I Guess I Am Ignorant

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Huh. I had no idea that the ATF can't require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns. Or that there were  bills that refuse to put mentally disturbed individuals on do not buy lists. Or that there are laws exempting gun makers from any kind of accountability for their product.

I guess I am ignorant.

But the best line?

Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. 

To me, this is the crux of the problem and once we deal with this, everything else will come more easily. I also think it's important to note his reaction after the series of clips that end with Alex Jones's rant on Piers Morgan. That's how the majority of the people in this country react when confronted with "in the bubble" thinking.

Both To Change

With a few days until the release of Vice President Biden's committee recommendations regarding gun violence, I thought we should take a look at the 2nd Amendment and talk about its intent and purpose. There's likely going to be a whole bunch of mouth foaming, chest thumping and downright moonbat nuttery after Tuesday so let's examine the center piece of the right to bear arms. After that, I will offer my recommendations for the path I think we should pursue regarding gun safety.

Here is the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's talk about the first part ("a well regulated militia"). Alexander Hamilton explains the meaning of this part of the 2nd Amendment quite well in Federalist Paper #29.

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law. Essentially, what Hamilton is describing here is the National Guard, the modern day equivalent of a militia system. He is very careful to point out, however, that the national authority has the power over this organization, not the states themselves. After all, it is the federal government, not the states, that are responsible for providing national security. He concludes this paper by dismissing concerns about tyranny (let's remember that for a little later).

The next part of the 2nd Amendment talks about the right of the people to keep and bear arms and how that shall not be infringed. Some Constitutional scholars have taken this to mean as part of the militia but not as an individual. I disagree. It's clearly the individual and it doesn't matter whether or not they are in the military. This would be the part of the amendment that says that people (as a collective or individuals) have a right to defend themselves. Exactly what they are defending themselves against is where the problems begin.

The chief complaint about the Right is that they must have access to whatever they deem necessary to defend themselves. This includes the weapons of war that a soldier would use. In looking at Hamilton's explanation of the 2nd Amendment above, it's clear that he (and the founding fathers) did not want clusters of mini armies around the United States. He wanted a national army to preside over the local militia and provide the people with basic defense. The key word here is basic.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority for DC v Heller, said

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.(54)

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (54-55)

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.  (55)

Scalia reiterated this point on Fox News last summer.

Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.” 

Here we see a conservative justice leaving the door wide open for a qualitative analysis of the 2nd Amendment.

With violent crime on the decline, I often wonder why the gun rights folks would be so worried about domestic types of violence that they require the modern day equivalent of a head ax. Why do they need multiple guns and ones with magazines that hold 30 bullets or more if there are less people, not more, that are victims of violent crime? The scenarios they come up with as possibilities are so unlikely that I honestly have to laugh. I mean, they don't all live in Compton or Cabrini Green!

So, we all know now (thanks to Alex Jones' mouth foam on steroids the other day) the real reason why they want their own arsenals: it's because they think our government is tyrannical. They view Democrats and the president as illegitimate holders of office who are just waiting (any day now...) to institute a totalitarian regime  and send us all to re-education camps. Many like Kevin Baker think it's going on right now and their guns are the only things that are preventing a "full" takeover. In short, Barack Obama is King George and 1776 will commence again.

Here's a little hint for them: if the federal government was really the fascist regime they say it is, they'd be hog tied right now, sans guns, and being forced fed, Clockwork Orange style, Karl Marx and gay porn. Because the simple fact is, folks, the government has much bigger and far more numerous weapons than your average gun rights person. Remember, our armed forces have more firepower than the next twenty countries combined.

And many on the Right know this because they support the funding of this every day.

Thus, we come to the ultimate irony that is the gun lobby. They scream loud and hard about tyrannical governments but they shout with equal force about how defense spending is rock solid Constitutional. So, in essence, they are supporting (with gusto) the same "tyrannical government" they fear will come some day to take their guns away...fueling it more and more every year with sophisticated weapons. In essence, they are empowering their "enemies" so their position makes no sense to me.

