The new horizon of gun control, part 1. “A Violent Society”

posted at 8:51 am on December 18, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

In the wake of one unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut last week, the nation is facing yet another crisis which is bearing down on us like a storm. It would have been far preferable to leave such a battle until the tears of the mourners had dried, as I wrote this weekend, but those who would tiptoe in during the darkest hours to seize the high ground have no intention of waiting. By the time Monday morning had rolled around, forces which have been waiting for the perfect storm of outrage were moving to use the deaths of innocents as an excuse to portray this week as the ideal time to “open a national dialogue” on limiting the second amendment rights of United States citizens.

There were many examples to be found on the Sunday morning shows and virtually every other soapbox available in the public square. But when the work week started, I awoke to find a somewhat more disturbing example rolling out on Joe Scarborough’s show. (We can leave aside for the moment the endless discussion here of whether or not you think Morning Joe qualifies as a conservative. We’ve hashed it out before, but I still feel he has been, at heart, a needed conservative voice in a media market which reaches far more of the moderate, frequently undecided vote than the majority of speakers who inhabit more traditional right wing echo chambers.) Over the course of three hours, Joe rolled out a number of high profile guests, including previously solid second amendment supports such as Joe Manchin, who were suddenly “reevaluating” their views on gun control laws. But that was only after Joe himself delivered a lengthy soliloquy in a similar vein.

It’s rather lengthy, but rather than being accused of chopping something completely out of context, you can view the entire video here, or read the entire transcript here. I would like, however, to extract a couple of key portions which identify the three major themes which we will be hearing for weeks and months to come.

Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo. They must instead be forced to protect our children.

Parents can no longer take “No” for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting children.

The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon, to movie theaters in Colorado, to college campuses in Virginia, to elementary schools in Connecticut, is being spawned by the toxic brew of a violent pop culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-styled guns…

It’s not all about guns, or all about violent movies and video games. But we must no longer allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And we must not excuse total inaction by arguing that no single action can solve the problem and save our children.

This summarizes the three main points, each of which deserves attention. This is a “complex” problem, as the President’s press secretary told us and as you will be repeatedly informed. And it’s not really about gun control, you see. What they’re talking about here are strictly the sinister cases of mass shootings. Heck, they’re not really interested in your guns anyway. They’re working on a bigger picture… a cure for the societal cancer of the 21st century.

But I’m here to assure you that you should have no doubt that each of these three items winds up pointing back to the guns. The reasons we are told that “now is the time” to take up new gun control legislation are because there are three primary factors contributing to these mass shootings:

- The dangers of a violence obsessed, video game-driven society drained of the milk of human kindness
- A mental health care system which is producing far too many unstable individuals with easy access to weapons, and
- The proliferation of “military combat style guns”

Today, let’s take a brief look at the first one.

A Violent Society

The contention here is a familiar one, and not entirely without merit. It is repeatedly noted that we are raising generations of youths who watch violent movies and television shows depicting wanton mayhem and slaughter. They then log on to their computer and engage in a variety of video games where they are encouraged to issue forth and commit every form of murder and violence. And for those who choose to do so – and, we should note, are allowed to do so by their parents – this is certainly true. How could this not contribute to setting off the tripwires of cloistered, disaffected loners who take up arms and act out those fantasies in real life?

And perhaps there is something to that theory… for the dozen or so truly disturbed teens and young adults who wind up in these tragic headlines. Of course, that seems a bit of a harsh judgment upon the tens of millions of similar young people who watch theses shows, play these games, and yet somehow don’t wind up going on a shooting spree. And how, pray tell, were we to know if that same dozen violent maniacs wouldn’t have found another source to feed their dark proclivities? But let’s say for a moment that these movies, TV programs and games were the trigger mechanism.

What precisely is the remedy being proposed? The bottom line would obviously seem to be that we should limit the availability of weapons, thereby preventing them from living out their evil fantasies. And I will agree, for the sake of argument, that the lack of a gun would make their job considerably harder, and perhaps even discourage a few from the attempt. But as with so many other sad cases, the shooter last Friday didn’t even need to purchase a weapon. In fact, by some accounts – still under review since the media rushed to report on this story before they’d even gotten their socks on properly – he tried to buy a weapon, but failed due to the stringent laws already in place in Connecticut. But there were legal weapons aplenty in his own home, and he seized them.

But back to the remedy. Are we seriously suggesting that fixing the societal problems of these troubled teens and young adults would be best handled legislatively by the United States Congress? At what point did we stop asking how much of this social disease was brought on by a breakdown in civil society and the positive influence of a supportive, cohesive family environment? There is a vast and profitable market for movies, shows and games with a violent theme. Why? People are seeking this material out (with 99.999% of them handling it without going on a murder spree) and the market is delivering what sells. If we’re looking for a “cure” for this, begging the federal government to intervene in what constitutes desirable entertainment is a pale, sickly course. The real question should be why the material was desirable in the first place, and how families could be raising children to value other human traits more highly.

None of this sounds like the province of the government at any level, at least to my way of thinking. And using the recent tragedy as an excuse to demand government intervention to fix a broken social structure appears foolhardy in the extreme.

I’ll leave you with the video of the Scarborough editorial. Tomorrow, I’ll be back with part two of this exploration, where we will ask just how the very real tragedy of mental healthcare in this nation gets tied into government intervention and guns.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

For these reasons, the ACLU-CT urges you to vote against SB452.

Fallon on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

40 years ago, a favorite professor stated that “bad law written for all the best of reasons is still bad law.”

Bingo.

bazil9 on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I take my grandson to pre-school every morning and before we could just go into the school building. No locked doors, nofront desk, nothing.

Now, we have to call for the doors to be unlocked so we can get into the building and we have to have ID.

Oh no! I need a cell phone and ID!/

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

And realized we’re doomed.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The truth cannot be argued communist scum… And yes the truth hurt…

mnjg on December 18, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Our very own Reichstag/Marinus Van der Lubbe moment?

Seems plausible.

And by admitting that I believe it is plausible makes me shudder. The Nation has truly descended into the depths of political and societal depravity in a terribly short span of time.

coldwarrior on December 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM

It’s an abhorrent thought but given the left’s track record for inventing reasons to control us (global warming being a prime example) it has to be considered.

darwin on December 18, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I’ve been actively avoiding most of the MSM coverage of this issue. Most of it is the usual inane arguments, sprinkled with statistics cited by people who don’t know how to multiply fractions. Good heavens, my wife tells me that just yesterday, she heard someone refer to England as an example of gun control that works.

It’s nonetheless notable how many commentators have been using the term, “reasonable controls,” as in, “We need to have a conversation about reasonable controls.”

Gee, who could argue with that?

But the first time someone says that to me personally, I’m going to say, “Sounds fine to me, but could you be a bit more specific? What would you suggest?”

I believe it was the late Robert Novak who told a young political repprter, “Don’t go by what people say. Go by what they do. Words are easy. Deeds are hard.”

Good advice for all of us.

Owen Glendower on December 18, 2012 at 10:17 AM

So liberals work endlessly to destroy the family unit, shun traditional institutions and make people mindless dependents of the State, then blame guns when things start falling apart.

Dongemaharu on December 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM

And the most violent cities are controlled by liberals, most gun crimes are committed by democrat voters, and the culture of violence in movies and TV’s is created by liberals… Therefore the proof is beyond a shadow of doubt that liberals are the creator of violence and the culture of violence…

mnjg on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I am a “legal” gun-owner. And I believe many of us gun-owners would agree that guns in the hands of “violent youth” and the “mentally ill” need to be “restricted.” However, the more restrictions you have, the more law suits you’re going to have—and everyone needs to be aware of that.

Many “violent youth” have their juvenile crime records “sealed,” making if very difficult for law enforcement to have access to those records. But we, as a nation, have determined long ago that those records should remain sealed. How do we feel about that, NOW?

There are certain things the President CANNOT do, also, such as make any new gun laws “retroactive.” Because that would, without doubt, be a form of “confiscation,” and the U.S. Constitution “forbids that”—and so would the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is estimated that there are now 80 MILLION “legal” and “law-abiding” gun-owners in the U.S., who have NEVER murdered ANYONE— and THEIR rights must be taken into consideration, also. It would be unconstitutional to “punish” the 80 MILLION, for the acts of the VERY FEW.

Recommendations:
1) Un-seal the records of “violent juveniles,” so that information
can be put into the national database of individuals who SHOULD
NOT be allowed to purchase a gun.

2) Whether we agree or not, the records of individuals who have
been deemed “mentally ill/mentally disturbed” by one or more
Professionals, also needs to be input into the national
database of individuals who SHOULD NOT be allowed to purchase
a gun. (However, we need to tread lightly with soldiers
diagnosed with PTSD, as MANY have this disorder, and FEW have
become “murderers.”)

3. Armed Security at schools is a NECESSARY precaution. We have
them at banks, at businesses, colleges, high schools and middle
schools—so there is no problem extending them to elementary
schools. We live in a different world than our parents did; we
live in a much more “violent” world.

These are just a few things to consider, and definitely not all that we should consider. Race, gender, nor creed should have any part of any new restrictions—although there will be some who cry “racist” or “sexist” with any new laws adopted. It is what it is, and if the data (FACTS) point to one race over another—especially in violent youth crime—then we all have to deal with it! We, as a nation, have spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME trying to find solutions to the relationship between poverty and youth violence—AND FOR OVER 40 YEARS IT HAS NOT LED TO ANY CONCRETE ANSWERS. IT’S TIME TO CONCENTRATE ON THE “VIOLENCE” ITSELF, RATHER THAN ON THE ELUSIVE “REASONS” FOR THAT VIOLENCE!

DixT on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Jesus…everything is about race with you. Everything.

It keeps you up at night thinking about all of the men of color who could be criminalized and incarcerated as a result of new gun control laws? Which men of color do you speak of? The Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, or all of the above?

And where was your concern for men of color when 300 brown people turned up dead as a result of Fast & Furious?

Pale Rider on December 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Why isn’t the tragedy of the murder rate in black and brown inner city areas enough to push the nation towards gun control? Its actually starting to bother me.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Well for starters the left only cares about minorities when they can be used to bludgeon the right. After that they’re ignored.

Secondly, many of these areas already have strict gun control. Unfortunately what that does is take guns out of the hands of the people that need them most … the law abiding people.

darwin on December 18, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Remember Foghorn Leghorn, Wiley Coyote? They were exihibit A in the war on violent TV for kids a few decades ago. Where are we now? Good times indeed.

AH_C on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

So are you suggesting we ban products from Acme Corp?

Look, it is so easy to take a trajedy like the Newtown slayings and pretend that it can all be made better by banning something or spending more on something, or changing the law. But the reality is that evil exists in the world and society can’t always stop evil from happening.

I’m only disappointed that, as a society, we aren’t spending this week remembering those who were killed instead of listening to gasbags of all political ideologies use the incident for their own agendas.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Why isn’t the tragedy of the murder rate in black and brown inner city areas enough to push the nation towards gun control?

Because most of the areas already have strict gun control while white areas have lower murder rates even though gun control is sparce.

That should bother you. There is a culture of violence within your community.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 10:25 AM

And realized we’re doomed.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

You didn’t come to that same conclusion when people who were outraged about the deaths at Sandy Hook began issuing death threats against NRA members?

Or the liberal Rhode Island perfesser who called for Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick, then walked it back saying merely that he should be in prison and the NRA declared a terrorist organization?

Plenty of hyperbole to go around, all you need to do is look hard enough.

Bishop on December 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Now, we have to call for the doors to be unlocked so we can get into the building and we have to have ID.

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Isn’t having to show ID racist or something? Think about all those people out there unable to get their child in pre-school because they don’t have ID! Perhaps the left should do something about that instead of seeking ways to gut the Second Amendment.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM

And the most violent cities are controlled by liberals, most gun crimes are committed by democrat voters, and the culture of violence in movies and TV’s is created by liberals… Therefore the proof is beyond a shadow of doubt that liberals are the creator of violence and the culture of violence…

mnjg on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM

In Cincinnati, out of maybe 50 murders a year, some 47 would be black on black murders, by kids and young adults aged 16-24 without any fathers, whose families were made possible by and supported by the government. You want to look at root causes, why not start there.

As Moynihan said in the 1960s, as quoted in a comment here last week, a root cause of crime is kids growing up in families without fathers present.

Paul-Cincy on December 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Most normal people are appalled.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 9:06 AM

What would you possibly know about “normal” people, you simpering twit?

You certainly aren’t normal – and it’s doubtful that a normal American would associate with you or your fascist sort.

Go away and cry yourself back to sleep.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/Stet/butthurtreport.jpg
Fill that out. Send it in. You’ll find help.

Then…FOAD

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

. I am just not convinced that massive federal gun control will not, like drug laws, merely be another means to criiminalize and rincarcerate men of color. think about the broad systemic issues that produce violence in the inner city.

