The Watering Hole: Monday, December 17, 2012 – Can We PLEASE Talk About Guns In Our Society Now?

On the morning of December 14, 2012, it was Newtown, Connecticut.
Before that it was Clackamas Town Center, Oregon.
Before that it was Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Before that it was Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
Before that it was Aurora, Colorado.
Before that it was Seattle, Washington.
Before that it was Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Before that it was Oakland, California.
Before that it was Seal Beach, California.
Before that it was Carson City, Nevada.
Before that it was Tucson, Arizona.
Before that it was Manchester, Connecticut.
Before that it was Fort Hood, Texas.
Before that it was Binghamton, New York.
Before that it was Carthage, North Carolina.
Before that it was Northern Illinois University, Illinois.
Before that it was Kirkwood, Missouri.
Before that it was Omaha, Nebraska.
Before that it was Virginia Tech, Virginia.
Before that it was Salt Lake City, Utah.
Before that it was Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Before that it was Seattle, Washington.
Before that it was Red Lake, Minnesota.
Before that it was Brookfield, Wisconsin.
Before that it was Meridian, Minnesota.
Before that it was Fort Worth, Texas.
Before that it was Atlanta, Georgia.
And before that, on the morning of April 20, 1999, it was Littleton, Colorado.

These are all places where someone, or several someones, took a gun, or several guns, and began shooting people at some location, or several locations. Does this list strike you as being rather long? These are just ones since Columbine. There were others in between and before that. Many people died in those mass shootings. Too many. And too many were children. Far, far too many. And yet, we can’t seem to have that talk about all these mass shootings and the prevalence of guns in our society.

How many people have to die in mass shootings before we are allowed to talk about the prevalence of guns in our society, and their direct connection to all these mass shootings? How many more children have to die? This last time it was 20. I shudder to think that this many children dying in a single mass shooting in our country can’t convince us to have this talk. If we can’t talk about this now, can we start talking about this when the number of children killed in one of these mass shootings hits 30? Or do we have to wait until a mass shooting claims the lives of 50 children, since 50 is such a magical number, given more importance than the numbers immediately prior to or following it? This last time, the victims included five-year-olds in an elementary school. How young do the victims have to be the next time before we’re allowed to have this talk? Two years old? One year old? Newborn babies in a hospital nursery?

On Saturday morning I was watching Chris Hayes and he began one of his points with, “When these things happen…” Think about those words for a moment. “When these things happen.” Why are we using euphemisms to discuss this topic? Why aren’t we saying, “When mass shootings like this happen…”? Wouldn’t the conversation be more open and honest if we talk about it in terms of what happened? How often are “these things” happening, that we can instantly understand when someone boils it down to those four simple words? Why do mass shootings happen? Or if you’re bothered by those words, why do “these things happen”? Do we even know the answer to that? Why do “these things happen” so often lately? What has changed to make the number of mass shootings go up in recent months? Have we tried to do anything in the past to prevent these things from happening? Why hasn’t anything we’ve done in the past to prevent these things from happening, prevented these things from happening? Have we been doing the right things? Have we been addressing the right issues? Have we been asking the right questions? Have we been framing the debate in the right way? Are we allowed to frame the debate in the right way? Is this a gun issue, or a rights issue, or a safety issue, or a health issue, or a mental health issue, or a political corruption issue, or a mentally ill politician issue, or some other kind of issue? Do we understand what the other side is saying when they give their views? Do they understand what they’re saying when they give their views? Is this really an issue about Freedom? How is the word “Freedom” being defined? Is owning a gun really the same as being free? Is your right to freely own a gun more important than my right to be free from being killed by your gun, even if you aren’t the one pulling the trigger?

Call me crazy (You wouldn’t be alone, my mother does that all the time. When I was a kid and my mother was getting in the car to go some place, I’d ask, “Where ya going?” And she’d say, “Crazy.” And I’d say, “Can I come?” And she’d say, “You’re already there.” That really happened. A lot. So I got that going for me, which is nice. :)), but I think the very first question we should be asking in this debate, the very first one, and perhaps the one question that will set the tone for all discussion to come is a very simple one. It’s so simple that everyone can get it right, but because it’s never asked, it’s never considered. And that question is this: What year is it right now?

