, restaurant owner and rock god Ted Nugent was seen showing off and gratuitously firing automatic weapons on his private rifle range.

While I'm not begrudging his "hobby" I am curious as to why, despite the automatic weapons ban, he owns automatic weapons. And he's certainly not secretive about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go again!
Posted by: Redviper on Mar 26, 2009 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Gun control" measures in the US were first levied against post-civil war blacks. As time has progressed these same statutes were made to encompass increasing numbers of Americans, starting with the poor and disenfranchised. Modern liberals need to be made to realize, again, exactly why the state is utterly giddy at the idea of having as many of us helpless as possible. And no, blaming me for the behavior of some loon does NOT destroy my perspective OR damage the logic of me wanting the means to protect my family and myself. You hoplophobes need to get outside of your heads and try living in the real-world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know...
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Mar 26, 2009 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am considered to be a grammar cop, but really, "still, worse for the gun lobby than the PR problem of helping to arm felons through the lax gun laws it pushes, is the image of it being afraid of you and I"?

Would you say, "being afraid of I"? "I" is always, always, always the SUBJECT of the sentence, and "me" is always, always always the OBJECT OF A SENTENCE, even if it is preceded by the word, "and."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I so dread articles on gun control...
Posted by: CatDad on Mar 26, 2009 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading them (and responding to posts from NRA people) is as much fun as slamming your fist against the wall at Hoover Dam
- NRA people will ALWAYS get the last word in
- The Right/GOP has successfully tricked many gun owners into a perpetual state of shrill hysteria that their rights to own guns are always just on the verge of being taken away...
- The Democratic Party has basically capitulated on the issue of gun control as they are petrified of "offending" gun owners in states like PA and MT...
- Like Roe v. Wade, the "gun control"issue is a freebie for the ruling elites to scam/trick middle and lowering income people into voting against there own economic interests.

Gun ownership rights (as well as the right to abortion) will never be abolished in this nation...but it makes for good politics to make it appear that the government is just on the verge of confiscating guns...as it diverts attention away from real issues like comprehensive health care for everyone and real living wages...

The NRA people need to play the role of victim...so let them whine and scream and foam at the mouth...but not on our boards/websites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» gun control Posted by: expatyank
» Your post doesn't make any sense Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Your post doesn't make any sense Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: I so dread articles on gun control... Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: I so dread articles on gun control... Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: The answer to gun violence = MORE guns... Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
We need our guns as a deterrent towards tyranny.
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Mar 26, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the left to be just as full of shit as the right. Both ignore reason and play the game setup to keep the masses distracted and ignorant.

Understand there is no liberal left or conservative right. There are people who have power and there are people who do not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 2nd Amendment - Repost
Posted by: Xynyx on Mar 26, 2009 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reposting this from above... I'm sorry if that is inappropriate. But I would actually like to see some real discussion on this matter. The first posting was a response to MeyraLevine.

However, the 2nd Amendment does not stand for the proposition that people have the right to own guns for the purpose of self-defense.

But, shouldn't it? Maybe that's something worth discussing.

The founding fathers did not envision women or blacks having rights or participating in governance, but we have expanded the meaning of their words to include such purposes.

Would you argue that peaceful resistance was or would have been a useful tactic for the Jews in Nazi Germany? It apparently worked for India... but I think that, primarily, highlights the civility of the British. How has it been working for the Tibetans?

What is wrong with the idea of people being armed specifically for the purpose of being able to protect themselves from autocratic actions of their own governments?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 2nd Amendment - Repost Posted by: MeyravLevine
» RE: The 2nd Amendment - Repost Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The 2nd Amendment - Repost Posted by: MeyravLevine
"Gun control"= Genocide
Posted by: throck on Mar 26, 2009 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In order to effectively ban firearms, millions of our citizens will have to be slaughtered. Those who propose confiscating guns are willing to kill people in order to take their property. That is a very good reason to be armed. Anything short of such a genocide will be far less effective than the current "war on drugs" because roughly half the population wants to keep their guns where only a small fraction of us use recreational drugs. Legalizing drugs will reduce violence far more than any proposed restrictions on firearms. Those who endorse "gun control" are actually proposing genocide on an unprecedented scale and Americans do not support mass slaughter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One reason Posted by: tjcoop3
More info...
Posted by: jennifergray04 on Mar 26, 2009 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that I'm doubting but do you have any info to back up the Turlock, CA church shooting you are referring to in the article? I live here and have not heard a thing. I called around and no one knows anything...our police department is clueless. Did we miss something?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is with the tough guy characterization?
Posted by: tfinn on Mar 26, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the constitution is amazing, I mean it shows a government that trusts its people to be armed and to speak freely and follow any religion, and that is amazing. What other country would do that? Isn't that freedom?

I am a bit disturbed that for all the distrust (and deserved, too) that this site has for the goverment, that it maintains that only government agents can be trusted with firearms. This seem to be schizophrenic thinking. If we are to govern ourselves and be trusted with the responsibities of free speech and worship and political participation, can't we be trusted with firearms?

