Monday, April 06, 2009

No giant panda winners at the shooting gallery.

Good morning: I think I like to type that because, that way, I can at least SEEM to be starting on a positive note, before descending into the stygian depths of inchoate rage that are stored in the cellar hole 'neath my hindbrain. So, okay, we've tried reason, we've tried accomodation, we've tried balance. Howsabout we try this: "Fucking moron with guns and an inability to deal with, or even articulate, his problems decides to be a coward and kill other folks so we'll all feel bad for him." I am getting pretty worn out reading about folks with histories of abusing others or mental problems, killing folks with easily obtained (legal or otherwise) weaponry that is, to "hunting", what dynamite is to sportsfishing. I don't HATE guns. I like guns. I like the way they look, I like the way they sound and I like the way they operate. They are great, as machines, or implements or whatever you want to call them. What they are not great at, in fact they are quite horrible at, is "getting even" with one's own demons. I know how touchy some folks are about their second amendment rights. I'm that way about the other nine items in the BoR and the rest of the U.S. Constitution, come to think of it. However, when some shithead's "right" to bear arms causes the cessation (with extreme prejudice) of another's "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--well, for me it's a no-brainer. I'm gonna side with the poor, unarmed schlub, every time. I'm not suggesting confiscating anyone's guns. I am suggesting that current rules for gun ownership need to be reviewed. Current firearms ownership laws, particularly in some states like GA and FL are so fucking lax that people who have histories of violent, irrational behavior are able to easily obtain weapons that are equal to, or better, than those used by law enforcement agencies. Some folks have suggested that an armed populace would cut down on such incidents as; the three policemen murdered in Pittsburgh, the thirteen people murdered in Binghamton or the four police officers killed in Oakland--all within the last two weeks. In those three particular cases, it appears that the shooters were in two cases, duly licensed--the parolee in CA, obviously not. Weapons differed--not to the victims, of course; dead is dead; but, they all had in common, that they were wielded by people who thought that "might makes right". Re: the argument for arming the populace, if carried to its logical conclusion. During the Binghamton incident the police placed a number of individuals in custody while trying to sort out who were innocents and who might have been perps. Had those "suspicious" characters been armed they might have been mistaken for the shooter and been shot by the police. This idiocy needs to stop. Now.


Mr. Mack said...

Nothing makes me more angry than seeing Liberals apologize for being pro-gun control. Its quite simple. The Founding Fathers never envisioned automatic weapons, or, for that matter, cars. Guns are tools, period. I own several. I do not worship them, in fact, I'd be more likely to worship my cordless drill, which is invaluable to me.

Gun disciples are a sorry bunch...and clueless what it means to have a weapon discharged in your general direction. I've had the pleasure, thanks. That most of them think they would simply assess the situation calmly, remove their weapon, aim and fire at a human being when under fire themselves, tells me all i need to know about them. Children. Dangerous ones at that.

the Rev Jerry Gloryhole said...

Touche. Guns don't kill people:
cowardly asshole gun fetishists kill people.

democommie said...

Mack and Rev. Jerry Gloryhole:


I hope I wasn't sounding apologetic; I wanted to sound firm, yet reasonable. Sort of like my dad used to sound before the "I oughta kick your ass for practice" line.

the Rev Jerry Gloryhole said...

What, he didn't stone you?
Oh, right; that came later. Sorry.

Nomi said...

Dear demo,

Please feel free to post this at Grace P.



Nomi said...

ok, I posted a link on Grace P. to this...

cook eat FRET said...

good piece and i could not agree more

see? i stop in and catch up...

democommie said...

Nomi and Claudia:

Thanks for coming by. You two should read each other's blogs.

Nomi's at:

it's food for thought


Claudia's at:

thoughtful food for thoughting peeps!

Aaron Kinney said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
democommie said...

Aaron Kinney:

You're no more welcome here than you are at Jesus General. I really think you're a fucking shithead. Save your gunrights shit for places like LGF. Stay the fuck off this blog.

the Rev Jerry Gloryhole said...

Aww...when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Of course, guns are coward's tools, too. I pine for the days when a man could grasp his sword in his good right hand (no lefties then) and look his enemy in the eye as he split him in twain.

"Pearing"? That's my word? Cool...I grafted some pears the other day.

Oh, Demo...Friday there's a movie being filmed in the South End, if you intend to come that way be warned there may not be parking nearby.

Anonymous said...

Dang, Demo … couldn’t you have left Aaron Kinney’s tripe up long enough for me to take some pot-shots at – pun intended – just for old time’s sake. I got this barrel full o’ fish, a-an’ I got my thirty-aught-six, but I ain’t got shells now that you took Aaron Kinney’s comments down.

democommie said...

Reverend Jerry:

Looks dicey for Friday. Some other stuff has come up. I'll be in touch.

Dave von Ebers:

I like asshats like Aaron to go away and stay away. Anyone who is rational is welcome--shit, that probably lets me out, too!

Aaron Kinney said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
the Rev Jerry Gloryhole said...

Let him stay, demo.
But tax the shit out of him, and use the funds to renovate your house.
Everyone wins!

Anonymous said...

I’m with the Right Rev. J-G. Or is it J-G-H.

Anywho … positively love the I’m a classical liberal hoo-ha, seeing as how the single most conservative rich-white-’n-uptight dude I’ve ever known always used to call himself a “classical liberal.”

