Hysteria In The Heartland: Guns, Paranoia, and The Probability of The Anti-Christ

I wholeheartedly agree.  Although one has to wonder about the ability of these gun owners to remember anything.  The NRA keeps doing this and it works every time.  You'd think more people would pause and say "wait a minute..I remember 4 years ago they said the same thing...and nothing happened!"

Ah well, I guess the use of fear still works on a lot of these gun owners.  The good thing was that similar fear mongering was rejected by a majority of those who voted this year.

   Same thing with the minimum wage doom and gloom every time. Clinton got the same treatment. I am a Democrat own guns some of them my Granfather used. I do not hunt anymore because of the lunatics out there that shoot at anything that moves. In my early life we hunted but for food on the table. I do not fear Democrats will ever take a gun from anyone in this country. Let them keep shooting themselves in the foot with this fear tactic or fear tactics. They are just hurting themselves.

we got the useless assault weapons ban the last time a dem was in office...

A dose of skepticism and a good education could do wonders.

Aw! 

Bluekilgoretrout was obviously rubbing his hands together in anticipation of a good old fashioned brawl here on his thread!  And I was ready and willing to jump in on the dirty pile!

But look what happened.

I started reading the comments and (lo and behold!) found myself agreeing with SpoxLogic, someone I usually disagree with! 

You'd think more people would pause and say "wait a minute..I remember 4 years ago they said the same thing...and nothing happened!"

Ah well, I guess the use of fear still works on a lot of these gun owners.

Holy Cow, Spox.  Fist bump to you.

:-P

What would anybody expect from the NRA, essentially the political lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing industry?

I know, I know, there are millions of card-carrying NRA members who pay their dues, but if you check the NRA's balance sheet it will become clear that there is far more than membership dues behind the financing of the NRA. 

If you need an explanation for what seems to many to by the absolutist position of the NRA (i.e., opposition to laws regulating machine guns), look no further than the money trail.

I would never equate the Second Amendment with the NRA.

With that said, I have been quite pleased with the calm and reasonable discourse in response to my inquiry.

A testament to your fine authorship skills.

bilgewater!

Why the sudden increase in gun and ammo sales?  Easy answer.  Fear.  Every time a Democrat wins an election, the NRA leads the charge... claiming that the Democrats are trying to take away your guns.

Bunk!

True.

False.

When the Democrats stop pushing through illogical restriction to legal firearm ownership, then the NRA and the Republicans will have no case to make in order to instill the fear.

I'm not sure why you say that jimmy, the NRA fights pretty much any attempt to restrict the legal ownership of firearms.

Now I believe that education should be mandatory for all gun owners. Anyone who wants a gun permit should be required to go down to the range for a gun safety course that includes hands-on training with each type of arm.

In an armed society, even non-owners are going to come into contact with firearms. Why restrict the education to owners? It should be universal.

I prefer mandatory mixers.................... or enforced morning coffee clatches, or community clean up day and all must participate, mandatory soup kitchen duty, mandatory school crossing guard rotations. If you know them, it is a bit harder to treat them with overt hostility.

those prone to the behavior would be easily identifiable and eventually find themselves "apart" from the rest.

You can't stop every act of violence, but we can help each other to get through them.

Griff69...

"Eloquent"?  ;-)

You seem to think that all guns should be available to all gun owners.  I disagree.  An assault weapon is not a device for hunting... and, as far as shooting at targets... if you need multiple firings to hit the mark, your aim is bad.

What troubles me is your comment:

To me, that's a net win, especially since I won't comply with the assault weapons ban anyway.

So... you are advertising the fact that you will defy the law, if it comes to that?  What other laws will you ignore?

An assault weapon is not a device for hunting

Well, sort of correct. "Assault weapon" is a made up term for a gun that resembles an assault rifle, but isn't one. However, assault rifles are not primarily designed for hunting; you are correct.

if you need multiple firings to hit the mark, your aim is bad.

Or you have multiple targets.

What other laws will you ignore?

Any and all laws that conflict with the Supreme Law of the Land.

Let's rephrase the question. Let's assume for a moment that DC goes even further off the tracks than it has up till now, and decides to ban the word "crimson." Crimson is basically red, right, so it's no big deal. Just comply with their idiocy and use the word red instead of crimson, right?

Or, how about Bush's lovely "free speech zones"? That's a minor inconvenience too, right?

Caving in to stupidity does no one any good. If we don't have the intestinal fortitude to call them on their bull@!$%#, they just keep going until they hit something that isn't a minor inconvenience.

Griff69...

Any and all laws that conflict with the Supreme Law of the Land.

I guess you're referring to the Constitution.

And, by claiming that the law is in conflict, whose interpretation would you use?  Do you get to pick and choose the laws you ignore?

All this is semantics anyway.  Obama is not taking away your guns.

