The Rude Pundit - American Has Become a Second Amendment Death Cult

[meegbear]

You can remember learning in school or at a museum or maybe on the Discover Channel about human sacrifice in ancient or distant cultures, whether it was the temples of the Aztecs and Incans down south or the bogs of the British Isles, where the Celts performed their rituals. You can remember how you felt: the gruesome fascination followed by disbelief at the stupidity of the reasons. Killing the slaves of a dead master? Ludicrous. And the tribes and nations that sacrificed children, virgins, whoever to appease angry gods just seem insane in retrospect. The circular logic was mind-boggling: We must cut out the hearts of these kids so the gods will make the crops grow and keep away the storms or volcanoes. But if there is a storm or volcano and the crops all die, we'll just sacrifice more kids because obviously we didn't please our mad deities last time.

You know that there were many people in Incan villages in Peru who thought the whole thing was bullshit, that slitting the throat of the woman who lived down the road was entirely unnecessary, that maybe they could spend more time learning about weather and crop rotation. But they didn't dare say anything because they didn't want to piss off the priests and their most devoted followers who might decide that they needed to be sacrificed next. People die all the time because cowards don't speak up.

The mass shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, hit home, literally, for the Rude Pundit. That's where he grew up. It's where he went to college. It's where his family lives and where he visits twice a year. He can't count the number of times he has been to the Grand movie theater on Johnston Street, right across from the Judice Inn and its delicious Cajun hamburgers. From the Grand, you go northeast on Johnston and make a left on Jefferson Street to get to Parish Ink, the t-shirt and design shop where he regularly bought souvenirs from home to give as gifts, where family bought gifts for him. He spoke a few times to co-owner and designer Jillian Johnson, praising her work and laughing at the puns on the shirts. Johnson was one of two women who were shot and killed by John Russell Houser while they watched the film Trainwreck in the bone-chilling air-conditioning that makes the Grand an oasis in the smothering Lafayette summer.

Many on the left have focused on Houser's despicable beliefs, which are not really that far out of the conservative mainstream anymore. It's an awfully short journey from Scott Walker to Stormfront. On the right, they're more concerned about Houser's mental illness, which is what they always talk about when a white Christian is the one doing the shooting, as if a Muslim man can't have depression exacerbated by drug use that is exploited by a radical ideology to inspire him to violence that ultimately ends his life, as he had wanted.

The Rude Pundit thought about the Inca, the Mayans, the savage tribe of Skull Island when he began trying to piece together something to say about the Lafayette shooting. It's long been apparent that the United States is now a death cult built around the worship of guns. The dead in each shooting, whether it's gang-related in Los Angeles, accidental in Virginia, or mass shooting after mass shooting, are treated as a necessity in order for us to stay safe. How is Sandy Hook any different than the Aztecs stabbing a child to keep the city from destruction? How did that work out for them?

Multiple massacres ago, the Rude Pundit could say he knows someone who knew one of the kids murdered at Sandy Hook. Now he can say he actually met one of the murder victims in Lafayette. What's next in this macabre progression? At some point, despite your faithful devotion, the priests come to sacrifice your family members. Or you.

Our firearm-centered death cult is based on a deliberate misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. No matter what courts or lobbyists or corporate-manipulated citizen-tools say, the Second Amendment has a conditional phrase, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." You can pretend that that doesn't matter or you can lie about what it means, but "well-regulated" is in there, and we live in a country that is far, far from regulating guns, let alone militias, well. The Second Amendment wasn't meant to be a murder-suicide pact. It was meant to deal with a widely-spread, small population that wanted to kill the British and some Indians. A rational nation would revisit it to clarify or change it. In the United States, that would probably just mean craven politicians frightening Americans into taking out the opening phrase so no one can bring up the argument against more guns anymore.

In Louisiana, the death cult is practically having a blood orgy on a constant basis. Writes Adam Duvernay in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, "In 2013, 446 people in Louisiana were killed with with guns, according to statistics collected by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. By body count, that placed Louisiana 7th in the nation. In terms of murders per 100,000 residents — 9.6 — the Bayou State was 1st." This is in an article titled, mournfully, obviously, "Analysis: Theater shooting won't change a thing."

If we continue to do nothing, we are all mentally ill and we are all extremists. We are just another bunch of Mayans, watching the high priest politicians cut out the hearts of the children in Newtown, the churchgoers in Charleston, the women in Lafayette, all to appease the malicious gods of the NRA, holding the gore aloft so all may see it, hoping that our sacrifices are deemed worthy, not realizing that the gods are illusions and that we're just killing our way into oblivion.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/07/american-has-become-second-amendment.html

[HassleCat]

1. I wish

I don't think there is anything we can do that will prove effective. We have so many firearms in private hands, and we have a constitutional guarantee they can remain there. It's a great freedom, but we pay a price for it. I would go with universal background checks and see how that works out. The assault rifle ban and high capacity magazine ban are pretty much useless.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. Private individuals owning guns

is not a well regulated militia ensuring the security of the state. We now have a permanent standing army.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. And look at all the wonderful things the MIC has brought us.

[awoke_in_2003]

72. True, they need scaled back

almost as much as private gun ownership. At least they are killing Americans (yet)

[Fred Sanders]

69. America already has a massive Militia - armed with 320 million guns....illegally because where is the "well regulated" part??

Those missing two words being ignored or distorted, as they even are on a plague at NRA HQ, are killing 30,000 Americans year after year.

[villager]

2. And the 2nd Amendment Death Eaters Are the Equivalent of Climate Deniers

You can see it in their posts here: No series of events, no "facts on the ground" will move them.

