FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Lapointe writes: "They're sort of like an American al-Qaeda. A lot of them are looking forward to a race war and common-sense gun laws might be their easy excuse to start one."

American militia movement. (image: Aaron Jansen)
American militia movement. (image: Aaron Jansen)


America's Gun Crackpots: Our Homegrown al-Qaeda?

By Joe Lapointe, Open Mike

19 January 13

 

e keep hearing that Wayne LaPierre, the fire-breathing mouthpiece for the National Rifle Association, is far more radical than most members of the NRA and that most of them would support common-sense gun safety measures if they could.

Really? How many have stepped up to challenge LaPierre? What are they afraid of? When will they speak up? Will they be on Fox News?

One of them could say that it is vile for LaPierre's NRA to smear the President's daughters in an ad filled with gun propaganda and constitutional paranoia and that there is no equivalence between this cheap shot and the President appearing live on stage with sincere school kids who wrote to him about a school-room gun massacre last month and asked him to try to stop the next one and the one after that, too.

We know that common-sense gun safety legislation will need more than the support of President Obama and many Democrats. Why aren't clergy, police and average parents in the streets demonstrating against the mass-murder industry represented by the NRA?

And where are the common-sense Republicans who have faded from the scene - intimidated - since virulent Reaganism contaminated the American political landscape more than 30 years ago? And don't tell us Reagan favored the Brady Bill. That was long after he left office, when he risked no political capital.

Delusion is easy. We can tell ourselves that most gun owners don't become mass murderers, but the fact is that some right-wing gun owners own many guns and much ammo and that some of them would be willing to use them against the police and the armed forces of our country.

What kind of "patriot" claims that sort of right? Do they live among the crackpots who think secession is the next logical step if you don't agree with the President?

Or next to that guy on the corner with the big "Don't Tread on Me" snake flag blowing in front of his house in the winter breeze?

Would they really start political mass murders if gun-safety laws are improved by elected legislators?

Perhaps they would. As we learned on 9-11, it doesn't take many terrorists, thinking and acting alike, to kill thousands of people and cause hellish over-reactions, especially when the national leaders are as dim-witted and impulsively reckless as George W. Bush.

If you get the chance, look up "The Turner Diaries" on the internet. It's a right-wing cult book about what happens when "the government" starts taking away weapons from "citizens" after the "Cohen Act."

"The Turner Diaries" is sort of the Book of Revelation for angry, crazy racists who define their "patriotism" to following the views of a narrow slice of militant fanatics who agree with them.

They're sort of like an American al-Qaeda. A lot of them are looking forward to a race war and common-sense gun laws might be their easy excuse to start one.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+106 # juliajayne 2013-01-19 15:56
I like how Ed Schultz issued a challenge for Tom (I am the NRA) Selleck to speak out against the nonsensical propaganda hoisted upon us courtesy of his gun lobby.

And yeah, it sure would be swell if some people of courage and influence would speak up and quit being so utterly craven and compel us as a nation to get something done on this issue. I do think this IS a test of our very humanity!
 
 
+66 # Barbara K 2013-01-19 16:22
juliajayne: I saw Ed Schultz challenge Tom Selleck. I was so disappointed to see that he is on the board there. He is/was one of my favorite actors. To think of these gun nuts as al-Qaeda would make sense of their behavior. I hope they are being investigated. I agree with all you said.

,
 
 
+58 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-01-19 20:25
There are those who have studied the effects of a nation constantly at war (U.S.)has on the citizenry of that country. When we see Bush, Cheney, Powell going scott free as war criminals, killing 500,000 in Iraq including our service people to take over the oil contracts, rights to oil, do these murderous acts have a horrible moral effect on the citizens of the U.S.? Especially the young? This question is not being asked by either political party. Why? The military/indust rial complex, a corporate welfare program (corporate Socialism) will not permit these kinds of questions. The belief is, "someone must suffer (many) so that (we corporate Socialism) may live." And live well they do. Empires don't live forever. Those who gain wealth during the buildup of the Empire don't really care what happens after they are dead.
 
 
+8 # wwway 2013-01-19 20:36
Tom Selleck is one of my favorites. In my opinion, his best work is Jesse Stone, a small town chief of police who is battling acoholism but leaves his gun on the bar. That's something I notice every time. He's ultra conservative and not exactly what I would deem a good example beyond acting.
 
 
-50 # WestWinds 2013-01-19 16:33
And what about us single women who rely upon our weapons to keep us safe at night when you are somewhere else and don't give a green fig about what happens to us? I've had my home repeatedly broken into and half of my life stolen. So far, they only come when I'm out of the house because they know I'm armed and I will use it if they push me to it.

On the surface, all of this 'take all the guns away' sounds like a quick-fix magic Band-aid, but we have had laws on the books for decades but laws won't stop what's going on. We need a different country, one that is not robbing, stealing and murdering in the world for profits as an hypocritical model for our youth . We need a country that has a genuine interest in the children and not one that is beating up its kids while denying them a hot meal and taking big buck for themselves from it.

juliajayne, you want a fast answer and one that doesn't cost time, money or effort. No such thing exists. The only thing you are doing with this drivel is driving us deeper and deeper into the control of the Gang of 17 who seek to own and rule the world; and that includes people.
***
I clicked a negative vote on the counter and it ignored my vote and returned the same number that was there before. The RSN counter is rigged to shape opinion and gain their agenda.
 
 
+19 # Regina 2013-01-19 17:44
Dear WestWinds: You need to move if your home is in such continuing danger. Take charge of your life, not just your gun.
 
 
+18 # caylworth@gmail.com 2013-01-19 17:52
[quote name="WestWinds "]And what about us single women who rely upon our weapons to keep us safe at night when you are somewhere else and don't give a green fig about what happens to us? I've had my home repeatedly broken into and half of my life stolen. So far, they only come when I'm out of the house because they know I'm armed and I will use it if they push me to it.
How are your guns keeping you safe? If "they" know you have them, what keeps "them" from breaking in when you aren't home and stealing your guns? It's like snapping your fingers to keep elephants away, as long as you keep snapping you'll never be bothered by elephants. Stop snapping, and you won't see elephants either.
 
 
+22 # Glen 2013-01-19 17:58
WestWinds, you have a point. There is no quick fix, as you say, and there is little interest in the welfare of American kids. Local crime is rarely confronted when the discussion of guns arises, just as there is little interest in how kids are raised with little care or training.

The two are related but few see the connection.

There have been virtual shootouts in parking garages even under hospitals, when criminals seek to rob decent people and those being robbed pulled a gun. Many would see that as chaos and violence, but which do most prefer - being robbed and possibly killed, or defending oneself? The bad guys have guns. Period.

As far as the plus or minus votes - when you vote, up or down, others are also voting, so you might not see what you expect.
 
 
+21 # Smiley 2013-01-19 18:11
I don't believe that the count is fixed. i think it's just behind and catches up when you click.

I also believe that the rest of your post is right on. I think the vast majority of the people on BOTH sides of this issue are sane, reasonable people. It's the screaming nut cases that get all the press, those that paint everyone who disagrees with them as evil.
 
 
-2 # wantrealdemocracy 2013-01-19 18:39
I am a single woman too and while I don't have a gun now I am considering getting one. I am worried that our monetary system might collapse and the dollar will not be worth a dime. With so many people out of work and cold and hungry living on the street I fear the crime rate will go up. I also fear that people may get so angry at our corrupt government that there may be a rebellion. I know that our local police is now armed to the teeth with military hardware and under the NDAA the army may be used against the people of this nation here on our own soil. Maybe in such a situation it would be wise to have a gun for protection.
 
 
+37 # Quickmatch 2013-01-19 19:12
Wantrealdemocra cy--when you get your gun, don't get a handgun, get a good double barrel shotgun--larges t bore you can handle. You won't have to concern yourseld with shooting an invader five times in the face anf neck--just once in the face or body will do. Don't worry about the homeless hungry; they are mostly like you and me, except without an income. And if the army and police come for you (so sorry you are being infected with the epidemic of unreasoning fear and schiziod parinoia that's driving this gun debate), you won't stand a chance against full-body-armor troops backed with armored vehicles and carrying arms you can't buy on the black market.
 