Is your soul damaged again?

You never fail to disappoint-race and perpetual victims.
It is a cultural issue..you will not address.
Its a target to keep the black man incarcerated-that is it!

God, your insufferable. Have a nice day victim.

bazil9 on December 18, 2012 at 10:29 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Welcome to the real world.

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Why isn’t the tragedy of the murder rate in black and brown inner city areas enough to push the nation towards gun control? Its actually starting to bother me.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Okay, it’s official. You’re a moron. Gun control only works for law-abiding citizens. You really think all that black-on-black violence in the ghetto is done with legally registered weapons? Chicago, in theory, is a gun-free city. How is that working out? Essentially what you advocate is to take away private gun ownership so that only criminals are armed.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Special needs children have had schools set up special classes and have worked very hard with
these children. As far as it goes. Nobody has discussed what the path is available for these mentally challenged children is as they exit the school system. What is there for these students as they exit the system? Jobs are hard to come by even for good candidates. The video game baby sitter all day? exasperated parents with few options and since discipline is no longer allowed in schools, has chemical treatment become the answer? Mental illness is a very tough thing to deal with, parents need help, However Im sure it is easier to deal with gun laws.

MrMoe on December 18, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Let me check Joe’s ratings…yeah, just what I thought. Nothing to see here.

Mr. Arrogant on December 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM

If mere ratings was his ultimate goal:

Morning Joe is the most influential show on cable news because of who watches it; namely, every member of the Washington, DC political ecosystem, from journalists to legislators, to consultants, to staffers, right on down to Bo Obama, I’m sure. To Scarborough’s credit, he has demonstrated a willingness to speak out against members of his own party, but that tendency is the currency that allows him to retain that influence.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM

And realized we’re doomed.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Hi. Welcome to the reality of politics vs real life. Enjoy your stay.

upinak on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The Left Won’t Allow Facts to Get in the Way of Their Agenda
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/12/17/the_left_won_t_allow_facts_to_get_in_the_way_of_their_agenda

So I said, “You know why I care? I care about the Constitution. The Constitution is the single greatest document of human liberty and freedom that has ever been devised, and I get very touchy when people want to start messing with it,” and I do.

Therein lies the solution to many of this country’s problems. So that’s why. I am not wedded to guns or the Second Amendment. I love them all. The Second Amendment’s as important as the First is as important as the Fifth at me. I have a reverence and an awe for the Constitution, and, folks, let me tell you what this point is. The guns in this culture are the secondary target here. The primary target is the Constitution itself.

That is what is under assault.

That is what is in the crosshairs of people who are using this tragedy to advance an agenda.

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

This was posted somewhere you cultists will simply refuse to visit, so here it is, in its entirety. For what it’s worth. Not that any of it will penetrate the dark, closed recesses of your self-righteously right minds.

I’m a pretty left-of-center liberal. Read TPM regularly. Donated nearly $1,000 to BHO’s re-election campaign. But I was raised with guns. More to the point, my childhood was steeped in gun lore: I learned to hand-load ammunition when I was 10 and 11, and – by the time I was 14 – my dad was trusting me to prepare my own handloads. I could (and to some extent, still can) recite chapter and verse of firearms arcana, from muzzle velocities – a product of the type of gunpowder used in one’s handloads; of the weight (in grains) of a projectile; of the length of a gun’s barrel (the longer, the faster); of the temperature and elevation at which one is shooting – to impact energy (measured in footpounds), to trajectories (flatter for heavier bullets; some calibers have an innate advantage over others), and so on.

I bring this up to establish my bona-fides.

The gun culture that we have today in the U.S. is not the gun culture, so to speak, that I remember from my youth. It’s too simple to say that it’s “sick;” it’s more accurately an absurd fetishization. I suppose that the American Gunfighter, in all of his avatars, is inescapably fetishistic, but (to my point) somewhere along the way – maybe in, uh, 1994? – we crossed over into Something Else: let’s call it Gonzo Fetishization. The American Gunfighter as caricature.

The guns that I grew up with (in the late-1970’s and 1980’s) were bolt-action rifles: non-automatic weapons, with organic fixtures – i.e., stocks – and limited magazine capacities. As a pre-adolescent, weaned on the A-Team and the nationalist inanity of the Reagan years, I still remember marveling at the gorgeous glossiness – at the beauty – of my dad’s Sako “Vixen” .222 Remington, with its hand-checkered French walnut stock.

I was raised nominally to hunt, although we didn’t do much of that: once a year, at most. More frequently, we’d go to the range and shoot at targets. So I grew up practicing, and enjoying, what’s commonly called benchrest rifle shooting. I still do so (to a limited extent) today.

Most of the men and children (of both sexes) I met were interested in hunting, too. Almost exclusively, they used traditional hunting rifles: bolt-actions, mostly, but also a smattering of pump-action, lever-action, and (thanks primarily to Browning) semi-automatic hunting rifles. They talked about gun ownership primarily as a function of hunting; the idea of “self-defense,” while always an operative concern, never seemed to be of paramount importance. It was a factor in gun ownership – and for some sizeable minority of gun owners, it was of outsized (or of decisive) importance – but it wasn’t the factor. The folks I interacted with as a pre-adolescent and – less so – as a teen owned guns because their fathers had owned guns before them; because they’d grown up hunting and shooting; and because – for most of them – it was an experience (and a connection) that they wanted to pass on to their sons and daughters.

And that’s my point: I can’t remember seeing a semi-automatic weapon of any kind at a shooting range until the mid-1980’s. Even through the early-1990’s, I don’t remember the idea of “personal defense” being a decisive factor in gun ownership. The reverse is true today: I have college-educated friends – all of whom, interestingly, came to guns in their adult lives – for whom gun ownership is unquestionably (and irreducibly) an issue of personal defense. For whom the semi-automatic rifle or pistol – with its matte-black finish, laser site, flashlight mount, and other “tactical” accoutrements – effectively circumscribe what’s meant by the word “gun.” At least one of these friends has what some folks – e.g., my fiancee, along with most of my non-gun-owning friends – might regard as an obsessive fixation on guns; a kind of paraphilia that (in its appetite for all things tactical) seems not a little bit creepy. Not “creepy” in the sense that he’s a ticking time bomb; “creepy” in the sense of…alternate reality. Let’s call it “tactical reality.”

The “tactical” turn is what I want to flag here. It has what I take to be a very specific use-case, but it’s used – liberally – by gun owners outside of the military, outside of law enforcement, outside (if you’ll indulge me) of any conceivable reality-based community: these folks talk in terms of “tactical” weapons, “tactical” scenarios, “tactical applications,” and so on. It’s the lingua franca of gun shops, gun ranges, gun forums, and gun-oriented Youtube videos. (My god, you should see what’s out there on You Tube!) Which begs my question: in precisely which “tactical” scenarios do all of these lunatics imagine that they’re going to use their matte-black, suppressor-fitted, flashlight-ready tactical weapons? They tend to speak of the “tactical” as if it were a fait accompli; as a kind of apodeictic fact: as something that everyone – their customers, interlocutors, fellow forum members, or YouTube viewers – experiences on a regular basis, in everyday life. They tend to speak of the tactical as reality.

And I think there’s a sense in which they’ve constructured their own (batshit insane) reality. One in which we have to live.

Thanks for reading. I apologize for having gone on for so long. Hope that you’ve found it interesting,

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Between murders and drunk driving, illegals kill over 9,000 people a year – why is there no outcry about that! Hundreds are children and babies in the cars they hit. Maybe it is OK as long as one group kills them 1,2,3 at a time? You cannot predict evil or insane people doing evil or insane things, but you can tell which group is here illegally and deport them before they kill someone.

rgranger on December 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Two points:

The left’s arguments are akin to responding to a few drunk drivers by banning cars and alcohol.

The 4th Amendment does not grant or establish the right to bear arms. By recognizing that self defense is a natural right of men, it overtly informs the government that the government itself can grant nor deny such natural rights.

ROCnPhilly on December 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Over the last few days I’ve been thinking long and hard about gun control, and in particular its relationship to the War on Drugs and the prison industrial complex. I am just not convinced that massive federal gun control will not, like drug laws, merely be another means to criiminalize and incarcerate men of color. I am skeptical about any massive reform impulse that is born strictly from a “shocking” or “unspeakable” tragedy. Why isn’t the tragedy of the murder rate in black and brown inner city areas enough to push the nation towards gun control? Its actually starting to bother me. There’s death in these communities every day and no politician on either side of the aisle has suggested we need to do gun control or to think about the broad systemic issues that produce violence in the inner city.

So I came to post that and to agree with the skepticism being expressed around here. And then I saw this partisan screed:

The most violent cities in America are totally controlled by liberals that are inhibited by the democrat voters… The culture of violence is mainly among the democrat voters… Gun violence committed by democrat voters or gun violence depcited in movies and TV shows created by democrat voters…

Democrats = Violence… T

And realized we’re doomed.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I appreciate your honesty that gun control won’t actually help anyone.

As to the rest – you don’t find it outrageous that black urban communities have been under the wing of the Democrat party for decades but their problems have only gotten worse? You’d think at some point you’d come to the realization that liberalism is failing these communities.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Oh, and “apodeictic” means “Of or stating the characteristic feature of a proposition that is necessary (or impossible), perfectly certain (or inconceivable) or incontrovertibly true (or false).” I realize they don’t use that word in Southern Living.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

There is a vast and profitable market for movies, shows and games with a violent theme. Why? People are seeking this material out (with 99.999% of them handling it without going on a murder spree) and the market is delivering what sells. If we’re looking for a “cure” for this, begging the federal government to intervene in what constitutes desirable entertainment is a pale, sickly course. The real question should be why the material was desirable in the first place, and how families could be raising children to value other human traits more highly.

Bullsh!t. The realism and violence in these games has kept ratcheting up over time. It’s now approaching and I would argue equaling pornography in its graphic nature. It’s grotesque and defeatist to just say “well, these games sell well, so we can’t stop them.” Would we allow a video game that depicted a guy getting drunk or high and then getting into a car and mowing down a bunch of people standing at a bus stop? Why do we allow video games with TITLES that are crimes?

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Fail. Less Than 200 Anti-Gun Leftists Turn Out for March on NRA Headquarters in Washington DC
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/200-progressives-march-on-nra-headquarters-in-washington-dc/

Only 200 liberals marched to the NRA headquarters in Washington DC today.
The Huffington Post reported.

Organizers estimated that around 200 people participated in the protest on Monday, including some political staffers who worked nearby

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Plenty of hyperbole to go around, all you need to do is look hard enough.

Bishop on December 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Let’s remember the beginning of last week. Which political party declared that there was a civil war going on and that there would be blood in the street? Which political party was dropping tents on individuals gathered to exercise their First Amendment rights?

My point is this. It is hypocritical of those on the left to talk about coming together in a spirit of unity after they so clearly are spoiling for a fight on every single issue. They don’t give a rodent’s behind about dead children but they see the opportunity it provides to go out after guns. They don’t really care about the mental health system but they see opportunity to throw more money at friendly organizations for “mental health services.” In short, scratch a leftist or Democrat and you’ll find no heart or soul but plenty of hypocritical partisanship.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM

And that’s my point: I can’t remember seeing a semi-automatic weapon of any kind at a shooting range until the mid-1980’s.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Hey lostinspace … semi-auto’s have been around for nearly a hundred years. Whoever wrote that pile of crap is lying.

darwin on December 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM

National Review Online has a poll today with the question: Do we need armed guards at schools?

I’m amazed at the numbers with 3248 responses.

Liberals aren’t interested in protecting anyone. Well, Dem politicians are, but only in the form of them getting re-elected.

How about they try the ‘other’ ideas they hint at having (but have yet to reveal) first, and see how it all works. Then add their concept of ‘reasonable gun control’ last? But we know they won’t do that and no troll here will be for it even in part. We also know they won’t do that, because when they get their controls, they’ll forget all about the shooting in CT and no more will be done; they’ll quietly claim ‘mission accomplished’.

The Left keeps saying ‘reasonable gun control’. That implies all the other failed controls they got were unreasonable. Is it time to try something new, then? Like they have anything new. All they’re screaming is more of the same old thing that hasn’t worked.

When they start sweeps of high-crime inner city areas to confiscate illegal weapons, then maybe we can talk. But no liberal from the ACLU down to even the best troll here would favor that for an instant. The stakes are too high, and the cost in lives would be too high.

They don’t want a national dialogue, and they won’t allow a genuine one. It’s their way, or the highway.

Far as I’m concerned, conversation over.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Oh, and “apodeictic” means “Of or stating the characteristic feature of a proposition that is necessary (or impossible), perfectly certain (or inconceivable) or incontrovertibly true (or false).” I realize they don’t use that word in Southern Living.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

^^^ lostinspace

darwin on December 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM

And realized we’re doomed.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Because statistically more children aren’t gunned down in crapholes such as Chitcago or Detroit?

