I understand the liberal outrage over the Colorado slaughter, but let me just come out front and say that I’m not interested in gun control. At all. I know that comes as a disappointment to some, but that’s just where I am. I believe guns did more for feminism than Gloria Steinem, because they equalized the strength disparity. You can’t very well beat your wife to a bloody pulp when she’s pointing a 9MM at your temple, and I imagine it comes as somewhat of disappointing for a rapist to make his way into a damsel’s bedroom, only to find she’s got a laser aimed at his heart.
It’s all violent, wild, and untamed, but that’s who Americans are, culturally at least. And I won’t be left alone with them unarmed. For many liberals, the Colorado massacre offers sufficient enough reason to implement gun control. For me, the reaction is opposite. If this country is becoming the Wild Wild West, then I’m not going to bring a knife to a gun fight. I need a gun.
See you at the range…
I think it is also interesting how the security state responded quickly with an announcement that the attack in Aurora, Colorado was not an act of terrorism. Conspicuously absent from their response was any explanation for why they failed to keep tabs on this guy for acquiring an arsenal of grizzly assault weapons, explosives and incendiary devices that Homeland Security suggests a lone-wolf terrorist might use to carry out such an attack. The excuse that "no one could have imagined..." won't hunt. Perhaps if his last name was Mohammed rather than Holmes, he might have been stopped, questioned and frisked. It seems to me that the security state's post 9-11 investment in an array of surveillance, monitoring and reporting systems is targeted more at protecting the state from the next outbreak of mass civil disobedience than protecting the public from acts of terror.
Yes, and so what actually stops a terrorist from doing that exact same thing that Mr. Holmes did? Buying a shit load of unregistered weaponry and wreaking havoc? If his name were Mohammed, he could very well be at Guantanamo by now. Excellent point.
Probably not. But I'm sure for you, being an unarmed duck in a barrel is more effective. If you encounter a crazed man with a gun, I'm sure you're better off if you're unarmed, right? *sigh*
Hi Yvette, I find your post is wrong on so many levels but much of it stems from, I think, a misunderstanding of why the so called liberals want gun control. I think fundamentally, the need for gun control is not a black and white issue, as you appear to think. For example, it is not about whether everyone should be armed. It's a question of what type of behavioural indicators should override the perceived right of every citizen to be armed? i.e. should a previous mental health condition be adequate for rights reduction? Or should a proclivity for zealotry or any other indicators of an unreasonable temperament? And what then of those who elect not to be armed? Should there be better protection of them by the state? Secondly, the question is, what type of eventuality should an armed citizenry be armed for? Is it Armageddon? And where is the evidence that being armed will 'protect' the person? as is a common myth. Have you ever heard of a situation where an armed assailant who was armed was ever forced to reconsider when faced with an armed defense? No what happens is a shootout. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
I never asserted, on this blog or elsewhere, that gun control is a black and white issue. What I am discussing is the trajectory of conservative to moderate thought on the issue, and since that strain of thought seems to dictate American politics, it's what my projection is based on. I mourn the devolution of American citizenry, that we've come to the point where we now believe citizens should be outfitted with guns in order to walk the streets. We didn't even believe that in the 1800's, but propaganda is a hell of a drug, and marketing works. And I'm just not in the business of denying what I see, and you're missing my point - entirely.
No, Yvette. That's not what Dan asked. I own handguns, rifles and shotguns. Reloading is a Zen activity for me. Loved target archery before I got a Browning A-Bolt. Shooting clay pigeons is a kick; though not a bad one with a 20 gauge. The .38 serves a different purpose. I get your reference to gender and support it. But, I'm with Dan, Do you need a semiautomatic weapon and 6,000 rounds of ammo? In my world, the intention of a semiauto and 6,000 rounds is something other than self-defense.
No one NEEDS that much ammo, but we're past the point of defeating the NRA. When you step back and take an honest look at at the political landscape, you realize that that's a pipe dream. There is no true left in this country, only right and far right, so I don't have any real expectation of anyone on the Hill doing anything to change that. It didn't change when Abe Lincoln was assassinated, or Kennedy, or when Gabby Giffords was shot, and it won't change now. Defend yourself as best you can... that's just where we are.
This is certainly true, and in a country where people still have a great deal of sway over their government, I'd be open to such notions. But gun culture is part of American culture, and when you intermix that with Citizens United, and the penchant Americans have for conspiratorial rationalizations for any number of things, I don't buy the idea that significant change is on the horizon, even with consistent effort. In a country where liberals run away from the term "liberal", instead of embracing it and retaking it, I don't see reason to expect much courage on this front. In the long term, the pendulum will swing back. It always does. But I wouldn't hold my breath.. For what it's worth, I hope you're right. I'd be happy to be wrong on this issue.
"It didn’t change when Abe Lincoln was assassinated, or Kennedy, or when Gabby Giffords was shot, and it won’t change now. Defend yourself as best you can… that’s just where we are" Agreed.
I agree that there is no left in this country. If there was a genuine left in this country - gun owner that I am - I wouldn't feel like I was fully disenfranchised, politically. I concur that the NRA can't be defeated in the sense that it and its members (of which I once was) are not going away. But even as Frank Luntz discovered, all NRA members are not categorically opposed to gun control [1]. And, like a lot of other polls of Americans on domestic policy issues the devil is in the details. Americans can *seem* to oppose Liberalism, but would support any number of specific liberal policies. I think the same is true of "gun control." I'd also argue that the leadership of the NRA, not unlike the leadership of our other institutions, is not as well connected to its membership as it imagines itself. And, I do hold some hope that Paul Waldman's analysis is correct, even if the NRA might argue otherwise, and some of its members sincerely hope is not true. [2] [1] http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf [2] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/01/435437/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-iv-the-declining-role-of-guns-in-american-society/ In any event, thanks for the dialog. I remain hopeful that semiautomatic weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammunition might well become relics of the past.
Do you need a semiautomatic weapon and 6,000 rounds of ammo?