 
+26 # get real 2013-01-19 20:47
If the military comes what good would your gun be? To protect yourself in your home get a gun. But if the government should ever show up it won't be with guns, and you'll never even realize it has happened.
 
 
+26 # X Dane 2013-01-19 22:10
wantrealdemocracy.
I can understand your worry about rising crime with so many people out of work, poor and desperate.

But against the government????? The NRA and other crazies want to scare you and says that the government will take you guns and who knows what else. .... And you think if they REALLY would come after you that your gun would protect you???? NEWSFLASH The government has MANY more guns.
 
 
+8 # rhgreen 2013-01-20 21:04
Crime is not rising. Most stats show that most serious crime is declining. As Joe Bageant used to say, the 'American hologram' is driven by fear including fear of what doesn't exist.
 
 
+12 # Glen 2013-01-20 08:37
Wantrealdemocra cy, you too, have a point. Crime has always been an issue, but local crime has increased as quickly as folks have lost jobs. It is a bit better where I live but "if it isn't nailed down..." continues to be prominent in many towns and cities.

Quickmatch made good suggestions, which would especially be pertinent should someone enter your home as a genuine threat. As that poster states, forget the government; consider only local threats, which can be very real.

I don't understand the minus points for your post. You have genuine concerns.
 
 
+40 # Quickmatch 2013-01-19 19:04
Your message would make a whole lot of sense were it not for several pertinent questions. You have someone who should care but doesn't and is not at home at night? And your home is repeatedly broken in to when you are not at home? And how do they know to break in when you are not at home? How do they know you are armed when at home? Why do they not steal your guns when they break in? Are they securely locked away--where you couldn't get at them in a break-in? And where'd you get the idea about 'take all the guns away? Who wants to do that? Not any of the gun control fans I know. We just want strong regulations, and a rejection of congressional blocking that prevent them from being applied.
 
 
+43 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-19 19:22
You don't seem to understand how anything works. The complaint about your counter just means that while you were busy reading the post one person had given it a thumbs up and that cancelled your vote. The second thing is that the mother of the kid who shot up Sandy Hook also kept guns for her protection, and what happened to her is much more likely than that she was able to defend herself, 43 times more likely according to one doctor's data.

But the most glaring error on your part is to buy into the gun nut fantasy that anyone is planning to take your guns. You can't find any statement by any government official that even suggests that, unless you are so paranoid that you should be hospitalized as a danger to yourself and your community.
 
 
+20 # KrazyFromPolitics 2013-01-19 21:32
"Go west", Westwinds. Remaining in your neighborhood appears to be like refusing to leave the tracks when a freight train is speeding toward you. Of course, you could shoot the train.
 
 
+7 # Xpat_lib 2013-01-20 01:43
WestWinds, burglaries typically happen during the daytime when people are at work. Burglars seldom carry or use guns and the last thing they want is to run into someone during their crime. If having a gun makes you "feel" safer, fine. No one - certainly not me - would advocate taking yours away from you. I used to live in Los Angeles. My homes were been burglarized, my cars stolen - all several times but never once would having a gun have prevented those crimes. You can legally shoot someone just for stealing your stuff. I assume you carry your gun wherever you go at all times and it's fully loaded and ready to fire within seconds of a threat because that's the only way it will ever be of use to you. I hope your gun is easy to use in a confined space such as a bedroom or kitchen and that you have no hesitation in killing someone. Even trained police officers grapple with that. The reality is that for most people the chance they'll be in a position that requires a gun to save their life is remote at best. The whole idea is an emotional one. A gun only makes you "feel" safer.
 
 
-2 # Alexis Fecteau 2013-01-20 01:55
Hey braniac - ever think that someone with some sense pushed the thumbs up button at the same time as you?

I'm not glad we have "christians" like you who believe that someone stealing a tv deserves to die for it.
 
 
+7 # Adoregon 2013-01-20 14:09
Dear WestWinds,

For the price of a cheap handgun you can now buy wireless home video surveillance systems.
Won't the scum who burgle your home be surprised when the police arrest them and they are convicted based on the evidence on your hard drive?

Or, you can have a decoy dressed like you leave your home whilst you wait inside with a 12 gauge pump loaded with 00 buckshot. I can promise you the look on the thief's face will be priceless when they are staring down the barrel of your shotgun.

But seriously, go with the surveillance system. It's safer.
 
 
+5 # GF4A 2013-01-20 16:52
How about a good burglar alarm?
 
 
+14 # get real 2013-01-19 20:41
Julia We are the people of influence and why we are not speaking up I do not know. There's about 4 million, of 330 million, who are members of the NRA. Our representatives will do nothing until they hear from more than 4 million who say enough is enough. Call, call again, email your Congressional Rep's and tell them how you feel If we DO NOT stop this in it's track NOW we will be forced to stop it or be destroyed by the militant minority. Action belongs to us. President Obama has made a public request for our help. Now is the time to give it to him and our Nation. Hilter started small (NRA) and almost destroyed the world....NEVER AGAIN. Join me in calling and emailing.
Please?
 
 
+6 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-01-20 10:33
Isn't it a little funny or actually sordid that the NRA loud mouth, Wayne Lapiere says over and over that, "It's not the guns, it's mental health problems!" while ignoring the fact that he and his staunchest supporters all have a gun fetish and live with the delusion that someday they will use their beloved guns to stave off a government ordered assault of trained police or even soldiers with more and better weapons just like Pennsylvania farmers did against George Washington and his, "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" during the 'Whisky Rebellion' or the religious cult at Waco, Texas did in 1994.  Talk about mental health being the problem indeed!

MLB
 
 
-86 # Johnny Genlock 2013-01-19 16:15
Total diatribe and a new low, a left-wing McCarthyism. This is the old class warfare divide and conquer techniques of the former Soviet as outlined by Yuri Bezmenov. John Wayne and the Lone Ranger are the new al CIA-duh. Turner Diaries is an attempt to make a tie-in to Timothy McVeigh, a purported home-grown terrorist nurtured at the Southern Poverty Law's Elohim City operation, who was NEVER issued his DD-214 papers, . . . Better to ask Martin Keating about his character, Tom McVay, who bombed FED buildings in his "fiction" book THE FINAL JIHAD which was circulating to publishers prior to the OKC Bombing in the State his brother, Frank Keating, was Governor. Martin Keating praises Oliver Buck Revel (of FBI) as his primary inspiration for the book. Rather than accept this author, Joe Lapointe, his assault upon the character of Americans under the guise of "American al-Qaeda," why not question the lies holding it up in the first place?
 
 
-23 # anarchteacher 2013-01-19 17:16
"Johnny Genlock" is onto something every RSP reader should seriously ponder and reflect upon concerning false-flag intelligence operations and covert activities.

I have Martin Keating's excellent book and used to tutor his nephew, who was also the nephew of Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating

Read this brief article, "Servants of the Empire":

http://lewrockwell.com/burris/burris19.1.html
 
 
+6 # flippancy 2013-01-20 00:38
There is more stupidity published on the Lew Rockwell site in a week than in the Nation in a decade.
 
 
+20 # elmont 2013-01-19 17:27
Huh??
 
 
-86 # Martintfre 2013-01-19 16:22
I'd rather attend to the problems of too much freedom rather then too little.

Watch Shindlers list that is what has happened when a socialist/colle ctivist government has all the guns and the people do not. The equivalence of 330Ssandy hooks a day every day for 4 years.
 
 
+35 # AnastasiaP 2013-01-19 18:15
This is pure misinformation and not what watching Schindler's Lit will tell any mental competent person.
 
 
+5 # David Starr 2013-01-20 12:46
@Martintfre: I did see Schindler's list and thus advise you to be more specific when you use the label "socialist/coll ectivist," if possible. Otherwise, it'll show that you are not well-versed on the history of that time period.
 
 
+23 # Emmanuel Goldstein 2013-01-19 19:39
Just a little paranoid, are you, Martin?
 