It’s not 1791 anymore. (BTW, the Second Amendment was ratified 221 years ago Saturday.) We can’t keep looking at this issue as if it were. When the Authors of the Second used the term “militia,” they had a very specific idea of what the militia’s role was in society. They were also clearly stating that the context of keeping and bearing arms was directly related to militia duties, and if Congress should change the nature of militia duties (which was perfectly within their constitutional authority to do), then the right to keep and bear arms would likewise change. The rationale for why anyone would have the right to keep and bear arms would adapt as the role of the militia adapted. If the militia were no longer to be used for keeping the peace, which is primarily done by police officers now, then it would not be rational to say that you could now own a gun for the purpose of keeping the peace. And that, IMHO, extends to personal protection, as well. People were allowed to keep guns for personal protection because, being part of the well-regulated militia charged with protecting the local citizens, they were expected to own a gun for that purpose (because there was no such thing as a local police force in those days.) And since the role of the militia has changed over the years, the justification of community protection no longer applies. I know that recent SCOTUS rulings suggest my interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong, but I prefer to think that a temporary case of illiteracy has overcome certain Justices and will be corrected at some point in the future. I also hope they’ll look at a calendar and see what year it is, and what year it isn’t.

It seems that every time one of these horrific incidents happens, we are horrified, and we say something ought to be done. Then, after much public squawking and hand-wringing, little or nothing actually gets done, and another horrific incident comes along to horrify us yet again. How many more times do we have to be horrified before we’re horrified enough to say, “Enough!”? How many more children have to die before we’ve decided that enough children have died to make that talk necessary? If guns aren’t part of the problem, then why aren’t there more mass killings through any other single method? As Ozzy Osbourne (of all people) pointed out so astutely, “If guns don’t kill people, people kill people, then why do we give people guns when we send them off to war? Why don’t we just send people?” The man makes an excellent point. If guns don’t kill people, then why are they used in so many murders?

There have been reactions to gun violence that have been absolutely stupid. When a child was gunned down because he dared to shoot water on someone with a super soaker, a New Jersey legislator’s solution was a bill to ban super soakers. After the Aurora movie theater shootings, the movie chain banned costumes, as if they were the cause of the death and destruction. Why not publicize a rule against bringing guns into the theater? I’m sure that would make other customers feel so much better than knowing they can’t wear costumes to the theater. Have you ever heard the expression, “Check your iron at the door”? You do know that even in the Old West, people were not allowed to bring guns to a social function (like a Dance.) Everybody accepted it as a sensible form of gun control. So why can’t we ban guns in other social settings? Why is it okay to bring guns to a political rally? Or into national parks (thank you,President Obama, for that expansion of gun rights)? Or into bars where alcohol is served? Why does anyone think any of those measures would “promote the general welfare”?

Gun owners may argue that if a mass shooter didn’t have a gun, he would just find some other way to kill people. There are a number of flaws with this thinking. For one thing, how do you know that someone who kills with a gun would still kill if a gun wasn’t available? I’ve heard some point to that guy in China who stabbed a bunch of school children with a knife, as if this happens all the time in this country. You know why that guy didn’t use a gun instead? Because China has very strict gun control laws. And since he stabbed them instead of shooting them, most of them survived the attack. But won’t China start cracking down on large knife owners? China had already implemented Large Knife Control measures after a “spate” of school children being stabbed in 2010. Now, gun owners may try to use this to say that gun control would be equally ineffective at stopping stabbings of school children. To that I would say, “Good. Because the Large Knife Control measures in China have reduced the number of such killings from a spate to a rarity. I only wish mass shootings in the US were just as rare.”

Some gun owners actually believe the absurd notion that we would all be safer if everyone were allowed to carry a concealed gun. It’s not a new idea, either.