Why are there no pro-firearms articles on this site? Is there a way for this to be reconciled, or is the alternet vision for america is for everyone to forbidden from anything which can be used effectively as a weapon?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-gun side wins the insult competition
Posted by: keyboardtek on Mar 26, 2009 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The winner for the most insulting comments is the pro-gun group! Hey people, if you want to convince any person who disagrees with you, on any subject, that you have a valid thoughtful argument, then drop the rudeness and insults. That one comment about hanging someone and shooting him was inexcusable. If the pro-gun group wants to be taken seriously as an intelligent group then they have to start presenting facts, data, and research to support their claims. The pro-gun control side has presented a nice list of compelling reasons for gun control. Note, the word is gun CONTROL, NOT GUN REMOVAL.
A person has to be a certain age to have the legal right to drive a car, which can be considered a deadly weapon in some people's hands.They are required to pass a test demonstrating responsible and safe use of that vehicle. Laws are in effect to take the license away from repeat drunk drivers. What is so bad about some basic regulations to keep guns from getting to the dangerous people? I can see that blasting away at a target with an automatic weapon could be fun. But when those devices are ending up in the hands of the criminal element, is a society supposed to look the other way and say that it is ok that people are getting killed, because it is someone's perceived right to have entertainment with that item? Dynamite would be fun to throw around too, but that is highly regulated. Anyone who believes that gun control advocates want to take away all their guns are seriously misinformed.

If I lived in some part of the USA which had a high crime rate, I would consider a gun, when my kid moves out. But then I am getting on in years and my judgment and reaction time is degrading. Using a gun safely could be difficult for a short tempered person on a bad day. So just as I hope to be intelligent enough to stop driving when I am too old and a hazard to others, I would hope that gun owners would realize when having a gun is more responsibility than they can maintain, before a family member is accidentally killed. Is an inflexible all or nothing attitude about the right for anyone to own any gun really in the best interest for any society? Especially in the US with the highest murder rate in the world?

When I read that George W. Bush was converting closed down military bases into internment compounds to hold Americans, and added in all the wiretapping, the control of the National Guard being removed from the states to the President, and his intolerance of anyone who disagreed with him, I was thinking maybe I ought to get a gun to be ready to join the resistance fighters in the New Amerika. But then, all of us liberals would be fighting all the super-patriot gun owners who supported the Republican fascist power elite. So we would lose, the Republicans would take total power, and everyone but a liberal could own a gun. Hows that for a twist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Honky vs. maxpayne Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: insult competition Posted by: Xynyx
Weasel
Posted by: YogiBear on Mar 26, 2009 8:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As usual, those against 2nd amendment rights revert to weasel words and hyperbole to make their case. Seriously, why is it there's never a reasoned argument from the control side?

the right to own an arsenal.

If the right to own weapons is inherent, how many shouldn't be an issue. If I obtain the right to drive my car on the highway, should I be limited to owning one car?

Someone may break into your home and not hurt you or your family ...but steal your firearms!

You admit there is a danger of break-ins from people who may hurt you or your family. What was your point?

Why is it that people all across America get to work without the help of a gun -- taking trains, working night shifts -- but gun extremists are afraid to be in church, on college campuses and on state parks without being armed?.

That's like saying to someone "Kids walk to school every day and don't get hit by cars, so why do you tell your son to look both ways when he crosses the street?"

It makes you think of Larry Singleton who attacked and mutilated 15-year-old hitchhiker Mary Vincent near Sacramento in 1978 because he was "afraid of her."

Huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gun Lobby?
Posted by: archivist on Mar 26, 2009 9:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe it is one of the only lobbies in any position of power that is funded by the people. Theere may be a few other that people can point out but the NRA for instance activly PROTECTS one-to-many of our actual rights we the people refer to as the constitution.

The people often call the Bill of Rights the constituition. You can scrap the fucking constitution for all I care but I will defend and protect the Bill of Rights with my life.

Distinguish and get a fucking clue you communist illuminati idiot dupe.

The "constituition" was created to protect the landed monied and banking aristocratics from us. The People demanded the Bill of Rights or there would have been no constituition.