 
-4 # Martintfre 2013-01-20 09:06
Mr Goldstein -- fyi, the notion of breaking down the carnage created by Hitlers government wrecked upon segments of Germany's population and comparing it with some sad local event - Like sandy Hook was given to me by a member of Jews for the preservation of Firearms.

Sometimes a different perspective is important.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2013-01-20 12:58
@Martintfre: Are you or are you not for the preservation of fire arms? What are the ideological differences between National Socialism and Proletarian Socialism? (Yeah, there is a difference.)

You're about due for a different perspective. But you're in deep denial, and thus suggest you move to a deserted island. I would like to see the results of the "one-man-is-an- island" theory. There, you'd be given a chance to prove your point. But to begin with, you don't have one.
 
 
+3 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-20 17:05
1. wreaked (not wrecked) and
2. socialist/collective???
"Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini
 
 
+4 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-01-21 13:21
Hitler's government was Socialist on name only to lure in working people. It was purely a Fascist government in reality!
 
 
-85 # Martintfre 2013-01-19 16:33
Obama's administration makes sure thousands of assault weapons are made available to the most evil murderous scum in the Drug war for Mexico/US southern boarder..and he wants to make sure the law abiding citizens are unarmed.

Has the world turned upside down?
 
 
+38 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-01-19 19:03
To: #Martintfre
As previously stated: Never wrestle with a pig. You will get dirty. Besides the pig loves it. Not saying you are a pig. Although Earl Nightengale once said, "the only thing about a man (or woman)is his mind. Everything else you can find in a pig or a horse." We do have a Socialistic, capitalistic government in the U.S for the 1 %. This happens when the 1 % own the vast majority of the wealth of the nation. There is no evidence that this government is Socialistic for the poor or the working man. Yes, the world (including your world) has turned upside down. To quote Hemingway as regards your thoughts: "evil that is masked by glorious rhetoric." You are a very angry person. You need professional help. Tighten your bolts and get rid of the nuts.
 
 
-7 # Martintfre 2013-01-20 09:07
you said nothing about my comment - you only wasted time commenting about me.
 
 
+4 # David Starr 2013-01-20 13:05
@Martintfre: Obama or Romney, or Reagan or Clinton, the U.S. is still the biggest contributer to weapons profiteering worldwide.

And you've blown the "Obama-wants-to -take-our-guns" fallacy out of proportion. There is no way that could happen, since it too much defies reality. You're like the boy who cries "the sky is falling," but you have no proof at all because it defies reality.
 
 
+26 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-19 19:27
I note that you "forgot" to mention, in your diatribe against the ATF that Fast and Furious was a failure mostly because there weren't any laws being broken by the straw buyers so there was nothing they could be charged with. The gun nuts had made sure that any restriction on gun ownership was nullified. See The Daily Show for a précis of the history of the ATF and who is responsible for its inability to function well.
 
 
+7 # juliajayne 2013-01-19 20:43
Here's the link to the show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control
 
 
+82 # Rich Austin 2013-01-19 16:57
Many have no other dog to kick.

They cower under their bosses at work, their wives cower under them, and their offspring cower under a brand of “home rule” that is often downright abusive.

Genlock is a good example. His fear blinds him from reality. There is a class war, Johnny! It’s been going on ever since the first worker was enslaved to set the first stone in the first pyramid in ancient Egypt. That is our heritage. We have two choices: Stick together to [peacefully] win democracy, or regurgitate nativist drivel while fat cats like LaPierre use their dupes to detract us from feeling the bosses’ hand in our pockets.

Men don’t need guns. Neither do women. We need more people with spines sturdy enough to do some heavy lifting as a predicate to winning social and economic justice for all.

We have a model. We’ll celebrate his birthday on Monday.
 
 
+5 # cwbystache 2013-01-19 18:11
We had to put down a suffering old cow who could not be saved a few weeks ago, on the ranch. I need a gun. I am a man.
 
 
+37 # NOMINAE 2013-01-19 20:51
Quoting cwbystache:
We had to put down a suffering old cow who could not be saved a few weeks ago, on the ranch. I need a gun. I am a man.


Excellent proof that this question does not lend itself to a "one-size-fits- all" solution. Guns ARE needed in this country. Access to guns IS needed in this country.

No one is talking about "taking away our guns".

We are talking about limiting access to MILITARY ARSENALS by any possibly paranoid clown who needs to feel macho, and any 18-yr-old snot nosed kid who views an AR-15 as an "equalizer".

I managed our very remote Family ranch in Wyoming for 11 years. One does not properly function out there WITHOUT guns.

No. I was also in the military for four years during the Viet Nam game. There is a HUGE difference in "ranch weapons" and Military Firepower designed only to kill the max number of people in the minimum amount of time . Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

I have never required a 100 round ammo clip to put down an old horse, or to dispatch a rattlesnake or other varmint, nor even to "remind" poachers that "Private Property" signs DO mean exactly that.

The old .12 gauge has always quite effectively done the job for me. And that's facing down trespassers armed with high-powered rifles.

I don't need the rapid fire rate of an assault weapon to bring down some venison or to bag an antelope for the freezer. Tends to kinda tear up the meat anyway, wouldn't you think ?
 
 
+1 # cwbystache 2013-01-20 18:32
howdy Nominae, your post's got a lot of thumbs-up(s), as it deserves. Your last line brought back a memory to me of when I was a boy--picking little shot out of roast duck was bad enough!

Was the first day off I've had in many a week, so just left computer on and watched the coming & going of numbers next to posts, truly interesting to see the waves of it. I've been getting the idea that anyone posting a message with even a hint they're troubled by talk of "gun control" will likely be presumed by a whole lot of commenters to be someone who thinks there's a plan afoot to "take their guns away". I've never had such ideas that someone was trying to take guns away. I wonder why it's so often said! Besides, I have Mexico only short miles away from me, with its great example of the effectiveness of the kind of gun legislation it is (wrongfully) presumed I fear.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2013-01-21 06:13
@ cwbystache

Howdy ! I fully understood your post to mean what it stated. I wanted to second your point, a point that city dwellers often don't realize, that life is much different in areas where emergency services are not 2 minutes, but more like an hour away. Where things have to be settled here and now, by those directly involved, rather than passed off to strangers to take care of.

The silly comment suggesting that you call a vet to put down your cow reflected that very lack of understanding. Where I was living, by the time I went to the house to call anyone to take care of my downed horse, the coyotes would have been dining on him. That's their job in nature, and they were already circled and howling at the prospect.

People are just chock-full of silly solutions to problems regarding which they have not the slightest personal experience or comprehension.

And really ..... what is the point of calling a vet to travel all the way from the nearest little town to do a job that I prefer to do myself, as you did, as a way to honor an old friend, and to spare him the quite natural, but more painful death by predators other than man.

My comments regarding Military Arsenals were not directed at you, but were included to provide a contrast to your valid point that guns *ARE* needed for reasonable and rational purposes by many in this country, even as we MUST come to some sane agreements re: Military Arsenals.

Thanks for your comment - All the best.
 
 
+7 # juliajayne 2013-01-19 20:52
Dear "man" type. I do hope you didn't use an assault weapon to put down the cow. Otherwise you have no argument vis a vis any posible upcoming legislation.

Sorry about your cow.
 
 
0 # cwbystache 2013-01-20 07:22
and, Dear Julia, would you have said, 'Dear "woman" type" to a woman rancher who would have written what I did, written, that is, "I need a gun. I am a woman"? I was addressing specifically the poster's saying "men" don't need guns. What would he think I was, then, chopped liver? What would he have thought a woman in my position was (and there are a LOT of them out there), also chopped liver? Too bad my former boss on this outfit didn't write in with the same phrase I used--the woman who came to my door one night in just a slip and cowboy boots lugging a rifle and in a panic calling to wake me, "Get up! there's a lion getting at a calf!" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and think your comment on the possibility of my having an assault weapon was tongue in cheek; I do not have one, don't know anyone else who does, either. Oh not that I don't have plenty of arguments against any "posible" upcoming legislations--b ut they all have to do with the 4th Amendment, not the 2nd and therefore they have little chance of being grasped by a people who are at ease with visual strip searches at airports, police roadblocks for DUI, Border Patrol "yee-haws-let's -get-a-Mexican" agents asking me my citizenship or having to prove their innocense before buying Sudafed.
 
