Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Insane America meets Sane America over "Gun Control"

Posted 7 years ago on Feb. 1, 2013, 8:16 a.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Gun Control Agenda Is Launching White Paranoid Extremists to Prepare for Armed Revolution

Peel back the code word of "defending" America and you have a treasonous movement in the works.

January 30, 2013 | AlterNet / By Frank Schaeffer

[ Although the author of this article focuses on the South, Militia and RW Extremist groups range nationwide. ]

WIKI: The militia movement is a right-wing movement that arose following controversial standoffs in the 1990s. It inherited paramilitary traditions of earlier groups, especially the conspiratorial, antigovernment Posse Comitatus. The militia movement claims that militia groups are sanctioned by law but uncontrolled by government; in fact, they are designed to oppose a tyrannical government. Adherents believe that behind the "tyranny" is a left-wing, globalist conspiracy known as the New World Order. The movement's ideology has led some adherents to commit criminal acts, including stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives and plotting to destroy buildings or assassinate public officials, as well as lesser confrontations.

The Posse Comitatus (from the Latin phrase meaning "force of the county") is a loosely organized far right social movement that opposes the United States federal government and believes in localism. There is no single national group, and local units are autonomous.

Posse charters were issued in 1969 in Portland, Oregon, by Henry Lamont Beach, "a retired dry cleaner and one-time member of the Silver Shirts, a Nazi-inspired organization that was established in America after Hitler took power in Germany".[1] William Potter Gale has been described by one expert as the founder of the movement.[2]

Posse members believe that there is no legitimate form of government above that of the county level and no higher law authority than the county sheriff.[citation needed] If the sheriff refuses to carry out the will of the county's citizens:

...he shall be removed by the Posse to the most populated intersection of streets in the township and at high noon be hung by the neck, the body remaining until sundown as an example to those who would subvert the law.[3][4]

Many Posse members practice survivalism and played a role in the formation of the armed citizens' militias in the 1990s. The Posse Comitatus pioneered the use of false liens and other paper terrorism.[5]

The battle over gun control has exposed a truth the mainstream media is apparently too shy to mention: A bunch of far-right, white, mostly Southern, paranoid extremists are preparing for armed revolution and apocalypse. They speak treason: literally.

They are preparing to "defend" America from America with arsenals of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition. Their "enemy" is everyone in America not like them.

They think the world is ending and/or that the government is out to get them. That doesn’t mean it will happen. But expect violence and assassinations. Their ideology is made up of equal parts racism, evangelical Christian fascination with the “end times,” hatred of President Obama, resentment of the “Old “South” variety and a Fox News/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh version of world history. As the New Yorker noted:

“Every demographic and political trend that helped to reëlect Barack Obama runs counter to the [South’s] self-definition:…The Solid South speaks less and less for America and more and more for itself alone… Solidity has always been the South’s strength, and its weakness. The same Southern lock that once held the Democratic Party now divides the Republican Party from the socially liberal, fiscally moderate tendencies of the rest of America… The South’s vices—‘violence, intolerance, aversion and suspicion toward new ideas’—grow particularly acute during periods when it is marginalized and left behind. An estrangement between the South and the rest of the country would bring out the worst in both—dangerous insularity in the first, smug self-deception in the second.”

The Republican/white/Southern extremists make reasonable gun control impossible. Their cataclysmic irrationality risks taking the debate into the twilight zone, and that “zone” is a zone of violence: call it the civil war continued by other means.

Some “leaders” in the pro-gun lobby have literally said they will kill to protect their right to arm themselves with arsenals that are fit for nothing but murder and war. These delusional Americans are a vocal minority, and they have extreme fears — gun confiscation, civil instability, a tyrannical government, a “takeover” of the US by the UN and that Obama is a communist.

If you pay attention to the rhetoric, you hear code words calling out to the types of people who called January 19 and Martin Luther King’s birthday “Gun Appreciation Day." The event chairman, Larry Ward, said in the press release, “The Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people.” Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News analyst, said in a video posted on the network’s GretaWire: “Here’s the dirty little secret about the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment was not written in order to protect your right to shoot deer, it was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government.” Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, delivered a rebuttal to President Obama's inaugural address. He accused the president of reducing the U.S. Constitution to "a blank slate for anyone's graffiti." LaPierre said the president "doesn't understand you. He doesn't agree with the freedoms you cherish."

In a piece in the Washington Times, Napolitano said that the Second Amendment “protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively.” By definition these “tyrants” are those who “don’t agree with the freedoms you cherish.” In other words they are the government representing most Americans who are not insane gun-collecting survivalists, Southern white males afraid of the world, and assorted Fox News watchers.

As the Southern Poverty Law Center notes, the number of so-called patriot groups surged after President Obama was first elected president. “The swelling of the Patriot movement since that time has been astounding,” the report said. “From 149 groups in 2008, the number of Patriot organizations skyrocketed to 512 in 2009, shot up again in 2010 to 824, and then, last year, jumped to 1,274.”

CONTINUED: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gun-control-agenda-launching-white-paranoid-extremists-prepare-armed-revolution?paging=off

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.

—By Dave Gilson


| Thu Jan. 31, 2013 3:01 AM PST

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.

Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.

• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.

• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.

• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

So, who are you more afraid of, people with guns or people without guns?

Your answer will explain more about you than than what you say about rights, law abiding, statistics etc. They are all just excuses to cover why your answer is what it is. We need a test for "fear index." Then we can talk about what to do about it. Clue: 98.6 isn't normal.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

The Truth-O-Meter Says:


Since 1968, "more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history."

Mark Shields on Friday, December 21st, 2012 in the PBS NewsHour PBS commentator Mark Shields says more killed by guns since '68 than in all U.S. wars


Commentator Mark Shields said more Americans have been killed by gunfire since 1968 than in all the wars in the nation's history. Is that correct?

Since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supporters and opponents of gun control have thrown out statistics to support their point of view.

Here’s one that caught our eye, offered by liberal commentator Mark Shields on the Dec. 21, 2012, edition of the PBS NewsHour.

Shields told host Judy Woodruff, "You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted."

Is the death toll that high? Let's examine each half of his comparison.

Deaths from warfare

We found a comprehensive study of war-related deaths published by the Congressional Research Service on Feb. 26, 2010, and we supplemented that with data for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan using the website icasualties.org. Where possible, we’ve used the broadest definition of "death" -- that is, all war-related deaths, not just those that occurred in combat.

Here’s a summary of deaths by major conflict:

Revolutionary War 4,435

War of 1812 2,260

Mexican War 13,283

Civil War (Union and Confederate, estimated) 525,000

Spanish-American War 2,446

World War I 116,516

World War II 405,399

Korean War 36,574

Vietnam War 58,220

Persian Gulf War 383

Afghanistan War 2,175

Iraq War 4,486

Total 1,171,177

Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference.

Gunfire deaths

The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We’ve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC.

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:

1968 to 1980 377,000

1981 to 1998 620,525

1999 to 2010 364,483

2011 32,163

Total 1,384,171

We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths -- not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths (by GUNS). In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone.

When we rated a previous Facebook post, we lowered an otherwise True claim to Mostly True because it said that "nearly 100,000 people get shot every year." We found that the number of gun deaths and non-fatal injuries added up to 104,852, but we concluded that the term "get shot" could suggest victims who got shot by someone else rather than by their own hand. We don’t see a similar problem with the way Shields’ comment was phrased -- namely, "died from gunfire."

Our ruling

Since Shields’ comparison was otherwise accurate, with about 1.4 million firearm deaths to 1.2 million in war, we rated his claim True.


[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

There you go again, bringing facts into a cult of paranoia. An irresponsible gun owner is one that uses the phrase "law abiding citizen" because we can all see that abiding current laws (right up to edge of them no doubt) and letting it go at that, is completely inadequate and absolutely irresponsible.

The NRA represents the gun industry instead of its members but the GOP set a fine example for them by representing the Koch brothers and their friends instead of the rank and file members of the GOP. Their motto is, "No taxation and gross misrepresentation."

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

These mushrooms ONLY grow in the dark!

Let the sun shine in and let's all see!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

They don't need real light. They only need belief light. Got plenty of that. Must need more fertilizer?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Let's encourage a strict denial of what they need, and a massive flood of inescapable bright light!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Excellent prescription.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

That's it

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

Iraq War 4,486

This only includes americans killed

The Iraq war death toll? At least 162,000 and counting

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

A Personal Quest to Make Guns’ Toll More Visible

(Representative Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, whose spinal cord was severed by a bullet when he was 16 years old.)

By JEREMY W. PETERS | Published: February 7, 2013

WARWICK, R.I. — It happened a few minutes before the beginning of Jim Langevin’s junior cadet shift back in 1980. Related

Bipartisan House Plan Focuses on Gun Trafficking (February 6, 2013)

Mr. Langevin wants to fill the gallery at the president’s State of the Union address with people harmed by gun violence.

He arrived at the police station here early, as usual. Two officers were standing in the locker room admiring a new .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Thinking the chamber was empty, one of them pulled the trigger. A bullet ricocheted off a locker and went right through the boy’s neck, severing his spinal cord.

At 16, he would never walk again and never fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer.

Now, three decades later and seven terms into his career as one of Rhode Island’s two members of the House of Representatives, Mr. Langevin, 48, is the only quadriplegic ever to serve in Congress. And his story, unknown to many of those who work with him every day in the Capitol, has thrust him into the raging national debate over gun control.

For the past month, he has been on a quiet campaign to persuade his colleagues to give up their guest passes to next Tuesday’s State of the Union address by President Obama so that victims of gun violence can attend.

CONTINUED: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/congressman-jim-langevins-personal-quest-on-guns.html?_r=0

[+] -4 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 7 years ago

So Jim want's to punish ALL law abiding American gun owners at the hands of Obama and the Democrats for an unfortunate incident that happened to him 30+yrs ago.

Well,...talk about being bitter and vengeful. Typical for a Democrat though.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

No he is trying to stop you gun nuts from shooting innocent Americans ~ A far worse "PUNISHMENT!" American lives trump a hobby!

[-] -3 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 7 years ago

Get bent WS you're always so off in Left field that you don't have a clue what Americans want only what you want.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

OK RW gun nut "chuckuschumer"!!

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

I saw a news story tonight that said 218 LEO agencies all over the US have publically stated they will not enforce any new gun restrictions. Also, eight states have introduced state level legislation to prevent cops from enforcing any new restrictions. Not to mention all the gon owners saying they won't comply.

It's not going to be as easy as a lot of people think.A lot of gun owners see this issue as a line drawn in the sand. I guess we'll see.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Yes, the total (all casualties) is much higher and very hard to find.

There have been studies, here's one: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2006/burnham-iraq-2006.html

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Calif. lawmakers seek toughest gun laws in nation

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, left, glances over to pair of semi-automatic rifles as he discusses his support for proposed gun control legislation at news conference in Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 7, 2013.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, left, glances over to pair of semi-automatic rifles as he discusses his support for proposed gun control legislation at news conference in Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 7, 2013. / AP

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Weeks after New York enacted the nation's toughest gun laws, California lawmakers said Thursday they want their state to do even more in response to recent mass shootings, particularly the Connecticut school massacre.