A “classical liberal” isn’t a modern conservative? Kiss my royal Irish arse.

Richard said...

My lovely daughter had the great idea yesterday that cars should come with bar codes so that their speeds might be tracked and tickets automatically issued to anyone traveling above the posted limit. I sternly told her that she could have my accelerator when she pryed it from my cold, dead toes. The best insight I've seen on gun control(prior to this post, natch) comes from, of all people, comedienne Elayne Boosler who penned "We Are Getting Tired of Prying Your Guns From Your Cold Dead Hands" a few days after the Va Tech massacre. (You may have noticed the 2-year anniversary of that great moment in American Second Amendment history passed earlier this week.) Here's the linky:

Richard Nixon didn't say too many things with which I agreed, but I had to give him props when it came to light that he had been captured on one of his Oval Office tapes saying, "Guns are an abomination."

Suck it, gun nuts. Or go an join a well-regulated militia.

Aaron Kinney said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No Blood for Hubris said...

; )

Anonymous said...

Good God, Kinney, this is such a tiresome argument. I don’t respect libertarianism because it is the political philosophy of spoiled children.

Libertarianism – true libertarianism – is intellectually vacuous and morally empty. It’s based on nothing more than a complete lack of empathy for your fellow travelers. The key difference between liberalism and libertarianism is just that: we believe in essential liberty and the collective good; we believe in protecting fundamental human rights and taking care of our neighbors. In fact, as it turns out, you really can’t have genuine human rights without taking care of your neighbors. Merely wanting “freedom” so you can smoke pot and watch porn is no basis for a political philosophy, but that is what true libertarianism is all about. True libertarianism means you don’t believe in government interference in any private decision-making, especially in the marketplace. True libertarianism means you don’t believe in things like the civil rights laws, environmental laws, consumer protection regulations and the like. Nor do true libertarians believe in public schools, public healthcare, or social welfare programs of any type whatsoever.

You, personally, may believe in all those things – civil rights laws, environmental protection, public schools, social welfare programs – but if so, you’re not a libertarian. You can’t just define political terms the way you want; they actually have meaning. Bastardizing the term doesn’t change its dictionary definition. Which is a whole ’nother problem I have with people who call themselves “libertarians”: Most of the time, they don’t want to accept the actual meaning of the term – they want the government “off their back” in some vague way, but they still want their potholes filled and they want the government to take defective products off the shelf and they want government agencies to protect their rights in the workplace and so on. So, again, it really comes down to selfishness more than any real, meaningful political philosophy – let me do what I want whenever I want, so long as nobody, public or private, interferes with my meaningless pursuit of personal comfort.

Intellectually vacuous and morally empty. Yup, that about sums it up.

democommie said...

Aaron Kinney:

Well, I must apololgize--to those who are welcome here--for not getting in here for the last couple of days to pick up the dogshit that you leave here.

It's not my "fragile ego" you fucking moron. It is, rather, my total disdain for your positions of "classical liberalism". I really, really don't give a flying fuck what you think and I definintely don't need to read the umpteenth ridiculous defense for the sort of stupidity that you espouse.

Buh, bye.

the Rev Jerry Gloryhole said...

Well put, Brother Dave. Well put. In Massachusetts it's Patriot's Day, celebrating the shot heard 'round the world, and all that. Also the anniversary of the OK bombing, timed to coincide with said Patriot's Day as a show of solidarity.
Give Libertarians extra manure, and...

Anonymous said...

Rev. JG – I sure hope your marathoners have better weather than we’re supposed to have here tomorrow. Low to mid 40’s with persistent rain. (Actually, the low to mid 40’s part isn’t bad for running a marathon. It’s having soaking wet socks for 26.2 miles that really sucks. Especially the last .2 miles …)

Saaaay, you’re not planning to dump any tea in that Boston Harbor are you?

(By the way … my word verification? “Laterev.” How appropriate. Later, Rev.)

the Rev Jerry Gloryhole said...

Down with sodomy; up with teabagging!

Chilly, windy, rain later but a fine day for a marathon.

democommie said...


I'm home.

the Rev Jerry Gloryhole said...

Who are you?

Mike W. said...

However, when some shithead's "right" to bear arms causes the cessation (with extreme prejudice) of another's "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--well, for me it's a no-brainer.

I agree. You have your rights, you do not have the right to misuse those rights to directly harm others. My 2nd Amendment rights do not give me license to kill, rob, or otherwise harm others.

It's the same with other rights. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can threaten to kill someone and then claim protection under the 1st Amendment. You have your 1st Amendment right, but that doesn't mean you are free to libel and slander others.

Individuals in this country have rights. That does not mean however that the laws of society do not punish those whose actions constitute a misuse of those rights.

What you advocate in your post is infringement upon the rights of all of use because of the misuse of those very same rights by others. Why not punish criminal misuse of rights rather than punishing everyone else because of the irresponsible, criminal actions of a few?

Would you be OK with the current rules for free speech on blogs being reviewed and tightened because some people engage in libel, slander, or distribution of child pornography?

Current firearms ownership laws, particularly in some states like GA and FL are so fucking lax that people who have histories of violent, irrational behavior are able to easily obtain weapons.

Federal purchase laws for firearms apply uniformly across the entire U.S. Are you saying we should deny 2nd Amendment rights without due process of law?