January 22, 2013

These particular gun rights people are idiots

And they happen to be elected members of the US Congress.  First, we have Ted Yoho who thinks that since the original amendment was about militias, and was intended (in his mind solely) to protect the citizens from their government, that citizens should have the same weaponry as the military.

Nope, that isn't crazy at all.

And from my own state of Oklahoma, Representative James Lankford blames gun violence on a combination of Social Security benefits and welfare moms.  No, really.  And the piece notes that he is the 5th ranking Republican in the House.

Nope, gun people are perfectly sane, and the Republican party is reasonable.  Very reasonable.  Nothing to fear here at all.


steves said...

Ok, so now we move on from a substantive argument and ridicule some of the supporters. Straight from Alinsky's Rules.

steves said...

As for Yoho, if you look at all the BOR, much of them deal with protecting the citizenry from a potential tyrannical government. Look at free speech. The framers weren't concerned that people have access to internet porn, they were worried that the State may crack down on dissent. Yoho's notions may be quaint and unrealistic, but he is entirely wrong.

As an aside, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting. Both of these activities are heavily regulated and can be all but eliminated by statute. I don't understand why people keep bringing them up.

Lankford is an idiot. He is just parroting the same old BS from the GOP since the 1980s and decided to add the new boogeyman among the tin-foil hat branch of the right...psychotropic medication.

Streak said...

"Ok, so now we move on from a substantive argument and ridicule some of the supporters. Straight from Alinsky's Rules."

Jesus Christ, Steve. You are pissing me off. Whenever some gun rights person does something you don't like, you distance yourself from them, and then attack people like me for pointing at them. These aren't just gun rights people, of course, but people who have power to legislate.

You are off the fucking beam on this one. And annoying as hell. I am not trying to take away your guns, so please STOP TREATING ME LIKE THIS.

Streak said...

The 2nd amendment was as much to provide a secondary help to the American government (as the quotes on Indians you posted demonstrate) even more than they were to allow citizens to overthrow their own government. American leaders didn't particularly care for rebellions, as we saw early on with the Whiskey Rebellion.

But then again, I am just a Saul Alinsky follower. It isn't that my fears have any legitimacy, or that I am reasonably looking for some dialogue on gun rights. Nope. I am just a knee-jerk leftist who follows whatever Dianne Feinstein tells me to follow. Seriously, I am just a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the past. Thanks for helping me out with all of that.

Streak said...

And let's get back to Yoho and his argument (which you defended quite crazily, btw), and note what craziness is in that germ of truth. Here is an elected official suggesting that civilians should have armor piercing ammunition or surface to air missiles, or whatever else it would take to bring down the American military. As the most expensive military in the world, I am guessing that would mean a hell of a lot of very, very, very deadly weapons.

So, I am telling you, in my pissed off voice, that normal people find that alarming. And we find it even more alarming that supposedly sane gun owners like you would defend it.

Now, I better go read my Alinsky book and see if I did all the good stuff. Shouldn't I also be reading Bill Ayers and Marx while I am at it?

steves said...

If you really want to.

That being said, Yoho's mostly correct historical reference could have been stated better. When people say what he said, many people hear, "ZOMG, he is talking about armed revolution."

I agree with your assessment of the secondary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I am headed off to play with my assault rifle in the woods with my militia brethren. You should get back to your Alinsky, comrade.

Streak said...

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Streak said...

See, it is perfectly reasonable for gun rights people to oppose any regulation because of the slippery slope threat of people like Dianne Feinstein, but when a gun control advocate mentions someone like Yolo, you just mock.

I get it. But I have had more reasoned conversations with trolls here. As I said in my previous comment, I have no idea what the fuck is wrong with you.

steves said...

Trying to lighten the conversation a bit.

You are the one that seems incapable of making an argument without swearing, name calling and hyperbole. I have been rational and willing to discuss this.

Streak said...

So accusing me of being an Saul Alinsky acolyte for posting a story where I disagree with two gun right advocates is reasoned?

Let me see if I can track your response on gun issues--not your normal response, btw.

You call for more reasoned discourse (and certainly are capable of it). But you draw the line at criticizing the NRA. And about the NRA, not only do you buy their lie about Obama's children, you just dismiss anything they do that is crazy as "that is just what politicians do."

And that seems to be the track record here. Robo calls about the UN, or someone blaming welfare moms are just "politics" and not worthy of discussion. Those of us who bring it up are a target of your derision, not them.

And when someone suggests that we should all have the same weapons as the military, you mock me for finding that problematic. Yet you say that the gun rights people are perfectly rational for fearing that the senator from California will take away all their guns.

Yeah, I am the irrational one here. I certainly concede that I am pissed off and swearing a lot this morning, but your dialogue here has been a mix of incredibly rational and reasoned with unreasoned attacks. And despite my repeated assurance that I respect gun rights, you treat me as if I don't.

Your expertise is extensive, but it is also used as a weapon. Your expertise, and your experience are the norms and the standard. Being a historian means nothing. Being a citizen means nothing. Being someone who is actually afraid to go teach my classes this morning because of all the school shootings means nothing.

