Lots of people are making fun of Michael Gerson’s latest column, which exposes President Obama’s sinister, underhanded tactic of being reasonable. Gerson actually wrote this —
Given this weak Republican position, Obama must be tempted by a shiny political object: the destruction of the congressional GOP. He knows that Republicans are forced by the momentum of their ideology to take positions on spending that he can easily demagogue. He is in a good position to humiliate them again — to expose their internal divisions and unpopular policy views. It may even be a chance to discredit and then overturn the House Republican majority, finally reversing his own humiliation in the 2010 midterms.
The whole column is pretty awesome. Kevin Drum writes that “It might set a new mainstream media record for compressing the largest number of conservative pathologies into the smallest possible space.”
Booman says “‘The momentum of their ideology’ will now join “catapulting the propaganda” in the pantheon of awesomely-coined terms Republicans use to explain their own evil/insanity.” For some reason, thinking of Republicans being forced to do crazy things by the momentum of their own ideology reminds me of this …
See also Jonathan Chait.
Meanwhile, the NRA continues to play the Mad Dog role and is accusing the President of being a hypocritical elitist because his children get armed guard protection and other people’s children don’t. Seriously.
If the NRA were listening to me, I would argue that keeping the President’s family safe is not just a courtesy but a matter of national security. It removes the temptation to negotiate with hostage takers, for example. And I would also explain that just because the President is unlikely to promote the guards-in-schools idea, I don’t see him getting in the way of local school districts hiring armed security guards if they want to. Even if you think armed security guards in schools is a good idea, why does anyone need a federal law about it?
I’ve looked at the ad, and I don’t see it appealing to anyone who isn’t already a foaming-at-the-mouth Obama hater. The NRA may think it has a winner because polls show fairly strong support for putting armed guards in schools. However, the same polls show even stronger support for tougher gun control laws
Wow, that column is really something!
Here’s my favorite line:
“He wanted Republicans to swallow their humiliation pure.”
I’m sure Boehner would have prefered his, on the rocks.
And you’ve got to love his last paragraph!
Talking about the growing debt ruining our future prosperity and posterity, all while not mentioning Nixon/Reagan-Bush II policies that led to debt, past and present, AND CURRENT LACK OF PROSPERITY!!!
We should be thankful for small favors – like the fact that Mr. Gerson decided to become involved in politics and punditry, and didn’t decide to become a homicide detective or military leader, since we’d be ass-deep in either criminals or foreign occupation forces.
What a feckin’ twit!
My niece wrote a column for her school paper last month, in which she rated the local sledding sites. (Sometimes, like many teens, she’s 17-going-on-8.) “The momentum of her ideology” could be used to describe how she and her best friend took a very easy slope at just the wrong angle, ignoring the obvious snow fence at the bottom, and found themselves wedged under the fence.
Pumpkin, dear, you should read posts all the way through before responding to them. Although I’d say you lack the moral courage to own up to what the NRA is implying here. However, sweetums, we can agree to disagree on that point.
My point is that the federal law that calls for “gun free” school zones does not apply to law enforcement officers or to properly licensed individuals who are contracted by the school. In other words, it does not prohibit schools from hiring armed security personnel if they want to. That being so, why is the NRA crabbing at President Obama about it? Do they think school districts have to get permission from Daddy?
If the parents and citizens living in a school district want to hire armed guards, then they can damn well scrape the money together to do so now. Why is this a federal case, sweetie pie? (Never mind that at least some mass shootings have taken place in areas under the protection of armed security guards, so there’s no reason to think armed security guards would make a damn bit of difference.)
President Obama have the gall to tell the folks that their children must be unarmed targets in “gun free zone†— while armed soldiers stand at the ready next to his own kids
Wow, that is BS on so many levels. I think we’ve found another issue for which there is no point in arguing with these loons, because they don’t live in the same reality as everyone else.
joan,
No, there’s no sense in arguing – you’d have more success arguing Quantam Mechanics with a rutabaga.
Yes, the solution is that we must arm the schools to protect the children!
Look at what happened at Ft. Hood, when the shooting started there a few years back.
Too bad no one had any guns there, huh?
The subject of guns is bringing forth a whole new class of troll– ones who apparently do not own a mirror.
What they really don’t seem to get is, the more they freak out and misunderstand (or lie about; looks 50/50 to me) everything going on around them, the more people stand up to resist them.
I am ready to defend myself with my knitting needles and saucepans, boy howdy. And if I were into torture, I would make them eat my cooking.
The NRA is playing them like a fiddle. It’s all about money for the NRA.
“Come unto me all ye that are terminally insecure..and I will give you abundant security”.
