Frankly, that reaction is getting more than a little tiresome no matter what one’s religious beliefs might be. When terrorists used airplanes as missiles against the United States in 2011, we didn’t just pray for the victims: we changed our entire airline security system, spent billions on a new homeland security bureaucracy, and invaded not one but two countries at gigantic cost to life and treasure. When the Ebola virus threatened to break out in the United States we didn’t pray for deliverance from the plague; we went into a collective public policy and media frenzy to stop it from spreading further. When earthquakes prove our building standards are inadequate to save lives, we don’t beg the gods to avert catastrophe and pray for the victims; we spend inordinate amounts of [money] to retrofit so it doesn’t happen again.
On every major piece of public policy in which lives are taken needlessly, we don’t limit ourselves to empty prayers for the victims. We actually do something to stop it from happening again.
But not when it comes to gun proliferation. On that issue we are told that nothing can be done, and that all we can do is mourn and pray for the murdered and wounded, even as we watch the news every day for our next opportunity to grieve and mourn and pray again–all while sitting back and watching helplessly.
I’ve heard and read any number of times that with God anything is possible. How than, is it not possible to do something about the killing of innocent people because of guns? And don’t give me that bullshit about people kill, not guns. Guns were designed to be efficient killing machines. If that logic escapes you, then go back to your booze while beating your fist on the bar, because I’ve got better things to do than argue with a brain dead chem-zombi. And if you don’t drink I’ll not argue with a religo-zombi. Both are dead to the world around them.
Praying for God to do something is laziness. He’s given us paths. Those who’ve made the effort to get into positions of power are just too chicken shit to actually walk them. They are too worried about not getting their money from the (wholly owned and operated by the gun manufacturing lobby) NRA to actually do their job and protect their constituents.
America’s escalating reliance on firearms as a means of settling petty arguments ratcheted up another level this weekend, when at least five biker gangs engaged in an all-out gun battle in Waco, Texas. The matter at issue: a parking spot. At least nine bikers were killed, and dozens more injured.
The original antagonists were the Cossacks Motorcycle Club of Texas, and the Bandidos Motorcycle Club, though at least three other motorcycle clubs from the Dallas/Forth Worth area rushed to the scene and participated in the shooting. The scene of the shootout was a parking lot of a shopping mall in Waco, where the Twin Peaks Restaurant (think Hooters, but with a less suggestive name) serves as a biker hangout. Management of the restaurant hosts a Bikers Night promotion every Thursday, and local police are so familiar with disputes arising between biker gangs at this restaurant, that they were at hand before Sunday’s shootout began. In the end, though, the Waco police were unwilling or unable to mobilize their paramilitary forces to stop the shooting, though the police do report that several officers exchanged gunfire with the bikers and may have injured or killed some of them.
A couple of studies floated to the surface last year in the debate about ammosexuality that I found interesting, not so much for what they concluded — we all sort of knew this stuff instinctually — but for the implicit underlying meaning when you put two and two together
We now have an opportunity to meet the “Good Guy” Wayne La Pierre, the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, is always talking about. You know the La Pierre motto: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by a good guy with a gun.”
Meet Robert Wilcox, age 31, of Las Vegas, Nevada, a Good Guy with a concealed weapon who happened to be in a Las Vegas Wal-Mart store when Jerad Miller entered the store, heavily armed, and announced that all shoppers who didn’t want to get hurt should leave now. Wilcox did not leave. Instead, he walked up to Miller, intending to shoot and kill him with his concealed weapon. Unknown to Mr. Wilcox, Jerad Miller had an accomplice in the store, his wife Amanda, who saw what was about to happen, and shot Robert Wilcox in the chest, killing him instantly. Continue reading →
By now, you’ve read or heard about the terrible tragedy in Santa Barbara last week: some rich white kid shot up a college campus apparently missed the one thing that would validate his entire existence. Continue reading →
One of Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt’s favorite talking points is that “of the mass murders in the last 20 years, all but one have taken place in a gun free zone.” (That statistic is just plainwrong, but that’s another story). Speaking with a conservative radio host in Idaho this week, Pratt delved into the one shooting that he counts as an “exception” to this nonexistent trend: the 2011 shooting at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ “Congress on your Corner” event at a mall in Tucson, which left six dead and Giffords critically injured. Giffords and the constituents who came to talk with her – including a nine-year-old-girl and a Republican-appointed federal judge — had it coming, Pratt implies, because “it was a Democrat town hall meeting of a Democrat representative” and Democrats “don’t necessarily, most of them, believe in carrying guns.”…. “And so when this dirtbag attacked a town hall meeting,” Pratt continues, “he didn’t find any resistance and he was able to kill a number of people there.”
Just when I manage to convince myself that there’s NO POSSIBLE WAY that gun nuts could POSSIBLY find a way to be anymore offensive, mean-spirited, and dismissive of those who’ve lost loved ones to gun violence, I learn all over again that this is a barrel with no bottom. So many gun nuts believe that their gun “rights” trump any and all considerations- even human life. That so many gun nuts are also arch-Conservatives who oppose abortion (where the claim to be “pro-life”) under any circumstances is laughable. That these trolls lack the self-awareness to recognize that contradiction is indicative of just how dangerously inhuman they can be.
Larry Pratt is merely the latest (and most egregious) example of what verbal vomit can spew forth when a gun nuts puts their mouth in gear before engaging their brain and sense of humanity. Or perhaps they really DON’T care about the suffering of others. Perhaps Pratt and those who think like him really DO consider the massacre of innocent civilians to be merely the cost of freedom and not a problem…as long as someone else is burying their loved ones.
It’s difficult to believe that a human being could so thoroughly inhuman and insensitive to the pain and suffering of others. And to assert that they died because they were Democrats is…well, I’m not certain I could find a word in my vocabulary to adequately express my revulsion. I’m sickened by the thought that anyone would seriously consider their gun “rights” to be sacrosanct, inviolable, and of greater value than innocent human lives. OR that an “improper” political orientation could be blamed for the death of an innocent civilian….
I care about Alex Jones and his worldview about as much as I care about the Green Bay Packers…which is to say not at all. The man’s a blithering idiot, a brain-dead meat sack with the intellectual capacity and moral gravitasof David Frey What disturbs me aren’t so much his ridiculous, ill-considered opinions, which I could easily and well enough ignore; it’s the audience of drooling, foaming at the mouth acolytes he’s collected. If you’ve seen InfoWars, Jones’ self-congratulatory paean to mental masturbation and conspiracy theories, you’ve probably found yourself with a variation of the same reaction most lucid people have:
….The fact of the matter is that the Founding Fathers made a HUGE mistake in saddling us with the 2nd Amendment….
In the late 18th century, the 2nd Amendment made sense. Calling 911 wasn’t an option, and the average American faced very real and imminent threats of the sort we don’t today. 2013 finds us in a much different world than that of 1789. We have the benefit of the rule of law, efficient and well trained law enforcement, and the most powerful military in the world. Despite those who see violent criminals around every corner, we live in a much safer world today.
The problem we face today is that the 27 vague words that comprise the 2nd Amendment have created the current mess we’re in today…and it’s the Founding Fathers’ fault. If they’d intended for the right to bear arms to be sacrosanct and inviolate, don’t you think the 2nd Amendment would be two sentences instead of one run-on jumble? Their impreciseness has cost thousands of innocent citizens their lives. It’s also created a class of gun nuts who cling to the guns with a love that exceeds anything else in their lives….
Some moron is coming to NYC to give away shotguns.
The man behind an effort to put free shotguns in the hands of homeowners says he’ll dole them out in the Big Apple by the end of the year — and the lawmen may not be able to stop him.“We’re coming — and we’re going to get shotguns into the hands of responsible citizens,” said Kyle Coplen, who founded the nonprofit the Armed Citizen Project in January.
“When criminals fear the citizenry, it deters crime,” the 29-year-old added.
Um. No. Statistically, when criminals fear capture, it deters crime. This is why the homeowners best defense is his neighbors. Or noise from inside his home. Or even just a fake alarm sticker on his door. Or failing that, a strong lock.
Things didn’t get any better when a constituent invited Ayotte to her home for dinner and a discussion of “ways to reduce…instances of gun violence.”. Unfortunately, Ayotte declined the invitation, stating that she was too busymaking up silly reasons to avoid discussing gun control being a Senator to find time in her schedule. Yes, Ayotte is undoubtedly busy, but when she declined the invitation, many took it as her avoiding discussing a difficult issue. She looked small, petty, and afraid to engage constituents that don’t agree with her.