You have been dismissive to a fault, condescending and have employed the very same logical fallacies that you accuse me of.

steves said...

Where did I say the NRA was above criticism? I try and point out that gun rights people are concerned about confiscation by providing references to legislation that would ban certain types of guns and you dismiss those claims by saying they would never happen.

I hope so, but that doesn't mean it is reasonable to ignore them or to be on record that one opposes them. BTW, I have never said anywhere that I believed confiscation was part of any viable legislation. The NRA is going to say this because they frequently use this to solicit donations. I don't agree with it, but it works.

I apologize if my jokes were seen as serious.

Streak said...

Perhaps we are in a similar space. I don't think confiscation will happen because I don't think it is politically viable. And I am saying that after Sandy Hook. Before Sandy Hook, it was unthinkable, but that didn't stop the right from using that.

Couple of things bother me here. You understand the fear of confiscation (and I do too, btw), but you seem to have no understanding of the fear of following people like Yolo and dismantling all gun regulations. If you listen to the Tea Party--and admittedly, their numbers in congress have shrunk--their opposition to gun control is absolute. Cruz from Texas said gun control was inherently unconstitutional. Why don't you understand our concern?

That is a running thread for me, btw. I don't think you understand non-gun people's concern at all. Or at least, it is not reflected here.

As for the NRA, I will say that your defense of that ad still rankles me. WAPO reported that the school had no armed guards prior to the Obamas, and as we know, their vulnerability is very unique. Mocking Secret Service protection for the Presidential family was not only uncool--it was ridiculous and obscene. You defended that. You said that LaPierre's presser was--what did you call it? Mild and expected? You have been widely defensive and oddly so of their political machinations. You have cause to defend their education and training operations. But their political discourse and lobbying is very hard to defend.

The humor fell on humorless ears, I will admit. You accusing me of some Saul Alinsky tactic--which, as far as I can tell not having read Alinsky--meant that you were accusing me of some kind of ad hominem attack--all, I might add, while using the name Alinsky to place an ad hominem attack on my post--yeah, that pissed me off.

steves said...

I am trying to understand, believe me. I am not saying this to be snarky. I don't think confiscation will happen, but I also don't think we will move that far in the other direction and not have any kind of regulation. There are politicians that would support this, but I don't see the mainstream leadership in either of the parties ever embracing no regulation.

I saw the WAPO blogger that had posted on the lack of armed guards and was hoping to find some confirmation. For the time being, I have stopped asserting that the school has armed guards because I just don't know.

As for the rest of the NRA, I am not always pleased with what they do, but they are really the only effective lobbying group for gun rights. There are a few others, but they don't do nearly as much as the NRA.

As for the Alinsky remark, I apologize. It has been years since I have read any of his stuff and I don't think I even finished Rules for Radicals. Yes, one of them was on attacking with ridicule. Say what you want about him, he knows his stuff.

Streak said...

Ok, fair enough. Perhaps I haven't made my case on the other parts. I think part of my fear is that I believe there are a lot of people who should not be gun owners. Not because they don't have the right, but because they don't have the temperament, judgement and maturity for it. That guy who showed up at a gun show with a loaded shotgun is a great example.

Very likely, I am one of those people who should not be a gun owner. I know my wife doesn't want one in the house, and I am find with that. No one argues with that (though the NRA types tend to look down on us).

But the gun culture I am so annoyed with is pushing those people to have guns, and even arguing that those people with guns makes us all safer. I disagree with every fiber in my being. And while I certainly understand that we can't necessarily filter those who have the temperament to own a weapon, it doesn't seem unreasonable that we not urge them to own.

BTW, living in Oklahoma might be part of my response on reasonableness. Our Republican party makes yours look like moderates. And they have pushed every radical idea out there--from forced ultrasounds for women, personhood, and getting rid of all gun regulation.

As for attacking with ridicule, I have to say that I don't mean it as a tactic. I find those ideas ridiculous. I have often thought that the modern Republican party might make the Onion obsolete. How do you parody stuff that is completely beyond the pale?

steves said...

While I certainly believe in promoting gun ownership to responsible people, I don't believe people should be made to feel that have to have a gun. Occasionally, you will see some municipality considering an ordinance that would require that people have guns. This is stupid and does nothing to help gun rights.

It would make more sense to give opportunities for people to learn gun safety and try out some guns in a safe, comfortable environment.

Yes, there are some people that should not have guns. The problem is that how do we identify them without infringing on the rights of people that haven't done anything wrong.

I cringe when I see other gun owners supporting measures to keep guns from the mentally ill. While there are some mentally ill people that are dangerous, most are not. To deny a basic right to a huge group of people based on a label is not right. The reality is that mentally ill people, as a group, are no more dangerous than the non-mentally ill and we should not have the blanket, lifetime ban that we have right now.

The GOP in my state does plenty of stupid things (we just became a right to work state), but they are right on the gun issues, for the most part.