Please Keep This in Mind…

How lovely!

These types of events always lead to the same thing: talking heads on every channel that ever pretended to practice any sort of journalism report a few scant facts (“someone at a political rally shot some people and was captured”), then fill hours with idle speculation because they have nothing else to talk about. I don’t understand why so many people are willing to sit there and listen to it.

I don’t understand why so many people are willing to sit there and listen to it.

Maybe because by listening to something, anything, no matter how inane or uninformed it is, it helps to drown out their own inner dialog (which some people, unfortunately, don’t even understand is their own “voice”), which might be telling them things they either don’t like, or don’t understand.

/pure speculation…

“As crazy as one deranged young man acted…”. Let’s also refrain from dumping this crime at the door of the mentally ill. The mentally ill are LESS violent than the general population, and are in fact its victims way more often. The sane are out there committing horrible acts every day. Don’t rush to judge just because you don’t understand why this happened.

I love those songs.

These nut cases give us law abiding gun owners a bad reputation. I’m sure someone is going to try and ban high capacity magazines now since he used a 30 round magazine.

For those that are blaming Palin they are also nut cases. I can’t stand that woman but she had nothing to do with it.

Hemant, I wish you had put a disclaimer before the second link indicating that it was a WBC website link. As a rule, I avoid clicking on anything of theirs because I don’t want to participate in giving the attention whores anything they want.

As for the shooter, the only thing that seemed vaguely political in his rants were things about gold and silver and currency, which rings libertarian bells. However what it really seems is that this guy was a whole lotta just plain crazy. I wouldn’t be surprised if his political “convictions” were a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories and disjointed thoughts with no clear left or right bias. Maybe he was drawn to the violent rhetoric against Rep. Giffords, but more evidence is needed to say so definitively.

Actually, I keep hearing most people define this shooter in a similar way – a deranged young man who “lost his way”. I can’t help but think if the kid had been brown skinned and had a foreign sounding name, the main description we would be hearing is “terrorist”.

I just assumed the shooter was a Tea Partier. I’m as guilty as anyone. Keith Olbermann embarrassed himself over this, too. It looks like he (the shooter, not Keith) was just psychotic.

I actually haven’t seen much false information about the case (though, to be fair, I have not been getting mine via twitter). My first sources said only that she had been shot and that others had died and that there was a history of violent threats and vandalism against her. Still accurate. Though, I have seen more theorizing after the shooter’s name and videos were revealed. I have not seen anyone blame Palin directly, but I have seen discussion about increasing right wing violent rhetoric surrounding politics. And, oh yeah, people who rant about the gold standard or claim to love Mein Kampf are almost without exception right wingers (and the shooter here did both). I am curious that there hasn’t been more discussoin of Loughner’s antisemitism (Jews run the federal reserve and destroy the gold standard, don’t you know?) considering he murdered Arizona’s first Jewish Congressperson.

@Zietlos

That said, High Capacity Magazines: What in the nine hells are YOU hunting on weekends? The right to a well maintained militia, good sir. That’s your amendment.

This is what makes me ashamed to call myself liberal. For some reason, the side that is correct everywhere else tends to only focus on the first phrase of the sentence.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the People. That’s the operative phrase. It can be argued that, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” refers to the necessary evil of having a military for our republic. Furthermore, since the Founders just fought a war against a tyrannical military, it can be argued that their intent was to ensure that the People could rise up in rebellion against the military if ever needed again.

Anyhow, that’s an aside to your question.

There is no reason whatsoever you need a high capacity magazine other than to take out large numbers of small targets, like people, without needing the discipline and training of learning how to change a cartridge. Don’t give me home protection crap, you don’t need more than a few bullets to kill any home invader, and if a dozen people try to take over your house, after eight or so are dead the last will probably run. And don’t give me hunting crap, while waiting for a buck you can spend a minute reloading between kills.

Well, for one, they’re a lot of fun. We do shoot at paper and steel targets far more than people, you know. But seriously, the only reason we need is that there is no reason why a law abiding citizen cannot own a high capacity magazine.

I understand your stance and concern about them, but I feel a ban will do absolutely nothing but punish us law abiding citizens.

If the shooter here in question was genuinely suffering from mental defect, then it was already illegal for him to own any firearms in Arizona.

(I’ve been watching The Big Legowski and drinking White Russians along with him, so I apologize if I didn’t make sense.)

And I probably should’ve read cat’s link before commenting on his mental state.

Oh, I forgot to mention that it takes responsibility just like every liberty we have. The assumption that high capacity magazines will only be used for evil is pretty sad. It’s every bit as irritating at right wingers who think that the only reason to encrypt your data is to hide kiddie porn.

Thanks cat and amberbug… attributing this violence to the mentally ill is an unfair stereotype.

