Seriously? NRA Tries To Get Me To Join With Guns "Sweepstakes"

Part of flyer I received in mail about prizes (multiple guns) to be won in NRA sweepstakes.

In the interest of full disclosure let me say first that although I have owned and fired firearms I've never had any interest in the NRA or joining its government-leery minions. That hasn't stopped the organization from plying me with "provisional" membership cards as well as other inducements to join. In the latest iteration I received a two page form letter from none other then Exec VP Wayne La Pierre with the end sign off "Yours in freedom".

The intro of the letter reads:

"Dear Fellow American,

This is YOUR  official call for entry in our exciting NRA sweepstakes and you don't have a moment to lose.  Because there will be over 700 WINNERS GUARANTEED and I want to give you a chance to win!

Don't wait. This is your shot at incredible gun, hunt and gear prizes - and best of all, you get to pick the prizes you'd like to win most.

PLUS it's WINNER TAKE ALL.

You read that right!

You'll not only have a chance to win your First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Prize selections - you could also win EVERY SINGLE PRIZE you've chosen at each of thee levels if you're drawn as our LUCKY GRAND PRIZE WINNER!

----------------------------

Yep, and IF I was a rabid gun nut or collector or even NRA aficionado I'd no doubt place all the accompanying prize stickers on in a heartbeat.

But the problem is I am not a gun grabber or NRA fan. Indeed, I have written multiple posts before against this bunch, such as after James Eagen Holmes' Aurora theater massacre and the Newtown bloodshed. 

After the Tucson shootings by Jared Loughner with Gabby Giffords one of the victims, I explained the basis of the 2nd amendment in one January, 2011 post:

Let me cite again the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"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 now have. Indeed, the Continental Army of Washington, though it prevailed over the British, now 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 cannon" generals. These interpreters insist the framers would never in a million years have envisaged people possessing permanent private weapons in their own homes - claiming it would have really detracted from a militia's effectiveness (E.g. who controls when they fire weapons at whom, and when? Or whether or not the owners are even trained in their use? DO we just let thousands of gun owners go off half-cocked to do their own thing?)

But there is NO way, not one bit, the framers would behold what we have now ....the most formidable organized military in the world - with more weapons than all the empires of all previous centuries put together, and insist that separate citizens' militias were still needed. And they certainly wouldn't confer any benediction on owning powerful automatic rifles or even semi-automatic Glocks that can spew off 31 rounds in seconds!

Adding:

So what has happened? The NRA, with enormous political clout, has succeeded in vaporizing what few common sense controls were left and given us a very close version of the "wild West". It began when a federal law enacted in 1994 that restricted the sale of certain semi-automatics was allowed to expire in 2004. This expiry was sought by the NRA which put pressure on congress critters to allow it. (The NRA doubtless subscribed to the "slippery slope" fallacy: that if semi-automatics weren't permitted, then ordinary weapons would follow.)

The next major piece of follow -up idiocy was in allowing 'make my day' laws in many states from around 2006. Thus in Colorado now, a home owner who even thinks he's under a serious threat can open fire and use deadly force with barely a question asked.

Later, after the San Bernardino massacre on December 9, 2015 I wrote:

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 (Illinois) ban is also spot on given how easily an AR-15, originally semi-automatic - can be altered to an automatic.  As yesterday's 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."

Ending with:

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.

----------------
My positions haven't changed since those posts. I still am convinced the NRA has twisted the 2nd amendment toward an interpretation never intended by the Founders.  Despite the debasement of too many brains with time, I still stand foursquare with the unanimous (1939) Supreme Court decision that affirmed:

"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."

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 now doing .

At the time Chief Justice Warren Burger responded that these lax state gun law interpretations comprised "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

What do we infer from these historical perspectives? That the REAL un-Americans 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

So how did the NRA get hold of my name and address to peddle their baloney? Most likely from a customer subscriber list  -likely provided by one magazine ('World War II History') to which I subscribe. Therefore, they made the erroneous assumption that because I am interested in World War II history I must also be a gun aficionado.

Bad mistake!

Brussels Attacks Fear? You're Still More Likely To Be Killed By An NRA -Backing Terrorist With An AR-15

Bwaaaaa! Daddy Reepo pwotekt me fwum dem bad guys! Bwaaaahahah

"Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for the purpose of a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Here we go again, another brutal ISIS attack, this time in Brussels - horrific scenes unfolding after one scumball detonated a suitcase bomb at the airport, and another POS blew himself up with his suitcase at a subway station. And what is the response from too many in the "land of the free and the home of the brave"? Well, to summarize a headline from salon.com: "panic, hysteria and Trumpism". 

How manifested? To take an example we beheld Ted Cruz in the hours after the attacks knee-jerk spouting that we "need to empower law enforcement to patrol in Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized". To which NYPD chief Bill Bratton on CBS this a.m. fairly spat: "He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about! I have 1,000 Muslim officers on my force and all are dedicated. The last thing we want is alienating law abiding Muslims because once they do become radicalized it's much harder to de-radicalize them."  But Cruz' stupid take was echoed by Trump and the Trumpkin brigade.

Seriously, it is depressing to witness these types of fearful reaction - especially by someone who lived through the Cuban Missile crisis when the entire world was threatened with vaporization and we had only the good sense and judgment of JFK to rely on. Thankfully, he rejected the Joint Chiefs'  demand to bomb and invade Cuba which would certainly have caused Castro to unleash at least 93 Russian made IRBMs on the eastern U.S., followed by a massive U.S. counter strike then a Soviet counter counter strike. Total nuclear exchange within 8 hours? About 690 megatons with 400 million dead and the rest of the world wishing they were. 

THAT was something real to be terrified about because it affected directly the existence of every man, woman and child on Earth. All stood to lose their lives either in the initial exchanges or from radiation sickness later. Today, in the wake of an isolated Brussels terror attack? Not so much. It barely makes the higher alert register - or should. Hence, I was glad to see Obama attending a baseball game in Cuba yesterday instead of rushing home in a panic, reinforcing the panicked portrayals and endless loops of Brussels' bedlam by the sensation-sotted U.S. media.

Well, there are some media exceptions. A Dec. 5, 2015 NY Times editorial in the wake of the San Bernardino killings noted, for example:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all purchased legally with the benediction of the NRA.  In other words, we're killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains over react to isolated terror events - magnifying them as proximate threats when they are distant ones. In such cases, the TV scenes have taken control of their amygdalas and viewers are then ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason.

 The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological 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' 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.

See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us

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.
In this light, and as the NY Daily News back in December featured on its headline, it is the NRA's Wayne LaPierre who qualifies as the real terrorist because it is HE who has made available the millions of lethal weapons to kill so many Americans (many more than ISIS could) by refusing to implement sane gun laws.

The purpose of all this? To show the relative risk of an American being killed in a terrorist attack here in the States is vanishingly small. Small enough not to lose sleep over, cancel plans for an outing - say to a cinema or ball game, and certainly so small that one would not wish to suspend civil liberties for any demographic in our population. Because to do so would be to play directly into the hands of the ISIS vermin and their zombie lackeys.

Be alert and aware, of course, but in an intelligent as opposed to paranoid and hysterical sense. Note things unusual and report them, but don't go off the rails seeking to expunge the basic principles embodied in the Bill of Rights, especially the fourth amendment. If we give in to fear we cease to be who we are and mutate instead into a fear-governed caricature unworthy of liberty.

As for the Brussels' news, tune in to get the occasional update but don't stay glued to the tube and this kind of news on an endless loop. It just feeds fear, and more panic and hysteria.

And besides, you risk becoming a Trumpkin.

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

Did Any Of The Reeps Grasp Obama's Message?

It is incredible that so many believe in "the Flynn effect" which insists IQs of average humans today are inexorably increasing when the evidence is all around us that this is a myth. Most people don't even possess the basic thinking skills to parse BS from fact, and too many are misled by screechifying, splenetic idiots into reinforcing their bombastic tropes. WHERE is the evidence for higher IQs? I don't see it!

As a case in point, with all the huff and puff from the Republicans based on braggadocio and playing upon people  with weak minds,  the latter appear to believe there's a Muslim terrorist behind every door and their kills are whoppingly large. The most high profile Reep in this regard is Donald Trump whose "strongman shtick and nonchalance over the beating of a protestor" as well as his "zeal for waterboarding" caused The Economist (Nov. 28-Dec. 4, p. 24) to pronounce Trump:

"giving off an incipient whiff of bouffant fascism".

Couldn't have said it better! I also like that "bouffant' touch given I label him "the Donna".

 The facts, as spelled out in a front page NY Times editorial two days ago,  say the opposite to the hysteria 'the Donna' and his collaborators are sowing, e.g.:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all legally sold with the benediction of the NRA. So don't hand me any bollocks that we are "safer" from terrorists because we can own an AR-15 or Bushmaster .223 when we are fucking killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains have taken control and they are being ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason. Well, when you read some of their hysterical, reactionary blogs - or even comments on forums like The Financial Times (in which I was called a "statist traitor troll" yesterday by a dunce nicknamed "Trollbo" for god's sake, for mentioning the loophole in the gun laws permitting those on the no fly list to buy AR-15s).. Don't these jackasses hear in their minds' ears how they sound? Are they mentally tone deaf? This is not a matter of "free speech" - but of being responsible and mature enough to use one's right to free speech in a responsible way!

In respect to (2), I note it was Arthur Koestler in his 'Ghost in the Machine' who first elaborated on the "paleocortex" as the most primitive region of the brain, harboring the most primitive impulses including territoriality, conquest, lust, and tribal demarcations, i.e. explaining the current yen to isolate and ostracize Muslim Americans from the rest of us. It was Carl Sagan, in his 'Dragons Of Eden', who made similar points by referencing the "R-complex". And it was Robert Ornstein in his 'Evolution of Consciousness" who noted the reptilian region of the brain as a regressed "simpleton". This was as part of his general theory of brain dynamics based on the "simpleton" concept, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/secret-lives-of-brain-been-there-done.html

Well, it appears that the response to President Obama's speech last night (on American reaction to  San Bernardino and ISIL) shows a plurality of Americans are operating with their reptilian brains as opposed to their higher brains (the neocortex). The GOP response especially shows that they are either all under the spell of regressive collective simpletons, or the R-complex.

None of them grasped, for example, that part of Obama's speech DID embody security strategy, namely warning us not to treat fellow Americans differently because they are Muslims. Not calling them "ragheads" or using other hateful epithets. Why? Because it simply is stupid and doesn't redound to our national security interests. Indeed, as he explained, "this is just what ISIL" wants. This "cult of thugs" which represents an extreme end of Islam, profits handsomely when it can tell all Muslims living here in the U.S. they are not wanted. This then can pave the way for them to acknowledge it, as when they're called "ragheads" or worse on social media posts, thereby justifying (in their minds ) waging jihad. After all, what are they gaining from living amongst us? Only hate and predjudice.

Neither have these boneheads grasped that dispatching large numbers of Americans into another ground war is not the answer. Yet in a poll presented on CBS Early Show 53 % of Americans want Americans sent in for a ground force invasion.  And some seriously buy that these morons are the beneficiaries of the "Flynn Effect" - which I already dissed in an earlier post, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-flynn-effect-are-we-all-becoming.html

In respect of ground forces being used on ISIS, as I noted in my post of Nov. 16:

"the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).

But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders",   Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.)  Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all"

The problem with the U.S. mounting a unilateral ground war invasion is that we'd then be seen as marshalling a "crusade" against Islam - and instead of just having the thugs of ISIS against us, we'd have the entire Muslim world and Islam. How hard can this be to drive through the brains of Americans? Well, pretty difficult if they are operating at reptilian brain level.

People need to force their brains to act in accord with their higher cognitive centers in this time of terror hype and ramped up hysteria over remote risks, and not allow themselves to be pawns for demagogues or histrionic bloggers. This means that reason must be in the forefront of how we deal with the world today, and that includes processing that we are slaughtering far more of each other with easily purchased lethal weapons than the radical Muslims are.

That means, btw, that the probability of being shot and killed by a fellow American is far greater than being killed in an Islamic massacre such as happened in San Bernardino! People need to bear that in mind before allowing their reptilian brains to seize control and go ballistic.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/65150/gutless-wonders-america-gladly-thrusts-its-neck-under-the-jackboot

Defining "Terrorism": Don't Assume You Know What It Means

Incredibly, amidst all the Republican babble in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre, it appears none of them even know what the term "terrorism" means. Of course, it's easy to bandy the word about to gain political leverage or exploit the ignorance of a population, and it serves a long standing interest for Rightists to take the public's eyes off gun control.

In point of fact, there is no single consensus definition of terrorism in federal law and regulation. USC Title 18 specifically defines "domestic terrorism" as:

"A violent act which is committed in the United States and attempts to intimidate or coerce".

