What conservatives talk about when they talk about assault rifles
Will this stop despotism in Washington DC? (PHOTO SOURCE: Wikipedia)
Watching the political fallout from the shootings in Connecticut — and the subsequent gun attacks in Pennsylvania and western New York — there’s one crucial detail that the media isn’t sharing with its audiences.
Again and again, reporters like NBC’s David Gregory ask in a bland and willfully naive sort of way why anyone would defend the need for assault rifles and military style ammunition clips.
But the motivation for preserving the wide availability of these weapons is clear and unambiguous. A significant segment of the conservative movement views them as a necessary check on the power of the Federal government.
Indeed, for many on the right, preserving access to powerful military-style weapons is necessary not to protect people from criminals and mass-murderers.
(How many times have people used a Bushmaster assault rifle to defend their condo or shop from a burglar?)
Instead, the chief utility of these assault rifles and large ammunition clips is to make possible armed resistance to the United States government — or, according to some, the United Nations.
The theory goes that so long as average citizens are armed to the teeth, potential despots (in recent years President Barack Obama has filled this role in the conservative imagination) who would turn America into a tyranny will be held in check.
This fantasy of a war of resistance against shadowy dictators in Washington DC has become a staple for conservatives. In 2010, Mother Jones profiled the growing “resistance” movement that formed after Barack Obama’s election
Activists told the magazine that they feared a day when “President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse.”
That same year, US Senate candidate Sharron Angle talked about the possible need for “Second Amendment remedies” if a conservative political agenda doesn’t prevail in Washington.
Conservative media, in particular, trumpeted the fact that gun sales surged after Obama’s election and again when he was re-elected last month.
Military historians have even role-played what a conflict between the US military and its own armed citizens might look like.
If you think I’m exaggerating, check out this portion of a recent essay by influential conservative columnist Erik Rush, who appeared on Fox News after the shootings in Connecticut to defend free access to military-style weapons.:
It is of the utmost importance that Americans become aware of the dedicated efforts that are being made to transform us from citizens into subjects, and that we are already at war.
This is a war we have not seen the likes of previously and that will challenge notions of war for centuries to come.
Even if we did not have the Second Amendment to stand on, I would still support gun rights, because guns are not the issue – power is.
Next will come edged weapons control, then blunt weapons control, then compulsory periodic assessments of citizens by government psychologists.
There are millions of Americans for whom “it can’t happen here” has been well-inculcated into their worldview; these have been conditioned to operate at the basest of intellectual levels.
They are also the ones who will blindly obey any laws enacted by government, whether these imperceptibly erode their liberties, or require their reporting neighbors to secret police.
There are also Americans – some misguided, some ideologues – who work every day of the week in the cause of compromising our liberties.
They are just as dangerous and criminal as those who would stifle any of the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.
Rush concludes with the argument that those who disagree with his perspective might need to be, well, killed.
“I suppose suggesting that we shoot them wouldn’t be taken very well,” he writes, “although that is precisely what it came down to 236 years ago.”
This kind of rhetoric is hardly new. In the 1990s, popular conservative talk radio host instructed audiences on the best tactics for battling Federal ATF agents.
“If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight,” Liddy said. “Just remember, they’re wearing flak jackets and you’re better off shooting for the head.”
It’s important to point out that this isn’t controversial stuff on the right. Reporting accurately on the conservative view that guns are a civil liberty issue and a crucial check on “big government” isn’t liberal bias.
It is simply factually accurate — and a vital piece of context.
Of course, it’s also important to note that other groups reject this idea. The American Civil Liberties Union concluded in 2008 that in “our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.”
And it’s also necessary to investigate what this kind of political stance might mean for the future of the conservative movement.
The notion that white suburbanites might some day need to rally against a shadowy overlord in Washington DC might be a great motivator for a fringe survivalist movement, or talk radio hosts, or for certain right-wing politicians.
But it’s hard to see the “coming war of resistance” plank as a pathway into the hearts of the vast majority of Americans.
Indeed, as Republicans try to make new inroads among women and minority groups and Roman Catholics (the American bishops support gun control) it’s a particularly tough platform to work from.
Still, many on the right believe sincerely that banning access to Bushmaster-style assault rifles and 30-round clips would leave Americans vulnerable — to criminals and mass murderers, and also to the expanding power of government.