Now, to be fair, there are a growing number of libertarians (a few who post here like juris) who would like to see the defense department gutted. Many of my present and former students who are of a libertarian bend (there are quite a number of them, btw) want the same thing. At least they aren't hypocrites but they are wrong about the government. Tyranny is not going to happen here for a number of reasons. Our government is not a monolith. We have a brilliant system of checks and balances that will not allow a situation that would require insurrection. This lack of true central power is evident as DC is filled with a whole host of mini power bases who all struggle with one another on a daily basis. The end result is that not much gets done. If anything, the government is sedimentary which is a different kind of danger and one which we feel the consequences of every day. Of course, this is why shootings like Sandy Hook and Aurora have taken place.

So, I'm pleased to see that the plan that the Biden Group is going to release is going to be comprehensive recommendations that bring together all of the elements that are needed to lessen the possibility of this happening again while, at the same time, maintaining the right to bear arms. It's not going to simply be a matter of limiting the type of weapon or having a military grade classification of some weapons. It's going to mean background checks on every single gun purchase in America. No more loopholes for gun shows or internet sales. It's going to mean regular safety checks and mental health exams as well as demonstrating need to own certain types of weapons. Now that we know the profile of these shooters, we can make every effort to ensure that people like Adam Lanza never be allowed to have guns. This is where the mental health element comes in and, folks, it has to be taken seriously with a national effort to remove the stigma of having and seeking treatment for these sorts of problems.

With all of this in mind, here are my action items that would enable us as a nation to take giant steps towards solving this problem.

1. Vastly improve mental health in this country from a federal level all the way down to a community level. Launch a multi-pronged campaign to remove the stigma of talking about this and aggressively encourage young men who fit this profile to seek out help.

2. Universal background checks for every single person buying a gun at any time. Background checks are common in just about everything these days (getting a job, apt, buying a house or car) so there should be no problem requiring everyone to do this. No more gun show or internet loopholes. Private sales are also included here. Stiff penalties for those who break this law.

3. Classify weapons like the Bushmaster as military grade and require those who wish to own it to go through more rigorous screening. This system should be modeled after the Israel paradigm. This will likely cause mouth foaming on the part of gun rights folks. This is when their paranoia, laziness, irresponsibility and insecurity need to be exposed. Their nervousness about showing their moonbat too much in public is evidence enough that they know they are in the very small minority on this one. In short, we need more national interviews with folks like Alex Jones:)

4. A national tracking system for the movement and sale of guns. Few on the right whine about this when it comes to tracking Muslims or how much Sudafed people buy. This can help law enforcement catch criminals in a more timely fashion.

5. Armed police officers in every school. This is already true of many high schools but this should extend to junior high and grade schools as well. Funding, of course, is lacking in this department along with man power so it may have to be, at least at the outset, that increased patrols serve the need for the time being.

6. Make gun trafficking, giving a gun to a minor, and having a gun near or in a school a felony. In short, zero tolerance.

7. Step up prosecution of criminals who try to buy guns and crack down hard on rogue gun dealers.

8. Have regular gun buy back events and offer large amounts of cash for weapons that are military grade and clips above 10 bullets.

Obviously, this is not an all-encompassing list but it's a start. Note the absence of a two items:

1. An assault weapons ban or a ban on high ammunition clips. One of these or both will likely be in Biden's proposal on Tuesday. Not only is not a good idea politically but it won't have any sort of measurable effect other than piss people off who can marginalized and exposed for their nuttery in other ways. It's important to note, as I have above, that such a ban would not be unconstitutional, as Justice Scalia explained above. Further, the notion that all guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns) are going to be taken away after Newton is silly. It's not going to happen.

