Recent Posts

guns

NRA gun creeps’ agenda enables cop-killers

by Dan Burns on April 8, 2013

gunnutNo, that headline is not an exaggeration. We have every reason to be blunt and forceful, considering what’s at stake.
 

A new study released last week by the Center for American Progress analyzed 10 key measures of gun violence and found that Louisiana is worst among the 50 states. Included in the report is a 50-state ranking of law enforcement feloniously killed by guns: Louisiana ranks second worst in the nation behind South Dakota…
 

The NRA often says that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” But in states like Louisiana, no single group has done more than the NRA to put guns in the hands of bad guys. That puts the good guys with guns—like our law enforcement officers—and good guys without guns at a higher risk.
 
(Think Progress)

 

Of course the firearms freaks can explain why it isn’t their fault. (For conservatives, and in fact cognitively rigid, dogmatic types in general, it never is.) The ignorant, contemptible “rationalization” that many use, deep down inside, is that since many of those states have higher percentages of racial minorities, they therefore have a larger element that is just naturally disposed to violent criminal behavior. But few dare to come right out, outside of their inner circles of the like-minded that is, and say that. Instead, one hears the same old crap about existing laws not being enforced, societal factors that have nothing to do with gun ownership…
 
Tell that to the families of the slain officers.
 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 2 comments }

Gun nut politicizes cultural event

by Eric Ferguson on April 8, 2013

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA“So Mom, what were you and that one guy talking about?” “He was telling me that he was carrying a concealed gun and a woman gets raped every two minutes.” Those aren’t exact quotes, but that’s the gist of a conversation I had with my mom following the annual Tartan Day commemoration at the state capitol on Saturday, of which I was a participant and she was a spectator. Tartan Day is a non-political event — that part will be quite important in subsequent paragraphs — where Scots celebrate Scottish culture on the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. It’s equivalent to the American Declaration of Independence, but still, in America anyway, not a political event. It’s a day to say that kilts are manly, bagpipes sound great, and our favorite color is plaid. Nothing to do with bragging about your concealed gun to my mom, OK?

 

So over the course of the event, other Tartan Day events and gatherings get announced, and some strange person, who I won’t identify because I’m only 95% sure I know who he is and I don’t want to disparage the innocent, somehow talked his way into getting a bit of microphone time. He started out saying he was very disappointed with the results of the last election. This is a bad way to start a speech at a non-political event. Participants hold lots of differing opinions, which are normally kept out of conversation, being utterly irrelevant. Let’s just say I’m not the only one who thinks the NRA is vile, while others might well have Wayne LaPierre posters in their bedrooms.

 

…READ MORE

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 1 comment }

The gun nuts and their psychological “issues”

by Dan Burns on March 27, 2013

gunsCritics of the gun nuts, including me, have been making suggestions along the lines of the following, for a while now. (“Critics” isn’t the whole deal; I do try to nurture some empathy, for people so flagrantly messed up. But it’s hard to maintain.) This phrasing is more striking and perhaps effective than anything that I’ve managed to create.

 

But there may be another explanation – and none of these are mutually exclusive – for the ferocious, truculent grasping onto guns as if they were life vests to save a wounded psyche.

 

It may be this, and the clue emerged – from all places – in the written introduction to a “B” movie I was watching the other night: “The worst thing about growing old is that men stop seeing you as dangerous.”
 

This may be the molten lave core of the overheated zealotry of male gun fanatics. They are not, in general, worried about using a gun for self-defense; they are more concerned about being perceived as dangerous.
 

That is not a distinction without a difference. It shifts the debate from arguing that one’s life is imperiled without carrying a gun to “I need to carry a gun so that I am feared as a man should be.”
 

That’s not an issue of so-called Second Amendment Rights; it’s a cry for massive national psychiatric intervention.
 
(Truthout/Buzzflash)

 
…READ MORE

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Carrying guns into the Minnesota Capitol proves what?

by Dan Burns on February 22, 2013

As an actor might ask, what’s the motivation, here?

 

The debate, part of the national fallout over the massacre of grade-schoolers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in December, has filled committee rooms in St. Paul. It also has sparked a flurry of gun owners who want to carry their loaded weapons into the Capitol itself.

 

Licensed permit-holders may carry their weapons into the Capitol so long as they notify the Department of Public Safety. When the legislative session opened in January, there were 523 such notifications. As of Thursday, that number had spiked to 723 — an increase of 38 percent in six weeks. By comparison, in 2012 there were only 56 new gun-carrying notifications during the entire year.

Star Tribune

 

I suppose that there are a bunch of factors, some of which the gun nuts are happy to acknowledge, others not so much.

 

- The claim they openly make is that they’re demonstrating how truly responsible they are. After all, everyone knows that concealed-carry permit holders don’t commit crimes.

 

I think it far more likely that the real motivations involve one or more of the following.

 

- Intimidation. We’re here, we’ve got our guns, and we’re going to get our way. Period.

 

- Expressions of unthinking, authoritarian submission to the dictates of gun-nuttery in general, and the NRA in particular. Yeah, on the part of self-styled “rugged individualists.”

 

- Pure fantasy. Who knows when a would-be mass shooter might appear, and I’ll be the hero that takes him out! I suspect that many thousands of hours, every day, of firearms-freak alone-time, are spent wallowing in that sort of, for them, almost orgasmic reverie.

 

None of those last three, the really compelling factors for the crazies, are anything that I regard as particularly worthy of respect. Quite the contrary.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 1 comment }

Steve Drazkowski: leader of the ignorance caucus

by The Big E on February 15, 2013

On Sunday, the NY Times’ Paul Krugman wrote a column entitle The Ignorance Caucus. He was talking about a speech House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) gave.

To be sure, Mr. Cantor tried to sound interested in serious policy discussion. But he didn’t succeed – and that was no accident. For these days his party dislikes the whole idea of applying critical thinking and evidence to policy questions. And no, that’s not a caricature: Last year the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach “critical thinking skills,” because, it said, such efforts “have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

And such is the influence of what we might call the ignorance caucus that even when giving a speech intended to demonstrate his openness to new ideas, Mr. Cantor felt obliged to give that caucus a shout-out, calling for a complete end to federal funding of social science research. Because it’s surely a waste of money seeking to understand the society we’re trying to change.

Today, Sally Jo Sorenson relates at Bluestem Prairie the story of a thunderously ignorant bill Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) submitted. The bill (HF419) would prevent any federal firearm law that NRA stooge The Draz doesn’t like, i.e., ban or limit firearms, from taking effect in Minnesota.

Seriously, how does The Draz expect his bill to pass the bull**** constitutionality sniff test?

His bill reeks so badly of Wayne LaPierre‘s cologne and is so obviously copy-pasted from the NRA’s website that The Draz should feel ashamed for his lack of ability to think for himself. The Draz unashamedly admits that he’s just copying what’s been done in “17 other states.”

Is it time to stop referring to members of the Republican Party in the legislature as Republicans? Should we begin referring to them, officially, as members of the Ignorance Caucus?

If so, I nominate Steve Drazkowski as their leader.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 5 comments }

TPT Takes On The Gun Nuts, On Your Radio!

by TwoPuttTommy on February 12, 2013

(photo courtesy of Jack Tomczak, via Twitter)  Last Friday night (08 Feb 2013), yours truly, the ol’ TwoPutter, was invited by Jack Tomczak & Ben Kruse to be on Late Debate to discuss guns with Andrew Rothman, who is with Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.  So I tossed on a shirt that’s guaranteed to raise the hackles and feed the paranoia of RightWingNutJobs everywhere (about that Tee Shirt, here), and headed to the studio!

I’d like to start this out by saying Jack & Ben are gracious hosts; they’ll ask the lefty that goes on the show some tough questions, but they’re always fair (well, to me and those lefty’s that I’ve heard ‘em interview).  So I’ll give ‘em a shout-out; they’re doing everyone a service by putting opposing views on air, on their show.  Plus, Jack and Ben can be really funny! If you have to listen to RightWingRadio, theirs is a show to listen to.

And I’d also like to say that as a person, I like Andrew Rothman – he’s a very articulate person that believes passionately in what he does.  Some of which I happen to agree with; some of what I vehemently disagree with. But hey – this is America; disagreement is our tradition going way back to the days of The Founding Fathers.  The point here is Andrew is someone reasonable people can (and should) like even while disagreeing with his positions.

Prior to that night’s radio gig, I’d never met Andrew.  But, I’d heard him!  On January 19th, GunNuts “rallied” at the Capitol in St. Paul; pictures and my comments in a Facebook Album titled “Guns Across America, St. Paul’s Circus Act”.  Here’s what I said, back then, in a tweet:  ”Opening speaker at #GunNuts Rally: “No new #Gun Laws in #MN; gun laws don’t work”  Yep – “right” out of the gate, and then repeated by speaker after speaker (including Tony Cornish, R=NRA) were “no new laws – PERIOD.”

