I can't think of a better example of the gun lobby's position than Alex Jones. Heck, I can't think of a better example of some of my commenters and how they talk to me than Alex Jones. Man oh man, he hit all the points (verbatim!:)) that I hear all the time on here. It's almost as if they are reading from some sort of script...
It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?
Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?
26 comments:
He was invited onto the show because they knew exactly what they were getting - instant nut-case. You of course slurp it up with gusto. Talk about someone who enjoys being a puppet of the media.
Oh, and Piers Morgan is as big an ass as Alex Jones.
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
Time for a little spelunking:
I came to the realization that, while I will never get off on guns, they are, in fact, a personal liberty just as anything else is in this country and if I am going to be against things like the Patriot Act, then I have to be against gun control. Besides, it's not guns that are the problem anyway. It's Americans that are the problem. And Americans like Kevin, and the others that post on his site, are very responsible gun owners.
— Markadelphia
Thus it is that mainstream reporters can now matter-of-factly describe the White House's mission on gun control this way:
----------
Obama's advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate.
"This is not something that I will be putting off," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in an interview broadcast last Sunday.
At the White House meeting, [Sheriff Richard] Stanek said, "the vice president indicated that there was a very short timeline for him to get back to the president with his recommendations because the American public has a short memory."
----------
Think about that. The president and vice president of the United States are urging immediate action on gun control, pre-empting all debate about the measures' constitutionality; and their justification for this urgent, anti-constitutional action is that "the American public has a short memory." In other words, this is not a real crisis (i.e., an ongoing threat), and the public will soon realize that, and carry on with life as usual; therefore, we must act before that happens.
— Obama's Disarming Haste
(I got off my lazy butt and did the proper registration thing.)
I'm not going to talk about Mark much, except to note that if anyone reading the last couple weeks has followed along, you might have noticed that Mark has spent very little, if any time, talking about specific, concrete proposals (he's kind of been avoiding such talk actually) about what to do about guns, which means that there has been little discussion about what might or might not work when talking about preventing or mitigating things like Newtown. If you want to fix that lack of specificity, which really comes from lack of knowledge, then here is a way to fix that. First, go read this post:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
It's long, but well worth it. Some points of emphasis while you are reading:
-The vast, vast majority of guns that are purchased and used by civilians are semi-automatic (one round fired per trigger pull.) It is not possible for a civilian to purchase a new full auto (hold the trigger down and rounds continually fire.) A civilian can buy a full auto gun that was registered with the feds before 1986, and is willing to pay the cost, fees, and fill out all the forms. Generally speaking, only collectors and shooting range owners (so they can rent the full auto gun to the public to try) get full auto guns legally. Of course, criminals don't care about the legality.
-There is no bright line (or even a dim one) that separates a defensive gun from an offensive gun. The reason is that the same features that might make a gun good for defensive uses, such as large clip size, maneuverability, or fires ammunition that is likely to incapacitate if hit, also make a gun good for offensive uses. For example, the Bushmaster AR15 that Adam Lanza used looks like this:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=bushmaster+ar15&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=bushmaster+ar15&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=9CA308446A6292D8BCEB002F93E480593A900244&selectedIndex=0
Surely one might think that is an offensive weapon only, right? Well, no, not necessarily. First, it fires the .223 Remington cartridge, which tends to dissipate quickly when it hits a wall, but still puts a lot of hurt on someone that it hits. Why is this important? Because if you want a gun to defend your home with, you don't want missed rounds flying into other rooms or across the street, but if you hit someone, you want them down fast. In fact, numerous types of cartridges from handheld pistols or revolvers are considered more likely to pass through walls than those from the AR15. Also - the AR15 is a rifle, which means that it is larger, is held braced against the torso, has more mass, and consequently has a more manageable jerk when fired compared to other weapons. Who benefits from that? Smaller, less strong shooters. Ie women, among others. As a matter of fact, the AR15 is quite popular as a defensive firearm, and as described above, it isn't because it is black and looks military-ish. So no - an AR15 is a very good defensive weapon. It's also a good offensive weapon, for many of those same reasons.
-The term "assault rifle" is very ambiguous. That isn't surprising, because it is a political term, not a technical term. What makes a rifle "assault"? An assault could be committed by any rifle, not just ones that are all black and look kind of military-ish. The round that an AR15 fires is not particularly powerful, as rounds go. The fact is that you don't need a very powerful gun to kill someone, especially if you are shooting from close range, and even more so if your targets are kids.
-Limiting magazine sizes isn't terribly effective. It isn't difficult to carry extra magazines, nor, with moderate practice, is it difficult to get reload time down to a second or less, with handguns or rifles. Adam Lanza had 20 minutes at Sandy Hook. Would making him take an extra second here and there in that 20 minutes be likely to significantly reduce the body count?
So - what should be done? If you think full-auto guns are the problem, then you'd be wrong because they are already very hard to get. If you think semi-auto guns are the problem, then you are basically advocating for a gun ban. Which is fine - I would disagree with you, but at least you are taking a position that would have likely prevented Newtown as it happened. If you think classifying certain guns as "assault rifles" and then banning them is a good idea, then its worth pointing out that the Virginia Tech massacre, where 33 people were killed, was carried about by a shooter with two pistols - no rifles, "assault" or otherwise. One was a .22 caliber handgun, which is probably the smallest, least powerful caliber you can readily buy for handguns, and the second was a 9mm handgun, whos cartridge is a fair bit larger than a .22 but is roughly in the middle of common handgun calibers in terms of power. Point being - if someone is going to carry out a massacre, they don't need rifles, assault or otherwise, and they don't need high caliber weapons. They do, however, need a gun free zone. (Maybe we should focus on getting rid of those?)
That is the point being made by people in favor of guns - you aren't going to prevent Newtown by passing a law restricting some random guns. The only logical way to prevent another Newtown is to make it so the school can shoot back, or ban the possession of guns. Maybe there are other ways - the mental health avenue may be possible, but seems unlikely to be a cure all, since mental health can always go undetected, untreated, or a person may seem perfectly normal before they decide to go crazy. Even for Newtown - Nancy Lanza, the owner of the guns used, was not possessed of mental issues - her son may have been. What mental health law would have prevented him from taking her guns? A law that says that if anyone in a family has any mental issues, nobody in the family can possess guns? The implementation of such a law seems not easy to me. Now - there may be other logical ways to prevent shootings like this, and if so, I'd love to hear them. I haven't heard any yet though.
Welcome back, Hap, and thanks for making such intelligent comments with a decided dearth of the Markadelphia theme:)
We talked about the Correia piece some time back (on here and on TSM) and I found his argument to take some giant leaps that were unfounded. The federal government is not going to ban all guns simply because it's possible for all guns to be classified as semi-automatic. I know there's a general sense of distrust and even downright hatred of the feds but I think the classification is going to be more detailed than what Correia fears.
In addition, the idea of allowing conceal/carry in schools is preposterous, and quite Orwellian. Life is not a Hollywood film where a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with one. Perhaps if we were to adopt Israel's system on gun ownership then I would go along with certain people being allowed to have weapons in schools. There are already police in my school. Beyond that, however, no. I just don't trust people with guns. Alex Jones here is a shining example of why.
One thing we really have to clear up is the caricature of the left. The reason why there is a lack of specificity at the moment is because everyone is still trying to explore what elements to put into a plan to prevent this from happening (side note: doing nothing is not a plan). Gun rights folks immediately assume that this is going to mean gun grabbing and they are very sensitive about this. That is only going to be one component of a larger plan (sadly, the one that they will focus on).
This is a complex problem that involves more than just guns. Mental health is the center piece if you want to be honest about it. We have to get over this stigma about mental health in this country. That's what really caused all of this (that and bad parenting).
Again, some people should not be allowed to have guns. People who live in homes with people who have mental illness (like Nancy Lanza) should have to demonstrate their responsibility on a regular basis if they are to own guns.