Oh... as to this:

if you need multiple firings to hit the mark, your aim is bad.

Or you have multiple targets

Shoot one, then reload.  It's not 'sport' if you're spraying gunfire in a wide arc... that's overkill.

I like my AR15...

as far as assault weapons... it only takes one bullet to kill... so what if the weapon is pretty so what?

a model 700 REM is a hunting rifle ... and is perferred by marine snipers. do we ban bolt actions too... because they are used in war?

As long as the source of said happiness, doesn't entail wearing someone's skin like a dress:)

I'd draw the line well before that point, but you did make me snort coffee... And on the slope, I'm not so sure it is unfounded. If we as a whole had stood up and slapped Bush when he attempted his first violation, would he have pulled so many others? We've been lying back and taking it for ages. I've reached my limit, but that's a very personal decision. YMMV.

Dave:
It's not 'sport' if you're spraying gunfire in a wide arc... that's overkill.

Who's talking about sports?

Griff69...

Dave: It's not 'sport' if you're spraying gunfire in a wide arc... that's overkill.

Who's talking about sports?

Two primary reasons to own guns: hunting and target/skeet shooting.

Hunting is considered a 'sport' by those involved, ergo the term 'sportsmen'.

Target/skeet shooting is often a sanctioned, competitive 'sport'.

Now... as to my other question.  You said:

Any and all laws that conflict with the Supreme Law of the Land.

To which I replied:

I guess you're referring to the Constitution.

And, by claiming that the law is in conflict, whose interpretation would you use?  Do you get to pick and choose the laws you ignore?

Care to elaborate?

Two primary reasons to own guns: hunting and target/skeet shooting.

I do neither of those, and find the concept of a "reason to own guns" offensive. Do you need a reason to need free speech or a free press?

Care to elaborate?

On my way into a meeting, but I shall return.

All right... you don't like 'reason'.  How about:

• purpose
• motivation
• rationale
• incentive
• aim
• goal
• intention
• logic
• justification
• raison d'etre

Take your pick... but you understand the meaning.

I do neither of those,

Do you even own a gun?  If so, and you don't hunt or shoot at targets... how do you know you would hit your intended target? 

What would you use a gun for if you don't go target shooting or hunting?  Scaring the neighborhood kids off the lawn?  If you use it for self defense without target shooting, you're (quite literally) a loose cannon.

Take your pick... but you understand the meaning.

I do indeed, and, as I said, it's an offensive question. You neglected to answer mine, by the way. What's your reason for needing freedom of speech?

On target shooting, I guess I interpreted your slash a bit too literally. I do not shoot skeet or targets competitively or as a sport. I do shoot at targets for practice, which is hardly a reason to own a gun. It's merely one part of the responsibilities that come with gun ownership.

Now to get back to:
And, by claiming that the law is in conflict, whose interpretation would you use? Do you get to pick and choose the laws you ignore?

It's written in English, so I don't need an interpreter. Neither would anyone reading this thread if they were to be honest with themselves. Is English so hard to comprehend? (Well, for us normal folk, anyway. We know Bush has problems with it.) It's the lawyers and the politicians who pretend that we need someone to read it to us. As for the picking and choosing, ideally, no. Ideally, the states determined whether a given dictate was lawful or not. However, idealism lost out a long time ago. Let me ask you, Dave: the same government has also decided that your right to free speech exists only in certain designated areas. Does that violate the Constitution? Do you abide by that restriction?

I see people dancing around the elephant in the room when we talk about assault rifle bans.

Having just thrown off the yoke of oppression held by our English masters, our Founding Fathers were not about to set themselves up for another revolution thirty of forty of two hundred thirty two years down the line. One strong reason for the second was to put the fear of open revolution into government officials should they stray from safety of the Constitutional harbor.

My position is that within reason, any mentally whole, non felon should be able to own any weapon they want. All ammunition should be traceable back to the user. If the time comes for me to fight an American dictator, I won't be home anyway.

I don't think civilians should be buying tanks or machine guns or any weapon that can do mass and indicriminate damage in a ridiculously short period of time, but that's about where I draw the line.

Would you say a semi-automatic weapon with 30+ clip is necessary?  I don't know of any state that allows more than 5 rounds in a high-powered weapon.  I'm not sure states have any problems with .22s but I don't know.  My 22 is a single shot that my dad bought from Monkey wards when I was 8, almost 60 years ago.  Federal law limits number or rounds in shotguns for waterfowl.

I don't really think many people are capable of shooting a handgun accurately more than the first two times so why a 15 round magazine?  You will reply that people take classes to shoot a handgun, great but that is in a very, very controlled environment, right.  Could they hit the broadside of a barn with someone point a gun at them?? Most likely not, it takes consistent training like given in the service or in law enforcement.