Or because no one cares that children are gunned down daily in Democrat inner city crapholes?

MNHawk on December 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Hey lostinspace … semi-auto’s have been around for nearly a hundred years. Whoever wrote that pile of crap is lying.

darwin on December 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Repeating firearms have been around for over 160 years.

The venerable M1911 has been around for over 100 years. [The 1911 should be a big clue on that]

Why is it that Oppressives cannot abide the truth?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

ROCnPhilly on December 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Second Amendment, I believe.

But, that Fourth Amendment will come into play when “government” comes around to seize property in the name of “the children.”

coldwarrior on December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

So why do you hate the US Constitution?

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Oh, and to add to my previous post, a show like “Criminal Minds” should not be on television. Period. I made myself watch it a few times after noticing that my teenage daughter was watching it a lot. I nearly threw up while watching two of the episodes, one of which was about a SERIAL KILLER OF CHILDREN. Another one was about a killer so evil that he posed as a policeman, stopped an elderly couple on a remote highway, and walked up to the car and shot them both in the face. And then left a photo on the scene of his previous murder. Needless to say, my daughter is not watching that show anymore.

There are so many crime shows on TV now that they have to come up with more and more twisted and bizarre and graphic murders and sex crimes just to avoid repeating themselves. How can anyone be sure that these shows are not giving young people ideas? The perps in these shows always get caught or killed, but they successfully terrorize (and thus command attention and respect in) their communities and sometimes even kill and maim cops in the process.

It has gotten out of hand. There is virtually nothing on television now except slob-reality TV and crime dramas.

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

And that’s my point: I can’t remember seeing a semi-automatic weapon of any kind at a shooting range until the mid-1980’s.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

They literally just make it up…

You’d get along swell with academic fraud, libfree, you know? He makes it up as he goes as well. Perfect when conning the gullible out of $50,000+ per year in tuition, to pursue worthless degrees.

MNHawk on December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

libfreeordie

lostmotherland

How does taking away someone’s right of self-defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Back to arguing government solutions to societal problems. Round and round we go. The liberals have wrecked themselves before on the rocks of assault gun bans and it won’t surprise me is they try it again. he liberals I have run into around me are MORE than cocky.

Conan on December 18, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Good grief, I had an armed guard in my high school in 1974. In a fairly small Southern town. There was a race riot in another high school and rumors went flying that kids from that school had cars full of guns and were going to go shooting up all the other schools. The school district did not mess around, they put armed guards in every school for the next 2 years and started random searches of cars. Nothing happened.

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

That was fascinating./sarc Have you purchased the iPhone 4 or 5 or whatever the latest model is? Some people want the newest stuff, in guns as well as phones. Shocking.

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

ROFLMAO…ohhh a huffpo article..what an indictment.

Your continued dancing on the graves of 20 small children is really getting disgusting. No one here believes your tears and gnashing of teeth is authentic. If fact, no one here gives a chit about your hysterical, insane ranting.

You seem to have some serious mental health issues. I hope you get the help you need. And please, if you have access to guns…use them on yourself first to see if they work.

HumpBot Salvation on December 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Welcome to the Liberal / Progressive America where $hi’ite is falling apart, they refuse to take responsibility for what they have caused, & they seek to punish the rest of us for what is going on.

Liberals have attacked the family unit – despite Science/historical research showing a 2 parent home producing more stable, happy, productive children, the Government has eroded a parent’s rights (allowing a school prinicpal to take girls to get abortions w/out even having to notify a parent), insisting that gays/lesbians should be able to raise kids together because what THEY want is more important than what is historically best for the children, & not only encouraging singl parenting but creating a government system where the govt PAYS single mothers for every child they have out of wedlock – rewarding them for promiscuity & poor dcisions.

Liberals have stripped dicipline & God out of the schools, replacing them with Liberal propoganda, Union interests, etc.

Liberal Hollywood has flooded our airways with TV shows promoting single parenthood, sex etc & glorifying violence. Video games, like language on TV has been allowed to get more and more violent/’liberal’.

& when something like this happens they ‘wonder’ what happened, blame an inanimate object (a gun) for the evil / violence perpetrated by a product of their (Liberal) culture…. & they insist that the answer is to continue what THEY are doing while stripping US of our Constitutional rights.

Good luck with that…

easyt65 on December 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

So? I don’t see anything there that is some sort of silver bullet in your argument for banning guns. More and more people have looked to guns to protect themselves? During the 70′s and 80′s when crime was rising? Truly shocking.

It still doesn’t change the fact that you want to take away peoples ability to defend themselves from vicious attackers. A gun is an excellent equalizer for women who want/need to be able to defend themselves from larger and stronger male attackers.

And as long as we’re using anecdotal, here’s what alexthechick from ace of spades and doubleplusundead had to say on the subject:

Gentlemen: I see that you have chosen to use the horrific crime of the murder of Kasandra Perkins to express your belief that guns are the problem, not the men who wield them. I am utterly certain that you believe that you have the moral high ground on this matter. I am equally certain that such a belief is appallingly wrong, not to mention terribly misogynistic. Why do I say this? Because had your desires on gun control been in place, I would not be alive to be writing this now.

I have an Ex. I have an Ex who, in the process of becoming my Ex, made credible threats to kill me. Why did I believe these threats were credible? Because among the primary reasons why I left him were that he had anger control issues, that he was a problem drinker well on his way to full blown alcoholism and that the things he was throwing at me were getting ever closer to my head. I decided to leave before finally snapped and actually hit me. He was displeased by this and made such displeasure known.

Do you know what kept me safe? Not some piece of paper. Not a judge tut tutting at him and shaking his/her finger and telling him to leave me alone. Not the police, who, after all, would only be able to respond once he had caused me harm. No, what kept me safe was my Glock. What kept me safe was my Glock and the fact that he knew I had both the ability and the will to empty a clip into his chest if he made good on his statements that if I did not come back, I would not see the next week. He never tried to do any of the things he screamed he would because he knew that not only would I defend myself but that I could. My Ex was nearly a foot taller than me and, at the time, had about 150 pounds on me. If he had been able to get close enough to me to harm me, there were very few options I had to protect myself. But with my Glock, well, I would be able to stop him before he got that close. I am alive today because he knew that if he tried to make that otherwise, there was a better than even chance he would be the one lying there in a pool of blood instead of me.

You want to take that from me. You want me to be unable to defend myself. You want to leave me vulnerable to those out there who look at a five foot tall fat girl and think “victim”. You want me to be unable to protect myself when there is no one else around to do so. You want to make me dependent on others to provide for my basic safety and security.

Let us not beat around the bush, you want to sacrifice my life on the altar of your political beliefs. How dare you? Honestly, who do the two of you think you are to demand that my blood be shed so that you may preen about what wonderful people you are? Why, precisely, are you removing the responsibility for Kasandra Perkins’ murder from Jovan Belcher and placing it on an inanimate object? That is what you are doing, after all. Your position is that absent the gun, Jovan Belcher would not have murdered Kasandra Perkins. What utter rot. It’s not as if, to pick something at random, he could have picked up a knife and slit her throat so violently that she was nearly decapitated. Oh no, that would never ever happen. By focusing on the gun, you are choosing to make Jovan Belcher a mere bystander to his own actions. That is horrific. Jovan Belcher murdered Kasandra Perkins. He chose to pull that trigger. He chose to take her life. How dare you attempt to absolve him in even the slightest manner for that crime. He killed her. Not a gun. He did it. No one else.

I will not let you two demand that my blood be shed so that you can sit there and declaim your supposed superior morality to the world. No. You would rather I be dead. That is the logical conclusion of your positions. I will not die for you. No other woman should either.

Alive despite you,

Alexandria

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM

libfreeordie

lostmotherland

Second question: Do criminals obey the law?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I realize they don’t use that word in Southern Living.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Are you the intelligent liberal? Are you the example of the tolerant progressive? Do you realize what a bigot you are?

Let me tell you something else most proud Southerners don’t use in their daily musings. Entitlement.

Screw you and your urban indignation.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

As Moynihan said in the 1960s, as quoted in a comment here last week, a root cause of crime is kids growing up in families without fathers present.

Paul-Cincy on December 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You all are still working with Moynihan? You know he committed some pretty serious academic fraud with that report? He used research conducted by other sociologists, many of them black like E. Franklin Frazier and Kenneth Clark’s “Dark Ghetto.” While Frazier and Clark had criticisms about unwed motherhood their analysis, which Moynihan really conveniently elides, was of a massive system of interlocking oppressions that produced a “culture of poverty.” Moynihan ignored all of that and said “oh its about the black matriarchy from slavery.” If you want a real examination of urban poverty from the Moynihan era than read the Kerner Commission Report. Its actually sound research.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The 2nd Amendment was created and passed not for hunting, not for sport shooting, and not for collecting. It was passed for the sole reason that a right and just citizenry could defend themselves against a government that had grown oppressive and tyrannical. Human beings, regardless of what your silly little theories and laws say, have an absolute right to defend themselves. That is a human right that far out weighs almost anything else. I have the right to live, and if you or or silly little badge try to take my life I have the right to protect myself and my family.

MoreLiberty on December 18, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I’ll leave you with the video of the Scarborough editorial.

I get my fill of liberals and RINOs on Fox, thanks.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:51 AM

bibfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Do criminals obey the law?
How does taking away someone’s right of self-defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Black teens take to the streets to knock down old men. I can’t remember. Is it called “tipping?” People have died or been hospitalized. It goes unreported and black leaders have studiously avoided talking about it. Black teens rob in groups and these kids are not under-priviledged. They live in places like Germantown, MD. No major outlet including Fox reports it or comments on it. Black teens attack white attendees to the fair in Cincinati. No reports, no condemnation.

Connect the dots. I didn’t create this drug-hazed, anti-moral, hate-filled society. It’s top down hate. President Obama to Nancy Pelosi to Congressman Gray to news outlets to movie-star spokespeople who shape the culture.

In the 1930′s we called it fascism. In the 21st Century, it’s called “progressive”.

Portia46 on December 18, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Blacks have all kinds of fun names for taking down Whites. Examples: Polar Bear Hunting, Knock Out King Game, Flash Rob, Paper Stomping, Cracker Beat Down and the newest “Bike Bait” where Whites on expensive bikes are targeted. The idea of this game is to knock the rider either unconscious or off the bike with either fists or by sticking a stick in the spokes of the wheel to throw the White to the ground for a stomping. So far, one guy was able to resist (See: HERE ).

The other alternative is to merely kill little girls, take her bike and dump her body in a recycle bin and then talk about the murder on your facebook page.

It is “racist” to mention the fact that blacks are the huge problem in the gun control debate, accounting for the majority of crime. As Wall Street Journal’ Capehart lamented about the City of New York in 2010 (which is 1/3 black, 1/3 Hispanic, 1/3 White)

Quote:”In short, 95.1 percent of all murder victims and 95.9 percent of all shooting victims in New York City are black or Hispanic. And 90.2 percent of those arrested for murder and 96.7 percent of those arrested for shooting someone are black and Hispanic. I don’t even know where to begin to describe the horror I still feel looking at those numbers. But the word ‘hunted’ comes to mind.”

Want gun control? Target those who abuse guns. Of course, that would be “racist”.

Bulletchaser on December 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

As this one goes on about violence, keep in mind one thing. His handle before being banned for suggestions of violence with another commenter was “DeathToMediaHacks”.

He’s a racist that covers his own racism with accusations to others. He is as left as they come and would welcome weapon confiscation.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Organizers estimated that around 200 people participated in the protest on Monday, including some political staffers who worked nearby Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM

If they’re reporting 200 it musta been closer to 12.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM

How does taking away someone’s right of self-defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I’m not sure it does….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Once again we see the Obamasite/Chicago play book opened up and used according to plan. Obamasite shows up at the scene of a horrible incident and “calms the masses” with really no thought for the grieving parents, friends and relatives of those who were killed. It is an expedient appearance to show the world that he cares when in fact it is all for political gain.

The next step will be to villify all law abiding gun owners and compartmentalize all of us right-wing loons who want to run out and use our guns illegally. You can already seet his happening with Dem/leftist politicians and Dem/leftist media outlets.

How is it working? My mother-in-law who votes conservative is pissed off at me for buying my son a gun for Christmas. I have taught my kids gun safety since they were old enough to shoot a BB gun and they have never, ever been unsafe with a gun. And now my mother-in-law is drinking the kook-aid on gun control.

We are living in scary times where law abiding citizens who support the second ammendment are going to get villifed and stero-typed as right wing wackos. We are in a very dark spot in our history.

rsherwd65 on December 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Just for the sake of argument….

