RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Andersen writes: "Very, very few of the guns in America are used for hunting. Americans who own guns today keep arsenals in a way people did not 40 years ago. It seems plain to me that that's because they - not all, but many - have given themselves over to fantasies."

The Supreme Court ruled Monday on a case involving 
whether those convicted of domestic violence can own guns. (photo: Shutterstock)
The Supreme Court ruled Monday on a case involving whether those convicted of domestic violence can own guns. (photo: Shutterstock)

America's Gun Fantasy

By Kurt Andersen, Slate

08 October 17

Three percent of the nation owns half the firearms—to prepare for an ultraviolent showdown that exists only in their imagination.

Excerpt reprinted from Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History copyright © 2017 by Kurt Andersen. With permission from the publisher, Random House. All rights reserved.

ne set of fantasies has had more current, awful, undeniable real-world consequences than any other: the one that recast owning guns as among the most important rights, as American liberty and individualism incarnate. During my lifetime, the love of guns has become a fetish.

As a little kid, I was perpetually armed with cap guns until I graduated to BB guns and then, at YMCA summer camp and a great-uncle’s farm, to .22 rifles. One of my fondest childhood memories is my dad and me turning an old 3-inch pipe into an improvised cherry bomb–powered mortar to fire tennis balls at grazing cows 50 yards away. One of my older brother’s fondest childhood memories is ordering me to run across the backyard so he could shoot me with a BB gun from 30 yards and watch me crumple in pain to the ground, which he excitedly said at the time “was just like a movie.” As an adult, I’ve enjoyed hunting turkey and shooting skeet, always feeling a little like Daniel Boone or Lord Grantham. And when my wife went to China and got to fire an Uzi at a shooting range, I was very jealous.

I get the fun of guns, and of the various fantasies that shooting makes possible.

But. Oh, but. I thought of my BB gun escapade not long ago, when I read an essay by the poet Gregory Orr. Just days before Orr’s piece was published, on a firing range outside Las Vegas, a 9-year-old had lost control of her fully automatic Uzi and shot her instructor dead. Orr is my brother’s age. When he was 12, the age my brother was when he shot me with a BB on purpose, Orr accidentally shot and killed his little brother while they were hunting. “To hunt,” Orr wrote, “to fire a gun is to have your imagination tangled up with fantasies of power. A fatal accident makes a mockery of these fantasies.”

Still, hunting isn’t pure fantasy: You shoot a pheasant or a deer, and you eat it. But over the past few decades, Americans have lost their taste for hunting. Only 15 percent of us now say we ever hunt, less than half as many as in the 1970s. In any given year, maybe a third of those hunters among us, 5 percent of Americans, actually slog through fields and forests with rifles and shotguns.

In fact, fewer of us now own any kind of gun for any reason—even as the number of guns has increased phenomenally. In the 1970s about half of Americans had a gun, and it was almost always just a gun, one on average. Today only about a quarter of Americans own guns—but the average owner has three or four. Fewer than 8 million people, only 3 percent of all American adults, own roughly half the guns. Members of that tiny minority of superenthusiasts own an average of 17 guns apiece. (These data come from NORC at the University of Chicago’s 2015 General Social Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2011 survey, the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Reserve, research by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, and a survey conducted in 2015 by Harvard and Northeastern University researchers.)

Let me put a finer point on what I’m saying. Very, very few of the guns in America are used for hunting. Americans who own guns today keep arsenals in a way people did not 40 years ago. It seems plain to me that that’s because they—not all, but many—have given themselves over to fantasies.