The international definition is similar except it includes reference to the locales wherein  the perpetrators committed their fear - inspiring deeds or where they sought asylum.

Under the USC 18 definition, Robert Lewis Dear was definitely a terrorist because he committed his crime with the goal to instill fear or coerce the Colorado Springs community into no longer supporting Planned Parenthood. Conversely, the Newtown and the Aurora Theater massacres were not terrorism under the definition.

At the University of Leiden, two researchers found more than 200 definitions of terrorism scattered around the world. Most shared attributes of violence, political objectives, and causing outright fear. One historian, Walter Lacquer, summed up the differences this way:

"In the real world there is not one terrorism, but a variety of terrorisms. Any attempt to find a common denominator - a formula - say as suited to 19th century Irish terrorism as to narco-terror in Columbia, or Islamic terror in Pakistan is bound to fail"

This is because there will always be divergent emphases, as well as parameter and intenisty distinctions. Recall that in many quarters, the first reaction to the 9/11 attacks was to treat them as a major crime - not terror. It was only when the Bushies introduced the "war on terror" - which is a non sequitur - that terror became a ubiquitous dynamic. The problem is it holds too many in thrall who are prepared to cry 'Terror!' at the first suspicion.

This is misplaced because it makes us all subject to irrational political exploitation and reduces our power as citizens - collectively and individually. We certainly ought to be alert to recognize real actions of terrorists when they arise, but not to call 'Terror!' for everything we see.  As Chris Hayes put it three nights ago: "When everything is terror then the meaning is diluted to the point that we cease to recognize real terror.

That is useful to bear in mind as the calls for more 'wars on terror' heat up and the political Right, especially, attempts to use the word 'terror' as a cudgel to infringe on our civil liberties and misdirect our national priorities - as well as playing right into ISIS' fell hands by refusing Syrian refugees entry.

Don't Get Sidetracked By Terror! San Bernardino Was NOT A "False Flag"!

At least the NY Daily News names the NRA's Wayne La Pierre (bottom right) an equal  opportunity terrorist to Syed Farook and the butchers below!

"I need a gun because he has a gun, and he has a gun because that other guy has a gun, and that other guy has a gun because those guys over there have guns, and they have guns because the cops have guns, and so the cops need more guns to protect themselves from all the people out there with guns. The gun manufacturers, the bullet manufacturers and the NRA laugh all the way to the bank, their hands dripping crimson as they count their money. Maybe what happened in San Bernadino was ideologically driven terrorism. It was still a mass shooting because you can practically pick assault rifles from the trees like dark apples in this country."- William Rivers Pitt, on smirkingchimp.com yesterday, 'Slaughter Is the Standard in the U.S.

The sane citizen must grudgingly admire the way the political Right's screech monkeys twist things around  to their benefit. After the Newtown massacre it was widely circulated that it was really a "false flag" operation, carried out by "actors" from the government as a ruse and excuse to take away god fearin' 'Muricans'  guns. After Colorado Springs, it was claimed by many that Robert Lewis Dear was really a "left wing terrorist" and he actually "signed up to vote as a woman once" which "proves it". All of which is palpable, screech monkey bullshit pulled out of their asses with zero evidence. (Or perhaps they heard it on Limburger's show or on FAUX News).

Now, we behold the lawyer hired by the (Syed) Farook family actually taking another page from InfoWars' Alex Jones and - at a news conference - claiming the San Bernardino massacre didn't really happen as portrayed and was yet another "false flag" with the objective to force powerful gun laws to take citizens' guns away.  From this, as Rachel Maddow observed last night, one wonders how much nuttier this nation can get. Well, a lot, if its people lack logic and critical thinking skills.

But it also shows clearly - given the fright aroused on the Right with this false flag BS - that despite the suspects being named as part of a terror incident, we need to absolutely keep the heat on for gun control no matter what these demented fuckers spout. They know, even here in a gun lovin' state like Colorado, Gov. Hickenlooper's aides and friends are now broaching much stricter gun regulation measures. (Denver Post, Dec. 2, p. 3A)

Meanwhile, FBI head James Comey announced yesterday the Bureau's investigators have determined the San Bernardino massacre was perpetrated by two individuals who were inspired by ISIS . Female Pakistani Tashfeen Malik made a FB "pledge" (to El Baghdadi) but there is no evidence it was "directed" by ISIS, i.e. they were following orders or part of a terror network. That's a huge difference but one likely to be lost on the screaming zealots determined to turn Americans into security sissies ready to grab any gun they can.,. or hide under their beds in fear.