Of course it’s just automatically assumed that everyone who owns a gun is skilled enough to use it in a crowded setting and not take any more innocent lives. Is this a wise assumption to make? In the wrong hands, a car can be deadly to those around it. But we let you buy all the cars you want provided that before we let you drive them on public roads without adult supervision, you take tests that demonstrate your proficiency with them. You say it’s not the same because you don’t have a constitutional right to own a car? Okay, you have a constitutional right to a lawyer. It’s also accepted that you have a right to a lawyer who knows what he or she is doing in the courtroom. Isn’t that the same as requiring proficiency with a device that could kill many people around you, including yourself? Can’t we require all gun owners to store their guns at a local armory, sign them out when taking shooting lessons at that armory, and pass a marksmanship test before being allowed to carry that gun out in public? And shouldn’t they be required to demonstrate that proficiency again every so often, just to make sure that they are less likely to shoot innocent people. After all, the Constitution also says that no one shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Wouldn’t letting someone have a deadly weapon without requiring them to make the minimal effort not to take anyone’s life while using it constitute denying you due process? It stands to reason that an annual proficiency test is not out of line with the responsibility that comes from carrying something lethal in public.

Maybe we could have that talk if the leadership of the NRA would listen to its own membership and allow talk of gun control. But they won’t allow it. They have taken an absolutist position on the issue of gun control and defy virtually all attempts to impose any. And for that, I say they must share some of the responsibility for all those lives lost. They haven’t been promoting gun safety, which was the reason they came into existence, as much as protecting the right of gun availability. And that has help lead to the prevalence of guns in our society. So what do we do? To be honest, I don’t know. What we do depends on what we’re trying to ultimately achieve. Is protecting so-called “Second Amendment Rights” more important to our society than protecting the lives of innocent people? More important than protecting the lives of elementary school children? More important than protecting the lives of babies in a hospital nursery? What is more important, your right to own a gun or my right to not be unjustifiably killed by that gun, no matter who wields it? All these things need to be discussed. So when do we start discussing them? After the next mass shooting, or before?

This post was cross-posted at Pick Wayne’s Brain
This is our open thread. You can discuss guns, mass shootings, or something a little more pleasant. But sooner or later, we have to talk about the guns.

134 thoughts on “The Watering Hole: Monday, December 17, 2012 – Can We PLEASE Talk About Guns In Our Society Now?

  1. Count me on the side of SEVERE regulation of gun ownership, including either outright repeal of the second amendment, or repeal followed by a rewrite which SEVERELY limits gun ownership by individuals. Period. Start there. I do, frankly, find myself somewhat sick to my stomach when the issue of ‘gun regulation’ begins and ends with ammo clip size, and even then the freaks fly from closets everywhere.

    My gun nut cousin once said, “People can kill people with baseball bats too. Should we outlaw baseball bats?”

    I answered him truthfully. “Works for me,” I said. “I don’t care any more for baseball than I do for hunting. Zero, in other words. But yes, I am staunchly opposed to murder, to killing, to assault.” Crickets. Conversation ended.

    • yes, someone could kill someone with a baseball bat, but guess what? That isn’t happening! And if it did, you could damn well bet that there would be severe regulations about baseball bats. Look at cough medicine. They ordered them taken off the OTC shelves and put behind the pharmacy register because of what someone might do with them. Why they don’t apply this logic to guns and bullets and say someone might kill an innocent person with them is beyond me. It’s time people learned that the Second Amendment is just as relevant in our society today as is the Third Amendment.

    • Yes, people kill people with baseball bats, but it doesn’t follow that we should then make it EASY for those some people to acquire guns — just because, what the hell, they’re going to kill people anyway.

      The people making that argument think they’re being so god damned clever, but they’re actually just fucking stupid.

  2. Amy Sullivan sounds the alarm on mass shootings:

    “As of today, there have been 70 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, leaving 543 people dead (assuming the reports of 27 fatalities from today’s shootings are correct.) Seven of those 70 shootings occurred this year. Sixty-eight of those 543 victims were killed this year. If the scenes of horror and heartbreak are now familiar, it’s because the past six years have been particularly bloody. Fully 45% of the victims of mass shootings in America over the past three decades were killed since 2007. That is a crisis.”

  3. TOPEKA, Kan. — Two police officers were fatally shot outside a grocery store in Topeka while responding to a report of a suspicious vehicle, authorities said.