The way I did as a child and still do when I shoot, they imagine they’re militiamen, pioneers, Wild West cowboys, soldiers, characters they’ve watched all their lives in movies and on TV, heroes and antiheroes played by Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson and the Rock, like Davy Crockett or Butch or Sundance or Rambo or Neo (or Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor). They’re like children playing with lightsabers, except they believe they’re prepared to fight off real-life aliens (from the Middle East, from Mexico) and storm troopers, and their state-of-the-art weapons actually wound and kill. Why did gangsters and wannabe gangsters start holding and firing their handguns sideways, parallel to the ground, even though that compromises their aim and control? Because it looks cool, and it began looking cool after filmmakers started directing actors to do it, originally in the ’60s, constantly by the ’90s. (It also made it easier to frame the gun and the actor’s face in the same tight shot.) Why are Americans buying semi-automatic AR-15s and rifles like it more than any other style, 1.5 million each year? Because holding and shooting one makes them feel cooler, more like commandos. For the same reason, half the states now require no license for people to carry their guns openly in public places. It’s the same reason, really, that a third of the vehicles sold in America are pickups and four-wheel-drive Walter Mitty–mobiles, even though three-quarters of four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles never go off road. It’s even the reason blue jeans became the American uniform after the 1960s. We are actors in a 24/7 tableau vivant, schlubs playing the parts of heroic tough guys.

Spectacular mass killings happen in America far more often than anywhere else, and not just because we make massacre-perfect weapons so easy to buy. Such killers are also engaged in role play and are motivated by our besetting national dream of overnight fame. The experts say that most mass killers are not psychotics or paranoid schizophrenics entirely in the throes of clinical delusion; rather, they’re citizens of Fantasyland, unhappy people with flaws and failures they blame on others, the system, the elitists, the world. They worry those resentments into sensational fantasies of paramilitary vengeance, and they know that acting out those fantasies will make a big splash and force the rest of us to pay attention to them for the first time.

Beyond the free-floating American myths underlying law-abiding American gun love—the frontier, badass individualism, action movies—there are the specific frightened scenarios driving the die-hard ferocity concerning gun regulation.

The least fantastical is the idea that if a criminal threatens or attacks tomorrow, you want a gun handy to kill him. Being prepared for a showdown with a bad guy is the main reason gun owners give for owning one, and in the surveys that answer has doubled since the 1990s. During the same period, the chance of an American actually having such an encounter has decreased by half. In New York City, where restrictions on owning and carrying guns are among the strictest in the United States, the chance of being murdered is 81 percent less than it was in 1990.

Keeping a handgun for protection may be foolish, but it’s not irrational. Even though violent crime has dramatically declined, in a country where every fourth person owns a gun, the hankering to be armed is understandable. Each of us runs life-and-death cost-benefit calculations differently. Every year, according to the Justice Department’s massive Crime Victimization Surveys, about 1 in 6,000 Americans display or fire a gun in self-defense during an attempted robbery or assault. But the dozens of new state laws that practically itch for make-my-day citizen showdowns—concealed carry, “stand your ground”—have been driven much more by fantasy and hysteria than by reason and prudence.

But beyond the prospect of protecting oneself against random attacks—and by the way, among the million-plus Americans interviewed in 10 years of Crime Victimization Surveys, exactly one sexual assault victim used a gun in self-defense—several outlandish scenarios and pure fantasies drive the politics of gun control. One newer fantasy has it that in the face of an attack by jihadi terrorists, armed random civilians will save the day. Another is the fantasy that patriots will be obliged to become terrorist rebels, like Americans did in 1776 and 1861, this time to defend liberty against the U.S. government before it fully reveals itself as a tyrannical fascist-socialist-globalist regime and tries to confiscate every private gun.

This uprising scenario, when it appeared in the 1960s, stirred people only on the farthest fringes of American politics. It is now deep in the mainstream, thanks in large measure to the work of the National Rifle Association and its affiliated hysterics. How did that happen?

When the founders wrote the Constitution, they envisioned a very small permanent national military. If Americans needed to fight wars, the states would assemble their militias. And so the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For more than two centuries, the Supreme Court avoided making any sweeping decision about what the Second Amendment meant. It just didn’t come up that much. Increasingly it seemed an artifact of another time.

The court OK’d prohibiting certain kinds of firearms, such as sawed-off shotguns. In 1980 a decision passingly noted that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to have a gun only if it bears “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” But thereafter the constitutional can got kicked farther down the road. States and cities that wanted to restrict gun ownership did, and occasionally Congress enacted modest regulations. Meanwhile people who loved owning guns could indulge their love in the United States more freely and fully than almost anywhere else on Earth.