Make no mistake this is still about guns, namely the modified AR-15s used to carry out the attack. As noted in a CBS News segment last night, all the major massacres of the past few years, including the Aurora theater massacre, the Newtown massacre (by Adam Lanza), and the one at Umpqua Community College  "shared a common thread"-  they were all carried out with the AR-15. The San Bernardino case was especially violent because the FBI reports the AR-15s used were "modified" to be more lethal. (They are still trying to ascertain exactly how this modification was done.) The same segment also observed the AR-15 is "Americans' favorite rifle".

WTF? WHY? You don't need an AR-15 to hunt a deer or a cougar, not if you're man enough! A simple, basic Remington 30.06 ought to do.  Also, you don't need an AR-15 for "home protection"!. I mean Jeezus, it's a military assault weapon! WTF are you protecting against,  a Martian invasion? In fact, there was once a nationwide ban on similar (but automatic)  weapons after a series of mass shootings in 1994. But the ban was removed ten years later with predictable results and an ever spiking increase in mass shootings. (As I will show in a future post it is relatively easy to convert a semi-automatic AR-15 to an automatic.)

But all of this - now emphasized by the idiotic rhetoric on the Right (with the likes of Ted Cruz saying we "need more guns to shoot bad guys with guns") showed how the 2nd amendment has been deliberately perverted by the NRA and its gun nut denizens.  Go back to the Supreme Court ruling in 1939, marking the first time the gun 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. So what the hell happened to mutate American brains away from sane interpretations of the 2nd?

While this sober take prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s as various Right wing  groups coalesced to challenge gun control based on the spurious  concept of "private gun ownership" interpretations. Thereby, and via mass mind-fucking in concert with ferocious lobbying, they successively overturned laws in state legislatures - much like the abortion opponents are now doing, especially via the specious "personhood" amendments and laws.

Chief Justice Warren Burger responded at the time that this personal ownership 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."

The tragedy is that it worked! And even today has worked to allow some of the most devastating weapons to fall into massive use - even for such innocuous activities as target practice! Reminding me of a horrific incident that occurred in the Pike National Forest barely 8 months ago when a dad out camping there with his family took semi-automatic rounds in the head. He was a victim of assholes "target practicing" with AR-15s in the same woods.

As I predicted two posts ago, the Right's loons would focus on the perps (Syed Farooq & wife, Tashfeen Malik) and now this "inspired by ISIS terror" link to go batshit crazy. This has led them to launch a crusade on Islamic terrorists despite the fact the use of guns was the deciding factor in the extent of the slaughter and many other killings.

Those like Christie are even proposing bringing back the NSA's bulk collection of phone records, instead of implementing the USA Freedom Act which restricts that dragnet collection. But to show what hypocrites the Right and its security parrots are, they won't even allow a law to be passed that closes gun purchases to those on the 'No Fly' list, i.e. effectively terrorists on the TSA Terror watch list!

Meanwhile, the likes of Paul Ryan insist "We can't be sure those on the 'no fly' list  really deserve to be there".  So get this: While the Right uses dumb analogies like, "Would you really take a chance of eating an M&M from a giant bowl of 10,000 if one was laced with cyanide?' they are quite ok with thousands on the no fly list buying lethal weapons. (Over 2,400 such purchases have been made since 2010).  And let's not even get into the legal loophole that allows any crazy or terrorist to purchase a lethal weapon like an AR-15 from a private seller - whereas a background check  is needed in the case of a regular commercial seller.

They also fret about Syrian refugees bringing  home terror when terror is all around us right now with nearly 80 killed each goddamned day! And WHERE is this terror coming from? Well, it's not from ISIS radicals or Wahabbi maniacs but from our own literal home grown killers!

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.
In this light, and as the NY Daily News featured on its headline, it is the NRA's Wayne LaPierre who qualifies as the real terrorist because it is HE who has made available the millions of lethal weapons to kill so many Americans (many more than ISIS could) by refusing to implement sane gun laws. Such as universal background checks, and reinstating the ban on semi-automatic weapons that had endured through the Clinton years.

Anyone who now tells you to focus on terror and Islamic terrorists to the exclusion of gun regulation is trying to mind fuck you. If they present plans to vet terrorists but not to prevent terrorists from buying lethal weapons - like the AR -15- they are talking shit, pure and simple. As much shit as those who babble that Robert Lewis Dear was a "left wing terrorist".  But hey, if Farook's family hired this lawyer because they fear gun control as a result,  maybe Farook was really a Right wing terrorist trying to make it look like a Muslim terror attack.  If people want to go down mindfuck labyrinths there are many ways to proceed!

If Repubs and others also resort to smokescreens like "new mental health laws", without concomitant gun control, you also know they are talking shit because not all the deadly gun incidents occurring each day in this country are done by "crazies" or by Islamics. They are done by family members who lost it during an argument and grabbed a gun- likely bought and placed in the home for "protection".

If we lose perspective on the true source of our massacre problems in this country we are doomed to never escape them - even if we manage to put all the heads of every ISIS and al Qaeda terrorist on spikes - dotting the Mall in Washington, D. C.

And the 'pukes and their fellow travelers in the NRA damned well know that!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us

Spare Us Your "Thoughts and Prayers", REEPOS. We Need Serious Gun Laws!

It was pathetic to behold the refrain of all the Reepo presidential candidates in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre. As if on cue, Carson, Rubio et al dispatched tweets to the effect: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims"

What a cowardly, hackneyed and putrid response in the wake of the worst mass shooting since Newtown-Sandy Hook!  As we know, thoughts are useless unless directed toward action, and "prayers" lack efficacy because well, ....there's nothing out there to accommodate them! Which is why if anyone prays he or she does it for his or her own mental stability, say like using valium in an anxiety -provoking situation.

That's why Chris Murphy's (D-CT) tweet reply to this GOOPr palaver is one of the best I've seen, e.g.

"Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing again."

And make no mistake they won't do a damned thing, since the NRA has their balls locked up and won't release them anytime soon. Meanwhile we now have more than 350 mass shootings this year alone, as Chris Hayes pointed out last night. And it doesn't matter who the fuck is doing them - family member, psycho, Islamic or just a mean- spirited worker nursing a grudge with his ego in tatters and out for revenge.

So I say, enough of this violence is enough! I am sick and tired of the NRA's screeching puppets making excuses for any kind of effective gun control - including the sale of smart guns - which can only fire if the actual owner has possession, or genuine universal background  checks. After the latest gun massacre in San Bernardino with 14 killed and 17 wounded, it is time to get serious. Also, with this incident it's time to stop throwing up the stupid smokescreen of  "mentally ill" gun nuts.

NO, this massacre was choreographed by two renegades in body armor equipped with "long guns" who methodically and deliberately opened fire on a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center where 200 were in attendance. What? Both coincidentally happened to be nuts at the same time? Oh no, they were calculating, violent killers - despite the Wall Street Journal's editorial on Nov. 30 belaboring 'The Next Mad Gunman'.  Hello! What if it is two, non-mad but evidently very angry people with vengeance in their hearts?

In the same editorial the WSJ pontificated about the GOP getting bipartisan mental health legislation passed. But while that may help with the odd wacko, like Adam Lanza the Newtown killer- it is useless against a team of trained murderers decked out.in military armor and set to kill on sight. (Also it doesn't address a person who is sane when he makes a gun purchase but later goes off the rails.)

Of course, the Right's loons will focus on the perps (Syed Farooq & wife, Tashfeen Mailk) and their Muslim-sounding names (despite the fact he was a U.S. citizen) and blame it on "ragheads". They will then erupt in even greater sound and fury about why we must not allow Syrian refugees in - despite the fact Farooq wasn't a refugee.

But what do you expect from those who can't think? It's also an easy escape for them after the right wing terror unleashed here in Colorado Springs by one of their dutiful nuts - upset by "baby parts" rhetoric to go into a Planned Parenthood Clinic and commit mayhem. (Note: By "right wing terror" I don't mean Robert Dear was necessarily a "card carrying" Right winger, i.e. member of the John Birch Society. No. I mean his brain was marinated and fucked to a far-thee-well by right wing rhetoric about abortions and "selling baby parts". I will have more to say on the latest outrageous comments made by the Right soon.)