Katechon; realize the president’s kids are “high value targets”.
Also realize the hostile emails and other threats our politicians are currently getting daily;mostly from older white guys with basic computer skills at best.
Put it in a box, shake it up and take a look , dude. It makes me want to get as far away from this nut house as possible.Comprende?
Regarding the level of argument made by the NRA, I’m reminded of Lewis Grizzard’s book, SHOOT LOW, BOYS, THEY’RE RIDIN’ SHETLAND PONIES!
Katechon – love your icon. What are you smoking, though?
Here’s a lesson in hypocrisy. The same folks who decry the very existence of the Federal Department of Education and would dismantle it with a chainsaw as an intrusion into states rights are criticizing the federal government for not forcing cops or soldiers on every school in America. If you want cops in your schools, go to a school board meeting and let them know what you want and that you are willing to pay for it.
But, to take a page from your play book, don’t look to the federal government to solve all your problems.
Amen.
The Republicans are forced by the momentum of their ideology to catapult the propaganda and create their own reality where inoperative statements are not intended to be stupid factual things.
There is an element in that column which reminds me of the story of the 3rd grade student who told his teacher, “I don’t want to scare you but my daddy says if my grades don’t come up, somebody’s gonna get a whipping.”
The GOP wants the president to protect them from the consequences of their unpopular policies. (Shutting down government & gutting the entitlements of their own base is NOT popular.) Like the poor student, they can anticipate the grade they will get – it’s the grade they earned – and they don’t want what will result from it.
Still, there is an element of truth to the column. Obama is not offering bipartisan compromise on gutting SS, Medicare or Medicaid. If they want to make changes from their side, he’s making them declare those changes specifically. And on the sheer foolishness of default, he’s calling them out openly without offering them any shelter. Obama is going up in the polls and they are going down and the course they have set is a track to oblivion.
Hi,
Just a quick reply.
1) you guys are cooler than I’d thought.
2) the NRA, as far as I know (I haven’t read all the docs) don’t want to mandate school to hire armed-guards; they want to allow willing staff to CCW in schools, hospitals, etc. I fully agree with you that
What I think is the point of the NRA (and if it’s not, I say, screw’ em) is to allow responsible citizens, free from psychotropic medication, who passed proper background checks and hold a permit (meaning they did train) to conceal-carry weapon. Teachers, janitors, principals, etc — not to mandate them to carry, but to allow them to do so, if they wish so.
3) sorry about my picture; ain’t my fault if I look like a monkey.
Have a nice day, folks. I’ll be back when the sun will set.
Katechon — These days, the point of the NRA is to enable the firearm industry to be as profitable as possible. They really aren’t that picky about whether the people who purchase guns are going to use them responsibly or not.
The NRA is pushing the idea that, somehow, President Obama is standing in the way of having armed security guards in schools. This is nonsense. Federal law permits schools to hire armed security guards now, and has for many years, and President Obama has not said peep about stopping schools from hiring armed security if they want to. What he has said is that there is no money in the federal budget for putting an armed security guard in every school.
Then the NRA proposed a “National School Shield” program that would somehow organize armed volunteers to guard schools. I think that’s a horrible idea; I hate to think about the hotheads and conspiracy freaks and George Zimmerman clones who would get in line to be play-pretend policemen. Professionally trained security guards and police personnel are one thing; volunteers are something else. I believe volunteer, unpaid “guards” would be at odds with federal law, as I read it, but I’m not a lawyer.
Going back to the ad, it’s not clear what the NRA is whining about. Why are they singling out President Obama for contempt? He is not standing in the way of schools hiring security guards. All he’s said is that there is no money for such a thing at the federal level. The private school the daughters go to does have armed security guards, but taxpayers are not paying for them; the parents do, as part of the tuition. Nobody is stopping other parents from doing the same thing. So where is the hypocrisy?
Then what IS the point?
That, if we must allow any and every person to have access to assault weapons (weapons that, imho, should only be used by trained military people, while assaulting an enemy force, or repelling one), then we must have our children’s schools guarded by security forces, who also have assault weapons?
Is THAT the point?
Schools in many areas already have security guards, though I’m not sure how many of the are armed.
And there is nothing to prevent a school or schoold district from hiring them, or more of them.
And, since the NRA won’t pay for them with some sort of an assault weapons tax, passed on to the governments to pay for school security, then school taxes will now have to pay for the personel, the arms, the training, and the certification.
Me?
When I went to school, there was ZERO chance of being shot, since no one had handguns – and the father’s who did hunt, kept their rifles safely locked away, so that, much as I begged my friends to show me their Dad’s weapon, they couldn’t. I guess those Dad’s were, what are referred to as, “responsible gun owners.”