If I were a foreign (or domestic) leader of a political movement that wanted to bring down America, and I have seen that spectacular attacks like 9/11 haven’t worked, and can be prevented in the future, what would I do? Maybe I would start finding random young white men who had problems, and get them to commit increasingly disturbing mass murders in unlikely places like suburbs, small towns, and upscale university campuses. Maybe kill a politician here, a bunch of schoolchildren there, a theater full of people over there. This would make Americans more and more afraid of people with guns, and when it happens enough times Americans will finally agree to disarm themselves. And then I can take over easily from there.

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM

It has gotten out of hand. There is virtually nothing on television now except slob-reality TV and crime dramas.

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Then there are cross-overs like Honey Boo Boo which is so hideous it should be a crime.

Look, I don’t disagree with you that the “culture” has de-sensitized violence and portrays a nuclear family as some sort of strange oddity while a gay couple is depicted as “cool” and disfunctionality is “normal.” But you can’t unring the bell. About the only thing you can do is impart real values to your kids and, if enough people do it, the culture will follow. For example, the movies are nothing but violent porn because there is a market for it. If we want culture to change, we need to stop feeding anti-culture Obama supporters like the Weinsteins millions to make that kind of filth.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 10:56 AM

How does taking away someone’s right of self-defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I’m not sure it does….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM

So why are you advocating putting people in danger?

Don’t you CARE about them?

Or is your Oppressive agenda more important than the people’s safety?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I’m not sure it does….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Then you’re too stupid to even comment on the subject. Or, you don’t want them to be able to …

Hmmm

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Lostiinspace, “perfesser” –

I invite y’all down to Mississippi, where even Pastors, (like mine) carry a gun in their vehicles. (His happens to be a pick-up truck. Oh, and he has his Doctorate, and used to preach in Upstate NY.)

If would be quite an eye-opening experience for both of you.

kingsjester on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Intellectually honest conservatives should read this piece: Gun Control issues are race issues….

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Oh, and “apodeictic” means “Of or stating the characteristic feature of a proposition that is necessary (or impossible), perfectly certain (or inconceivable) or incontrovertibly true (or false).” I realize they don’t use that word in Southern Living. lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Huh, thanks for that.

For the record, coxcomb is a noun, meaning a conceited, foolish dandy, a pretentious fop.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

….nice long rant that once again shows leftist are to stupid to see the reality that more gun laws and bans don’t lower crime rates or stop mass killers.

….maybe your “author” would do well to look into cases like Charles Whitman,and Richard Speck who committed mass murder well before the “80′s”….Speck didn’t even use a gun and took out a whole room of nurse’s.

…..The facts are clear for intelligent people that are willing to actually read them…..the places with tighter gun control and restrictions have the higher crime rates.

Now tell us bigot….where was all your self-righteous moralizing when your boy king Obama and his right hand man Holder were directly involved in the murder of hundreds of Mexicans and American law enforcement by selling assault weapons to drug Cartels??????
…….douche bag hypocrite.

Baxter Greene on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Everyone is appalled. It’s only the leftists who are willing to sacrifice the constitutional rights of others.

antipc on December 18, 2012 at 9:13 AM

And it’s only the leftists who are anxious to rewrite their “new constitution” with the blood of children and babies.

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM

This.

kingsjester on December 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Intellectually honest conservatives should read this piece: Gun Control issues are race issues…. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Why don’t you just summarize it for us in one word or less?

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

This would make Americans more and more afraid of people with guns, and when it happens enough times Americans will finally agree to disarm themselves. And then I can take over easily from there.

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM

All you’d have to do is the tactics the DC sniper used on a larger scale. Random shootings at shopping malls across the country in the weeks leading up to Christmas. People would stay away in fear, the economy would be crippled, and the political establishment would take the brunt of the blame.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I would say something about “intellectually honest liberals” in return, but that’s an oxymoron.

kingsjester on December 18, 2012 at 11:00 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

..oh yea…since you struggle so much with reading comprehension…..Whitman’s weapon of choice for mowing down all those college students…..was a bolt action.

Thanks for wasting our time with yet more useless liberal drivel.

Baxter Greene on December 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM

There was a time when one could reasonably trust our government to do the right thing. Like enforce laws that were on the books; or dispense justice equitably because it was the law and not based on the idealogy of the judge; we had a President who enforced all the laws on the books and not only those he agreed with; a DOJ that didn’t sue our states for enforcing laws the federal government refused to enforce; government agencies that followed the law and had the appearance of at least being ethical and not becoming bludgeons to be used against political enemies or those who disagreed with the administration. If we had that type of government, maybe some discussion about our 2nd Amendment would be in order. But with the abuse we’ve seen from the Obama administration, I don’t trust one thing they want to do regarding our constitutional rights. You can’t deal with a liar and expect to come out on top.

iamsaved on December 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Organizers estimated that around 200 people participated in the protest on Monday, including some political staffers who worked nearby Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM

If they’re reporting 200 it musta been closer to 12.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I’ll be they went with the 200 value so the BSM can report that 100s rally in support of taking away the people’s right of self-defense or some other such nonsense.

And from the report from the enemy media, it included political staffers who worked nearby.

Translated from Oppressive-speak that means they had fellow travelers wander on over who were paid to be there.

So much for grass roots action.

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Intellectually honest conservatives should read this piece: Gun Control issues are race issues….

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If they are race issues, then you should read this same piece saying MLK was a firm believer in Gun Rights. After all, MLK’s gospel is law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

“combat styled guns?”

Pray tell, what did you think guns were for?

The truth is, Democrats would rather mourn my son’s tragic death than let his teacher keep a 9mm locked in her desk.

Browncoatone on December 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Intellectually honest liberals should watch this video.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab0_1355441687

The vast majority of gun violence is not being committed by lawful gun owners.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM

You all are still working with Moynihan? You know he committed some pretty serious academic fraud with that report? He used research conducted by other sociologists, many of them black like E. Franklin Frazier and Kenneth Clark’s “Dark Ghetto.” While Frazier and Clark had criticisms about unwed motherhood their analysis, which Moynihan really conveniently elides, was of a massive system of interlocking oppressions that produced a “culture of poverty.” Moynihan ignored all of that and said “oh its about the black matriarchy from slavery.” If you want a real examination of urban poverty from the Moynihan era than read the Kerner Commission Report. Its actually sound research.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Uh, there’s a ton of research showing that single parent homes are very highly correlated with a whole host of bad outcomes for children. Or maybe you were just taking a swipe at Moynihan and you don’t really think that single parent homes (and the general disintegration of the family) has little to do with the poor outcomes of poor children?

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM

How does taking away someone’s right of self-defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I’m not sure it does….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Then you’re too stupid to even comment on the subject. Or, you don’t want them to be able to …

Hmmm

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 10:57 AM

By jove, I think you’ve got it.

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM

“Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.””

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Gun Control issues are race issues….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Intellectually honest commies should call “gun control” what they really mean- gutting the Second Amendment. Seriously. We already have gun control. What you want to do is not remotely akin to control and completely ignores the millions of responsible gun owners who do not shoot up schools or belong to a gang in the ghetto. All this week as the left has postured and called for banning stuff, I haven’t heard one of you filthy bastards acknowledge that Americans have a right to own firearms that is protected in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Until you bastards are willing to be honest about the fact that you don’t care about anything but gutting the Second Amendment. Twenty dead children, to you, are nothing but political opportunity. Yes, you people really are that sick and twisted.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I realize they don’t use that word in Southern Living.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You don’t ‘realize’ squat, azzclown.

You’ve never even read an issue of “Southern Living”.

And, btw, the preferred form of ‘apodeictic’ is “apodictic”…but I realize that they don’t use that word in “Counterpunch”.

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM

“The story here is depressing. Blacks die from assault at more than three times the U.S. average, and between ten and twenty times OECD rates. In the 2000s the average rate of death from assault in the U.S. was about 5.7 per 100,000 but for whites it was 3.6 and for blacks it was over 20″

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM

If they are race issues, then you should read this same piece saying MLK was a firm believer in Gun Rights. After all, MLK’s gospel is law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM

You clowned yourself. The article I posted makes the argument that in the 1960s, gun control was a conservative and Republican position because of anxiety around black people using guns to protect themselves from the police. Of course King was pro-gun, he was protected by the Deacons for Defense everytime he want to Mississippi.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

libfreeordie thinks this issue is really a race issue? Shocker. What isn’t.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Intellectually honest commies should call “gun control” what they really mean- gutting the Second Amendment

I agree, a couple friends of mine have expressed a desire to just call it what it is, a desire to be rid of the 2nd Amendment, but they feel shame saying it out loud. As I’ve indicated on this thread, I’m increasingly ambivalent about gun control measures.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

By, all means, let me “clown myself” even more.

“By…our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim; by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing…we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes. – MLK”

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Why don’t you just summarize it for us in one word or less?

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Here’s the headline caption:

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I have several black friends in NW MS who carry, to protect themselves from Black criminals,coming down here from Memphis: Gang members, and the like.

Blows your little mind, doesn’t it, perfesser?

kingsjester on December 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM

libfreeordie thinks this issue is really a race issue? Shocker. What isn’t.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM

In America, few political issues don’t have some racial transcript. Read the article, Republicans used to be pro-gun control.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM

As I’ve indicated on this thread, I’m increasingly ambivalent about gun control measures.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Then you’re at odds with the rest of your ilk. 76% of Minorities support stronger gun control measures according to the ABC poll.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:17 AM

You clowned yourself. The article I posted makes the argument that in the 1960s, gun control was a conservative and Republican position because of anxiety around black people using guns to protect themselves from the police. Of course King was pro-gun, he was protected by the Deacons for Defense everytime he want to Mississippi.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

At a time when the south was a Democrat stronghold? When civil rights legislation only passed because Republicans were more in favor of it than Democrats? Really?

I’d like to see the sourcing on that one.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:17 AM

The article I posted makes the argument that in the 1960s, gun control was a conservative and Republican position

During the 1960s Democrats wanted to maintain segregated schools too and were against the Voting Rights Act. You making the claim that positions held four decades ago are somehow relevant today?

And again, stop with the lies since you are not advocating “gun control.”

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Blows your little mind, doesn’t it, perfesser?

kingsjester on December 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Not really, since the article I linked to raises the precise notion that African Americans have a much more complicated relationship to gun control and gun ownership than white liberal rhetoric would assume. I do wish people would actually read things….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I know you’re too much of a coward to respond to even a single comment of mine, teach. But here’s the deal. We’re not backing down. I will not surrenger my rights to arm the weapons currently in my safe. You push this and you will diametrically change the political climate in the US. I do have some liberal freinds and familiy that are already uneasy with their last lever pull at the polls with this push for more gun-control.

This will only get ugly for your side. You freaking progressives glorify murderous thugs like Tookie Williams like heroes and make movies out of him. And legislate the rest of your honest citizens following their rights in The Constitution into felons. BTW, is Jamie Foxx the greatest hypocrite of all time or do you love his new tag-line for Django?

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

You don’t ‘realize’ squat, azzclown.

You’ve never even read an issue of “Southern Living”.

And, btw, the preferred form of ‘apodeictic’ is “apodictic”…but I realize that they don’t use that word in “Counterpunch”.

Solaratov

Ooh, it can read.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM

As Moynihan said in the 1960s, as quoted in a comment here last week, a root cause of crime is kids growing up in families without fathers present.

Paul-Cincy on December 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM

blah blah blah

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Don’t get caught up in the provenance of an idea. Moynihan said it. But I believe it. I actually have my own thoughts and beliefs that I stand behind. I see young blacks in my city without any fathers killing each other. That’s a correlation. I agree with Moynihan’s conception that the lack of a strong father figure tends to lead a male child to crime. I see it, I believe it. I’m not going to base my beliefs on sociological studies, which often reflect the biases of the authors and methodologies.

When you hear or read something, do you just believe it or not based on the credentials or reputation of who said it, or because someone said it was well-researched, or not? I make my own decisions on what to believe. When challenged, I’m not going to point to someone else’s understanding as a defense. I have to understand it myself — I have to own it. Try it some time.

Paul-Cincy on December 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM

You clowned yourself. The article I posted makes the argument that in the 1960s, gun control was a conservative and Republican position because of anxiety around black people using guns to protect themselves from the police. Of course King was pro-gun, he was protected by the Deacons for Defense everytime he want to Mississippi.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Just making my through the article and this appears to be a misrepresentation.

There was not a fear that “black people” would be using guns to protect themselves from the police but concerns about the Black Panthers who eschewed MLK’s non-violence.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM

The articles you present, as back-up, are usually nothing but Liberal tripe, presented in a vain attempt to shore up your preposterous statements. That is why no one reads them. If you with to make a point, copy and paste the pertinent part of the article, linking to the source in your post, and make your point, yourself.

kingsjester on December 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Intellectually honest conservatives should read this piece: Gun Control issues are race issues…. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Why don’t you just summarize it for us in one word or less?

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Crap.

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4