And here, just for some context;

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

@Drew M, I tend to be in the middle about gun issues, but this “Furthermore, since the Founders just fought a war against a tyrannical military, it can be argued that their intent was to ensure that the People could rise up in rebellion against the military if ever needed again.” argument is a rather poor one, considering that armed insurrection counts as treason “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort (article 3 section 3), that Congress is given the sole authority “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (Article 1 section 8), that the states may note make war or keep troops without congressional permission (article 1 section 10), and Congress is “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress” (article 1 section 8), and the federal government is commanded to protect states against “domestic violence” (article 4 section 4). In addition,Shays Rebellion is one of the key factors in causing the constitution to be put in place in the first place. IF the reason you give is the correct one, it is certainly indicitive of severe cognitive dissonance (quite possible) or intense political disagreements on the issue. Which hardly gives you the cut and dry interpretation you want. In addition, while I agree with you that the use of the term people should definitely be evaluated (though maybe not with your conclusion), the wording of the constitution was considered of great importance(see, for example, the huge debates about the wording of the first amendment), so the part about militias cannot be ignored, especially considering how the Constitution explicitly outlines the division of powers between states and federal government in regards to militias earlier in the document.

@cat

I actually find it to be an interesting argume3nt, but I’;m a bit too inebriated to defend it right now. (Don’t weorry, the guns are3 safely locked in a big honking Natuional Security safe). I admit it’s not the best argument, but I still find it interesting. It came up as an alte3rnative to tghe whole “Well organized militia” thing.

It’s all academic anyhow. The SCOTUS ruled (last year, I think) that the militia is a subset of The People. As such, it’s a right guaranteed to the individual (just like the rest of the Bill of Rights).

@DA: I’ll try to get to you tomorrow.

@mike dave: I lost a dear friend to a drunk driver and I can tell you it would make fuck-all’s difference if he was killed in a shooting. Both occur when victims are in the wrong place at the wrong time and both occur when the perpetrator BREAKS THE FUCKING LAW.

If you’re going to get all sanctimonious and shit, at least be creative.

@Drew M, I am aware where the current jurisprudence stands, but that does not mean I have to agree with it. The mere fact that a case was decided does not make it rightly decided, though it obviously does make it current law, just as Plessy v Ferguson was in its day. There are cases that still officially stand that I consider outright atrocities, such as Buck v Bell or Korematsu v US. The fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with me is unlikely to change my opinion. Shoot, even if I thought the Constitution disagreed, that would not by itself be enough to change my opinion on a matter either. I would just think the Constitution needed amended. I certainly do not think that the opinions of a few rich white slave owners in the 1700s are likely to be the ideal ones. I do not debate history because I am an originalist, I do it because I am a huge nerd. I actually do think that your theory played a part and anti-federalist paranoia about a powerful federal government did play a role, however I think that suppressing rebellion was a bigger reason for the second amendment than protecting it. When the Constitution was ratified, militias were used heavily in crushing Native American resistence, in putting down slave rebellions, and in discouraging organizing amoung the poor. The second in particular was vital here. Anti-federalists were more common in the south than the north and the north’s larger population as well as the fact that black people did not count fully in population tallies (and some areas of the south had slaves outnumbering whites 9 to 1) meant that the north had more sway in the federal government than the south (<-the reason more southerners were anti-federalists). Southern slave owners were afraid that the northern dominated federal government would disarm southern militias and then refuse to put down slave rebellions. The state which held the federal capital, Pennsylvania, had passed a law gradually banning slavery in 1780 and Philidelphia was considered by many to be a hotbed of abolitionist sentiment. The second amendment was one of the many compromises in north-south relations regarding slavery and federal representation that ultimately culminated in the Civil War. Laws regarding gun ownership for black people and native americans have traditionally been extremely strict. "The right to bear arms", like other legal rights of the time, applied only to rich white men.

I'm not saying I do not find the question of weapons control and armed resistence in general to be an uninteresting or not complex (I must admit my secret love for the good old fashioned west coast Black Panther Party for Self Defense), I just find the notion that it was the argument and reasoning behind the second amendment rather unconvincing.

Our gun laws are a mess.

I say this as a hunter, veteran with a marksmanship medal, and gun owner. I’ve lived in a small mountain town that would often get deer and mountain lions in residential districts in the winter. I currently teach in America’s fifth most dangerous city – one of the first to have a school shooting.

Guns, like cars, are useful but dangerous objects. We track car ownership, which helps us immensely when they are used in a crime, and if a person is no longer able to operate a car safely for a variety of reasons, we restrict their ability to drive, either partially or completely.

That a similar system doesn’t exist for guns is simply absurd.

Thank you. The Sarah Palin thing has been pissing me off too. Seriously, I know it looks bad that she used crosshairs in that picture, but pinning this on her seems really unfair, especially since it appears this guy wasn’t politically motivated. Yay skepticism!

@DA

Not true. I’m a former Arizona resident, and there is no direct connection where they somehow assess peoples’ mental fitness to have guns.