Another reason there was ZERO chance of a school shooting back then, was because I sent to public school back in the mid-60’s to mid-70’s, when the NRA was an organization that was dedicated to gun safety – and not the gun marketing and proliferation agency, paid for by gun and ammo manufacturers, it has morphed into, over the last 30+years.
The 2nd Amendment hasn’t changed in over 2 Centuries, so, what has?
Marketing.
The NRA is a very effective marketing firm. They have sold our Sunshine Patriots, on the idea that it is every American’s right to own whatever kind of guns, and as many of them as they want.
And they have sold them by marketing fear, hatred, and paranoia.
And, if the 2nd Amendment was really there for citizens to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government (it wasn’t – it was for the purposes of having rapid-response state militias fight an enemy force, until a standing army could be reformed), then why stop at assault weapons?
Were are our grenades?
Our grenade launchers?
Our artillery?
Mines?
Rocket launchers?
Armed personel carriers?
Tanks?
Armed helicopters?
Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Aircraft carriers?
Drones?
SAM’s?
ICBM’s?
And tactical nukes.
What’s an AR-15 compared to what our modern military will use to turn anyone into a bloody mist, long before they even begin to scream, “WOLVERINES!!!”?
Maybe, if people are serious about taking on the US military, they need to petition the SCOTUS to allow all of the patriots to own the same things our military has?
See how well THAT works out fer ya’ll.
Or, maybe these unfettered gun-access people need to realize that they’re all sociopathic whack-a-doodle @$$holes, who striek and whine when they don’t get their way, like 3 year-olds, but instead of screaming “I HATE YOU, MOMMMY!”, they scream, “TYRANNY!”
The “hypocrisy” is that we liberals are against the government paying for their private schools, and whatever random things they want to teach there…
The “hypocrisy” is that we liberals are trying to get the people who benefit most from government services to pay for those services…
The “hypocrisy” is that we liberals live in the real world and the nutjobs do not…
maha, it also might help our new friend to point out the following:
* The NRA has consistently worked to dilute or stop the requirement of background checks.
* The NRA has never demonstrated a reason why the general public should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, to the chagrin of law enforcement and the 90 percent of the public who don’t feel carrying a gun into a hospital, mall or movie theater makes them safer.
* The NRA currently is working in many localities to pass laws that will not allow private property owners with public access (e.g. restaurants, malls, theaters, private hospitals, shops) from banning concealed firearms on their premises.
So, a little further education is strongly recommended.
It also doesn’t advance one’s argument to misread, misunderstand, and quote out of context, in order to spin a fantasy that bears no relation to what people are saying. As I pointed out earlier, I am white and have lived in Nebraska all my life. maha is white and grew up in Missouri. My grandfather was a hunter and skeet shooter and the NRA of his day was nothing like the one that exists today.
I know a lot of fine, honest, hardworking white people of the so-called lower classes, none of whom would call themselves “rednecks,” nor would I. (A phrase not considered cool or accurate; just insulting.) These folks own guns to hunt, cull coyotes, and chase the odd copper wire-thieving meth addict away from the irrigation pivots. They view guns as tools, not objects to keep under their pillows at night or turn to when they have a beef against someone, real or imagined. Most of them know perfectly well there is no reason in the world why a private citizen needs to own a military-style assault rifle– which, in case our new friend hasn’t read those docs either, is designed to kill only humans, not deer or turkeys or coyotes; specifically, to kill a large number of humans in a short time.
These things are all common sense: background checks, waiting periods, no sales loopholes, no mass-murder weapons or magazines. We seem to agree with our new friend on at least some of those things. The NRA, however, does not. In response to the public outcry following the Newtown tragedy, the NRA has ginned up outrage amongst the small minority of the population that venerates guns and will turn to them when life gets complicated (people of all social levels in all parts of the U.S.). And yes, I am pissed as hell at the NRA and that small minority, because they are making this country unliveable for the sensible folks.
Unfortunately, it appears that some mostly well-meaning folks are falling for the NRA’s ginned-up outrage as well.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio called out his posse (300 “good” guys) to protect school children in his county.. “Git ’em boys”! It’s just another episode in the never ending battle for truth, justice,and the American way.
Yeah, Sheriff Joe’s posse is a good example of what can go wrong.
“I don’t want to scare you but my daddy says if my grades don’t come up, somebody’s gonna get a whipping.â€
I like that,Doug.. I think they call that nuance 🙂 It reminds me of a guy I used to know who wore a tee shirt with an image of Jesus’ back torn up with lash marks (at least I think it Jesus because he was wearing a crown of thorns and his arms were outstretched) and over that image was superimposed a faint image of the American flag, and underneath the lovely artwork was written…Read between the lines.
One last thought; on the way home today, I was listening to a local station that has recently gone all talk. Its not Limbaugh and company, but a guy named Bubba Clem and his entourage. They are extremely pro gun-to the point where a ban on large capacity clips and assault style weapons are an afront to their perceived constitutional rights.Not long after that point was made, several callers started in on the crazy subject of the grade school massacre being done by the government so Obama can take away their guns.It makes me wonder what went so wrong, and as I stated once before; define crazy. The crazy is so thick in these parts, you can cut it with a chainsaw.
I don’t know when a pump action 12 ga. became useless for home defense and a Bushmaster is now the hot item.
@cund gulag
The point was to argue against ‘gun free zones.’ There are no such things, since criminals, murderous thugs, by definition, do NOT care about the law.
All the previous similar incidents of mass-murders by way of guns have taken place in so-called “gun free” zones, showing all too clearly that once someone is hell bent on murdering, that person will disrespect every laws and, logically, will be looking for the easiest and least-defensible targets.
It’s also quite ironic that those screaming for MORE “gun control” are generally those who have the most guns themselves (more often than not, guns hired by them for the purpose of deterring anyone who might aggress them). The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal in America, and if the President, the Mayor of NYC, Piers Morgan, Michael More or Salman Rushdie — or anyone else — have the right to guns for their defense then — LOGICALLY — by this standard and by their own demonstrated belief in the violent nature of such threats, (even if only imagined), then so does every other American.
Katechon — But the “gun free zones” are not really gun free. As I keep saying over and over, the law establishing gun free zones allows law enforcement and someone licensed and contracted by the school to carry firearms within those zones. There were armed security guards on campus at Virginia Tech and an armed security guard at Columbine. Mass shootings have taken place in places that were not “gun free” at all; Tuscon comes to mind. It is simply not, not, not true that all mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. At Tuscon, and at Clackamas Mall, civilians legally carrying firearms were present.
Also, wipe “criminals” out of your mind. Mass shootings at schools and other public places are not the work of professional criminals. They are people who are angry or psychotic or otherwise out of control. Most of the time they have no criminal record. Most of the time they are not thinking straight and may intend to die, anyway. For all we know, knowing that someone else with guns might be around could attract them.
The presence of guns does not deter violence; it escalates violence. There is all kinds of data showing that higher rates of gun ownership correlate to higher rates of gun violence. “Stand your ground” laws appear to be causing an increase in homicides. One of the reasons I feel strongly about this issue is that the only times in my life I personally was alarmed by someone with a gun, the “someone” was an angry law-abiding citizen in guard/vigilante mode, not a criminal. The world is full of “good guys” who have really bad judgment, especially when they are frightened or angry or excited, and these are not people I want anywhere near me with a gun.
I am not opposed to people keeping a firearm for self-defense or a few hunting rifles. Please get over the idea that anyone is trying to grab all the guns. But nobody needs a 30-magazine military firearm for self-defense or hunting. Too many Americans — people who classify themselves as “good guys” — have developed a weird fetish about firearms, and the fetish makes them a danger to others, their families, and themselves. I don’t know how to cure them. But the last thing we need to do is encourage them.
See also: “More Guns = More Killing” by Elisabeth Rosenthal; “Freedom From Fear” and “Guns Are Making Us Less Free: by me; “Lessons From Guns and a Goose” by Nicholas Kristof; “Iraq vet: Newtown changed my mind on gun control” by Liam Madden; “True Stories in Gun Control” by John Cole.
@ maha
Thanks for that explication. You know more than I do about the NRA. What the NRA does interests me only marginally. So I’ll take your word for it.
As per wherein lies the hypocrisy, please confere to my reply to cund gunlag @ Jan 17, 2013 @6:57 pm.
The hypocrisy denounced in the latest NRA ad — as I saw it, and I’m no NRA expert — was to have so-called “gun free zones†on one hand, and “armed zones” on the other.
Remember that the average number of victims per shooting “incident” when the thug is stopped by a Concealed-Carry civilian is three, only — whilst the average number of victims when the killer is stopped by a policeman: fourteen.
FOURTEEN, versus Three.
The point is this: the civilians are the first respondents. So they should be allowed to conceal-carry if they passed proper background checks, and have trained, and do not consume psychotropic medication (such as Prozac).
Civilians don’t have no SS agents like Obama, nor, generally, an Uzi-carrying entourage like Salman Rushdie.
Eleven people die if the shooting takes place in a “gun free zone,” where legal guns are prohibited.
If there’s an evil thug from the ‘hood who intents on attacking my family and property, then — as the head of the household — it’s my responsibility to deal with it. I am the first responder.
President Obama don’t have this issue.
I do, and I have not only the right but the DUTY to defend my loved one, and to deter to the best of my ability any other thug who’d take those lives away.
The President have delegated this responsibility to others; fine, no problem, it’s OK. But my life and that of my loved one ain’t no inferior to theirs. It’s equal.
So if the President has the right and duty to defend his life with deadly force, then so do I, and so do you.
And this means, no more so called ‘gun free zone,’ where only the thugs are armed, and the first repondents prohibited to CCW.
Bogus. In the only two mass shootings I know of in which there were civilians with guns present, neither of the civilians fired a shot. In the other examples I’ve seen that the gun fetishes trot out to claim an armed civilian shot the perp, the civilian was actually an off-duty police officer or member of the armed forces. Also, in many of those cases there weren’t as many people around to shoot. So your data is junk, and proves nothing.
And that’s bogus, because even in “gun free” zones armed security guards are allowed. The only difference between the school the president’s daughters go to is that the parents have shelled out the money to pay for guards. And, of course, the daughters get Secret Service. But NOBODY IS STANDING IN THE WAY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS HIRING SECURITY GUARDS TO PATROL “GUN-FREE” ZONES. Least of all the President. The ads are completely bogus, and their only purpose is to whip up hysteria and enmity toward the President.
I really don’t have time to bat down NRA talking points. If you can’t think of something original to say, please move on.
Sure, why not? But going at Costco with your flame-thrower could be, err, obnoxious.
There’s a difference between “to own” and to “to bear”.
To own SAMs and grenades, no problem. Not to bear ’em though, not during peacetime.
Millions of Americans, fearing nothing but the LORD, can overthrow a tyranny. Past (counter) revolutions have been triggered by tiny minorities and waged by less than a third of the people. The rednecks of the Midland massively outnumber the army and the police — and please remember that there are always defections when a regime goes genocidal, even amongst top, top dogs and officer corps.
Cf. Syria now, for instance.
One of my comments went through; the two others were trapped by the moderation filter.
Millions of Americans, fearing nothing but the LORD, can overthrow a tyranny
And millions of Americans, fearing nothing but the Lord, can create a tyranny also. It can be hard to spot sometimes, sorta like the Defense of Marriage Act. I happen to be a
mohoganusheterosexual so I don’t feel a sense of government oppression, but if I had other inclinations that weren’t acceptable to the Lord I might be experiencing a tyranny.You raise a few good points, maha (*maha,* as in ‘great’? Ap hindi bolta he?).
I’ll answer them tomorrow, sweet lassi.
As soon as they’re psychotic or sociopathic or enraged they don’t care about the law, either. Obviously, the law — which was passed back in 1990 or thereabouts to discourage gang activity in schools — is not going to stop anyone who is determined to enter the school and shoot. However, the argument that the law leaves children more vulnerable to gun violence is bogus, because the law allows schools to hire armed guards.
But let’s look at the argument about criminals. The other argument I hear is that “if guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns.” It’s true that professional criminals will always get whatever guns they want. But we’re not talking about professional criminals. We’re mostly talking about disturbed people with no connection to any criminal underworld. They have access to guns not because they are criminals but through lawful means. If military weapons with high-capacity magazines were not lawfully sold to just about anyone in the U.S., it’s highly unlikely the disturbed ones would have access to them. That’s why talking about “criminals” is bogus. Most of the time, the shooters are (as far as the law is concerned) law-abiding citizens until the moment they begin shooting. And often no one would have predicted that individual was violent until they started to shoot. Putting a “potential criminal” label on them after the shooting is absolutely pointless and has no function except to make it easier to hate them, which is also pointless. You might as well hate your socks.
Now, let’s go back to schools. In any given year, about 20 percent of Americans are suffering some kind of psychological syndrome, and some of those 20 percent work in schools. Psychopaths in particular are very good at appearing “normal” and keeping their problem off the radar. Sometimes functional people hit a wall somehow and spiral into a mental funk. And a small portion of such people are potentially violent. If all the adults in a school are armed, it’s only a matter of time before we’ll hear news stories about this teacher or that janitor going haywire and shooting students, not to mention stories about students getting their teachers’ guns and killing each other, or the teachers. Security guards who are trained and background-checked and monitored (I hope) for signs of mental instability are enough.
The answer to gun violence is NOT more guns. Once again, there is copious data showing that the more people are armed, the more likely some innocent person is going to get hurt. If you want to keep firearms in your home for self-defense that’s fine with me, but we absolutely do not need all manner of untrained people carrying concealed weapons everywhere they go. It puts all of us in more danger, not less.
As I said before, the only times in my life I felt apprehension about people with guns, the gun-toter was no criminal and probably as sane as anyone. One was a former neighbor and a perfectly nice guy, mostly. They were, however, angry, meaning they were acting out of emotions and not thinking rationally.
My neighbor used to run around the neighborhood yelling and waving a handgun of some sort every time a squirrel set off his burglar alarm, and whenever he did that I’d take my baby daughter out of her crib and keep her in the middle of the house somewhere, away from windows, so that bullets would have to go through at least a couple of walls. And I’m sure my neighbor had no military experience or any sort of training to use sensible judgment about when to shoot, or not. His lawful firearm-bearing did not make anyone safer.
My other adventure with an angry armed guy happened when I was a college student. I worked one summer at a Girl Scout camp, as a counselor. One day some of us spotted a boy about 12 walking with some shepherd-mix dog on camp property, and mentioned it in the presence of the camp caretaker. He immediately flew into Guardian of the Universe mode, went to his cabin and came back with a revolver. Somehow, I ended up in his jeep with him; he handed me the revolver so he could drive with both hands. I put the safety on (I’d had NRA gun training!) and held it pointing up. I was terrified that he’d see the boy and I’d have to try to keep him from getting the gun back. At the time I weighed maybe 105 pounds, and he was a big guy. Fortunately we didn’t see anyone but girls and teenage counselors, and after a couple of hours of bouncing around in the jeep he calmed down and gave up. He was fired the next day, as I recall.
So, forgive me for not being real enthusiastic about having a lot of armed “good guy” citizens around. I’ll pass, thanks.
Katechon,
It must be sad, maybe even pathetic, that so many people are in some constant state of fear.
I grew up in NYC, my family moved upstate NY when I was 11. When I was in HS, I used to go down to NYC to look for books and records, and to go to games, concerts, and museums. It took a few safe returns to get some of my HS friends to go to the city with me – they and their parents had bought that NY City was some kind of Alphabet and Numerical Jungle.
I moved back to the city after College, and lived there for another decade.
In all the time I live there, and in all the times I visited, whether in HS, or more recently, I alway knew that I, and the people around me, were possible targets for a mugging, or for a terrorist event.
Every time I went to Grand Central Station, Penn Station, the Staten Island Ferry, a Yankee game, The Empire State Building, or the Twin Towers (the latter two, only to escort family or friends as tourists), or, pretty much any and every where, where it’s crowded – which is ALL of NYC, I knew someone could set-off a bomb, or start shooting.
No one was scared, no one was afraid, no one openly packed “heat.” We took precautions, which, if you live in a city, you’d know about. Everyone knew that, whatever was going to happen, was going to happen – and no one I knew even had a handgun, let alone carry one around with them everywhere they went.
And sure, there were cops around, but a lot less than when Rudy was Mayor, and after 9/11.
And sure, 9/11 happened – but not with guns – but with boxcutters.
I can’t relate to living in the kind of paranoia and fear that makes people want to have guns at home, and guns wherever the go. I don’t think that’s much of a life.
I WANT “Gun-free Zones.
Being gun-free, to me, is normal.
Going around, fully armed, or living in “Fort Apache – My House,” is NOT normal. Or, at least it wasn’t, until the NRA morphed from a gun safety organization, into the marketing arm for manufacturers of tools and equipment of mass murder.
Want a gun or two to protect your house, or to hunt with, or to go to ranges and fire for fun? – have at it.
But leave the rest of us in “Gun-free Zones,” where, if someone outside of the law is carrying, then they are breaking the law.
I’d feel less safe, a hell of a lot less safe, thinking there were armed people all around me, with itchy trigger fingers, just waiting for their oppportunity to be some kind of ‘hero.’ I’d be fearful and paranoid, then, too.
In the world of paranoia, the NRA is a carrier – an organization of “Bushmaster Mary’s,” if you will.
Some people feel that they have a right to bear arms, any and every where.
There are others, like me, who feel we have a right not to be exposed to your arms, any and every where.
And guess what?
WE’RE the majority.
A SMALLER percentage of people own guns now, than 60 years ago. It’s just that that smaller percentage, own MORE guns than they did 60 years ago.
The NRA has played those people, like a boredello piano. And those people willingly dance to the tunes, shelling out money for assault weapons, shells, and magazines. Those people have been grifted out of their money. Proving once again, “That fools and their money are soon parted.”
maha,
From Katechon:
“I’ll answer them tomorrow, sweet lassi.”
WTF!?!?!?!?!?!
What an @$$hole!
I’m done trying to have a discussion with him, after that one.
I don’t want to ban him, but, I hope you answer him back, ‘Ok, misogynistic, fearful, and stupid laddie.’
WTF!?!?!?!?!?! What an @$$hole!
Oh, agreed. Pure boasting lack-of-knowledge of a smug d**k, also. Not wasting any more time on that one.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/trevor-dooley-sentenced-to-8-years-for-manslaughter/1270967
A tale of two more “responsible gun owners:”
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/recreational-assault-weapons-fire-riddles-oh
What fun is a shooting range, when you can set-up paper targets in a neighborhood, get drunk and high, and start blasting!?!?!?!
That, and add over 700 rounds of ammunition, and, what can possibly go wrong?
OY!
No, I was only joking; and it was not a yellow joke. I’m pretty sure Maha’s been in India (probably even Varanasi), and she’d know it was not nasty, she’d know what I meant. A lassi is a delicious beverage, very healthy too. It’s kinda like saying ‘pumpkin’, or ‘sweetpie.’
I take your feedbacks very seriously. I’ll reply to them this evening.
And please be assure of my kind regards,
–Kat.
I take your feedbacks very seriously. I’ll reply to them this evening.
You might consider getting some psychological help. When you’re proclaiming that you have a DUTY to kill somebody from the “hood” in protecting your loved ones chances are you’ve got a faulty connection in your mental processes. Take the time to examine in honesty what is the root of your desire to posses and use a firearm. I think you’ll find fear ,insecurity,and ignorance are the three pillars that support your desires.
No man is so blind as he who refuses to see. You’ve been given some excellent counseling and input by participants here at the Mahablog..Open your mind, and let it penetrate, set the captive free. Don’t dig in your heels and try to defend what you don’t understand.
I’ve been where you are…But I got help.
Swami, are you starting to notice some consistent ESL syntax from said individual?
Huh, Vlad Putin must be really, really bored this week….
Oh by the way,Katechon..In case you don’t know..I’m not a real Swami. 🙂
And I’m not really in a GULag!
Avatar pic is Russia’s hottest male ballroom dancer?
Just a quick reply, since I’m on my phone, waiting for my wife trying a couple of dresses.
I’m francophone, from Quebec; I’ve lived 6 years in India, doing yoga and studying Buddhism and Hinduism. Then I lived in Shanghai and settled in northern Thailand. I’m in Montreal now, and planning to settle in Colorado. I trade currencies and Futures for a living.
But I’d rather not go personal and stick with concepts and issues, if it’s okay with you. My personal identity shouldn’t matter.
The duty was to protect my loved one, not to kill. To kill could proceed from protecting however. But that’s okay, since to kill in self defense ain’t a murder.
” They have access to guns not because they are criminals but through lawful means”
Most of the shooters perpetrating mass murders don’t ; they’ve acquired the weapons they’ve used through unlawful means. The Newton shooter murdered his own mother and stole HER guns.
You are confused; the majority of guns used in mass shootings in the U.S. are obtained lawfully. And since you have entered the “I don’t know what I’m talking about so I’m going to make shit up that I want to believe” phase of the conversation (inevitable with wingnuts, I’ve found), I’m going to put you in the twit filter after this (see comment rules).
Speaking of Newtown, the Newtown guns were acquired lawfully. The mother lawfully owned them, which gave the son, who lived under the same roof, access to them. If she hadn’t had them, it’s doubtful he would have been able to acquire similar firearms on his own. And that’s the sort of thing that only has to be pointed out to people who are intellectually dishonest, or else very stupid. I don’t think you are stupid; I think you are allowing an ideology to block critical thinking skills.
It’s been fun. Have a nice life.
Look, Katechon, you seem like a decent enough sort, but Jayzoos H. Keerist being told when he’s up on the cross that the scrolls he took out are late at the Jerusalem Public Library, who cares?
For all anyone can know, you could just as easily be a sewer worker in Bronx, NYC, who has a an arsenal stored down there, for killing any potential crocodiles, alligators, and giant boa’s that might have grown to monsterous size, after having been flushed down a toilet!
Why do you think anyone here would care about your personal information?
Maybe you should take that course at Yale that David Brooks is teaching on “Humility.”
No, that would be a bad idea, since the last thing Bobo knows anything about is humility. ‘Smugness,’ ‘Self-satisfaction,’ ‘Self-importance,’ yeah – “Humility,” er… uhm… not so much…
Maybe it’s me, but I don’t give a flying fig.
