Lock and Load… A Big Load
My readers know that I'm not very high on effete liberals wringing their hands over the cultural proclivities of the less educated and prosperous classes. But this is really spooky stuff. Really spooky. Anyone smart enough to, say, brew a cup of tea knows very well (or should know) there's no way on God's Green Earth that Obama or any other U.S. president would ever dream of confiscating any of the 200 million or so firearms already in the hands of the American people. And for those who already have 5 or 6 or 56 guns, why would you need a 7.65 mm rifle that holds a banana clip of 30 rounds??? This is, indeed, a sort of national sickness. It's both frightening and embarrassing. It's also ironic. After the 2000 elections, Democrats completely abandoned any efforts at serious gun control. On tonight's 60 Minutes, the sponsor of the now-expired assault weapons ban, Senator Dianne Feinstein, openly admitted that the whole issue is dead in the water. You need a shrink, more than a political scientist, to fully explain why the glint of oiled, blue-steel and the red-blooded copper tips of high-power rounds provides such comfort and reassurance to so many. I am not afraid of guns. And I own more than one -- none of them for "self-defense," by the way. If someone comes after me with a gun I'm going to use my time to run like hell rather than go rummaging around for my bolt-action Mauser. But I am frightened by those who feel compelled to stock up their arsenals before "it's too late." By the way... during the more than a dozen years that I wrote regularly for The Nation, I only had two stories killed. The first was in 1995 when I wrote a mildly critical piece on Cuba. The editors were too queasy to run it even though it was intended for a short-lived series called "Second Thoughts." The other doomed piece is one I wrote in Spring 2001 from the floor of the Kansas City national convention of the NRA. In the piece, I declared that gun control was DOA, that the Dems had jumped ship and that Gun Lobby had locked up if not shut down the debate. My editors, in their supreme reluctance to believe that so many "progressive" Dems would betray the cause, asked me to rewrite the story and include in it more detail on what they imagined or assumed were all those Congressional Democratic efforts to stem the flow of weaponry. Not able to detect any such serious efforts, I told my editors to stuff it. Here we are 8 years later. And gun sales are exploding.Gun-shop owners and the National Rifle Association say the surge is driven by worries that Obama is planning to ban many types of firearms and that the deepening economic crisis will fuel a crime wave, as witnessed by the string of mass shootings in the past few weeks.
But control groups pressing for greater control on firearms accuse the NRA of funding a massive scare campaign to portray Obama as a gun owner's worst nightmare and to argue that tighter restrictions on weapons ownership are a threat to broader liberties and a step toward tyranny.
That extreme position apparently prompted a man, who told friends he was afraid the government would take his guns away, to shoot three police officers in Pittsburgh last week. But more commonly such views are boosting gun sales, from Ohio to Texas and from Wyoming to Virginia.
Chris Howley, manager of the Guns and Ammo Warehouse, in Manassas, Virginia, says sales are up by at least 50% since Obama won the election - particularly of assault rifles after the president indicated he would revive a ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons that had been allowed to lapse under George Bush. "It went through the roof since the election. Initially they were after the semi-automatics because they thought they would be banned again. They just flew out at a phenomenal rate. But now they're buying up all the hand guns too. Look at the hand guns case. It's only half full," he said.
----------------------------
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
April 12th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
My readers know that I’m not very high on effete liberals wringing their hands over the cultural proclivities of the less educated and prosperous classes.
Some readers know that you lucricrously caricature people with views not much different than your own. Not only does this provide you with a smug sense of superiority that compensates for a fragile ego, but it’s made you handy living.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Thanks for the heads-up, Marc. With this information, every American needs to buy more guns since Obama will curtail future sales and to protect themselves against the tens of millions of Americans who are currently buying more, despite not being a problem in the past.
Before packing a piece, though, view this PSA on the proper use of guns: VIDEO
April 13th, 2009 at 6:03 am
Give credit where due, some people are practicing responsible gun ownership and learning how to use them properly: VIDEO
April 13th, 2009 at 7:11 am
The jump in gun sales is more related to the economic crisis. I came across article in a Florida paper over a month or so ago that went over same issue and it was because of fear of crime related to so many people loosing jobs; becoming homeless, marginalized etc.
And, of course, the fear of laws making it harder to be a gun toting lunatic. No doubt the gun lobby and crazies had fun stoking that one up to boost sales.
But I will tell you that you are being dismissive of the issue of people buying guns because of the economic crisis–and this being the Wild West an’ all–folks feel they might be overrun by starving, desperate zombies.
I believe that recently I posted about the startling fact that there was no outrage and determination to fight for anti gun legislation after the spree of slaughters made possible by the easy access to assault weapons.
Gun and ammo vendors laughing all the way to the bank. They probably all have a gold statue of Obama to whom they offer flowers, fruit and incense each morning before settling into to their power chairs.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:17 am
“You need a shrink, more than a political scientist, to fully explain why the glint of oiled, blue-steel and the red-blooded copper tips of high-power rounds provides such comfort and reassurance to so many.”
DH Lawrence “fully explained” it about a hundred years ago:
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. …
April 13th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Anyway, Marc, lets give some credit to Michael Moore. He made a fucking award winning film on the issue that millions saw…and still no change in policy.
After Virginia Tech I was stunned the parents didn’t go on the rampage as the school shootings were becoming common place.
In America, its when family members of victims form a grass roots organization that things happen. Stunningly– I have this did not happen.
THIS glaring sociological omission is what is interesting.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:53 am
I need my AK-47. It doesn’t matter if you faggoty liberals don’t understand why. I also need my bomb-making kits. And I also need my anthrax stash, my arsenic-tipped darts, and my mustard gas mortar rounds. If you don’t understand why the freedom to defend yourself at all costs is an inalienable right, then maybe you don’t deserve to enjoy the protections and privileges of being a United States citizen. Maybe consider moving to Canada with the rest of the gay nazi abortionists, or to San Francisco with the shrieking queers and secede from the true America.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Tucker, you don’t portray conservatives. You portray wackos, like the Unabomber, who sounds Al Gore.
On moving to Canada, you left off draft-dodgers, and gay should be homo.
Oh, yeah, go buy yourself a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:10 am
“…He was born in Chicago, Illinois, where as an intellectual child prodigy, he excelled in academics from an early age. Kaczynski received an undergraduate degree from Harvard University and earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25 but resigned two years later.’
Woody you need to watch Straw Dogs. The spoiler is: never fuck with an intellectual.
At least he wasn’t putting bombs in churches and blowing up little girls.
By the way, Tucker was taking the piss, Woody.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Woody Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 am (at Witness LA)
“Unless you believe that citizens should have the right to own grenade launchers and machine guns….”
I do. Citizens should be able to own arms sufficient to overcome a despotic government.
Woody Says:
April 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am
I do hate democracy.
Woody Says:
April 13th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Tucker, you don’t portray conservatives. You portray wackos, like the Unabomber…
Reg Says: And the difference on display here from our resident wacko is, uh, what exactly ?
April 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am
” Ayn Rand discusses rational self-interest in which one’s happiness, in limited circumstances, can be enhanced by helping others; a related term is enlightened self-interest. Critics argue that the boundaries of rational self-interest are fuzzy and that much misery can be neglected. Rand counters that various ideologies coerce individuals into self-sacrifice. Rand makes a point to argue against altruism, and what she views as martyrdom.”
So, Woody, you intellectual giant, you…how does “rational self interest” square with your fantasy of your being a good christian boy?
Oops. I bet you wished you’s spent less time reading Superman comics. Suppose one could make the leap from that to skipping real intellectual thought to Ayn Rand…whose daft ideas are a warp take on Nietzsche mixed up with her emotional scarring due to the Bolshevik’s impoverishing her father. ( Kinda like the unending umbrage wealthy Cubans felt at being fleeced)
April 13th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
marc -
Why do you own those guns? Do you hunt?
April 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“evets Says: marc – why do you own those guns?”
See below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TLIKg6YL50
April 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I suspect this whole thing is hogwash. Journos feeling around for a hook ask themselves, I wonder if the wingers are stocking up? Gun dealers, knowing free advertising when it is offered, gleefully offer the necessary anecdotal evidence.
I only own 8 guns, and feel no need to add to my paltry little collection.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I’m shocked, by the way, that The Nation would spike a story critical of Cuba.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
This is great:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/13/aig-executive-pay-bonuses
Note the letters from a Texas classroom. Nobody could make this up.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Every one of my comments listed by reg, when offered in their entirety and within context, makes perfect sense.
On the other hand, the only way to make reg’s comments make sense is to take them out of context.
