Gun Nuts Making Case for Gun Control

gun babyA sympathetic Hannity told NRA President Wayne LaPierre, “You’re about to be Mitt Romney-ed . . . They’re [the Obama administration] now running a political campaign against you and your organization.”  Said LaPierre, “The American public is going to stand and fight for their freedom and the NRA is going to stand and fight with ‘em.”

The term “gun rights,” in itself, is a misnomer.  Most of us believe in the 2nd Amendment; most of us believe that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right; most of us agree that citizens who qualify should be able to own and operate a gun.  But those of us who, like Supreme Court Justice Scalia, believe that there are limits to 2nd Amendment rights (as there are to the 1st Amendment) are becoming increasingly sickened by the mantra that somehow denying people the right to own assault weapons and high capacity clips is trampling on 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are some scary people out there promoting that argument.  Fact is, some people have wanted to violently revolt since President Obama was elected in 2008; they’ve latched on to the “gun rights” v. “gun regulation” debate as the excuse. Despite the fact that President Obama’s 23 executive orders in no way impede any responsible, law-abiding person’s right to own a weapon, the right-wing of this country, led by Sean Hannity and Wayne LaPierre and others, have manufactured a crisis to which the effect has been to gin up even more rabid aggression against the President.

Tactical Response “CEO”, James Yeager, offered this up to the fringe crazies:  ”I’m telling you that if that happens [banning assault weapons by Executive Order] it’s gonna spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot…I am not letting my country be ruled by a dictator, I’m not letting anybody take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I’m gonna start killing people.”

Oathkeeper 151,” a New Jersey cop [does New Jersey know one of its own is embarking on an anti-law-and-order movement?] and part of the gun lunatic group, the Oathkeepers, implored fellow law enforcement officers to ignore federal orders, saying in a video, “There might be a time in the near future, for instance, if this…Feinstein bill gets through, and what if she doesn’t has the votes, and now it gets passed up to the president, and he signs it by executive fiat? What are you gonna do? It’s a law now. What are you gonna do?”

Stewart Rhodes, the Oathkeeper founder, ginned up the potential for violence by contending ”that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own . . . [I will] refuse compliance with any and all laws that attempt to strip me and my children of those arms, the full capacity magazines needed to load and fire them, or the parts and ammunition needed to keep them firing…We will not disarm, we will not comply, and we will resist.”

Right-wing lawmakers and lobbyists and governors and the head of the RNC have all been hammering the idea that Democrats and the President and liberals everywhere want to  go house to house confiscating weapons and strip away all gun rights.

Just.  Shut. Up.

We don’t need to arm people in schools; it’s been proven to be eminently ineffective, as demonstrated by an ABC News experiment in 2009, “where they demonstrated that you could arm people, train them to use their weapon, put them in a school, warn them that there would be an attack on their school, and they would still massively fail to stop the armed assailant that they knew was going to arrive.”  Columbine had armed guards – look how that worked out.

Putting more guns on the street – even in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens – does not eliminate crime or reduce gun violence; in fact, study after study has shown the opposite.  Where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths.  Period.

Fred Rivara, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington:  “There is no data supporting his argument that the further arming of citizens will lessen the death toll in massacres like the one this week in Connecticut. There are in fact rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home INCREASES the risk of violent death in the home.”

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University: “The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults,” which they estimated to increase by about 1-9%.

Researchers at Harvard:  “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.”

Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research:  “It’s hard to make the case, as some have done, that right-to-carry laws will lead to an enormous increase in violence. That does not appear to be the case. But it also does not appear to be the case that there is any beneficial effect . . . So if you want to argue that the reason we have so many mass shootings, the reason that the United States has a homicide rate about seven times higher than other developed countries, is because we don’t allow enough concealed carry of firearms, the data just don’t bear that out. And the thought experiment that you do is almost laughable.”

Colin Goddard, an advocate with the Brady Campaign (who was shot at the Virginia Tech shooting):  “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

Anytime/anywhere/any type gun advocates point to John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime,” to bolster their arguments that arming everyone will serve to minimize gun deaths.  Except Lott’s methodology has been proven to be faulty, at best, and his motives have also been questioned: His salary was indirectly paid by the gun industry; he ignored important statistics in urban areas; he was unable to produce any records to support his surveys; he fraudulently created an internet “alter ego” to lend him support; and, following his “study,” the National Academy of Sciences denied the accuracy of Lott’s work, and found “no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime“.  Nobody should be shocked to learn that Lott is now a Fox News contributor.

Drug dealers bury their drugs under their pit bulls’ doghouses in the back yard; I’m sure, as we speak, gun nuts are doing the same with their assault weapons and high-capacity clips.

We don’t want to come for all of your guns.  But it seems that the people screaming loudest about their right to keep assault weapons loaded with 100-round clips are the exact people who shouldn’t have them.

The gun debate is turning out, potentially, to be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the gun crusaders:  The more the crazy assholes come slithering out to defend their right to own and operate lethal weapons, the more we want to ban them.  With good reason.

julie driscollEven young people – like my son, Chicago rapper Mpulse, who’s spent a fair amount of time in not so great Chicago neighborhoods - said, “Unless the Taliban is coming to your house, what’s the reason for anyone to own an assault weapon?  Why does a middle-class woman, like Adam Lanza’s mother, need a collection of guns like that?”

Out of the mouths of babes.

Julie Driwscoll
Smoking Hot Politics

Monday, 21 January 2013

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. says

    gun toteing freeks, I agree Diane, these people need to be round up, charged and prosecuted as domestic terrorist. they are going to march and take over our government with their military assault weapons and high powered machine guns and multi mag clips if the government votes to ban them. ROUND EM UP SHERRIFF!!!! oh yeah hopefully its a sherriff who is not elected by the NRA nuts who practice being soldiers in their malicias, better send in the national guard to get these punks off the streets of this country.