2. Banning gun free zones. The only people that should have guns in schools are police or trained security personnel. Allowing teachers, staff, or an Alex Jones type parent to carry a gun into a school is not a good idea. My reason for this is that I simply don't trust people. As I always say, it's not the guns, it's the people, specifically Americans. They suck with guns and have proven themselves to be massively irresponsible with them.

At the end of the day, I don't think that all of these ideas are perfect nor will they entirely solve the problem. That's the caricature that the Right uses to paint the left and then when things don't fall together so neatly (as they often do in life), they can play the adolescent blame game and capitalize on people's ignorance and fear. They have nothing themselves and it's far easier to be a critic than actually have the balls to put something forward.

The items on my list are meant to be a beginning down a path that will likely be a long process. Guns are not the reason why our society suffers so much violence. It's the people and our culture.

It's time for both to change.

Affirmative

There are so many things with which I agree in Mark McKinnon's recent piece over at the Daily Beast I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with his central question.

My question to Republican gun enthusiasts is: How would anything being proposed in any way impact what you do now with your guns? Or, is it that you are just hostage to the NRA talking points?

Hostage, indeed. I find the griping that goes on about the left exploiting the media after Newton to be a steaming pile of shit considering the amount of money being made off of the bullet ridden bodies of little children by the NRA and gun manufacturers. Hell, they're bragging about it!. The point seems to be lost on the gun rights folks the goal of sensible people is not to make money but to actually solve the problems we face with violence in our culture.

Thankfully, the American public knows this and that's why there have been 400,000 people that have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns since Newton. Their main goal is to simply have a common sense plan to deal with these never ending shooting sprees. This, as McKinnon notes, is better than no plan or being against everything proposed by Democrats and moderate Republicans.

As a Republican, I think it’s yet another instance where the party, by refusing to recognize reality, is going to end up looking like the “stupid party” that fails to adapt and evolve to changing circumstances in our society.

Unless the GOP comes out with a proactive plan that has some appearance of responding to recent events, then it continues to play defense and digs deeper the hole it has been digging for itself in recent years. On issues where the physics are moving irrevocably forward, like immigration, gay rights, and guns, the Republican Party continues to look backward. And backward is a sure path toward irrelevance.

As I have been saying all along...anyone out there ready to listen yet?

R.I.P. The Right Wing Blogger

It amuses me to no end when my oh so enlightened right wing friends refer to the Drudge Report as "simply a page of links to news stories."

Really?

This was the front page of the Drudge Report yesterday. As soon as Hitler comes up, that's when you know which side is losing.

And take a look at this recent poll from Rasmussen Polling (a right leaning poll). Just 8 percent say they are members of the Tea Party with 49 percent of voters saying they have an unfavorable view of the movement. I recall being assured as recent as last year that The Tea Party movement would always be around, eternally robust and ever a beacon of conservatism. It seems to me that the American people are plumb tired of the crazy and would rather listen to people that live in the real world.

Of course, this speaks to a much larger issue. Right around a decade ago, the blogsphere really began to burst to life. Political hacks from all ends of the spectrum started their own sites. The Right took particular advantage of this and, in the 2004 election, were part of the reason George W. Bush won reelection. After issuing imperial edicts that John Kerry was a French war criminal, the American people, still timid from 9-11, bought all their lies.

But the two years after that election were illustrative of what happens when you vote with emotion and belief as opposed to thought. And, in 2006, the Democrats took over both houses in Congress. In 2008, they saw more gains and America elected Barack Obama president. It appeared that the influence of the right wing blogger was a flash in the pan.

The 2010 election showed us that they did have a death rattle left in them. The House swept back to the GOP based on irrational fears over health care and over reaching government intrusion. Even in that election, though, the Right blew it, running very conservative candidates in the Senate and reaching too far. By all rights, they should have taken back the Senate as well because if you take a look at the House victories from that year, not all were hard core Tea Partiers. Some were merely moderates elected by a center right public who thought the president had gone too far. These same voters certainly did not want the far right either and so, the GOP didn't take the Senate. Since the Right's main conviction is their vanity, they saw 2010 as a great victory and continued to push more and more crazy ideas in the 2012 election, pulling political philosophies from far right web sites and incorporating them into their main platform.

