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

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

Not really. The article cites the California GOP and this gem:

“The gun-control laws of the late 1960s, designed to restrict the use of guns by urban black leftist radicals, fueled the rise of the present-day gun-rights movement—one that, in an ironic reversal, is predominantly white, rural, and politically conservative.”

Yet cites no proof of this.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

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

Whoa.

Anybody else catch this entry ?
Browcoatone may have some authority to speak to the issue at hand.

Jabberwock on December 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

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.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I doubt that. Those of your ilk have no shame nor soul. The way you’ve figuratively smeared yourself in the blood of dead children is just sick. The reason why you bastards are not saying what you really want to do out loud is because you know that you’d never get the requisite number of states to ratify an outright elimination of the Second Amendment. Instead I fully expect the kind of dishonest tactics we’ve seen the last four years including Executive Orders that bypass the legislative process.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 11:24 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Why in the heck are you bringing up the idea that Republicans in California supported some kind of gun control when Reagan was Governor?

Conservatives think for themselves and do not believe that Reagan was infallible. Especially as a politician in California.

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Knee jerks.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM

“The gun-control laws of the late 1960s, designed to restrict the use of guns by urban black leftist radicals, fueled the rise of the present-day gun-rights movement—one that, in an ironic reversal, is predominantly white, rural, and politically conservative.”

Yet cites no proof of this.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

The present day gun-rights movement works to undo a set of laws that were passed in the wake of the Black Power movement. Now, perhaps you can suggest some other explanation for the increase in gun control legislation in these years, but we know for sure that it is these laws the current pro-gun crowd is targeting. In other words, its much more complicated than either left or right wants to admit.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 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 11:26 AM

And just plain old jerks.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Protection of rights is for jerks.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

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.

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

I lifted this from your quote. I am not sure why this writer finds the mindset of his friends “interesting” regarding the use of guns for personal defense. Law enforcement has become less effective at protecting citizens. Heck, we even have a President that openly campaigns on divisivenes with no serious challenge from the press.

DaveDief on December 18, 2012 at 11:28 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

So you’re saying that certain minorities will automatically kill each other in cities if an easy means is available? Huh. Interesting.

Wait, does this mean it’s ok to say “black” instead of “African-American?” Or is libfreeordie black, and it’s one of those deals where he can say it, but I, as a white guy, can’t say “black”…? Is there an online pdf with instructions?

Dongemaharu on December 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM

in the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. (Since the turn of the century, lawyers and public officials had increasingly sought to standardize the patchwork of state laws. The new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions.)

Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.

The NRA today condemns every one of these provisions as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the right to bear arms. Frederick, however, said in 1934 that he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” The NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Milton A. Reckord, told a congressional committee that his organization was “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.” According to Frederick, the NRA “sponsored” the Uniform Firearms Act and promoted it nationwide. Highlighting the political strength of the NRA even back then, a 1932 Virginia Law Review article reported that laws requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon were already “in effect in practically every jurisdiction.”

On a pure intellectual level, that’s fascinating. What changed in the NRA?

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Jerks hate statistics and facts that don’t align with their predetermined narrative and agenda.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

“The gun-control laws of the late 1960s, designed to restrict the use of guns by urban black leftist radicals, fueled the rise of the present-day gun-rights movement—one that, in an ironic reversal, is predominantly white, rural, and politically conservative.”

Yet cites no proof of this.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Gun-rights movement? Shouldn’t that read “pro-Constitution movement?” Our right to own guns is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The left, which wants to eliminate that right should be called what they are anti-Constitutionalists. To these monsters, words mean things, and those of us who support the Constitution have the upper hand. I reject terms like “gun rights” because it sounds as if we Americans have to fight for gun ownership when the reality is the filthy left is trying to fight to take away gun ownership.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM


libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 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 11:29 AM

Not really. The article cites the California GOP and this gem:

“The gun-control laws of the late 1960s, designed to restrict the use of guns by urban black leftist radicals, fueled the rise of the present-day gun-rights movement—one that, in an ironic reversal, is predominantly white, rural, and politically conservative.”

Yet cites no proof of this.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I don’t know the author’s intent but libfree seems to be trying to paint this as some sort of racist part of the GOP past – when the article is specifically talking about the Black Panthers (urban leftist radicals) who eschewed non-violence.