But after the NRA’s apoplectic-fantasist faction took control in the late 1970s, it turned its dial up to 11 and kept it there, becoming the center of a powerful new political movement that opposed any and all regulation of firearms—the types and numbers of guns and accessories and ammo people could buy, who could buy them and how easily, registration, licensing, even a requirement to use safety locks. Nevertheless Congress in the 1990s managed to enact two laws—one requiring most gun buyers to pass an FBI background check to screen out criminals and another banning the manufacture of certain semi-automatic guns and of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

In response, the NRA sent a particularly hysterical, 2,600-word fundraising letter to its members. “President Clinton’s army of anti-gun government agents continues to intimidate and harass law-abiding citizens,” as in “Waco and the Branch Davidians.” Today they’re poking into a weapons cache; tomorrow they’ll be taking away everyone’s “right to free speech, free practice of religion, and every other freedom in the Bill of Rights.” The new assault weapons ban “gives jackbooted Government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure and kill us. … Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.”

The letter was signed by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s CEO. Growing up, LaPierre wasn’t a young outdoorsman but a nerd, a politics nerd, and not even a conservative one. At 22, he volunteered for the George McGovern presidential campaign, then went to work for a Democrat in the Virginia state Legislature. From there, he happened to get a low-level lobbying job with the NRA in 1978, right after its extremist faction had taken over—and in 1991, he became CEO.

The 1995 jackbooted-government-thugs letter was the moment the NRA inarguably settled in deepest Fantasyland. It seemed demented even to Republicans, dozens of whom had voted for the assault weapons ban in Congress. Former President George H.W. Bush resigned from the NRA in protest. Just days after the letter went out, the anti–gun-regulation activist Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City federal building.

LaPierre and the gun rights zealots, however, did not rethink or walk it back. Although they dominated the political process concerning gun regulation, that wasn’t enough. They sought total victory, unequivocal and unambiguous. They needed to convince a majority of the Supreme Court to ratify their new everybody’s-a-freelance-militiaman interpretation of the Second Amendment once and for all. In the 1990s that still seemed improbable. No less a figure than Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed by Nixon, complained after he retired that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

But the winds were with the gun lobbyists. When the ban on semi-automatic weapons expired in 2004, it was not renewed. Even more amazingly, what Chief Justice Burger had denounced as a fraud in the 1990s had become respectable jurisprudence by the 2000s. In cases in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court finally agreed to decide the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Four of the justices still interpreted it the old way. In the 2010 case, for instance, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion noting that back in 1791, “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’”

But in both cases, five justices went with the new reading. Now our Constitution does indeed guarantee each one of us the right to own firearms. We can argue all we want about how different guns were in the 1790s, when it took a minute to fire three shots, and about the correlation between the numbers of guns and gun deaths in the contemporary world, and how Australia’s 1996 roundup program worked. Those debates are academic, however. In this instance, the Constitution apparently is a suicide pact, and not just metaphorically.

So that’s how we got here. The NRA has won. Yet the group and its compatriots seem no less paranoid or angry, still convinced that tyranny is right around the corner and that federal agents are coming for their guns. The wholesale confiscation of guns was never seriously bruited in the United States. Through the 1980s, even most conservatives considered the fear of confiscation to be screwball paranoia, relegated to self-published tracts like Behold a Pale Horse, which imagined a “patriot data bank” kept by the government, “consist[ing] of information collected about American patriots, men and women who are most likely to resist the destruction of our Constitution and the formation of the totalitarian police state under the New World Order.” Now, however, thanks to the NRA, it’s the rare Republican leader who doesn’t encourage the confiscation fantasy.

LaPierre says that FBI background checks “are just the first step in their long march to destroying our Second Amendment–protected rights.” Thus the NRA made sure that current federal law requires that the record of every gun buyer who goes through a background check be destroyed. Nevertheless one of LaPierre’s lobbyists has noted that if the government did maintain “a database or a registration of Americans who are exercising a constitutional right”—that’d be “just like [if] they … maintain a database of all Methodists, all Baptists, all people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds.” Extreme American gun love really is a lot like American religious faith.

So one unlikely possibility—a federal registry—leads to a supremely implausible fantasy: confiscation of guns. And that leads to an even more fantastical narrative. After the full police-state erasure of liberty, in the final SHTF dream, well-armed Americans will be obliged to launch an uprising against the U.S. government.

This chain of fantasies and ones like it have become respectable. It was a milestone when, at the beginning of this century, the NRA’s president—a movie star famous for playing 19th-century American soldiers—ended a speech to his members by urging them “to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away,” then lifted a replica of a Revolutionary War rifle and snarled “fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed … ‘From my cold, dead hands!’” In other words, Charlton Heston was saying: You’ll have to kill me if you try to take away my guns.

After that, the threat of armed insurrection became more explicit. Instead of ignoring or wishing away the first half of the Second Amendment, as it had always done, the gun rights movement embraced the idea that civilians needed guns for paramilitary purposes. And finally the Supreme Court agreed. One of the decisive opinions, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, says that the Second Amendment allows everybody to have guns so that they can spontaneously form militias when necessary—that is, to make “the able-bodied men of a nation … better able to resist tyranny,” to join an armed “resistance to … the depredations of a tyrannical government,” to shoot and kill members of a U.S. “standing army” they don’t like. Scalia acknowledged that such a contingency is absurd, given that in this day and age “a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms” and “that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.” But so be it: The Constitution gives every American the right to amass an arsenal to prepare to enact that doomed fantasy.

(The relentless propagation of the confiscation fantasy paved the way both for the revised new understanding of the Second Amendment and for our 300 million–gun stockpile. Both in turn make really meaningful gun control in the United States impossible: At this point, short of amending the Constitution and buying up guns—that is, fairly confiscating them, as Australia did—what else would do the trick? But doing any such thing, of course, is now a total political fantasy.)

Are the gun zealots like dogs who catch the car but don’t want to stop barking and snarling? Or the child who threatens to hold his breath until he dies? Despite their essentially total victory, they demand more: the freedom to fire dozens of rounds without reloading; to carry guns anywhere they please, like cops or soldiers; a still greener green light to shoot people if they feel threatened. They have to look hard for things that still outrage them, such as the bureaucratic protocol that prevented military veterans of “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness” from passing FBI background checks to buy guns. Or the Arms Trade Treaty adopted by the U.N. in 2013 to monitor the international weapons business and reduce the flow to bad actors, such as terrorists. “The tyrants and dictators at the United Nations will stop at nothing,” LaPierre said, “to register, ban and, eventually, confiscate firearms owned by law-abiding Americans.” The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty.

Reasonable people hoped that after the massacre in 2012 of the 20 first-graders and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the delirium might begin to break. The killer’s mother, who home-schooled him, “had a survivalist philosophy, which is why she was stockpiling guns,” according to her sister-in-law. The stockpile consisted of seven firearms, including the rifle with which her son murdered her. To murder the children and teachers, he used her semi-automatic “modern sporting rifle”—that’s the term preferred by the national gun industry trade association, which happens to be headquartered right there in Newtown. The killer brought 22 high-capacity 30-round magazines with him to the school.

All the guns had been legally purchased by his mom. According to a Connecticut state report, she “seemed unaware of any potential detrimental impact of providing unfettered access to firearms to their son,” even near the end, “when [she] noted that he would not leave the house and seemed despondent.” Yet the sister-in-law defended her on this count—she “wasn’t one to deny reality. She would have sought psychiatric help for her son had she felt he needed it.”

She wasn’t one to deny reality. Right after the massacre and ever since, conspiracists have fantasized alternate realities about what happened. Maybe it involved an international banking scandal, and maybe Israeli intelligence was involved, but in any case the killings and cover-up were obviously undertaken by the government and media to gin up support for gun regulation. Some (such as Alex Jones) decided it hadn’t actually happened at all, that it was all … a staged fantasy, with actors playing grieving parents on TV. Or else the shooter was a hireling, a pawn, a Manchurian Candidate or a Lee Harvey Oswald. The father of one of the murdered children devotes himself to debunking the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories; in 2016 one of the pro-gun fantasists was indicted in Florida for threatening to kill him.