  2. Diane says

    I’m not calling anyone a nut as these are responsible adults who must be held accountable for their actions. Anyone advocating domestic terrorism–as are the people cited in this article if the statements attributed to them are accurate–should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

  3. -Nate says

    This article is dead on ~ most of my rabid foamer friends are burying thier machine guns now , let’s see what kind of shape they’re in in a year when they dig ‘em back up….
    Rusty junk most likely .
    -Nate

  4. harry wood says

    I would ask up front if you own a weapon and what kind?

    Some people are real close to their guns. I use to sleep with several very night. I had a 45 cal 1911 colt, an AK47, and a
    Thompson 45 cal sub machine gun, The
    Colt was semi-automatic and the other two were automatic. I lived that year in An Loc, a place with
    more dangers than Chicago.

    I wonder what weapons other than a musket, you think I could
    have? I know of no 100 round clips, that
    is usually a drum. The president is from Chicago
    so what has he done to prevent families there from being killed from drive-by
    shootings? I read there are 2034 violent
    crimes per 100,000 people in the UK
    each year and 446 violent crimes in the US
    and we have guns and the UK
    does not. I seems humans can always find
    something to use to hurt other people. What
    do you think about that?

    I am not sure what the oath keepers 151 is, I took an oath once and I am still under that
    oath. Using a pejorative phrase such as
    (crazy-assholes) is not fair as you put a large group of law abiding citizens
    into one group that may not even think as you or I think..

    Thoughts on new gun laws, some OK, some BAD.

    Registering
    firearms, BAD. Current legal owners of
    weapons will not want to register their weapons with a government data
    base. They see that as the seed of a
    future confiscation of legal firearms, which happened in several countries and here
    in 1775. This will probably create the
    most new criminals as owners refuse to comply with this law they feel is not
    good, like some people refusing to pay taxes.

    No guns
    allowed to cross state lines, BAD. If
    someone is driving to uncle Fred’s home in Montana
    to hunt deer, they can not take guns (rifle/hand gun) with them in their
    auto. Will states have gun booths along
    major highways? Will some drivers take
    minor highways to avoid them? Will cars
    with guns have to stop at each truck weighing station they encounter to be
    inspected? This law would have a good
    chance of creating new criminals as law abiding citizens neglect to do this. Are cars searched without a warrant?

    So I go on vacation without any weapon to protect my family.

    The two
    features above have a high probability of creating criminals out of honest
    citizens who have lived years with guns without causing any problems. The volunteer registration rate of current
    gun owners registering their guns will be low, thus new criminals will be
    created.

    Requiring a
    state firearms permit to own a gun is OK.
    This is fine as long as such holders do not have to buy a gun or declare
    each and every weapon they own to the state.

    Requiring a
    gun safety class in order to acquire a firearms permit is OK. I assume one would be issued to all military,
    active or retired, upon request. They already know about guns as does anyone
    with a hunting license.

    Stiff
    penalties for using firearms while committing a crime is OK. It must be proven in court the person
    indented to commit the crime using a gun.
    If the crime is committed with the gun secured in the trunk of a car
    that does not meet this feature as it is possible the person did the crime is
    unaware a weapon was present.

    For years,
    I have wanted a new department in the CBO organization, OK. It would be the Department of Unintended Consequences
    (DUC). You can tell by the name what the
    department should do. It evaluates any
    new bill before Congress forwards it to the Present to sign it into law. It looks for things that the Congress may
    have over looked when it passed the bill so that Congress can correct it.
    Remember the bill that passed Congress with the assurance from the speaker that
    because of the fog, we have to pass the bill to discover all the good things
    that are in it.

    I am not
    sure how we might keep score, but if all the above ideas become law, we need to
    track how many lives were saved, how
    many were lost, along with the costs of the bill. I think we are about to throw money at a
    problem without real solutions and have forgotten the acts of McVeigh. We need to know if a law is functional.

    I only have a few over 200 in my contact list so this is a
    small survey

  5. Reverend Draco says

    Well. . . I do have to say that you anti-gun bigots are consistent – it’s always the same nonsense.

    Bare hands are used to commit homicides more than rifles of all types (not just scary-looking “assault rifles”), but assault rifles are the problem?

    This is one of the most rational arguments against gun control that I’ve ever heard:

    (in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t own guns, I don’t like guns, I don’t even play 1st-person shooter games because I don’t like guns.)

    “Supporting gun control laws means giving government more credit than
    it deserves. Government is an institution run and staffed by people with
    their own interests and personalities. Are they really any smarter,
    more competent, or less likely to escalate violence than the average
    person?”

    “If anything, institutional interests and incentives combine with the
    difficulty of holding government actors accountable to make them more
    dangerous. The laws they enforce make them an even bigger threat to
    public safety. Government workers with assault weapons break into
    people’s homes if they are suspected of having unapproved medicine,
    haven’t paid off the banker, or happen to live at the wrong address. If
    those government workers feel threatened during their adrenaline rush
    they are liable to shoot the terrified residents and their pets — and
    get away with it. I wouldn’t feel any safer knowing that these were the
    only people who could legally buy 30-round magazines.”

    You see, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t close with the statement, “shall not be infringed, unless some frightened bigots think it’s ok.” It closes with, “shall not be infringed (full stop)”

    I’m curious – what part of “shall not” is it that you anti-gun bigots refuse to understand? Is it the part where you need to mind your own frakking business?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *