The 2nd Amendment Isn't "A National Suicide Pact" - What Gun-tards Get Wrong

After more than a thousand attended a vigil in Parkland, Florida  last night for those slain by Nicholas Cruz, we have learned the names and hackgrounds of many. So many promising lives taken too young, and many of these same students now tired of hearing the usual "let's pray" platitudes from the likes of GOOPs, Doturd, and Paul "Munster" Ryan.

As one of the students interviewed this morning put it: "No one should ever have to go through this again, ever. This could have been prevented if that kid didn't get that gun" 

But that "never" depends on this nation getting its collective head back into sane gear - starting with its maniacal gun laws. As I noted in a footnote in yesterday's post, a study in the journal Health Affairs concluded that the United States has become “the most dangerous of wealthy nations for a child to be born into.”   According to the Health Affairs study. the homicide rate in this country is 49 times higher than in other rich countries.  It doesn't take a Mensa level IQ to grasp this ratio cannot be solely from the U.S. having more crazies on the loose. It must be another factor, and that other factor points to the sheer volume of military style assault weapons owned and bought each year.  Let's examine this further.

First, in the interest of full and open disclosure let me make it clear I'm no "lily-livered lib" who's scared of guns or rifles (because I served in the Peace Corps). I know how to use them and can fire a rifle with sharpshooter accuracy using only a mechanical, e.g. "bridge" -sighting mechanical mount. 

But my rifles,  for target practice, some hunting, and testing the Warren Commission "jet effect" hokum,  never included the use of AR-15s or other high powered rifles, e.g. like the Bushmaster .223. I believed then, and still do, that a real man doesn't need such fare. You don't need a military assault weapon for "protection"  or for hunting.   These assault weapons - which is what they are, let's not split definitional hairs between "automatics" and "semi-automatics" - are strictly for the purpose of mass killing. As, for example, in a war theater.  No upstanding citizen in these United States "needs" such a weapon.

Now,  I call "Gun -tards" all those - primarily of the Reeptard tribe - who sincerely believe any person in the U.S. is entitled by the 2nd amendment to own any gun or rifle he wants short of a .50 mm anti-aircraft gun.. And, by George, if a state law is passed that asserts you can own such, or buy such, then by god you can damned well do it!  In this regard let us note also that AR-15 style weapons are sold at the rate of 1.5 million a freaking year.  That is one fourth the number of autos sold each year.

Further, as an NBC News report explains, Americans own an estimated 15 million AR-15s. One in five guns sold in the United States is an AR-15-style weapon.

This is freaking insane and I will now proceed to show how the gun nuts who defend this insanity are basically chewing acid (LSD) drops  - that's how deranged and bereft of reason they are.   Let me, for perspective, interject the quote of former ATF agent Jim Cavanagh that: "The second amendment cannot be a national suicide pact or invitation to mass slaughter".  But that is effectively what the NRA gun lobby, the politicians they have in thrall, and gun-tards have made it.

Let's go through the seminal points beginning with whether any 18 year old in any state ought to be able to purchase an AR-15:

1) AR-15 purchase rights:

The gun -tards claim that the fault was in the mental health system (never mind Repukes have basically cut 13 million off Medicaid rolls in need of such help,  by gutting the ACA) not Florida's lax gun laws. These allow any person 18 or over to buy an AR-15. I call horse shit on that baloney for the simple reason - leaving out mental issues - that at the age of 18 the brain is still being formed. Don't take my word, look it up, e.g, Google!  The prefrontal cortex and its judgment centers are still in the process of growth and will be until the age of 22-23. That means any late teen who buys a gun isn't in full possession of his rational or judgmental faculties. (Why do you think so many are engaged in the idiotic "Tide Pod Challenge" or who like racing cars at 90-100 mph?) 

It follows that any state law that would allow such purchase is itself insane, i,e, that law is an ass. It was also likely voted on by ass lawmakers, e.g. NRA slaves who need their money for re-election. Such is the case in FLA.

2) Lax gun laws can't  become the standards for the nation:

This is just a matter of common sense.  It would be roughly analogous to crazy state reg that allows driving at 100 mph in certain cities at night being mandated for every city in the country.  In fact, NO city should be allowing 100 mph driving even at night. In the same way, NO city or state should be allowing the purchase of ownership of a military style assault weapon that unleashed 30 rounds in seconds - unless one is headed to Afghanistan in the military.  As CBS co-host Gayle King phrased it - after watching a video from the anguished mother of one of the Parkland victims, screaming at Trump to do something: "No one should be able to own one of those assault weapons unless he wears a uniform"  Bingo!

Bottom line:  the lax and crazy state gun laws in Florida, cannot and must not be made a standard or desired ideal, for the nation.

3) The stringent state laws ought to be the ones made national:

If the arguments in (1) and (2) are valid, and they are -  unless one is a gun-tard -  then it follows that if any state laws are to be made national they must be from states like Massachusetts - which require not only passing a state -approved gun safety course first, but also being licensed - as one would if getting a car - as well as fingerprinted. (For details see my previous post).  The proof is in the pudding, as the old cliche goes, and we know the rate of gun deaths in Massachusetts is more than 6 times lower than in the lax NRA -- governed state of Florida.

4) If you make mental illness the culprit you lose if you cut funding for health care.

Trump's bloviations yesterday, "we're 'committed to working with our states and schools to tackle the difficult issue of mental health" - intended to soothe angst in Florida and the nation, merely enraged most sentient citizens.  That's because it was pure  PR and deflection, avoiding mention of the assault weapon at the center of the Parkland carnage in favor of empty bromides about "mental health".  Sorry, but you don't get to spout bollocks like this given your party is effectively planning to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid (to help offset revenue loss from the ill advised tax cuts). And those cuts are expected to affect nearly 13 million suffering with addictions and mental health problems like bipolar disorder.

5) The Second Amendment was written as a collective - not individual right.

I've gone through this before but let's do so again for the re-education mainly of the gun-tards who might be reading this.   The Second Amendment to the Constitution states:

"A self-Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, one must understand and comprehend the era and period in which this was written. At that time muskets were the primary weapon, and no major organized standing army existed such as we have today. Indeed, the Continental Army of Washington, though it prevailed over the British, had massive war debts to pay off. There was no way to keep thousands of men under arms for sustained periods, as well as clothing and feeding them - far less recycling them with newer equipment each year!

It therefore became necessary to authorize the basis for a non-centralized force or "Militia" in order to supplement any governmentally organized army called up. This "Militia" originated in the countryside, from citizens living across the land in various villages, towns and states. In effect, the 2nd amendment drafters were asserting the necessity for a subsidiary people's army to assist the main one. Citizens then became in effect, necessary to the security of the nation. One could then describe the state militias as "adjunct armies".

Indeed, some interpreters of the amendment believe the original content is really even more diluted than what I portrayed. They see the "well regulated militia" provision as actually devised as protections from any marauding, "loose cannons". These interpreters insist the framers would never in a million years have envisaged people (individuals) possessing permanent private weapons in their own homes.

In  a controversial 1939 case, FDR's Solicitor General framed the argument to the Court:

"The Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only exists where the arms are borne in a militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for protection of the State."

The SC decision was unanimous.  This was barely 79 years ago, so what happened in the interim to debase the amendment to be unrecognizable today?

While the Court's decision prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s as various Right wing extremist groups coalesced to challenge "gun control"  based on spurious private gun ownership  interpretations. By virtue of the infusion of millions of bucks  into state legislative campaigns they successively overturned laws in legislatures - much like the abortion opponents are now doing in many red states.

But then Chief Justice Warren Burger was dissuaded by the gun crazies' arguments, especially that the 2nd amendment granted every man the right to keep and bear arms on his own, responding that this interpretation was "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Alas, as the strength and political power of the NRA metastasized, it was just a matter of time before more and more state legislatures (like in Florida) were bought out and their NRA slaves passed laws contravening Justice Burger's and the earlier 1939 ruling. This is why the only way things will change is to vote out the NRA political slaves, like Rick Scott, and vote in firm gun regulation leaders.

Yes, the gun-tards will scream that this amounts to "taking away citizen rights" but it no more does this than driving laws that prohibit driving on the wrong side of the highway, or driving 100 mph at night takes away driving rights..  We are not "taking away" rights but seeking temperate regulation such as in Massachusetts, e.g. requiring passing gun safety courses, being licensed to purchase ammo or guns, and being fingerprinted with the latter circulated to all state law enforcement centers - as well as a Criminal History Board such as in MA.

This is not too much to demand (say by the parents of the Parkland shooting victims)  given the lives that can be saved, and it's nowhere near as tough as Australia's gun laws - passed after a massacre in 1996 - that required turning in all military style assault weapons.

Conclusion:

What do we derive from the preceding arguments? That the REAL un-Americans (especially the NRA) are those who have twisted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to their own ends, with the result that the fallout has created a never-ending sea of maimed, crippled and murdered gun victims. None of this will change until we return to the gun control concepts and legislation common 70 or more years ago, and flush the current deviant memes down the toilet of history, Again, gun regulation - especially via licensing, fingerprinting etc. - is NOT taking away rights, neither is outlawing the purchase of military style weapons.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/77752/a-kingdom-where-nobody-dies

And:

• Mother of slain Parkland teen screams in grief and leaves CNN reporter, congressman speechless

How A Minority Of Gun Extremists Distorts U.S. Crime Rates And Gun Laws

 

"The Founders could no more have conceived of semi-automatic or automatic weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment, than they could have conceived of space ships."  - Steve Schmidt Republican strategist


The horrific Vegas mass shooting again brought to the fore the lax gun laws to which we're all subject. In this case,  how a $200 previously unheard of accessory ("bump stock")  converted two semi-automatic weapons into effective (not "simulated")  automatic ones.  By way of that actual conversion, there were 600 casualties  (59 deaths) or what you'd find in a combat scenario.  In the wake of  that mass murder by a psycho named Stephen Paddock we heard the usual vanilla babble about "thoughts and prayers", but no genuine proposals to halt the madness.

Left unsaid is how this madness is enabled by a minority of mostly white, male conservative gun extremists determined to take the whole nation hostage as the price of their specious perceptions of "freedom".   No surprise then that a relatively tiny group of gun obsessives and "gun liberty" extremists could have been harnessed by the NRA for the purpose of legislative obstruction.. Why? Well, to strike fear into any politicians, any legislators who might want to vote for sane gun regulations.  That includes banning bump stocks, and all semi-automatic weapons by which a conversion (to automatic) can be made.

It's mind boggling that when one learns of the facts concerning gun ownership in the U.S., one's whole outlook changes. It is then possible to see the level of how the larger society is held hostage by a minority. That includes how its social dynamic is distorted in multifold ways, from suicide and homicide rates to the abnormal frequency of mass shootings.  How warped as a society have we become since the 2nd amendment was perverted by a small, loud gun lobby (the NRA) that has our lawmakers' cojones encased in cement?

Let's start out by recitation of some hard facts:

- Super owners are those I call "gun extremists" who own up to 17 guns apiece

- This lot comprise just 3 percent of the whole adult population.

- Nearly HALF of the planet's civilian- owned guns are in the hands of Americans.

Let's parse this further. From the above and doing the relevant math (e.g. U.S. population etc.) 4.2 percent of the world's population owns half the planet's guns. But in fact, this lot comprises 3 percent of the whole U.S. adult population (which is 4.2 % of the world's population) so that nearly half of  the planet's civilian- owned guns are owned by Americans and nearly three fourths of these are "super owners".  Try to process that for a few minutes.

Some further facts:

1- Of the 134 mass shooters who have preyed on Americans since 1966 only 3 were women.

2- Mass shootings are therefore a 98 percent male enterprise.

3- Firearms are used in close to 70 percent of homicides.

4- Super owners are most likely to be white, male and conservative.

Republican gun owners insist that "the right to own guns is essential to their sense of freedom".

But who is fooling whom?  If their "freedom" is dependent on owning or carrying a weapon - presumably for protection - then how free are they really?  It's a delusion. Anyone who absolutely needs a security appendage to secure his or her "freedom" is not truly free. They are victims of a freedom delusion, a fantasy.

Also, do they really need AR-15s, Uzis, and AK-47s for protection?  All through most of the nation's history the standard weapons for protections have been single shot pistols, like revolvers (e.g. .38 special) or at most a .45 automatic or shotgun. NO one in the late fifties or 60s owned anything like the weapons today, nor did they need them for any "protection:" or "freedom".  So what exactly is different today? Do we have space aliens ready to land and invade homes? Why the need for so much firepower? When you think about it, there really isn't any "need" to have such weapons, exceeding what standard gun owners had in the late 50s, early 60s.

Any such "reasons" offered, e.g. "Well, my home might be invaded by a gang of Crips or Bloods" is pure bull pockey.

The excuse of "protection" then falls through the cracks. It's a red herring.  A redirection of argument to a specious basis for which the person can better respond.

What is the real reason then for this subset of white males to own so many guns?   Part of it is frankly to be part of a white man gun culture.  This culture revolves around activities that glorify assorted guns and shooting them. For example, going to gun shows to collect more guns, or taking the family to machine gun shoots, e.g.


