Tea-Billy Gun Nuts Holding Rational Americans Hostage

A generous estimation of the membership of the NRA puts their total number at around four million. In a nation of over 300,000,000 citizens, how can the bosses of this relatively small group control the agenda of all legislation pertaining to Second Amendment matters and more specifically, the proliferation of high-powered guns? Moreover, most gun owners are entirely supportive of sensible gun laws Congress refuses to pass. What causes such disharmony where popular opinion is so antithetical to current legislation?

The founders of these United States could not have foreseen weaponry as lethal as today’s automatic weapons when, at that time, it was so arduous to fire a single shot musket. They designed the living, breathing Constitution to be malleable, hence the amendments that have kept up with changing times. Technology adds extra responsibility and these advancements infringe upon the safety and well-being of our citizens. This was paramount to the thinking behind our Constitution. No one with an IQ higher than room temperature argues against stricter background checks, assault weapons restrictions and Internet/private/gun show sales. In fact, most members of the NRA already believe stricter gun laws ARE in place.

The culprit of all this malevolence is the conservative-owned media. They seek to deceive, distort and confuse their base. This deception is achieved by employing some basic strategies: offensively false billboards, hiring caustic radio/tv personalities and the natural concomitance of fundamentalist Christians with the gun industry. Add a touch of racism and Hitler=Obama-hysteria and you’ve ginned up enough terror in a large segment of the population to create a culture that now believes the government is plotting a socialist takeover where the Second Amendment will be annulled. Many people honestly believe President Obama is coming for their guns even though he has not passed one law to justify this paranoia.

20130322-165911.jpg
Rhea County, Tennessee. An ACTUAL billboard

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed three bills into law to curb gun violence on March 20, 2013. However, just the night before the signing, a member of a white supremacist prison gang shot Tom Clements fatally. The perpetrator, ex-convict Evan Ebel, the 28-year-old parolee from Denver, emerged as a lead suspect in the killing of the executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Ebel has a history of violence, combined with “a hateful mean streak” and was eventually apprehended and shot by a Wise County, Texas deputy. The order for the hit on Clements, age 58, came from within the 211 Crew, a prison gang.

The gun problem is actually a very partisan issue, where Republicans are the primary recipients of NRA support. 88 PERCENT of Republicans in Congress have accepted monies from this terrorist organization who places profit over the general welfare of the country. Also worth noting, 11 percent of the recipients of NRA cash are Democrats (from Red States mainly) and this explains the inability of certain Democratic Senators to vote against anything that seemingly limits gun ownership. Knowing there would only be roughly forty votes in the Senate, many liberal progressives, chastised Majority Leader, Senator Reid, for not bringing an assault weapons ban to the floor. Unfortunately, a failed vote would not only fail to bring any legislative change, it would damage the Senators facing reelection in 2014 like Begich (Ak), Landrieu (La) and Baucus (Mt). Harry Reid knows when a vote would be pointless, and as unpalatable the whole thing seems, he’s right.

Even my beloved state, Nevada, has been hijacked by the more guns are always the solution crowd. S.B. 137 gets its hearing today in the Nevada Legislature, in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The measure sponsored by state Senate Republicans Goicoechea, Settelmeyer, and Cegavske, would revise and ease restrictions on concealed carry permits for firearms. Of course we should let more folks carry guns, because that preventative measure worked so well for the dead Marines at Quantico Base, who were surrounded by guns. I am positively nauseous at stories like the poor woman whose baby was shot while in a stroller by gun toting teens after losing another child to violence.

Wayne LaPierre and David Keene are death merchants, plain and simple. The NRA leadership embodies THE quintessential Libertarian/Republican principles of valuing profit over safety, health and security while promoting paranoia and distrust of government. Only when one of their own is affected by a particular societal injustice will they open their eyes to the mainstream opinions of our ever evolving population, who increasingly accept gay marriage, stricter gun laws and laws to protect our frightfully toxic environment. Anyone who believes laws will be broken, therefore we don’t need to bother enacting any laws to curb guns is employing absurd reasoning and should not be considered a rational human being.

