The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime ~ Warren Burger (9/17/1907 to 6/25/1995) Conservative Nixon-appointed SCOTUS Chief Justice (1969-1986).
The National Rifle Association, or the "NRA", in my opinion, is an organization that perpetrates evil in the name of the almighty dollar. I have been made fun of for voicing this opinion previously, although that was on the blog of a "disgruntled patriot" and gun nut going by Constitutional Insurgent.
I ended up getting banned from Libertas and Latte for my anti/gun-grabbing views. I think the bottom line for this guy was, because of the 2nd amendment, guns cannot be regulated. Even the little regulation we have is an outrage, as who would put up with regulating the 1st amendment (for example)?
But back to the NRA. For those at the top of that organization, money is more important that human lives. Of course they will say that what they're doing is protecting "2nd amendment freedoms", but that's bullshit. The Founding Fathers, instead of compromising on an issue the slave states felt strongly about (their slave patrols needed to stay heavily armed in order to prevent any uprisings that would deprive them of free labor), came up with an oddly worded amendment that protected the right of militia members to have guns.
A right that morphed into an individual (someone not the member of a militia) right to possess just about any firearm (and as many of them) as they desire. There was also the worry that a standing army could (at some future date) overthrow the government and we could end up with a military dictatorship. Of course, as everyone knows, we do have a standing army. So, in that regard, the 2nd amendment failed. We have a standing army that presidents use to wage war without the consent of Congress.
Additionally, due to the Conservative Supreme Court (and their "original intent" bullshit), an individual right to own weapons of death has expanded (Heller). As opposed to militia members having firearms to protect our country in case of invasion. Improbable as a Red Dawn-type occupation of the United States most certainly is.
So, the dotard-in-chief recently got rid of a rule put into place under Obama that restricted some mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. Just because he has to destroy anything that bears Obama's fingerprints. And because he's a Republican, and upholding our "2nd amendment freedoms" is expected of a Republican. Even though, following the Sandy Hook massacre, then not-seeking-to-be-BLOTUS Trump tweeted in SUPPORT of more gun control.
| ...[Trump] had previously criticized Republicans who "walk the NRA line" and wrote in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, that he supported both a "ban on assault weapons" and a "slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun". (Trump Supported Obama's Sandy Hook Massacre Response Calling for Gun Control by Tim Marcin. Newsweek 10/2/2017). |
Now, of course, there will be no support for reasonable gun control legislation. After Newtown, and after Pulse there were calls for such legislation (which a majority of Americans agree with) that went nowhere. I have heard even less from the Democratic side following the Las Vegas shooting.
As per usual, all the talk shows following the shooting did the "somber open" and all the hosts said that THIS time something has to be done. But nothing will be done except for everyone getting somber and offering prayers. Useless shit, in other words. The Democrats staged a sit in last time. Seems that this time there will be no pointless and futile act of protest. The NRA has won. The carnage will continue.
Perhaps, eventually, the American people will come to accept it and eventually agree with Bill O'Reilly? The fired from Fox sexual assaulter said, following the Las Vegas incident, that these kinds of mass shootings are the price of "freedom". The freedom of the gun industry to sell to a (minority) of paranoid and stupid gun nuts as many deadly weapons as they can stockpile.
Apparently the NRA spent 30.3 million on pro-Trump and anti-Hillary ads during the election, which was "the most the NRA has ever spent on an election in history". So obviously Trump, who actually suggested that Pro-Gun-Death folks assassinate HRC if she won, isn't going to go against his "friends" in the NRA.
btw, did you hear that the NRA might be open to legislation banning bump stocks (device that allows auto-firing of a semi-automatic weapon)? Well, that turns out to have been bullshit. Not that it matters, as bump shooting can be accomplished without a bump stock, as a RW sockpuppet calling himself Beantown AntiFascist pointed out to me on the WYD blog.
(Video: How to bump fire a semi-automatic rifle from the waist 1:00).
Here's another video I found where the YouTuber shows how to bump fire from the shoulder. So the Beantown idiot said banning a bump stock was akin to banning a "stick". Although, it appears as though bump firing makes aiming tricky and can be tiring. Obviously the bump stock (while not necessary) does make bump firing easier.
