NRA Supported Politicians: They are coming for you.

I want to tell you one of my favorite political stories. Then, I want to tell you my newest favorite political story.

The Minnesota Legislature has a High School Page program. They’ve been running it for decades. Each member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, from across the state (distributed uniformly by population density) brings in a page.

One day I was at an organizing and fund raising event for the opposition to the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. This was a constitutional amendment proposed to make only “one man, one woman” marriage legal, at the constitutional level, in this state. A senior member of the legislature was there, and she told us about the page program. She noted that a poll had been done across the pages about various issues, including a question asking their position on the marriage amendment.

Remember, these are high school students, all too young to vote, but since time marches forward most of the time, eligible to vote in a year or two. Remember that this is students from all across the states. The spawn of lefty liberals from South Minneapolis, the spawn of Suburban Priv, the spawn of right wing Trump-loving (had Trump existed yet) farmers from corn country.

What was their preference as a group, with respect to the marriage amendment? 100% against.

“They are coming for us,” the senior representative said. “Doesn’t matter what the Legislature thinks now. This is going to change everything.”

My second favorite story: A young woman from Parkland High School speaking at a public rally in Tallahassee.

“Soon we will be able to vote. And we will vote you out.”

Dear NRA supported politicians. They are coming for you. Might as well step aside now.

Spread the love

113 thoughts on “NRA Supported Politicians: They are coming for you.

  1. It is telling how quickly the right has moved to castigate and flat out lie about how the teens from various places, especially Florida, are “paid actors” because they (the teens) are royally pissed off at being ignored.

    Good old Michigan embarrassment “I chose to give up personal hygiene and trips to the bathroom for a month so I could be filthy and covered in shit when I went for my VietNam draft meeting in the 60s and avoid going to war” Ted Nugent is the latest to jump into the fray.

  2. I am so looking forward to Ted Nugent getting washed away by the tidal wave of media savy, intelligent young Americans who are going to blast his stupid ass canoe out of the media water once and for all. He has no idea who he is dealing with. He is making a terrible miscalculation. I have been looking forward to Ted Nugent’s demise since around 1971 when this personality disordered flake started leading American youth down the road of mindless primitive violence. A pox on him. May his diseaded and disordered reign soon be over.

  3. David Crosby had a perfect twitter comment earlier this year. Nugent was once again crying that he had been overlooked by the “leftists” at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and wasn’t included simply because of his politics. Crosby said

    It isn’t because of your politics Ted. You simply aren’t fucking good enough to get in.

  4. Liberal Democrat in North Dakota, do you recommend this person vote for Heidi, endorsed by NRA who voted against assault weapons ban after Newtown?

    1. The answer, of course, would be “who would she be running against?”. I wouldn’t vote for her in a primary if there was a Dem to the left (not just on the gun issue) of her running. But I’d vote for her against any R running.

      Because about 25 years ago I decided I’d never vote for another R for the rest of my life, and that’s a pledge I expect to keep.

    2. An interesting point, I hadn’t thought about the primaries. Should she be primaried, and should liberal Democrats refuse to vote for an NRA endorsed Democrat?

      Both actions risk losing a seat to a pro-NRA Republican.

  5. One of the mother’s of a slaughtered child said it well. Why were her child’s right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness overridden by the second amendment? And why are the rights of all of us who would prefer to not live life in a war zone, those of use who would prefer to live in a civilzed place, why are our lives constantly threatened by the easy ability of idiots, monsters, fools, diseased minds, and overgrown adolescents to obtain weapons for hunting human beings? Why are our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness overridden by a poorly written amendment, a sop for the slavers, a sop for those who would enslave , rape, murder, and hunt other human beings based on race, why are our modern rights overidden by an amendment which doesn’t address the realities of modern life? Why have good people and common sense been unable to modify our laws to protect us????? What is wrong with our nation? The founders did not expect their words to be immortalized in stone, which is why there are amendments to the constitutions. Duh. And why is a heavily armed, Russian supported PAC, the NRA, choosing our supposed representatives instead of us? Why is Ted Nugent , for whom there is plenty of evidence to show is a draft dodging, deer-jacking pedophile, on the board of directors of this powerful organization? Why does an organization which has an obviously mentally disordered member (someone who makes threats against the president and is peridoically visited by the Secret Service) on its board tout the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disordered? And why does Dana Loesch act like a soul-less sociopath? She is clearly unable to empathize with the victims of her organization. She is the representative of an organization which pretends to defend Americans, but instead fosters death. Please. What is the ratio of the number of murders and suicides from guns to the number of rapes and murders prevented by guns? There is definitely way too much lead poisoning going on here.

    1. Why were her child’s right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness overridden by the second amendment?

      Good post, what many of us have been thinking. Perhaps RickA can answer that question with a convincing answer, MikeN too.

    2. why are our modern rights overidden by an amendment which doesn’t address the realities of modern life?

      The perverse interpretation of the 2nd A by Scalia on behalf of the US gun industry very much does address the realities of modern life – as lived by ‘free market’ ideologues and their corporate sponsors.

      It’s very important to remember that it is the interpretation of the 2nd A that is the problem. An alternative – and arguably more valid interpretation would not justify guns for all. Imagine that. So much hinges on an interpretation (sponsored by the US gun industry, set up by the Cato Institute and the NRA, and inked in by Antonin Scalia and friends in the SC).

      When people pretend that it would be effectively impossible to amend the Constitution, they are slyly diverting attention from the fact that all this shit hinges on an interpretation of the 2nd A. Nothing more than that.

    3. BBD:

      I disagree with you. This interpretation of the 2nd amendment is historical and not political.

      Of course you are entitled to your view – but I think it is wrong.

      More importantly so does the Supreme Court.

      If you want to think that the first 10 amendments were not for individuals, when it is clear that they all were for individuals, that is ok with me.

      There is a reason it was second – it was just that important to the founding fathers. They were sick and tired of the ruling government taking away their guns, so they made sure their new government couldn’t EVER do that again.