    If only the policeman had guns, they could have…oh, wait…

  4. Ta-Nehisi Coates takes the personal arms race to its logical conclusion:

    “It is human to wish that Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary, who died heroically [Friday], enjoyed some weaponry beyond her body. But are we then asking for a world in which the educators of small children are strapped? Do we want our hospital workers, our librarians, our baby-sitters, and little league coaches all armed? What is the message that such a society sends to itself and its children? What does it say about its government’s ability to perform the most essential of services–protection? And is it enough to simply be wholly sane? What do we say to the ghost of Jordan Davis, shot down over an argument of loud music, by a man who was quite sane? And where does it end? If more mass killers don body-armor, should we then start fitting ourselves in kevlar too?”

    • Maybe we all need to start carrying kevlar blankets.

      One of the reasons that people form a government is protection and current our guns laws and current our mental health laws are not doing the job.

  5. Here’s some logic for the NRA wet dreamers:

    If only Adam Lanza’s mother, his first victim, had been a gun owner, she could have prevented this carnage.

  6. Some argue that to prevent gun violence, everyone must be armed…a return to the days of the Old West, where a man didn’t go outside without his 6-shooter. (at least in the movies)

    But to say that we will reduce gun violence if everyone carries a gun is like saying we will reduce teenage pregnancy by allowing public nudity; we will reduce diabetes by eating more sugar; we will reduce traffic accidents by getting rid of speed limits.

    I kind of like the argument about baseball bats. Does anyone seriously believe that nearly 30 people would have been killed last Friday if the killer had armed himself with as many baseball bats as he could carry?

    • A baseball bat is for hitting baseballs, not for pushing a piece of metal to a high enough velocity that it shatters bone, rips flesh to shreds, disintegrates organs and destroys life. And a gun with 30 shots isn’t for deer, you don’t get into a firefight with Bambi …. a 30 shot gun is to kill 30 people, or 14 kids and two teachers in a single class room…

      • One cannot even do target practice with a semi automatic or automatic weapon. There is only one purpose for these rifles and that is to kill people especially when the person with the gun is not skilled enough to use a gun.

    • Some argue that to prevent gun violence, everyone must be armed

      I take the opposite tack, that if NO ONE was armed with (or owned, had access to, put it any way that works) a gun, period end of story, then there would be NO gun violence. Seems pretty simple to me. I should contact the NRA, maybe … new talking point for them.

      NRA — No Rifles in America. See, they wouldn’t even have to change their moniker!

      As the A-Team dude liked to say, “I love it when a plan comes together!”

    • Killing someone with a baseball bat requires the killer to walk right up to their victim and do the deed — while the other 26 people run away and get help. Automatic weapons held at a distance while bullets are sprayed like a water hose gives no one even the chance of understanding what’s going on before they are mowed down.

      Guns are for pussies. Maniacal pussies.

      • “Some argue that to prevent gun violence, everyone must be armed”

        By this logic, the wingnuts should want all countries to possess nuclear weapons.

        • I think it was Heinlein who said “an armed society is a polite society” — which is funny, since the “armed societies” on our planet Reality are places like Yemen or some of the slaughterhouses in Africa.

          RightWIngers are trying two distinct responses: claim this is all about proper mental health care (by which they mean the ability to lock anyone up indefinitely because someone thinks he’s batty, except they won’t pay for this) and by repeating the claim that “they” are coming for your guns. All of them. Your kid’s shotgun, your hunting rifle, everything.

          • I’ll put it this way: the day “They” come for the guns … and get them ALL … is the day that I bow in the general direction of both the gun-getters AND the legal authorities who made it possible. All y’all, and, oh btw, THANKS!

          • It was. And the response should be if the only reason you can think of to be polite is someone is gonna shoot your ass if you aren’t, you have a serious problem with how your head works.

    • Tagline “Where was God?”

      Er, if you needed any more proof that God is a made-up creation of man’s fear and conceit …. well you had it on Friday. I wonder if any of Carlson’s little kids asked her why she thinks God will always be there when they wake up because He is all-powerful and all-good when he clearly was taking the day off on Friday.

      Oh and Huckabee? – Just f**k off would ya.

      • The great paradox. God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. And God will get all pissy and wander off if He’s not worshiped correctly and constantly. God uses natural disasters to punish us for insufficient adulation but praying doesn’t end droughts. WTF?