 
-3 # juliajayne 2013-01-20 09:22
Nobody is taking away your guns, so you have no argument of any kind whether you be man, woman or wildebeast. And uh, yeah, I didn't figure you used an assault weapon for putting down the cow. As for assuming all that you do in that last section? It makes your statements even weaker. You might just be trolling by making one off, nonesensical statements, so I'll let you be. Good day, sir.
 
 
+5 # cwbystache 2013-01-20 09:56
I did think it was nice that you extended sympathy about the cow, thank you--it was a truly awful time. Good day to you, too, madame.
 
 
-2 # Selwick 2013-01-20 17:58
No woman would say "I need a gun. I am a woman.
Women don't think their thingi is too short and therefore need a metal extension.

Otherwise, yes I am sorry about the cow. Always hard to put an animal down. I have been out there too, Wyoming, Ranches, wilderness, bear country. Feels saver in the night to have pistol close in case the bear comes. We didn't pack assault rifles of course, as you don't have either. Really, its about guns that can shoot 100 rounds or whatever in a minute.
Anybody out there telling you differently is lying and trying to use you for you their own monetary gain. That's what it ia all about in this country anymore. Not your rifle, not your safety, not your life, other people's monetary gain, that's what it is.
 
 
+5 # cwbystache 2013-01-20 18:55
my point was that that poster was making any man OR any woman who needed a gun into an "Other", and it needed confronting in the simplest, strongest terms. I can see that if I'd put it with other punctuation, "I need a gun: I am a man," or phrased it, "I am a man, therefore I need a gun," a storm of comment would be warranted.

I have, by the way, condemned in public people buying AR15s, e.g., easily in Tucson. What I don't want to see is having to have a background check before buying a simple box of bullets: it further destroys the bedrock concept of "reasonable suspicion" that we have lost so much of already in the name of a security that is a pie in the sky.

I did give you a thumbs up.
 
 
+14 # Majikman 2013-01-19 21:14
Was it an assault rifle and did you need 10+ bullets?
Regulating guns does not equal confiscating them (which no one is advocating).
 
 
-10 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-01-20 01:07
OK. Had to do it. "Put down the suffering old cow........" But, does one instance make you a man? The veterinarian could have been a solution to your problem. So, therefore, by logic, you do not need a gun to be a man. Yes, I understand what you thought you had to do. Sorry!
 
 
+10 # cwbystache 2013-01-20 08:09
I stated my sex only because the poster said "men" don't need guns; it had nothing--squat- -to do with my or anyone else's definition of manhood.

There are no vets to come out here but that's immaterial: I will not abrogate the responsibility and slide that dirty work into the hands of someone not intimately a part of the life of this place. That would be much like how this Nation gets the military to do our dirty work upholding the Empire while no blood drips onto our personal sleeves and we're thus allowed to occupy a hollow moral highground.
 
 
-2 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-01-20 19:42
I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, state of mind. Could I shoot a "poor suffering cow?" No. There are other ways to kill a poor suffering cow. but, that is just me. I think your "parallel" of needing to shoot a poor sick cow has nothing, anything to do with shooting healthy usually young humans, military personnel. If a vet were available to do your job of putting a sick suffering cow to death, just so that you would not have blood on your hands, does not make the vet a bad person or you a superior person. Think you are confused with doing a job that had to be done vs a job that does not have to be done, killing humans. Your long last sentence makes sense, "That would be............. ......moral high ground." Well, we agree on the last sentence, last thought.
 
 
0 # Martintfre 2013-01-20 09:11
//Men don’t need guns. Neither do women. //

Sam Colt made a 98 lb woman equal to a 250 lb rapist.
 
 
+4 # David Starr 2013-01-20 13:13
@Martintfre: You're not specific enough in your glibness. Different situations (truly, you do realize that reality?), e.g., a woman jusitifiably defending herself by any means necessary to discourage some troglodite who won't take no for an answer; compared to mass murder, e.g., carpet bombing, seemingly random acts of violence with an assault rifle, serial killing, "destroying the village in order to save it," etc.

Do you understand the difference?
 
 
0 # David Starr 2013-01-21 14:57
@Martintfre: You apparently don't understand the difference.I don't see a response. What else am I to assume?

Your nonresponses questioning your claims is as bad as Obama's nonresponses in his first debate with Romney.
 
 
+15 # A Different Drummer 2013-01-19 17:02
I am not an NRA member or even a gun owner, but I take umbrage with this bit of propaganda.

We as a nation need to seriously address mental health issues rather than attempt to scale back the senseless violence with legislation. People bent on killing large numbers of people will unfortunately always find a way.

I'm certain there are a few unbalanced citizens that are itching for a reason to create their own version of mayhem, but I think they are a very small and distinct minority. The guy flying the "Don't Tread on Me" flag is probably not one of them. And no, I don't have such a flag.

I'm just afraid that our culture that get's it's information in sound bites and expects life to adhere to the rules of television situation comedies will think all is solved if and when some gun control is ordered. That is until another mentally ill human unleashes unspeakable violence.
 
 
+27 # NAVYVET 2013-01-19 17:35
This bill increases funding to address mental health. Are you against that?
 
 
-5 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-19 19:29
Probably.
 
 
+17 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-19 19:37
Given the power of the gun nut lobby, there is no way that we will be able to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Many of the ones who have gone on a rampage have been diagnosed as mentally ill after the fact, but few if any of them were recognized before hand as being the type that shouldn't be allowed to have access to a weapon. So spending money on increasing mental health services to everyone in general not only will be vetoed by the same people who hate Obamacare, but it will also be notably ineffective.

As for that old canard about "People bent on killing large numbers of people will unfortunately always find a way." please. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make a bomb, or to get Sarin, or any of the other means of killing large numbers of people compared to how easy it is to get ahold of a semiautomatic weapon with a huge magazine and all the ammunition that you can carry? The answer should be obvious, so give that old feeble excuse a rest and let it limp off into the sunset.
 
 
+12 # ishmael 2013-01-19 17:06
The nuts are widely known as the American Taliban. Their brethren are in places like Afghanistan.

The US would be better off if they would just leave and join them.
 
 
+8 # get real 2013-01-19 20:56
In my opinion you're dead on...the American Taliban, their brethren are in place...and they are trying to take this Nation back to the beginning, when we immigrated and took this land from the Native Americans with guns and disease. They do not intend to leave but to serve the corporations while they feast at their tables. We MUST pull together and support the President against the NRA.
 
 
+73 # JAJ 2013-01-19 17:07
Somehow we must expose the NRA for what it really is: a weapons-manufac turer lobbying organization. It ceased representing American sportsmen and hunters several decades ago. Gun makers make more money the more guns are out there, so they oppose sensible restrictions such as universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, and insurance requirements for gun owners. None of those measures violate the 2nd Amendment.
 
 
+29 # AnastasiaP 2013-01-19 18:17
In fact, clergy, police and average parents are stepping up all over the place. But as you can see by some of the comments here, many Americans have virtually attached their entire image and sense of self-worth to being able to own ANY guns they want. And that's sad.
 
 
+15 # NOMINAE 2013-01-19 21:02
Quoting JAJ:
Somehow we must expose the NRA for what it really is: a weapons-manufacturer lobbying organization. It ceased representing American sportsmen and hunters several decades ago. Gun makers make more money the more guns are out there, so they oppose sensible restrictions such as universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, and insurance requirements for gun owners. None of those measures violate the 2nd Amendment.


Well SAID ! And, in a Nation of 310 Million Citizens, how is an Organization composed of 4 Million (claimed) Members allowed to bully and extort the remaining 304 Million Citizens into a cowering and shivering silence, even as their babies are being blown away while learning their ABCs ?