In any case it’s an interesting history lesson but I don’t see how it really applies to the issue as it stands today.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:29 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 11:26 AM

I’m expressing ambivalence about gun control measures. Learn how to take yes for an answer would you.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Jerks are always willing to rely on others to protect their rights.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

The present day gun-rights movement works to undo a set of laws that were passed in the wake of the Black Power movement. Now, perhaps you can suggest some other explanation for the increase in gun control legislation in these years, but we know for sure that it is these laws the current pro-gun crowd is targeting. In other words, its much more complicated than either left or right wants to admit.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Personally, I see the pro-gun movement as working to prevent NEW anti-gun laws being passed rather than out-of-date laws from 50+ years ago. It’s more of a reaction to early 90′s laws.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

To: lostmotherland

Thanks for the article, the commentary and the clarification of the word you, yourself, clearly had to look up.

The most amusing aspect of your post is that you expose your own bias and acceptance of stereotypes. Cretins? Southern Living? Really?

And as for the article itself: Nobody really cares about what the author was taught or what he/she considers to be bona fides, or what he thinks he’s noticed. His/her parents obviously failed to teach him the basic fundamentals of logic. He must have bought his way through liberal arts school, as he clearly acquired no understanding of what was previously labeled “rhetoric”.

ROCnPhilly on December 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Jerks will lose their rights.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Jerks deserve to perish.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:32 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

Such a novel would be found in the ‘Political Thriller‘ section.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Dongemaharu on December 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Doesn’t matter what you say. You’re the racist. That won’t change in his mind.

He’s the coward who will any address certain commenters here. That won’t change. Anyone successful in consistantly handing his ass to him is ignored in comment.

He’s also a dreadful liar.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

On the Deacons for Defense? There’s multiple books on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deacons-Defense-Resistance-Movement/dp/0807857025/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355847665&sr=8-2&keywords=deacons+for+defense

http://www.amazon.com/Bloody-Lowndes-Civil-Rights-Alabamas/dp/0814743315/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355847734&sr=1-1&keywords=bloody+lowndes

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Yeah – MLK had people protecting him from the KKK, which was mostly a Democrat party group.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I don’t know the author’s intent but libfree seems to be trying to paint this as some sort of racist part of the GOP past – when the article is specifically talking about the Black Panthers (urban leftist radicals) who eschewed non-violence.

In any case it’s an interesting history lesson but I don’t see how it really applies to the issue as it stands today.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

It doesn’t as the Democrats pushed such legislation, being in control of Congress, rather than the GOP. Perhaps as a effect of the black riots in the 1960s.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Jerks can’t tell you what the appropriate or acceptable amount of cartridges for a magazine are.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Frack “only” address …

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I am not sure why this writer finds the mindset of his friends “interesting” regarding the use of guns for personal defense. Law enforcement has become less effective at protecting citizens. Heck, we even have a President that openly campaigns on divisivenes with no serious challenge from the press.

DaveDief on December 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The writer is a liberal moron, representative of his entire class of morons.

Let’s remember why the Second Amendment is around in the first place. Americans were concerned about the government confiscating their guns which would leave them unable to provide themselves with food and vulnerable to attack. In short, the writer is one of those idiots who thinks the world began when they were born but the Second Amendment included the concept of personal defense from the beginning.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Personally, I see the pro-gun movement as working to prevent NEW anti-gun laws being passed rather than out-of-date laws from 50+ years ago. It’s more of a reaction to early 90′s laws.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

+1

I don’t see too many (any?) gun rights advocates asking for a massive scaling back of gun regulation.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Jerks are incapable of saying how they will ultimately protect and insure their rights.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Don’t you CARE about them?

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

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I would say of the libs the answers to your questions are no and yes, respectively. It’s easier to oppress the law-abiding by popular demand (real or manufactured) than it is to actually fix a problem.

Some opinion pieces are admitting that fixing the horrid state of mental health treatment is easier than gun control. So, which will the liberals work on at expense of the other, which is the path of least resistance? I have yet to see any politician, or a lib with an agenda, consider something that has the best chance of working.

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to include a potential gun buyer’s mental health history, if there is one, in the records available for normal background checks. But liberals will scream that’s unfair, that private between doctors and patients. We can’t have that!

Liberals are as phoney as a nine-peso coin.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 11:36 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

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM

No, if you’re advocating that people be deprived of the right of self-defense you are advocating to put them in danger.

Don’t you CARE about people?

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

BTW Do criminals obey the law?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Lastly, jerks will perish. Soon after they willing give up their rights. To HeII with all the jerks!

