We all know these kinds of people. We hear them on talk radio. We read their rants on the Internet. We’re familiar with their claims that they’re the ideological descendants of the Minutemen of colonial America.
They’re the people who say their firearms aren’t just for sporting purposes, but also serve as a defense against a tyrannical government. And many of them believe their government has, in fact, become tyrannical. So, the question arises: Why aren’t they using their guns to overthrow that government?
Joel S. Hirschhorn has the answer HERE:
In truth, the gun crowd that see themselves as the ultimate patriots, like the original revolutionaries that fought the British and created the USA, is itself conflicted by self-interests. That is, most gun owners are receiving so many economic benefits from the existing government and economy that they are unwilling to risk all of them by a massive disruption of the whole US system. Just like we saw incredible numbers of protesting Tea Party people looking old enough to be collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits, the overwhelming majority of gun nuts are also feeding off of the national system they keep attacking. They keep buying more expensive guns and ammunition, gold and hordes of long-lasting survival foods to satisfy their paranoid thoughts. They keep giving money to right wing causes. They listen all the time to right wing radio and TV pundits. They have enough wealth to afford lots of things, especially expensive guns. Yet they do not ACT. They do not REVOLT. Even when their favored politicians lose.
Most of us do not equate the gun crowd with the plutocracy run by the richest Americans and corporate interests that aligns itself with Republicans and conservatives. The plutocrats, however, have no desire for a revolution that tears down the whole US political and economic system that they so benefit from. What the plutocracy has accomplished, against all logic, is to manipulate the gun crowd into supporting political causes that maintain the status quo that allows the upper rich to get richer. We have far more economic oppression than political oppression.
In other words, keep spending your discretionary money on guns and ammunition and all the other things so heavily marketed to the most paranoid people as evidenced by all the advertisements on right wing stations for gold and survival foods. Keep thinking that you need guns to combat criminals, except there is no evidence that crime has actually been curbed by the massive gun ownership rather than other factors.
But by all means keep listening and spending rather than actually REVOLT and bring down the system. Enjoy your guns. Just don’t take any risks and use them as defensive political tools. Don’t do what so many angry Europeans have always done; actually go the streets to bring down governments. Or what we see Egyptians doing. Of course, all those angry citizens do not have guns. Still, they put their lives on the line.
The bottom line is that the whole gun Second Amendment movement seems like just another aspect of conspicuous consumerism that keeps the US economy humming. When I see millions of these right wing gun enthusiasts give up their Social Security and Medicare benefits I will start to take them more seriously.
(Snip)
As to the roughly, at most, 100 million American gun owners, keep fighting more gun control laws. Keep buying even more guns, keep the multibillion dollar gun industry thriving. Keep screaming about your Second Amendment rights. Keep voting for Republicans. Keep listening to Limbaugh and Hannity and all the other idols that are among the richest Americans. Keep deluding yourselves that you are the only hope for the nation. Don’t face your hypocrisy. Delusion is the opiate of the right.
Interesting if not inflammatory post. I almost get the feeling he’s daring people to use their guns to inflict their political views on all of us.
The author conflates the small number of survivalists/conspiratorialists with all gun owners and all conservatives.
Of course, the immediate knee jerk reaction of the left in response to the Newtown tragedy totally feeds into what these people have been saying to each other for years.
I suspect a lot of the armed insurrection talk is just bluster. Armed insurrection is not exactly an easy thing to pull off. It fails more often than it succeeds.
There is still the possibility of change via the political process including the courts. The thing is that while the federal government is going very far to the left, a lot of states and localities are headed the other way. It swings back and forth like that and has for many decades.
Isn’t it ironic that the NRA folks are getting death threats from the left?
http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-democratic-party-leader-blogger-calls-for-shooting-nra-members
“Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?” he tweeted.