The rights of "Hunters" do not overarch the Rights of Citizens to be FREE FROM the neighborhood Joe Sixpacks in possession of a fully stocked MILITARY ARSENAL. The danger of what could happen there simply by ACCIDENT is a reasonable and justifiable concern for *ALL* of the neighbors.
 
 
+15 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2013-01-19 17:13
So if the rightwing gun nuts launch a treasonous jihad — easily characterized as terrorism — will the US government banish them to Gitmo, send them to a black hole in Calcutta for torture via extrajudicial rendition, or just hold them incommunicado without charge or counsel? You, know, ALL THOSE THINGS THE RIGHT (and some of the left) SO CAVALIERLY MADE LEGAL.
 
 
+10 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-19 19:39
See Bill Maher for just that same thought only he made it much more entertaining.
 
 
+42 # Vardoz 2013-01-19 17:22
I liked what Bill Maher said last night. Guns rights might be all the rights we have left with. We have no right to due process, we can be detained indefinately with out comitting a crime or charged with anything, we can be strip searched for any reason, we no longer have the right to peaceful protest and we have no privacy. So you can sit on your porch with your gun and that's about it as far as rights go. George Carlin once pointed out that we do have the right to shop.
 
 
+21 # cwbystache 2013-01-19 18:36
and we still have the right to remain silent--and unfortunately, most of us do just that.
 
 
-7 # egbegb 2013-01-19 17:30
Joe Lapointe,
You are misinformed on facts and your truth is in your mind only.
CT and Chicago have your concept of common sense gun laws and look what happens. Newtown and 500 murders per year in Chicago. If you think you can legislate civility the you have only to look at sites like DailyKos, MoveOn, HuffPo and others to see that no laws can calm the bedeviled.
 
 
+15 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-19 19:41
You know, that is the same argument that people used to use against legislating against racial discrimination.
 
 
+1 # Madmedic 2013-01-20 07:34
Quoting Texas Aggie:
You know, that is the same argument that people used to use against legislating against racial discrimination.


Texas Aggie, Why expect it to be any different. It's the children and grandchildren of those same frothing at the mouth racists that we saw in the sixties in Selma, Montgomery, Skokie and elsewhere making these arguments. Ignorance literally breeds ignorance.
 
 
+19 # Texas Aggie 2013-01-19 19:44
You forgot to mention MA which has the lowest death by gunshot rate in the country, and has as strict gun control as is possible under this Supreme Court. And that the five states that have the highest rates all have relaxed their gun laws to practically nothing. Cherry picking your examples is not acceptable, and is most decidedly dishonest.
 
 
0 # Vardoz 2013-01-19 17:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvjLc3PKTmE
 
 
+18 # jon 2013-01-19 17:36
Here in America, we have the best riot police money can buy.

Wouldn't it be an irony if they were ordered to quell an uprising of something other than "Lib-ruls".

I can't imagine anything like this happening, though. The vast majority of gun owners understand that they would not stand a snow-ball's chance in hell in such a confrontation, regardless of whatever particular fantasies they might have.

By comparison, the deranged monsters that shoot school kids and theater patrons are basicly suicidal cowards.
 
 
+15 # Dbratton 2013-01-19 17:42
Two readers have recently accused RNS of rigging votes. Although I don't know for a fact how these tabulations are done, may I point out that many times when one casts a plus or minus vote, several votes of the same nature simultaneously appear. Deductive reasoning would suggest that several people have voted at the same time. It would therefore follow that if a reader casts a plus vote at the same time as somebody casts a minus vote, these votes will cancel each other out. No need for conspiracy theories here--only logical thinking!
 
 
+10 # Doctor J 2013-01-19 19:03
Quoting Dbratton:
Two readers have recently accused RNS of rigging votes. Although I don't know for a fact how these tabulations are done, may I point out that many times when one casts a plus or minus vote, several votes of the same nature simultaneously appear. Deductive reasoning would suggest that several people have voted at the same time. It would therefore follow that if a reader casts a plus vote at the same time as somebody casts a minus vote, these votes will cancel each other out. No need for conspiracy theories here--only logical thinking!

Unfortunately, logical thinking, reading with a critical eye, and fact-based analysis are lacking in many segments of our society.
 
 
-2 # NOMINAE 2013-01-19 21:13
@ Dbratton

Yezzir ! Logical thinking is where it's at !

Unfortunately, as a Systems Analyst, I can attest that the chances are very small that the number will changes in increments in excess of THIRTY FIVE at a whack as they did at least six times in my own personal experience at one logon on a Friday afternoon when most readers can be expected to be at work.

When you see THAT, "logical thinking" demands that you NOTICE the pattern and start looking, at the VERY least, for a computer "bug", intentional or unintentional as it may or may not be.

That's just to satisfy "computer logic", as well as to accommodate "logical thinking", all in one swipe !
 
 
+5 # moonraker 2013-01-19 17:51
moonraker In 1996, former CIA director William Colby stated with reference to militias: "It is not because these people are armed, that America needs to be concerned. It is not that these people stockpile weapons and have para-military training sessions, that they bare dangerous. What concerns me is some-
thing more serious, that I fear our politicians do not see, cannot see, and refuse to deal with. They are dangerous because these people are, in most cases, mature citizens who have done everything, and who, tragically and in many cases very justifiably have lost faith in the integrity and honesty of their own govern-
ment. Yes, they are dangerous because, they are true patriots who are disenchanted with the government and the system they have grown up loving, supporting and giving their lives and talents for the moment they were born. For many of them, it is as if they learned that their mother was a prostitute and that theyare bastards. It really is that traumatic. They are dangerous because there are so many of them. It is one thing to
have a few nuts or dissidents. They can be dealt with, justly or
otherwise, so that they do not pose a danger to the system. It is
quite another situation when you have a true movement ---
particularly when the movement is made up of society's average, successful citizens. The handwriting is on the wall in several places.
 
 
+18 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-01-19 17:57
We'll always have crackpots. The question is"Why do we arm them"?
 
 
+19 # shelterform 2013-01-19 18:16
One persons rights to buy 30 or 100 round magazines on the internet is in conflict with another persons right not to be mowed down at a movie theatre, school, shopping center etc. The magazines have to go. These magazines should be banned because their only purpose is to inflict maximum casualties in war. They are not self defense weapons or sporting weapons. IMHO the best home defense in close quarters is bear pepper spray. It will stop a charging 1200 lb bear at 30 ft. and if you get the draw on an assailant it will leave them blind and writhing on the floor in agony for 30 minutes. Nobody gets killed and might be a good idea for teachers who want some method of defense but don't want to administer lethal force.
 
 
+9 # moonraker 2013-01-19 18:18
moonraker To continue...... We know from CNN and USA Today polls that about three out of every four Americans no longer trust their own government. And the distance between the
government and the citizen is increasing instead of decreasing.
And that means, quite simply, that there is a base of support for
the patriot and militia community which is not visible and may not be seen or understood by our government. Our government
and political leaders are still in the mode of viewing the outspoken and visible members of the so-called patriot movement simply a few nuts who need to be shut up. This is a very dangerous trend. It is time fr the government and the media to close the gap between the government, the media and the patriot movement, rather than exacerbating it. The first step in that process is communication. Someone needs to step into that forefront and tell the story of the militias and the patriot movement --- what is, why it has developed, what it means t
America if not properly addressed by government, who is involved and just where it is strongest, and how this movement can be positively directed, rather than negatively directed -- perhaps by foreign powers. WAKE UP AMERICANS!
 
 
+4 # flippancy 2013-01-20 00:30
As to trusting the government, it's all relative. I have some doubts in some areas, but one thing is certain, the government ids far more trustworthy than any profit making organization.
 
 
-13 # Yakpsyche 2013-01-19 18:19
Yeh, this thumbs up, thumbs down thing doesn't work. I clicked down on one with a positive green score and it added another positive vote! I clicked green up on one with numerous red bad votes and it added another bad vote. What's up? This is not right!
 
 
+10 # Glen 2013-01-19 18:55
A lot of other people are voting at the same time. That creates the confusion, but it isn't cheating or a faulty system.
 