This is the political and ideological frame that’s been missing in the gun control debate in recent weeks.
Tags: gun control
Brian,
When did you become the sole arbiter of what is legitimate and what is not or what conservative thinking is? What was it I said about what happens when you disagree with liberals?
“You write inflammatory garbage like this and then call me paranoid? Your real intentions are painfully obvious.”
Well, I haven’t been trying to hide my intentions here, Larry. I think I’ve been pretty blunt about them, maybe even too much so. I kind of feel bad about it (that is so liberal of me!)
But I think it is way beyond time that we stop allowing people with irrational paranoias to stand in the way of reasonable compromise on important issues.
So, if the only way you can approach this topic is via delusional fantasies (e.g. “the goal of left-wing, liberal America is to ban guns, every damn one of them.”), then in my opinion you should be marginalized to the outskirts of the public discussion… somewhere out there with birthers and flat earthers… so that people with a firmer grasp on reality can get to the business of finding compromises, solving problems, and protecting our citizens.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written to Samuel Kercheval in 1816, had this to say about the law and human progress:
I am certainly not an advocate for for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
OK, so I should be “marginalized” because in your opinion (opinion, mind you) I’m delusional, irrational and paranoid? That is fascism, plain and simple, and the reason we have a Constitution in the first damn place. And you wonder why people are afraid for their freedom? What comes after “marginalizing” people, locking them up? Seems I’ve read some history about behavior like this.
“What comes after “marginalizing” people, locking them up?”
I hope you are being clever or ironic here.
Because this is, again, a classic example of paranoia.
Larry, you can think and say anything you want, but if you don’t back it up, you can’t expect anyone to take it seriously. You made a very specific statement about liberals wanting to take away every gun. Which is not supported by any facts, really. The public statements of most liberal politicians, the Democratic Party platform, the laws of liberal-dominated states, the voting records of many Democratic office-holders, the comments of people posting here, pretty much all the available evidence goes against that statement. If liberals really wanted to take away everyone’s guns, you don’t think they would’ve tried already in places like New York and Massachusetts?
Well, thank god you don’t really get to decide who is paranoid! You should get with Brian Mann and see if the two of you together can figure out what I’m talking about. That I even have to indicate there’s a point beyond what’s obvious illustrates how pointless this “conversation” probably is. There’s another liberal failing: you take yourselves way too seriously.
Another one! Marlo, please see my 9:30 PM comment. You should join Brian and dave.
I think we all better own up to the fact that Larry has found us out. The ban-the-gun conspiracy now has a huge crack in it.
I have a gun, it’s only a pellet rifle (one of the more powerful ones) that I used to chase off nuisance flocks of pigeons at our old home. I’ve owned more powerful guns in the past but have no use for them in my present circumstances. I have been in the military and fired various weapons, even tossed grenades. I was the best shot in my company with a carbine and have an experts badge to prove it.
I have no desire to totally ban guns (that’s you putting words in my mouth) nor am I being the least disingenuous in saying that. I do favor gun control however of the sort some have suggested above; background checks, training and registration. The idea of liability insurance isn’t a bad one either in case of accidents, a number of which seem to occur every hunting season.
The founding fathers intent was to establish a nation governed by laws through a system of representation that was democratically chosen. They did not intend to set up a country ruled by those with the most guns. If they had, the 2nd amendment would be the constitution and rest would be an amendment. I believe we have the government they intended, with elected representation, a system of laws, courts to interpret those laws all striving “toward a more perfect union” in spite of the efforts of some to divide us into warring camps. I believe that when we disagree with our (note the possessive) government we have the right to petition it, to actively lobby it and to exercise our right to vote for like minded representatives. I believe that when my view does not “win” it means I have to try harder to convince others.
Larry, Kathy and Rancid, I’m sorry that you cannot accept the reality that Obama won re-election fair and square using the democracy our founders set up but it is reality and your visions of a popular revolution against what you see as a liberal dictatorship are pure fantasy. It’s time you had a reality check. The constitution begins “We , the people” (in very large letters), not we the militias.