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM

willingly………..jerk.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM

easier=harder

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Jerks can’t tell you what the appropriate or acceptable amount of cartridges for a magazine are.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM

For that matter jerks play games with the Constitution by dishonest tactics like banning magazines or ammo when they can’t outright ban the guns.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM

On a pure intellectual level, that’s fascinating. What changed in the NRA?

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Eighty years and common sense. What changed the Democrat Party and it’s partnership with the KKK?

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 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

Okay. I read it, so that makes me an intellectually honest conservative. What point are you trying to make with this article? No one here believes black people should not be permitted to own guns to defend themselves. In fact, black people seem to be the biggest target of crime, sadly from other black people. Are you intellectually honest enough to have that discussion? No. You will go to the past to excuse any and all behavior, even though that does nothing to solve the situation, even though it means more dead black kids.

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 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

i would gladly answer that, but i am quite sure there would be several people on here calling for my head for speaking the truth. Season’s Greetings to you and yours though sweetheart!

GhoulAid on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I’m not interested in responding to posts which suggest I’m arguing black people are inherently violent. That’s called discretion, not cowardice (and before you freak out, discretion has more than one definition).

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM

In you case, it means, “refusing to answer”.

kingsjester on December 18, 2012 at 11:42 AM

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

She won’t be here long. Just long enough to dip a toe into the water, try to play the victim card….and then, it’s back to racism and progressivism as usual.

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

If they can blame video games, semi-auto AR’s, etc., then it’s just as likely that these people have listened to anti-gun ideologues their entire lives and that by going on one of these rampages they are fulfilling their fantasy of strengthening the anti-gun position. Ya know, “Be a hero! Of the anti-gun left!”, etc.

Not saying that’s close to true, but it holds just as much water as anything else being thrown around out there.

preallocated on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 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

I agree that “blacks and browns” should be the first target of gun control. since they are a small percentage of the population and yet are most of the crime stats. As Washington Post’s Capehart said in 2010 about New York:

“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.”

So how would you implement your racist gun control measure?

Bulletchaser on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Okay. I read it, so that makes me an intellectually honest conservative. What point are you trying to make with this article? No one here believes black people should not be permitted to own guns to defend themselves. In fact, black people seem to be the biggest target of crime, sadly from other black people. Are you intellectually honest enough to have that discussion? No. You will go to the past to excuse any and all behavior, even though that does nothing to solve the situation, even though it means more dead black kids.

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I don’t think libfreeordie has a point.

He’s already said he doesn’t support increased gun control and the rest is just…something to talk about?

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

What point are you trying to make with this article?

The point is that contemporary liberals and conservative are profoundly ignorant when it comes to the history of these issues, their understanding of what’s at stake and for whom. And it broadly speaks to the ignorance of the comments around here around black people’s relationship to liberalism.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Don’t you CARE about them?

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

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I would say of the libs the answers to your questions are no and yes, respectively. It’s easier to oppress the law-abiding by popular demand (real or manufactured) than it is to actually fix a problem.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

It should be readily apparent from their answers that their Oppressive agenda is more important than the people’s safety.

They are just like infamous Oppressives from the past like Uncle Jo Stalin and his quip:

“You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I don’t see too many (any?) gun rights advocates asking for a massive scaling back of gun regulation.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I don’t know about that. Having an RPG would be pretty cool! ;0

As I posted above, the left isn’t really talking about gun control- we already have that. They are talking about gun confiscation by any means necessary. The gang bangers killing each other (racial debate), dead children (public safety), the absurdity of privately owned “assault style” weapons (reasonable restrictions) are all lines of attack with the goal of ultimately banning all guns entirely. Give in on any front and the filthy bastards will be back for more limitations.

Happy Nomad on December 18, 2012 at 11:45 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

And democrats used to own you outright. Now they do it by making you dependent on them and scared of us. What’s your point?

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

“When a singular mass killing occurs in mainly affluent suburbs, it shocks the nation — and rightly so. But it might be a shock to some to know that this year alone 117 children died from handgun violence in Chicago. These deaths do not get discussed, let alone memorialized in the national conversation of tragedy. No memorials exist as well for the 178 children killed by U.S. drone strikes in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Noor Aziz, 8, Talha, 8, Najibullah, 13, Adnan, 16, Hizbullah, 10, Wilayat Khan, 11, Asadullah, 9, Sohail, 7: these are some of the names of children killed by the drones.”

http://www.gazettenet.com/home/3407669-95/killed-deaths-beings-chicago

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Don’t you CARE about people?

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

BTW Do criminals obey the law?

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Such a novel would be found in the ‘Political Thriller‘ section.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Or the ‘historical/non-fiction’ section. Regardless of the methodology, disarmament of the populace is generally one of the necessary steps toward their eventual conquer and enslavement.

Just ask any European Jew circa 1938…

CaptFlood on December 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Eighty years and common sense. What changed the Democrat Party and it’s partnership with the KKK?

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM

The same I suppose….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Charles Krauthammer nailed it yesterday, without addressing the phychologist’s inability the commit an obvious loon, some gentle persuasion on Hollywood and the gaming industry to cut the crap with the violence and the “exclusions” of the existing hardware, this is just more of the same crap that comes out of Washington that solves nothing.

RedInMD on December 18, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Now they do it by making you dependent on them and scared of us. What’s your point?

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Not sure why you’re so invested in an ahistorical and simplistic narrative of black political history. What do you get out of it?

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Wait, does this mean it’s ok to say “black” instead of “African-American?” Or is libfreeordie black, and it’s one of those deals where he can say it, but I, as a white guy, can’t say “black”…? Is there an online pdf with instructions?

Dongemaharu on December 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM

The terms are interchangeable. Neither is an insult…Or you are joking.

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

lostmotherland on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

So? What’s the point?

A lot of people who hunt don’t care for “evil black rifles”.
A lot of benchrest shooters don’t care for handguns.
A lot of three-gun shooters don’t hunt.
A lot of ‘Cowboy’ action shooters don’t like auto pistols.

And on..and on..and on…………………………..

Try again, troll. You fail.

F-

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Race baiters are jerks.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:52 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

Uh huh, and as data has accrued to prove that gun control does not influence criminal behavior, but only disarms honest people at their peril, that experiment in social engineering has proven a disaster.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM

And it broadly speaks to the ignorance of the comments around here around black people’s relationship to liberalism.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Everyone votes for their own self interest. Blacks believe they are better off with a democrat agenda. Their relationship to liberalism is another topic by which they have been deceived and very poorly served.

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM

“Have Gun Will Travel”
Hit TV Show 1965.

“Have Gun Lis. Will Protect My Family”
Bad Conservative American 2012.

Personal Responsibility for crazy people,,,,00.00

Unit Responsibility for the liberal loon thinking that got U.S. here.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.0000000000000000

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM

“When a singular mass killing occurs in mainly affluent suburbs, it shocks the nation — and rightly so. But it might be a shock to some to know that this year alone 117 children died from handgun violence in Chicago. These deaths do not get discussed, let alone memorialized in the national conversation of tragedy…”
libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

And how many of these ‘children’ had known gang affiliations?
And how is Chicago’s onerous gun control laws helping this situation?

CaptFlood on December 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Try again, troll. You fail.

F-

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Please don’t encourage him? He’s been here five days harping with the same old liberal arguments. At first that was boring, but at this point he’s become a nag.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Eighty years and common sense. What changed the Democrat Party and it’s partnership with the KKK?

Vince on December 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM

The same I suppose….

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Then you would be wrong. Republicans stood up for black folks rights. That’s what happened, the blacks have been fooled by people like you ever since. It really is sad.

VegasRick on December 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The terms are interchangeable. Neither is an insult…Or you are joking.

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

He’s not joking. He’s literally that resentful and weird. Alas.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM

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?

rockmom on December 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I’d bet dollars to donuts that there are already games out there – which sell very well – that depict that very scenario.

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Fact is blacks voted in Democrats who were and are in the active operation of replaceing them with new wage and vote slaves from Mexico.

Not so smart some would say.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM

The point is that contemporary liberals and conservative are profoundly ignorant when it comes to the history of these issues, their understanding of what’s at stake and for whom. And it broadly speaks to the ignorance of the comments around here around black people’s relationship to liberalism.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Then explain it. Intellectually, I am interested to know why black people can not see that since the 60′s, black families have been destroyed, not by their perceived enemies, but by their friends.

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Not sure why you’re so invested in an ahistorical and simplistic narrative of black political history. What do you get out of it? libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Here, treat yourself this holiday season.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM

libonotherpeoplesmoneyforfree,

Note:

Nothing that is bad is allowed to be reported from the home town of Lord Obama.

Get with the msm program.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Not sure why you’re so invested in an ahistorical and simplistic narrative of black political history. What do you get out of it?

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I like to be concise. Things are not as complicated as you make them out to be.

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’.

Discussion over…

Seven Percent Solution on December 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Or the ‘historical/non-fiction’ section. Regardless of the methodology, disarmament of the populace is generally one of the necessary steps toward their eventual conquer and enslavement.

Just ask any European Jew circa 1938…

CaptFlood on December 18, 2012 at 11:47 AM

As the poster I was responding to imagined recent spree killers as some sort of automatons sent out to slaughter innocents by unknown foreign or domestic cabals with an end toward de-fanging our fierce 2nd Amendment tiger, then yeah. I say that veers toward the library’s fiction section.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM

When I won’t relinquish my guns willingly, what will you leftists have the government do about it?

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 12:02 PM

The terms are interchangeable. Neither is an insult…Or you are joking.

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Depends on who one of the terms are addressed to I think.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Then explain it. Intellectually, I am interested to know why black people can not see that since the 60′s, black families have been destroyed, not by their perceived enemies, but by their friends. Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:56 AM

At least one black person can see it. Maybe only 5% of the black population can unfortunately, but it’s a start.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Republicans stood up for black folks rights. That’s what happened, the blacks have been fooled by people like you ever since. It really is sad.

VegasRick on December 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

1. I am black

2. Learn your history. Black people (we’re humans, not “the blacks”) supported the GOP almost unanimously until the Kennedy Administration, not because the GOP did anything to earn that support, but because the Democrats stood for slavery, the Klan, Jim Crow and lynching.

3. Black people *chose* to shift their support towards the National Democrats during the Kennedy Administration because the party was (only comparatively, not by any great means) the most supportive of civil rights in history since the Radical Republican congress during Reconstruction. Congressional Republicans did support the 1964 civil rights bill, unfortunately the 1964 GOP Nominee was Barry Goldwater who ran a campaign that explicitly, over and over again, argued against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So when a party nominates a man whose campaign platform is that Jim Crow should stick around because of “state’s rights” it permanently, and forever, poisons the well with black voters around “state’s rights” issues. And, of course, we know that “state’s rights” wasn’t first articulated by Goldwater, it was argued from Brown v. Board forward by southern Democrats as an argument against Warren Court rulings against segregation.

4. Black people were not seduced into the Democratic party, they *forced* their way into the party leadership. Recall the so-called “disastrous” 1964 and 1968 Democratic party conventions where black people and protestors forced their way in, to the opposition of the southern Democrats. Contemporary conservatives forget that the bigger divide in this country wasn’t GOP-DEM it was “North” vs. “South” and within the Democratic party those conventions were the end of the southern Dem wing and the ascension of the northern urban wing.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM

http://www.gazettenet.com/home/3407669-95/killed-deaths-beings-chicago

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Gunmen Kill 5 Polio Workers in Pakistan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578187151163232858.html

I don’t the gunmen were white males, which must make you sad.

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

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

Why isn’t the tragedy of Penn State enough to finally push the nation towards homosexual control? Especially homosexuals with ties to education?

Why is is necessary for libs like yourself to lie about every god danged issue that comes up? In what city, state, or county in this country is there not gun control? The inner cities you speak of have more gun controls than most areas. And your brilliant solution? Why, to make it even HARDER for black and brown folks in those areas to defend themselves, naturally, which will result in MORE violence towards those black and brown folks you claim to care so much for.

Time to drop the charade….why do you hate black people so much, Professor? Why do you yearn for policies that will result in the deaths of more black people?

xblade on December 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Then explain it. Intellectually, I am interested to know why black people can not see that since the 60′s, black families have been destroyed, not by their perceived enemies, but by their friends. Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:56 AM

There are many black middle class families who are critical of the unwed mother rate. In fact, if you’re a black middle class person you probably are related to someone who is severely impoverished. My parents happen to be West Indian so our family has less of that, but we also have a lot of urban family so yeah, we’re familiar. And that’s the thing, when you actually *know* impoverished people you see the various ways that institutional racism produces and exacerbates the poor decisions of youth. The far bigger threat to the black family is mass incarceration, not welfare. Mass incarceration is a direct result of the war on drugs.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The liberals are squarely to blame for every one of these mass shootings. If they hadn’t pushed to “mainstream” insane people into a society that they weren’t prepared to handle, rather than keep the criminally insane institutionalized, these nuts wouldn’t be able to kill. But no, the nuts have the “right” to be out, endagering the rest of us… and now “they” want to take away our right to defend ouselves from the liberals’ screwup.

n0doz on December 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM

When I won’t relinquish my guns willingly, what will you leftists have the government do about it?

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 12:02 PM

SWAT team blitz raids after dark, using the purchase records. Remember Elian Gonzalez under Clinton?

I say they test out their tactics by sweeping Chicago high-crime neighborhoods first. Then they can get back to us on how well it’ll all work out.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Why isn’t the tragedy of Penn State enough to finally push the nation towards homosexual control? Especially homosexuals with ties to education?

“What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?”

“I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?”

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I’m re-posting this from an earlier thread. If the shoe fits…

The assault on the 2nd amendment by leftists is but one of multiple fronts. The left wants to get rid of that pesky old outdated document by any means possible. It stands in the way of their enlightened utopia and the subsequent suppression of you great unwashed bitter clingers. They intend to drag you kicking and screaming into the modern ‘progressive’ Valhalla because, you know, they know what’s best for you and they really care.

Oh, how the irony abounds. The same people who are fine with the abortion body count (well, at least they weren’t shot) and ignore the Fast and Furious casualties and the Benghazi debacle are just in a twit over this tragedy. Now they want to lecture on ‘civility’ and ‘having a sane, serious discussion’ of giving up your constitutional rights because the facts and statistics don’t matter.

Yes, there are mental health issues in this country that need addressing – perhaps we should begin with the particular type of insanity known as liberalism.

ghostwalker1 on December 18, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’.
Discussion over…

Seven Percent Solution on December 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Been waiting for that one to jump up.
Given that he is from Chicago, it will not play well.

Jabberwock on December 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I like to be concise. Things are not as complicated as you make them out to be.

Night Owl on December 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I can not imagine the level of naivete it takes to believe that everything in the world is actually really simple and there’s no such thing as grey area. Also how do you interact with other humans?

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Gee, I wonder what kind of video games they are playing in Pockeestahn?

ghostwalker1 on December 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM

“I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?”

sentinelrules on December 18, 2012 at 12:07 PM

what they always do, have a parade.

GhoulAid on December 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Republicans did nothing to earn it? Abraham Lincoln? Emancipation?

Woodrow Wilson was a complete racist, and a Democrat. Robert Byrd?

The Civil Rights Act was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Barry Goldwater was a member of the AZ NAACP, he integrated his stores early on, he integrated the AZ National Guard, etc.

He was an honest man who correctly viewed the CRA as an infringement on civil rights. It didn’t mean that he was opposed to civil rights, despite your apparent affinity for the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM

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

Why not – in order to ‘discourage’ the production of violent movie and games – simply fine tax the producers of such movies based on the number of violent episodes portrayed? Up to…say, 90% of gross receipts.

Extra “taxes” could be added for instances of racism (x%/use of the dreaded ‘n’ word); misogyny – y% for rape scenes, z% for degrading or feminist-insulting language. And on and on.

There is a veritable gold mine of “tax” money to solve the ‘national debt’ problem just waiting to be tapped. Or – people might not make violent movies.

/s/

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Or maybe not so much “/s/”.

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 12:12 PM

1. I am black
2. Learn your history. Black people (we’re humans, not “the blacks”)
3. Black people *chose* to shift… the well with black voters around “state’s rights” issues….
4. Black people were not seduced…conventions where black people…

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM

And you are black. Do you use the “n” word very often? Is that okay for you? I guess I need some more schooling to understand it.

VegasRick on December 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I can not imagine the level of naivete it takes to believe that everything in the world is actually really simple and there’s no such thing as grey area. Also how do you interact with other humans?

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Inventing complexity where it does not really exist is just as niave. Or dishonest.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Copycat?

Head O’Meadow School, Newtown Closed After Threat
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Head-OMeadow-School-Newtown-Closed-After-Threat-183957221.html?dr

Thanks a load BSM

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I can not imagine the level of naivete it takes to believe that everything in the world is actually really simple and there’s no such thing as grey area. Also how do you interact with other humans? libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Proposition: We should strive to arm at least ten percent of all public school personnel.

What’s the grey area here?

Akzed on December 18, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Libfree, you really are gutless and a coward. How do you live with that? How do you ignore the points being made all around you? Is your argument so very weak?

pffft

Whatever Sugar Britches.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Depends on who one of the terms are addressed to I think.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Au contraire, mon battle-ready frere! 99 and 44/100ths percent of black people are fine with either term. No shiznit.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM

He’s not joking. He’s literally that resentful and weird. Alas.

libfreeordie on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I though you wanted to talk about race…like forever. I’m just trying to help you out. Now, about “brown” people….

Dongemaharu on December 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4