 
+12 # Dion Giles 2013-01-19 20:52
It's not only if several people have hit the arrows at the same time. If it is a while since you last hit any arrows, the system will have been accumulating hits during that time. Your making a selection releases all those changes at once and displays the total result together with your selection. The system is straight - it isn't a Diebold voting machine.
 
 
+2 # NOMINAE 2013-01-19 21:19
Quoting Yakpsyche:
Yeh, this thumbs up, thumbs down thing doesn't work. I clicked down on one with a positive green score and it added another positive vote! I clicked green up on one with numerous red bad votes and it added another bad vote. What's up? This is not right!


This is great ! When I read your comment above it had three thumbs down. I countered them by giving you one thumbs up. The second I clicked it, the computer reduced your red thumbs by TWO instead of the one it should have. Somebody else was defending you at the same time, according to RSN I.T. ! :)
 
 
+19 # thekidde 2013-01-19 18:39
My late Uncle belonged to the NRA for years and quit, as did his son, when the organization became radicalized and irrational.
 
 
+8 # ghostperson 2013-01-19 18:39
I have long thought that our fundamentalists are fighting their fundamentalists and we are caught in the cross fire.
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2013-01-19 18:44
Frankly, I worry about the President's safety on inauguration day -some nut or "normal" lemming of the NRA might just take a shot at him.
All you -frankly racist- Obama haters who call him a "Fascist" or "Socialist" or whatever other idiot title you want to put on him -would you be happy then?
I heard a genuine "patriot" who'd barely been out of the county, never min d the state or country, state loudly in a bar I no longer go to that he was a "Communist, Fascist, Socialist, Nazi" and that was just over Obamacare. So this article is not unrealistic. I've even heard it or something similar from some reactionaries who infest RSN occasionally.
In such an eventuality the LA race riots will seem like a family picnic and your so-called "freedoms" would really get a squeeze.
I'd like to see y'all with yer li'l high powered bee-bee guns stand up to the power of big bro' if such a thing happens.
And for once, I'll be on their side.
 
 
+12 # Timaloha 2013-01-19 19:33
5000 rednecks with AR-15s are no match for one pilot in an F-15.
 
 
+4 # KrazyFromPolitics 2013-01-19 21:19
Quoting Timaloha:
5000 rednecks with AR-15s are no match for one pilot in an F-15.

Too many Rambo movies. LOL
 
 
+8 # NOMINAE 2013-01-19 21:30
Quoting Timaloha:
5000 rednecks with AR-15s are no match for one pilot in an F-15.


Yeah .... or one Tomahawk / Hellfire Missile fired from completely out of sight of 5,000 rednecks.

The idea of entering into an "arms race" with the U.S. Military is just simply *beyond* "precious". Ask the former Soviet Union how that strategy worked out for THEM !

It is not only too late to enter into an arms race with the U.S. Military, it is too late to enter into an arms race with all of the "Black Ops" "Secret" armies built and funded by the 1% such as Black Water.

Don't we all fondly recall when Blackwater and their black helicopters showed up in New Orleans during Katrina? They repelled down ropes and started bulling citizens around at the point of their automatic weapons. TOTALLY unlawful and unauthorized by ANYONE !

NOW aren't you glad, as Bill Maher said that "some guy out in Tennessee named 'Skeeter' has that .22" ?
 
 
+8 # ghostperson 2013-01-19 18:45
When the unqualified right to bear arms is before the SCOTUS, given the the 5-4 fault line, 5 on the far right, if the original intent is what they claim must be observed, the 2nd amendment means that we all have the right to bear front loading muskets and that the founding fathers could not have imagined the arms we not have.

That is what the 5 do when rights supported by the left come before them, insist that the constitution must be viewed exactly as the framer's would have meant at that time.

Hence, modern weaponry is not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Watch how fast the wingnuts start backpeddling, and holding their mouths a certain way to finangle themselves out of their own arguments.

In short, the law is whatever they say it is after massaging the consitution's provisions to suit themselves.
 
 
0 # flippancy 2013-01-20 00:26
Actually, the supreme court ruled in the 30s that the required "well regulated militia" included ONLY the National Guard and therefore nobody else has a second amendment "right to keep and bear arms." The 2nd amendment had nothing to do about protecting your home or life. Because the founders didn't want a standing army and since Shay's Rebellion had almost toppled the federal government they wanted an armed segment of the population in order to protect the government, and not to protect the people FROM the government which is absurd on the face of it.

There are tons of apochrophyl quotes going around now supposedly showing statements from Jefferson, Franklin and others. These think=gs are mostly outright lies, but in a few cases they are totally out of context quotes.
 
 
+15 # tbcrawford 2013-01-19 18:47
A gun is like a car and should be treated as one -- a killing machine when used improperly...A device for protection when registered and the owner vetted.
 
 
-2 # jerrypenguin 2013-01-19 19:09
The absurd commentary of the author about the gun control "debate" is the reason I will not join the so-called "debate."

My personal attributes are over seventy years of age, robust health, and never arrested. I shot my first small caliber rifle at around six years of age. I fired my first "man sized" rifle at around age eleven. As a young man, I learned the meaning of being on the receiving end of hostile firearms.

I know something of intellectual discourse. My education was grounded in the trivium and quadrivium. To my dismay, such does not exist within contemporary education. The author's commentary verifies my observations. Hence, the reason for my refusal to join the gun control "debate."
 
 
-24 # Depressionborn 2013-01-19 19:34
We may need lots of guns to fight Nazis.

The word “Nazi” is a compound-contra ction of the German words for “National Socialist Workers Party.” Note the word “socialist.”

Socialists want all the guns. They think they are going to need them maybe?
 
 
+17 # KrazyFromPolitics 2013-01-19 21:15
Quoting Depressionborn:
We may need lots of guns to fight Nazis.

The word “Nazi” is a compound-contraction of the German words for “National Socialist Workers Party.” Note the word “socialist.”

Socialists want all the guns. They think they are going to need them maybe?

The Nazis, like other tyrannical regimes, co-opted the word "socialist" into their agenda to make what they were really doing more palatable to their followers. Nazism was fascist, or a marriage of a tyrannical government with corporate elites, and has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a benign idea that "promotes the general welfare" (US Constitution).

So, "Depressionborn ", if "socialist" ideas had not taken hold in the US during the Depression, you may not have made it out of childhood during the 1930s. while you spew paranoid ideas and misinformation, today's corporate fascists are bending you over. Good luck with your peashooter if you ever have to face-off a military grade weapon system.
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2013-01-20 11:01
Quoting Depressionborn:
We may need lots of guns to fight Nazis.

The word “Nazi” is a compound-contraction of the German words for “National Socialist Workers Party.” Note the word “socialist.”

Socialists want all the guns. They think they are going to need them maybe?

You are depressingly out of synch and need to change y'r name to "Depressedborin g". The word "Socialist" meant "for Germans (preferrablyAry ans) only, as reflected in the chant "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer"! - Or as Franco put it ¡"Todo para la Patria"!
If you indeed born in the depression, you should know this better than anybody having lived through WW11, unless it was in a cave or as an apprentice Dulles Bro's shill or burgeoning John Bircher.
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2013-01-20 17:18
Quoting Depressionborn:
We may need lots of guns to fight Nazis.



Socialists want all the guns. They think they are going to need them maybe?

It is illiterate to think that National Socialist means 'socialist'. It was a political ploy by the fascists to make themselves more 'palatable' See Mussolini's definition of fascism:
"Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini
 
 
-13 # MendoChuck 2013-01-19 19:37
Thanks WestWinds for your right on remarks . . . .
I wish you well and there are plenty of folks that support your stand. The rest . . . . well . . . . what can I say.
 
 
-15 # 4yourinformation 2013-01-19 20:06
More gun-hater propaganda.
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2013-01-19 21:37
Quoting 4yourinformation:
More gun-hater propaganda.


Yeah ..... or in THIS case, more outrage over the mass slaughter of innocent children by a nut WITH a slaughter gun ...... Yessir, perspective can be the first step to dialogue with intelligent people who are not so frozen with fear that they need to be packin' for their imaginary commando raid on the local 7-11 when they dash down for some Slim Jims.
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2013-01-20 11:06
Quoting 4yourinformation:
More gun-hater propaganda.