It didn't work. The president easily won reelection, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, adding more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and the House saw a net of seven seats for the party of the donkey. Add in the recent astronomical polling numbers for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the message the American people are sending is clear: moderate or else. 

All of this leads us to the conclusion that the right wing blogger, and any influence they may have had over public policy, is essentially dead. Sure, they'll still have their followers similar to the old short wave radio days and they'll be trotted out on talk shows here and there but, for the most part, the days of them having any sort of substantial effect on policy are over. We're going to see this with the debates on guns, the budget, immigration and climate change over the next few months. Either they can moderate or be left out of the conversation. If the trends in the last few elections are any indication, it may even be worse for the Right in general. I suppose they didn't have much of a choice after 2008 to hitch their wagon to the star located in the Moonbat Quadrant. Now, they are paying the consequences.

I wonder just how many times Hitler and Stalin are going to come up in the next month...

Actually Having Ideas

I can almost here the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks after this little ditty.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

Of course, that's not even the best part.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)

What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.

But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.

I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...

A Gift That Will Keep On Giving

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?

Why, Again?

Suppose you are in a darkened room with 20 armed people and you. You are the only one not armed.

Who gets shot first?
Who survives?

Think about it for a minute.

Have it yet?

The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.

Why?

The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.

But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.

In short, your goal is to survive.

They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.

And you aren't armed.

So, how does arming everyone make people safer?

Business As Usual?

Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?

Yeah, not gonna happen this time....

Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.

Further...

Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.

Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.

Low Capacity

A few weeks back, I had a very long discussion with the folks over at TSM about the Sandy Hook tragedy and what is likely going to be a sea change in the way guns are viewed in this country. Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying was this comment.

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.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?

It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.

Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).

There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.

The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).

The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.

Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.

Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?

Still With The Deafness of Tone

It's been almost two week since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut and the Right is continuing merrily along with their complete deafness of tone. They just don't get it. This one is different and, like the last election, they're are going to learn yet another hard lesson. Even Frank Luntz thinks so.

“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.” 

That's right. There are plenty of people that should not own guns. I think this incident (as well as the rest of them this year) illustrate that if you increase the number of people carrying weapons, you are going to increase the chances of irresponsible gun ownership. It shouldn't simply be that people who have criminal records should not own guns. Many people with mental illness or people who live folks who have mental disabilities should not own guns either.

I don't think the gun rights folks (and many others on the Right) realize how Orwellian they sound. The irony is hilarious when you consider how much they rip the left for doublespeak. The answer to gun violence is...MORE GUNS, damnit!!

War is Peace...

What the Right really wants is to (ahem) do it again only harder. They are using this as an opportunity to see if they can gain any ground on what they view as "Slaughter Zones" (AKA Gun Free Zones). They want to be able to carry their guns wherever they want, including schools. It's a chest thumping, juvenile maneuver which serves to further their "fuck you, dad/stomp down the hallway/bedroom door slam" agenda of being pissed off at rules they don't like. Never mind the rest of us.

The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers (yet another group the Right sneer at as not "having any real training" which is basically code for insecurity and envy). Schools are public property which means that the public gets to decide what goes on in our schools. With private property, gun owners can kindly go fuck themselves if they want to beef about gun free zones. The health club I go to, for example, has a few malcontents who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?). Perhaps they should choose another place to go rather than gripe.

Doubling down is what they do lately, though, and it continues to cost them elections. This won't be any different. They underestimate the president and worse, the public, who has a growing distaste for some guns, as Mr. Luntz notices above. He's a right wing pollster so if he's saying it, they are in big fucking trouble. And it won't be because (cue high pitched shrieking) Barack Obama is going to be a "gun grabber." Actually, they're not really in "trouble" either...only the way they see it...the world (gasp!) changing and that simply won't do.