      You can pretend that the NRA has bribed the Senate to only put Supreme Court justices on the court which will rule a certain political way – but I disagree with that assertion.

      Millions and millions of people read the constitution the same way as the Supreme Court, and history certainly supports that reading.

      The 2nd amendment does prevent banning guns, it prevents banning ammo and it prevents confiscation of guns.

      If enough people want to change that they will have to amend the constitution to fix that.

      Pretending that the 2nd amendment is merely being interpreted wrong is not going to fly.

      The same problem occurs on the right with abortion.

      I doubt the right will ever give up thinking that the right of privacy covers abortion and I doubt the left will ever give up thinking the 2nd amendment is a militia right and not a personal right.

      That is ok.

      Keep protesting – that is your right.

      I just disagree with your view of the second amendment and that then drives my solution to the problem of mass murder in America.

    4. I disagree with you. This interpretation of the 2nd amendment is historical and not political.

      Historical? No.

      The problem is that the well regulated militia bit is absolutely central to the meaning of the 2nd A and the overwhelming majority of modern gun owners will never be called up by a militia. Clearly, the 2nd A’s original, historical intention *cannot* therefore be stretched to fit Scalia’s odd interpretation. So no, this is *not* a historical thing at all. Which leaves (money and) politics.

    5. “Why were her child’s right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness overridden by the second amendment?”

      Because this right does not appear in the constitution, and most importantly not in the Bill of Rights, therefore doesn’t exist in the minds of 2A fanatics

    6. “The 2nd amendment does prevent banning guns, it prevents banning ammo and it prevents confiscation of guns.”

      Not according to your precious supreme court. Heller 2009 extends an absolute individual right to handguns only. 8 states currently ban or control military rifles such as the AR-15 and thus far our Supreme Court has not declared this unconstitutional. Scalia, in Heller 2009, did not go so far as to determine that any weapon of any kind was protected by the 2A.

    7. Lionel:

      I would be happy to take a stab at it.

      Murder is not legal. When someone kills you they take away all your rights, including your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as your right to keep and bear arms, your right of free speech and all your other rights.

      It doesn’t matter what type of weapon is used to kill you – whether it is a gun, a knife, a bat or just someones fists.

      It is an illegal act.

      The second amendment is designed to give people the right to protect themselves from the illegal acts of others. For example, from a home invasion or domestic abuse or an assault and battery, or any other crime which involves a threat to your life or grievous bodily injury.

      Sometimes it doesn’t work – sometimes people get killed.

      Sometimes by accident and sometimes by the intentional criminal actions of another person.

      That is a tragedy.

      This killer will be tried and hopefully convicted of his seventeen murders.

      Hopefully, if convicted he will be given the death penalty.

      In the meantime, we should look at the decision to not allow guns at school.

      It makes these students helpless in the face of an increasingly common criminal act – the school shooting.

      How many more criminal acts will we have to witness before we either permit teachers to carry weapons or put armed police at every school?

      I am afraid the children crying out to be saved from the criminal acts of others will find that banning assault weapons will not happen. Why? Because it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

      If assault weapons were to be banned (again), what is to stop a criminal from using handguns, as happened at Virginia Tech?

      What is to stop a criminal from using some of the 300 million weapons which are already in circulation?

      Nothing.

      The sad truth is we cannot promise children that “this will never happen again”.

      Instead, we have to take steps to respond to the school shooter earlier in their criminal act.

      Hence my suggestions about the biometric gun safe in every classroom and/or allowing well trained teachers to carry a weapon at school.

    8. The second amendment is designed to give people the right to protect themselves from the illegal acts of others. For example, from a home invasion or domestic abuse or an assault and battery, or any other crime which involves a threat to your life or grievous bodily injury.

      Nope:

      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.

      The problems with Scalia’s market-serving interpretation are painfully obvious. It just *isn’t* what the 2nd A said at all.

    9. BBD, you are not helping your case, even when you are correct that the 2nd Amendment is not about self-protection from robbery, rape, etc, or about hunting and sport shooting(what Democratic politicians spout at election time to fool the hicks in the sticks), but is instead about people having weapons to defend the country against threats both foreign and domestic.
      That people will not be called up for militia service does not change that the language applies to the people as a whole.
      Again, I refer you to US v Miller, decided when Scalia was 3 years old, which did not rule against Miller because Miller was not a member of the national guard or military. It recognized the 2nd Amendment as a general right of the public, and ruled against him on grounds his weapon had no MILITARY purpose.
      “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ”
      Something I didn’t know. Miller had no defense at the Supreme Court, because he was hiding from his fellow bank robbers. The Supreme Court did not rule that his weapon had no military purpose, just that it has not been shown there is a military purpose.

    10. BBD says “The problems with Scalia’s market-serving interpretation are painfully obvious. It just *isn’t* what the 2nd A said at all.”

      Nope.

      Your interpretation ignores the history which clearly shows that miltia members, when called, were required to bring their own weapons and ammo. In order for militias to exist, the general public had to have the right to keep and bear arms, because they provided their own arms, for hunting, self-protection and also, when necessary to the country, to bring them for the militia.

      Heller goes through the history exhaustively and discusses many states statutes on what each militia member was supposed to bring when called.

    11. BBD, I have to acknowledge you are correct and I was wrong. Federal law states that the militia:
      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

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

      Therefore, you may have a case for constitutionally restricting guns for people over 45 and from women not in the national guard.

    12. MikeN

      That people will not be called up for militia service does not change that the language applies to the people as a whole.

      The entire point of the 2nd A is that ‘the people’ (white males only, at the time of writing) were accorded the right to keep and bear arms so as to be available as a well regulated milita if required. Since this no longer applies to the overwhelming majority of US citizens, who will never be drafted into a militia, no matter how defined by anachronistic Federal law, then the 2nd A is no longer generally applicable to ‘the people’.

      One has to ask how such a grotesque distortion of the original intention of the 2nd A could possibly have occurred. Cui bono?