Because if you want a gun to defend your home with
How often is this necessary? Take a look at this...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
If you want to defend yourself, start with this stuff. People are worried about all the wrong things.
The term "assault rifle" is very ambiguous.
Yes, it is. I think it's time that our country clarified that and perhaps everyone would calm done.
Consider this for a moment
I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.
Would you be amenable to such a conversation? More importantly, would you give a little bit if it was part of an overall package including mental health?
Which is fine - I would disagree with you, but at least you are taking a position that would have likely prevented Newtown as it happened. .
Agree and thanks for admitting that. Yet, in my view, it wasn't just the gun...it was the perfect storm. It was an irresponsible parent combine with a young man who was mentally unstable...taking SSRIs...had trouble delineating between reality and the fiction of his video games...and had access to a semiautomatic weapon. ALL of these things should be addressed in the forthcoming "Sandy Hook" bill.
Would you be amenable to such a conversation?
How can you have a serious conversation with someone who redefines "wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate" (WMDs) in such a way that it would include a sharp stick if used the way guns were used in Sandy Hook?
it wasn't just the gun … ALL of these things should be addressed
So, where are the politicians who are talking about anything other than guns? Why did you ignored it when I pointed out that Feinstein's new law focuses ONLY on guns, to the exclusion of everything else?
Where are your proposals other than ban more guns? Nothing about identifying such unstable and violent individuals, then locking them up?
One final thought:
How can you have a honest discussion with an unrepentant liar?
We talked about the Correia piece some time back (on here and on TSM) and I found his argument to take some giant leaps that were unfounded.
If you can define 'talking about it' as you dismissing it out of hand and not listing any specific disagreements or reasons for that disagreement.
The federal government is not going to ban all guns simply because it's possible for all guns to be classified as semi-automatic.
Which shows that you did not comprehend what was said. Yes, you keep saying this trope, but it's just not what was said. And it again falls back upon your ignorance about the functioning of firearms - which we tried to get you to understand, but you refused to learn.
Gun rights folks immediately assume that this is going to mean gun grabbing and they are very sensitive about this. That is only going to be one component of a larger plan (sadly, the one that they will focus on).
What is that supposed to mean? 'oh, we buried the one sentence gun ban within a 1000 page health bill - so that's just one small part of a much larger bill. Why are you sooooo worried.'
The only 'components' that have been talked about seriously and acted upon have been the gun control 'parts'. When somebody actually starts talking serious plans about the 'other' parts then they can be analyzed to see if they actually have merit. Unfortunately, and the reason the gun rights folks are focused, is that only the guns rights have been threatened, and by ideas that have no merit.
Gun rights folks immediately assume that this is going to mean gun grabbing…
Gee, I wonder where could we have gotten such a crazy idea?
How can you have a honest discussion with an unrepentant liar?
Apparently, you missed my response here...
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=8312447446158073186&isPopup=true
Left two days ago...oh well. Feel free to respond here so as to avoid confusion.
So, where are the politicians who are talking about anything other than guns?
They are hanging out with Joe Biden right now:)
When the president comes back with his proposal for Congress by the end of the month, try not to fixate on the gun part and blow a bowel, OK?
Which shows that you did not comprehend what was said.
From the Correia piece...
Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns. I’ll get to the functional problems with that later.
Yes, you are right, GD. I have no comprehension of what he said.
Apparently, you missed my response here
No I didn't. It was not a retraction of the obvious lie. Nor did it even address anything having to do with your lie. Just some vague, formless slander that supposedly made your lie magically "okay". In fact, it was that particular response that demonstrated your unrepentance.
Therefore, you're still an unrepentant liar, and now you're piling more lies on top.
I have no comprehension of what he said.
You didn't comprehend Corelia's piece. How do we know? This statement:
The federal government is not going to ban all guns simply because it's possible for all guns to be classified as semi-automatic.