In other words, you have swallowed the NRA propaganda machine, heavily funded, lobbied for and full of lies, half-truths, self-righteous aggrandizement, rationalization of evil and venom.
As far as I know, neither RSN nor the author has lobbyists in DC and beyond, nor a swollen war chest.
 
 
+5 # BobbyLip 2013-01-19 20:15
I have nothing to say. I just like hanging out with paranoids.
 
 
+11 # wwway 2013-01-19 20:30
Over lunch the other day we were discussing just this observation. The gun culture engulfs what we've been calling the Christian Taliban for several years now. That gun nuts appear to act like terrorists is an easy observation.
 
 
+9 # Liberalthinker 2013-01-19 20:47
Guns in the hands of the bunch of paranoid nuts who have commented on this column makes me a gazillion times more frightened than criminals . AND I'M A SINGLE WOMAN LIVING ALONE ...except for my attack kittens....and I hope and pray that gun control puts screws in the wooden brains of the NRA devotees who are void in grey matter.
 
 
+16 # ishmael 2013-01-19 20:54
Sigh.
Love it when people think the Nazis, the most rightwing, fascist movement there ever was, were "socialists", who are on the far left.
They represent the extreme ideas of the right. And some people here identify pretty strongly with that.
 
 
+6 # flippancy 2013-01-20 00:17
Quoting ishmael:
Sigh.
Love it when people think the Nazis, the most rightwing, fascist movement there ever was, were "socialists", who are on the far left.
They represent the extreme ideas of the right. And some people here identify pretty strongly with that.


Because they called themselves the National Socialist party ignorant people assume they actually were socialists. I wonder if these stupid people also believe the People's Democratic party that has run China since 1949 is a democracy?
 
 
-6 # cordleycoit 2013-01-19 22:17
I love the way liberals stereotype gun owners Some of us are pacifists some are people to the left of liberal some White some minority. Many are educated some are not. We tend to hold the Constitution in respect and are like Jefferson without slaves.We love this country or the land occupied by us.We face a government gone wild ruled by a man who cannot pass a background check. So be it he calls him self a cconstitutional lawyer but rules like a tyrant. Killing torturing and behaving like a war criminal. He has the stones to revoke the Bill of Rights in all ten of them. Since when did the founders say There was right to invade peoples homes to kill children and bystanders in the name of America? As a person whose been tortured I distrust all self promoted leaders as authoritarian,u nlawful leaders they were called tyrants
 
 
+3 # ishmael 2013-01-19 23:47
Ahem .... All US presidential candidates have to "pass a background check" as you call. 35 yrs old, native-born citizen etc.

Some of your criticisms of Mr Obama are justified. And your defense of rational gun owners is accurate. Rational gun ownership and responsibkl citizenship are not, however, the topics at hand.
 
 
0 # theherbalist 2013-01-20 01:20
Oh dear. So much hate. Since you're so respectful of the Constitution, what about the part of the hallowed 2nd Amendment that says "well-regulated ?" And do you consider yourself a part of a militia? Who is your enemy? As has been stated over and over and over again, no one, certainly not Obama the torturing Tyrant. wants to take away everyone's oh-so-precious symbol of their pitiful manhood. Most of the real men I've known didn't need a gun to prove it.
 
 
0 # Xpat_lib 2013-01-20 02:09
Can we assume, then, that you felt this same way when Bush, Nixon and Reagan were in the White House? You, sir, are an example of the irrational paranoid right-winger that keeps steering this debate and logical discussion off the road and into the ditch.
 
 
-2 # Madmedic 2013-01-20 08:03
Quoting cordleycoit:
Killing torturing and behaving like a war criminal. He has the stones to revoke the Bill of Rights in all ten of them. Since when did the founders say There was right to invade peoples homes to kill children and bystanders in the name of America? As a person whose been tortured I distrust all self promoted leaders as authoritarian,unlawful leaders they were called tyrants


WTF?

A prime example of why we need tighter controls on not just guns, but computer keyboards!

Board monitors, I am not trying to attack anyone, just legitimately puzzled.
 
 
+1 # flippancy 2013-01-20 00:14
As I like to point out, every gun nut has penis envy, especially the men.
 
 
-1 # ConstitutionalSam 2013-01-20 08:07
And they are mentally ill too. Good point. JK
 
 
-1 # ConstitutionalSam 2013-01-20 12:40
Come on folks! JK = Just Kidding. Can I get just a few thumbs up for the comment?
 
 
+6 # LeeMGreen 2013-01-20 01:21
Universal Public Service would make the Second Amendment function as it was meant. Every gun owner regularly take training and demonstrate skills and attitudes consistent with responsible citizenship. Non gun owners would learn survival skills in natural disasters.
 
 
-1 # Arianna 2013-01-20 01:35
Australian law is a model, with huge drop in shooting deaths and suicides. Ban on semi-automatic rifles and shot guns, including importations resales, and ownership. Bought them back at retail price plus ten percent. No repairs allowed, no sales, no ownership. Hunters said if you need a semi-automatic to kill an animal you shouldn't be out there. Also, if anyone with mental health problem could have access, have to store guns somewhere else. A man in China went to a school and knifed 23 people, but they survived because it was a knife not a gun.
From Democracy Now Dec. 18.
 
 
0 # Dr Peter Sloane 2013-01-20 04:44
@WestWinds, I live in England and I too have been burgled a few times whilst "out of the house" This is purely because the burglar knows I'm out! Burglers are essentially cowards, they do not want confrontation or identification. Also they don't want me to call the (unarmed) Great British police.
 
 
+8 # Dotty 2013-01-20 07:10
If you sit on your porch with your guns to fight the Government, look up, there are drones over head.
 
 
+2 # Martintfre 2013-01-20 09:16
Quoting Dotty:
If you sit on your porch with your guns to fight the Government, look up, there are drones over head.

Nice -- Obama drones
 
 
+1 # kalpal 2013-01-20 07:33
So far as I have read or heard the only ones who are talking about all guns being confiscated are the most feeble minded low information gun nuts.

Strange how America's right wing keeps harping on how incompetent government is yet somehow this terminally incompetent government will suddenly arise and make a grab for 300 million guns.

Silly scared hate filled ignorant gun nuts should avoid displaying their ignorance to the rest of the world. I gather you are nit ashamed the world knows you are ignorant and frightened but I am ashamed to hear talk of American exceptionalism coming out of the boobs who can't explain why they are so scared of the people they voted into office.
 
 
0 # Selwick 2013-01-20 18:19
Excellent!
 
 
+3 # ConstitutionalSam 2013-01-20 08:02
There was an story in Truthout some time ago that the true purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect slavery. I was tempted to post "Too bad it did not work" just to see reactions, but alas, that publication lacks the ability for readers to comment. But, on reflection, I am not sure the comment is appropriate. If one were to substitute CONTROL for OWNERSHIP, then maybe we are all slaves to the 1% or the government or both. One thing is clear. Ideas can not be stopped, however popular or unpopular they may be. True freedom is becomming more elusive to all of us as time passes. Just my opinion......
 
 
0 # mjc 2013-01-21 10:05
There was indeed a blog on how the 2nd Amendment protected the "slave patrols" who sought out escaped slaves. Patrick Henry was the "founder" who insisted on it to protect the patrol in their ability to have and use guns in their work. Can't understand the remainder of your post although agree that true freedom has really never been a founding principle. Freedom is always balanced with responsibility and discipline.
 
 
0 # Lromfried 2013-01-20 08:46
Those who believe that the 18th century Constitution gives them the right to carry a gun should use the weapon the Founding Fathers were writing about -- an 18th century rifle.
 
 
+1 # Wind in His Hair 2013-01-20 10:56
All this is silly, Americans love guns. If you don't think so go try to buy a good Military semi-auto. They are sold out at $1000 to $2000 a pop. Get on the waiting list, the gun makers are working overtime. The worst thing this administration did is crank up the old propaganda again. They are driving this country to civil war. I am old, and this is the same old all over again and again. If you could control things by bans there would not be drugs in every town in America. Wake up folks.
 