Democrats who control the state Legislature revealed 10 proposals that they said would make California the most restrictive state for possessing firearms.

They were joined at a Capitol news conference by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, along with several police chiefs.

"California has always been a leader on the issue of gun safety," Villaraigosa said. "New York has stepped up and stepped forward. California needs to answer the call."

Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time.

Lawmakers also want to make some prohibitions apply to current gun owners, not just to people who buy weapons in the future.

Like New York, California also would require background checks for buying ammunition and would add to the list of prohibited weapons.

Those buying ammunition would have to pay a fee and undergo an initial background check by the state Department of Justice, similar to what is required now before buyers can purchase a weapon. Subsequent background checks would be done instantly by an ammunition seller checking the Justice Department's records.

The legislation also would ban possession of magazines holding more than 10 bullets, even by those who now own them legally. All weapons would have to be registered.

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, promised that gun proponents will fight the measures in court if they become law.

"It strikes me as if these folks are playing some sort of game of one-upsmanship with New York at the expense of law-abiding citizens, and that's just unconscionable," he said about lawmakers.

Republicans say the Democrats are exploiting the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary to push their own agendas, reports CBS Sacramento station KOVR-TV. "The laws they are (proposing) would have made no difference in the Connecticut shooting whatsoever," Sen. Dan Logue said.

He added that lawmakers need to focus on other issues that lead to violence. "We've got the issue of PlayStations, where there is violent games," Logue said. "I mean, what about Hollywood and what they are putting out?"

Three bills have been introduced, with others to come before this month's deadline for submitting legislation.

The measures are the most stringent to date among numerous proposals introduced this year to strengthen California's firearm regulations.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said he is confident Democrats can use their majorities in the Assembly and Senate to send the measures to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown this year.

Brown has declined to comment on weapons legislation before it reaches him.

Steinberg said the measures are designed to close numerous loopholes that gun manufacturers have exploited to get around California's existing restrictions.

Those measures had been the strongest in the nation until Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed New York's new law last month.

Other proposed measures in California would ban so-called "bullet buttons" that can be used to quickly detach and reload magazines in semi-automatic rifles, and update the legal definition of shotguns to prohibit a new version that can rapidly fire shotgun shells and .45-caliber ammunition.

The state also would restrict the lending of guns to keep weapons from felons, mentally ill people and others who are prohibited from ownership.


A California bill would make gun owners pay for gun violence by purchasing liability insurance


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

I'm afraid of a society that ignores blatant risks and instead opts for after the fact clean up. Reaction instead of pro-action is very scary.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

There you go changing the subject again. How do you expect to get to the $64 dollar prize?

You see, is is perfectly normal to be afraid of folks with guns. You have no reason to believe that they will behave rationally. And an irrational person is dangerous all by themselves but with a gun they are really scary. On the other hand the polarization becomes obvious when the gun folks acknowledge the fear that they have for unarmed folks. Well, they don't always admit it, but when you listen to how emotionally they jump on somebody who doesn't want a gun, it is obvious that they must be afraid.

Maybe it is scorn that they fear, or it may be concern that intimidation doesn't seem to work with everyone. Or maybe that they fear is each other.

In any case, I don't think they are afraid to have somebody else clean up the corpses that result from the paranoia that has the country drowning in guns.


[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

And for that reason I think it best we retain our right of self defense.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Where are they on any social issue concern

Like ending the causes of cancer


Ending Pollution


Universal Health Care


Getting the homeless Housed and fed

Or or or or or or or or or.............................................

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

Wait a minute... how does the right of self defense translate in your mind to KKK? How is that possible? You assume because I wish all Americans to retain the right of self defense that I am bigoted and prejudicial? Or are you just throwing the race card in partisan support? We have crazy-assed people, who are out of their minds, living amongst us in society - in part because of the leftist approach to mental health care - who are committing violent, heinous acts - in part because of the left's insistence on compassion and tolerance of the criminal - and your response is to take self defense weapons from those that wish to defend themselves?

It's you that's the sick mutha-fucker.


[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

Absolutely not, do you want to know why? It's because this government never addresses anything that does not land on people like me - simple people, who just want to work, live their lives, and be left alone. When some fool fails to secure their AR, allowing access to their known-to-be insane children, and he commits a heinous act - it's my fault because I own an M1 carbine or a 9mm Smith and enjoy plinking; when people can't afford the ridiculous rate to medically insure, it's my fault because - pay as I will - I do not pay enough in taxes. This government never addresses the problem - how is it that the emotionally unqualified, qualify, to possess weapons illegally?

Why has this government permitted drug cartels to command both the flow of narcotics AND the smuggling of illegals? Why do we permit chinese and korean slavery to exist in this country?

This government is insane. And that's not the fault of people like me who just want to live within the bounds of law, wherever possible, and be left alone.


[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

I'm nonpartisan, Zennie, for a reason - I see Democrats as every bit as corrupt as Republicans, if not more so.

I agree that something has to be done about reining in healthcare costs but demanding we either pay insurers MORE through threat of a "tax" is not the answer - this is "corruption." And these are despicable people.


[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

I'll go single-payer Zen when you agree to contribute your fair share of the 50% of your income that it will require of many of us; I suspect that you like all others are unwilling to do that.


[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

Sure, if we could stop the insane nonsensical gift of our revenue to all of their corrupt zany causes. If we could just stop the the money that exits this country for "stupid" we could afford healthcare for everyone.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That is nothing more than an oft repeated lie.

Please prove yourself and show me the Democratic equivalent to these actions on the part of the GOP, or stop repeating that oft repeated lie.


[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

This doesn't outlaw abortion, it only makes it more difficult. And I don't have a problem with that; abortion should not be the contraception of choice. You know it wasn't that long ago that we were hanging abortionists in this country. Because clearly it is a reprehensible act. I'm Roe vs Wade, btw, as the limit of my toleration and I have no problem with additional precautions.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That's the ONLY thing you found there?

And as usual, you didn't prove your statement.

Because you can't.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

In our focus to learn lessons from the experience of others:

With roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents,[26] muggings, robberies, kidnappings[27] and gang violence[28] Brazil is one of the most criminalized countries of the world.

Homicides in Brazil are recorded by the DataSUS system. A continuing trend is the reduction of crime rates during the late 2000s, after a peak in the decade's onset. Rio de Janeiro registered, in 2008, the lowest homicide rate in 18 years, while São Paulo is now approaching the 10 homicides per 100,000 mark, down from 35.7 in 1999. A notable example is the city of Diadema, where crime rates fell abruptly.

In 2006 49,145 people were murdered in Brazil, an increase when compared to 2005, when 47,578 people were killed. The year of 2003 still holds the record for total number of murders in Brazil; that year alone 51,043 people were murdered.[29]

Nope, nothing to be learned here!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

I can't tell what your replying to.


Brazil is a special case, lots of modern-day wild west going down there.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Nothing New Under the Wingnut Sun: 'Survivalism'

Rick Perlstein on February 2, 2013 - 3:46 PM ET

Photograph from National Geographic’s Doomsday Preppers, courtesy of National Geographic Channel

There’s nothing new under the wingnut sun.

Survivalists are back in the news this week, though now we call them “preppers.” In Alabama the hostage standoff against a doomsday prepper holding a 5-year-old in a bunker he’d been working on in the middle of the night for over a year approaches the end of its first week. Adam Lanza shot up the children of Sandy Hook elementary with weapons his mother was reportedly stockpiling “for the economic and social meltdown.” And the brittle worldview that drives the survivalist mentality—the imagination of one’s one innocent enclave, always ever threatened by siege from dread unnamed Others—was laid bare at the recent congressional hearings on gun control, when Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women’s Forum (incidentally: not independent, not by and for women, not a forum) spun out her delirious fantasy of “a young woman defending her babies in her home” by fending off “three, four, five violent attackers” with one of those lightweight, easy-to-handle assault rifles.

Recently a young blogger, in a nice profile of the diverse subculture as it thrives now, unfortunately described preppers as a “nascent” movement. That ain’t so. As I’ve insisted earlier, “too much of what we observe today on the right we act as if started the day before yesterday. Always, we need to set the clock back further—as a political necessity. We have to establish deeper provenances. Or else we just reinvent, and reinvent and reinvent the wheel.” Let’s think about this: for generations we have shared our America with Americans who fear change, fear difference, fear you and me, fear everything falling apart. So much so that they organize their lives and politics around staving off the fear—which often entails taking political action that only makes America more fearful and dangerous in for everyone; which destroy the trust and love it takes to sustain communities; and who reinforce one another in their fear to such a degree that the less crazy among them surely play a positive role in spurring the more crazy to the kind of awful acts we see around us now. We need to better understand where that comes from, and why it is not going away.

So let’s get down to work.

In the early 1960s there was a group called the “Minutemen,” preparing for the imminent combined Communist and United Nations invasion. Their founder, Robert DePugh, a manufacturer of veterinary phamarceuticals in Misssouri, told the press that while waiting for the final showdown, his men would monitor and check subversive activities in their hometowns. DePugh claimed inspiration from a speech given by John F. Kennedy: “We need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life.”

Make no mistake: armed right-wing enclave-defenders aren’t just a function of their hatred for Democrats; they are also enabled by Democrats who braid paranoia into the political identity of the nation—Cold War paranoia then, “Homeland Security” paranoia now.

The stickers they distributed included read ones reading “REGISTER COMMUNISTS, NOT FIREARMS,” and tiny one members would slap on restroom walls or inside phone books featuring an image of rifle cross hairs, and this text: “See that old man at the corner where you buy your papers?… He may have a silencer equipped pistol under his coat. That fountain pen in the pocket of the insurance salesman that calls on you might be a cyanide gas gun. What about your milkman? Arsenic works slow but sure.… Traitors, beware! Even now the crosshairs are on the back of your necks.”

In 1966, Minutemen were arrested in a raid after FBI infiltration indicated they were on the verge of attacking three pacifist camps in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. They had stockpiled rockets, bombs and literally tons of ammunition. (You can read all about the group in this excellent book published at the time.)

What was DePugh’s connection to later preppers and survivalists? It was direct. In 1973 he published Can You Survive? Guidelines for Resistance to Tyranny for You and Your Family. Read the Amazon comments (“Everything they don’t want you to know…”); some people still find it useful now. And note the cover of the paperback. Like I said: the enclaves of innocents, always ever threatened by sudden siege by dread unnamed Others. Be prepared.

By the way, heard that new one? That a liberal is a conservative who’s been incarcerated? According to an article in his hometown newspaper published upon his 2009 death, “DePugh spent four years in federal prison and wrote a book about the plight of the incarcerated. Many consider it his best and most compassionate work.”

But that article also noted, “His ideas were so out of whack with what most poeple were thinking that the great majority of people laughed him off as a kook.” Not precisely so. The culture DePugh helped midwife grew and grew—so much so that, by 1981, Peter Arnett, then of the Associated Press, did a four-part series on the subject. It began: “Small but growing bands of Americans are arming themselves and learning how to kill because they are convinced the social order is crumbling and they will have to and they will have to fend for themselves to surive…. “There are inner perimeters in America today, places people are reluctant to leave for fear of their own safety. The national perimeter no longer seems secure.’”

Enclaves of innocents, always ever threatened by sudden siege by dread unnamed Others.

And now we have the hit new cable series.

Is there a continuity of culture here? Well, consider the reviews by the podcasting proprietor behind TodaysSurvival.com of “Best of the 80s Survivalist Books” (“The gem, the golden find of this book is his reloading tables: He has provided load data for virtually every cartidge in existence…with only 3 powders. This is incredibly helpful to the survivalist reloader who may anticipate reloading ammunition for themselves, and possibly others. By storing only 3 types of powder one may reload everything from the 219 Zipper to 300 Weatherby Magnum to .44 Special and everything in between. This book is out of print, but Mr. Stair is alive and well. He runs the ‘End Times Report’ web site, which sells a pamphlet containing the reloading data in the ‘booklet’ section.”)

There’s nothing new under the wingnut sun—only that, these days, you’re more likely to find ideas that once upon a time might have got you laughed off as a kook aired out in front of respectable congressional committees.


[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Nothing scarier in the dark than the sound of a pump action

I heard a guy on the radio the other day argue the case for being able to buy those extended clips for your semi-automatic guns. It was the one you've been hearing lately that's based on the idea that even experienced shooters have a hard time hitting a moving target, and you really need the extra 20 rounds. He actually presented his case in a way that I couldn't disagree with. You see he is blind. You have to acknowledge that no amount of practice or training is going to make him a good shot.

Really, this puts the lie to the case the gun nuts make for their paranoid delusion that the only thing keeping them safe is that gun under their pillow. If that were true at all, blind people would be extinct. (sure the blind are victims more than the sighted, so don't write me) The fact is that competent, sane people should keep a defensive weapon in the house with a trigger lock. If unlocking it is going to take too long, you should spend your money on better locks and plant some thorn bushes under your windows.

A short barrel 12 gauge pump is your best choice, but even that requires a lot of practice. Join a skeet club if you don't go to Camp David on weekends. A handgun is really way beyond the skill level of most people. Do you own one, have you fired 10,000 rounds for practice? For most people it's just a much needed penis extender. The assault rifle isn't any better for somebody with no real training, but a load of bird shot will take down any lawyer criminal, just ask Dick Cheney, and that wasn't even a 12 gauge. www.prairie2.com

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Rep. Ellison on Obama’s Minnesota gun control speech: Appealing to the people is the right strategy

February 4, 2013

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who attended Obama’s campaign-style event on gun control in Minneapolis, shares his thoughts on the president’s strategy with Current TV’s John Fugelsang.

By “jumping over the head of the Washington lobbyists [NRA] and going straight to the American people, the American people … will put pressure on their members of Congress to move forward on sensible, sane gun violence prevention,” Ellison says. Ellison also weighs in on whether progressives would support less comprehensive gun control measures, like expanded — as opposed to universal — background checks.

“It wouldn’t be enough for us to move on, but it would be enough for us to say that we’ve made some progress,” he says.


[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

What does this have to do with OWS. The only thing you are accomplishing ispushing people away who might otherwise agree with occupy ideals. You know the little problem of corruption of moneyin politics.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Class War ~ Guns are the ultimate divider. But that's not your real intent, is it? Or the naivete thing again?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

The intent is to not scare off people who agree OWS goals. Gun owners are also americans who worry about the corruption in gov't. Talking about gun control does nothing to help the corruption and only makes it harder to get the critical mass needed to fix the system.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

The Class War waged by the 1% has many fronts!!


[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

I don't disagree that guns make it more dangerous but rifle murders per year range from 300 to 450 according to fbi statistics while hanguns range from 6000 to 8000.


So you are pushing a % of the population away over a non critical issue. If so many people agree with gun control then we will fix the issue once the gov't is back in our hands.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

A % of the population were willing to lay down their lives to retain SEGREGATION!!

Fuck them, then and now!!

We will not be held back by primitive preferences!!

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Segregation and gun control aren't even comparable. Especially considering the gun control in question goes after a gun that is involved in so few killings. This is nothing but a way for the dems to have their base ignore civil liberty violations such as ndaa and the free speech zones created recently. Ialso love how you call people that disagree with you primitive.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

You just don't get it. Time has passed you by without informing you.

Just like the resistance to SEGREGATION!!

They just kept saying it would never happen but, THANK GOD, we just did it any way!

Fuck them, then and now!!

We will not be held back by primitive preferences!!

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Once again they are not comparable. One is a civil liberties issue the other is a safety issue. But then again all you do is push the dem party line so ] really shouldn't expect you to debate facts

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

You're dead wrong! SEGREGATION could get you killed in a hurry, or living a short miserable life in poverty and cruel discrimination. So SEGREGATION was (and still is) most definitely a health and safety issue, probably an issue you didn't care too much about.

Eventually you gun nuts will have regulated and controlled clubs and parks where you can get your fixes. This whole open weaponry thing has been ignored way too long, and must be stopped to save lives.

Peoples lives are more important than an obsolete hobby!!

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Because I realize segragation was a major issue that went agains core american beliefs and the AR-15 ban is a gimmick to make progressives forget about civil libertyviolations you say I'm pro segragation. How about we turn it around. You don't think segragation was a big deal because you keep underestimating the true importance of desegragation.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

The gun issue is the tip of the looney bin right's Hillbilly Taliban iceberg!

Vermin to our society.