Two months later, the same day President Trump addressed the right wing’s big annual Conservative Political Action Conference, so did Wayne LaPierre. They had completely won. So how could he keep the madness going? By presenting an even crazier new fantasy of armed patriots’ self-defense. “Right now,” LaPierre told them, “we face a gathering of forces that are willing to use violence against us … some of the most radical political elements there are. Anarchists, Marxists, communists, and the whole rest of the left-wing socialist brigade.” Does he know this is madness? After 39 years with the NRA, is he really itching for an actual civil war, or are his horrific movie-trailer visions just good for business? “Make no mistake, if the violent left brings their terror … into our homes, they will be met with … full force of American freedom in the hands of the American people, and we will win.” your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+2 # tedrey 2017-10-08 13:52
Mass shootings are so undesirable that I would never think of advocating one even at a board meeting of the NRA.
+15 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-10-08 16:07
This is a very good analysis of gun culture in the US. It is a fantasy. The NRA nurses the fantasy that so-called liberals want to register guns. But guns are already registered. All gun sales are reported to the FBI so that it has serial numbers, the owner's address and other information. There's no need for any more registration, but the NRA keeps fighting this fictional enemy.

It is good to think about what the NRA really is. It is a branch or a confluence of two other groups: 1. the republican party and 2. gun manufacturers. The NRA is actually structured like a marketing company. They do what all contemporary marketing does. They sell a lifestyle, not necessarily a product. It just happens that you need to buy the product to get the lifestyle.

When you think about how this marketing works, you see that it constantly evolves. I-Phones work the same way. There's always a new model or gadget to add on. Everyone wants the latest technology. So it is with guns. So people want silencers, bump stocks, assault guns. There's no end to it.

On one level this is just marketing and consumerism. We need to look at other things such as anti-psychotic drugs in order to deal with mass killers. Guns alone won't get us close to resolving that problem.
+4 # tedrey 2017-10-09 12:12
But how do we get Wayne LaPierre to take his anti-psychotic?
-1 # bread and butter 2017-10-09 20:01
How do we decide who the mass murderers are before they commit mass murder? Are you suggesting more government intrusion into our private lives, and private medical and psychological records, all in the name of "preserving our constitutional rights" to carry as much fire power as humanly possible, so fewer school children can escape?
-1 # kcmwilson 2017-10-08 23:40
Alright...I have a number of guns (greater than 1) as there are hundreds of turkeys around my house and if (when) things go in the crapper I will be eating a lot of turkey. I also have water, parsley and chives.
+4 # bread and butter 2017-10-09 20:03
Do you need a rebranded machine gun to kill them? Does meat need to be tenderized during the slaughter, or can that wait till later? Does turkey even need to be tenderized?
+5 # RLF 2017-10-09 06:10
Scalia...“a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms” and “that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”

It seems like this so called student of history should have paid attention to the last 4 or 5 wars the US has engaged in where AK toting guerillas have effectively stalemated the over-inflated US military. Just saying... and that being said...seems like we should know who owns every gun...we know who owns every seems ridiculous that there isn't a searchable database for something so common sense!
-9 # skylinefirepest 2017-10-09 08:50
Firearms can be works of art but liberals don't see that. Firearms can save live, and do, but liberals don't see that. Firearms can protect families from thugs, but you guys don't see that. People don't own guns for fantasies, Mr. Anderson, they own them for the same reason that they own a car, a picture, an insurance policy. Guns are a part of life that liberals simply don't understand. Chicago has the equivalent of a Las Vegas every month and liberals don't mention it. We have cesspools of crime in almost every major city and your response? Don't go there and you won't see it. And your figures? Three percent of the country owns half the firearms? Pure fantasy on some pollers you really think that some anonymous poller is going to be told the truth about the guns anyone owns? Fantasy! When I was called with one of those polls I responded that I didn't own any firearms and I would expect that most gun owners would do the's not your business to know what I own!!
+5 # lfeuille 2017-10-09 15:28
Fine - destroy the firing mechanism and hang them on your wall.
+2 # REDPILLED 2017-10-09 18:39
More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American
0 # skylinefirepest 2017-10-19 18:52
Pilled, apparently the FBI and the Uniform Justice Division don't agree with S.A. That's not surprising as most liberal slanted media outlets don't care where there statistics come from...hence the new bullhockey about three percent of the gun-owners having fifty percent of the firearms. Pure baloney.
0 # bread and butter 2017-10-09 20:05
I think flamethrowers and hand grenades are works of art too. Can I collect them, and go around intimidating people with them in public? Would you be ok with that?

I never heard mention of "aesthetics" in the 2nd Amendment. That's a new argument.

Would you consider it "art" to bomb the Sistine Chapel?
0 # skylinefirepest 2017-10-19 18:56
I've actually seen flamethrowers and grenades at work...have you? In the right hands they work beautifully to save American lives. But I've never seen them used to intimidate people in public so I don't really know where you get this stuff. Of course, I've never seen firearms used in public to intimidate either and our area certainly has it's share of open carriers. No, I think the Sistine Chapel is fine, just like it is, but...did that stop hitler from bombing the hell out of the surrounding area?
+1 # cliberg 2017-10-11 01:57
>> Firearms can save live [sic], and do, but liberals don't see that

Firearms don't save lives, PEOPLE save lives. Can't have it both ways.
0 # skylinefirepest 2017-10-19 18:46
Ok, Cli, ya' got me on that People with firearms save lives...better?
0 # Depressionborn 2017-10-13 05:28
the ultimate goal of America-haters is our disarmament
+6 # Wise woman 2017-10-09 09:46
I think this subculture of (mostly) American men begins in childhood. Young boys are exposed to all kinds of violence through video games, TV and movies. It's almost impossible for parents to limit this exposure because it is so prevalent. The undereducated and financially insecure often live out this "fantasy" every day. Are European youth exposed each day to such mind alterating scenarios? I think not. This country was founded in violence and so it remains to this day. The whole culture needs to be changed. Guns are not toys nor are they an expression of true manhood.
+2 # PCPrincess 2017-10-09 10:44
It is not impossible. Change the Constitution and melt down all the firearms and use that for building some necessary infrastructure. See? Say it, do it.
-1 # Depressionborn 2017-10-09 17:10
Before a people are enslaved, before any nation is taken over, they are first disarmed. That’s just history and common sense. From the inside or out, a nation is always first compromised by the removal of its ability to defend itself. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, et al., they all declawed whatever organism that stood in their way - most especially the people they intended to govern.
+1 # tedrey 2017-10-10 23:02
Your reasoning is flawed. You confuse "people" with "nation." Hitler, with the concurrence of the majority of the German people, *encouraged* them to have guns, while disarming the Jews. The whites in the United States were insistent on holding all the guns they wanted, while making sure that *negroes* brandishing guns did not survive. Think it through.
+1 # Depressionborn 2017-10-11 19:23
Quoting tedrey:
Your reasoning is flawed. You confuse "people" with "nation." Hitler, with the concurrence of the majority of the German people, *encouraged* them to have guns, while disarming the Jews. The whites in the United States were insistent on holding all the guns they wanted, while making sure that *negroes* brandishing guns did not survive. Think it through.

Hopefully people are treated equally by law now, at least by intent. Why is our equality such a problem? You want a gun, go buy one, or don't, your choice.
A lot of many different kinds of us died to stop slavery. Please grow up and get over it.
-1 # bread and butter 2017-10-09 20:08
A campus cop was just murdered by an open-carry Texas Techie.


Any comments? Good thing open-carry is allowed on Texas Tech, right. Otherwise, the campus cop might have had a chance to get away!
0 # skylinefirepest 2017-10-19 18:49
B and B, I haven't read that story hasn't hit the news here. So, for argument's sake, you think that if the shooter had not been "allowed" to open carry that he wouldn't have killed the campus cop? You don't think that this person, apparently willing to kill another human being, would have been stopped by another rule?

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.