So that’s the backdrop; yours truly, the ol’ TwoPutter, was headed to the studio — link to podcast and partial transcript below the fold!
You can link to the podcast here and listen along; the following transcript has to deal with finding common ground – that the idea anyone can go to a gun store, or under a tent at a gun show, and buy a machine gun is a really, Really, REALLY bad idea.  Or, so I thought; starting at 7:05 into the show:

TPT: “We should actually start off, you know, and see if we can find any common ground.  Now, you know, back in the 1930′s we had Al Capne and the bootleggers, yada yada yada.  And in their infinite wisdom, (cross talk) let me finish, don’t start talking over me already; I know your style!  We outlawed Tommy Guns.  My question is:  are you ok with that? Should sub-machine guns be illegal?

Rothman:  No.

TPT: Alright, now we have it, folks!  Now we’re getting ready to go!

Rothman:  Let’s go back a little further.  First we had Prohibition and it turns out that if we just prohibit something there won’t be any of it.  We know this about the war on alcohol; we know this about the war on drugs.  But we ended up with this huge bureaucracy of the, the uh, the Revenuers.  And these folks did their very very best to win the war on alcohol.  Failed miserably and creaed a huge market for crime in the process.  When Prohibition was repealed, there was this whole federal bureaucracy with nothing to do.  1934 – the Gun Control Act (sic).  So they had to do something about all those machine guns and all that crime which was caused by:  Prohibition.

TPT:  I just want to make sure all the listeners are very clear that Andrew, you just said that there should not be a prohibition on fully automatic AK-47′s, M-16′s, Thompson sub-machine guns, Uzi’s, yada yada yada.  Is that really your position?

Andrew: That’s my position.

Ladies and Gents, you simply cannot make that up.

While reasonable people are trying to find reasonable solutions to curb gun violence, including banning Loop-Hole Legal Machine Guns, a leader of those opposing any – ANY – new gun law is very clear:  fully automatic weapons should be readily available.

Listen to the podcast here; not only is it great radio, but you’ll gain insight into the thoughts of those that oppose any and all regulations on The 2nd Amendment,  which reads:

“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.”

* * *
I did the transcription, as best I could.  Any error is inadvertent and will be corrected upon review; please suggest any such correction in the comments, below
* * *

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Today’s Example Of Numbers Don’t Lie, But GunNuts Use Numbers

by TwoPuttTommy on February 12, 2013

I saw the tweet, way late last night while snowplowing:

What??!?  Let’s look at that again:

“January gun death toll: 40 in Gun free Chicago. 0 in gun-toting Tampa.  #stribpol”

No gun deaths in Tampa, for a whole month??!?

Having lived in Tampa, I just knew that couldn’t be true.  Especially coming from The Gas Bag Of The Midway.

So I get home, and do a quick google search —   Tampa murder  –  with the click on news.  Sure enough, there it is – – first page, on google:

Tampa police dispatcher victim of apparent murder-suicide
By JOSÉ PATIÑO GIRONA | Tribune staff
Published: January 24, 2013

.
The sheriff’s office said Mendoza was confronted by her armed, estranged husband outside his mother’s home, 8361 Galewood Circle in Tampa.

A neighbor heard gunshots at about 9 a.m. and ran to the driveway to find Mendoza slumped over in the front seat and her husband, Pedro Mendoza, slumped over in the back seat of her Hyundai Sonata, said Cristal Bermudez Nuñez, a Hillsborough County Sheriff’s spokeswoman.
.
.

Why look any futher? First page of a google search, and Berg is already talking out of his… well, you get the idea.

So, I send this tweet the following tweet, and go to bed:

Retweeted it, around 11:00am this morning and Berg starts tap dancing! Basically whining “move along, folks – nothing to see here!”  Let’s look:

Can’t make this up, folks!

And that’s the problem with people like Berg, shill for GunNuts everywhere:  reasonable people have no reason to believe ‘em.  Point out that they’re wrong, and they just ignore it and pretend nothing is wrong with what they’ve said.

It’s simply impossible to shame people that simply have no shame.

And it’s just another example of:
You Couldn’t Trust The GOP Then, You Still Can’t Now, And Tomorrow Won’t Be Any Different.

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

“semi-automatic”? Yeah, “right.”

by TwoPuttTommy on February 9, 2013

Look closely, to the picture to the right: “legal to own and use.”

What that stock does, is change a semi-automatic weapon into what I refer to as a “loop-hole legal machine gun.”