Oh, reg still praises a general who attacked civilians with his army and destroyed homes and businesses where black people lived and worked.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Anna, I had no idea that there was some subtle, underlying message in Atlas Shrugged. I guess I’ll have to buy the Cliffs Notes to check it out.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
If they didn’t let guns get loose in the White House, Vince Foster might still be alive today.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Not helping any is Obama hiding away afraid to step up front and add his ‘leadership’ skills to saying how important it is to ban these
assault weapons. He’s turning out to be as gutless as many of the Democrats in congress. Sometimes you just have to put politics aside and do the right thing. I guess that’s too much to expect from Rahm and Barack. Way watered down climate change legislation and more decisions favoring the military industrial complex to come in Afghanistan. Obama talks the talk but doesn’t always walk the walk!
April 13th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
reg -
Thanks for the explanation. Now I have only one more question — how did you happen to know about that video clip?
April 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“and gay should be homo”
Is it really that strict, Woody? Don’t you guys allow any leeway?
April 13th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Evets – I googled “marc cooper fishing”
Speaking of video clips, here is some revealing video of a bunch of wanna-be cowboys shooting from the lip and missing wildly:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001151/
April 13th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
It now appears that it’s Obama supporters whom the public needs to fear with guns.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Thanks reg, that was better than gun-fishing.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
At Daily Kos: Idiots Abound!
If we listened to liberals, we’d still be paying extortion money to the Barbary pirates.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Be sure to read the comments at that Kos diary link Woody dug up in his desperation…
April 13th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Just referencing the host of the site, to which you linked.
Here’s another favorite: Democratic Underground: The truth, and everyone knows it: The political right wanted Captain Phillips to die.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
A crazy libertarian accused of wanting Captain Phillips to die.
Neal Boortz: NAVY SEALS! OBAMA TURNS THEM LOOSE!
“On Friday I said quit a bit on the air about the United States showing weakness: Weakness with Korea, and weakness in dealing with these Muslim pirates. Well, Obama came through. He told his military commanders to bring this episode to an end if they saw the means to do so. Obama said yes to a Pentagon request for standing authority to use appropriate force to save the life of the captain. We have to recognize that a failure of this mission would have been used against Obama … so his decision showed courage. I was surprised. Pleasantly surprised.”
April 13th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
This will be my last….
What could become common place after Obama bans guns: 2nd person dies from Indianapolis sword fight
- – -
Not about guns but about Obama justice….
April 13th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
# Woody Says:
April 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Anna, I had no idea that there was some subtle, underlying message in Atlas Shrugged. I guess I’ll have to buy the Cliffs Notes to check it out.
Woody, you can sell your comments to political satirists. No one could make this shit up.
It floats
April 13th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
It’s amazing: my boss is a CPA and does tax work on the side. He barely has time to breath this time of year.
Eleven of the thirty comments up to now have been posted by someone claiming to be Woody.
I imagine that they may actually be an army of homunculi that have crawled out from under bridges, victorious in their battles against the Billy Goats Gruff, armed with hammers to tap their jerking knees.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Speaking of guns, I would like to be the first here to congratulate our Commander in Chief and his excellent sharp shooting Navy for showing the world we will not be pushed around by juvenile thugs. We actually will shot them if they threaten to shoot one of ours.
Speaking of guns, I am for ‘choice’ in how you choose to defend yourself. There is no need, however, for a civilian population to have assault weapons. It is as extreme a position on the right to bear arms as is partial birth abortion is to the right to abortions. But the ‘slippery slope’ fear and noise promoted by the extremist on both issues prevents any sensible middle to prevail.
We are getting jerked up, down, around….. and off by extremists, and the divisions they cause are gradually killing the cohesion a country needs to survive.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Just referencing the host of the site, to which you linked.
Actually, that is a diary written by KLS and is not the host of Daily Kos, much like you and the rest of the Vitterfolk post in the comments section here.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Speaking of the right to bear arms, I think the Somali Pirates are a classic example of what happens you when make it illegal. for the law abiding to defend themselves. The word gets out quickly you can now have your way with them, at will and without fear.