Those joining this gun culture and its activities reinforce each others' deformed perceptions that: a) guns are essential for protection, b) guns are key to having a good time, and c) if the choice of guns used for (a) and (b) is removed then one de facto loses his freedom.  Which is obvious bollocks.

The subtext rationale for this minority affinity  can only be the projection of dominance and power - or more bluntly - the projection of WHITE male power through physical domination. Even the most lame lightweight loser "Woody Allen" type - but loaded with racial animus and fear - can access mighty power with an AK -47 against any more muscular black man .  All this weakling whitey has to do is curl his finger against the trigger and pop pop pop ....problem solved.  So, rather than having to go through the time and trouble  to train or body build for physical strength or advantage, the white fatty or the Woody Allen type can simply buy a gun and 'Voila!' -  the ultimate equalizer is available.

What a feeling of unsurpassed power then for the average little fearful whitey to hold a gun and be convinced he has the power of life and death. This then is also the reason so many of these insecure guys feel they have to pack heat when they go out in public, whether to churches or bars or restaurants.

Of course, they will argue back that it's got nada to do with any insecurity or projection of white dominance but rather "freedom". To which I again call bull pockey.   As Shayl my psychologist niece put it the other day: "It's all about securing their freedom from the fear of being confronted by a stronger black man."  Bingo!

Again, to validate this we can return to the hard numbers I displayed earlier, and ask what they mean. In short, they disclose the vast majority of Americans - indeed people across the globe - never need or feel they need a gun for protection.  Indeed, as I posted before, a gun in the house makes a person more vulnerable to deadly violence.

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in a home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts and 4 accidents involving guns in or around the home. Making the last more likely: 43% of homes with both guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.  To see a recent case to do with what I'm referencing here, go to:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/new_jersey_4_year_old_accidentally_shoots_6_year_old_in_head_ap/


Six times more women are shot by husbands, boyfriends and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. A woman’s chances of being killed by her domestic abuser increase more than 7 times if her home has a gun in it.

The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological, terror-based or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.   Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, the Huffington Post found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies'  or Islamic terrorists but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.

Firearms currently claim an average of 93 lives per day in the United States - more than half by suicide.  Guns are responsible for more deaths than vehicle crashes or even terrorism.

Self- defense by using guns? Give me a break! As reported recently in The New England Journal Of Medicine accidental deaths (e.g. a kid shooting another) were 30 percent more common than self protection homicides. In addition, suicides involving firearms were 37 times more common than any self defense scenarios.

It is time, methinks, that we cease allowing three freaking percent of our populace to control the social dynamics of our entire nation. It is high time gun sanity prevail over the gun extremism and obsession of a tiny minority.

Those like Caleb Medley, who suffered a head wound in the Aurora massacre and is still trying to get his shattered life back, would be grateful for any measure that can stop the senseless bloodletting.

Don't Be Misled By "ISIS" Jabber - Orlando Was A HATE Crime

Omar Mateen, the sick homophobic nut who butchered 49 in Orlando.

Some of the assault weapons depicted in a WJS piece from December 15, all of which need to be banned.

Another merciless slaughter, this time by a hateful psycho named Omar Mateen taking out 49 lives at an Orlando nightclub called "the Pulse" according to the NY Times. But you can bet your sweet bippy most 'Murican gun lubbers won't do diddly or squat about controlling the proliferation of military assault rifles. Oh no! They will likely  invoke the recycled excuse that "guns don't kill people, radical Muslim extremists do". A neat cop out but even if they expand the "Muslim extremists" to "people" it still doesn't work because they conveniently ignore the corollary:

"People wouldn't kill as many people if killing with high -powered guns wasn't so easy"

 That's the core of it: the ease of killing another with a weapon that doesn't even require you get up close and personal, like using a machete or knife.  If gun sales and distributions were as limited in this country as they are in others, Mateen might not have been able to carry out his foul deed to the extent of 49 dead -  - say if he only had access to a knife. Yes, he'd likely have inflicted damage - maybe killed even a dozen -  but there would at least have been time for others to react - to dodge the knife thrusts and take him down. Especially if people swarmed him en masse. 

We know from Pete Williams' (MSNBC) report yesterday this AMERICAN  thug (American citizen, born in Queens, NY like 'the Donald') modified his AR-15 to enhance his capacity and thereby kill more people. As the WSJ piece  from which the top image was culled observed:

"The AR-15 re-cocks itself immediately after firing. The only thing keeping the gun from firing again on its own is a sear, a piece inserted in the gun that stops the cycle from continuing. By replacing the sear and a few other key components, an AR-15 can be made fully automatic."

