Draw the line on weapons of war
By Andy Schmookler
As the gun lobby says, only a small percentage of the gun deaths in America are inflicted by semi-automatic weapons. But the importance of fighting to ban these weapons goes beyond the number of lives that can be saved.
Schmookler, recently the Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia’s 6th District, is an author whose books include “Out of Weakness: Healing the Wounds That Drive Us to War.”
February 21, 2013 - 7:15 AM
The anti-gun libs still don’t get it!
1) The so called “assault weapon” available to the public for years and perfectly legal is not a weapon of war! It only differs from other semi-automatic rifles in appearance.
2) DC v. Heller determined that the government cannot ban legal guns in common use.
3) The votes for a so called “assault weapons” ban are just not there in Congress!
S-O-R-R-Y!!!!
This is a very well thought out and written opinion piece.
It’s too bad Mr. Schmookler wasn’t elected.
Keep up the good work and fighting the good fight. Your work is appreciated.
You are not “S-O-R-R-Y!!!!” so why the need to be so sarcastic? Does it occur to you that people are not happy about massacres of little children? Is that not a sufficient reason to look at the gun culture in this nation? Really?
The reason so many gangster wannabe crazed killers want certain guns is precisely their “appearance”, which makes that an issue.
The Heller decision left gun control issues you could drive a tank through and totally respected the rights of society to maintain controls.
Regardless of whether the votes are “there”, the discussion is legitimate and important to many people.
One more comment. As much as I agree with Mr. Schmookler about there being no need for assault type weapons, the “real danger” comes from handguns. More people in the US are killed with these weapons than those with longer barrels.
Anyway, PZ Myers says it very well.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
A tragic story: a man stuffed a gun in his pants and it accidentally went off, shooting him in the penis and leg.
….video….
Let’s forestall the usual comments: no, he didn’t deserve to be mutilated this way, OK? But still, this kind of event is what we should worry about more, and which will occur far more, than some murderous villain blazing away at innocents with a gun. Accidents will happen, and the more casual (and incompetent) people end up with deadly weapons in their hands, the more often these irreversible and unfortunate errors will occur, and they will inevitably occur with far greater frequency than homicidal sprees. The best thing that can be said is that at least no one was killed…this time.
Although this particular man will be reluctant to ever hang out with his gun-toting companions in the future. Especially with the little detail that he shot himself with a pink pistol.
Mr. Schmookler begins his diatribe by acknowledging; “only a small percentage of gun deaths in America are inflicted by semi-automatic weapons.”
Then spends 15 paragraphs “explaining” why we should nevertheless ban them. Something about “values”.
Sour grapes by someone whose ideas were soudly defeated at the ballot box by those he portends to lecture.
Personally, I think Mr. Schmookler nailed it:
–
“The real threat to our liberties in America is not from restrictions on assault rifles but from the increasing concentration of power in the hands of a few. History shows how gross inequalities of power can lead to tyranny, and the NRA is part of the political force working to widen still further the gap between the exploitable many and the powerful few. Like a magician, the NRA works with the other members of the right-wing team to distract people by pointing to peripheral issues with the left hand while the right hand picks their pockets and threatens their American birthright.”
Spot on!
6 – I don’t think you have anything to worry about, Sandi. Uncle is still better armed than the proletariat.
Well yes 89Hoo, that was his point.
–
“One hears from the gun culture that guns protect all other liberties. Arms in the hands of civilians, it is declared, can block a tyranny from taking over America. That idea has a powerful effect on how the gun issue plays out in America, but it is a dangerous falsehood.
–
The weapons of civilians would hardly slow down such a tyranny. The Iraqi army — several hundred thousand soldiers, organized with a command structure and possessing sophisticated weapons — withstood the American military for only a few weeks. If the American military were being wielded by some tyranny in Washington, a dispersed assortment of armed civilians would not be much of an obstacle.