//twitchy.com/2012/12/16/post-newtown-witch-hunt-nra-president-and-members-bombarded-with-death-threats/
As far as Democrats go, Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia is one of my favorites. He’s traditionally been as pro-gun as they come. But even he is re-thinking his priorities with guns. I tend to agree.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/pro-gun-democrat-sen-joe-manchin-suggests-new-gun-laws/
It’s a shame we lose the problem in the argument. If this guy would have tossed a couple of molatov cocktails in the rooms or drove an SUV at high speed through the walls (or) parked a truck with fertilizer and diesel fuel, it’s all the same problem. An assault weapons ban won’t fix a maniacs head. The Will find a Weapon and a Way. The only thing you do here is force them to look for that other weapon (or) way.
All the grandstanding over this is nothing short of disgusting
Sam Elliott said it perfectly….If you think laws on guns are gonna fix this problem….You really are a special kind of stupid….
So, Ed, if all those other methods of creating a massacre are so available, why do the creeps prefer guns about 90% of the time? Is it because it’s more difficult to park a rent-a-truck behind a stage or in a classroom while buying a gun is so convenient? Or do the gunners just want to get down and personal, while people like Timothy McVeigh were just plain cowards (as well as being a Neo-Nazi)? Maybe you should look up Laurie Dann from murderers of the past. She was nuts and a murderer.
I’m a Liberal,Democrat, Who happens to own,shoot,and enjoy spending time with my brothers who also shoot and spend family time together. The laws we need for guns have to change in a meaningful way that targets these massacre type shootings. Illinois needs to give it’s citizens a fighting chance when it comes to crime…we have to do something…because what were doing now is NOT working…God help those Family’s out there
What I really mean is common sense laws…aimed at the stopping of these massacres and school type shootings….do you realize we had over 30 of these school massacres…30
And all we do to anyone who kills is slap the back of their hand and say don’t do it again.
Then we get statements like this: “Illinois needs to give it’s citizens a fighting chance when it comes to crime…we have to do something…because what were doing now is NOT working…” Well this is the way government and liberals want to handle it and now they complain about it.
As I have said before in Illinois you need a FOID card and how do you get one, from the state. If you sell a gun to another person you must get a copy of their FOID card and keep the information for 10 years or you could be charged.
But then one of Mr. Obama’s friends did use this same kind of tactics in the 60′s but his name never comes up.
So Craig have you found your gun purchases to be convenient?
I agree Brian, common sense laws dealing with mental illness which always seems to be present in these cases.
I’m with Sam elliott on this one.
I just don’t see a law that would of prevented what happened. The guns that were used don’t matter. Someone could do the same damage with pistols. All someone would have to do is board a school bus and it would be bad. We will never ban pistols. Tougher gun laws mean nothing. These guys were taken from a school teacher. We not going to trust a teacher to own guns? And tougher security at the school means nothing when you box the kids up and drive them away. Who is going to protect the kids at bus stop number one? We can’t pass enough laws to keep people safe all the time.
The debate raging in this country should not be gun control. It should be a mental health debate. These people with mental issues need more help. Maybe if we cut down on the free range crazies we can cut don on the crazy acts taking place.
“And all we do to anyone who kills is slap the back of their hand and say don’t do it again.”
Punishment isn’t an issue with these mass shooters. Again tougher punishment means nothing when they plan on making this their final stand.
The only tougher punishment that might help would be tougher punishment in the schools for the kids that pick on other kids. The one common thing I see in all these mass shootings is they were carried out by a boys that have been picked on. The problem isn’t the guns, it is us. We as a group are not good people anymore. We don’t treat each other well and we are raising kids that will only be worse.
That’s what I said Joe!
“The problem isn’t the guns, it is us. We as a group are not good people anymore. We don’t treat each other well and we are raising kids that will only be worse.”
You must have agreed or you would not have said this above.
But just so everyone know our President was trying for gun control long before this tragedy; http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13586-hours-after-re-election-obama-green-lights-un-gun-grab
Big dave …do a re-read…my point is we in Illinois need a very strict coceal carry law and I know that pisses alot of my Democratic friends off but parts of my town are getting to dangerious to visit after dark…and I want to have a fighting chance against a criminal who doe’s have a weapon now a days..
Well you guys get all in a huff, but no big deal that your neighbors in Chicago have very strict gun laws and more kids are killed there each year than those who were killed in Newtown.
2012 so far 62 School Age Children Murdered in Chicago.
“Hundreds of Chicago children have been killed in recent years. In fact, religious leaders say more than 260 school children died in the past three school years. ”
Never heard a peep from Pat about that or did we? If not we can pretty much figure out why.
That’s correct Wilson and those laws have not prevented much have they Brian!
But then nothing that goes on in Chicago is on Brian’s agenda. Oh Brian was the Bushmaster concealed, I don’t think so and since this was the weapon that did the killing of the children sounds like you are the none reader.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/18/1171692/-The-picture-posted-on-FB-by-an-NRA-friend-that-set-me-off
There’s nothing in Big Dave’s links to the UN press release or the Reuters article in his New American article that signals a “gun grab” by the UN or Obama. You guys fall for everything. I bet gun manufacturers love the fact that Obama is in office because they can scare you guys into thinking you won’t be able to buy guns ever again.
Big …DAVE pat attention..one more time, I own an AR-15 and several other sport weapons and shoot with my Policemen,LT.Colonel brothers. We spend time as a family target shooting and we are not the kind of folks that these laws should be going after.
Brian,
I left Illinois many years ago because of stupid gun laws proposals coming from Chicago for Illinois. I shoot combat pistol and my pistols are not standard issue, they were designed for my type of shooting. I’m not going into my background as I’m not here to impress you but my favorite choice is the M4, with a close second being the M320. I don’t bother with toys like the AR15, no real fire power if you know what I mean.
Shawnnews, the dailykos? If I need a good laugh I look at those jokers.
Shawnnews lives by dailykos, huffpost, salon and The Stand. If they don’t print it, he don’t believe it. Learned his cut and paste skills from PC. I’m tired of pointing this out – Columbine happened five years into the last assault weapons ban. The ban was allowed to expire – in part – because Columbine made it obvious that it really didn’t help. I’m not even a gun guy, but dammit, you want to nibble at rights, you better be able to make a real case and not just throw crap at a wall.
Most of those Chicago gun laws have been thrown out and folks love to point at murders there, what is not being disscused is most of those are in just one area of the South Side….and it is a street gang war and nothing else. Unless your willing to hire a bunch of Police Officers and put alot of kids in jail to fix that problem.
One thing is for certain we need to protect our kids from this kind of massacre or attack and who ever figures out a way to do it deserves a Nobel Peace prize…!!
So Brian your point is since it is a gang war and nothing else means those children’s lives aren’t worth as much as those from an upscale North East city.
How progressively racist of you if your willing to take law abiding citizens rights away, but let kids die on the South Side. Yea Brian, fix the problem, it isn’t the guns doing the killing it is people and the society we have become.
So I am to believe that these Chicago laws allow the gangs on the South Side to own weapons?
Maybe they can specify that no one on the South Side can own a gun, I am sure you progressives think that will fix the problem.
“The city of Chicago requires registration of firearms. Residents must complete a firearm safety course, pass a background check including fingerprinting, and pay a $100 permit fee which is renewed every three years. Registration of any handgun assumes an additional one time fee of $15.”
“”Assault weapons” banned in Cook County and the city of Chicago.”
I wonder what the statistics are of those registered people committing gun violence?
Wilson….do a re-read …No where did I write that those kids are not worth something…you said that…NOT me..!!
I am a gun owner who thinks we need to figure out how to stop this kind of violence, and NOT by taking away the right to bare and own legal weapons…but something needs to be changed..and I don’t know what that is yet ..
I did re-read a few times, and I am glad you cleared it up. You mention gang violence, but only state that “we need to protect our kids from this kind of massacre or attack ” which to me means these isolated attacks, not the children being slaughtered in Chicago.
Wilson, thanks for the info.
So Chicago has fees and has these rule that must be followed so a law abiding citizen can own a gun. Can anyone explain what laws cover the gang bangers in Chicago? But lets remember they also need a state issued FOID card but that seems to have no affect on the problem either. So as everyone can see law abiding citizens need to follow these laws to own a gun, but the criminal who cannot own a gun has very easy access to them so just what is the problem. Government period! Maybe the government needs to get off their bottoms and do something beside nothing. I also include Washington DC in this matter since they are the biggest do nothing group I have ever seen.
The problem with whole subject is where the blame is falling. The average gun owning citizen is not the problem and everyone knows it. Do something is not the answer if its wrong and something that makes liberals feel good today is not the answer as well.
“The problem with whole subject is where the blame is falling. The average gun owning citizen is not the problem and everyone knows it.”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dave, can you share some evidence that blame is falling on the “average gun owning citizen”? I think your guilty conscience is showing.
For some reason, many gun owners believe that policy-makers who push for common sense rules (assault weapon bans, mandatory ownership classes, limits for felons, trigger locks, FOID cards) are hell-bent on overturning the Second Amendment. Why?
Truck drivers don’t think CDLs are an attempt to end trucking, do they? Perhaps paranoia and gun fetishization are inherently intertwined…
And who is to say that these types of rules haven’t prevented even more gun violence, including in South Chicago?
Personally I am glad that someone caught carrying a gun illegally will face stiff penalties. They should, without exception. The same goes for someone who does not secure their otherwise legal firearm.
Now, only a fool believes that these rules mean that illegal guns will somehow become rare in our streets. My goal is to lock up the illegal gun carriers for a good long time.
So truck drivers rights are provided for in the Constitution?
In addition, please give me the definitive definition of an assault weapon.
>mandatory ownership classes, limits for felons, trigger locks, FOID card
How is that working out in Chicago?How about DC?
Then you mention common sense and policy makers in the same sentence…what an oxymoron.
>And who is to say that these types of rules haven’t prevented even more gun violence, >including in South Chicago?
I am sure the murder rate would be double on the South side without those rules.
FYI, wilson, since you apparently didn’t do any research, in the last published FBI crime statistics, D.C. ranks 7th for its murder rate. Chicago ranks 18th. Milwaukee was the only other city ranked above Chicago that didn’t have concealed carry. And gun crazy Houston ranked 22nd and Dallas ranked 24th. Therefore 22 out of the 24 deadliest cities didn’t have any meaningful gun control laws. So how did that work out for them?
BTW, when I moved to the Chicago area in 1974, the City of Chicago had 970 murders that year . That was BEFORE they had a gun control law and part of the reason they got one. As bad as this year is, and it’s much worse than the preceding 10 years, Chicago will still not have 970 murders. Ponder that.
Luke, as to this question you asked: “Dave, can you share some evidence that blame is falling on the “average gun owning citizen”? I think your guilty conscience is showing.”
Just who do you think they are talking about. Since according to Federal Law nobody that falls into certain groups can own or by one now in the US except the criminals and we all know they follow the rules.
“Truck drivers don’t think CDLs are an attempt to end trucking, do they? Perhaps paranoia and gun fetishization are inherently intertwined…”
Luke, do trucker break the rules they agreed to when they got their CDL. In most cases no but there are those who do, just like in any other example you might think of. But I don’t think you really wanted to use this as your example.
“Personally I am glad that someone caught carrying a gun illegally will face stiff penalties. They should, without exception. The same goes for someone who does not secure their otherwise legal firearm.”
Wow, does history prove you wrong on this one.
“My goal is to lock up the illegal gun carriers for a good long time.”
Luke, you really don’t get it do you. It doesn’t happen now or will that happen in the future. The gun laws you want will not work and that is not what the President is after.
Craig, did you really mean to say as long as its not 970 murders it ok? But I’ll bet that if anyone looks into the stats they will find that the major part of all these murders were done by persons who legally could not have a firearm. So the Chicago Gun Laws did nothing!
Well Craig, we were talking about kids, if gang banger’s want to kill each other I say go for it.
Also where is the link to that FBI information?
How many of those murders are done with legal licensed firearms?
Also, the population has declined and I am sure the number and methods the Police use also had no effect.
To attribute the decline solely to tough gun laws, when I can almost guarantee those crimes did not happen with “registered” firearms is a perfect example on how simple minded the progressives are. Now ponder that.