 Evidently then, the twisted SOB adjusted his weapon to become a mass slaughter machine.  (We also know from the WSJ piece one of the rifles used by the San Bernardino CA duo had been "changed to more easily accommodate a large capacity magazine". This was according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with ATF quoted in the article.)  Although dedicated gunnies insisted the San Bernardino pair accomplished their foul deed even with "strict" California gun laws, the truth is they aren't that strict. As the WSJ piece continues:

"There are ways to get around the state's background check gun laws. A person can lend another person a gun for as long as 30 days without having to run a background check."

Also:

"Many transfers between family members are also exempt from background checks>

So the laws are not as tough as believed with those loopholes, another of which is that "once a gun is sold it becomes difficult to keep track of it". And let's also bear in mind while the wacko Right screams its collective lungs out over the government "eliminating the right to bear arms", they keep their mouths totally shut over all the freaks on the terror watch lists who are still enabled - by current gun laws- to purchase any weapon they want. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

We also know the hateful AMERICAN shit was in Miami a few weeks ago when he "saw two men kissing'" and immediately vowed retribution "from the ISIS kill book", which punishes such behavior with instant death.  I mean sheesh, gimme a break! While awaiting check-in for our Barbados apartment in April (and while Janice was in the restroom) I sat in the check-in lounge while barely five feet across from two young Brit millennial women deep kissing each other on a couch. Did I freak out and want to blow them away? Of course not! There is such a thing as "live and let live" but don't try to tell that to some of these hateful, religiously-motivated  peckerwoods  - whether the gay-hating Mateens of the world, or the Planned Parenthood hating likes of Robert Lewis Dear. .

So we can conclude it was both an act of terror and act of pure hate, but one suspects much more of hate - with an admixture of "Isis" baloney tossed in for good measure. That's because the PoS realized the very word "ISIS" stirs utmost fear into the hearts of millions of Americans - who are then forced to check for "radical Islamic extremists"  under their beds each night, like many 1950s 'Muricans used to do for wayward commies. . So why not invoke it to make the terrified segment believe it was "ISIS inspired"? Hey, don't disregard it!  The cynical use of this tactic (and bear in mind anyone can say anything, that doesn't prove it) provides an effective cover for the hate crime (directed exclusively at the LGBT community). As other commentators have pointed out, the use of this ideological identification instantly inflates the nut's self-importance. Much as the U.S. inflates ISIS' own self-important by branding them an opponent in a real war. Gimme a fuckin' break already! As former Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has noted ISIS are a band of rogue criminals and should not be inflated to the level of "warriors".  This asshole Mateen is also a criminal- not a fucking warrior- and a nut besides. In effect he's no different from Robert Lewis Dear (who fancied himself a "warrior for babies")  other than the religion professed..

An FBI investigator in Orlando yesterday morning also pointed out that a cell phone call was received from the culprit while inside the Pulse club, claiming allegiance to ISIS. This last minute "claim" - despite the fact the FBI did multiple prior background checks showing no threats - indicated to me the little fuck exploited Islamic terror as the cover to commit a hate crime (and an act of domestic terror). The foul little scumball probably knew he could get away with it because too many Americans will accentuate the "radical Islamic terror" aspect and neglect the hate beneath.  As I noted earlier, the irrational fears (by which I mean disproportionate) are already there. Trump will exploit this evil act to the hilt on that score, but no one else of sound mind ought to.

As President Obama said in his address on TV yesterday "The killer was filled with hatred". And this has been true of all the major mass shooters, whether James Eagen Holmes, Adam Lanza, or Robert Lewis Dear.  Each may have been wacked out to different degrees (especially Dear who was "fightin' for the babies") but we need to bear in mind one can be a fruitcake and still express hate and vitriol.

Underneath all these kinds of violent mass shootings is the easy availability of guns. Semi-automatic killing machines like the AR-15, to be specific.  Now after the most massive slaughter ever, what are we going to do about it as a nation? Are we still going to insist - as the NRA does - that those who wrote the 2nd amendment actually had modern military assault rifles in mind when they wrote it? I can tell you right now this is a damned fable! If one of the authors of the 2nd came forward in time to behold how his writing was twisted he'd likely scream: "You fucking idiots! THAT is NOT what we meant by the right to bear arms!"