 
+2 # Arianna 2013-01-20 11:07
Thanks Lromfried for pointing out that the extension from front-loading black powder flintlocks might lead our originalists to think ownership of drones is protected. The second amendment,
according to historians (quoted in Truthout January 20) was altered to refer to states precisely because white males in slave states were required to serve in armed militias to protect their human property. They feared that federal control of arms might lead to the loss of their property. Indeed, four million were freed by Lincoln's army and his legislation. Is this a reason to permit assault weapons in private hands now?
 
 
+2 # armadillo17 2013-01-20 12:12
WestWinds, you need to understand that although you may FEEL safer with a gun, statistically the gun puts you in a lot more danger. The gun will draw violence and tragedy into your life. Of course it is no fun getting broken into---and by the way, one of the prime magnets for thieves is....firearms. And do you really think that in an armed face-off with a criminal, you would prevail? Who do you think will have more experience with a handgun---you or a career criminal?
 
 
-3 # NOMINAE 2013-01-20 17:34
Quoting armadillo17:
WestWinds, you need to understand that although you may FEEL safer with a gun, statistically the gun puts you in a lot more danger. The gun will draw violence and tragedy into your life. Of course it is no fun getting broken into---and by the way, one of the prime magnets for thieves is....firearms. And do you really think that in an armed face-off with a criminal, you would prevail? Who do you think will have more experience with a handgun---you or a career criminal?


GREAT POINT ! Portland, OR Police stats will show you that Burglars now keep "potential hits" (homes ripe for invasion) on a computer list. They will hit said homes, take electronics and other valuables, wait long enough for the Homeowner's Insurance to replace all of the victims' stolen gear, and about that time, the same home comes UP on the computer again for re-invasion!

Those same stats show that the homes that *instantly* rise to #1 on the "hit list" are homes known to contain either DRUGS, or FIREARMS ! Stolen firearms can be resold on the street for top dollar as UNREGISTERED (at least to the criminal) weapons.

And, as far as defending your own home, so far stats show that the vast majority of humans, even those with guns, do what nature *wired* them to do. They totally FREEZE in a real emergency, wherein one is not facing paper targets that don't shoot back.

So, all with combat experience: "lock and load". Everyone else, take a second "thought".
 
 
+2 # David Starr 2013-01-20 12:40
Quoting LaPointe: "They're sort of like an American al-Qaeda. A lot of them are looking forward to a race war and common-sense gun laws might be their easy excuse to start one."

Yeah, a gunfile's version of religious fanaticism, be it Islamic or Christian.

The mention of a race war reminds me of the attempted one by Charles Manson and his followers. Shall I say we have little Manson gunofiles out there based on this potential objective? (They do sound even worse than Manson, given they're not simply a cult.)
 
 
0 # catahoula38 2013-01-20 18:20
For all of those who are enjoying the right to speak adversly of the 2ed amendment and who are adament of the 1st amendment, your welcome. People like myself and every male member of my family who have served in the military are glad that you enjoy the first amendment, unfortunatly you have forgotten that privledge you enjoy was obtained through use of firearms owned by the common individual. Since you obviously seem disillusioned by our rights, and our willingness to defend these freedoms. I would suggest you take your liberal views and attempt to find another country that will allow you to speak so seditiously and openly, perhaps korea, because these third world countries are known for their human rights policies
 
 
0 # Selwick 2013-01-20 21:44
Let me ask you cathoula which war was it exactly that you or every male member of your family who served in the military were fighting that threatened directly our freedoms? Which foreign country laid at our shores and stood at our borders and threatened to take our freedoms away?

If you were really defending these freedoms because you really believed in the validity of them why do you want to send people who openly speak their mind to another country? Isn't that what you supposedly fought for, that they can speak their mind?

I really can’t listen to people like you anymore who decided(!) to enter the military and then portray themselves as the martyrs of democracy while all along they are nothing else but puppets in the game for absolute power, wealth and exploitation.

I’m with Michael Moore: Let’s stop glorifying a service that only brings death and misery to ourselves and the rest of the world.
 
 
+1 # rannel 2013-01-20 19:19
WestWind says women need guns to defend themselves against attackers. How do you draw your gun when some nut has you in his grasp... or a nut with a gun of his own comes after you? You're helpless. With guns in play, it's very doubtful that a woman wins. But with marshal arts training, tae quon do, for example, you could leave devastating marks on an assailant who has no weapon. A woman with marshal arts training, and the surprise element, becomes a lethal weapon and someone much more able to defend herself reliably than someone depending on a gun. Somehow the Wild West culture with all its guns must be handled. In Canada, for example, the Idle No More movement was started by four women. And it has grown into a world wide movement, a movement that's getting some results. Somewhere in the US there has to be a handful of women who can start a movement against the gun nuts. Your children, the children of the US, and many others depend on a movement that will risk all to tackle the craziness of the gun culture. I know it's easy to say. But organized women are a powerful force, especially when it comes to defending their children. No president can do it on his own. Civilization itself depends on you, the American citizen.
 
 
0 # DerProfessor 2013-01-20 20:19
Okay, gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters are like America's Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, fervent believers immune to rational thought. But, hey folks, 170,000,000 people were murdered last century by their own governments. This is not a matter of opinion. This is statistical fact, and does not include those slaughtered by the Nazis during WWII (except in the case of the citizens of Germany).
I wish, I wish, I wish it was as easy as passing a law. But single women who live and work in the bad part of town know how reassuring it is to carry a handgun (forget about hauling a shotgun to work if you're a nurse at a hospital; it won't happen). And for those who can't imagine facing down a criminal with a gun--rest assured, it rarely results in a gunfight. For every crime committed with a firearm, three or four other crimes are never fulfilled because a law-abiding citizen intervenes with a gun. Read Gary Kleck's Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. He is a professor of Criminal Justice at Florida State University and NO, he is not a member of the NRA. He is a member of Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberty Union, and is a Democrat. He estimates, in his book, that 2.5 million crimes are thwarted every year in this country by civilians with guns.
 
 
-2 # Liberalthinker 2013-01-20 22:55
I give up....nut cases with guns can save us all. Civil war is the only answer etc.etc. etc. ad infinitum. Making sense and being sensible about control of assault weapons is a complete waste of time in the atmosphere herein. It's remarkable that anybody is still alive in America. Gary Kleck said so and I have NO brain so I believe him..
 
 
+1 # Hot Doggie 2013-01-21 01:08
The article by Joe Lapointe is a troll article. It's meant to view honest Americans with guns as irresponsible gun toters. RSN should ban this article.
 
 
0 # cafetomo 2013-01-21 04:02
Imagine fear mongering, employed with equal opportunity. Imagine how "they" might feel the same as "you". Imagine someone else entirely, glad you two are finding ways to keep busy. Imagine what they are about, while you are.

Imagine who would profit from setting this country upon itself, as a premise for taking any last vestige of control.

Imagine it imposed for your "safety", to preserve "freedom".

Stupid humans.
 
 
0 # mjc 2013-01-21 09:58
Think Lapointe is on the right track for sure. My brother, retired Marine general, has become a willing captive of a group of other retired Marines who gladly peddle talk of the Newtown massacre as an Obama administration situation, tell that Lanza didn't use the semi-automatic rifle there but four pistols, and that the Democrats and Obama are only using that massacre to remove the guns of private citizens. Scares me for sure but what is even more scary is the inability to believe anything that comes from the internet or tv or radio. They make up the facts and declare that the ones we see or know about are fiction.
 
 
+1 # nightwolfboy 2013-01-23 02:00
Yep, in my panhandle shaped red(neck) state
I am around people constantly who exist totally inside the camo-colored bubble of which you speak. They really entertain that the Turner Diaries might have been onto something and even though they don't openly say Tim McVeigh was right about bombing this state they do muse that he was right to have such an intense interest in gun rights which was developed and nurtured in junior high and on up. They really are still fighting the Civil War "in the membrane" and they can readily conflate the most incongruent issues as long as one of them is gun rights.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN