One of Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt’s favorite talking points is that “of the mass murders in the last 20 years, all but one have taken place in a gun free zone.” (That statistic is just plain wrong, but that’s another story). Speaking with a conservative radio host in Idaho this week, Pratt delved into the one shooting that he counts as an “exception” to this nonexistent trend: the 2011 shooting at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ “Congress on your Corner” event at a mall in Tucson, which left six dead and Giffords critically injured. Giffords and the constituents who came to talk with her – including a nine-year-old-girl and a Republican-appointed federal judge — had it coming, Pratt implies, because “it was a Democrat town hall meeting of a Democrat representative” and Democrats “don’t necessarily, most of them, believe in carrying guns.”…. “And so when this dirtbag attacked a town hall meeting,” Pratt continues, “he didn’t find any resistance and he was able to kill a number of people there.”
Just when I manage to convince myself that there’s NO POSSIBLE WAY that gun nuts could POSSIBLY find a way to be anymore offensive, mean-spirited, and dismissive of those who’ve lost loved ones to gun violence, I learn all over again that this is a barrel with no bottom. So many gun nuts believe that their gun “rights” trump any and all considerations- even human life. That so many gun nuts are also arch-Conservatives who oppose abortion (where the claim to be “pro-life”) under any circumstances is laughable. That these trolls lack the self-awareness to recognize that contradiction is indicative of just how dangerously inhuman they can be.
Larry Pratt is merely the latest (and most egregious) example of what verbal vomit can spew forth when a gun nuts puts their mouth in gear before engaging their brain and sense of humanity. Or perhaps they really DON’T care about the suffering of others. Perhaps Pratt and those who think like him really DO consider the massacre of innocent civilians to be merely the cost of freedom and not a problem…as long as someone else is burying their loved ones.
It’s difficult to believe that a human being could so thoroughly inhuman and insensitive to the pain and suffering of others. And to assert that they died because they were Democrats is…well, I’m not certain I could find a word in my vocabulary to adequately express my revulsion. I’m sickened by the thought that anyone would seriously consider their gun “rights” to be sacrosanct, inviolable, and of greater value than innocent human lives. OR that an “improper” political orientation could be blamed for the death of an innocent civilian….
(read the full post at What Would Jack Do?)
You might as well admit it; you already know the drill:
1. Man spotted with gun.
2. Man kills several people, wounds even more.
3. We collectively bemoan the senseless nature of the tragedy.
4. We wonder what we should do to stop the senseless slaughter of innocent civilians.
5. The NRA refuses to even consider sensible gun control, essentially claiming that the deaths of those whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time is the price of freedom.
6.Congress clucks and harrumphs, but ultimately it’s just so much sound and fury, and it signifies nothing.
7. Life continues on as if nothing happened.
(Read the full post at What Would Jack Do?)
There’s a disturbing tendency among gun advocates to see security issue as having a very simple solution- MORE GUNS!! It’s as black and white as you can imagine- more guns equals more safety and security. The idea that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is as simplistic as it is facile. Rather than examine a problem, these folks would simply apply there universal Band-Aid- more people armed with more guns…because more firepower solves EVERYTHING, don’tchaknow?
Except that all more guns do is to introduce the potential for more lethality into a situation, and that lethality recognizes neither “right” nor “wrong.” For instance, assuming that an armed individual reacts appropriately in a high stress situation, having armed security guards in schools makes sense. The problem is that research shows that this is seldom the case, and friendly fire casualties can be catastrophic. Is that REALLY a workable solutions for our schools? And what message does turning public schools into armed camps and free-fire zones send to our children?
Sometimes what it takes is someone thinking differently and approaching a problem with a creative and open mind. Andrew Bott decided to approach the challenge of running a dangerous and perennially underperforming school differently….
(Read the full post at What Would Jack Do?)
What better way to mollify men with anger management issues and the need to compensate for their, um, “shortcomings” than with a little target shooting? And what better way for angry, bitter, newly single gun owners to exorcise their anger than by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? This being America, there’s someone ready, willing, and more than able to step in and meet the needs of potential stalkers and/or passion killers. Enter Zombie Industries, whose “The Ex” target dummy was all the rage at the NRA’s recent convention in Houston. Well, that was true until the Liberal Media and the bleeding-heart, gun-grabbing Communists got their shorts all up in a bunch. Something about domestic violence or some other such nonsense.
Hey, just because a target “bleeds” when it’s shot…well, that’s apropos of nothing, really. Just some good ol’ boys having some fun and blowing off steam, right? Perhaps if men hadn’t been so emasculated by the women in their lives they wouldn’t be needing to channel their anger….
(Read the full post at What Would Jack Do?)
….The fact of the matter is that the Founding Fathers made a HUGE mistake in saddling us with the 2nd Amendment….
In the late 18th century, the 2nd Amendment made sense. Calling 911 wasn’t an option, and the average American faced very real and imminent threats of the sort we don’t today. 2013 finds us in a much different world than that of 1789. We have the benefit of the rule of law, efficient and well trained law enforcement, and the most powerful military in the world. Despite those who see violent criminals around every corner, we live in a much safer world today.
The problem we face today is that the 27 vague words that comprise the 2nd Amendment have created the current mess we’re in today…and it’s the Founding Fathers’ fault. If they’d intended for the right to bear arms to be sacrosanct and inviolate, don’t you think the 2nd Amendment would be two sentences instead of one run-on jumble? Their impreciseness has cost thousands of innocent citizens their lives. It’s also created a class of gun nuts who cling to the guns with a love that exceeds anything else in their lives….
(read the full post at What Would Jack Do?
That’s what Patricia Maisch of Arizona said about the United States Senators who failed to vote on legislation broadening background checks on gun purchasers. A majority of Senators were ready to vote in favor of the legislation but that’s not how democracy works in the nation’s capital. In order to have a simple majority vote, 60 out of 100 Senators need to vote against allowing a filibuster. Instead of majority rule, we have super majority rule. It’s absurd and a nasty little inside the beltway trick but more on that later.
The legislation that stumbled and fell due to the super majority hurdle would have required expanded background checks for gun purchasers. If discovered in the background check, certain types of criminal records and serious mental illnesses would have denied the ability to purchase a weapon. The law is currently in place for weapons purchased at gun stores but not for those acquired at gun shows, conventions held all over the country where the seller is an exhibitor rather than a local business.
Since the initial legislation requiring store based background checks passed, 1.5 million gun purchases have been denied. Hardened criminals, wife beaters, and others presenting red flags lost their alleged First Amendment right to buy a gun, unless they bought it at a gun show. Why not close the loophole and make the law consistent?
(Also foisted upon an unsuspecting public at What Would Jack Do?)
This idea of background checks is very concerning given the fact that the United States military has been increasingly showing hostility toward evangelicals and Catholics as being somehow threats to national security and people that need to be watched. Well, what does that have to do with gun control? Well, what happens if all the sudden you are identified as an evangelical, bible-believing fundamentalist and the government decides you’ve got to be put on a watch list? Part of the provisions of this background check is kind of a system where if a caution comes up when they put your name in, you don’t get a chance to buy a gun.
You’d think that it takes some time, effort, and self-delusion to develop a Grade A persecution complex. Whiile it does take a modicum of self-delusion, all it really takes besides that is someone as self-important and arrogant as Tony Perkins, who’s now heavily invested in convincing Christians that they’re about to become the victim of government persecution (‘Cuz you know how much The Black Guy in the White House HATES Jesus).
What the hell is Harry Reid thinking?
Reid insisted yesterday that all of these measures deserved a vote — but that including some of them in the main legislative package brought to the Senate floor would sink the entire effort. The main bill that Reid will introduce will have to get at least 60 votes to get past a GOP-led filibuster, he explained. So by starting with a pared-down bill, Reid said he could at least get a gun control measure on the Senate floor. At that point, the assault weapons ban and other less popular measures could be voted on as amendments.
Now, if you’re telling me that this is a maneuver to avoid a filibuster on gun control legislation and the intent is, once past the blockade, amendments (which only need a simple majority to be included) can be added, then hey, that’s OK. The Dems have more than a simple majority and can easily tack on any number of amendments. Read More
Josh Marshall writes for his tribe of non-gun-owners, like me. He gives his story and another really terrible one.
Here’s mine. Our tribe comes in all flavors, all sorts of experiences with guns.
I grew up in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. We just didn’t think about guns. We also learned a defensive situational awareness when we went into the city. We didn’t think about that in that way either, just learned to watch what was going on around us, stay away from certain kinds of places, walk briskly, and evade footsteps that persisted too regularly behind us. That was when I was around twelve years old. It’s served me well in many cities around the world.
My assumption has always been that I didn’t need a gun. I’ve mostly lived in safe neighborhoods, and my imagination doesn’t incline me toward fear of things like home invasion. Read More