The "nut" (mental illness) story won't fly this time, first because it was done by two people -clearly the prime motive being he was infuriated by an altercation at a holiday party held at the Inland Regional Center. We don't know yet what was said to him, but it likely was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". Probably something like, "Why would a raghead want to come to a Christmas party?"   This also likely followed years of anti-Muslim abuse he took. Of course, this doesn't justify the slaughter, but it would show ego-based rage that followed and led to he and his wife donning tactical gear and then coming back to the party to meet out vengeance.

In any case, it doesn't follow the mentally ill script that even Paul Ryan was trying to peddle this morning, though not necessarily for this case. But like the WSJ  editorial he parroted the Right's usual response: "We need new mental health legislation".  Well, sure, but we also need tough gun laws, which is also why Ryan tap-danced when asked about those on the terrorist watch list being able to purchase any kind of weapon they want. (Nearly 2,400 on the terror watch list have purchased weapons since 2011. THAT is what 'Muricans ought to be pissing their panties about, not fretting over 10,000 seriously vetted refugees!)

Ryan's response? We "can't be sure those on the list (which also covers the TSA's 'No fly' list) really deserve to be there".  So get this: While the Right uses dumb analogies like, "Would you really take a chance of eating an M&M from a giant bowl of 10,000 if one was laced with cyanide?'  Ryan's response to not closing the terrorist loophole amounts to pretty well the same thing:  "Well, many law abiding Americans were put on that list by mistake." But offers no proof or rationale to be able to distinguish these law abiding citizens - somehow mislabeled- from real terrorists. So he's prepared to take a chance no terrorist will get through.

Hmmmm.......Hey, Paulie, might a cyanide -laced M&M have been dropped into a bowl by mistake? The point is, it is idiocy if you're going to fret over "one Syrian in 10,000" and you have no problems with allowing a person on a terror watch list to purchase heavy ammo. You are again being a hypocrite, or at least inconsistent. But again what do you expect from people who can't think critically..

So, the first step in sane gun  regulation must be to close, once and for all, the existing loophole that allows those on a terrorist watch list to purchase weapons, (The FBI has stated all the guns purchased in the San Bernardino attack were legally purchased. This is crucial to note if it turns out the two killers were Islamic inspired terrorists.) NRA or no NRA,  fuck the NRA! And no, I am not "anti gun" or "anti- Second Amendment" (though I do fight for the 4th amendment as strongly as for the 2nd) e.g.

 That image was taken of me in 1986 with an AR-15. I've also owned other "long guns" and used them for target practice as well as killing the occasional varmint. (Also used them to test the Warren Commission's nutty "jet effect" theory back in 1968 by firing at ripe watermelons, coconuts etc., and testing back reactions)

As I said, I am not "anti- gun" but rather pro rational gun regulation, which includes - in my book - allowing the sale of "smart" guns, as well as closing terrorist loopholes! We also need to resurrect the Brady bill against the sale of semi-automatic and other military style weapons.  If one is against those, he cannot be rational in my book. He is more a zombie for the NRA.

Given the horrific number of mass shootings in this country, I also believe we need stiffer regulation and that implies following Australia's model.

Recall, the Aussies (of whom my WWII dad was very proud as he fought alongside them in the Battle of Buna, New Guinea) acted after a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.  The Aussies realized then and there they could not afford any more gun insanity. What did they do?

Twelve days after the horror, Australia’s government . led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

There is no reason such a law couldn't work in this country, but even as the Aussie law was first broached - after the Umpqua mass shooting, all you heard on the Right's airwaves was hysteria about "fascist governments like Australia's"  taking people's guns.   Never mind, they weren't "taking" anything. A buyback isn't "taking" and also, if done for the good of the nation, it is fully justified the way the Aussies did it.

You can't pound your fists, cry in your soup and wet your panties about being frightened of terrorists, if you don't do a damned thing to halt the main agency of gun violence terror which has killed more than any ISIS bunch could, even in the past year. 355 mass shootings!

Hence, to provide ballast against all eventualities - whether home grown nuts or violent, stone killers,  we must get real about gun control in this country!

Failure to act is no longer an option, and simply passing mental health legislation is not enough!

And let's stop blaming Muslims for all our ills, when this country's insane gun culture is to blame. The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological 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' 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.


See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/03/syed_farooq_is_an_american_lets_stop_the_muslim_vs_christian_debate_and_take_a_look_at_ourselves/