This was even taught in our crappy schools, does no one remember or see the difference in the two?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A THOUGHTFUL AMERICAN
Posted by: foxxx on Mar 27, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NOW FOR A FEW FACTS= FEB.4/09 BY OBAMA= BRING IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIAN REFUGEES ONLY FOR H.A.M.A.S. GIVEN FREE HOUSES, FOOD AND $20.3 MILLION PASSED AND REGISTERED 2/4/09. 2ND LAW PENDING= REGISTERED AND FINGERPRINTING OWNERS OF GUNS, B.B. GUNS, 22 CALIBUR RIFLES, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS,ETC., AND AMMUNITION/JUNE/09.==UPDATE
VERY, VERY REAL AND IN PROGRESS 98% OF AMERICA http://video.google.com/videoplan?docid864522917532871834 IN ALMOST EVERY STATE IN AMERICA. NOW TO BUY FORECLOSED HOMES AND CD'S WITH A TRILLION DOLLARS MORE? NO= INSTEAD OF SPENDING MONEY FOR OBAMA'S PALESTINIANS, WHY NOT JUST SUBTRACT THE FORECLOSED HOMES FROM THE BAILED OUT DEBTS OF THESE 3 COMPANIES (AND IF THE BAILED OUT MONEY WAS NOT A LOAN, LET THEM KEEP THE HOUSES). THE CD'S= PRIVATE INVESTORS CAN GO AFTER THAT. NOW THE FORECLOSED HOMES CAN BE BOUGHT AT TODAYS INTEREST RATE WITH LOW PAYMENTS, NO DOWN PAYMENT TO BE PAID DIRECTLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY AMERICANS ONLY. WE THE PEOPLE DONT WANT TO SPEND ANYMORE MONEY FOR ANYMORE BAILOUTS. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A THOUGHTFUL AMERICAN Posted by: Xynyx
Well regulated Militias?
Posted by: kogwonton on Mar 29, 2009 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those militias more often than not required their members to bring their own guns.

Don't get me wrong. I think arms control and reduction is a good idea. If we agree with the very existence of government, defense, and criminal justice systems, we give implied consent to have our right to personal violence restricted in the interests of justice and social coherence. We are ridiculous if we argue that every person has the right to own a nuke. By the same token we are equally as ridiculous if we argue that gun rights were solely the responsibility of militias, or that the second amendment had anything remotely to do with sport hunting.

There is a middle ground here, and the fact is that I am loathe to disarm in the face of the sorts of violence done in our names, and often to our persons and property, by corporate controlled governments. If the interests of wealth supersede the will and needs of the people then violence is already being waged against us, and when we are not protected by the very institution we have empowered to do so we are left only to our own resources. As hopeless as it may seem I think every person has the right to self defense, and the defense of their families.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK...I'll take a gnaw this....
Posted by: barkinhound on Mar 30, 2009 3:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Firstly, let me describe my political meanderings. Oh, and beg forgiveness from the folks that watchdog our grammatical blunders.
I am a Jeffersonian Radical Left Leaning Semi Libertarian Progressive with a few small tendencies towards Anarchy and Socialism. What can I say? I contain multitudes.

I find absolutely no conflict with the aforementioned leanings and an ardent, passionate support of the 2nd Amendment (it ain't about hunting) as well as the Bill of Rights in it's entirety.

This is a very emotional issue for many and sadly devolves mostly into a name calling slug fest that serves little purpose. I grow awful weary of the right/left dem/repub Insulto Rama exhibited by many. It's a dead horse getting an Alabama Ass Whuppin and an illusioniary paradigm as far as I am concerned. Some civility and manners would not all together be unappreciated in any debate.

Shyte. I am a hillbilly windbag. Anyhow, The 2nd. If you follow the writings, correspondence and Constitutional debates of the Old White Doods it is very clear that the 2nd is about individual rights and has little to do with sportsmen or hunters. That is easily researched and I'll let ya'll do the work yourselves on that one.

It is really a pretty simple issue for me and boils down to the kind of society in which we wish to dwell. At the time, and certainly for me in this century, the Bill of Rights were not intended to be a list of rights that rulers granted us peasants. The Founding Fellers perceived these rights as Natural Law. Self defense and defense against tyranny being numbah two on the list. They were pretty dang serious about it. By their thinking we do not need a 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms. Were a tyrannical government attempt to restrict our ownership via outright confiscation or undue regulatory means we still retain the natural law right.

Freedom is pretty dangerous and messy and many do not seem have the heart for it. I see many anti liberty posts here as a matter of fact. For those folks terrified of an armed peasantry I would kindly suggest that you have infinitely more to fear from a militarized poleece, the evisceration of the Bill of Rights, corporations and the Government itself than you ever will from well armed law abiding rustics such as myself. Even those of us that own and like to shoot those skeery black rifles.

As this economic crash and burn continues I expect there will be more of these tragedies wherein someone snaps and goes off on a random rampage. Seems to me it is more a human problem than a gun problem. It is hard to say how to address it. Perhaps the roots of this perplexing reaction can be traced more in economic inequality hopelessness and class than anything else. Fix those. More Draconian gun law will do little to shield any of us and will basically affect only the responsible gun owner. There are already 20,000 or so laws pertaining to firearms on the books. Quite enough thank you very much.

I do recognize the effort and success the NRA has put into the survival of one segment of the Bill of Rights but I do have mucho problems with their overall political rant. There are other organizations available, Gun Owners of American, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms to name a couple. They are pretty out there to the right as well on other issues. At some point I may have to step over to the dark side and join them in order keep our government in check. I just wish they would keep their gobs shut about other issues.

I'm running on very little sleep and am about barked out for now. I know I am a peasant but I'll be go to Hell if I'll succumb to serfdom. I prefer to take my chances in a free armed society.

Best to you all regardless your point of view.

Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement