However, I disagree with the author’s choice to characterize those who vote against MT as being “by definition gun nuts”. This is likely true of a few, but extremely unlikely to be true of all. I say this because opposition to any sort of gun regulation proposal, at least at the national level, is always conspicuously spearheaded by the industry lobby group the represents the interests of the manufacturers of the item in question. And like all industry lobby groups, this one is simply doing what they were sent there to do: whip support for any law that helps them push product, and whip opposition against any law which would hinder them to push product.

So, while it may be satisfying to caste all lobby apologists as nutters, this ultimately hurts the cause, because as much as you’d think otherwise, being labelled a gun nut is actually a politically preferable option to being labelled an industry pawn. at least with the gun nut label, Congressional R’s can count on the support of the nativist wing of their base. And the gun lobby itself counts on this too. So let’s acknowledge this dynamic and not play into it. Call it what it is: it’s voting for the interests of an industrial lobby which produces a product whose use results in great physical harm to the American public. A public who, by the way, agrees with the proposed new regulation by a margin of about 9 to 1. Simply pointing out these facts deprives the industry’s friends in Congress of the “plausible deniability” they need to continue supporting the lobby. But calling them all gun nuts renews their lease on this excuse.

Shaping gun non-control policies, no doubt.

I may be stupid, but I knew that you can’t distinguish the law abiding from the criminal just on looks alone. I’m sorry you had to learn this in such a traumatic way. “You stupid shits are too fucking stupid to understand that a criminal with a gun looks exactly the same as a non-criminal with a gun; that forces us sane pro-life people to assume everyone with a gun is a threat and a danger and a criminal— we have no fucking choice in the matter.”–I suppose that’s how intelligent people write and reason, yes? Thanks for documenting those “facts”.

Yes, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, and many other action actors have carried my gun in action movies…and it does, indeed, warm my heart.

ron: “The lives of children (and other innocent people) is THE REASON for armed self-defense (my “hobby”). They’re of primary importance to me.

Your behavior here shows the opposite.

“Why are they not to everyone?”

Ask the NRA.

Greg Laden: “Ron, why are children’s lives less important to you than your hobby?”

Because freedom!

Or, in reality: because submissive, non-alpha male humans desire what they believe to be “respect.” See, for one example:

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/2/82

Ron and his pals use firearms as mating ritual tools.

ron: “Riddle me this anti’s– What is one to do when at the point of a criminal’s gun?”

Er…. the first time or the second time? The first time, when I was shot in the back, I fell on my face in the hot Death Valley sand, stunned and unable to move my legs for about 30 hours. The second time, when the projectile passed so close to my right ear that the “clap!” of its passing damaged my ear drum, I flung down my backpack and ran, zig-zagging, into the Silurian Hills.

Why? Do you believe people have a choice in “what they will do” when a lunatic points a gun at them? You stupid shits, who have no fucking clue just how fucking dangerous guns are, live in a fantasy world where everyone with a gun is Bruce Willis.

Your “question” shows exactly how lazy your thinking is. The problem is FACING THE POINT OF A CRIMINAL’S GUN, which in your tiny little brain you must dimly perceive is a problem, else you would not mention it. You stupid shits are too fucking stupid to understand that a criminal with a gun looks exactly the same as a non-criminal with a gun; that forces us sane pro-life people to assume everyone with a gun is a threat and a danger and a criminal— we have no fucking choice in the matter.

I realize you are too dim of wit to understand any of these facts.

The lives of children (and other innocent people) is THE REASON for armed self-defense (my “hobby”). They’re of primary importance to me.

Why are they not to everyone?

(Thanks for asking…and I haven’t figured out how to do the move in #85 to keep everyone safe)