In a worthwhile book entitled 'Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right To Bear Arms in America', a professor of constitutional law at UCLA - Adam Winkler- masterfully documented how guns were regulated from the earliest days of our Republic. As an example: laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, in Indiana in 1820 and in Tennessee and Virginia in 1838. Similar laws were later also passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma.

The then governor of Texas in 1893 was heard to proclaim:

"The mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man".

WOW! How times have changed!

Meanwhile, Winkler showed that congress passed the first set of laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. Though the law was challenged and wound up in the Supreme Court, in 1939, the crazies lost. FDR's Solicitor General framed the argument correctly to the Court:
"The Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only exists where the arms are borne in a militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for protection of the State."

The SC decision was unanimous.

While this sane and sober take prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s as various Right wing (wouldn't you know?) groups coalesced to challenge gun control based on spurious "private gun ownership" interpretations, and successively overturned laws in state legislatures - much like the abortion opponents are doing now.

And let's not forget that Chief Justice Warren Burger once asserted that the alleged right to keep powerful weapons in one's own private possession was  "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Well, it's good Justice Burger didn't live long enough as to see the arrival of automatic weapons and the claim that the 2nd amendment provided for the ownership of those too!

Over twenty years ago Australia also suffered its worst mass shooting ever but opted to take action. There followed new gun laws that included having to get a license to own a gun just as you would a car. Each time a person makes a weapon transaction, even using a 30.06, the license number is taken down and entered in electronic records. The electronic data base for all of Australia then keeps track of a given gun's history and chain of ownership Why isn't that done here? I mean, it's no more an "invasion of privacy" than already occurs with internet use. So why not (certainly) for semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15, or Bushmaster .223.

The fact is the only reason the gun lobby and its lackeys protests is that they see ANY incursion or limit on their insane ownership "rights" as an incentive to knock out the entire 2nd amendment. In other words, the classic slippery slope argument expanded and inflated to absurd exaggerative dimensions.

But in the wake of Orlando, it's now time for good men anywhere and everywhere to raise a hue and cry for our so-called reps to do something, and not just continue the status quo that's brought us hundreds of mass shootings since 2011. Worse, until our elected reps get off their asses nothing will change.

We now also know the most likely profile for a loser-hater as given by a psychoanalyst on CBS Early show in the wake of the Orlando massacre. The "cocktail" for lethality includes:

-History of personal failures

- Indications of hatred for others

- Pattern of blaming others

- Use of violence against others

- Fascination with firearms

The last was most important, and as she observed:

"When you add all these things together but you don't have access to lethal weapons you cannot act out as violently as we saw."

In other words, we need to keep the weapons away from these hater-loser psychos!

Follow-up 10:30 p.m. MDT:

New FBI leads have disclosed Mateen (born in Queens, NY NOT Afghanistan) expressed support for both Al Nusra and ISIS, which are diametrically opposed Islamic groups. Again, this discordance shows the guy was a hateful fruitcake as opposed to any kind of 'radical Islamist' - who one would think could keep his Islamic cults straight!

6:45 a.m.

A new Quinnipiac poll presented on MSNBC shows 6 of 10 Americans support a ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic assault weapons and 9 of 10 want background checks.

See also:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e900766a-3149-11e6-bda0-04585c31b153.html#axzz4BPNcN12z

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/67648/a-psychotics-freedom

Obama Executive Actions Do Not Infringe On Second Amendment

Contrary to the hair on fire screeching  and hysteria of the Republicans,  Obama's executive actions on guns do not violate the 2nd amendment. NO one's AR-15s are being taken away, or the right to purchase guns - say at gun shows. You can stash as many as you want under the specific laws. All Obama has done is to institute rational actions to allay some of the craziness that has surrounded gun purchases. His actions include:

- Requiring internet gun dealers to be licensed and conduct background checks.

- Changing a federal privacy rule to keep people with mental illnesses from buying guns

-Asking congress to approve funding for 200 additional ATF agents.

- Hiring more than 230 additional FBI employees to help process background checks,

If we agree that a gun is at least as deadly a device as an automobile, and we don't allow any person to get behind the wheel without a license, then one ought to appreciate the need for these actions.  Indeed, many of us don't think Obama went far enough and we'd like to have seen closure of the loophole that currently allows de facto terrorists (on the 'no fly' list) to purchase any weapon they want. After the San Bernardino attack this is plain nuts.

Granted some of those individuals on the list may feel they don't belong there, but that is a separate issue they must take up with the TSA and have investigated to get their names removed. In the meantime, however, they should not be allowed to purchase handguns or long guns. But Obama never issued an action to that effect.