    • A teacher I once knew said, of prayer in the classroom, “My students are free to pray whenever they might care to; their only restraint is that they must do it silently. Jesus supposedly said that one should go into the closet to pray … no need for that, silence works as well.” Then he added, “Frankly, when I hand out one of my exams, I always figure that the best thing a student can do is PRAY!”

      Why is it that wingnuts think prayer has to be noisy, and verbal, even if it’s insulting to those of us who realize the embedded silliness in their proposition(s)?

      • Selective interpretation of the Bible – passing right over Luke 8:9-14:

        “,…For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted”

        • “Passing over”, say, liver, is no big trick. OTOH, to eat it, now that’s a trick, but see, here’s the thing: “Passing over” it is A LOT simpler than the other options. That’s the way I ‘humble’ myself, in fact. Never eat that shit. Yuk. I feel exalted every time I throw one in the trash. Good ol’ Luke, he knew!

          Um, what’s reading the bible got to do with eating liver, btw? … oh, wait, never mind, I get it! 😉

    • I recently received a scam email telling me the story about being robbed and in jail blah blah blah etc… . So I decided to respond this time by stating, “I’ll pray for you.”

      Prayers would not have saved those lives on Friday.

  7. O/T: Tomorrow by this time I’ll have met the goal I set for myself last January: to walk 2012 miles in 2012. I’m currently at 2007.8, so I should be able to get it done, and BEFORE THE WORLD ENDS ON FRIDAY!

    My only problem is this one: if the world DOESN’T end, for whatever reason, then what? Does that mean I have to sit around for a week and not walk anywhere at all? Or what if I have more under foot on the 21st than 2012 — will I be punished in the next life for pushing the envelope too far?

    I dunno, I need lots of advice. I should pray, maybe. Too bad I forgot how. Oh well, my last one wasn’t answered anyway. That was when I was about 12 yrs old and I had a cavity in a molar. I hated dentists and drills and stuff, so I did the smart thing and prayed that god would fix it.

    I’m still waiting. Uh, god? You out there? God?

    do you exist at all?
    if so

    Hell with it: I’d rather walk than pray anyway! And hey, the world’s gonna end someday, right?

    Whenever I see a snippet from Fox News or listen to an asshole like Romney speak, I figure the sooner the better!

    Besides, I still have two brand new rubber tips for my walking stick. Gotta use ’em!

    • Walking math (I love math!):

      I invariably average 2.5 ft per step, and my walking stick clunks down every four steps, or every ten feet. Therefore, in 2012 miles — i.e., 10,623,360 ft. — I’ve taken 4,249,344 steps and clunked my stick 1,062,336 times on the ground in the process!

      Well, anyway, there has to be some sort of message in allathat. I hope, at least!

      Yeah, I know, I need to pray more. 😯

    • Keep on walking. I’ve been doing water exercises at the Y for the past 3 months and when I miss going for 3 days, I start to feel poorly. Two weeks ago, I started yoga. It’s a slow “beginner’s class” which is what I need at the moment. So keep on walking 🙂

  8. Was the homeowner protecting himself from a 3 year old child and that is why he kept a loaded gun in his bedroom?

    This goes to show that many gun owners are clueless about how to store their guns and because of their ignorance, they should not be allowed to own a gun. Then again, 40% of guns are purchased privately and many of those are bought in the parking lots of gun shows.

    • Have any of y’all ever seen any statistics on how often someone successfully defends themselves from an assailant with a gun? I can’t remember hearing of it ever happening and I live in a state crawling with guns.

      • Some years ago I got into an argument, online in a ‘discussion group’, with a pair of wingnut men. One was a judge in Richmond VA, the other, a retired businessman somewhere in Arkansas. The topic was guns, the second amendment, and our “rights” as Amurkans to … well, you know. The VA judge carried a Glock in his briefcase, so he said (he was also a self-confessed fundy Christian, so I guess it made sense). The other, the Arky, said he really enjoyed playing war games and stuff on weekends, etc. I said, straight out, that I did NOT own a goddamned gun, that I didn’t WANT to own a goddamned gun, and that goddamned guns served NO PURPOSE.