Now, I’m not going to get into a circular argument about definitions; about what a “machine gun” & “sub-machine gun” & “automatic weapon” are and are not and other  odd, assorted semantics (“it’s not called teh clip; it iz teh magazine!!”).

What I am going to point out is that sometimes, as most rational people know, technology DOES change – and technology has changed what an assault rifle is and what it now is legally capable of.

Watch the following three YouTubes – yes, it’s going to take more than just a few minutes – and then, in the comments, tell me what you think of what you just saw.

I’ve thought about this for quite a while, and here’s what I believe:  any semi-automatic weapon that can be legally modified with a slide-style stock needs to be banned.

Excuse me:  EVERY semi-automatic weapon that can be legally modified with a slide-style stock needs to be banned.

I know the Thompson submachine gun was banned decades ago; I believe it’s time to ban these loop-hole legal machine guns too.

This YouTube shows how to “bump fire” an AR15 without a slide stock:

This YouTube shows bump firing at the next level, with a slide stock:

This YouTube shows how easy it is, to put together the loop-hole legal machine gun:

Semantics?  Could care less about ‘em.  These are loop-hole legal machine guns.

Your thoughts?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 6 comments }

Why They Need Loop-Hole Legal Machine Guns – In Their Own Words

by TwoPuttTommy on February 6, 2013

The picture to the right is Rep Tony Cornish, R=NRA, taken by Jim Ragsdale, a Capitol Reporter for the StarTribune.  Yes, Cornish in addition to his usual lapel cuffs, Cornish now is a sporting new NRA tie and new bling, too: an assault weapon a loop-hole legal machine gun.  That picture was taken at a Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee hearing yesterday, where the topic was (gasp!) legislation to improve public safety.

The pictures that follow are screenshots from yesterday on twitter.  The first, by State Senator Roger Chamberlain, R=NRA, gives a “hint” of what this “debate” is really all about:

And if it’s not about “hunting” what could it possibly be?

The Gasbag Of The Midway, Mitch Berg, responds to my tweet, and makes it VERY clear what it’s all about:

Yep – Mitch says loudly and clearly that he and his ilk need their highpowered and loop-hole legal machine guns to shoot soldiers and cops they consider “tyrranical.”

Never one to fail to fall in line with current Right Wing Nut Job non-sense, Dave Thul jumps in:

Say, Dave?  I wasn’t the one that said you need your loop-hole legal machine guns to shoot soldiers and cops your ilk tells you (remember, Dave always falls in line); YOU said that – in your own words.

Yes, Dear Gentle Readers, far too many of today’s “No New Gun Laws – PERIOD” deep thinkers (like Berg and Thul, et al; presumably, Cornish and Chamberlain, et al) are “Water The Tree Of Liberty” types, that think they need these loop-hole legal machine guns for the upcoming fight against “tyranny.”

As Thul and Berg clearly demonstrate, what they are saying is that when the day comes, they are willing and want to be ready and able to open fire with assault weapons  loop-hole legal machine guns.

Think about it, for a minute – just who do these deep thinkers think will be their “tyrranical enemy” that they’re going to shoot – village dog catchers?  City trash collectors?  No, Gentle Readers – in their own words, they are willing and want to be able to open fire on soldiers and cops.

And if that doesn’t scare you enough….

… these “water the tree” types of GunNuts will tell you that there’s no reason – none, whatsoever – to ban the “semi-automatic” AR15 (and it’s variations).

Judge for yourself if the AR15 (and it’s variations) is really “semi-automatic”…

It’s scary enough that the crazies that shot up Columbine, Tucson, Oak Creek, Newtown, etc etc etc are out there and are getting access to guns.

Now we have to be worried about “water the tree” types, too.  Armed, they insist, with loop-hole legal machine guns.

Not to mention, of course, meth-heads & meth dealers & meth cooks, etc etc etc figuring out that loop-hole, too.

The Thompson machine gun was banned decades ago.  It’s time to ban these loop-hole legal machine guns too.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 1 comment }

Minnesota Ranking High in Gun Safety & Gun Ownership

by Grace Kelly on February 6, 2013

Frequently, the discussion has revolved around increasing safety by reducing gun ownership. Another policy consideration might be looking at states that have both high gun ownership and high gun safety. Those states are Minnesota and surrounding states plus Vermont. Hunting has to be excluded as a factor because Texas has the highest hunting numbers. It might be our culture and what we teach people about guns. Maybe we can figure out what we do better and do more of that. What do you think?



facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries