I do agree with them and I think that it is true that," gun violence isn’t the cause, but the symptom of systemic injustice in this country."
Sadly —per the 2nd Amendment ----what passes for a militia today is not well regulated, and exactly what does the NRA think would be hunted with an AR 15?
Private for profit prisons, putting immigrants kids in cages, a president erasing all the work of the EPA…allowing Canada to use eminent domain to put their LNG pipes under rivers in Oregon? That sounds insane, and no one will ever help the land owners when things go amiss----
When air, water , and food are compromised–that’s when people start to decide that a gun of some kind is a great idea. Although, the French people used the guillotine ----which was a lot more efficient --it would be wonderful if lobbyists had less power than the People. : (
This is not good. “March For Our Lives” represents all that is worst about corporate-approved, corporate-financed, corporate-media promoted Resistance Inc™.
Remember when corporate America provided the Occupy movement with event staging that would make Pink Floyd pea-green with envy? Remember when they flew the Occupy kids to their events in their massive corporate jets?
Yeah, good times…
I smell a rat… Just you wait…
One of your best posts, G! Thanks!
Good God, not the “Collective Rights” argument again… An argument so widely discredited, that even President Obama came out against it.
“Liberals” who think these arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.
They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America’s governing criminal cartel/duopoly.
Both cults “I like simple and ineffectual ‘solutions’, because they make me feel like I’m doing something, and I’m just stinky with fear.”
There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else’s crime.
Well, there are some things to consider.
We’ve been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn’t begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton’s assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren’t the variable.
Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the “Washington Consensus” of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980’s?
When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then?
Fear can make unstable people do desperate things.
Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?
Thank God, the “solution” is so simple…
Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks and red flag laws. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that “once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people”, or some such nonsense.
If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go to C-Span and watch the shit-show in real time.
P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three largest voting blocks I belong to (Hint: It’s the only one that’s actually growing and actually decides elections).
Okay, I’ll just say it; I’m a registered Independent for Bernie.
P S The line, “You don’t need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!” is not clever.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.
It’s about ARMS!!!
It’s about the individual citizen’s right to arms, so they’ll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around.
So the “collective rights” argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.
As I’ve mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?
Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia’s. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?
In what universe do national militaries and/or provincial/state militias need their right to arms protected?
Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they’re kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?
Obviously, “Liberals” are stupid.
Gun control measures are mostly trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Background checks will keep mostly black and brown people from obtaining guns as the corrupt criminal justice system has slapped them with the most felony records. Assault weapons bans all have grandfather clauses that will allow the reichwing to keep their stockpiled weapons while keeping the left from obtaining any. The Redneck Revolt in Charlottesville and Veterans Stand for Standing Rock showed that armed, open carry protection keeps the police from violently attacking protestors. The left needs to rethink their approach to guns and gun ownership. We need to develop programs to arm the poor and minorities as a counterbalance to the Gestapo police who can kill with impunity. Remember the picture of armed Black Panther members is what drove Raygun slightly to the left on gun control. Since there is no magic wand to make all guns disappear, the left needs to quit being afraid to arm themselves against any future breakdown in society (just look at New Orleans after Katrina) especially given the overall distrust of the police to protect our communities. Visit the Socialist Rifle Association website: socialistra_dot_org
Hmmm, the well regulated militia is the 2nd amendment, and this was made when everyone had a rifle and made their own bullets and could shoot, and did shoot their dinner. : )
The problems is with the NRA—and my comment was " what does the NRA think would be hunted with an AR 15?"
I have no idea why you said anything about 30 rounds because I didn’t write that.
However, people do wonder what an AR 15 is needed for, and then—we all saw what it was used for when the MGM when a man fired upon a crowd of music lovers and killed many.
My question was what is hunted with an AR 15—and in America, the answer sadly seems to be people—and not even people that the shooter disagrees with—just shooting lots of people very quickly.
A person couldn’t shoot a deer with it—its only used, it seems , to shoot up and terrify or shoot up and kill-----so please explain why we need them?
