Guns in America…
“Want cream or a gun with that latte?” Starbucks allows you to have a gun with your bad coffee when the gun isn’t expressly prohibited by state law. While I don’t expect anyone to shoot the barista because the company’s coffee is so bad, allowing guns seems a bad policy. Of course, it’s bad policy to allow people to carry guns in the first place, no matter where you live (OK, maybe on the edge of Damascus, but they won’t help you against sarin gas). Only people in special occupations should carry guns. Period!
Recent cases around the U.S. present good evidence for gun control. A disaster like what happened in Newtown would have occurred in Decatur, Georgia, if the school accountant hadn’t talked that mental case into putting down his weapons. She earned my complete admiration. But she, or anyone else, shouldn’t have to do that. The crazy dude stole his automatic weapon from a neighbor. Why did the neighbor have an automatic weapon? Because he could. It’s his right to have it for target practice (Why not something more challenging than a target shredder? Why shouldn’t the range only allow rented guns?) and hunting (Can we equip the deer and other game with something as lethal against humans?).
I grew up with guns, but, living here in the tri-state area, I’ve seen too many lives lost or ruined by gun violence—inexcusable, because none of the legitimate uses of guns existed in these cases. We have more lives lost to gun violence than just about any other country in the world, including those in civil war like Syria (I don’t count casualties to gas attacks). We are at civil war with ourselves and people are dying. Sure, traffic fatalities outnumber gun fatalities. But these are accidents even if they just involve idiots going to gun shows and texting about it as they run into a semi-truck (Darwinian evolution?). It might be urban folklore, but I like the story of the man that kept a loaded gun on his nightstand and shot himself thinking that he was answering his phone (Darwinian evolution).
Ever been to a gun show? You’ll see dudes and dudettes walking the aisles starry-eyed and in a near orgasmic state as they view the latest weapons. There are men who see guns as an extension of their penises. There are women who simply want a penis (although, considering some of the men they play with, they might need those guns for self-protection—everybody knows restraining orders don’t work). Many people there just want to buy a weapon without all the bureaucracy of background checks and mental health certificates (remember, the guy at Virginia Tech bought his weapon at a gun show). Sure, there are “normal people” there too, maybe wondering why the others aren’t in straitjackets in a padded cell.
The Second Amendment says we can arm militias. We do—they’re called National Guards. Forget about the neo-nazis and other folksy militias comprised of people who think the U.N. will take over, swooping down on everyone in their black helicopters. They aren’t legal, or shouldn’t be. Yet the NRA supports all this crap. Nowadays, they’re a well-tempered alloy controlled by ultra-conservatives, ex-John Birchers (more than ultra), and gun-show fanatics (with or without penis envy), supported by their media bunch, Fox News. Their standard line to friends and families of victims of gun violence? “We’re so sorry, but it’s our Second Amendment rights at stake.” This is, if fact, an obscene interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that the Grim Reaper gladly supports with a vicious chortle.
Consider the Colorado recalls. The NRA has turned them into a national referendum on gun violence prevention. They know that big wins here could paralyze common sense legislation in other states. They might win. State Senate President John Morse is especially vulnerable. He’s come under heavy fire (pardon the metaphor) from the NRA and Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity (aka ultra-conservatives), not just for his leadership on gun violence prevention, but for leading the state Senate to pass civil unions, supporting Obamacare, and more. Conservatives are openly talking about their “wave of fear” strategy—beat Morse in this recall and hold him up as an example of what will happen to other legislators if they take on the powerful NRA.
It’s a free country and we permit groups like the NRA, but I hold conservatives in general and the NRA in particular responsible for the lives wasted and ruined because of their ill-conceived and wrongly interpreted adherence to the Second Amendment. If we can’t get rid of the NRA, we can at least boycott every legislator, every PAC, and every company like Starbucks that collaborates with the NRA. If their funding disappears, they will shrivel and die, and that would be a good thing for the country. Reasonable gun violence prevention must be enacted if this nation is going to survive. Attack the NRA when and where you can, because they’re the ones most responsible for destroying the country, not those U.N. helicopters.
And so it goes….
[If you enjoyed this post, please support this blog: buy, read, and review some of my books.]
September 3rd, 2013 at 10:02 am
Why is it that when two dozen kids get gunned down the reaction is basically that their 2nd Amendment rights are too important to actually do anything meaningful about preventing the next one, but they will “happily allow the government to snoop into their lives via reading emails and accessing their library records and monitoring the websites they visit” because a.) they have “nothing to hide” and b.) it MIGHT prevent (not WILL, but MIGHT) the next 9/11?
I bewailed that loss of freedom and loss of privacy back then, telling people that it was a slippery slope and once you give up that to the government, it will be that much easier for them to take the next steps. I suppose that’s the same argument that the 2nd Amendment folks are sticking to in their heads…
(Did I use “bewail” right? It was one of my son’s vocab words this week…;-) )
September 5th, 2013 at 10:46 am
Hi Scott,
Bewail is fine–sort of a super-bemoan? The kids and teachers lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School generated a different “basic response” than you indicated. About 90% of the country was in favor of more gun control, at least putting limits to gun shows and outlawing automatic weapons and high-capacity cartridges. It’s really pathetic that Congress didn’t do anything, but we know why–our senators and reps are in bed with the NRA in an incestuous relationship that perverts the very meaning of democracy. Of course, lobbyists and special interests do this in general. And it doesn’t do any good to vote the bums out, because the new bums hop right into bed with the NRA all over again. Sick, sick, sick….
The sad thing is that gun fanatics have mis-interpreted the Second Amendment. Remember that one of the things that pissed off American colonists was that the British tried to disarm their militias–at Lexington and Concord those militiamen won the day, of course. The consequence was that the Founding Fathers put that amendment in so that no American government could disarm the militias. That’s a far cry from saying that ANY citizen has the right to carry a weapon–we have armed militias and they’re called National Guards!
Take care,
Steve
September 5th, 2013 at 11:27 am
True, overall most people were at least for limiting some types of weapons but there were still those who felt that their “2nd Amendment Rights” trumped the potential for massive loss of life. And it seemed to me that those were the same people who were saying it was all right for the government to spy on all of us to prevent future terrorist attacks, saying that they didn’t have anything to hide. It just seems like, hey, whatever’s convenient.
September 5th, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Hi Scott,
It’s “Whatever’s convenient, never mind the logic.” I used to find it surprising how many people run around with notions in their heads that are mutually contradictory. I don’t find it so surprising anymore. A computer would freeze with these internal contradictions in its logic circuits!
On the other hand, I suppose my take on the NSA stuff is contradictory to my general progressive outlook on life? While I recognize we should have a healthy debate on how much the government knows about our private lives, I’m all for certain analyses of message traffic flow as a means of protection against terrorist activities. Many people believe that this shouldn’t happen but allow data-mining by Google and other corporations and post all their private info on social networks. If Google can do it, why not the NSA? The latter’s intentions are more life and death than the former’s, to be sure.
The fiction writer, methinks, must build some of these illogical manifestations into the portrayal of their characters, because, after all, it’s so common…and so human.
r/Steve