    13. RickA

      Your interpretation ignores the history which clearly shows that miltia members, when called, were required to bring their own weapons and ammo.

      Read what I write, please. Here it is again:

      The problem is that the well regulated militia bit is absolutely central to the meaning of the 2nd A and the overwhelming majority of modern gun owners will never be called up by a militia. Clearly, the 2nd A’s original, historical intention *cannot* therefore be stretched to fit Scalia’s odd interpretation. So no, this is *not* a historical thing at all. Which leaves (money and) politics.

      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.

    14. So we can just declare the 2nd Amendment no longer has any limitations on the government, without repealing it?

      What time zone are you in, MikeN? You keep odd hours.

      Perhaps the simplest thing to do, since amending the Constitution would be difficult, would be to change the absurdly anachronistic Federal law defining all able-bodied male US citizens under 45 (etc) as ‘militia’. The 2nd A could not then be misrepresented by even the most biased ideologue of a judge as a blanket entitlement for the US gun industry to peddle its wares to the vast majority of adult US citizens.

  6. Barking paranoid lunatic Wayne LaPierre is delivering his stirring remarks at CPAC at the moment. He is doing a great job of turning Americans against each other and obfuscating his role in our current gun problem. And he is sounding a lot like Hitler with his rant against socialists and his dog whistle anti-sematism.

    1. The second amendment is designed to give people the right to protect themselves from the illegal acts of others. For example, from a home invasion or domestic abuse or an assault and battery, or any other crime which involves a threat to your life or grievous bodily injury.

      Holy crap, you can feel the wind of the dishonest shifting of goal posts where I am, and I’m nowhere near Minnesota.

    2. no Hitler took guns away from people, then rounded them up and had them gassed. That is why Americans fear gun control so much. They do not want a repeat. I sense that if the Jews were given atom bombs and placed them concealed in several places in Germany and detonated them simultaneously, it would have sent a clear message to Hitler that he just screwed with the wrong people. If he survived it anyway. You have to meet evil face to fave and match its brutality. The only way to kill a monster is by bringing a bigger, meaner, and angrier monster to the fight.

      I simply do not understand these kids protesting anyway. They are protesting Republicans and the NRA but they have completely forgot about the actual shooter himself. he is locked away in a jail cell. Go down to that jailhouse and protest to have him hanged in public. If this were 1818 instead of 2018 that should would have been hanged by now and most likely the public would not have waited on the judge to hear the case. The problem is not guns. The problem is America has become weak and soft on criminals.

    3. no Hitler took guns away from people

      Well no — that’s the same line of crap Ben Carson (and others who were equally stupid/ignorant) repeated quite a bit.

      There had been a total ban on gun ownership in Germany after WWI. A 1928 law created a permit system for gun ownership, but it was so poorly enforced that only a fraction of newly purchased guns were registered, almost none of the (previously illegal) guns were registered. The Nazis inherited that situation.

      Researchers at Dresden Technical University report that studies of Nazi records indicate that after they took power they tried to use the registration records to confiscate guns but succeeded in securing a small percentage of the public’s guns — not all, not even half, a small percentage. “Records show that many Jews possessed guns in the late 1930s and beyond.”

      A new Nazi law in 1938 loosened gun ownership laws for most, tightened them for Jews. That is not, however, the turning point.

      Before Hitler took office the Brownshirts did the dirty work in the street. After he was in office the SS (which had merely provided protection for officials prior) was moved into the inner workings of Hitler’s government. He and Himmler decided the goons in the Brownshirts were too unstable to control, began a rumor that they (Brownshirts) were planning a coup, and began executing them. That move legitimized Hitler’s actions of blatant large scale murder, and had the effect of convincing most citizens that actions like that were necessary. But the vast majority of German citizens still had their guns, and could have used them to resist Hitler’s actions if they’d wanted to. (I doubt they would have succeeded, but it would have been a major annoyance at the least.) The story that you (and others who apparently don’’t know a damn thing about history) tell about how Hitler succeeded in Germany because he took away the guns from the entire country is is simply a myth. He succeeded in Germany because the group he targeted was largely (not completely, there were isolated pockets of armed resistance in Jewish areas) disarmed, but was quite well demonized in German society, enough so that the rest of the population didn’t bother to resist.

    1. dean:

      The bill of rights was originally drafted as rights of citizens against the Federal government. The second amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms for the miltia, not because that is the only reason for guns, but because it was a Federal reason for people to have guns.

      It never would have occurred to the founding fathers that a state would ban guns, as they used them almost daily for hunting and self-protection.

      Then the 14th amendment (after the civil war) was construed by the Supreme Court to apply all of the bill of rights to each state (the incorporation doctrine).

      This is why a state cannot ban your right to speak, even though the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law . . .”

      Recall that several states had a state religion when the first amendment was passed, which provided for the free exercise of religion as to the country (Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof), even while several states set forth their official state religion. That didn’t go away until the early 1800’s (Connecticut 1818).

      The second amendment was also incorporated and now applies to the states as well.

      So today, people have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter the Federal law, and no matter the state law.

  7. The primary dishonesty is in the defenses of the 2nd amendment based on

    – people using weapons to defend their person or home from an attack
    — Those “good guy with a gun” defenses happen incredibly rarely. Basing a defense
    on that possibility is as foolish in reality as defending not wearing a seat belt
    because someone your girlfriend’s sister’s boyfriend’s aunt knew was able to get
    out of a burning car only because they didn’t wear a seatbelt

    – the “people need them to defend against government ordered military attack”
    — believing a bunch of fat teabaggers holed up in their basement would be able to
    fight off a modern military is (to any honest person) laughable

    The clowns who toss those reasons out as a defense of the amendment are throwing smoke. We can only guess at their real reasons.

    We can (and should) view them with disdain for there constant “if you don’t like the law as it is you must be in favor of banning all guns” drumming. Binary though might be all they are capable of, but it is not an accurate (or honest) assessment.

  8. “It never would have occurred to the founding fathers that a state would ban guns, as they used them almost daily for hunting and self-protection.”

    But you do know Jefferson and Madison did not allow guns on campus at the University of Virginia, right? The “founding fathers wanted people to carry guns everywhere” line is bullshit too.

    1. Dean:

      I did not know that.

      What do you think Jefferson and Madison’s response would have been if they had seen a rash of school shootings?

      I suspect they would have changed their policy and allowed people to defend themselves, should they encounter a school shooter.

      Just my personal opinion.

      I also find it interesting that people seem completely blind to the presence of police at schools today – armed police. They don’t seem worried about being killed, if they even think about it at all. Oh well, perhaps that to will change.

    2. “What do you think Jefferson and Madison’s response would have been if they had seen a rash of school shootings?”

      They did it because they were concerned about the possibility of shootings on their campus.

  9. In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: “…I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, [old spelling] and independance [old spelling] to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”

    1. Rick, the police officer, armed and trained, St the most recent school shooting, didn’t go inside during the shooting. Video showed him outside the school. He had been removed. Spare us more of your ignorant bullshit about what will happen. You’ve been caught lying about science, you lied about the aurora shooter looking for a theater that didn’t ban guns for his attack, and more. We get it. You are a categorical liar. We don’t need more evidence.

      Kenneth, I haven’t had time to see whether your Jefferson quote is valid or simply one of the false ones that get spread about any number of famous people. Even if it is true, I’ll ask you: You are aware that Jefferson and Madison were so worried about gunplay that they forbade guns on the university of Virginia campus, right?

    2. dean:

      It is a pity he didn’t go in and try to stop the shooter.

      Don’t you wish he had?

      Perhaps it would have been better if one of the teachers or coaches who were killed protecting students had a gun.

  10. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Crazed gun lovers take away the right of others to live. they do this in part because a poorly written, ambiguous, anachronistic amendment has been used as a pretense to justify the sale of guns and ammo sales to crazies, criminals and anarchists.

    Is there any doubt that mass murderers, terrorists, depressed people, crazed ex-spouses and lovers, and common criminals are not part of an organized militia?

    Perhaps if we could find some common ground in our interpretation of the second amendment , or at least decide how firearms are supposed to contribute to domestic tranquility in the 21st century, perhaps then we could might be able to better manage these devices that are designed expressly to kill human beings.

    And BTW, having a paranoids and sociopaths saying horrible, hateful lies about their fellow Americans sabotages our bipartisanship, and does nothing to contribute to a more perfect union, which reallyproves their chest beating over the second amendment to be hypocritical and hollow. The NRA, so obsessed with guns, power, property, and politics, needs to be corraled into a little virtual closet somewhere where they can hyperventilate all they want without killing any more babies (Newtown) , children, and adult citizens. The NRA, along with the Russians, have spent millions to help elect an incompetent silver spoon narcissist, and between them they are all running roughshod over the American flag with muddy boots while proclaiming themselves to be patriots. More and more of us are seeing through their pathetic BS.

    1. Sen Rubio just got an audience of gun controllers cheering when he said you can’t just ban AR15 you would have to ban every model of semiautomatic weapon.
      I know the middle ground to the other side is just a stepping stone to taking them all.
      The gun control group was originally called Handgun Control, but after they passed their assault weapons band and Brady bill and Republicans took over Congress, they changed the name to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and started talking about middle ground.

    2. I know the middle ground to the other side is just a stepping stone to taking them all.

      You claim to know a lot of things, but none of them seem to be true.

    3. “… contribute to a more perfect union,… ”
      Do you mind explaining briefly what you mean by this?
      I get a strong sense of something idealogical but dont have context to know if that sense is accurate.
      Thanks.

  11. Americans, the world is laughing at you.

    Today, a simple little subject, American Gun Laws.
    What a joke they are. The world is laughing at the stupidity of Americans and American Gun Laws.

    Equally, the world is crying and is frustrated when almost daily they hear of another American massacre, in a church, at a rock concert, or at a school.

    In fact, nowhere is safe in America. Ask Justine Damond’s family about why she was shot down in her pyjamas, by an American policeman. He has not been charged in any way. Again, the world laughs at America.

    The American Empire is imploding for a lot of reasons, some of which I look forward to covering in the future. But, one of the biggest reasons, is American Gun Laws. There continues to be shootings across the US. How many more people need to die?

    It could even be said that because of American Government inaction, those in Government are directly responsible for any of these deaths, past and future. Think about it. Although Government officials did not pull the trigger, they might as well have done so, due to their inaction.

    How many more people need to die?
    How many more children need to die?

    Oh, and let’s not be fooled by the stupidity of the need for more care, on who can or cannot purchase a gun. Any changes in this regard won’t even scratch the surface.
    The recent ‘actions’ proposed by Mr Trump are just a smoke screen he has put up to keep his Gun lobby friends happy.

    And, how about the joke, “The best way to kill a bad guy with a gun, is to give a good guy a gun” Seriously? As proven recently in a US school, good guys with guns are not all keen to be heroes. Introducing more guns will fail.

    And, if an American tells ‘you can’t change our second amendment’, they’re wrong. For a start it’s called an ‘Amendment” …and they’ve already changed American Slavery and American Prohibition Laws.

    When will they change what is becoming a US epidemic? But I am wrong in calling it that! Now days most ‘epidemics’ can be fixed. It seems this is not the case with American Gun Laws.

    Why? Well for a start the current American President, Mr Trump, was voted into power because he had huge support from Gun lobbies across the country. Do you seriously think he will do anything to offend them? No chance. Yep, its laughable politics V’s people’s lives. And politics is winning. Americans are a joke.

    And his predecessor Mr Obama, was powerless to fix the issue. Yep, he tried, and I genuinely believe he would have liked to have had more of a positive influence on his campaign theme of ‘Change’, for Gun Laws. But as he has admitted, he failed on this front.

    So where are we at, or where is America at? Nowhere. That’s where.

    This problem does not need subtle and politically correct ‘tweeting at the edges’. It needs Americans to pull their heads out of the sand (or in this case, their arse) and make dramatic changes to American Gun Laws. And we know that’s not going to happen. Only in the ‘Good ole USA’.

    In summary, I guess Americans will continue to kill each other and given their track record on Gun Laws, maybe that’s a good thing.

    PS: Check out the fabulous Aussie comedian,
    Jim Jefferies on the subject. He’s covered all the bases.
    Google the two-part content: Jim Jefferies Gun Control.
    Enjoy!

    1. I dont think yanks on the whole eally take on board commentary from non nationals. Even if its well articulaed and rational.
      There seems to be a weird need for every idea to be indigenous or it just wont be contemplated.

      Science being an exception to this, and even then i wonder sometimes.

    2. Further, i dont think americans ( and many other countries ) are culturally keen on dramatic quick shifts, even if its
      valid that haste is benificial. Things move slowly.
      No fucking way would yanks be keen on Mao style dictims that require universal and immediate action.
      Hypothetical examples. For the absolute
      good of the usa, everone needs to swat a fly a day, or exercise an hour a day, or
      kill a feral weed, or immediatly cease consumption of a dangerous addictive drug( thinking prohibition here) , or give up nukes immediatly, or cease weapons research immediatly, or make 100% literacy an urgent target with the whole nation behind the idea pschologicly, or ditto with domestic violence.
      Real urgent changes seem to be rare. Doubling the voting base by including all genders comes to mind though.
      Theres certainly pros and cons of such approaches, to be sure. Some ideas and actions shouldnt be rushed.
      Again, USA is not alone in being like this.
      But being conservative in not wanting quick change is not benificial nessessarily if things are going to shit.

  12. Re Kenneth Henkel: “Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.” — attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

    This view would not be accepted as valid by coaches of today’s baseball, football, basketball, etc. at all levels, nor to the parents who support and approve of participation for their children. They ascribe all sorts of virtues to participation in such sports.

    None of these sports existed in their modern form in 1785 so I wonder what games Jefferson meant.

    “I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, [old spelling] and independance [old spelling] to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.” also attributed to Jefferson.

    Really, I hadn’t noticed those as special characteristics of gun owners. I’d be surprised if there was any such correlation known to social scientists of today. I have noticed a lot of swaggering around and posturing of gun owners who flocked to support that Bundy character a few years back who had been illegally using land he didn’t own without payment to the actual owners (us). I doubt if that was the kind of “boldness, enterprize, and independance” Jefferson meant.

    1. I quite enjoyed this short and obviously very incomplete history of ball sports.
      There a large bibliography though for further research.
      When i read that passage i thought, if the goal is a regimen of fitness advancement and psychological advancement in one package, ( an odd goal imo but each to their own ), walking and having a conversation with a friend walking along side wouldnt be such a bad thing.
      But nah, walk whilst fondling a deadly weapon. Thats the advice. Jeez.

  13. Re LiD: “I dont think yanks on the whole eally take on board commentary from non nationals. Even if its well articulaed and rational.”

    Do you think that is unique to the U.S.A.?

    In any case, recently at least, we in the U.S. don’t seem to accept articulate and rational commentary from domestic sources very easily either.

  14. >He succeeded in Germany because the group he targeted was largely (not completely, there were isolated pockets of armed resistance in Jewish areas) disarmed,

    You think this helps your argument?

    1. reLiD: “I dont think yanks on the whole eally take on board commentary from non nationals. Even if its well articulaed and rational. There seems to be a weird need for every idea to be indigenous or it just wont be contemplated”.

      I agree. But you have to admit, unless they are American Indians they are all ‘non nationals’ anyway.

      It is this very refusal to recognise the USA is a decaying empire and the ‘don’t worry we’re American’ attitude, that is at the core of the problem. Not even Mr Trump with his “Make America Great Again’ theme will succeed.

      I know what you mean about “Things move slowly” and, “No fucking way would yanks be keen on Mao style dictims that require universal and immediate action”. I agree. It is a very sad situation. Most Americans are becoming more and more embarrassed at being American.

  15. Sometimes, even when an armed police officer is on site, you still cannot rely on the police to protect you.

    You have to be able to protect yourself.

    Especially when the bad guy ignores the signage banning guns.

    Something to really think about.

  16. We do not yet have any coherent strategy in place to keep mass murder weapons out of the hands of crazed, angry, demented, unhinged, rabid, ill, delusional, moronic, jealous or otherwise inappropriate hands. Because the manufacture and sale of mass murder weapons and ammo for them makes billions of dollars, it is a protected activity under the rules of mammon. Also, because weapons of mass murder tend to be preferentially in the hands of those who are susceptible to fear and manipulation (why is that?) , the lords of mammon are quite comfortable with the status quo.

    Carry on.

    1. One question I have after reading several of the posts on this thread is – What is so bad about profit?

      I don’t get it.

      Nobody makes a product unless they can make money doing it.

      People make money on guns, them make money on cars, they make money on healing people, they make money on tobacco, they make money on alcohol, they make money on gambling.

      Pretty much every good or service is profit making.

      People act as if making a legal product and making money selling it is a bad thing.

      I just don’t get it.

      Whether it is a legal product design to kill people or a legal product designed to save people – what does the profit made selling the product have to do with anything?

      You see the same thing with oil and coal.

      As if people would be happy if 60% of the grid were to shut down.

      Profits make the world go around – so don’t be so down on profit.

      Profit is good.

      Would you work if you didn’t get paid?

      Not many would.

    2. One question I have after reading several of the posts on this thread is – What is so bad about profit?

      I don’t get it.

      Well, as I’ve been forced to say before, either you’re a subliterate moron or you are being profoundly dishonest. Read the thread properly.

  17. A little history on the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

    Introduced in the Senate as S.3266 by Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) on October 27, 1990
    Passed the Senate on October 27, 1990 (passed voice vote)
    Passed the House of Representatives on October 27, 1990 (313-1, Roll call vote 534, via Clerk.House.gov)
    Signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on November 29, 1990

    Sounds like the NRA’s doing…

  18. Lionel:
    I would be happy to take a stab at it.

    Followed by a Gish Gallop of strawmen, squirrels and non sequiturs each of which we have seen before.

    RickA you used so many words to repeat your indefensible position as dean has so eloquently exposed.

    It was late last night when I picked up on your galloping and had important stuff on today so I thank dead for writing along the lines I would have. No need to repeat.

    As for having armed guards in school to intercept the crazed with a gun that worked well at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school didn’t it.

    I note your response to dean on this one,

    Perhaps it would have been better if one of the teachers or coaches who were killed protecting students had a gun.

    which is about as vacuous as the points in your earlier gallop. Would it not have been better if no body got killed because an unhinged young civilian managed to get hold of a weapon which has no place in anything that considers itself a modern civilized society.

    How you can align yourself with the likes of the Wayne LaPierres of the world shows how rationally challenged you are, but he is in it for the money is that you too?

    There is an old saying by Upton Sinclair and I figure you know how it goes.

    1. Lionel:

      It would be good if nobody got killed by unhinged young people who have assault weapons (or any weapon).

      Unfortunately, we we can try to prevent unhinged people from getting firearms, clearly we cannot prevent it.

      I would also like to see world peace.

      But I live in the real world.

      The world where people with guns can go to schools and shoot people.

      The world where even armed police on site cannot or do not prevent the shootings.

      So we have to think of other ways to protect our kids while at school.

      A biometric gun safe in every classroom, keyed to the teacher(s) is one idea.

      Armed teachers or staff is another.

      More police on site (maybe one will engage the shooter) is a third.

      And of course, better background checks is on the table.

      Just wishing that assault weapons didn’t exist is not a very good option, in my opinion.

      Banning assault weapons is not possible in my opinion, and even if it could be done, would not prevent the millions of existing assault weapons from being used by unhinged people in the future. Nor would it stop the unhinged person from using any other type of weapon to kill.

      If we are not willing to put guns in the classroom or arm teachers, than the only remaining idea I have is to teach to swarm the bad guy.

      If 10 people simultaneously charged the bad guy, throwing their backpacks (or whatever) at the bad guy, he would probably take several down. They would sacrifice their lives for a lower body count. The remaining survivors could swarm the bad guy and take him down and either disarm (or kill) the bad guy.

      Not the most satisfying option – but perhaps they should teach the swarm technique to every student and teacher (and staff) person.

      Or they can just hide and lock the doors like they are currently trained, and hope for the best.

      I am afraid that is the world we live in.

    2. But I live in the real world.

      No, you live in a rightwing nightmare fantasy.

      In the real world, teachers aren’t going to shoot kids. This horrible idea is a complete non-starter. Just ask any teacher. My wife is a teacher, so I have taken her views into account. They. Won’t. Do. It.

      And banning the sale of more assault rifles would be an obvious place to START addressing the problem. The idea that they should continue to be sold is just monstrous at this point. There are limits to the freedoms corporations should be permitted in their endless scouring for profit.

    3. BBD:

      I think you should ask your wife again.

      She is in a classroom with 30 students, hiding from a school shooter. She has a loaded weapon (for my hypo). The door opens and the shooter comes into the classroom and starts shooting her students, one at a time.

      Under that scenario, she does nothing?

      Ask and make sure you are correct.

      I bet any teacher would shoot at the shooter under that scenario.

    4. Lionel suggests “Maybe you RickA, and MikeN too, should apply for duty.”

      I am suggesting that every person sign up for that duty, should the need arise.

      I would like to think that I would have the courage to do organize and participate in the swarm, were I to find myself in that situation.

      I will never know unless placed into that situation, which I wouldn’t wish on anyone (unlike yourself).

      You can hide in the closet while I defend you.

    5. I think you should ask your wife again.

      Why? She’s not going to change her views just to suit your / Trump’s lunatic fantasies.

      She is in a classroom with 30 students, hiding from a school shooter. She has a loaded weapon (for my hypo). The door opens and the shooter comes into the classroom and starts shooting her students, one at a time.

      Under that scenario, she does nothing?

      Ask and make sure you are correct.

      I bet any teacher would shoot at the shooter under that scenario.

      She’s a teacher. Not a cop or a soldier. You fantasists seem to think that teachers can just flip a switch and turn on the combat juice, bam-bam-bam. You are living in a total fantasy world. I wonder how you’d perform under this scenario. Perhaps you’d cover yourself in shit rather than glory.

    6. I notice that RickA is carefully avoiding addressing the fact that banning assault rifles is an obvious place to *start* addressing this horror in favour of lunatic fantasies about gunz-a-blazin teachers.

      A common feature of rightwing crazies at the moment. Anything but the obvious first step. Anything at all, no matter how vile and insane it may be. But keep those profits rolling in to the corporate coffers.

    7. “I notice that RickA is carefully avoiding addressing the fact that banning assault rifles is an obvious place to *start* addressing this horror in favour of lunatic fantasies about gunz-a-blazin teachers.”

      It’s a massive false dichotomy. No reason we couldn’t ban assault rifles and fortify schools. Separate things.

  19. If 10 people simultaneously charged the bad guy, throwing their backpacks (or whatever) at the bad guy, he would probably take several down. They would sacrifice their lives for a lower body count. The remaining survivors could swarm the bad guy and take him down and either disarm (or kill) the bad guy.

    Maybe you RickA, and MikeN too, should apply for duty.

    I am afraid that is the world we live in.

    No it is the world the likes of you ensure we live in by giving moral turpitude a free pass, the sane amongst us can see why it need not be this way.

    I made an unfortunate typo in my earlier, corrected:

    It was late last night when I picked up on your galloping and had important stuff on today so I thank dean [dead] for writing along the lines I would have. No need to repeat.

  20. I will never know unless placed into that situation, which I wouldn’t wish on anyone [(unlike yourself)].

    Unnecessary slur quarantined.

    You can hide in the closet while I defend you.

    I have done my time, two decades, at the sharp end. Yourself…?

  21. I bet any teacher would shoot at the shooter under that scenario.

    But the gunman has taken a hostage and is using them as a body shield — what then?

    Seriously RickA, keep digging this hole sewer for yourself.

  22. “You can hide in the closet while I defend you”

    You are famous for saying stupid and shitty things. This is a new record in both categories.

    Do a little work on find out how difficult it is for military to get people over their resistance of shooting at someone. You aren’t going to get the typical person past that point with your mythical training.

    As pointed out, we know 4 armed police officers (the one assigned to the school, three others who responded) didn’t enter the school during the shooting. So much for “, if there had been someone there with a gun who knew how to use it they would have stopped it.”

    I am constantly amazed at how immune to facts and rational thought you are.

    1. Selective memory?

      (CNN)The deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives if it weren’t for two strangers who jumped into action, authorities said.

      When Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire inside First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs on Sunday, Stephen Willeford, who lives near the church, grabbed his own gun and ran out of the house barefoot to confront the gunman.
      “What do you say to the man who stepped up when he heard the gunshots? I’d say he’s a hero,” Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt Jr. told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Monday. “I don’t think there’s any question about that. Had he not done what he did, we could have lost more people.”

      https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html

    2. >4 armed police officers (the one assigned to the school, three others who responded) didn’t enter the school during the shooting. So much for “, if there had been someone there with a gun who knew how to use it they would have stopped it.”

      Guns are dangerous. Only police should be trusted with guns. When police didn’t stop a shooting, that is also evidence that civilians should not have guns.

  23. “More recently, the tragic, preventable slaying of 17 students by accused gunman Nikolas Cruz elicited similar sentiments from Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking in the Senate just last Thursday: “This happens nowhere else other than the United States of America.”

    Powerful remarks, and no doubt heartfelt. But a study of global mass-shooting incidents from 2009 to 2015 by the Crime Prevention Research Center, headed by economist John Lott, shows the U.S. doesn’t lead the world in mass shootings. In fact, it doesn’t even make the top 10, when measured by death rate per million population from mass public shootings.”

    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-gun-control-advocates-claims-u-s-isnt-the-worst-country-for-mass-shootings/

    1. Dear Dana Loesch,
      Because comparing the US to countries that are basically war zones justifies turning the US into a war zone.
      Fail.

    2. Lott is a liar – he’s been caught asking data, lying about his methods, snd more. He’s not viewed seriously by anyone other than people who don’t have a clue about proper methodology. Even the folks at heritage have described his work as worthless.

  24. American law is based heavily on English Common Law where the right of the people to bear arms for their self-defense is well established.

    “The rights of English subjects and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English common law. Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_legislation_in_the_United_Kingdom

    1. Dear Dana Loesch,
      Because citing three hundred year old British laws to justify the wanton carnage that results in the deaths of 30,000 US citizens per year and the crippling, maiming, and disfiguring of tens of thousands more is such a powerful argument.
      Fail

  25. Peter Hitchens, although not an advocate of gun ownership himself, points out the following,

    1. Until 1920 Britain’s gun laws were so lax as to make Texas “look effeminate”.

    2. And while Britain had very little restrictions on gun ownership, crime rates were far lower than today.

    1. Dear Dana Loesch,
      Hitchens makes a brilliant argument for stricter gun control. As he says, since most gun murders are caused by people with criminal records, more background checks, longer sentences for illegal possession of firearms, and generally more restrictions on access to guns are necessary. Also, Peter Hitchens should enter the Upper Class Twit Olympics in the yodeling and sinus clearing competitions.
      Fail

  26. How many know that Americans used firearms to resist a tyrannical government as recently as 1946?

    “The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption and voter intimidation.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

    1. Dear Dana Loesch,
      Advocating for putting even more firearms into a population already overflowing with unnecessary fire arms, simply because there was an armed rebellion in Tennessee, is not a terribly powerful argument. Advocating a violence producing solution to a problem that might have been solved by other mean, especially when that solution helps contribute to the deaths of the combined population of Athens and Etowah every six months, is a typical gun addict argument.
      Fail.

    1. Dear Dana Loesch,
      Right. Because there are absolutely no inconsistencies in reviling a culture as violent on the one hand and then adopting their solutions to problems on the other hand.
      Fail.

    1. Dear Dana Loesch,
      Saying the guns should be kept out of the hands of immature, unstable, feeble minded, irrational, vengeful, angry people is not the same as saying that guns do not belong in modern society.
      Fail

    2. The thing that amuses me in this fallacious discussion on the need for guns is that ammomaniacs think that they’re going to rescue a society that for whatever reason tumbles from democracy. Looking at the example of US gun-totin’ RWNJs, there is no plausible scenario where they will ever form a ‘well organised militia’ that saves the nation from despotism – quite the opposite, they’ve nurtured the country’s decent into exactly that state of affairs.

      2ns amendment adherents are kidding themselves that their guns are what stands between their society and the zombie apocalypse. If it ever came to these Rambos using their caches all that would result is the same break-down of government, with a lot of extra dead people and looting besides.

    1. Nope, both you and the awful source you link are employing the standard diversionary rhetoric. The issue is not individual rights it is the purpose for which those rights are accorded. Something crystal clear in the 2nd A which simply doesn’t apply to 99.9% of US gun owners in the C21st.

      If you are going to comment on my comments, please take the time to read and understand them first.

  27. Dear Dana Loesch,
    This is not England. This is not 1689. The interpretation of a of a poorly written, poorly thought out, political sop amendment by a corrupt, right wing, low empathy, over rated Supreme Court justice is as relevant today as a bicycle to a fish. The brutally torn flesh, bones organs, and lives being repaired every day by trauma surgeons and medical staff around the country don’t often seem to figure in to the arguments of the NRA or to those of the authoritarian and now deceased justice.
    Fail.

  28. Only police should be trusted with guns. When police didn’t stop a shooting, that is also evidence that civilians should not have guns.

    Very interesting example of taking the message completely out of context. People have been arguing that individuals with guns should be there to stop shootings. It’s pointed out that
    – the simplistic training that they would get wouldn’t work
    – having more people firing in a time of panic would make things worse
    that evidence exists of people who are specifically trained to step into these situations don’t always do it

    Is there a reason you chose the path of grossly dishonest representation?

  29. SteveP,

    So Mexico is not a good example because it’s a ‘s___hole country’?

    It must be after midnight where you are because you’ve turned into a Trumpkin.

  30. dean,

    Mass shootings happen in Europe more frequently than people think,

    Charlie Hebdo
    Bataclan Theater
    Erfurt school massacre
    2016 Munich shooting
    Anders Brevik massacre …

    1. “Mass shootings happen in Europe more frequently than people think”

      That’s two since 2011. Seven of the worst mass shootings in US history have taken place since 2011 …

      There’s no place to hide, locus. Shootings – mass and otherwise – are far more frequent in the united states.

    2. The notion that Europe is on par, or ahead, of the US in mass shootings is completely false. Your dishonesty is amazing — I assume you get it from Lott. Conflating terrorist related events with mass shootings is massively dishonest. If you are so dishonest that you won’t compare apples to apples, there is no hope for a reasonable discussion.

  31. SteveP,

    FBI ignored two warnings. Claimed they couldn’t find the shooter even though he used his real name online.

    Broward Sheriff’s office ignored two warnings about the shooter.

    School resource officer ignored a direct warning and refused to share information about the shooter’s threats with Child and Family services.

    When government fails, the solution is more government. Got it.

    1. You cant put together a coherent argumant for shit , so dont be hassling other peoples debating skills.
      Its just a litany of rubbish you writing here.
      Its almost as if you are anti gun and sort of taking the piss out of pro gun ways of thought process.

      Li D
      Australia

  32. Dear Dana Loesch,
    Right. Because there are absolutely no inconsistencies in quoting the right wing authoritarian US president and , by extension, the distinctly racist tinged NRA that supports him, in reviling Mexican people and culture, on the one hand and then adopting one of their solutions to the gun problem on the other hand.
    Fail.

    BTW, did you know that during 1940, Nazi collaborator and CEO of Texas Oil Torkild Rieber worked, along with other oil companies, to smuggle weapons into Mexico to support a coup there, in the hope of ensuring that they could continue to send oil exports to Germany? Look it up. Smuggling weapons into Mexico ended up helping the corrupt, failed, bought out government there and, one can plausibly argue, helped nurture the corruption, criminality, and poverty that led to the modern drug cartel problems in Mexico.

    1. “…one can plausibly argue, helped nurture the corruption, criminality, and poverty that led to the modern drug cartel problems in Mexico.”

      So, you’re agreeing with Trump that Mexico is a ‘s___hole’ country?

  33. People are really really ignorant of the damage to human tissue that projectiles shot out of the barrels of guns cause. Especially high velocity bullets such as those that come out of the victim end of an AR-15. So part of the problem is that the results of gun violence are continually sanitized so people won’t be shocked by seeing, for instance, the misshapen bag of flesh that a head with a pulverized skull looks like after it’s been hit by a fast bullet. When gun addicts whine and plead to have their needed fix of guns and ammo, they are typically completely oblivious to or dismissive of the
    carnage that guns cause.

    Their concern seems to be that they are scared of defending themselves or managing their own government without weapons of war. That in itself is delusional thinking. That in itself is an argument that someone is too flaky to own a gun.

    So who pays for the gun addicts need to satisfy their addiction, to protect themselves from villains they are unlikely to ever see ? The families and loved ones of tens of thousands of people in the US every year, that is who. The tens of thousands of innocents who are maimed and crippled each year, that is who. The entire population of people who pay fucking medical insurance premiums, that have to cover this carnage, that is who. Basically, everybody pays for it.

    And who profits from this addiction? Gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers, and the NRA.

    An overabundance of high powered weapons among the populace is, basically, an attempt to cure a disease with the disease itself, which is patently stupid.

    Those of us with intelligence and foresight work hard to keep poisonous cancer causing chemicals below dangerous levels in our food and water. Similarly, we also work hard to keep carnage producing guns out of the hands of wannabe adolescent heroes, idiots, and insane people. But de-humanizing and interlocked groups like the Kochs, the Birchers, the Republican Party, and the NRA, are perfectly happy to have an army of low voltage, manipulable dolts screaming for more and more guns.

  34. Does anybody know when the three sheriffs got to the scene?

    The shooter left the school at 2:29 EST according to the timeline that I just read.

  35. One other thing is wrong with Harold Sanston’s theory: The Germans (Jewish or Gentile) had no access to nuclear weapons during the time Hitler was in power. That was because nuclear weapons had not yet been developed.

    The Third Reich tried to develop them, but failed. It’s a fascinating story.

    1. Just out of curiosity, but do you have a preferred theory as to why Germany failed so badly? I’ve seen two.

      1. Heisenberg purposely stayed behind in Germany to sabotage any atomic bomb research. ( See “Heisenberg’s War” )

      2. Heisenberg just plain messed up and got the physics wrong (Boris Pash’s position).

  36. BBD,

    “Nope, both you and the awful source you link are employing the standard diversionary rhetoric. The issue is not individual rights it is the purpose for which those rights are accorded.”

    Never heard that before. Got anything to back that up?

    For example could you explain for what express “purpose” the right to free speech was accorded?

  37. Up until now , attacking a school has been such a successful target for the gun addicted gun lovers or gun jihadis. Aside from the immediate death and carnage unleashed by the gun terrorist, there is the long term damage to the mental health of the survivors and to the families of both the survivors and the victims. A single school shooting can result in mental damage to tens of thousands of people.

    But today, concerned people are deciding to take back their lives and their communities from the gun terrorists. People are realizing that the second amendment has been used as a cover for nationalist extremists and other terrorists who have taken control of our “representatives” and who have thwarted the will of the people.

    Never again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.