I would also have liked to see him issue an executive action mandating that dealers could not carry regular rifles, handguns etc. unless they also carried smart guns. These are weapons that only work if the owner identity is recognized. They will not work if a 5 year old kid picks up the gun and tries to fire it, say at his sister or playmate.  It is a rational solution to a lot of senseless gun deaths and only a crazy would deny it..

(Here Obama did seem to want to pursue something be done, as he noted in his press conference this morning: "If a child can't open a bottle of aspirin we should make sure he can't pull a trigger on a gun. Again totally sensible!)

But make no mistake, as tame as these executive actions are, the Repukes will go bananas and try to make political hay over them. What else would you expect their motley crew of candidate clowns to do in an election year.

But if they have a real problem, let them bring it before the courts and fight it out. I believe all they will have shown is how much time they can waste, just as they've wasted millions of hours trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Lastly, the hysterical babble that Obama is "like Hitler" and "taking guns away as Hitler did" with the Jews is just plain old imbecility.  It is incredible anyone with an IQ over room temperature would even invoke this BS. Recall all Jewish gun ownership effectively ended on Nov. 11, 1938, when a new law was declared, prohibiting Jews from owning weapons of any kind, including swords, which many Jewish army veterans had kept as mementos from World War I.

The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what would have happened on a large scale if Jews had tried to mount any sustained offensive against the Third Reich. In a word, the Nazis would have fire -hosed them to death house by house, and used heavy artillery too if they had to.  That would also have been the outcome in any case if German  ordinary citizens with small arms had attempted to go up against one of the most formidable military forces in history. The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto possesses enduring symbolic significance, as an instance of Jews’ determination to resist their oppression, but in the end they were stamped out like bugs - and no prisoners taken.

Yes, it would be better to "take a few Nazis" with you if the gas chambers were the only other option, but make no mistake a Pyrrhic victory is the only thing they won! In the end,  the uprising saved few Jewish lives and had little to no impact on the course of either World War II or the Holocaust. All it did is postpone the inevitable for some of the Jews in Warsaw.

 The idea (also)  that other Germans would have come to the Jews' defense is also malarkey that only a poorly educated (on history) moron could spout. Non-Jewish Germans knew full well the eyes of the Gestapo were on them 24/7 and one mistake - one neighbor's testimony - and they be in the torture chambers, getting minced 'bratwurst' enemas and nails ripped out.

So all these histrionic comparisons of Obama to Hitler really mean that that the blogger or whoever has just lost the argument before it even commenced.

Make no mistake that more than half the citizens in this country demand more action on guns and especially preventing them from getting into the wrong hands. Obama has provided at least a start in that direction.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-boehlert/65453/the-medias-missing-context-obamas-push-to-expand-background-checks-is-wildly-popular-with-gun-owners

Why We Need A National Assault Weapons Ban - Such As In Highland Park, IL

Most people not living under a rock have already heard of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a challenge to Highland Park, Illinois' assault weapons ban. The suit was brought by a local pediatrician (?!) and a state gun hobby shooting group.  Neither liked the fact that the town disallowed these high powered weapons, as several states - including Maryland and Pennsylvania- are also considering.

Of the nine justices, seven sided together to refuse the case, and two ( the usual jokes), Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia - wanted it. Scalia,  recall,  is the guy that was hyping the presence of demons loose in the land not long ago, i.e.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/antonin-scalia-anatomy-of-idiot_12.html

How this mental misfit is still on the high court is beyond me. But enough of this digression.

The position of the challenge-refusing justices was sound, given the recent San Bernardino slaughter by two Islamic misfits operating with AR-15s and 9mm weapons (see graphic). So also is Highland Park's position justified - since as I noted in a post several days ago - these weapons have been responsible for 200,000 Americans killed since 9/11, far more than the 45 killed by terrorist homicide. This 4,400 factor difference means it is absurd to ramp up security to a state of hysteria while leaving gun laws as they are.

Who the hell needs a semi-automatic anyway? The Founders, for sure - including Madison, Jefferson and even Hamilton (himself killed in a duel) would have been aghast to behold what's on display as in the photo and allowed under a perversion of the 2nd amendment. In fact, they'd likely all re-croak if they came back to life and saw how that amendment has been disgraced by nuts and the NRA gun lobby.

The fact is NO one is taking away a person's precious right to own a proper, functioning gun by banning these high -powered weapons, which really were originally designed for MILITARY use in Vietnam, NOT for target shooting or protection. Jeezus Peace, you use a shotgun or 30.06 for target shooting or hunting a deer - you don't need a god damned AR-15!  As for home protection, get a shotgun or .38 special, you do not need a damned assault rifle. WTF are people expecting an alien invasion?

The Aussies surrendered nearly all their assault weapons back in 1996 after a massacre in which 35 were slaughtered in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Since then, the violent murders by assault weapon have been cut in half. Of course, there will still be those who get such guns and use them in malicious ways, that's not the damned point  - which the gunnies always distort. NO, it's to keep such weapons out of mass hands where even in a home dispute the disputants will not be tempted to just reach for their guns.

Highland Park's ban is also spot on given how easily an AR-15, originally semi-automatic - can be altered to an automatic.  As the WSJ piece observes:

"The AR-15 re-cocks itself immediately after firing. The only thing keeping the gun from firing again on its own is a sear, a piece inserted in the gun that stops the cycle from continuing. By replacing the sear and a few other key components, an AR-15 can be made fully automatic."

Yikes! Then the damned thing really becomes a mass slaughter machine.  (We know from the WSJ piece one of the rifles used by the CA duo had been "changed to more easily accommodate a large capacity magazine". This was according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with ATF quoted in the article.

Although dedicated gunnies insist the pair accomplished their foul deed even with "strict" California gun laws, the truth is they aren't that strict. As the WSJ piece notes:

"There are ways to get around the state's background check gun laws. A person can lend another person a gun for as long as 30 days without having to run a background check."

Also:

"Many transfers between family members are also exempt from background checks>

So the laws are not as tough as believed with those loopholes, another of which is that "once a gun is sold it becomes difficult to keep track of it".

Why? In Australia the new gun laws included having to get a license to own a gun just as you would a car. Each time a person makes a weapon transaction, even using a 30.06, the license number is taken down and entered in electronic records. The electronic data base for all of Australia then keeps track of a given gun's history and chain of ownership Why isn't that done here? I mean, it's no more an "invasion of privacy" than already occurs with internet use.

The modern U.S. citizen running to gun stores to purchase assault weapons and semi-automatic  handguns after Paris and San Bernardino is an anomaly on the historical fear spectrum. Nearly 53 years ago, we who lived at the time were faced with instant annihilation from massive H-bomb strikes toward the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But we kept our composure and didn't go ape shit like people are today. What the hell happened?

The WSJ's Daniel Henninger identified it neatly in a column several days ago as he referred to the effects of modern, 24/7 cable (or satellite) media on fragile, media -susceptible brains:

"Today, modern media trains its lens relentlessly on every disturbing event and pursues the aftermaths in detail. The effect is to compress these incidents into an emotional mass of discomfort."

Exactly! So the effect is to magnify events all out of proportion, including terror attacks - while subsequent generated  hysteria plays right into the terrorists' hands. But 53 years ago, in October, 1962, there were only three main networks (CBS, NBC, ABC)  and at the end of day when the usual static test pattern came on you only had two choices: 1) stop thinking about what might happen and get on with your life, or 2) piss in your pants and cry yourself to sleep because you believed an H-bomb might blow you to cinders.

The point missed by today's security hysterics is they have a vastly bigger threat to their safety right in their midst and it's the assault weapons all around which can be purchased by just about everyone and used in any nefarious way. 

As for the professed love (by gun aficionados)  for these weapons, I attribute most of it to the "regressed kid" syndrome. You know, when kids could set off firecrackers om the 4th or New Year's Eve and get a bang out of the noise and distraction?  Today, these  powerful weapons are de facto substitutes and include "uses" such as reducing small trees to splinters,  blowing up melons in the woods and blasting tin cans. They provide  that 'bang'  (and demolition) attraction for baseline "entertainment' of modern day adults. Until they are used against a family member or on oneself in a suicide.

I say, enough is enough and it's time to put away the things of a child.  Back in the 1960s we didn't have such weapons and we got along just fine. Sure there were murders and homicides but not like the regular mass slaughters one sees today - over 355 now and counting.

Can sanity prevail in this country or will the people continue to allow a powerful gun lobby to hold them in thrall - and in fear?  The question will be raised often by serious people in the coming months and years and it may well come down to imposing local or state assault weapons bans since at the federal level there is no will to act. At that level, the NRA has most lawmakers - or at least their balls-  in its maw.


See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/11/trevor_noah_just_perfectly_explained_our_sick_gun_culture/

And:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0