Corelia didn't talking about shoving guns into a category called "semi-automatics" like you shoved sharp sticks into the same category as nuclear bombs (as your statement says); he was making an entirely different argument. His argument is that most guns are semi-automatic, and if you want to ban "scary looking guns" based on their ability to kill, the only feature of the AR-15 that actually affects its killing ability (as compared to hunting rifles) is the semi-automatic feature.
So yes, you did misunderstand.
Markadelphia sure does not want to talk about the purpose of the second amendment.
I found his argument to take some giant leaps that were unfounded.
Oh, that is fucking rich, given your adoration of Stiglitz!
Would you be amenable to such a conversation?
We've all been waiting for you to propose something. Feel free.
a young man who was mentally unstable...taking SSRIs
Got a cite for that? Any media source at all. Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
try not to fixate on the gun part and blow a bowel, OK?
I suppose if I mention that the Constitutional-scholar-in-chief is proposing the use of the general police power which the Constitution doesn't grant to the federal govt, you will construe that as blowing a bowel. If so, you can blow something else.
I have no comprehension of what he said.
If you would admit that more freely I would be much less nasty to you.
We've all been waiting for you to propose something. Feel free.
What's interesting about this statement is just how much it reveals. It essentially says, "We have nothing. Let's hear what you have so we can rip it and keep the status quo." That's the problem, juris, after Newtown, the status quo isn't going to cut it anymore. If all you have is a critique of the various ideas being floated around right now, that's not going to cut it.
Unlike yourself, I don't have a rigid ideology set in stone forever and ever amen. I'm taking in the various proposals out there and reflecting on what may or may not work. I'm inclined at this point to adopt a system similar to what Israel has...plenty of people are armed but they have to go through rigorous screening to own guns and even then not military grade. I've been pretty consistent all along here...it's not really the guns, it's the people. Alex Jones, for example, should not own any guns.
.it's not really the guns
Except when you say nobody should own a gun that can fire 30 bullets without reloading. Then it IS about the guns. And that is about the vast majority of guns.
We have nothing. Let's hear what you have so we can rip it and keep the status quo
When you dismiss, out of hand, any proposal then you do probably hear 'nothing'. Of course that keeps you from having to actually debate the merits of said proposal. Which by the way is the preferred method for determining if a certain proposal has merit. This preferred method is what you call 'ripping' it.
What's interesting about this statement is just how much it reveals.
Yes, it reveals that you have nothing substantial to contribute. You want me to suggest what I should give up to make you feel safer. As you rightly surmise, I won't even give a shit for that.
The status quo is fine. Everything that anyone else (since you aren't) suggesting wouldn't do a fucking thing to prevent another Newtown. All you care about is the appearance of doing something - which goes right to the intrinsic failure of virtually all progressive policy: it is only concerned with intentions, not results.
Unlike yourself, I don't have a rigid ideology set in stone forever and ever amen.
How much does reality and human nature (sin nature) change? Given than, how much can a ideology which is based in reality change?
I'm inclined at this point to adopt a system similar to what Israel has
But not really, because you're violently opposed to teachers being armed.
How about the part where every able bodied person has to join the military?
Well, you'd run into resistance on that from the right and the left...probably more on the right these days as it would be the government forcing someone to do something. At least everyone would have the training to be responsible with a weapon.
I think more people should join the military and would go along with compulsory service if we faced imminent threats as Israel does. And I don't have a problem with their teachers having guns because they have all been in the military, have a different need than we do, and go through more rigorous screening to have that gun. If all three of these qualifications were met here, then I would support teachers having guns in America. Remember, as well, I have no problem with police officers or armed security in schools. I do have a problem with Alex Jones like parents walking around strapped in a school. As I have said many times, it's not the guns. It's the people.
Is there any actual, identifiable issue you can point to that makes Alex Jones unsafe or unskilled with weapons?
No? So really you want to limit a persons rights based upon.....what?
Face it, you don't like what Alex Jones says, and you don't like the way he says it. That's all you have.
So really you want to limit a persons rights based upon.....what
Having the wrong political opinions of course. That and not having faith in the power of good intentions.
Post a Comment