Brian is clearly correct that there is a small, but determined and influential group that buys into this “insurrectionist” ideology. While they have done little violent harm that I am aware of, their insistance on owning, or the right to own, near-military grade firearms contributes to the statistically small, but horrifying mass shootings we have experienced. Most of the damage done around them (Waco, Ruby Ridge) was done when the authorities moved in (Waco involved apparent child abuse, and choices were limited. And the kids died, in the end).
But above this strata, and what I think we see on this site, is a much larger group of “conservatives” that , while not insurrectionists, truly see things very differently than the majority. They do not trust government to protect their lives, property, economic well-being, or liberty. To a large extent, they do not feel the connection between government and the general welfare, that many of us do. They represent how a substantial number of Americans feel , now, and always have felt. I think this is embodied by the idea that school personnel should be armed and prepared for an attack, likewise college students, and others. The government can’t protect us, so we need to be able to protect ourselves. Yes, we ARE, and should BE on our own (regarding guns, medical care, the lack of a strong social saftety net), and that is OK.
The more “liberal” types are not alienated from government, see a stronger, and proper, connection bettween the people and government, and tend to see government as a proper means for preventing violence, and providing for the general welfare. A view shared by massive majorities in most of the developed world.
When our nation was born, there was a substantial minority of folks who felt that government was a primarly a force for good, and should be respected. They were called “Loyalists”, and our ancestors kicked them out. Many of their descendants now live in Canada, a nation with reasonable firearms restrictions and a much lower murder rate.
The “conservative” view -that individals , not the government are primarily, and properly responsible for their own protection- , is is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. It predates the Revolution by at least 100 years (Bacon’s Rebellion, Virginia, 1676), and it is far from entirely illogical .
If I could snap my fingers and make every “assault weapon” not in the hands of duly consituted authorities disappear, I would. But neither that, nor new laws, will come close to doing this.
Many have commented on the folly of arming teachers or principals. If you agree, I have a question for you. What really would have had the greater chance of stopping Michael Lanza, an armed teacher (principal, or custodian), or an assault weapon ban with “real teeth”? I’ll take the teacher, tiny though her chances might have been. Sometimes the conservatives are right. You’re on your own. (This is an argument against emotional legislation, not in favor of arming teachers.).
Remember, we are living in America, not Australia, England, or Japan. When our government passes laws restricting firearms, the main result seems to be a doubling in the sale of those weapons, and no appreciable effect on the murder rate. For better or for worse (probably mostly for worse) a substantial number of Americans are still, and always will be, living (mentally and emotionally) on the frontier.
This discussion has gone on for a surprisingly long time without a reference to Nazis or Hitler.
There, I feel much better. Now back to the barricades!
The real threat to freedom that Conservatives should worry about is the mind-chaining drivel they see on their TV.
Free your brains.
I see a parallel between the taxing of “billionaires” and the argument of trying to confiscate the most powerful guns.
Once you get everyone to agree to the extreme, you can expand the definition of extreme to include the ordinary.
Hence, “millionaires and billionaires” now include people making a small six-digit amount.
The argument on gun control is over “semi-automatic” and large magazines. Those definitions will be expanded to include the ordinary weaponry.
It’s not like this is our first rodeo with the government.
Walker, re your 12/26 2:19PM post- it was a big deal back then. But we didn’t have the internet and blogs like this in wide use so you didn’t hear about it unless you were interested in it.
BM, re your 12/26 2:35PM, and there are already a vast number of gun laws on the books restricting our rights. The difference I see is that now we are talking of confiscation or firearms, or outlawing the ownership of private property by citizens who have done NOTHING to warrant having their property seized and rights abolished. It would be like the gov’t deciding the press can no longer report any complaints about the Republican party.
Whats more, you refuse to address the presses part in pushing the Webster shooter or any number of other killers that saw your “fame making” as their chance for notoriety. For that matter, what are your views on David Gregorys and NBCs flagrant disregard for the law and intsructions from the DC Metro Police who specifically advised them they could not legally possess a 30 round mag within the DC limits? Is it right or wrong? Or is this another case of special people with special privileges?
So it’s such a big deal that it’s worth shooting fellow citizens in the head, committing treason, and starting a civil war to overthrow the government, but somehow it wasn’t a big enough deal that it ever made the evening news? Sounds like the Internet tempest must be of the teapot variety.