        The judge asked, “What do you do to defend yourself?” The Arky added, “Yeah, and what if you were walking down a dark street in a big city somewhere and, say, five black guys came up on you, pulled out their guns, and demanded you give them all your money?”

        I said: “I’d probably make murderers out of all of them.”

        That ended the “conversation” (and I use the word loosely — I’ve always felt that ‘conversation’ was something that went on between creatures who each/all(?) could think. So much for that when you’re in the company of wingnuts, even if one happens to be a “judge.”

    • Another great victory for the NRA. The child’s parents can tuck their gun rights in at night, and read them a story.

      Kids always know where the guns are. They know where the Christmas presents are hidden. They know where daddy’s naught magazines are hidden. Parent underestimate their children, and all too often, children die.

      • Police officer not taking the trained precautions:

        SJ police officer whose son shot himself will not face criminal charges…
        Three-year-old Preston Orlando shot himself the afternoon of July 5 with a Glock 30 that belonged to his father, Brandon Orlando.
        …In its decision not to bring charges against Orlando, the district attorney’s office also considered the impact of the boy’s death on the father. District attorney’s officials described him as a “devastated” man who is severely traumatized and has flashbacks and trouble sleeping.

  9. In the days and weeks the Constitution was forged, a well regulated militia was required so we didn’t have to rely on a standing army.
    Today, we have the biggest effing standing army/navy/airforce/marines/coastguard in the world.
    We don’t need to have guns in the hands of the public. This morning I heard Stephanie Miller tick off the gun deaths in Norway, Germany, other ‘civilized’ nations, like 67, 112, 220, then, the U.S. 9,400 some odd.
    What’s wrong with us?

    • I don’t see why we have to piss away a trillion or more annually on military (to maintain “the biggest effing standing army/navy/airforce/marines/coastguard in the world”) either, but I’m like that I guess, nothing but a dumb damn Liberal. Still, I absolutely detest stupidity, esp. stupidity generated and/or supported by things that go BLAM!. Humans are SO inferior, viz life forms in general. God’s image? Yeah, right. Uh huh. Talk about contrived bullshit.

    • “In the days and weeks the Constitution was forged”

      Oh…that explains a lot – The Constitution was a forged document!


  10. Deb just mentioned to me that at work today, one of her fellow employees (a Mormon woman, a wingnutcase, a Romneyite to the bone) said that she had “heard” from “a very intelligent man” that the whole thing in Connecticut was a Black Ops setup, orchestrated by Obama himself of course, to in effect force the enablement of “the government coming to get our guns.”

    Hard to imagine? Nope, not ‘out here’ it ain’t.

    • Yeah. I ‘heard’ from a ‘very intelligent woman’ that most Rmoneyworshippers, Mormons and morons alike, have contracted the ‘tinfoil virus’. They hear black helicopters at night, and see visions of Obama with horns and pitchfork. No cure, just a four year sentence of pure agony.

      • Something like, “this here’s Amurka, dammit! We be free! It’s our guaranteed constitutional right to own guns, all the goddamn guns we wanna own, and if we wanna use ’em to kill a bunch of little kids in a school, well by god that’s our RIGHT! From GOD! Goddamit!. Fucking commie librul fascist Muslim bastards that think it ain’t OUR RIGHT! What happens when you git a goddamn nigger president — ain’t nobody can think straight no more!”

        Makes me want to move to someplace civilized. Like maybe Tahiti, or someplace like that. Even France maybe. Do the French have an obsession with guns and with god?

    • Really it’s not even funny any more it’s getting frightening. This is why so many countries stop the media from spreading lies.

      • It’s so unfunny that, seriously, if it were possible for me to leave this wretched ‘civilization’ I’d be on my way in the morning. As to where to go? Not sure, but always alert to any reasonable possibility.

    • I’ve already heard that it was an operation intended to distract us from the Benghazi cover-up. The information did not come from anyone who could ever be described as intelligent.

  11. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the Senate’s most senior member, died Monday at the age of 88, according to reports from the Washington Post.

    • A veteran of the famous Japanese-American division that fought in Italy and France I think? These people came from behind the internment wire and went to fight for the country that put them there….. amazing dedication to what they *wanted* America to be, not what it actually was at the time.