[-] -1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

Hillbilly Taliban. Did you think of that on your own or was it fed to you by your pimps from the dem branch of the corporate duopoly.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

I wonder

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

I don't. They must be proud of your work dividing us when we need to be united.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

It's OK to sell other nations guns aswell

It's OK to kill people that are not US citizens.

40% of all weapons are produced in the US

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

As long as the weapons go to an allied military I have no problem selling weapons.

If we are not in a declared war killing people ia murder.

Considering the power of the MIC I'm not suprised we are the main worldwide arms supplier.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

we're always in a state of declared war

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

When I say declared war that is congress voting to declatewar againsta nation, not this bogus war on terror.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

I know

the government seems to to like to blame the other

Obama can't because congress didn't

it's a politicians fault

not the bombs that killed them

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

And then they are suprised the citizens of those countries hate us. Hell, we had extremists take out the twin towers and started a 11+ year terror campaign against the middle east.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

make them behave

those who misbehave will be punished

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

I guess DC is in trouble then.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3340) 7 years ago

'Treating Gun Violence As An Addiction And A Cult' -


'The more that the NRA speaks out against sensible gun laws and actions, the more it empowers those who have more responsible views. In sum, whether it knows it or not—and it clearly doesn’t—the NRA is its own worst enemy.' Nearly 70% of gun owners want control of large magazine, semi-automatic assault weapons. So who do the NRA actually represent?

Expose The Cultic Ideologues! Occupy Some Sanity!

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

See video, sign petition: http://www.demandaplan.org/

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

I don’t know where you get the 70% of gun owners want more control. I doubt that’s true.

As for the NRA. There are an estimated 85 million gun owners. The NRA has approximately four million members. The reality is most gun owners aren’t as involved in gun issues as we’re led to believe. Most just own a gun or two for home defense. They could care less about AR’s and AK’s. I am a gun owner who is not a member of the NRA. I’m just not that interested in guns. Owning a gun doesn’t make someone a gun nut.

But I do buy into the mindset that believes some folks want to ban or outlaw most guns. I think the anti-gun folks will not stop at banning semi-auto rifles and hi cap mags. As soon as the politicians realize the current proposals don’t work, then they’ll go after more guns. And the cycle will continue until most guns are outlawed. Paranoid or not, that is the group mindset of gun owners.

There is a named phobia for fear of guns, Hoplophobia. I think it’s a force in these gun discussions.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

US: 92% support gun background checks

2013-02-07 19:16 Washington - More than 90% of US voters supported background checks for all gun buyers, while much smaller majorities were for stricter gun control laws such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, said a poll released on Thursday.

By a margin of 92% to 7%, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91% were in favour, while 8% were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

In response to the 14 December shooting that killed 20 school children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama last month announced a series of gun-control measures opposed by the NRA, including proposals for enhanced background checks and a ban on military-style assault weapons.

House Democrats were expected to announce their own firearms legislation on Thursday.

Politics unclear

A majority of those surveyed supported stricter national gun control laws, Quinnipiac said. Fifty-six percent were for a ban on the sale of assault weapons, and the same percentage supported a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines, defined as those holding more than 10 rounds.

Congress would need to approve those initiatives and background checks.

"The politics of gun policy are also unclear," Peter A Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement. "Despite the huge news media coverage of the issue since the Newtown shooting, only 37% of voters are more likely to vote for a congressman who votes to ban sales of assault rifles, while 31% are less likely, and 30% say it would not affect their vote."

The poll surveyed 1 772 registered voters from 30 January to 4 February and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points, Quinnipiac said.


[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

I know I’m beating a dead horse here. This has been re-hashed so many times I hate talking about it. No one is going to change their minds, so what’s the point.

However, At this point (it seems to change weekly), it appears banning assault weapons will not occur. I’d say ten round magazines restrictions is a flip of a coin. Too close to call. Universal background checks has probably a 75% - 85% chance of passing.

The interesting thing is several states, eight I think, are trying to pass state legislation telling law enforcement not to enforce any new regulations. Also several law enforcement agencies have publically stated they will not enforce any new restrictions. Not to mention all the talk about people refusing to comply with any new regulations. I don’t know if all this talk is just bluster or not, but it will be interesting.

I own guns, and I doubt any of the proposed new gun laws will make a difference in gun crime. At the same tine I don’t understand the phenomena of Americans having such a fascination with semi-auto rifles. I use to own an AK-47. It wasn’t a very interesting rifle. My bolt-action rifles had more fire power and easier to handle. Please explain why these AR’s and AK’s are so popular. I’d like to know.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

They are popular because they make men with small ones feel they are macho with a big one.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

Maybe a grain of truth in saying making small ones feel big, but probably not a big factor. I really do think a large portion feel the nation will fail and they will need weapons. I think we underestimate how prevalent this belief is.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

A large portion used to believe slavery was good A large portion still believe their type of American is best

sadly, the source of much of this crap is that too many Americans
use religion & political leaders to tell them what to believe
rather than use reason and logic to find the truth.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

I’m sorry, but that’s a elitist view. Just another way of saying “If you don’t agree with me you’re wrong”. To say people who don’t agree with you are lemmings that don’t use logic and reason is arrogant. People see things differently for all kinds of reasons. Doesn’t mean they’re not rational.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

specifically, where do people learn that slavery is acceptable?
the bible & logic & reason
specifically, where do people learn that murder is acceptable?
the koran & logic & reason specifically, where do people learn that the eath is less than 10,000 years old?
the bible & logic & reason

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

I was background check when I joined the Navy as a research scientist

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

From CBS: By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus and Brian Montopoli.