Otherwise why would the Vegas shooter have purchased 12 of them? Why was there a rush on bump stocks following the shooting? As per Newsweek, the bump stock Paddock used (and remember he had 12) cost $389.99 each. I think that even someone completely ignorant when it comes to guns could deduce that bump stocks make bump firing easier. Otherwise why spend so much money to buy one?
And, just because you can't prevent people from doing something does not mean you can't deter them by making it harder (to do what you don't want them to). But if you can't solve a problem completely you shouldn't bother trying to do anything at all. At least that's the Republican take on the situation. That, plus the right to own guns "shall not be infringed", not the right to not be shot and killed by a nut wielding a semi-automatic weapon with a huge clip. That's a right you don't have. Sorry.
Image: Fake quote attributed to Hillary Clinton. Snopes says HRC "wasn't interviewed by the Register on that date, nor was she quoted in the Register on that date". But this is the kind of BS that Right-wing gun nuts and their supporters buy withOUT question.
Firearms used for legitimate hunting of game animals (not humans), shooting activities (shooting competition using targets not people), gun collecting, etc are perfectly fine and reasonable activities. Firearms used responsibly and for purposes such as above should be protected rights and covered by the 2'nd amendment. Period.
ReplyDeleteThat does not, and should not, prevent licensing and regulation of firearms. Uniform national licensing and regulation is needed. No one needs bump stocks, 100 round drums, high capacity magazines, military style "assault" weapons, etc.
Six shoot revolvers, bolt act, pump action, lever action firearms are all that is needed for legitimate hunting and sporting activities.
I stand firm by the rights you seem to abhor. I do believe uniform regulations are necessary and requiring firearm ownership liability linsurance is an idea whose time has come.
I abhor the NRA, their bought and paid for politicians, their bought and paid for pundits and gun nuts who believe the 2nd amendment's "shall not be infringed" means any regulation is unconstitutional.
DeleteWhat you wrote sounds reasonable. Even though I do not own a gun, have no interest in guns and don't understand why anyone would want to kill and gut a wild animal.
As for your idea that gun owners should have liability insurance like with a car... Gun ownership is protected in the Constitution, while owning a car is not... is the gun nut response. Some of whom might say that it's RN who abhors the 2nd amendment.
Some are wrong.
DeletePoliticization of issues by either side, including this one, rather than using common sense to arrive at reasonable, ethical, moral, and workable policies aimed at improving bad situations is insane.
It's a very untenable situation that seems to have been getting progressively worse almost exponentially. As Dervish points out, Operation Fast and Furious began in 2006. Concern about guns in Mexico was pretty high on my list during the same period. The failed ATF operation backfired spectacularly. A better method to combat the flow of arms would have been to limit and control manufacture and sales of these weapons with strong laws. Instead the NRA and its lunatic members on the fringe have deified firearms as something holy. Like the Catholic church opposes contraception and birth control they have opposed any and all efforts to impose modest legislation.
ReplyDeleteWe know basically how large quantities of weapons of every sort necessary to arm a drug cartel are obtained from licensed firearms dealers through basically transparent straw purchases and then smuggled into Mexico. Nothing has been done in the intervening twelve years to combat this scourge.
But, of course, the American public is frankly much more alarmed about the rise of mass shootings. I think that any gun violence with more than two or three victims can be classified as a mass shooting. By this definition it is an almost daily occurrence. But we have seen the numbers and carnage grow until it just staggers the imagination. Columbine, Aurora, Orlando and now for the love of Christ, Las Vegas.
Still nothing. Yes I agree that the NRA is purely evil. They have extensive propaganda, NRA TV, indoctrination of children via Eddie Eagle, supposedly for gun safety. If the adults weren't such twits to leave their guns around for the toddlers and youngsters to play with, we would not need to teach five-year-olds gun safety. Yep, not every member by any stretch, but the political leadership of the NRA and the gun lobby put industry profits ahead of any other considerations. Untold carnage in Mexico, Central America and beyond. Daily gun deaths in the U.S.A. Cold, brutal and heartless.