My folks have a .22 with a banana clip that is semi-auto.  Yes, it is somewhat overkill, and my dad hunts.  I just go out back and target shoot. 

I also think you're right on the accuracy of a handgun that is semi-auto.  My friend got a .50 Desert Eagle.  It's supposedly semi-automatic.  It would be a bad idea to fire that in semi-automatic fashion.

Griff69...

One more attempt at this and I'll bow out.

There are certain reasons why someone would own a gun... two of which I laid out earlier: hunting or target shooting (skeet or stationary).  You said earlier (#2.13) that you do neither. 

Of course, there are other reasons to own a gun, including protection and law enforcement... as well as other illegitimate purposes. 

A semi-automatic weapon is not suited for hunting.  It's overkill, akin to fishing with dynamite.

Semis are not appropriate for target shooting.  If you can't hit the target with the first or second shot... then you have bad aim,  You don't get to throw a half-dozen basketballs at the foul line.

Let me ask you, Dave: the same government has also decided that your right to free speech exists only in certain designated areas. Does that violate the Constitution? Do you abide by that restriction?

Ah, yes... the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' bit.  That does not violate the Constitution, nor does a restriction on the type of speech in certain circumstances.  Making threatening remarks, for example, is not acceptable speech... and is appropriately citable.  I also cannot simply walk into the House chamber uninvited and tell Speaker Pelosi how I feel. 

Do I abide?  Of course.

Own guns if you wish.  You have that right, and President Obama is not going to take them away, no matter what the NRA says.  Wayen LaPierre is just out to make a buck.

Ah, yes... the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' bit.

No, definitely not that bit. I was referring to our lovely "Free Speech Zones". The fire thing, as you point out, is not a violation of free speech.

On the reasons, you're clearly not going to answer my question, so I would agree. It seems time to drop it and move on.

    Since the NRA is the mouthpiece of the arms dealers panic is reward to their owners. I care less about these people who are so panic stricken that they have to run out and buy guns and some of it is not just because they think Democrats will take away their rights to own one. There is talk that has been around for years that ultimately there is either going to be anothe war between the states or a war between the races. Either is far from the truth but some people believe that. They have been hyped up so bad in this election this is not surprising. Some of us cannot see beyond the nose on our face and that is unfortunate.

     In the midst of economic failure bailouts unemployment debt and all the rest things like abortion gay rights and guns have no place in my thoughts at present.

availablity of resources, equally, should be of concern to you. As prices rise........and if there were an event that impeded reciept of "food" resources, what would be the outcome?  Can this nation feed itself?  And if confidence in quality and safety of food stuffs falls, can we feed ourselves?

while harshly put, I guess that is what I am saying.  But I would be more inclined to say that there are many citizens, as you can read around the vine, that are showing fears that there is not enough.  Not enough brings out the worst in people.  Add to that Paulson's comment yesterday (finally in a strange way) that the worst is upon us, and it will improve, slowly, but the worst is past.  That being said just previous to the hearing with the big 3 auto.  Don't you think he showed a bit of his wroing thinking? or was his comment intentional in redirecting perceptions that this will get worse?

Many other sources state it will.  And given the neglect of information that tells us just where how we are doing, I see it as a trickle out of our true circumstances.....isn't it time that someone step up and say ............we are fine, our resources are in keepiong with our needs?

No one is saying that that I have read........and in the past that is one of the first publicly calming sitations to address.

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reassurance for the very unsettled public while these kinds of staements seem to be on the rise (the gun rights stuff).

Blue, assuage is the perfect word, and it doesn't do justice to the reality of your agreement with me.........I wanted someone to say, your wrong, we'll be fine..........but I never get that answer anymore:(  from anyone who speaks reasonably.

I am beginning to get it, albeit to late, that I need to have a preparedness for the lack of reassurances.  Wow, I said that with a great deal of continued denial didn't I:)

saw this the other day.............. in terrorizing for change?

http://khlawake.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/19/2127424-is-time-magazine-priming-the-pump-for-a-dead-bin-laden

no but dems have the white house and congress, they will be passing bills lots of us will not like.

Maybe they're buying guns cause that's what they learned at the p a l i n rall ies?

Thank you for illustrating my point, Brian.

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF LAWFUL GUN-OWNERS AND HUNTERS WHILE CHAMPIONING COMMON-SENSE MEASURES TO CRACK DOWN ON GUN VIOLENCE

The devout Dems read that as "I support the Second Amendment" and ignore the last part. The devout Reps read it as "blah blah blah, WHILE CHAMPIONING COMMON-SENSE MEASURES TO take your rifles!" Neither can understand how the other can't read plain English.

Okay, so if you insist on reading that as some kind of dire implication, maybe will help.

I would have no objections whatsoever to a crackdown on gun violence, if one were ever proposed. The "assault weapon" ban, which I believe you're referring to, was not a crackdown on gun violence; it was a crackdown on gun ownership. Those are two very different things.

Or am I mistaken? Where you aiming somewhere other than the ban?

Interesting... the link I inserted, and the text that linked to it were deleted from the post. 

Heres another attempt: 

Brian, you're probably stuck in the "greenhouse" which prevents new members from posting links. Contact the admins and they can break you out early.

Thanks, Griff. That must be the problem.

And let me say, also, that I sincerely appreciate that you are able to engage in debate sensibly, without resorting to hysterics or mudslinging. That is extremely rare in an online forum, and what most people who engage in this type of discourse fail to see is that it makes their opinion much easier to consider and respect. 

blue I think I need to refill your clinton coolaid glass...

here! here!  this non conformist drank tons of the poison, which is actually the correct statement.  Red#5 really had it's effect on us little bugers.:)

I had to give it up.........could be envy:(

The right to own a gun and the ability to use it safely, wisely and legally I think are rather two different things.

If you take out legally, then I would disagree. I believe the responsibility to use it safely and wisely accompanies the right to it.

That oh-so-very diplomatic response made me lol. Thanks, Bluekilgoretrout.

And, btw, may I call you BKT? It takes so long to write it out. :-)

Never thought of that. Kinda creepy. Bluekilgoretrout it is! (I'll copy and paste.)

pj, I spent several years in that confusion.   networks.........I got very apathetic........cable (not so much) but fox............on the edge of my chair, quick switch to network........feel better.....!!!!!!!!!!!!arrrghhhhhhhhh!

I don't watch so much anymore. HEalth has improved, and I learn a lot more on informational sites, read more and talk to others with greater ease and a more centered understanding of our lovely nation, and world:)  And now live with the understanding that we know very little about anything our leaders are doing, and why the do it.  But it is a lot more interesting to find my own facts.

Not at all, Bluekilgoretrout.

KL, an excellent way to live one's life. Kudos.

Driving down the road today, I heard a commercial for a local gun show, and the taglline at the end was, "get your guns while you still can." No real point to that anecdote, I just found it amusing that the people marketing guns are now playing into the fear.

 Gun shows are not "playing into that fear" they're creating it as a marketing tool. The technique is not subliminal outside a Palin rally.

"the fact that it's illegal won't stop someone from getting one if he wants to rob a bank."

Who needs a gun to rob a bank?  Look around you, nobody needed a gun to get 7 0 0  billio out of the t axpayers....

We've been robbed and it was a sneak attack---pay no attentionto the man behind the curtain huh--nobody pointed any guns at us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZiWd0bGAdc

I just read who owns Wiki.......can't remember now.

I like this Max Keiser fellow. He's Crazy.

Maybe he'll be Glenn Beck's econ correspondent.

And another thing... for the record, this fundamentalist Christian does not think Obama is the AntiChrist.  (I really hate that picture by the way, but it illustrates the article in a twisted way.)  Have a good day!  : )

Yes, there are some bad guys down here no doubt.  I'm living what I believe.  My husband and I minister down here.  We develop programs with mission churches to feed children, body soul and spirit.  We also have a Bible school we have developed to train leadership.  I would rather be with my grandchild in Houston, but I know this is where I belong, and I do it gladly.  You did a good job BKT.  Well written with just the right bite.  I had to take a little election break before hand.  I understand completely.

: )

Thank you for your service.

I could see a civil war but hopefully we only get extremist groups forming terror cells. It's a horrible possibility that Americans will again kill Americans. There are some whose fear and loathing are being whipped into a frenzy by Fox News and Right-wing radio.

Lord help us but there could be a negative image of the 60's liberal radicalism. We have to be weary of right-wing dead-enders.

but fear is good to use when you want to take away rights for more 'protection'

However, none are better then those in A POSITION TO BRING TO FRUITION! oh, say, like a president and his henchman.

if we don't recognize the who then we are heading into a blind spot. One more blind spot and we are fighting for our lives again.

I'm not quite sure I understand where you went with that. Yes, a President and his henchman can use fear most effectively, but my point is the who is the whoever is in power.

Bush and Rove...................

I figured you were going with the current occupants, but again I stress my point that the next President and henchmen or henchwomen will likely use the same tactic you despise. Will you condemn them with as much fervor as you do President Bush and Karl Rove?

Why wouldn' t I identify what the current administion is doing?  Don't you hold accoutable those who hold the strings?  And the answer to the second question is.........you bet your sweet ass!  I am an American, this is our country, he will be held to the same standard as any President who leads this republic....Party @!$%# is going to ruin us.

 Don't you hold accoutable those who hold the strings?

Sure. If a person has a hand in or is in someway responsible for the wrongful actions then I most certainly hold them accountable.

Party @!$%# is going to ruin us.

Agreed.