Peace through weakness. It never works.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It’s not always weakness, Jim. Sometimes it’s common sense:
I wouldn’t want to be on a tanker carrying LNG exchanging gunfire with someone.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Screwed up the link. Here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html?scp=1&sq=pirates%20weapons&st=cse
April 13th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
You heard the of the phrase ‘Make love not war?’ With that in mind,
even though I’m furious at Obama and those blue dogs for making it impossible for congress to pass any meaningful assault gun legislation, here’s my peace offering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA0TTfqFZg8
April 14th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Don’t mess with Texas.
Texas Gov. Backs Resolution Affirming Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment…
‘Federal government has become oppressive in size… intrusion into lives of citizens’
April 14th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Randy you took the words out of my mouth. I have been wondering how Woody has time to post given his bleating about taxes and being an accountant. My guess is the only business he has is trying to balance the check books of family members and any of their friends who are instructed to offer him work.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Jim R:
Fortunately you are not one to have a child with the intelligence to make it into a college where he or she would run the risk of being mowed down by some other kid who spent too much time watching Rambo– or even make it through high school where they could be mowed down by some budding crypto fascist fantasist or even one who might have a kid that could get taken out at a McDonalds while stuffing its little gob with a Big Mac.
The incidence of slaughter by assault weapon bearing red blooded killers just in the past month–against their own sorta makes poop of your argument about:
“Speaking of the right to bear arms, I think the Somali Pirates are a classic example of what happens you when make it illegal. for the law abiding to defend themselves. The word gets out quickly you can now have your way with them, at will and without fear.”
…dosn’t it, Jim.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Anna and Randy, I stay up past 1:00 AM. Just because it’s tax season doesn’t mean that I can’t take breaks to educate y’all. Plus, people help me.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Woody,
You can educate only after I get a lobectomy.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I’d be really curious to see if the rates of gun purchase before the Brady law went into effect were similar. My guess is yes, and the general hysteria here is just more of the same.
But I’ve never really gotten the “need” argument as a way of denying the rationality of owning an assault weapon. I didn’t “need” a turbo charger on my car, but I bought a car with one just the same. Why? Because I wanted one. Because it was fun to drive. I suspect for the vast majority of gun owners it’s much the same.
Which, of course, glosses over the definitional problem here. My understanding is an assault weapon is one that is fully automatic. It seems to me that a reasonable argument can be made that these rifles should be restricted, but that still leaves semi-automatic weapons. And I guess I don’t really see the effective difference here if what we’re talking about are these horrific civilian massacres.
To even potentially change this situation you’re in the territory of much more restrictive gun control and then you’ve run afoul of the second amendment. As I’ve said before I think it’s amazingly hypocritical for those of us on the left to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we get to honor. You don’t like warrantless wiretapping? Tough shit; the right just doesn’t think that bit of the Constitution applies, same as the left treats the second.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Be sure to read the comments at that Kos diary link Woody dug up in his desperation…
Woody and Marc share their view of DailyKos, via the same application of intellectual integrity to evidence.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Speaking of the right to bear arms, I think the Somali Pirates are a classic example of what happens you when make it illegal. for the law abiding to defend themselves. The word gets out quickly you can now have your way with them, at will and without fear.
Of course you do, despite the fact that this is not an example of that.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am
To even potentially change this situation you’re in the territory of much more restrictive gun control and then you’ve run afoul of the second amendment. As I’ve said before I think it’s amazingly hypocritical for those of us on the left to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we get to honor.
Wrong. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre and you can’t own a nuclear weapon. Once one achieves the rationality of recognizing that absolute freedoms are untenable regardless of what the Constitution says, they then face the messy business of defining the limits of those freedoms so as to make them as broad as possible within reason.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
@passing through
Your point is well taken, but I don’t think your example of a nuclear weapon is germane at all (nor do you, I’m sure): we’ve clearly demarcated the weapon limit around guns.
When we start to become more restrictive than automatic weapons (that is, drawing the boundary more finely, not more broadly), that’s where the rationale for such bans become much muddier. Although I’ll grant an argument can be made that the “automatic” distinction I’m making could be muddy as well.
But whatever those limits ought to be, I still find the desire to maximize the boundaries of the first amendment while simultaneously minimizing the boundaries of the second to be hypocritical if not contradictory.
We could fall back on the argument that restricting the second amendment is a matter of public safety, but that assumes a causality that seems unclear to me.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Obama is a right winger which the crazed gun nuts need not fear. What needs to happen is a halt to manufacturing firearms and ammunition. Then a $500 per weapon bounty, no questions asked, if someone turns in a firearm at a local collection center. The Second amendment only applies to weapons for the self defense of the people. It should require training, licencing, and showing up at a militia muster to posess a firearm. Bring back the assizes of arms.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I don’t think your example of a nuclear weapon is germane at all (nor do you, I’m sure): we’ve clearly demarcated the weapon limit around guns.
It was germane to the intellectual dishonesty of your attack on “those of us on the left” who supposedly honor an absolute reading of some parts of the Constitution but not others — we don’t; any example of how we accept limits on both the 1st and 2nd amendments will do, so I picked the most obvious/defendable ones.You breeze right past that and back to a debate on where the line should be drawn on what arms we can bear, but that’s not germane to my point.
we’ve clearly demarcated the weapon limit around guns.
I don’t see the word “guns” in the Constitution. Do try to remember that that’s the document you referred to in your charge of hypocrisy.
We could fall back on the argument that restricting the second amendment is a matter of public safety, but that assumes a causality that seems unclear to me.
Why do we restrict the ownership of nuclear weapons if not for public safety? Why do we draw the line at guns? Sorry, but the hypocrisy is all yours. People can take different positions on the balance between safety and liberty in regard to arms, but as long as those who draw one somewhere on arms also draw one somewhere on other matters, such as speech, they aren’t being hypocrites — at least, not on that basis. Really, I’m being quite kind here, because your charge is really very stupid (and thus surprising from you). People who favor gun control are not simply choosing not to honor the 2nd amendment. Rather, they do not believe that the NRA’s preferred interpretation to today’s circumstances is the one that the authors of the document would have favored.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Sory, I didn’t comment on this:
But whatever those limits ought to be, I still find the desire to maximize the boundaries of the first amendment while simultaneously minimizing the boundaries of the second to be hypocritical if not contradictory.
That’s simply a lie; “those of us on the left” do not desire that the boundaries of the second amendment be minimized. Fuck, you sound like the very cretins that Marc wrote about, who think that “Obama is gonna take your guns away.”
April 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I said we have demarcated around guns, I didn’t suggest it was in the Constitution, which I know I referred to. It seems to me that the limit is around military vs. non-military weapons, thus the line between automatic and semi-automatic ones makes sense.
I’m not totally married to the idea I’m expressing, but I don’t think it’s as stupid as you think it is. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise (and I previously held very different, more typically liberal views on the matter), but I do find myself having more trouble with what I see as pick-and-choose defenses of constitutional rights. Just because the NRA interprets things one way, doesn’t make the possible confluence of opinions wrong.
This whole thing hinges on the militia bit of the second and I’ve seen wildly different interpretations from reputable people on that issue.
You breeze right past that and back to a debate on where the line should be drawn on what arms we can bear, but that’s not germane to my point.
I breezed right by it since it didn’t seem within the scope of the conversation. It perhaps proves that there are limits on the definition of “arms”, but in the most trivial way, since there is no rational position which defends this view (that is, that you can own a nuke).
I concede, then, that some limits are permissible, but that this only becomes a real-world issue if we talk about the kind of weapons that could conceivably be thought of as useful for a “militia” or for self-defense of some reasonable kind.
The thing I’m trying to tease out here, (which the charge of “absolute freedom” is glossing over), is that there are people, and I have many friends like this, who will fall on their swords for the first amendment, but don’t give a fig for the second. In fact, they would gladly see all (or almost all) guns banned. And they don’t think the amendment should be repealed or altered first. Never mind if that is a political impossibility right now.
This is the part that I find hypocritical. But, more, I find it dangerous for the reason I mentioned before: because the right can make the same claim to disregard what they don’t like.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Hey Passing Through, can I make one suggestion? You’re quite obviously a smart guy, and quick and sharp too. But, man, you like to throw the invective around pretty casually. In the last couple of posts you’ve charged me with intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy, and lying.
You disagree with what I’m saying and think what I’m advancing is wrong. That’s fine. But being wrong or making an error is not the same as intellectual dishonesty.
I’m happy to be corrected, and I’m happy to have my positions assailed, but I really don’t attempt to lie, nor do I deliberately attempt to be intellectually dishonest. I’m quite certain you don’t do either of those either.
So my request is that even though you think I’m wrong, even dreadfully embarrassingly in error, do me the kindness of assuming my motives are honest. I think that’s fair. I assume the same of you.