Ninety-two percent of Americans favor background checks for all potential gun buyers, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Universal background checks are one of the proposals that President Obama has called on Congress to pass as part of his proposal to combat gun violence in the wake of the massacre in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.

"If you want to buy a gun -- whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller -- you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one," Mr. Obama said Wednesday, adding that "as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check."

Obama calls for sweeping new gun laws
Does Obama's gun control plan have a chance?

Licensed gun dealers already must run background checks, but unlicensed dealers and private sellers, many of whom sell guns at gun shows or over the internet, are not required to do so.

Only seven percent of respondents in the poll, which was conducted before the president's press conference, said they oppose background checks for all potential gun buyers.

Support for universal background checks went across party lines: 89 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats and independents were in favor, as well as 93 percent of gun households and 85 percent of those living in a household with a member of the National Rifle Association.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

Really - I am so sick of the nra lies - the lies from Gayle Trotter, spewing out a LONG story about a woman who shot a home invader - said she did not know that her weapon was a shotgun - not an AR15.
PLEASE go to the link


Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home,
there are 7 assaults or murders,
11 suicide attempts,
and 4 accidents
involving guns in or around a home.
43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

She was coached, she was like a robot. She recited a fiction!


This is more than gun rights!


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Watch our Super Bowl ad: http://www.demandaplan.org/

It’s time. Join more than 850 mayors and over 1.2 million grassroots supporters to demand that Congress step forward with a plan to end gun violence.

Our efforts cannot bring back the 20 innocent children murdered in Newtown, CT -- or the 33 people murdered with guns every day in America. But we can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will:

Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America
Ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real penalties for “straw purchasers”

Demand that your members of Congress support these legislative priorities.

Watch our Super Bowl ad, then join us in standing up to the gun lobby and demanding background checks for all gun sales.


[-] 0 points by owsarmy (271) 7 years ago

no body needs guns for home protection. Those that do have submitted to the fear mongering of racists. No one needs guns to fight the government, they have submitted to the fear mongering of the anti government extremists. And all serve to increase the profits of the gun industry.

[-] 2 points by owsarmy (271) 7 years ago

Aaaaaaaah a black man with a gun! hide the white women.!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Who would be the "Paul Revere" equivalent for the Hillbilly Taliban?

James Yeager?


[-] 2 points by owsarmy (271) 7 years ago

He supposedly turned around and apologized but it was meaningless cause he wouldn't take his words back.

Colbert did a good bit on it

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

Well you do present some very valid facts. The government, from the mid 1950s forward, has been very busy trampling all over the Constitution; in fact, there is very little left of it in terms of the limits placed upon government.

While you accuse the South of bigotry and hatred, white America silently smirks, because it allows our militias of the North to pass below radar.

And black America smirks, too. Because African Americans have been flocking to the South, to the Carolinas and Georgia, for some time now. And it's not for economic reasons; it seems many simply find southern law enforcement more attractive.

Since you've chosen to make gun possession a racial issue, I must ask you - why? Is it truly that white America is afraid? Or is it black America that is afraid? And why... ?

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 7 years ago

Good piece from the left side.I found it informative. Fact- Not a fan of the NRA. Fact -It is not gun control it is people control Fact- Good people do not need laws,bad people will not obey them.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago


Fact: No gun, no shot people.

Fact: Used to be able to own slaves responsibly.

Fact: Used to be able to smoke responsibly in theaters.

Fact: Responsible societies protect citizens from RISKS before they cause HARM!

Fact: Rampant gun ownership in America has gone WELL BEYOND risk.

Fact: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/chris-kyle-american-sniper-author-reported-killed.html?_r=0

Fact: http://www.demandaplan.org/

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 7 years ago

No gun ,people stabed etc,

No one ever owned another person responsibly

People still smoke responsibly.Than again some do not.

Rampant anything has a tendency to go beyond risk.

Is it not what dictators promise, Security from risk?

Good luck,

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

excellent informative post.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Thanks I just clipped and pasted and added brief comments and edited and researched and posted it. The links and names are there for the authors and the full articles.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

Wow, You paint with a wide brush. Your inference is that most of the estimated 85 million gun owners are wild eyed militia members wanting an armed insurrection is crazy talk. No doubt there are a few of these folks, but very few. The vast majority of gun owners are you friends, co-workers and family who just own guns.

I recently was in a discussion on another forum discussing militias. The consensus was militias were a fad, just a flash in the pan reaction to Waco and Ruby Ridge. Very few militias exist today.

However, I do think there is merit in thinking gun owners are paranoid about the government taking their guns. They seem to think any new gun restrictions are just another step toward confiscating ALL guns. So, paranoid or not, that seems to be the group mind set.

I own a few guns. But no AR-15’s. Actually no rifles at all these days. I don’t consider myself a gun nut. I don’t live and breathe guns like some folks. My problem with the proposed legislation is it won’t stop or reduce gun violence. Seems to me this hasn’t been thought through very well. Knee jerk reactions from people who are afraid of guns is what this looks like to me.

Also, your taking shots at the south is racist and bigoted. I would have thought we’d be past that point by now.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

It's unfortunate that a few bad seeds can ruin things for everybody, but that's life. Smoking is banned in bars, we have to take our shoes off to board a plane. Responsible societies act on risks, they don't wait to mop up Sandy Hook Massacres!! THE WAITING and MOPPING IS OVER!!!!

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

Militias a fad? A response to incidents decades old is not a flash in the pan, or a fad. NOPE! They are here to stay and growing.




And can I ask which race he has expressed bigotry at. "The South" is not a race. (and soon the South will be mostly non white, right?)

