Saturday, December 22, 2012

Thanks, NRA cowards, for the Connecticut bloodbath

By Marc McDonald


Thanks, NRA, for fighting any meaningful regulations that could help keep guns out of the hands of the violent and mentally ill. Thanks to you, guns can be bought in America as easily as a loaf of bread.

We also appreciate your work on ferociously opposing the Brady Act (which Ronald Reagan, by the way, supported). Rest assured, though, despite your crazy, paranoid fantasies, NO meaningful action will be taken on guns in the aftermath of this latest horrible bloodbath.

Thanks to you, dozens, if not hundreds of more children will be brutally slaughtered in the decades to come.

The NRA truly is a cowardly organization. For example, they cowered under a rock and waited nearly five days to offer any kind of response to the Connecticut bloodbath. How chickenshit is that? If they had the courage of their convictions, they would have spoken up sooner.

If you're sick of the slaughter, consider boycotting the companies that are affiliated with the NRA.

And consider signing this petition which aims to pressure the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns.

How easy is it to get a gun in today's America? Consider this (as noted by columnist William Rivers Pitt):

Facts: Colorado, Oregon and Wisconsin allow guns on college campuses. Mississippi likewise allows guns on college campuses, as well as in secondary schools, polling places, churches, passenger terminals at airports, and bars. Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia, Virginia and Ohio also allow guns in bars. You can shoot a gun in Missouri when you're drunk, and as long as it's considered to be in "self-defense," you're within your rights. In Vermont, you can sell a pistol to a 16-year old kid. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona, Tennessee and Alaska have all passed laws saying that guns made in-state are not subject to federal regulations. The Florida "Stand Your Ground" law has gotten a lot of attention after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, but 24 other states besides Florida have enacted similar laws.

A violent felon in Minnesota can regain their gun ownership rights if they successfully petition the court about having "good cause." In Ohio, a violent felon can retain their gun rights if they prove to a court that they have led a "law-abiding life." You can get your guns back in Georgia and Nebraska even if you've committed manslaughter and armed robbery, and in Montana, your guns will be returned to you if you didn't use a gun when you committed your crime. That seems to fly in the face of the old saw that says, "If you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns."

(Cross-posted at BeggarsCanBeChoosers.)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

7 Comments:

  • news flash CT has an AWB that is in effect and has since 1994. Its neighbor MA also has one in effect.

    Draw your own conclusions as to effect.

    Eck!

    By Blogger Eck!, at 9:24 PM  

  • @Eck! - And what exactly is your point? The NRA is against any and all limits to gun ownership. If they thought they could get any support for it, they would be lobbying for open carry of flame throwers.

    I tend to agree that assault weapons bans won't be that helpful. But I do think that outlawing magazines with more than 10 rounds would go a long way to limiting the damage done in shootings like this. I also think that demilitarizing the country could help with our 11,000+ gun killings and 16,000+ gun suicides every year.

    So I ask again: what is your point?

    By Anonymous Frank Moraes, at 11:06 PM  

  • What Frank said.

    Although I do think that an assault weapons ban would be helpful in sending a clear message that these sorts of weapons (of mass destruction) are simply not acceptable. There is simply no reason for them to exist other than for military purposes (and even then I wish they weren't necessary). It's either paranoia or fetishism (or both).

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 12:18 AM  

  • Hi Eck, I'm unclear about something. Maybe you could clarify. Are you in favor of any restrictions at all on guns?
    If you believe the 2nd Amendment forbids any restrictions at all, how about other forms of arms? (note that the 2nd Amendment mentions arms, not guns).
    If you don't believe that all arms should be legal, then which arms would you want banned and why?
    If the 2nd Amendment forbids any restrictions on arms, then should people be able to buy a shoulder-fired missile launcher that can take out a Blackhawk helicopter?
    BTW, I've heard other NRA enthusiasts says "Yes" to the previous question---I wanted your opinion on it, as well.

    By Blogger Marc McDonald, at 12:30 AM  

  • First, if you want a conversation leave the hyperbole home.

    Flame throwers, machine guns, sholder fired rockets, black copters and a long list of things are restricted. They weren't used in CT.

    The problem is we have restrictions and in spades. Their poorly written and often outright unenforceable. The rest are only meant to impact those that will comply.

    I don't currently own, I am not NRA member. I have shot many a weapon in controlled situations including hunting and of many types. My lack of ownership is due to the rather wacked out laws of MA that are a minefield to traverse to have a shotgun for trap and skeet.
    I was not saying we should or should not restrict, only that there were laws that do restrict and they failed, yet again. What law do criminals or the criminally insane obey?

    CT has An AWB, the horror happened there the AWB didn't work not because of the NRA because of someone that didn't care about the law at all.

    There is also the federal law of no guns within 1000ft of schools, and a shopping list of others all violated by the alleged [cant leave that out can we] criminal. What new law will work.

    I can hear the chorus now, ban all guns. Well criminals have them already. Australia has a huge black market problem after their ban. If need be they can be made we have had that ability to do that for the last 300+ years. Don't tell me that banning gunpowder is the solution either as compressed air is cheaper and unregulated (air rifles are also 300 years old)
    and yes there are such things as high powered air rifles. If you think hard you realize that alternate weapons are at hand every day and the criminal will just use another. To that I offer that knives, clubs, bats, gasoline, rope are just a sample of those choices for those that wish to maim or destroy.

    limiting magazine capacity, doesnt sufficiently change things. First you have to understand how those weapons work so you can understand that 30 in one or three 10round magazines is not a significant difference save for the 30s are more likely to jam. The time to change a mag is about that of a fast runner going 8 feet about 2 sends for an old lady like me.

    The down side is If I want a weapon for person defense your laws on magazines will means rather than a light .380 with 10 rounds I'll use a compact .45 with 5 round as the goal of defense ifs to stop an attacker and one of those pumped up meth heads can soak up a lot of bullets before dropping. Oh right,
    I'd be paranoid to have one for that reason. That assumes I'd have one for personal defense of my home from druggies, and other criminals.

    All those laws and bans affect the law abiding, not the criminal. The criminal by definition doesn't care.

    So when do the ad hominem attacks start?


    Eck!

    By Blogger Eck!, at 9:15 PM  

  • Eck!

    It's not hyperbole, and I make no ad hominem attack against you. The question (irrespective of CT) is what "arms" can be banned. According to the 2nd Amendemnt, you have the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has (wrongfully) discounted the need to be part of a militia in order for this right to be in effect.

    My arms of choice are RPG launchers and nuclear warheads (please read this with the appropriate amount of sarcasm and irony). Does this mean I can rightfully possess and bear them?

    Rights are not absolute. In fact, we effectively limit virtually every one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd. And it's the NRA's never-ending crusade to keep those rights absolute that will continue to end in bloodshed, mayhem and death. The NRA cries out about the "slippery slope" of limiting any arms. I cry out about the freefall of our society from one where civility and safety are the concern to one of gun-slinging vigilantism.

    I'm not familiar with MA's laws, so I can't determine whether or not I agree that they're "wacked". What I can say is that we're better off having legislation at the federal level as this is a constitutional debate, not a states-rights issue.

    Thanks.

    By Anonymous MarineVet, at 6:43 AM  

  • MarineVet,

    We do limit the 2nd already. I can't buy a lot of things. And in the state of MA many common handguns are banned and the AWB puts limits in place. So the 2nd like the 1st
    is already limited. Here, and now If I want a single shot shotgun its about the same level of effort to get a permit for concealed carry.

    The Firearms act of 1934, the Guncontrol act of 1968 and so on are not just myth.

    Right now the question of flame throwers, RPGs, tactical nukes are not the question but common rifles and handguns are. I'd like to stick to the ones we can actually buy. If only because there are some that want and believe we should not be able to buy even a lowly .22 bolt action single shot or a 12ga Trap/skeet gun.

    As to my comments on hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, I've grown to expect them. Its not personal to you. I'll bet I'm older than you and due to a technical career likely more on line time (active on Arpanet). I've learned to assume there will be those that will go off the end and do both.


    Eck!

    By Blogger Eck!, at 5:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home