List of things you can’t buy over the counter anymore:
Dynamite, Sudafed, high nitrogen fertilizer, strike anywhere stick matches that actually work, machine guns, Coca Cola with real cocaine in it, opium, bath salts…
Plants I’m not allowed to grow:
Marijuana, opium poppies…
Oh the tyranny!
Kudos to NEWT! You actually get it. Good for you.
Walker if your response above is in response to my 8:19AM post, then you have the choice of either researching it yourself or continuing on in denial. Google 94 Assault Weapons ban protests and go from there.
Brian M, the problem here is that your version of “reasonable” gives the gov’t the ability to make major changes to the rights of citizens affirmed in the BoR. As JDM notes, it’s te foot in the door. I don’t own an “assault weapon”, but I’m pretty sure that the ban will be written in such a way that far more than “assault weapons” will be covered. Cuomo I believe mentioned banning and confiscating any gun holding more than 10 rounds. Well, there goes millions of 22 rim fire rifles and handguns. Do some research and you will find many anti-gun organizations whose stated intent is the complete banning of all guns in the US. This has been going on for decades and if you’ll do the research into gun control history you’ll find it.
I would also ask that all of you realize that many of us view actions taken by several of our past Presidential administrations as clearly treasonous. Bush did it, Obama has done it, Clinton did it. They don’t answer to the rule of law. Why would we support and give trust to gov’t that clearly has no regard for the BoR and Constitution beyond what it does FOR them rather than for us? When all the libs here were running down Bush, were you supporting the President as you expect us to? When you froth at the mouth over the 2000 election, called it illegal and both Bushs terms illegitimate, was that reasonable?
I have about 3 feet of snow to move, I’ll be back later.
We need to face some facts
1. The assault weapons ban was toothless and useless.
2. The idea that some Rambo survivalists are going to hold off the US Army with their bushmasters is delusional but driving policy..
3. Larry has a point that many mayors (liberal or otherwise) would like to see guns totally banned from city limits.
4. Conservatives have totally failed to address the gun violence issue from a problem solving point of view.
Trigger locks? That was a conservative idea. It might be made to work, but are they pushing that? No. They are pushing arming everyone. Wild West shoot outs. I remember western movies where the sheriff made all the cowboys check their guns at the city limits to cut down on gun violence.
C’mon Peter Hahn, I never said “that many mayors (liberal or otherwise) would like to see guns totally banned from city limits.” What I said was that many liberals would like to ban all guns.
Yes Larry. I am agreeing that you are partially correct. But…. I don’t think you will find any liberals with any interest in banning hunting or sport/ recreation guns, or collectible guns.
There are two public safety issues both involving children. In the cities, children with guns sell drugs and shoot at each other. They usually miss, but the bullets go somewhere.
In the suburbs, people keep loaded weapons by their beds in case an intruder comes in. The guns are found by neighbor children who play with them and kill each other.
These need solutions.
Crazy people who commit suicide in a mass murder gesture are harder to deal with. But arming everyone else isn’t going to help and will make the other gun violence problems worse.
Rancid, I did “Google 94 Assault Weapons ban protests”. I wonder if you did.
The first hit, A Public Opinion Nightmare, makes it sound as if the primary response was to galvanize the gun lobby. Nothing breathless about armed citizens correcting a misguided government with their assault weapons, and nothing about shooting federal agents in the head.
The second hit is Ronald Reagan Helped Pass The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Definitely nothing there about armed resistance to government.
The third hit, Assault Weapons Ban Talk Sparks Run on Gun Stores, again fails to detail any protests of the ’94 ban. In fact, the word “protest” appears on the page as a link to a story on people protesting LaPierre’s response to the Sandy Hook shooting.
Maybe you can find some links and pass them on to us? I tried a half a dozen more and found nothing of the sort.
“I don’t think you will find any liberals with any interest in banning hunting or sport/ recreation guns, or collectible guns.”
I must be losing my mind! AR type rifles are used for a variety of hunting and recreational activity.
I have heard and read many say they want to ban all semi-automatic firearms. Does that include skeet guns and other semi-automatic hunting shotguns? Hand-guns used for target shooting or hunting?
I’m finding it harder and harder to take any of this seriously.