Nor would I care if you or anyone thought I was an Untouchable who sold chocolate-covered grasshoppers in the streets of New Delhi, or a left-handed lesbian Yoga instructor in Saskatoon, who likes to comment on American blogs in my spare time.
I don’t with you any ill will, or mean to offend you, but, in short – you ain’t important enough to me to care…
Best of luck with your move, and your futures – yours, your Mrs., and the financial one.
Hear, Hear! I make a motion that Katechon be cast into the outer darkness of the Twit Filter. He’s unrepentant and irredeemable.Can I get a second on that motion?
Swami,
I don’t care that he’s unrepentent, or irredeemable – he’s a “One-trick Pony.”
And, a rather dull one, at that.
No, I don’t want him banned – he’s boring, but harmless.
My personal identity shouldn’t matter.
Oh, give me a break. It matters everywhere, all the time, in everything. It defines your experience of a subject (here, nonexistent) which in turn informs your understanding of the subject (here, ignorant, dishonest, and bizarre). In sum, as a court of law would say, you have no standing in the matter.
maha, I vote banhammer, because idiot.
Swami, please count me as your second.
In this, or if you’re glove-slapped by the doofus, I will hold your coat.
I’ve trained at Front Sight, Nevada, and bought a bunch of rifles and ammo as an investment (stored at a friend’s house in Colorado), as an edge against inflation, along with physical gold. Been also quite bullish on W&S’s stock since Obama’s election. I see the gun as utterly critical to safeguard one’s gold.
I’ll reply to Maya’s interesting feedbacks soon.
Maha*– I blame the autocorrect thingy.
Katechon,
You, are a whacko.
Never mind what I said in my prior, as yet unpublished comment.
Thinking that protecting your own personal mini-Fort Knox, proves it.
What?
Have you got that much bullion?
Better check to see that no one could have traced your IP Addresses to your present one, to pull a little, small-scale, never mind “Oceans,” but “Mountains Eleven.’
Maha,
Off with his… whatever he has for a head!
What a feckin’ idjit!
Let’s take a critical look at the CCW (concealed carry) idea the NRA is proposing for schools. Right now only cops can carry in gun-free zones – which schools are. Which means that teachers and school staff can’t carry guns. The NRA would put volunteers in plain clothes – not uniforms – packing heat. What’s wrong with this picture?
Let’s do a scenario which exposes the risk of the scheme. It’s Ronald Reagan High School and John is returning a game ‘wand’ he borrowed from Ed. The game is a gunfight simulator and the ‘wand’ looks like a gun, though it’s actually plastic. John can’t find Ed before first period and he empties the stuff he doesn’t need from his backpack into his locker, including the wand. Amy sees the transfer of stuff and doesn’t know the gun isn’t real. She slides over to the office and reports that John has a gun at school. The school secretary calls the police and the volunteer hears about the emergency.
While the police are being informed by the secretary, our heroic volunteer hooks up with Amy to locate John. Amy knows he’s in American History class and leads the hero want-to-be and he sends Amy away and eases out his Glock because he has to assume John is packing and he doesn’t want John to get the drop on him.
Police were dispatched – silent – and Amy sees the patrol car. She intercepts the cop and rushes him to the classroom. The cop has gotten a short message – a threat at the school in the form of a person with a handgun. Nothing gets the adrenaline going like a threat to children. Once the cop is at the classroom, outside, he sends Amy off to safety, looks in through a window in the classroom door and sees a person holding a gun pointed at a student.
Freeze frame for a second. John didn’t even think he was violating a rule since he knew the wand was a plastic electronic device for a game. The volunteer packing a concealed weapon had the absolute best intentions with zero malice. The officer is acting on partial information, but he’s looking at a threat that can’t wait. There are no bad guys here, but one or maybe two people are about to get shot. Without the volunteer, there is no chance anyone would get shot.
This is why schools are a gun-free zone. If police are called to protect kids, armed civilians, even teachers, are indistinguishable from a psycho. Only in old westerns do the bad guys wear black hats. There is no reason, other than cost, not to have a uniformed cop at school. But it’s a local decision and expense. Putting civilians with guns in schools to save money invites disaster. My example could play out in a hundred different ways. Occasionally, it will end with the volunteer a hero. How often?
If you ask the police, you will get a universal rejection of the idea of CCW in schools because in the real world, the use of deadly force calls for training which a well-intentioned volunteer rarely has. The possible presence of an armed civilian complicates the job for cops exponentially.
No, he STOLE the guns from his own mother.