In fact, I pretty much guarantee that three things are going to come out of all of this. First, people will get to keep the guns they own (if they choose not to sell them back to the federal government, that is, for a very good price:)). Second, plenty of guns will be available for people to use to defend themselves.

And third, the Right is going to be a mouth foaming pile of apoplexis.

The Police State

The NRA press conference yesterday was a perfect example of how out of touch the Right is these days. "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun."

Really?

I'll set the aside the Jack Bauer fantasy here that the gun rights folks seem to think can be replicated in reality and focus on the word mentioned twice in this quote: gun. Why does it have to be a gun? There are plenty of other ways to disable intruders that school, mall and movie theater staff could use. Using a taser is one option although that could prove difficult. A more obvious solution is to stash some tear gas or something similar and simply throw it down the hallway and knockout the intruder. You might end up knocking out some staff or students but the intruder would be disabled.

Think of that would have worked in this situation. The principal would hear the commotion and grab the gas canister that they have stored in the room they were in. She throws it out in the hallway and Lanza passes out. At least then, we would have known why he was going on a rampage.

Honestly, this is a more realistic solution. I don't think the Right realizes how juvenile they sound when they start talking about arming everyone. More importantly, it strikes me as odd that they want armed security personnel everywhere. Isn't that the same thing as a police state (something they are vehemently opposed to)?

But this is what I mean when I say they are closet fascists. In so many ways, that's what the NRA and their supporters are all about. Do they even realize it?

Did He Go There?

Police are working on reconstructing Adam Lanza's hard drive after he smashed it with a hammer just prior to going on his killing spree. Thus far, they are publicly saying that they aren't having much success. I have to wonder...why did he smash it? What was on it? What sites did he visit and why?

One possible answer comes from this post over at CNN.

And if you're anxious about your masculinity, if you aren't quite sure whether those around you find you sufficiently strong and potent, the Bushmaster corporation has an answer for you. If you buy one of their semi-automatic rifles -- like the kind Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children and six adults last week -- you may "Consider your Man Card reissued." 

Bushmaster took down this section of their site but you can still see what it looked like here. This is only speculation at this point but did Nancy Lanza think that getting her son into guns would make him less awkward and more of a man? Did he visit this site or others like it?

This is especially disturbing when you consider that he likely had various mental and emotional issues. Being that way naturally coupled with the nurturing of a sub culture that isn't known for empathy and sensitivity anyway is a recipe for disaster. In fact, if you put together some of the words used to describe the Lanza's...doomsday prepper, economic collapse, home schooling, gun collector...the image becomes clearer as to what precipitated this shooting spree.

Of course, it could just be as simple as bad parenting. I've certainly seen my share of moonbat parents and Ms. Lanza seems like one of them. Even though there was a horrible end to her life, we still have to question her wisdom. How could she allow her son access to these guns given what he was like? I can't help but think that this horrible event stands as a testament to why people don't actually know what's in their best interests and, sometimes, make very, very poor choices that affect other people's lives. Or, in this case, take them away.

We don't live on islands, folks.  The things we do affect other people. That's why we have laws. The nature of man is not good. Often, it is confused or downright despicable.

Crisis Mode?

Politico has an interesting story up about how the NRA is basically in crisis mode. They weren't prepared for this at all and so far all they have released, statement wise, is an announcement stating that on Friday they are going to issue a plan that "to make sure this never happens again." It will be interesting to see what they present.

It will have to be something very substantive otherwise they risk souring an already steadily eroding view of the gun industry. I think they see the economic writing on the wall and if they do their usual dance this Friday, they're going to lose money. It's just that simple.

People have had it and it really won't matter what the government does or doesn't do.

The Crazy Uncle and the Cassette Tape

Since the tragedy last Friday in Newton, I've had something percolating in the back of my head. David Frums's recent post on what they president should not do was the catalyst. The president can't fight an ideology so intransigent that even the Lord our God couldn't move them. But I'll tell you who can.

People like our own Nikto.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that Nikto has been saying on gun control but I also haven't heard any adequate defense of why ordinary citizens need to be able to protect themselves with military grade weaponry. Thus far, it's the usual meme of "You're stupid" with a dash of genetic fallacy. They can say why they are against it but not why they are for it. To do so would mean being honest. What is that truth?

They think that these types of weapons are cool and they like to blow shit up. And they have a pathological hatred of the US government and believe think that the NBC television program, Revolution, is likely to happen. The problem with trying to engage these people is that our culture is generally fair minded and the fallout from this puts sanity at a disadvantage. I liken it to what I call The Crazy Uncle.

The Crazy Uncle is the guy in your family that you see at the holidays who doesn't get out much. He spends his days in the bubble of the Drudge Report and other right wing hotspots believing that this is what the world is really like. He is most definitely armed with an array of these types of weapons and, at the holiday meal, will inevitably say something so far off in moonbat land that you question his sanity.

But then a funny thing happens. The rest of the people at the table are polite and start to accept the "logic" of some of his arguments. It's not too long before the moderate conversation gets pulled to the right and now the "middle" is somewhere around the 10 yard line on the right side of the field. This is what happens when we embrace the Cult of Both Sides. This is what is happening on a macro level on our culture. The Crazy Uncles of the world know this and that's why they do it, saying crazier and crazier shit to see how much they can get away with (Hitler's big lie scenario). Never was this more true than with the gun debate.

So, to unfuck this kind of thinking, the government has to stay out of it. I know they are going to try do something anyway but given the power of the gun lobby (and despite the NRA saying that this Friday they are going to unveil plans to make sure this never happens again), it's going to be nearly impossible for them to accomplish this paradigm shift. 

But that's shouldn't stop ordinary citizens from forming a private organization that rivals or even surpasses the gun lobby. Frum's example of MADD is a good one. There are plenty of people right now that have lost loved ones in school shootings and they could form the nucleus of such an organization. And the time has sadly never been better. All they need to do is start talking about the 20 children who had as many as 11 bullets in the bodies.

The Right is quite fond of talking about how the free market should do its thing without interference from the government.  They point to letting people's behavior and tastes dictate supply and demand. Well, stocks in gun manufacturers are plummeting after Friday's shooting. Cerberus is selling Bushmaster. Dick's will no longer carry certain types of guns. A general distaste for guns is starting to grow in our culture. This one was different, folks and things are going to change. This change and increasing distaste will be hastened if a new, private organization like MADD gets to work now.

It may end being that many of these military style guns go the way of the cassette tape.  A few people still have that moldy old soundtrack to 9 1/2 weeks laying in their old Geo Prizm (likely that same crazy uncle) but no one really plays them anymore. Why?

Because they just aren't cool anymore. 

The Usual Three

The Right has reacted to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in their three usual ways. First up was Mike Huckabee who blamed the public schools for taking God out students' lives. This struck me as odd as any student (or person, for that matter) has the right to go to whatever church they want and participate in the many after school and weekend activities. In fact, they could fill up much more time doing church activities than being at school if they really wanted to do so.

Their second reaction was Don't Take Away My Gun. This has never made any sense to me. Neither has the term "gun grabber." Nikto, a contributor here, was recently accused of being a gun grabber when all he called for was a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. He did not call for banning rifles, handguns or other types of weapons that are not semi-automatic capacity. Apparently, the leap from certain types of guns to ALL guns is about an inch. Or less.

Of course, a ban like this will not prevent these types of incidents from happening and this is why I say that the two main sides in this debate, which we are likely to see quite a bit of over the next few weeks, are essentially wrong. By attacking the guns, that side avoids the real issue of mental health and the need for increased security in schools anyway for other issues (drugs, theft, fighting). How about marshals for schools like we have for airlines?

The other side has yet to provide a reason that is not grounded in paranoia and fantasy as to why people should be able to own the type of gun that Adam Lanza used last Friday. Obviously, these same people think that there are number of weapons that should not be owned by average citizens. So why not these? I'd like an answer that is not an emotional and frilled up sermon, please.

The third reaction (and perhaps the most disturbing) is They Should Have Armed Themselves. A completely ridiculous notion when you consider that Nancy Lanza was well armed and got shot with her own weapon! It would be one thing if they were calling for an increased police presence but that's not it. They want teachers wearing guns...a truly stupid idea simply on the basis that teachers don't have time to go through all the training necessary to be safe with a weapon. They are there to educate.

All of these reactions truly suck at a depth that I didn't think was possible to discover. It's been interesting to note that, aside from above, the reaction has largely been quiet from the gun lobby. Perhaps they are finally reflecting on the fact that their usual rag isn't going to work this time. In fact, what they should really be reflecting on is this question: What if the shooter last Friday was a Muslim? What would their reaction have been?

Further, I can't figure out why such a loud and large group of people are apoplectic about Benghazi, where 2 CIA Contractors, a Navy Seal, and a US Ambassador (all of whom were trained for being in massively unstable situations),  were are killed and then turn around be completely laissez faire about this incident where little girls were shot as many as ten times. They fault the president for the former and want him to do nothing for the latter.

And that makes me fucking nauseous.

The Right Question

I have a lot to say about the shooting yesterday in Newton, Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary School so I'm just going to put out all of my thoughts however they come out regardless of organization.

My first reaction was surprise at myself for how I under reacted when I heard the news. Another school shooting...oh well...it happens all the time now. I guess I'm used to it. I'm used to being revolted at yet another story about how someone walks into a school and starts shooting. Am I just numb to it now?

We run lock down drills at our school all the time. They do at my children's school as well. Will they be enough?

It won't be long now before we find out that the shooter, Adam Lanza, was taking an SSRI. This is the commonality of all of the mass shootings of the last 14 years or so...mental illness and an SSRI. With all this talk about new gun laws, maybe the first new law should be about pharmaceuticals, not guns.

There was no gun law that could have prevented this from happening. The latest information is that the guns were owned by Lanza's mom and not his. Connecticut has strict gun laws and, as a 20 year old, he could not legally own any of them. It's not right, I know, to speak ill of the dead, but she obviously did not practice adequate gun safety. Had these been under lock and key (with only her knowing the combination), this never would have happened.

Of course, should people with mental disorders, even over 21, be allowed to buy guns? Should anyone who takes an SSRI be allowed to own a gun? My thought is no.

The wall to wall coverage in the media for the next week is going to make it seem like this happens everywhere all the time. It doesn't. Violence continues to drop in this country and around the world. Things are not getting worse. They are getting better.

Every other story is about gun control now and how "something has to be done." Again, new gun laws won't help. The problem isn't the guns. It's people. They suck. And they always will.

I don't like the gun control people and I don't care much for the gun rights people either. Where does that leave me?

In my search for a solution, I wonder if haven't taken a moment to think about the children of that school...those who lost their lives and their families and those who have to live with the memories of what was essentially a war zone. I can't even imagine it. As everyone out there has been saying, it doesn't seem real. And I think I have been far too insensitive.

Are any of these questions I'm asking the right ones? Is there such a thing?

Late afternoon yesterday, I had a conversation with my daughter's principal and we asked each other many of these questions. Right before I left, she told me something that her father used to say and it applies here.

Anything that can be fixed is not a problem.

Huh?

Any of the commenters that migrated from Kevin's site care to explain this video?



The last four years have seen more relaxed gun laws and, honestly, the decimation of the gun control lobby so I don't get it.