This is a battle that is far from over, and if the progress on gay marriage and women’s rights is any indication of our society evolving despite the out-of-touch GOP wanting otherwise, history will repeat itself. Eventually the Tea-Party crazies, white-supremacist doomsday preppers and the NRA itself will be an embarrassing relic of our past, like the Antebellum South with its sordid history of slavery in America. Until that wonderful day, where we can put this violent domestic terrorism behind us, we have to contend with more tragedies which could so easily be averted. Australia and England have concrete data which show that strict gun control works! Someday, I sincerely believe we will as well.

Recently, following the Boston Marathon tragedy, a suggestion was posed that should irrefutably solve this Second Amendment “dilemma.” If there have been over 1,300 weapons purchases recently by those on the FBI’s TERROR WATCH LIST tell me what kind of rights are these psychopaths trying to protect? As antiquated as the 3rd Amendment is now considered, the 2nd Amendment seems as antediluvian.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Tea-Billy Gun Nuts Holding Rational Americans Hostage

  1. Well, if the founders didn’t know how the “power” of weaponry today might be too great for the second amendment, then looking at how the use of modern media fuels mass movements towards war, materialism, worship of corporatism, exploitation of women, and overall ignorance, I would also say that the first amendment is also suspect such that if 2A limits us to muskets, we should also be limited to the printing press. Individuals with guns have not committed mass murder of 10s of millions and displacement of millions more (governments run by banksters waging war from both ends have done that).

    So what say you? If we cannot have modern weapons, the radios, televisions, fax machines, phones, and internet have to go.

    Fair is fair.

    BTW, why is it that while felons and foreigners cannot legally purchase guns, and you cannot be a felon or a foreigner if you want to vote, we have only background checks for getting a gun? Now they want universal background checks for gun purchases, but not for voting? Both “rights” are equally sacrosanct, but why instant background checks on one and not the other? I hear it all of the time how the NICS is in place and does not deny anybody their rights to own a gun if there are not issues with the check, so why not use the same infrastructure for voting too, since it’s already in place?

    Are not votes just as dangerous as guns?

    Going back to our history, the most efficient and highest scoring mass murderer in human history are governments, and in the 20th century, most of the held elections. People VOTED for that. So certainly voting can be dangerous.

    1. Why is it so hard for the Don’t Tread on Me crowd to relinquish the right to mow down innocent civilians with military style weapons which American Generals agree should not be owned by the general populace, without registration of said weapons? The comparison of lethal, physically tangible firearms with voting/internet/television etc. is utterly preposterous. Your assumption that voter fraud is a rampant problem demonstrates the source of your information: Fox News and all the conservative hysteria-driven media that can’t stand a black guy being in the White House. There is no sane human being who is going to fear for their life if they read an internet blog the same as they’d fear a Bushmaster pointed in their direction.

    2. Two problems with your argument: (1) The founders could not have anticipated the kinds of weapons we have today, so it’s a moot point, but if their intent was to make sure that the adult male population was armed in order to form instant militias to drive off the British or the Indians, or to recapture runaway slaves, they surely would have been happy to have the 2nd amendment applied to the modern version of the standard firearms of the day — NOT assault weapons or tanks or the like. (2) Your argument suggests that you are not a strict constructionist. But your attitude in general suggests that you ARE. You can’t have it both ways. If we can’t take the founders’ exact intent into account, then the whole Constitution is open to anybody’s interpretation! In any case, your equating weapons with freedom of speech or the press is disingenuous. Nobody would argue that the “press” was not mean to include all forms of dissemination of information, not just a printing press. Whereas “bearing arms” for the purposes of forming a “well-regulated militia” does not in any way imply that any individual or group of people should be able to maintain an arsenal of unregistered weapons of all types in order to overthrow their own government.

      1. Militias at the time were mainly local groups of ordinary citizens who were self-organizing and who cooperated for their own defense and protection. They could be called up by the state for various purposes, but the state was not responsible for their organization, training, or supplying weapons and ammunition. That was the whole reason states demanded it and Madison included it: since individuals needed their own privately-owned weapons for their personal and corporate protection.

    1. Let’s be practical here. What will your AR-15 do against an Apache helicopter? The average citizen who owns a firearm is 4-5x more likely to be shot. Simple statistics. Tougher gun screening works. Look at Germany, Japan, Australia. All have way way lower gun deaths per capita. The best self defense is to upgrade personal security and minimize potential violence. As it stands, it always seems the wealthiest and politically powerful have the best of all worlds, including security.

      1. Non-sequitur much? Again why should self defense be outlawed for all but the wealthy and politically connected? Did you know that cops are not even legally obligated to protect citizens?

      2. Did you also read Castle Rock v. Gonzales? There is no legal right to police protection so why should we be forced to give up our right to self defense in exchange for relying on a police force that may likely not arrive in time in an emergency and doesn’t even have to?

  2. Not only has the homicide rate been dropping steadly as GSP notes, but it has been dropping during a time where purchases of firearms, ammo, and related accessories have been increasing, and more states have passed reasonable, shall-issue concealed carry laws.

    1. Yet how many kids die every day from “accidental” gunfire? Guns need to be highly regulated, insured and kept locked away. Their only function is not to make you safer, as statistics demonstrate they do nothing of the sort, but to make death more likely. I object to the mass proliferation and the casual way they are stored in the home.

      1. While any death of a child is a horrible shame, the number of children who die through negligent firearms discharge is actually quite low on the list of causes. There were around 600+ deaths in the 0-19 year-old range in 2007. By contrast, there were almost 44,000 who died in some kind of vehicle accident; over 22,000 who died in a fall; over 3400 who drowned; 6,000 who suffocated; and over 3200 who died in a fire. (ref, http://www.nsc.org/Documents/Injury_Facts/Injury_Facts_2011_w.pdf). Those child deaths from firearms can probably be accurately divided into a couple of groups: negligence involving small children; activities involving older children and young adults in the 15-19 year old range. Setting aside the older kids for a moment, those younger child deaths absolutely represent negligence or failure on the part of adults. I don’t know of any law that would prevent that anymore than it would prevent drowning or car accidents. Sometimes people just screw up and there’s not really any way for anyone other than that individual to prevent it. Ditto with the older children/young adults. My own experience of shooting my entire life, and raising my kids to do the same, as well as the data referenced above as well as the FBI’s stats on the dropping homicide rate (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8) reveals that the perception of danger is much greater than the reality.

      2. The U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people – more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.
        Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths. Researchers have concluded that more guns do not make people safer. But of course you’ll be just fine with gun manufacturers marketing their guns to children. http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kids

        This is why there is no reasoning with the pro-gun people. Like the bible-is-law crowd, logic is abhorred and views are cherry-picked from a book of fiction.

  3. I don’t see anything illogical or fictional about what I posted. The US also has a higher rate of murder by every other weapon. For that matter, we also have twice the rate of traffic fatalities per 100,000 people as Japan does. Similarly, while we have three times the homicide rate of Great Britain, we also have 3 times the traffic fatality rate of Great Britain. It would be nice to eliminate or reduce all of those numbers. We would save far more lives by reducing the amount of alcohol people could buy in a given year, putting regulators on motor vehicles so that only the police and military could drive over 35mph, and only letting people buy one tank of gasoline per month.

      1. I don’t think it’s fallacious at all since I’m looking at how to best prevent unwanted death and destruction. Firearms are responsible for such a small percentage of unintentional and intentional mayhem compared to motor vehicles that it seems there are much bigger fish to fry there. To me, it’s much more problematic that so many more people are nevertheless killed by machines (or liquids, or water) that weren’t designed to cause wounds in humans. What’s the constructive purpose of alcohol? Consuming too much causes death also. But I agree that guns are indeed dangerous; that is a good thing if the person using it is handling it properly and using it for the right reason(s), such as in this case where a mother successfully defended herself against a much bigger, stronger threat: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s