–
The people of other democracies enjoy liberties like ours. In none of those countries are citizens given the far-reaching gun rights that the NRA insists are essential to protecting our freedom. In many of these free countries, the citizenry is substantially disarmed.”
–
And I am fairly certain they are “better armed” than the ruling aristocracy as well.
I know what his point was, Sandi. I am scouring my history books, though, in search of an incidence in history when an independent, private organization, even one with a lot of influence, was able to inflict a greater tyranny than than any government was able to do. So far, no luck.
So if you truly are worried about power concentrated in the hands of the few, maybe you should look north.
It’s easy to see why groups like the NRA support elected officials keen on destroying the public schools. Without less education, it becomes harder to research and consider the nuances of the increasingly complex issues of our times. But anyone can be a single issue voter.
IMO, anyone who has watched this nation for the past thirty years would be very worried about the “power concentrated in the hands of the few” and the way they have wielded it.
Without less education, it becomes harder to research and consider the nuances of the increasingly complex issues of our times.
Say again?
Go back further if you’d like, Sandi. We have had Presidents suspend habeas corpus, imprison state legislatures and make it a criminal act to own gold. No private organization could do that.
#9 Excellent point ‘Hoo. “Education” will fix.
Look at the NRA as kind of a union of gun enthusiasts! Sort of like the UAW, AFL-CIO, NEA, etc.
Political pressure groups that own politicians is the American way! Liberals are the masters of such tactics!
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
#12 I meant “WITH less education, it become harder…” Sorry, this site does not let us edit our posts. My bad.
#13 You didn’t go back far enough. We’ve had presidents who owned slaves.
In 89Hoo’s world view, everything that has ever happened is equally likely to happen again in the next 10 years.
#15 You forgot the KKK.
16 – thank you. That’s what I thought you meant.
#18 Name
Thanks, how could I forget the KKK, that Democrat secret society created during Reconstruction to preserve White supremacy fight Republicans of the day!
Historian Eric Foner observed: “..the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy…it aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
Probably the best example of the modern KKK was the late Sen. Byrd (D-WV), an icon of the Democrat party for so many years. He was a former member of the KKK and a one time supporter of segregation as were so many Southern Democrats.
Thanks for reminding me!
Yeah, we cannot escape the past John R, nor the fact that when the “Dixiecrats” left the Democratic Party due to our support for Civil Rights, they joined the Republican Party.
–
And for anyone who can remember the birth of “the Southern Strategy” calling liberals “masters of such tactics” is beyond ludicrous.
–
http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy
–
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf
#20 You know, John R, it’s really sad when you have to keep repeating memes that have been destroyed time and time again.
John R, you make a classic mistake. The ideologies of the Democrats of the 19th and early 20 centuries and the Republicans of the same era have basically switched places. The Republican party, founded in 1854 to oppose the spread of Slavery, bears no resemblance to the part of the same name today. Likewise, the Democratic party that evolved out of Jefferson’s opposition to the Federalists bears no resemblance to its original ideological stance.
So, to try to smear modern Democrats by associating them with the Klan is naive and demonstrates your lack of the understanding of the evolution of each party’s ideology. The Republican party of today is much more in line with the what Democrats of old stood for, and vice versa.
But thanks for reminding us to remember that history is fluid, and change is the one true constant, which means that The GOP, in their vain and vein attempts to return America to the male dominated White Supremacist institutions of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, is doomed by its own arrogance. Selah.
and, JohnR, let’s also remember the whole history of Robert Byrd: that he was a Klan member for about one year, then lost interest and stopped paying his dues. He would later refer to his time with the KKK as “the most egregious mistake I’ve ever made.” He went on to be a staunch supporter of Civil Rights for all Americans. He erred, saw the light, and joined the fight for equality.
Well, he DID vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and refused to serve next to blacks in the Navy. If we’re trying to be accurate.
Yes, Hoo, he did. he also supported America’s involvement in Viet Nam. No one is trying to deny or hide that.
Re: Civil Rights, he changed his tune and became one of America’s strongest advocate for Civil Rights. And he abandoned the Klan after just one year of membership (in the 1940′s).
The point of all that is that JohnR was apparently trying to paint Democrats as the party of racism by pointing to Byrd, and he demonstrated his historical ignorance by doing so.
Apologies, ew, I keep forgetting that some people think party affiliation makes a difference.
26 – and just out of curiosity, was Byrd’s support of America’s involvement in Vietnam a positive or a negative, in your mind?
And now the GOP is racist. Cute.
And the dems are all benevolence……sacrificing for the common good. Has nothing to do with voting blocks & political power. Which is why of course, blacks in this nation continue to excell in their standard of living…..the help from the dems.
And that’s why (this thread) the NRA is evil…..they get in the way of the “common good”. Never mind that black woman in the projects has no future & no way (if disarmed) to protect herself & family when preyed upon in that idyllic life the nuevo dems have given her.
And the excellent prospect for jobs & upward mobility provided by “profressive” social policy & economic proficiency as manifested by the current dems.
“progressive”……(but not a bad Freudian pun)
No apologies necessary Hoo. We all have our opinions as to whether party affiliation makes a difference or not.
I don’t view Byrd’s support of America’s involvement in Viet Nam as a “positive” or a “negative” but rather as historically understandable, given the context of his ideology and the times in which he lived.
#31 “…..historically understandable,….”
That, sir, will rationalize anything.
You’ll forgive me if I say my observation of previous posts is that they don’t seem as clinically objective.
Facts are facts! History is what it is!
The Democrat Party has historically been the party of Andrew Jackson, slavery and segregation.
The Republican Party has historically been the party of Lincoln, emancipation, and responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Name Withheld was making a snide remark in his #18 post referring to the KKK. The Klan no longer exists and certainly any remnant today has no political clout and should not be compared to the NRA or any modern trade union. Name’s post was not trying to further the dialogue.
I love it when liberals dish it out but then can’t take it!
Wow JohnR…what’s next out of you? Holocaust denial?
History proves you wrong. It is that simple.
#34 Mr. Williams…..I am quite sure John R. can & will speak for himself.
I am also aware you have made some self-proclaimed, intelectually superior rationalization not to respond to my posts. How convenient, and I’ve lost much sleep.
As an opinion forum….we’ll see if RTEB (post-very brief-”deregulation”) will allow my/this post.
Sir….you make a lot of unsubstantiated comments…..assumming what I can only interpret as an unwillingness to support positions….while, also my observation….with snide, out of context remarks.
It is my opinion you have every “right” to do so. It is also my opinion that I be able to respond in kind.
We shall see.
#34 e william
Please advice where I am historically incorrect?
Dereg is over. Keep it down to a dull roar, please. Thanks.
Well, JohnR, let’s see…just to start, you claim “The Klan no longer exists.” You could not be more wrong.
#38 e william I don’t believe that whatever exists today as the KKK is worthy of mention in any serious political dialogue. The same goes for neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and the Black Panthers as well!
These wackos just don’t enter my mind as worthy of discussion! But then I am a conservative.
A lot of the above (so-called) comments certainly brings back to mind Conservative ex-Senator Trent Lott’s slip-up in December 2002.
Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
Now that was just laugh out loud funny John R. After the hue and cry over those Black Panthers “intimidating” voters and the Obama justice department “refusing” to prosecute them…. Let’s at least try to keep this real. If your point was “political power”, then the Dixiecrats of the Jim Crow south have none either.
–
And your version of the NRA as a union, would then need your condemnation on that basis, as you have done for every union we have ever discussed here…
Ah, good old Robert Byrd. As much as I would like to admire him for “seeing the light,” I have to wonder whether he was counting votes. Did he have a moral epiphany, or was he just a shameless opportunist? George Wallace tried to do the same thing but he waited until the late 70s and nobody believed him. Strom Thurmond never quite made it.
Quiz: When did the State of Mississippi ratify the 13th Amendment?