It’s funny how a single image can affect you more profoundly than a thousand others. When I see the collage of the faces of all those beautiful children murdered in the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre it’s just too much; it’s like trying to drink pain from a firehose. That picture could be of my first grader’s class, children whom I know by name and see regularly. My brain can’t conceive of all of them gone from something so … terrible? Horrible? Unthinkable? My thesaurus fails me. There’s no adequate word in the English language for so many children savagely murdered.
But then I see a picture of a father walking along the sidewalk, head low, to attend his child’s funeral. And suddenly that’s me. Crushed and dazed and about to see the body of my six year old lying in a casket. Whom just days before I had kissed on the cheek and dropped off at school. And I find myself with tears in my eyes. And my heart so full of pain I can barely stand it.
With 300 million people what can we do to keep the insane and hateful from murdering innocents? Should we make the . . . → Read More: A Gun Guy Does Some Soul Searching After the Sandy Hook School Massacre
Another video of how if you really want a gun, you can make one. This time by someone who has few more tools than I have in my own garage:
And here’s a video on how, with a few thousands dollars worth of tools, you can make fully functional AK47′s:
Gun control affects people like me, and probably you, because we follow the laws and always will. For people who don’t care about the laws … where there is a will (and money) there is a way. Has drug control made it any harder for people who want drugs to get them?
(I believe I found this at the firearm blog, but I lost the exact URL and don’t have time to look for it. Sorry.)
The best book ever written!
By me, anyway.
Set against the background of the American civil war of “progressives” vs. patriotic American traditionalists and a family caught in the middle, Off Road is a journey into the uniquely American world of God, guns, big trucks … and family.
More information here. Buy it at amazon.com in paperback or Kindle (only .99 for Kindle, which can also be read on . . . → Read More: When guns are banned, only guys with staplers and a Home Depot card will have guns!
When I first heard the NRA was refusing to meet with President Obama after his request for meetings to discuss the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, I was concerned that we were making a mistake. Now that I read the NRA response, I get it.
… to focus a national dialogue on guns — and not criminals or mental health issues — misses the point entirely.
We agree with your assertion that “Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing” in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional, corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lighting speed to exploit the tragedy.
Yes … indeed they did. There were many posts and news releases right after the incident in which anti-gun groups reveled in the loss of life and what they perceived as a means of passing new gun control.
But while I agree with all the talking points of the NRA, what this response really shows is that the NRA has done an analysis and concluded that any anti-gun laws decided upon in this conference are going nowhere, so there’s no reason to be there. Sitting in a room with anti-gun groups in meetings moderated by . . . → Read More: The NRA refuses to be drawn into an anti-gun media fest
Anti gun blogger Japete wonders why the 100 million or so gun owner’s in this country don’t each accept responsibility for the mass murders of a crazy kid did in Tucson, and limit the kinds of guns they will buy or own.
Here is my response:
I bought a 30 round magazine for my pistol at the gun show last weekend. I’ve never wanted one in the past, but I bought it because I do think they’re going to get at least temporarily scarce because of the drumbeat of a few politicians and many news organizations for a ban on them (I seriously doubt that ban will happen, but I don’t have a crystal ball).
But how did I do anything wrong by buying that mag? Why should I feel bad? It doesn’t matter whether I buy a pistol, a machine gun, a grenade launcher or a tank … they are no danger to anyone else. I’m not a murderer, and it won’t affect what happened in Tucson or whatever WILL happen in the next place some freak goes off the deep end.
So why should I limit what I allow myself to own because of what someone else did? . . . → Read More: An anti-gunner wonders why we didn’t automatically limit the guns we would buy after the Tucson murders
Anti-gun pundits claim they have the moral high ground and that they’re trying to save lives. But does that mean they don’t have apply even a modicum of common sense or logic? Is it really OK to attack a constitutionally protected freedom just by parading around victims of violence (since human on human violence is not something that began in the age of guns) while proclaiming, “look at these victims! Whatever was used to do this has to be banned, and I don’t care how many people use them to save lives or defend themselves! Or what the history or political nature of the right to keep and bear arms is!”
Apparently when Keith Olbermann got kicked off of MSNBC the network decided they needed another white, male, monotone anchor … but with less flair and inflection in his voice. And thus we have Lawrence O’Donnell. So unflinching that unless you watch him on HDTV, which has enough clarity to expose the minute movements of his facial muscles … you might think you were looking at a photograph of O’Donnell with a voice over rather than a live feed.
Since the stupidest point is at the end of the video . . . → Read More: The kind of anti-gun crap we have to deal with — people decide to murder for no other reason than BECAUSE a gun is available
I just don’t understand why anti-gun people can’t think past the short term. There are violent people in the world, there always have been and always will be (read The Bible or any History book for proof). But while evil is quite good at finding a way … we on the other side are at the disadvantage and need every empowerment possible. And tools like weapons are more of an aid to us than a help to those who would do us harm. i.e. an attacker/assailant/assassin plans out the place and circumstances of what they want to do, and base their plan on what tools they have available. For the rest of us, we have to have the best tools available to respond, and a readily usable and effective weapon is about the only thing that equalizes things. Duh.
So here is my response to Japete:
We can’t ignore violence of ANY kind after the Tucson massacre, or any other violence. And we won’t. And we haven’t.
But we need to act intelligently, and find real solutions instead of “feel good” solutions. Limit magazines to 10 rounds and the next shooter will just bring two guns or buy one illegally . . . → Read More: My favorite anti-gun lady doesn’t understand how anybody can think past HER clinical fears and paranoia …
The State of the Union speech was preceded by desperate cries for President Obama to bring up Gun Control. New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (where “illegal” = “all”) ran a full page ad in the Washington Post. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said he would be “disappointed” if Obama did not mention gun control. And the Brady Campaign called for it as well. And over the course of his very long speech Mr. Obama responded with … nothing. So if Mr. Obama, who has signed the most pro gun legislation to pass congress ever continues in this manner, signing new pro-gun bills from congress and making no effort to push gun control, will he have made up for past sins and get a high NRA rating? Will get get NRA support as an incumbent? Will I feel as though I have to vote for him, as my NRA contributions go to his campaign?
Well … that’s admittedly pretty doubtful. And MSNBC’s Chris Mathews made an insider’s guarantee that Mr. Obama will be making a special speech on gun control, though I’ve got a $10 bet that unless the country truly appears ready to accept such a move . . . → Read More: Will Barack Obama get NRA support as an A rated candidate in 2012?
Although Japete is great as a motivator to blog, it’s amazing how she keeps laboriously making the same arguments over and over again no matter how badly she gets shredded by those who understand the issues. And the one argument that bothers me most is when she (or anyone) tries to bring religion and faith into a secular subjects like gun control. Here is her post, and my comment is below:
I think we’ve been down this path before.
I agree that there is nothing Biblical that tells us we must own weapons, or that we, as represented by our government, should not be able to limit ownership of types of weapons.
The belief of our founding fathers was that we had a right from “God” or “nature” to self defense, from other individuals OR a government turned tyrannical, and therefore to sufficient arms for either purpose. But while I agree with that right whole heartedly, I’ve never seen a specific BIBLICAL basis for protecting ownership of a class of arms, such as semi-automatic weapons or whatever.
But on the other side, the only part of the Bible you could possibly interpret to be pacifistic is the 6th commandment, and . . . → Read More: Still … the anti-gunners keep trying to get The Bible involved …
This is repost from almost exactly 2 years ago, December of 2008, but nothing has really changed since them. But since the anti-gun blogger I’ve been interacting with the most has once again made “common sense” her only debating point … I think it’s worth rereading.
At the most general level, common sense is trusting what we all inherently know. But you can’t always trust common sense because the more complex the issue, the less likely it is to apply. i.e.:
1. It is the “common sense” of many young men that a happy marriage is based on really good sex. 2. Is is the “common sense” of many young women that a happy marriage is based strictly on love.
But marriage and human relationships are complex, and neither of the above holds true in real life. And seeking knowledge from history and elders is less painful than learning from mistakes (i.e. when facts conflict with “common sense,” facts win).
So when faced with the most complex and serious issue in America, our culture of violence, why do anti-gun groups continue to restate old arguments that have been disproven so many times? Why do they continue to expend their efforts . . . → Read More: Anti-gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense
This whole post is going to be a flight of conjecture based on personal observation, because I don’t think this is really something you can do a study on. But as I posted earlier … being a modern conservative and comparing my beliefs with those of my WWII generation conservative father, I noticed a very basic difference: Dad and his generation trusted the government, whereas I believe governmental limits are more important than governmental power — in other words, I’m more afraid of what the government can do to me than interested in what it can do for me. And we also subtly, but significantly, differ on gun rights: while my Dad always believed in a right to gun ownership, he had no problem with government limitations on that right. And though my Dad absolutely did believe in a generic, undefined right to carry a non-concealed gun on his person, or to apply for a CCW if he felt a justifiable “need”, he never did either one (well, rarely — more on that). I believe that these differences are due to a combination of our differing views on government and our life experiences, which are closely tied together. And I . . . → Read More: Conservatism 101: Gun rights and new conservatism/old conservatism