Yes and no. The law is on the books, but I misunderstood that a court order was required to have the prohibition to take effect. It’s even a question on the BATF over-the-counter sales form (PDF), which i didn’t realize ’til this morning. It wasn’t there the last time I bought a gun several years ago. Regardless, in the case of this shooter, it’s meaningless.

I don’t have any arguments to make against what you said. Honestly, your last statement is pretty hilarious and sobering:

There’s one side whose mainstream spokesmen are talking about death panels, socialism, a secret Muslim in the white house, and watering the tree of liberty with blood. It’s also the side where they defend the right of any asshole to own a panzerfaust.

@cat:

[kirk]I would not presume to debate you.[/kirk]

@mike dave:

Now that I’m sober, you still look like an idiot.

@Daniel:

The standard argument is that unlike keeping and bearing arms, driving is a privilege, not a right. I do think it’s a bit disingenuous though, so I never use it seriously.

When the Constitution was drafted, everyone owned a rifle because it was a tool that could mean the difference between life and death. While we don’t require them as we used to, I will always own one as long as the Amendment remains in effect. I feel it’s an honor to exercise my Constitutional rights even if I don’t “need” to.

I’m on the fence about registration. They are dangerous, just like cars, and it makes sense that they should be tracked. However, as long as there is a non-zero chance that a registry would somehow, even decades down the road, lead to a confiscation list, I will be against it. But, if a registry became law, I would grudgingly follow it. I realize that it makes me seem like a paranoid fool, but I can live with that.

It’s so funny being a staunch pro-gunner who is liberal at heart. I don’t fit in anywhere: On one side I’m a “Gun Loving Nutjob” and on the other I’m a “Queer Loving Commie.”

Drew
I’ve been a gun owner most of my adult life, so I sympathize. I also get called a conservative by my lefty friends and a lefty by my conservative friends. I’m not against sane gun ownership, I’m against the gun fetish the modern right has where guns are essentially worshipped and we just constantly point at the second amendment and talk about the potential need to ‘fight tyranny’ rather than pragmatic policies and social realities. Realities like the one that handguns and SMGs are designed soloely to kill other human beings. Realities like the one that we HAVEN’T overthrown any tyrannies, but a lot of good people are dead because of gun violence. Realities about how scaring people about mythical gun confiscations create even more craziness. The reality that ultimately the NRA has some very definite political connections that go beyond gun policy. And guns differ from cars in one very important respect; cars serve a purpose OTHER than killing. Guns are a tool designed for nothing else. Most people don’t know I’m a gun owner because I don’t flaunt it; in Arizona, I’ve several times seen people just walking around doing open carry, which does nothing but create tension and fear, or pose for pictures holding their guns proudly (not just ‘rednecks’ or righties, a couple “cowboy liberal” types and plenty of chulos, skinheads, and bikers have the same thing going on), or throw pro-gun bumper stickers on every conceivable vehicle (seeing a pro-gun sticker on a Vespa is really bizarre, let me tell you). I can’t think of an expression other than “fetishism”, and it overlaps significantly with a group of people who hold a lot of paranoid fantasies about government and society as well as some very open totalitarian tendencies of their own. Believe me, if the people at “Loose Change” screenings had been packing and mobbing gun shows with the enthusiastic support of Nancy Pelosi and Rachel Maddow, I would have been just as concerned.

I don’t think anything will ever convince me that long guns are okay but handguns are not, but I would really like to hear more of your views on it.

Well, maybe long guns are better; you don’t have to be as close to that which you shoot.

Anyway, back on that. I also enjoy target shooting. I like to go with my mom especially, who’s a dead shot. And of course, yeah, we use handguns. Everyone in my immediate family owns a gun (except me as I’m currently living in China). So I’m not against handgun ownership, I’m just against all the obfuscation that the subject brings. Most gun owners (in my experience)are irresponsable and have this tough guy complex where they really HOPE they’ll have a chance to heroicly draw their gun someday. I actually DID have to draw on a couple guys once and though I thankfully didn’t have to fire, it freaked me out for about a week. I’ve been shot at once and had a cop point a gun at me on another occasion, and found these experiences really sobering. Most people I know who keep handguns generally seem to live in an alternate world than mine, to be honest. They are convinced that someday they’re going to be Matt Dillion (from Gunsmoke, I mean, not the guy from The Outsiders)when statistically they’re more likely to gun down someone they know either accidentally or in a 20 second argument. The more right leaning ones have some vague idea about the revolution or whatever. Meanwhile, people I know who keep rifles are sometimes this way, but not as often, and since they don’t walk around with them constantly seem to consider them less part of their space. Yeah, all of this is anecdotal, and just me calling it as I see it. Another fun anecdote; I took my best friend, an anti-gun Jewish liberal, to a gun show one time. He was so appalled by all the right wing crazies, gang bangers, outlaw bikers, and other nutcases their buying conversion sets and spending three minutes for a background check to pick up assult rifle kits that he ended up buying a Mossberg 88 while we were there. His basic idea was that if these people were going to be armed, he wanted to be as well.