Larry – relax. There are lots of liberals on this blog. I dont think any of us – and we are pretty representative – want to ban any of those activities you mention. Some of us probably enjoy some of those activities.
City mayors like Mayor Bloomberg want to ban most guns in city limits. He is no liberal. In rural areas you cannot discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling. In cities there is no place that is not within 500 feet of many many dwellings.
Law abiding citizens in crime ridden parts of the inner city don’t own guns. They know that getting into a shoot out with the bad guys is a really bad idea and at the very least their guns will be stolen.
Andy Griffith didn’t need a gun.
There is an element among Liberals or Progressives, as they now prefer calling themselves, who would like to see all guns banned but they are a minority. Many Liberals are gun owners.
Nothing wrong about owning a gun.
Also, it should be noted, any attempt to ban all guns would be a huge risk for the government because such an attempt would lead to a revolution and I believe most people in government are smart enough to know that would be a risk not worth taking, especially when you consider the number of guns owned by the general public.
That said, some regulation of assault styled weapons and those that can be converted into assault weapons is something to be considered.
One thing you need to understand about automatics and semi-automatics, if you intend to shoot someone or something with them, they are often highly inaccurate.
Why? Because the higher the power the greater the kick. Rapid fire doesn’t account for the kick. As Wyatt Earp pointed out, “Fast is fine but slow is final.” It takes time to aim.
“AR type rifles are used for a variety of hunting and recreational activity.”
The point isn’t that you can hunt with an assault rifle… you can technically hunt with anything, heck, you could hunt with a grenade launcher… the point is that you can hunt just fine without an assault weapon.
So, given the destruction they are inflicting on our society otherwise… and given that you can continue to hunt and participate in recreational activities without them… it strikes most people as an acceptable trade-off that they should be regulated.
I’m more afraid of gun owners than I am of anyone else.
And I don’t buy for one second the baloney about protecting us from tyranny. Where were these “liberty lovers” when Bush and Obama were raping the Constitution via the Patriot Act, the NDAA and other assaults on civil liberties? The only liberty these folks are interested in protecting is their own gun fetish.
Here is the proposed bill that we will certainly be discussing around here: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Initial thoughts.
It has the same fatal flaw that the 1994 law had… and that is that it is grandfathering in all current weapons. Back in 1994 that meant 1.5 MILLION of these weapons were still legal. Now, that number is significantly higher, some estimates are in the 5 MILLION range.
The idea behind a law like this is that over time it will begin to dry up the supply of weapons on the street. But here is the problem with that… these mass killings are taking place right now, so a law that will begin to protect us at some future date doesn’t really address the current situation. Does it?
The way this law will try to address that “hole” is to require strict registration and background checks on the grandfathered weapons. That is a good idea, but would not have prevented Adam Lanza from taking his mothers guns.
I also do not see anything that specifically addresses gun shows.
Ultimately I have to question if a law like this will prevent the next gun mass killing. Maybe it will begin to do so 2 decades from now, but I don’t see how it would in the present. Is that the best we can do?
Seems to me it would make way more sense to go after the large capacity magazines. With a five-round clip, why is an AR-15 any worse than an old fashioned semi-automatic with a wooden stock? And it would be way less expensive to do a buy-back program– these clips cost $10 – 15 each.
Drudge headline right now: “Civil War”
In regards to the proposed bill I just linked.
As I was saying… these people are not interested in protecting all of us from a tyrannical government, what they are interested in doing is going to war with their fellow Americans with whom they disagree.
The morass of registration, tracking people, tracking sales sounds like a mess plus I do think that is an infringement of my privacy and rights.
I think what you will really want to do is go straight to the manufacturers and say it is illegal to produce, ship or sell this weapon; period.
“The morass of registration, tracking people, tracking sales sounds like a mess plus I do think that is an infringement of my privacy and rights.”
Why is it an infringement of your right when it comes to guns, but not with cars?
“I think what you will really want to do is go straight to the manufacturers and say it is illegal to produce, ship or sell this weapon; period.”
The problem with JUST that approach, Mervel, is that we are experiencing these mass murders right now. Halting production will begin to help reduce them in a few decades… but it won’t stop the next Newtown, or the next several after that.
Do you really find having to register a firearm to be an infringement of your rights? Do you feel that way about having to register your car, or having to fill out permits to build things? I don’t quite understand that sentiment and am interested in hearing more about it.
I usually agree with Newt but in this case I have to disagree. The way to solve a problem is to start working on it. If it is a very complex problem the solution may require working on several facets at once and it may take a long time to resolve the issue completely. Or it may never be completely resolved. But introducing complicating factors doesn’t solve the bigger problem.
Knuck, I’m not against some efforts to control weapons. I just think these should be considered in light of research what is likely to work, and what is not. I think both sides here, and in the media, have taken positions without doing that. Maybe research will show that arming every 10th person, including school staff, is a good idea. I have a (pre-Newtown published) Atlantic Monthly floating around the house somewhere that makes something like this argument, though I haven’t read most of the article. If that works, we should do it. If full speed ahead on banning assault weapons works, than do that (or rather, try to do that).
And we must do this in light of the reality of American culture as it is, not what we would like it to be.
First I am with newt, lets look at the research and see what really makes a difference.
But second why are we doing this? If it is to prevent mass shootings, well mass shootings are down statistically, gun murders are down statistically, the trend for both of these for the past 15 years has been down. I agree we have far far too many violent gun murders in the US, but there seems to be no correlation with the type of weapons that are out there and the registration requirements for those weapons.
As far as the registration goes and why I am opposed to it for a number of reasons. First you are talking about creating a whole new regulatory regime for tracking millions of weapons without knowing if it will even make a difference which means a lot of money and a lot of time, secondly I can see some very bad privacy issues which were really brought home by the publication of the names and addresses of the gun owners in Westchester who followed the registration rules, criminals who do not follow those rules would be just fine, but finally because simply banning the weapons would work better to remove them from society.
In the short term you are not going to prevent another mass shooting by any sort of regulations, laws or whatever you do, there is no short term solution, we don’t even know this IS a solution. We do know for example that the weapons used at Newtown were registered, this kid did not own them, any sort of registration or regulations about them would have made zero difference.
Talk of doing research is simply a stalling tactic. Here I am on the Law and Order side of an argument and all the people who are generally on the Law and Order side have jumped ship. There are far too many weapons floating around and I don’t need studies to tell me that having more weapons in more places is going to end up in more cases of innocent people being shot.
I am all in favor of doing empirical studies on how ridding our nation of unlicensed weapons is affecting death rates.
I think I am pretty typical and I have seen too many instances of people handling weapons like idiots. I have had a friend point a BB gun at my head and when I told him not to he pointed it at my foot and said “it isn’t loaded”, then he squeezed the trigger and shot me in the foot. Oops, I guess there was a BB in the chamber.
I know two people who have had siblings kill another sibling while playing with Papa’s handgun when Papa wasn’t around. I spent hours at a graduation party trying to talk a drunk friend into handing over a pistol that he was handling recklessly — he went on to become a cop. I can’t count the number of people I’ve known who committed suicide with a firearm; some of them I think did the right thing, others not.
My uncle owns an AR-15 type weapon. He bought it when his Parkinson’s got so bad that he didn’t feel like he could get off enough shots with a shotgun to protect himself. If someone were to break into his house he can’t move fast enough to get the gun for self defense. I hope he doesn’t sleep with it. What he is trying to defend I don’t know. He spent time in ‘Nam — in the Navy, on a heavy cruiser. He ran a high risk of sun burn and getting the clap in the Manilla.
The thing is, a large percentage of the people I know who I trust to handle a weapon safely don’t and won’t own a weapon. Many people I know who I don’t trust to own a weapon and handle it safely own weapons.
I’m sure one of the studies you could do would be the one that finds out why people who are truly dangerous are attracted to owning firearms, but I don’t need that study to know it is true.
I can come up with a lust of people who should not own a firearm under any circumstance.
Neck tattoo, no gun. Pet snake, no gun. Hang out in bars after 2am more than once in the last year, no gun.
Talk to empty chairs, no gun. Believe that there is a NWO conspiracy, no gun.
There are lots more. Jump in if you’ve got one.
Lust! Oh my! List, a list.
“In the short term you are not going to prevent another mass shooting by any sort of regulations, laws or whatever you do, there is no short term solution”
Banning the ownership of these weapons, and taking immediate steps to get them off the street, is a short term solution that will prevent another mass shooting.
I agree with you, registration wouldn’t have prevented the Newtown shooter because his mother would presumably have registered her guns. However, if she were not allowed to have those guns in the first place… if they were banned… and the government bough them back from her – got them out of that house – THAT would have prevented Newtown.
Again, Australia, in the wake of a mass gun killing, did exactly that… they banned these types of guns and bought them all back. It worked. Gun deaths plunged, and there has been no other mass gun murders.
Here is an interesting story about a gun buyback program initiated by the LAPD recently. It saw people waiting 2 hours in line to have their guns bought back and netted 75 assault weapons (along with 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns… oh, and 2 rocket launchers!)
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/12/rocket_launchers_lapd_gun_buyback.php
I will start with the obvious- Andy Griffith? Mervel, you do know, I hope, that Sherif Taylor was a fictional character that did use a gun? You do realize good ol Andj and Barn would have been killed by any actual criminal intent on it? Please, lets stick with reality.
Peter- you will find lots and lots of liberals that want to outlaw hunting, fishing, trapping, guns, private property, etc. Just because you make a claim based on your factually inaccurate beliefs does not make it true.
Secondly- Bloomberg is no liberal?!!! What planet do you live on? He’s the epitome of a liberal!
Walker, I will attempt to find time to do your homework for you when I get done with the snow and wood and other stuff here. I was active in the protests at the time and I assure you plenty of people were equally as involved.
Brian not NCPR- your fears are not reason enough to negate other peoples rights.
The proposed Fienstien bill includes just what we feared it would- limits and registration of rifles, shotguns and handguns. You guys said, no one was talking handguns, shotguns, etc. Well, there it is. And if a gun is grandfathered the owner has to register it, under go background check and fingerprinting. Records of the gun will be kept and the cops can come and confiscate them later.
Pete, you obviously know nothing about semi-auto fire and the ARs (Bushmaster type). The 223 doesn’t kick at all. Accurate fire is no problem.
DAVE! LISTEN UP! I’VE TOLD YOU THIS SEVERAL TIMES!!!! THE AUSTRALIAN GUN BAN DID NOT LOWER CRIME RATES ONE LITTLE BIT!!!!!!! VIOLENT CRIMES ROSE!!!!! STOP LYING ABOUT THE AUS GUN BAN!!!!!!! YES- LYING, STOP IT!!!!!!!! PROVIDED LINKS TO STUDY RESULTS THAT SHOWED YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!
Someone else mentioned gin registration being a great idea. Ask the Canadians who spent a billion dollars trying to register everything and finally gave up. Even our peace loving, non- violent (??!!) Canadian neighbors can see a unjust law when presented with it.
Canada is right there behind us on the list of most gun deaths per 100,000 population among industrialized countries.
And Sheriff Taylor isn’t real! Who ARE you? The Grinch who stole Mayberry!!!!!?????!!!!!
Knuckledragger- I know a large number of people that should never, ever be allowed behind the wheel of a car. I do not believe I have the right to bar them from doing so.
Also, the difference between registration and licensing cars and drivers lays in the simple fact that cars are not specifically enumerated in the BoR. When we start registering, licensing, mandating insurance, etc. of everyone who makes a political comment or says anything that falls under the 1st Amendment, which would be everyone participating here BTW, then you’ll have an idea of what I mean. And don’t even mention “need”. There is no requirement to prove “need” in the Bill of Rights. If we have to prove that we need the freedom to comment on a political issue, if any of you feel that’s right…well, welcome to Amerika.
I note Mr. Mann has declined to comment on the questions I posed to him. Interesting.
Hi Rancid – I scrolled through and can’t find the questions you’re referring to. Can you clip and paste them? I’ll take a look.
–Brian, NCPR
dave,
All you keep talking about is Australia, Australia, Australia. You ought to tell the complete story behind their gun control efforts: the impressive decline in gun homicide you quote involves approximately 30 deaths annually. I don’t mean to imply that 30 lives saved isn’t a good thing but it isn’t the magic solution you make it out to be.
First I am with newt, lets look at the research and see what really makes a difference.
It’s not clear the necessary research could be easily done.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470