I’m also not sure why you brought up Obama—he was the Peace Prize winner—but in actuality he was the Drone King----so I’m not clear on that opening comment. Read up on Yemen and other [places if you’re not clear on that comment.
My view of the right to bear arms was established by the Founders, and as I said historically everyone had a rifle-----I have always read the 2nd amendment in the light of the framers who used rifles as a way of life, BUT also as a right to protect themselves from the Redcoats or whoever else King George III sent in.The English also grabbed people to serve on their ships and so too, the Founders wanted to make sure that Americans in a well regulated militia were trained to come together quickly when possible—as remember----at that time all the people didn’t live in stocks of condos back then, It did take a while due to location for Paul Revere et al to ride around yelling," the British are coming! : )
The Founders wanted to make clear that it takes a lot of work and a lot of people to make a nation function—and remember, it did take a while to get rid of the British. So—again I must ask—just what is the purpose of the AR 15 and why does the NRA support it? Remember, we live in DRONE Time now—and they don’t make much noise. : )
I have always wondered if making the bullets, really, really expensive----if that would make shooters more thoughtful about who and what they shot. Sometimes the news gets so focused on shooting that people don’t feel comfortable in figuring out who to trust.
It appears that a study in CA, found that the police and sheriff arrest more black and brown people in cars, than they white people. There was a story about a Mr. Castile who was black, and was pulled over for something, and he did tell the officer that he did carry gun. and the officer shot him in his car in front of his girlfriend and her little girl. I cannot even imagine how horrific that was.
There was also the Australian lady in minnesota who called the police re: a neighbor problem and as she a blond woman approached re police car, the policeman shot and killed her------------so it appears that guns are used by all kinds of people, who don’t focus on issues but on something moving toward them. Not only do I feel that many citizens need more training but apparently so do the police. But again, if bullets were really really expensive—maybe there would be less shooting?
What did you say is the reason for the shootings? I must’ve missed it. Thx.
When I learn about notably moral/ethical people—for me Senator Bernie Sanders is a good example—deciding to run for any government leadership—especially nationally—I question their wisdom. Over my 32 years of observation, I’ve found that the further up the scale of governance a politician ventures (i.e. regional, state/provincial and federal), the more varied and numerous the values and interests an elected official represents thus the greater the degree of dilution and, yes, compromise of one’s admirable moral values. There’s a basically consistent human political history filled with examples of such great disappointments. A part of me even doesn’t want them to win the election so those moral qualities can remain untainted.
Still, I wonder just how progressive a President Bernie Sanders would be allowed to go before the powers-that-be would somehow get rid of him (though not necessarily the JFK-exit way)?
Although I believe Sanders is refreshingly very sincere in his intent to implement humanitarian policies—most notably that of truly universal health care—if elected president, but I typically perceive such Western democracy state figure-heads as basically just symbolically in charge of the most power-entrenched national matters and institutions.
(Frank Sterle Jr.)
Why the AR-15?
I think part of it is a remnant of our wars. In the early days as you say, farmers and others were armed for protection and hunting or taking out predators.
WW1, kept the guns they had before.
WW2 some people kept or bought M-1’s and 45 cal. pistols.
Korea the M-1’s again and 45’s with more interest in 38 cal. too
Vietnam semi-auto’s are a familiar weapon to millions of veterans.
Iraq-Afghanistan, and Iraq again, Syria, and the glorifying of snipers, Seal, Special Forces, and TV movies. AR’s, AK’s, and 9mm’s.
Why not an AR-15, an AK-47, and a dozen others.
They are familiar to veterans and hunters, sportsman, and seldom a one time killer at large.
Yup, owning protection is not for the foreign invader situation, it’s for the multitude of domestic ones.
We shouldn’t view Bernie as some kind of savior or cure, but as a lightning rod for a cultural shift.
“Owning protection” for many, is about the neighbors.
This is quite embarrassing for Mayor Bloomberg. Gun safety his his signature issue.
But if a hunter used an AR 15—what would be left of what the hunter shot? Bullets that rip apart everything not only seems a horror for humans, but what would be left to eat of an animal?