The Watering Hole; Friday October 9 2015; Guns and Insanity v. Reality

“What luck for rulers, that men do not think.”
~Adolf Hitler

When the wingnuts come out of their gun closets, hang onto your hats. Here are four of the most recent articles I’ve run across that very ably describe the depths to which insanity is capable of descending in the aftermath of yet another gun massacre.

Bobby Jindal Will End Mass Shootings By Telling Everyone He Is A Christian

Tony Perkins Blames Obama For UCC Shooting

WorldNetDaily Pundit Suggests The Obama Administration Is Behind Mass Shootings 

 John Guandolo Blames Obama’s ‘Pro-Jihadi Ideology’ For Oregon Shooting

Interesting that three of the four maintain that the frequent occurrence of mass shootings/killings is either Obama’s fault or that he and/or his lackeys have planned them.  In the real world, of course, we must perish the thought of doing ANYTHING to curtail the chance of yet another similar episode happening — no politicizing, no action, no nothing, no way! No gun control measures of any kind! Doing something THAT brash, after all, would piss the NRA off, and we all know what THAT means! Besides, guns are a constitutional right, and that means there ain’t nothin’ can be done; ‘cept to make open carry universal and to make sure everybody is armed, locked and loaded. Then there won’t be no more crime cuz them bad guys won’t dare, and if they ever do, BANG BANG!

Gun mythology in the United States is very likely unparalelled anywhere else on earth. In no other country did their “founders” have the “vision” to GUARANTEE to every citizen the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS! There is here, of course, an embedded fallacy in that extremely popular second amendment misinterpretation. Problem is, no one ever mentions it; the ‘popular’ mass media — even when ‘reporting’ on mass murders or the extremely high daily death-by-gun rate in this country — never mention it, not in any context. What is mentioned with at least some regularity is the myth that the purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee an armed citizenry whose task it would be to overthrow the Federal government if it should ever become excessively tyrannical or uppity. The proliferation of “militias” these days adequately demonstrates the popular acceptance of said thesis.

It does happen, however, that one can occasionally run across a topical essay on the second amendment, one that details the entire story. I’ve seen only a small handful, and each within the last two or three years, most recently just yesterday. This latest one is the most detailed, the most descriptive and explanatory essay I’ve yet run across on the topic. It’s entitled The Second Amendment’s Fake History; it’s written by journalist Robert Parry, and is posted on his Consortium News website. It’s quite lengthy, but the following handful of descriptive excerpts demonstrate the core thesis that the second amendment’s original intent has been massively perverted and misinterpreted.

False history continues to kill Americans, as we saw once again last week at Umpqua Community College in Oregon . . .

A key reason why the United States is frozen in political paralysis . . . is that many on the American Right (and some on the Left) have sold much of the country on a false history regarding the Second Amendment.

Republican presidential candidates have been among the leaders in promoting this fake narrative, with surgeon Ben Carson saying the latest slaughter and all the other thousands of shootings are just part of the price of freedom. . . .

But the Constitution’s Framers in 1787 and the authors of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress in 1789 never intended the Second Amendment to be construed as the right for individuals to take up arms against the Republic. In fact, their intent was the opposite.

The actual goal of the Second Amendment was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order in a time of political uprisings, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers. Indeed, its defined purpose was to achieve “security” against disruptions to the country’s republican form of government.

(. . .)

In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army. It didn’t mean that an individual had the right to possess whatever number of high-capacity killing machines that he or she might want. . . .

After a lengthy and detailed analysis of second amendment misinterpretations, the essay concludes with this single sentence summary:

The Second Amendment was not designed to encourage violence against the government or – for that matter – to enable troubled individuals to murder large numbers of their fellow citizens.

And here we are. Yet one more mass shooting, followed by the childish freakouts of right wingers everywhere, from politicians to religionistas, to the (well-armed) M-F ‘commoners.’ No action will be taken to reduce the chance of the next mass murder; to do so would, after all, ‘violate our second amendment rights.’ Bullshite.

OPEN THREAD

57 thoughts on “The Watering Hole; Friday October 9 2015; Guns and Insanity v. Reality

  1. About 7,000 rural Oregonians and others coming in from other states are gathering today to protest the President’s visit to the families of those killed at Umpquah CC.
    What a selfish bunch of pricks. The President was absolutely right on when he described those American who, out of FEAR, cling to their guns and bibles.

  2. I would really like to see how teabaggers and ammo-sexuals can argue that guns have defended *any* significant freedom against the government compared to the freedoms enjoyed by most Western, modern liberal democracies – pick the Australians, Germans, Scandinavians … Canadians…. what freedoms do any of these other countries *not* enjoy *because* they don’t have guns…?

    I would not hold my breath waiting for a coherent response.

    • Or saying stuff like: “Don’t you think you should shoot that person instead? And then that one?”

    • They missed the fact that the world did end on Wednesday & was created anew on Thursday. God does indeed work in mysterious ways….

    • Good old Borowitz!

      First time Walker’s ever been right about anything, far as I can recall.

      Tell him also that the way to reduce car crashes to zero is to get rid of all cars.

  3. Congress to Eliminate Billions in Wall Street Subsidies to Fund Repair of Nation’s Highways

    Currently, the Federal Reserve pays out a 6 percent annual dividend to roughly 2,900 banks — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo net approximately $350 million apiece each year from the dividend. These banks own stock in the Federal Reserve as a means of becoming members of regional Fed branches around the country, and unlike other stocks, the big banks are guaranteed to never lose money on their investment in the Fed. For years, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has proposed reducing that dividend to 3 percent in order to pay for repairing American infrastructure. After lying dormant for over a year, it appears that idea has now caught on with Republicans as well.

    According to Bloomberg, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) recently told a group of Wall Street executives at a Financial Services Roundtable event that he wouldn’t use his power to remove a new rule that allots funding for federal highways by reducing that dividend to 1.5 percent. The House is now weighing whether or not to back the dividend reduction before highway funding runs out at the end of October. Should the proposal go through, America’s highways would benefit from an additional $17 billion in repairs over the next ten years.

    Now, Wall Street is in panic mode.

    The six percent dividend is too high, with the overnight rate almost zero. The banking industry has been borrowing money, basically loaning it into existence, in order to get more money into Fed stock, knowing this six percent is a no-lose proposition.

    • I shall forever remain flabbergasted that Johnson can muster 36%. I suppose I could see 3.6%, but even that is an order of magnitude more than what it should be.

  4. A sweeping majority of Republicans — 73% — agree that a fence should be built along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico.

    No word on how many want it electrified, but 73% wouldn’t be shocking.

  5. The GOP Freedom Caucus is willing to let Paul Ryan be Speaker, as long as he agrees in advance to giving them all the power up front, according to my Rep. Mo Brooks (Fundie – Al. 5th) on Chris Hayes a bit ago.

Comments are closed.