  12. 150 years ago, give or take one or two, Emily Dickinson wrote a poem in words written (“spoken”?) as if they represent the precise point of view of a GUN. It’s amazing, all things considered. Here it is with not much further comment offered. Or needed, seems to me.

    My Life had stood — a Loaded Gun —
    In Corners — till a Day
    The Owner passed — identified —
    And carried Me away —

    And now We roam in Sovereign Woods —
    And now We hunt the Doe —
    And every time I speak for Him —
    The Mountains straight reply —

    And do I smile, such cordial light
    Upon the Valley glow —
    It is as a Vesuvian face
    Had let its pleasure through —

    And when at Night — Our good Day done —
    I guard My Master’s Head —
    ‘Tis better than the Eider-Duck’s
    Deep Pillow — to have shared —

    To foe of His — I’m deadly foe —
    None stir the second time —
    On whom I lay a Yellow Eye —
    Or an emphatic Thumb —

    Though I than He — may longer live
    He longer must — than I —
    For I have but the power to kill,
    Without — the power to die —

    It’s in her last two stanzas that she tacks the entire concept of the EVILness implicit in the GUN ITSELF firmly to its cross, but it’s those last two lines that truly slay the mind: “For I have but the power to kill … Without the power to die.”

    Truth can be scary scary. Ask anyone in Newtown CT, actually, or in Aurora CO, or in Littleton Co, or in Tucson AZ, or in … take your pick.

  13. Like TNC wrote in an earlier post of mine, Alan Jacobs of The American Conservative rejects calls to arm teachers:

    “We can be absolutely sure that within a few years more people would be killed by teachers who fired their weapons accidentally or in misplaced anger or fear, or by students who stole their teachers’ guns, than have ever been killed in school massacres like those in Newtown and Columbine.

    But what troubles me most about this suggestion — and the general More Guns approach to social ills — is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian “war of every man against every man” in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now — but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly. Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction.”

  14. We’re running out of furriners to be terrified of. Them camel jockeys just haven’t done real awful good about keepin things stirred up so we have to arm everyone so we gots a reason to blast away. Course, we alas have Mexico to invade as a back up if things gets real tight.

  15. Duh….

    “The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn. has sparked a surge in gun sales, according to independent arms dealers across the nation.

    Robert Caselnova, who owns a Connecticut gun shop located less than 10 minutes from the school, said firearms flew off his shelves over the weekend, with multiple requests for AR-15 style rifles, a weapon Adam Lanza used in the Newtown massacre.”

    • And that’s where they should have put a reporter and a camera and a mike….

      …get these fucktards to tell us all exactly what is goiung through their minds… so we can all see who these people are.

  16. It is becoming more and more obvious that electing a Black President is going to trigger a new Civil War. Racism is no longer hidden and the whacko state’s rights crowd is coming to a boil. Then you add in the Teutonic/Norse overlay of Christianity in the fundegelical crowd with their white supremacy and things will explode. Onward White Christian soldiers!

  17. The truly bizarre concept of this arms race in America is that is being fueled by disgruntled people who feel their government sucks. The very government that is protecting their rights to arm themselves. And when the flash point hits, for some odd reason the members of the Congress feel they won’t become targets of the disgruntled who hate them and they armed and instigated.

    • I think it was Solomon who said it best, a few millennia ago (or so the bible, King James ‘version’, suggests, in Ecclesiastes):

      … that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. . . . I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

      NO PROFIT?? Shit, we be DOOMED here in Amurka! Lucky we got guns is all I can say.

      Ancient “wisdom” can be fun, now and again. But here’s the thing: don’t quote shit like that unless your sidearm is Locked, and LOADED. Yee haw.

        • And a “Marksist-Facist” to boot. Also, I think he was a Muslim, born in Kenya and raised in a Madrassa in Indonesia. He was also a liar, a closet gay, a murderer, and … and … oh, yeah, a nigger. How could I forget that last part?

          Oh, no, wait … SOLOMON, not OBAMA! Ummmmm. Hmmm. “Commie nazi socialist” … bells ring and ring and ring …


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s