Lord God Gun is all.

[Skittles]

6. it's a great freedom dontcha know!

it's just the collateral damage!

[tblue37]

14. I often wonder whether families whose beloved guns end up killing their child or other loved one

(but especially parents and grandparents who lose children) ever rethink their love for guns, and if some do, whether they ever speak out against the proliferation of unregulated guns.

[Skittles]

41. honestly, I think they are too stupid to "rethink"

[2naSalit]

76. +1

to all of the above comments!

[raouldukelives]

74. +1 Just like anyone who profits from the death and assured suffering of others.

Corporate sycophants that refuse to see the link between the efforts they undertake everyday and the results on the ground for real people the world over.

Behind every Huckabee is a corporation. A corporation made stronger every day, made more powerful, by those who care not what they inflict upon others as long as they themselves make a dollar.

[louis-t]

3. "revisit it to clarify or change"?

Yeah, in LA they are already doing that. They want to change it to say you can never stop anyone from having as many guns as they want, carry them concealed or not, wherever they want, any time, whether you are mentally ill, a criminal, a child, or already have violent tendencies.

[RKP5637]

4. In America it's all about $$$$$'s. Guns + ammunition = big $$$$$'s. So, it becomes cult behavior as

America demonstrates its tribal behavior, the brainwashing tells damn fools this is good, and the profits roll in, and eventually it becomes the way of life. It is damn pathetic!

[n2doc]

5. This is really some of his finest writing n/t

[Fred Sanders]

8. Yes, it is. And preferable by a degree to the ruder writings.

[Jeff Murdoch]

15. The lack of rudeness demonstrates

just how pissed off he is.

[angel823]

17. Totally agree

I love the raunchy stuff, but the Rude one nails it here.

Again.

Angel in Texasperated

[Freelancer]

7. Human history shows that each death cult is eventually overthrown ... by another death cult -- nt

[mnhtnbb]

9. This is a very well written piece, made stronger by his restraint

from using language for which The Rude One is so well-known and appreciated.

[matt819]

10. His best yet

Death cult.

That's what we are. IVe begun calling us a savage nation for its every msn for himself attitude, at least among the Rw.

There's no other way to describe it. Not when other nations don't lose tens of thousands to gun violence annually.

[Paladin]

11. Outstanding work. Way to go, Rudester. (nt)

[NoMoreRepugs]

12. the NRA's 5 million members and the Gun Manufacturer's are way more important

and influential than the rest of us - heck we're only 310 million plus saps

that 2% (actually less) kinda reminds me of another small numbered group that have more influence and importance (cuz of their truckloads of cash) than the rest of us.....

[steve2470]

13. This is his best essay by far

A lot more innocent children will have to die before anything at all is done. I take no pleasure in saying that, but that's what I think.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Is it really about the children? Really?

Because alcohol kills 4300 underaged drinkers annually. That's 3.75 Sandy Hooks every week without end. That doesn't include drunk drivers, child abuse, etc. nor does it account for adults killed as a result of alcohol.

If prohibitions saved lives we would still be living under Prohibition.

[daleanime]

27. ........

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. I guess children only count when killed by guns?

[daleanime]

32. If you want to make guesses....

guess why I won't discuss this issue with you, feel free to 'misinterprete' as wildly as possible. I know you will, have a lovely evening.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. It's been 2.6 years since Adam Lanza killed 20 children

In that time 11,000 under aged drinkers have died from alcohol over doses. In that time the focus has not been on saving the most lives of children but only on the means under which those lives were lost. And every time the question is posed as to why 20 is greater than 11,000 the response has been to slink away amidst a cloud of snark.

It's hard to attribute any sense of seriousness to such people.

[daleanime]

38. "It's hard to attribute any sense of seriousness...."

to people who would rather talk about anything else then the problem in front of them. I guess it's a good life when you don't care about any one else's life.

Live long, I won't offer the prosper part. The way things are going none of us will. But you're OK with that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. You make that claim while dismissing 11,000 lives over 20.

And you say it with such moral certitude. I wonder how that can be.

[riderinthestorm]

45. Where are you getting that 11k number from? Because at most I'm finding 4.5k

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/special-populations-co-occurring-disorders/underage-drinking

Death – 4,358 people under age 21 die each year from alcohol-related car crashes, homicides, suicides, alcohol poisoning, and other injuries such as falls, burns, and drowning.

While I'm concurrently finding the stats on gun related death and injury to far outpace underage alcohol deaths...

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children

Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics. An additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed adolescents to 10,000 each year.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. 4,300 x the 2.6 years since Sandy Hook

People like to hold up Sandy Hook as if it is the deadliest thing killing children ever but that is obviously not the case and certainly prohibitions aren't going to work because 1) those determined to create mayhem for the sake of notoriety can't be stopped and 2) the public has no appetite.

Of the 7,000 killed or injured by guns annually --

Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/11/children-protection-gun-violence/2079177/

That's 800 over an 11 year time span or roughly 80/year. Of the remainder I think we should have an honest discussion as to how many are crime related, i.e. gang members fighting over whatever it is gang fight over.

[riderinthestorm]

90. You're going after daleanime with bogus numbers - trying to compare

2.5 years worth of alcohol related deaths to one Sandy Hook incident as you try to bludgeon them.

I can see why s/he won't dialogue with you. Your comparison from the start is dishonest...

I posted the stats from the most recent Yale study that are very, very different than yours.

I can see why folks tend to avoid discussing this with you. Feel free to have the last word here with me as well...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. How many people are killed by semi-auto long guns yet it serves as the fixation for

how much of the gun control effort?

I posted the stats from the most recent Yale study that are very, very different than yours.

I posted stats as well. I asked a legitimate question about your stats, i.e. if only 80 children under the age of 14 are killed annually what is causing the sudden jump in gun related deaths and injuries amongst the 15+ demo? Are the incidences gang related because I don't think access for 15 to 18 year olds is any easier for 14 and younger.

That's not a rejection of the stats you provided; that's accepting them at face value. What is driving that stat?

If it is gang related violence perhaps gun control isn't the answer as much as education, anti-poverty programs and at-risk intervention.

Yet, when I talk to controllers they never want to look any deeper than GUNZ! That makes them look paper thin and not worth talking to.

[Hoyt]

52. And you guys have scarfed up millions more gunz that we will have to deal with sooner or later.

The reason you don't get the answer you want (assuming you really give a damm) is that it is stupid question designed to protect your sick love for guns and disregard for society.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. Disregard for society? Or disregard for police who aren't good for anything much more than

choking unarmed people to death over the taxes on a 50-cent cigarette or breaking prisoner's necks or parading down Main Street as if they're patrolling the route to Baghdad International Airport? But they can't trouble themselves to enforce Restraining Orders or follow-up on someone reported by mental health professionals as being dangerous or approve permits within the 30 days required by law or even enter data into NICS correctly.

Show us your regard for society by clamping down on your incompetent goon squads. If they don't get any more laws to enforce we're doing the murderous buffoons a favor by giving them fewer things to fuck-up with deadly consequences for the rest of us.

[Hoyt]

55. So now you are going to use your gunz to protect us from the police. NO THANKS and BS.

There are better ways to rein in the police, without endorsing armed militias.

The crud you guys use to rationalize your gun love is laughable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. Derp! What a great way of summarizing something I never said. Deal with your incompetent goons

before trying to disarm people who just want to defend themselves from the criminals your incompetent goons can't seem to interdict. If the police can't/won't keep violet stalkers at bay don't disarm the woman who wants to protect herself from her stalker. If the police won't obey they law to deal with someone reported by a psychiatrist as dangerous they should have the decency to stop gunning down children with airsoft toys. If they can't keep Gun Free Zones rape free zones they should take down the stupid signs because all they're doing is making easy victims.

They're beyond useless; they're a menace to the very people they profess to protect. The people have a right to protect themselves and they should not be harassed for doing so.

[Hoyt]

62. Plenty of ways to protect yourself without loading up on gunz and ammo.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. But what about high capacity bean cans?

I mean, c'mon, who really needs more than 7 beans in a can? You wouldn't want people carrying military grade beans, would you? We need to reinstate the assault bean ban.

[Hoyt]

68. Worked for me. You just can't believe people don't need a gun to sleep with, go to the store,

etc. Well, the vast majority of people do just fine without gunz, despite all the gunz you and your gun buddies promote and fondle.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. Cool story, bro. And then what happened?

You got mad ninja bean can skills (though you're a bit hazy on what happens to background check paperwork) but that doesn't impose a duty on anyone else to be robbed, murdered and raped. I mean, you don't have a problem with people shooting robbers, do you?

[Hoyt]

73. Why don't you tell us about using one of your many gunz to protect yourself, or intimidate others,

or whatever you use it for?

I have a problem with cowboy, police wannabes, paranoid individuals escalating a situation, pulling a Zimmerman, or enticing others into the gun culture.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. I don't have a story. I hope to never have one but that doesn't mean violent predators are myths.

They exist and no person is obligated to allow murderers, rapists, stalkers and robbers have their way in the world. There is no duty-to-be-raped.

[Hoyt]

79. So in other words, you've been hoarding guns, carrying them, and promoting them, yet

only have fear, paranoia, and perhaps other needs for them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. Have I been hoarding guns? How many guns do I own, Hoyt?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. "I have a problem with cowboy, police wannabes..."

Not to be confused with the real police who choke unarmed people, break prisoner's necks, gun down children with airsoft rifles, shoot people holding BB rifles in Walmart, parade around in full military gear, screw-up NICS data entry, ignore the law when issuing permits, ignore the law when violent MH patients are reported, constantly making the news with negligent discharges and are six times more likely to be charged with a criminal offense than the average CCW holder.

Right now your heroes aren't exactly covering themselves in glory.

[Hoyt]

81. We are talking about gunners playing Zimmerman and cowboys.

The police have their own problems, in many cases the same issues as gun fanciers -- the need for power, intimidation, gunz to compensate, etc.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. The police are the problem. How come you grabbers never appeal to the timeliness and conpentency of

the police.

"You don't need to worry about defending yourself because the police keep the bad actors of the world properly contained. In the extremely rare instances where you are confronted by a criminal the police will be there to stop them before any real harm is done. They look forward to interacting with the public from all walks of life and are stalwart defenders of the rights of the people," said no Controller, ever.

[Hoyt]

87. You are a problem too. Next thing, you'll try to shift attention from ypur gun fixation to global

warming. That may work sitting around with your gun buddies showing off your latest lethal weapons acquisition, but not here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. "showing off your latest lethal weapons acquisition"

How many guns do I have, Hoyt? What kind are they?

Next thing, you'll try to shift attention from ypur gun fixation to global warming.

woo

[hueymahl]

64. You make a great point

People tend to lose perspective. There is a lot of research out there showing how large numbers are hard for most people to comprehend. Graphic and tragic gun violence, though much smaller total numbers, is easier to latch on to. Plus the terrible random nature of it is so scary. It is easier to blame the victim of alcohol related deaths.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[treestar]

66. underaged drinking is against the law

nobody is out there saying it should not be.

[steve2470]

29. For this country, it is

I care about adults too, but children being killed will ultimately trigger reform.

I said absolutely nothing about prohibition, but we need common sense reasonable reform, as in yesterday.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. The terms "common sense" and "reasonable" have become weasel words in the mouths of the Controllers.

What's needed is no nonsense, defined proposals that safe guard civil rights while actually taking effective action, i.e. shoring-up NICS and opening it to private sales.

[sasquuatch55]

48. #33

awoke_in_2003 (28,324 posts)
36. Private individuals owning guns

is not a well regulated militia ensuring the security of the state. We now have a permanent standing army.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. USC Title 10, Section 311

[Krytan11c]

39. Exactly

If you're going to buy one you need to be able to prove that you are responsible enough to own it. You should have to prove that you have safe storage that cannot be easily accessed by children. You should also have to obtain a license BEFORE your purchase. This license would include a background check and mental check. This license would be renewed every year or so. If you commit a crime then your license is revoked. We are talking about alcohol right? Or are these things only reasonable for guns?

[libodem]

16. America

Likes to bill itself as a 'Christian' nation. And I must have gotten this part wrong but wasn't Jesus sacrificed to end all sacrifices?

Yet, here we are, 2000 years later, wondering how much violence and hatred it takes to be more powerful and controlling than the next bloated toad.

We are worse than savages. They didn't know any better. We have no excuse.

[hifiguy]

34. Idiot religion and incessant propaganda

have always been marvelously effective at keeping the low-info/low-mental-horsepower types from seeing the truth about most things. And both have become far more sophisticated and omnipresent in their psyops over the last 40 years.

[libodem]

37. Agree!

[Arugula Latte]

99. Religion has been an incredibly powerful tool of control by the powerful for centuries,

and that explains a lot of the outright fury at atheists who even dare mention that there might not be a magical supernatural being pulling strings.

[shenmue]

42. Sshhhh, stop being accurate

[jtuck004]

18. Of course, that's if they have the money to go to the movie theater to be murdered, or are young and

in school, or in the military.

Many more deaths occur among the tens of millions who simply stay at home - people we never see - in poverty or near poverty, with a 40% greater chance of an early death than the 300 million Americans who live above that standard, especially as compared with the top .01%.

Generally speaking, they don't make the news when they die, even though they outnumber gun victims by hundreds, perhaps thousands.

There might be a relationship between the two phenomenons. According to the plan in Timothy "Killer" Geithner's book Stress Test, we are leaving tens of millions of Americans in poverty and near poverty, letting them stay in the streets after millions of families were foreclosed on, leaving millions upon millions mired in long-term unemployment, offering almost no government employment (which serves inequality, because the gov't is about the only color blind career opportunity out there for POC) so it keeps whites doing better than unemployed black folk - all while shoveling money to bank$ter/donors to make them rich (feel free to google the headlines - it's all common knowledge - the theory is called pee on or trickle down, or something) -

- all to keep the deficit down, and thus pretend the economy is doing better because we aren't investing (spending) in our people.

Voters laugh in Geither's face when he tried to spin it otherwise, here. Maybe it's because nearly a hundred million people now live in or near poverty, almost twice as many as 7 years ago -and people really aren't as stupid as he may think.

It's hard to see with the muzzle flashes blinding everyone. And it's not nearly as exciting. But when Bernie wins and is able to get the people to push through the plan it might have more of a chilling effect on not only poverty, but gun ownership as well.

Because people won't need to feel so scared.

[stevenleser]

19. The rude one and I definitely share a brain on this one. nt

[beevul]

20. Um...

10 thousand-ish firearm homicides in a nation of 300 million who possess 80+ million firearms is 'a death cult'?

Using the same standards of measurement, what kind of cult are we where alcohol is concerned?

[Indydem]

23. CDC says 88,000 a year from alcohol.

If the gun grabbers are to be believed then I guess we need to get that 21st amendment repealed first.

That will save at least 3 times as many lives as repealing the second.

[CBGLuthier]

57. Alcohol has a purpose outside of killing. Used responsibly it causes little problem.

Guns serve one purpose only and that is to kill. Which they are remarkably good at doing.

[Indydem]

61. Blah blah blah.

Overused and often refuted talking points.

#1 use of a gun is a deterrent. Period.

[melm00se]

67. I own several

and none of them have been used to kill.

I know several hundred gun owners and none of them (to my knowledge) have used them to kill.

[hack89]

95. So guns cannot be used responsibly?

you really want to say that? People can own guns for decades for other purposes besides killing thing - you really want to question that fact?

[NickB79]

24. And that number (10,000 gun murders per year) is about 50% lower than it was 25 years ago

And that's taking into account the extra 20 million people and 75 million guns America has gained in that time.

America has become a death cult?

By the Pundit's standards, we became such a cult in the mid-90's (the peak of American gun crimes), and have been on the path to recovery since then.

I'm sorry that the most recent shooting struck so close to home, but perpetuating the myth that America is becoming more dangerous by the day is not a way to rationally address ways to reduce crime.

[alarimer]

56. The CDC is not allowed to study gun violence, per the gun nuts in Congress.

So we don't actually know the real number. But there have been over 200 mass shootings this year ALONE. A mass shooting is defined as one with three or more victims. In addition, there are the ones and twos, the murder-suicides that show up in the paper on a daily fucking basis. I'm so fucking sick of gun apologists. I'm DONE.

I don't have the faintest idea where you got your numbers, but gun violence is a fucking epidemic. But the gun nuts prefer to distract us with other issues.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/24/other_gun_murder_suicides_in_u_s_louisiana_mass_shooting_far_from_only_incident.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. Ipso facto not true as a gun control advocate cited CDC gun stats to me up-thread.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. "the United States is now a death cult built around the worship of guns."

[bbgrunt]

22. sometimes I think that not only have we

become a death cult, we actively encourage suicide.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[WinkyDink]

30. The RP is more spot-on than he suspects. Check music videos: filled with death-cult imagery. Check

TV shows and movies: Walking dead; zombies; vampires. Violence and death abound.

Of course, Bush and Cheney are the original death-worshippers.

[WinkyDink]

31. NS, Sherlocks here, that people die from other causes. What's your point---that therefore we

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 09:41 PM - Edit history (1)

should ignore gun massacres?

[Uncle Joe]

43. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, meegbear.

[FourScore]

44. Brilliant. Thank you, fellow Southerner, for being a voice of reason. n/t

[hunter]

46. Yep. It's a death cult.

That's what the disturbed shooters, even the cops, tune into.

But guns and glory are bullshit.

There's nothing sacred about the Second Amendment.

[handmade34]

47. "If we continue to do nothing, we are all mentally ill" n/t

[rurallib]

53. Best Rude Pundit post ever (to me anyway)

[malaise]

58. Excellent post Rudie

You nailed it

[valerief]

65. Why can't we have a War on Guns? That way the bloodythirsty ammosexuals can

have their killing sprees and we can get rid of guns as it's done.

[onehandle]

70. The 15 billion a year spent on the War on Drugs could easily be slid over for the War on Guns. nt

[TeddyR]

83. Because the majority of Americans

Don't support a "war on guns" and the Second Amendment prohibits it. Most gun owners or Second Amendment proponents are more than willing to discuss ways to keep firearms away from felons or the mentally ill and work to reduce accidental deaths or suicides (which the gun grabbers always ignore as being by far the greatest cause of firearms-related deaths) but there is little support for a "war on guns" other than among the fanatical few gun grabbers. If you think there IS support for such a war then it should be easy enough to (1) enact strict regulations that comply with the Second Amendment or (2) repeal the Second Amendment. The reality is that gun grabbers can't even pass a law requiring universal background checks because you can't be trusted not to attempt to overreach.

[valerief]

93. Most people don't have or want guns. Ignored forever. nt

[Freelancer]

85. Never happen -- sorry. This is America's lot, and we have to deal with it. Maybe gun-free zones?

I've been in houses of very normal (if that really is a thing) people. When invited down to the basement for a beer, I've found the basement walls completely ringed with guns. I'm not talking about hanging on racks horizontally, but stood up vertically with the rifle butts on the floor.

There are neat houses in neighborhoods all across America that have whole cabinets of pistols and bins of ammo tucked away inside. The idea that gun lovers are clustered in militia camps and trailer parks, or any other stereotype that makes it convenient for anti-gun people to regard them as 'other', is completely off-base. They are our relatives and neighbors.

If, by some alignment of political stars, a law was passed that would seize guns, and the police (who value their own lives) tried to enforce it, every community in America would become a war zone. The law would be repealed in a matter of days, and gun sales would quadruple.

This is America's lot. We just have to work around it as best we can -- with background checks, gun free zones, and whatever restrictions on assault weapons that we can get passed. Judging by the movies and violent games being played by our kids and grandkids, the interest in firearms won't be going away any time soon.

[valerief]

94. You've convinced me we need a WAR on GUNS, especially since most

Americans don't have or want guns. Ignored forever.

[Freelancer]

98. What about my honest reply deserves an "ignore forever"? I don't get this forum sometimes. -- nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. Let us know when YOU or your child(ren) sign up to fight in that "war", mmkay?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. You call for a war but blame others for being bloodthirsty?

A little self-awareness would go a long way.

[valerief]

109. I can see from your favorite group what you value most, and it ain't safety. Ignored forever. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. Ignored forever = ran away forever

[DirkGently]

78. This is a particularly good one, RP. n/t

[lark]

80. Gun fetishist rule this country.

It's crazy how many liberals are also gun nuts. I've had to change many friends on FB from "friends" to "acquaintances" just so I don't fight with them constantly about guns. It's truly insane. Past studies have shown very few benefits derived by people who have guns and in many cases the guns are used against the owners. Look at all the deaths we have in this country from children getting access to their parent's loaded weapons and killing themselves or friends/family members.

This country is truly gun insane and our pols are too chicken to vote for sanity. There's so many baby steps we could take that would save many lives, like instant background checks for all gun sales, even from gun shows. No guns for anyone with a past record of violence, no guns for anyone with a history of mental illness, no guns that can be made to be automated, no armour piercing bullets, no military weapons, limited magazine size to 10 bullets.

[TeddyR]

86. So

First, referring to someone as a "gun fetishist" or "gun nut" isn't going to make them inclined to listen to you. Setting that aside, I agree with some of your proposals -- like instant background checks for all sales -- but disagree with others because they don't do anything at all to address the problem (violence in America). For example, what is a "military weapon"? The AR-15 you can purchase from your local gun store isn't an automatic weapon but simply a fancy looking rifle with potentially large capacity magazine. And why a 10 round limit? Why not 15 or 5? I'd actually be ok with a 20-30 limit but don't think that any type of limit is going to have an impact. Also not sure I agree with your proposal that someone with a past mental illness should never be allowed to own a gun. For example, are you going to permanently ban former military members with a past diagnosis of PTSD from ever owning a firearm? What about someone who was treated for depression during a divorce of following the death of a loved one?

[lark]

97. Yeah, true about the names. That's my frustration with so many unnecessary gun deaths.

AR-15 has a potentially large magazine, exactly what you need to create a mass murder. No to them for that reason. Military weapons - tanks, grenades, etc. That's probably the least critical of these, other than not sending these to police departments. That's very important. Why do you need 20-30 bullets in a row other than for killing mass quantities of people? 10 is more than enough to get a deer.
I still think the mental issue restriction is very important. Who's to say that the person is "over it" or isn't? Bipolar/PTSD/severely depressed people can be OK when on medicine and absolutely dangerous to themselves and others when off. Guns are not necessities of life, they are optional and should not be for everyone. The SCOTUS got this totally wrong, just like they did in Citizens United. I also think gun locks should be mandatory because too many kids get their parents loaded guns and kill themselves and others.

[d_legendary1]

89. I love the fact that he's pissing off the ammosexuals in D.U.

who now want to bring up deaths like alcohol, falling down the stairs, and automobile deaths to justify that their WEAPONS should not be regulated. No matter how many people die because of the ease in which guns are easily available (one of the boston bombers bought a gun and killed a police officer with it) its not gonna make a lick of difference to them.

HANDS OFF MA'H GUNS!!!

Regulate alcohol (which is being done), regulate automobiles (which is being done) but don't regulate my gunz (which sadly is being done). The guys who kill people are criminals and criminals will always get guns from the black market (where ever the hell that is). That's why you need to get an arsenal ASAP! Some psycho walks into a pre-school to shoot up your kid? Tough! Should have armed the school security guard or teacher! Remember: a good guy with a gun always stops a bad guy with a gun, especially since the police are 15 minutes away!

I think that covers all the talking points.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. Guns are regulated as well but you know that.

I think that covers all the talking points.

And yet nary a refutation.

its not gonna make a lick of difference to them.

Does it make a "lick of difference" to you that a woman with a CC permit was walking her college campus but couldn't carry her pistol because it is a gun free zone and was violently raped and the rapist raped and killed another student a month later? Does make a lick of difference to you that a woman in New Jersey applied for a permit because of her stalker ex but the police exceeded the 30 day egal limit to issue or deny the permit but her ex broke in to her apartment and stabbed her to death? Does it make a lick of difference that a single mother of 2 was twice mugged in a year so she got her permit and went through the training to be licensed to carry but when she crossed into another state and voluntarily identified herself as carrying the police arrested her and threatened her with 10 years in prison?

This is gun control. It isn't disarming criminals, it's punishing people for daring to protect themselves.

[d_legendary1]

100. If you're talking about army guns and clips

then those are regulated. Assault Rifles used to be regulated but those days are gone.

And yet nary a refutation.

Cuz the gun fondlers don't have anything else.

Does it make a "lick of difference" to you that a woman with a CC permit was walking her college campus but couldn't carry her pistol because it is a gun free zone and was violently raped and the rapist raped and killed another student a month later?

Ahhh yes the "armed victim" approach. Few fallacies with that:

1. The victim has to see the perp coming. If not having a gun on the victim is about as useless as not having a weapon. Case in point: The Boston Bomber who snuck up Sean Collier (campus cop) and shot him point blank range in an attempt to steal is gun. A good guy with a gun didn't stop the bad guy with a gun (gave you a twofer free of charge). So no, having a gun on you doesn't make any more secure than if you didn't have one.

2. There are plenty of weapons available to defend yourself which are considerably less likely to go off and kill someone by accident (as it happens to THOUSANDS of Americans every year) such as swords, the mace & chain (frequently illegal...and why is that, pray tell? That’s covered under the Second Amendment too!), crossbows, etc. Of course, some of those armaments require SKILL to kill someone...

3. Trading victims (those killed with guns vs. those that weren't) doesn't take from the fact that guns are used to kill people intentionally, kill people by accident, or kill people by way of suicide. Guns are meant to kill period! Adding guns to your scenarios does not increase the odds of survival (see point 1). Sensible gun control would prevent law abiding citizens from getting arrested in states like New York, but since the NRA is opposed to those laws then we're all victims to the laws written by the states.

Additional point:

Incidentally, most members of the NRA favor gun control.
82% of gun owners support criminal background checks for gun purchasers (74% of NRA members voiced support for background checks). Sixty-eight percent of NRA members believe that individuals who have been arrested for domestic violence should not be eligible for gun permits. And 75% of NRA members believe that concealed weapon permits should not be available to people who have committed violent misdemeanors.
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/27/157469718/new-republic-nra-members-support-gun-control

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. .

1. The victim has to see the perp coming. If not having a gun on the victim is about as useless as not having a weapon. Case in point: The Boston Bomber who snuck up Sean Collier (campus cop) and shot him point blank range in an attempt to steal is gun. A good guy with a gun didn't stop the bad guy with a gun (gave you a twofer free of charge). So no, having a gun on you doesn't make any more secure than if you didn't have one.

People do confront their attackers, by the tens of thousands each year. By definition the attacker has made the first move and thus has the initiative yet people still manage to respond and defend themselves. Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, criminals aren't exactly competent professionals.

2. There are plenty of weapons available to defend yourself which are considerably less likely to go off and kill someone by accident (as it happens to THOUSANDS of Americans every year) such as swords, the mace & chain (frequently illegal...and why is that, pray tell? That’s covered under the Second Amendment too!), crossbows, etc. Of course, some of those armaments require SKILL to kill someone...

So, having a gun is foolish but having a sword that does not allow for covering distances outside of a few feet makes more sense. And this is what you expect women, the elderly and infirm to wield in the confined space of their homes and while walking around with in public.

Sorry if this offends but -- this is beyond dumb. It's laughable that you would even provide this as a retort.

3. Trading victims (those killed with guns vs. those that weren't) doesn't take from the fact that guns are used to kill people intentionally, kill people by accident, or kill people by way of suicide. Guns are meant to kill period! Adding guns to your scenarios does not increase the odds of survival (see point 1). Sensible gun control would prevent law abiding citizens from getting arrested in states like New York, but since the NRA is opposed to those laws then we're all victims to the laws written by the states.

This argument carries 3 fallacies --

First, the idea that killing is the absolute worst. Killing rapists, murderers and other such individuals incidentally in the process of incapacitating them in order to stop their crimes is not the absolute worst. Their intended victims have neither moral or legal obligation to allow themselves to be victimized.

Second, suicides will not cease being suicidal just because they have been deprived of one mechanism to take their life. Japan does not allow for private gun ownership yet has 19 times the suicide rate of the US. Suicide by rope is no better than suicide by gun yet the Controllers only fixate on suicide by gun rather than the underlying mental illness because -- I suspect -- if not for those deaths they would have nothing to exploit.

Third, abuse does not abolish the use. Lots of inherent rights are abused - every day. Lots of things that aren't rights but are legally permitted are abused every day. Some of these abuses even result in the loss of life yet matters are adjudicated strictly on a case by case basis.

Incidentally, most members of the NRA favor gun control.
82% of gun owners support criminal background checks for gun purchasers (74% of NRA members voiced support for background checks). Sixty-eight percent of NRA members believe that individuals who have been arrested for domestic violence should not be eligible for gun permits. And 75% of NRA members believe that concealed weapon permits should not be available to people who have committed violent misdemeanors.
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/27/157469718/new-republic-nra-members-support-gun-control

I regularly post that I would like to see NICS kept up to date and made available to private sellers.

[d_legendary1]

111. ...

People do confront their attackers, by the tens of thousands each year. By definition the attacker has made the first move and thus has the initiative yet people still manage to respond and defend themselves. Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, criminals aren't exactly competent professionals.

Well, usually when people are attacked they have to confront the attacker in order to flight or fight. Contrary to Hollywood portrayls not everyone is a former FBI/CIA/Special Forces agent who can pull a gun on someone and shoot them one handed with the piece turned horizontally.

So, having a gun is foolish but having a sword that does not allow for covering distances outside of a few feet makes more sense. And this is what you expect women, the elderly and infirm to wield in the confined space of their homes and while walking around with in public.

Sorry if this offends but -- this is beyond dumb. It's laughable that you would even provide this as a retort.

You completely missed my point so I'll have to dumb it down a little (no offense). In Florida where I roll you can't have a knife longer than four inches without a concealed permit. And God forbid if the blade is spring-assisted since at best you'll lose your knife or worse you'll go to jail (sping-assisted knives are illegal I believe by federal law thanks to those old school hollywood ganster movies). The point is that there are laws on certain types of melee weapons that are convenient to deter would be offenders, yet when it comes to certain types of guns its oppression and tyranny from our gubbermint (per NRA). Hell, I got my Glock before I got my concelaed permit!

I regularly post that I would like to see NICS kept up to date and made available to private sellers.

OMG common ground! It would help private sellers find out if the person buying the piece has violated the law before. That would be a good start!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. .

Well, usually when people are attacked they have to confront the attacker in order to flight or fight. Contrary to Hollywood portrayls not everyone is a former FBI/CIA/Special Forces agent who can pull a gun on someone and shoot them one handed with the piece turned horizontally.

I never claimed they were. I asserted, quite factually, that people successfully defend themselves after someone has already confronted them. That statement was predicated on the assumption people are not trained agents.

Of course, your point speaks to the silliness of those who demand civilians be trained to near-special operations levels to

The point is that there are laws on certain types of melee weapons that are convenient to deter would be offenders, yet when it comes to certain types of guns its oppression and tyranny from our gubbermint (per NRA).

How does one set of dumb laws justify instituting another set of dumb laws? The ban on spring assisted blades is as pointless as the ban on sawed-off shotguns and, in the words of one particularly misguided soul --

Hell, I got my Glock before I got my concelaed permit!

If a person never intended to carry their weapon concealed a CC permit requirement prior to purchasing would be pointless.

That would be a good start!

The question is: Where is a good end?

Most Controllers see no end except a complete and total ban with far too many advocating forced confiscation.

[d_legendary1]

114. ...

I never claimed they were. I asserted, quite factually, that people successfully defend themselves after someone has already confronted them. That statement was predicated on the assumption people are not trained agents.

Factually? You claimed thousands of people without a shred of evidence. What'd you use? That stupid ass National Survey that says almost every gun owner shoots like Anne Oakley? C'mon! Here's something that says your claim is bullsh*t:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html

But you're not wrong in stating that people have successully defended themselves. Maybe I proved your point?

How does one set of dumb laws justify instituting another set of dumb laws? The ban on spring assisted blades is as pointless as the ban on sawed-off shotguns and, in the words of one particularly misguided soul --

Gun laws are dumb? How about preventing mass shootings since they're all the rage now! How about stopping the wrong individual from obtaining a weapon that could be used against someone? Or better yet how about reducing our gun murder rate so that we're not #1 when compared to other developed countries?

If a person never intended to carry their weapon concealed a CC permit requirement prior to purchasing would be pointless.

My point is that if I wanted to do some crime I could purchase a weapon before obtaining a permit and make someone's day. Or as illustrated:

?1369734397

The question is: Where is a good end?

Most Controllers see no end except a complete and total ban with far too many advocating forced confiscation.

I'm not for confiscation or total ban either. I don't want to lose my piece or my shottie that I got two years ago. I just want to make sure that I don't get shot by some lunatic when I'm having an evening out with the wife.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. Hemenway?

Here's a thread, with links, discussing the long re-hashed myths presented by Hemenway -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159285

I could just copy over the rebuttals but I think it is more fair to present both sides of the debate.

Meanwhile, the CDC (supposedly unfunded) reports --

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06

Gun laws are dumb? How about preventing mass shootings since they're all the rage now! How about stopping the wrong individual from obtaining a weapon that could be used against someone?

The dumb laws I was referring to was the prohibition against spring-loaded blades and sawed-off shot guns and regulations against the shoulder thing that goes up.

The question is: What laws? Passing laws for the sake of passing laws is futile; see, NY SAFE Act.

Rampage killers do not materialize out of the blue. Their behaviors grow increasingly abhorrent and that tends to bring them in contact with people in authority. Cho, Lanza, Loughner, Rodgers, Holmes, Hasan, Alexis, Houser, Roof all had prior contact with police and/or mental health professionals. Yet, the authorities failed to act under the powers already granted to them by the law.

Why would we pass more laws that will simply be handled by the same incompetents?

As for your chart --

Some nations like Switzerland have gun ownership levels comparable to the US but only a fraction of the gun violence. Some nations like Japan and Mexico have virtually no gun ownership but rates of suicide and violent crime that dwarf the US.

Guns are not the variable.

My point is that if I wanted to do some crime I could purchase a weapon before obtaining a permit and make someone's day.

You would still have to pass a BGC at the point of sale.

I don't get shot by some lunatic when I'm having an evening out with the wife.

The authorities seem breathtakingly incompetent with regards to public safety. It would be foolish to depend on them. In fact, they aren't even legally obligated to act against crimes committed in their sight or act on someone violating a restraining order.

People are always their first, last and best line of defense.

[hack89]

96. Guns are regulated

but you know that. They are simply not regulated to the extent that you desire.

[d_legendary1]

101. Sure they are. That's why the Assault Rifle Ban was renewed!

Oh wait...

[hack89]

103. So gun regulation starts and ends with the AWB?

an AWB that was useless and did not actually ban military style semi-automatic rifles?

[d_legendary1]

105. Never said that it starts with the AWB

though the AWB banned certain types of AR-15s and AK-47s. Arguably it did stop mass shootings (Newtown and Colorodo shooters used rifles that were previously banned). But it didn't go far enough.

There were great pieces of legislation that were shot down by the NRA and its lap dog Congress members that would have helped (a gun registry where guns sold through garage sales can be tracked for example). Instead we got nothing! And we'll get nothing as long as the NRA keeps telling people that the gubbermint is coming for their gunz.

[hack89]

107. You are wrong

CT has (going back before Sandy Hook) an AWB based on the California AWB which is a stronger version of the Federal AWB of 1994. The Sandy Hook rifle was legal under the CT AWB (and would have been legal under the Federal AWB) and was not considered an assault weapon. The 94 AWB banned certain cosmeteic features like flash suppressor and bayonet lugs. The manufacturers simply took them off the rifles and kept selling them. AR-15 sales actually peaked during the AWB. That is why the AWB was allowed to sunset - no one could actually show it made a difference. All it did was make the NRA rich and powerful.

[d_legendary1]

113. The CT AWB was molded after the Federal AWB and

was just as cosmetic. The CT Legislature would have prohibited large magazines but the gun nuts and the NRA killed it in 2011. After the expiration date large magazines made a comeback and with it the mass shootings that we have today. And to date no renewal or even a replacement for the AWB thanks to the NRA. After Newtown tough regulations were put in place which are being fought by the gun advocacy groups tooth and nail.

[Freelancer]

104. Addressing reality while we try to change it...

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Reality: America is a gun culture. About 25% of America strongly disagrees with that. Around 50% either own one or none, but object to the right being impinged. AND about 25% own multiple guns (and we can assume where they stand).

Reality: America is becoming more Hispanic by the year. Simply requiring Spanish speakers to learn English does not address the real issue -- that English speaking European descendants dislike Hispanics having another language (that they don't understand) at all. They may be plotting an overthrow, you know (said facetiously).

If we choose to address reality, while we try to change it, then I propose that ALL children in U.S. schools be required to learn about gun safety, and also be required to learn Spanish. Spanish for obvious reasons of national and hemispheric cohesion, and guns so that they can understand the destructive potential involved with firearms and have some grasp of how thick a piece of concrete or wood needs to be to provide survivable cover, in a theater, a school, or a church/temple/synagogue, in the unlikely event that someone barges in with a gun.

This proposal gives something to the left AND the right by acknowledging that neither one is going away. In the bargain, the rising generation will become less xenophobic, and maybe 30 or 40 people a year will survive the toxic side-effects of having a gun culture, who otherwise might perish.

[melm00se]

116. the RP lost me

with this sentence:

No matter what courts...say

.

this just says to me that the RP only agrees with laws and interpretations that HE believes in.

I am certain that there are people out there who don't agree with "what the court...says" on issues that he holds near and dear.

this is the price to be paid when living in a republic like this one, not every decision/law/rule/interpretation will go the way he thinks that they should.

need examples?
- abortion - the case can be made that the USSC created a right as the Constitution does specifically call out "privacy"?
- same sex marriage - the case can be made the the Constitution doesn't specifically enumerate marriage so how/why can the USSC say it is a Constitutional right?