Shoot first, ask questions never
There is simply no understanding the prevalence of gun violence in America - as evidenced by the recent attempted assassination of a congresswoman during a mass shooting - without discussing the nefarious role played by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Once an organisation primarily concerned with the education and training of sportsmen, in a coup that came to be known as the Cincinnati Revolt in 1977, hardliners took over the leadership and believed that any gun regulation would take us down a slippery slope to Khmer Rougism.
In the years since, unlike the US in the wake of the 1968 assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy - or for that matter Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre - the response to senseless gun violence has been to discuss everything from the rhetoric on our airwaves to the weather outside.
But any public conversations regarding restricting who has access to guns has been considered verboten (although, thankfully, this time some cracks are beginning to show).
This is largely because the NRA's duping its own members, which we'll discuss below, and coming to the realisation that the real money was in actually protecting the rights of gun manufacturers, which we'll discuss in Part II of this series.
If the NRA leadership is not radical, they certainly see the benefit in playing radicals on TV in order to enrich their financial benefactors who produce and sell the weaponry of death.
In the 1990s, in a climate of fear and paranoia that produced the Oklahoma City bombing, they were all too happy to refer to the government authority that tries to enforce gun laws, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms (ATF), as "jack-booted thugs". This led former president George H.W. Bush to resign his membership.
They then decided to up the ante by accusing former president Bill Clinton of murder and saying he "had blood on his hands" - all for the crime of supporting background checks at gun shows - which is among the many legislative proposals to reduce gun violence that they have repeatedly blocked.
Others include a ban on high-capacity magazines, banning sales to those on terrorist watch lists, and fully funding the aforementioned ATF (think about the latter when they say they want to "strengthen existing gun laws" after each new tragedy).
In fact, just a few days after the mass shooting in Tucson it was reported by Ryan Reilly from TPMMuckraker that a "jihadist" in America who was... "a moderator and contributor on Islamic extremist web forums, posted songs praising suicide bombers, discussed his jihad fantasies in the open..." was able to get an AK-47, no questions asked.
Emerson Begolly, the "jihadist" in question, responded when queried about this with laughter and facetiously exclaimed that "someone at the FBI showed up to work drunk". Perhaps, but if they were, it was only because the NRA forced them to do keg stands.
Follow me On Twitter: @cliffschecter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnv7tXEBATc
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That's what happened to this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XnhHzs91MY
Not this guy though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
That was the government shooting an unarmed civilian. Kinda makes the point about citizens having firearms, doesn't it?
Only if you want a peaceful protest to turn into a full out civil war.
A gun fight would not have sparked this protest the way that slaughter did.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
What? They haven't? Really?
"Trust no one, Mr. Mulder." - Well-Manicured Man
Calling the shooting of Ms. Gifford an assassination is intellectually dishonest.
The "attempted assassination" was a mentally ill person acting out. It wasn't a politically motivated action.
We can't be as dishonest as the right and pretend to be better than they are.
We do need more stringent gun control in this country. We'll never get there by overstating the facts.
He searched 'assassinations' and 'lethal injections' and other searches that indicate that he really did attempt the assassination of a political figure. So it was an 'attempted' assassination.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Actually both the attempted assassination and the mental illness are legal points that have to be proven, usually one exclusively from the other.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So the claim that "someone at the FBI showed up to work drunk" is false.
There are, however, those called Jack Mormons which means there's a certain amount of picking and choosing.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
for linking democracynow.org stories ...
Amy Goodman and her colleagues are the most important voice in independant (ie real)
journalism in America ... so please I hope people keep supporting them.
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
The NRA, they've been missleading people for years. I originally thought that the second amendment read in whole "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then I later learned about that "Well regulated militia" part and I realized that most people only know what the NRA tells them the second amendment means.
Before the current mostly conservative Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NRA's definition, the main landmark decision on the second amendment was a case from 1932, US v Miller I think was the name of it. It was the decision that previous Supreme Courts refered back to before the newest ruling which says the exact opposite. The Miller ruling was about some guy who wanted to carry a sawed-off shotgun, the court in 1932 ruled that the sawed-off did nothing to promote a well-regulated militia ruled against him. It took them 70 years, but the NRA finally got a friendly enough SC to reverse that ruling and instead insert their definition as law.
Years ago I read a book by Michael Lind called "up from conservatism," he touched on the gun control debate in one chapter in which he claimed that in the 18th century, the actuall phrase "keep and bear arms" had a compleatly different meaning then than it does today. It was basically refering to a type of military service (such as that in a militia).
If this is true then it means that the NRA has been perpetraiting one of the greatest frauds against the American people for years. The NRA was originally founded back in 1871 to promote better marksmanship following the Civil War, up until the 1970's that had been their only focus. But just as the conservatives took over the Republican party in that same time frame, the NRA was taken over by far-right radicals with an agenda and the organization has not been worth a damn since.
When angry, count four, when very angry, swear.
-Mark Twain-
For God so loved the Gun that he shot his only begotten Son. (John 3:16)
What happened to the great suggestion a few years back that victims of gun violence sue gun manufacturers in the way the USA dealt with tobacco firms?
Alfie46
The NRA would be nothing with out a whole lot of Americans supporting them , they are the ones who disgust me . One more reason why I am not a big fan of my country any more .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
The only real solution is repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
That is obviously the right idea and it has just as much chance as a lot of other right ideas like getting rid of the filibuster or, better yet, getting rid of the senate.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus at gaiussemproniusgracchus@yahoo.com
You can't really repeal amendments; one would have to create and pass another amendment. Even with Prohibition Amendment XVIII, it's still there, just over-ridden by Amendment XXII.
And that would require 2/3's majority of both houses and 3/4 public.
And if successful, there could still be grounds for saying one amendment is infringing the rights of another.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The NRA has no intention of making the country safe from criminals with guns. Their only concern is with gun possession. The NRA cannot come up with a reasoned explanation for opposing a waiting period.
Responsible gun owners should be at the forefront of the fight against gun violence; not just saying you are against it, actually working toward reducing it.
Until the NRA is the leading proponent of finding and legislating ways to reduce the number of people in this country who are killed by guns, I will continue to think of the NRA and its members as lobbyists and dupes, respectively, of the gun manufacturers who are the only ones who benefit from their policies.
...and I detest the NRA. Like so many organizations these days, the NRA is a front for collecting money from stupid people who have no other way to be a part of something other than to pay for a membership.
The NRA is all about the money.
Lower the retirement age.
Thank you for a very informative post.
I look forward to part 2.
Michael Moore answered the question in the animation in the movie" Bowling for Columbine".
Quit pretending like you don't know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxNnPwkcOk8
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Comments are closed on this entry