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

Yes, the South will soon have a White minority, and the Southwest even sooner. But that’s a whole different discussion. It just wasn’t nice of you to stereotype millions of southerners. Shame on you. (no, I don’t live South, I’m in the Southwest).

My answer to your question is, I don’t want anyone to hurt or murder me. Doesn’t matter if they’re armed or not. My gun(s) is like a seat belt. I hope I never need it, but if I ever do I’ll be glad I have it.

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

You don't need guns for protection. No one is comin for you. Don't believe the hype. Stop living in fear.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

I see. So much has been said regarding the gun issue on the forum, this post is one of those more informative than emotional, & partisan. Like many I have no patience for the extremism on this issue.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago
[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

I've listened. I think you turnedme on to her.


[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

So living in Jersey, NY and Boston is safer than living in Wyoming?

Illinois was number 4. And chicago is a mess.

Your chart is great if you want to live out in the sticks. Live in the country in Wyoming, and live in the country of Illinois, not much difference. Compare Cheyenne vs Chicago. PLEASE tell me you are safer walking from one side of Chicago to the other than Cheyenne.

Hahah....Anyone can do anything with stats. EAch side can get the stats they want.

Where's DC on that neat little list?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago


Gun Ownership as we now know it is obsolete.


[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

Highly prejudicial piece, ehh? Is there any wonder that white people are grabbing their self defense weapons and gathering to defend themselves?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

RW Hate, Lie & Fear Radio? Brainwashing?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

I don't think so - this is NY - there is no RW hate, no RW radio, no brainwashing. To put this another way, prejudice here in NOT "right-wing."

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

No Rush, Sean, Mark, Savage, Monica, etc. ad nauseam!!? Please!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Thanks for admitting the truth, that today's gun nuttery has deep roots in racism..

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

I think it would be more accurate to say that cultures and lifestyles are steeped in tradition and there is no doubt that America in its formation was a predominately white society intent on expanding its safe boundaries by whatever means necessary. Just as the emancipated African declined the opportunity to return, most colonials opted to do the same - there was nothing to return to, no other feasible option, but to stay and fight for the right to breath. And that required arms; it still requires arms, because those who chose to gain through oppression will always exist.

When they come for our guns, do me a favor - do not send law enforcement or our military, whom I know to be good people - send instead those who legislate - send instead those who seek to manage all aspect of our behavior, who seek to oppress and repress...

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dance on a lily pad.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Yeah, anything that need that much complication in the explanation and never addresses what I actually said, is BS.

My statement remains the more topical and accurate.

Your final statement was the most bullshit of all.

You have done NOTHING of the sort. Just lip service to protect your fetish.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

Most of what you said was bullshit and highly prejudicial - to ALL white people. You forget who are, where we came from, and why we continue to live in America. We're here to fight for that right to survive just as we did ten thousand years ago - "bring it" - we are waiting.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That's not what I said.

You just changed the subject again.

Thanks for proving my point.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

Your statement "white people are grabbing their self defense weapons and gathering to defend themselves" is not true.

What is true though is white, black, hispanic, and other ethnic groups are "grabing their self defense weapons and gathering to defend themselves".

Have you been to any gun shows lately? Apparently not.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 7 years ago

I honestly haven't been to any gun shows lately; I'm not as much of a gun "nut" as you may assume. But your point is well taken... the right to keep and bear arms is a right enjoyed by all. And it is, to the extent that current law will allow.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

"The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates."

Name the top three and the bottom three, please.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

I provided the link!

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

I think there should be more of a concern about the "mentally ill youth" in this country.

You can't even go into a McDonalds without worrying about being knocked out by a young mugger who wants to take what you have.

Would you be afraid walking down a dark ally that was lined with a group of "older white" people hanging out there or a group of young thugs hanging out there.

Seems to me more "older white" people are the ones being targeted for "firearms purchases" but the "older white" people are the ones abiding by the laws.

I will be willing to bet anyone on this site $100 that all straw purchases where firearms are sold illegally, are sold by either the melinimum, x or y generation.

"Older white" people respect the law along with a lot of other "older other ethnic groups"

How about you who are prejudiced against "older white" firearms buyers start to clean up your own problems with you X, Y and melinimum generation. Then maybe we won't have to worry about "straw purchases" or muggings, or shootings or rapes, and murders.

Clean up your own generations act before you condem otheres who are not part of the problem.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

What if certain slave owners treated their slaves well, and people who smoked in theaters smoked responsibly: should we maintain these rights to accommodate the non-offenders??

Times change, we learn, Free and Open gun ownership and sales are obsolete. The Wild West is long gone in the dust.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 7 years ago

Well then why don't you take a walk through a hood and let me know how you make out. Report back as soon as you can - if you can.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

Define hood

[-] -2 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 7 years ago

Peel back the code words of "gun control" and you have a treasonous movement in the works.

Fact-check: Your whole post is a "Myth".

You must be a first person shooter type gamer and you're pissed off because people are starting to blame these games for warping minds.


More people are starting to come around understand how to deal with these situations.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

The treason is from the wacko right who in fevered delusion or deliberate word twisting believe the 2nd is about revolution, when it's really about defense of the government, We The People!

We are slowly realizing that the risk of rampant gun ownership it completely irresponsible to ignore. The Wild West is long gone in the dust of Daniel Boone and John Wayne MYTHS!!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

The (R)epelican'ts are the original and still the most damaging treasonous movement.

Where's is your acceptance of that simple truth?

Where is your outrage?

Today, the (R)epelican'ts are practicing tyranny at the behest of ALEC in the State if Michigan? Which in my book is a form of treason as well.

Where is your comment on that little piece of reality?

Nope, you offer nothing at all, but more gun nuttery rhetoric.