“Nearly three-quarters of all gun homicides among youth ages 10 to 19 in 2006 and 2007 occurred in
the 50 largest metropolitan statistical areas. The plight of youth in cities is even more serious. Cities had
a per capita rate of gun homicide among children and teens that was nearly three times as high as that
for the country as a whole. The gun homicide rate for the 50 largest central cities was 14.6 deaths per
100,000 youth ages 10 to 19 compared to 5.0 nationally. Several cities had much higher rates:”
How about Oakland, CA, Baltimore, MD , Newark, NJ, Washington DC, and Detroit?
http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf
Here are some links, Dave and Wilson, since it appears you guys can’t find information by yourselves. And I do not think 970 murders are OK, but the links I provided proves that a lack of gun control does NOT reduce murders in Chicago or any place else. I get tired of hearing some lame jerk say that D.C., Chicago, and New York have the highest murder rates because guns were banned. That’s total BS. Move to Detroit or St. Louis. They don’t have gun bans, have concealed carry, and have a much higher murder rate. And maybe you can show me how none of their murders were committed with “legal” guns. LOL
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/chi-120708-flashback-1974-murder-homicide-rate-pictures/
Well I bet this is do to the expiration of the Assault ban as well as the concealed carry laws.
What do you think Craig? Is it as simple as that?
“The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression, when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II. The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics.”
and here is my link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mass-killings-up-homicide-rate-down/2012/12/19/3a87b058-4a11-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html
There’s no gun grab. Big Dave’s own articles mention gun grab in the headline to scare people and then link to UN documents on WMDs. DailyKos is a partisan blog site and you take it for what it is — a blog site. The author didn’t like the dumb picture he saw in FB. Reading comprehension — no gun grab. You guys are getting upset about stuff that doesn’t exist.
Shawnnews,
I recall Nancy Pelosi on Obamacare saying “we must pass this bill to see what’s in it”! But healthcare costs are still rising and will continue.
But thanks for showing just how far you will go to get what you want. Next we will have to ban cars because they cause too many deaths as well!
How about this?
“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
So an all out ban of firearms will work!
“Common Sense Gun Control In Response To Mass Shootings”
—Andy
“That’s what the left always says they want. Because who could be against “common sense”, right?
They say they want an “assault weapons ban” yet Connecticut already has one (and good luck getting them to define “assault weapon”). They say they want “waiting periods” yet Connecticut already has those, too. They say they want to ban high-capacity magazines, even though the low-capacity ones take only seconds to change.
Background checks? We already have those nationwide. But we must “close the gun show loophole”, by which I think they mean requiring background checks for all private sales between individuals because just applying them to private sales that take place at gun shows would be stupid.”
http://ace.mu.nu/
Nonsense, Wilson.
A) your “How about this” paragraph is false. Omaha mall? Texas restaurant (Luby’s, I think)? Seattle synagogue? San Diego McDonalds? Paducah? NRA offices? And all the rest were people carrying their guns into the sites.
B) NOBODY has said anything about “all out ban of firearms” except for you quivering panic peddlers. I haven’t heard anything about banning legitimate hunting weapons, for example. That’s just BS from the sniveling gun nuts.
Please explain why my brother-in-law could get a deer with his flintlock musket, my father-in-law with his .308 bolt action rifle, or my neighbor with his bow and arrow, but people like you need a 30 shot semi-automatic assault rifle. What’s next? Claymore mines? Daisy cutters?
Tactical nuclear weapons would work the best.
It occurs to me that a person who arms themselves heavily and stockpiles ammo to ward off the ‘govmint’ or participate in some sort of rebellion would not be up to the task should it occur since a drone could launch a laser guided bomb into their livingroom and turn them into a piece of fired chicken, if you could find their remains. Just ask some of the folks in Afghanistan.
People like who?
Where I have I mentioned an all out ban? I think the left has mentioned all out bans and maybe lib’s need to be banned based on the threats to the NRA and its members.
I don’t belong to the NRA, but I am considering it.
I am still waiting for that FBI link.
Any ban that can be passed will do nothing to impact incidents like that which happened in Newtown.
Short of confiscating millions of weapons we will have much more impact by focusing on education about mental health issues in teen and young adult men and doing whatever we can to curb the violent nature of our entertainment and media culture.
Mr. Knauss, please stop you are quite embarrassing to your cause.
“Please explain why my brother-in-law could get a deer with his flintlock musket, my father-in-law with his .308 bolt action rifle, or my neighbor with his bow and arrow, but people like you need a 30 shot semi-automatic assault rifle. What’s next? Claymore mines? Daisy cutters?”
This statement only proves one thing, you don’t need a rifle with a 30 round magazine if you really want to kill. Everything else you say is meaningless.
Sorry Dave, but you’re embarrassing yourself! I’m tired of hearing BS from some of our unbalanced members of society feel that they need to own assault rifles. It’s total nonsense. And some of these characters try to pass them off as “sporting weapons”. That’s total BS.
Assault rifles with 30 round magazines are NOT sporting weapons and do not have any rational use in the home. Period.
Now all poor Craig all he has left is to call people unbalanced. Where is that FBI link?
By the way the Omaha mall was a gun free.
Craig,
If guns are not useful, people won’t buy them, so I guess those that purchase “Assault” rifles have a difference opinion than you.
I don’t have any rational need for Depends at home, but that doesn’t mean I won’t one day need for protection.
In addition, please give me the definitive definition of an assault weapon.
Please provide some statistics as to the percentage of murders committed with a (please define) Assault rifle.
@ Craig …completly dissagree, and let me tell you why. My brothers and myself get together to sport shoot 4 to 5 times per year we start out with some very powerful air rifles working are way up to AR-15s and some old Military guns. It’s all target shooting and it’s about who’s the best shot. After that we grill some food and our kids hang out and play. This has turned into some very good family time and I wouldn’t trade it for anything. We are responsable law abiding citizens…exactly who are hurting and why…? why should we ban something that thousands of other family are just like mine doing…I don’t sell my guns to gang bangers they are locked into a safe Harry Hodeenie would have trouble cracking….?
Brian I am thinking you must be imbalanced and a sniveling gun nut that Craig is talking about. You know the real threat to America and our safety.
“So if the ten-year ban period did not see a substantial reduction in gun crimes committed with the kind of firearms banned, and the expiration of the law in 2004 did not result in a massive upswing in violence even after these firearms achieved mainstream popularity and acceptance, why would the Obama administration be so strongly in favor of advocating for a renewal of the ban?”
“Instead of having having an impact on the reduction of gun crime, the “assault weapon ban” instead became a near-comical example of the law of unintended consequences. Prior to the introduction of the legislation, demand for the firearms that became the subject of the ban was relatively light. The public’s interest was piqued, and sales skyrocketed, directly as a result of the law. These firearms had almost no statistical representation in crimes (which the National Institute of Justice admitted two years later),”
http://pjmedia.com/blog/assault-weapons-ban/?singlepage=true
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
There’s no gun grab. I wish conservatives would pay me for calling out the people deceiving them — but some things we have to do for free to be good citizens.
Much blather without addressing the real issues in the same manner of the politicians you bow to. You continue to perpetuate the false left/right paradigm. Effectively there is no difference between the parties save the rhetoric. Romney would have just been more of Obama who is more of Bush, etc. The puppets which you purport to differentiate are bought and paid for by the same banking/corporate handlers.
By the way, there is no 2nd Amendment or 1st for that matter. Our Constitution was subverted by the 14th Amendment forever changing our rule under the de jure government of our respective republics to the jurisdiction of private law of the de facto unlawful UNITED STATES CORPORATION. We are not under a democracy or constitutional republic. We have been ruled by a true socialist government since 1913. The only reason these traitors haven’t come right out and said it is because of 100 million gun owners who would gleefully revolt if they were convinced of the real truth. Now that there is no possible way to pay off the debt of our country and all of our wealth has been siphoned into the bank coffers, these heinous robber barons must take the guns as the collapse is only being delayed.