Sure hope he’s not trying to position himself for a bid. His words would have had more impact if he had not directed having his words distributed to reporters.

I don’t expect it from Obama – the whole rest of the campaign would probably switch to “See! We told you he would take our guns sooner or later!!” from the usual suspects.

OTOH, in simple truth, sooner or later we must address the issue realistically.

I was mildly encouraged to hear two callers on Diane Rehm’s news roundup this morning bringing up exactly this issue. The first one opened with, “you said he had a rifle. It was an assault rifle!” before going on to explain why leaving out that fact mattered to him.

There may have been more; I only heard the first part of the show. Of course, there may have been NRA members pushing back, too; they usually do.

I saw what a Bloomberg country would look like when he used his police forces to bully protestors. No thanks. I’m pretty sure there ought to be a middle ground from only the 1%, their security details, and the connected get guns and the wild wild west.

Nice that Bloomberg entirely ignores the “mental health” aspect though and makes this all about the guns.

The solution is obviously to require everyone to carry. That way, Holmes would be dead, saving the taxpayer from expensive imprisonment & trial. /s (in case it’s needed)

I don’t think there’s any other developed country in the world that has remotely the problem we have.

Capitalist slimeball. Can’t think of another unique problem we have, Bloomberg?

What would have been the grounds to deny him a gun? or are we saying that no one has the right to own a gun?

A manufactured and phony presidential election for a sham democracy. It’s nothing more than an illusion aimed at the public to let them believe they actually live in a “democracy.” Kabuki 24/7

an alternative would be a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in which case the perpetrator is armed with a muzzle loader. One shot and it’s over.

And you see, if every 2-bit police force had armed drones, they could have taken Holmes out in the parking lot.

The U.S. public is slowly becoming inured to the reality that the “little people” are to be held hostage to preserve the “freedom” of some to arm themselves to the teeth.

I used to think that the 2nd amendment applied to local militias, but SCOTUS sez I’m wrong.

Yours is a good solution.

TP is going to make sure all their members are armed. Next step is to make sure they are assigned to watching polling places.

Someone needs to tell this hypocrite to just shut the fuck up. He’s the one using his NYPD/CIA to commit illegal acts of spying, infiltration, and intimidation inside and outside their jurisdiction of NYC. I would describe the actions he ordered, in accordance with the desires of the Banksters, to attack the OWS protesters as something beyond “bullying”. It was unjustified abuse and suppression that should be a criminal act in a democratic republic.

Napolitano is probably gonna install metal detectors and xray machines at all movie theatres. Shoes,belts and colostomy bags OFF or examined.

NO EXCEPTIONS!

Yes, that includes infants, Nuns and persons over 85.

Bravo! This can not be stated often enough, but the sheeple seem determined to not look up. If they did they might see the killer drones.

That was the role of the Brown Shirts in 1932. History repeats itself.

I just read that the premiere of the Batman movie has been cancelled in Paris because of this “tragedy”. That’s Paris,France not Paris,TX.

Seriously, that seems like an overreaction to me.

and churches, restaurants, sporting events, add infinitum. The nation moves back and forth from tragedy to farce from farce to tragedy. Not a way for a civilized society to live but then there are those who would suggest civilization is not what it’s cracked up to be.

WE got what 300 million people here. You;re gonna have a given % of nutjobs. I’m not being insensitive, just realistic.

OTOH, Colorado…again????

I’m surprised that a nation that takes pride in and glorifies death and destruction, while demonizing sex, doesn’t see more senseless killing. The people seem okay with it when it’s done by our armed forces or police, especially when the victims are “others”.

Fracking!

Who would be surprised that in Paris Texas they provide hand guns to every movie goer.

I was 12 and in Austsin when Charles Whitman killed a bunch of people from the UT tower. THis isn’t something new. Postal workers going…well “postal” and other disgruntled employees in mass murder. It’s unavoidable when anybody can buy the weapons and ammunition this guy had. FRankly, I’m stunned the fatalities are so low.

That’s not true.

Only pickup truck owners.

In other countries, however, it’s not a birthright to own an assault rifle. Maybe Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and perhaps a few others.

Agreed. Apparently most of the victims were killed by the AR-15,not the shotgun or the two Glocks which had 15 rounbd magazines.

Jobs plan and implementation of expanded security state. Is this what’s referred to as a win-win or a lose-lose?

As horrific as it/was and is it could have been worse.

Agreed.

But, what are the odds Colorado, Denver area…again???
It’s a really nice state.

That’s not necessary. When I lived there briefly, I was the only one in the entire state not carrying, which made me the fool.

Didn’t the assault weapon ban expire during this administration, devoid of any attempt to keep it in place? I tend to not track gun policy.

cretins like mayor bloomberg want everyone else disarmed.

recent events in chicago reinforce the need to allow citizens their right to defend themselves. a disarmed population amount to a bunch of victims waiting for their moment.

i’ve been reading here for a long time but have created this account for the express purpose of saying this: if that’s your position i no longer have any interest in visiting here. i’ll be deleting the bookmark and moving along.

Doesn’t every household in Switzerland have one as well? Something to do with national defense because they don’t have an army.

Three term Dictator Bloomberg seems rather fond of policies that were implemented in 1930′s Germany.

My father wanted me to have a high powered hunting rifle when I turned 13, so we got rid of him.

Guns are relatively benign. They are not going to stop a swat team. So how about the right to own missiles, tanks, submarines, and fighter jets?

Bloomberg’s heart is in the right place on guns, but calling for more “talk” is kind of feckless. What more is to be said?

SCOTUS has rather firmly seen a right. So should a Constitutional Amendment be on the agenda? Probably not, since those are very hard to pass, and a loss that way would make the situation even worse.

The most gov’t can do at this point is to make obtaining a gun (and ammunition) as exceedingly inconvenient as possible, with a caution not to be capricious about it and run afoul of the court.

It’s not a satisfactory situation at all.

They have a militia.

Fuck off, Bloomberg.

I’ll trade you; my guns for the safe return of our government, your resignation and the resignation of every mayor that raided an Occupy encampment, and the dissolution of every major bank in this country. Oh, and the revocation of the Koch Brothers’ citizenship.

One issue lurker. Nice knowin’ ya.

“And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic,’ and you know, we look for was the guy, as you said, maybe trying to recreate Batman. I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop.”

What a strange comment from such an influential person of an empire that has murdered somewhere around 1.5 million people since the end of the Cold War, celebrates torture, has more people in prison than any other nation, and whose President currently murders US citizens “lawfully.” Is there no connection between the extreme violence needed to maintain the empire and mass killings domestically. Or, when are folks like Bloomberg going to talk about the near-neurotic levels of deliberately-generated fear in US society that provide the essential seed bed for such violence?

Same old authoritarian con: All the power, none of the responsibility.

Looked it up.

Bush….again. 2004. The assault rifle ban was passed in 1994 and was good for ten years. Was not renewed.

I know for a fact a citizen can’t own a tank.

Missiles and fighter jets…..knock yourself out.

I do, however, sit on the board of directors of my homeowners assocization (HOA). THAT could be problem depending on where you store them.

“Perhaps no other mayor in the country has done more to try to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals . . .”

If only he had the conviction and consistency to use his pulpit to help get illegal guns out of the hands of US war criminals, both military and civilian. “Hooray for the gun violence of bosses and owners in pursuit of wealth,” says Bloomberg. “But woe unto you, oh ye without rank or privilege.”

I like the “capitalist slimeball” description above. Very fitting.

““See! We told you he would take our guns sooner or later!!” from the usual suspects.”

In spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, most of the “usual suspects” will never believe that Obama is not after their guns. It seems to be an unshakeable article of faith, evidence be damned. And why not, they have bought into the propaganda that Obama is a liberal, and the NRA sends out missive after missive about how Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are only days away from decending from black helicopters to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding, God-fearing citizens. (If you have ever read the NRA’s literature, you know I am barely exaggerating.) Just like in 2008, when Obama gets his second term there will be a gun and ammo buying frenzy.

“Nice that Bloomberg entirely ignores the “mental health” aspect though and makes this all about the guns.”

He is of course not after a solution in the best interests of the citizenry. He is after control.

Or an even stricter interpretation that would allow well-regulated citizen militias to own everything from tanks to bombers so that they might affect a balance of power against tyranny. Wasn’t the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to make folks like Bloomberg think twice before they had military forces ride into the village square and gun down citizens seeking a redress of grievances . . . ?

I hate Bloomberg and believe everything he says is disingenuous. But I’ve taught for 11 years at an urban school and have attended 5 too many funerals for students lost to gunfire. Can the “defend myself from corporate shocktroops” schtick for a minute consider that maybe sometimes the devil can be right: something has to curb the production and easy dissemination of deadly weapons in this country. If we wiped out every corporate shock-troop-loving mayor in the world today, there’d still be millions of guns creating urban wastelands tomorrow. Guns are the problem. The 2nd amendment is going nowhere. Now figure something out.

Indeed. A domestic reflection of the behavior of the US internationally.

I suspect fear, poverty, empire, and rapacious, unequal, atomizing, consumer capitalism are the problem. Guns are merely a symptom. I imagine that going after the causes of the ailment might be more useful than addressing the symptoms.

You’re a fucking moron.

“The people seem okay with it when it’s done by our armed forces or police, especially when the victims are “others”.”

It has descended to the level of celebratory, voyeuristic fetish. I’m surprised there is not more shooting as well. On the other hand, we have stuff to buy and TV to watch. Perhaps that is what keeps us too busy?

Thanks for “telling it like it is” (RIP Howard Cosell). This SCOTUS clarified the absolutely simple meaning of the Second Amendment. My take: in the times the Constitution was passed, binding the States to a new form of union, the country faced 4 more or less serious military threats. The most serious was the British Empire to the North wanting to reverse the humiliation they had just suffered, next the French Empire to the West, the Spanish Empire to the South, and the constant guerrilla-style warfare all around and in between from Native Americans. Who would NOT have firearms in that environment? Plus the Jefferson wing wanted to make as certain as possible that the newly created, and untested, Federal Government would not overly encroach on States’ rights, in opposition to Hamilton-led Federalists; ergo, the Bill of Rights.

The last 220 years has seen nothing but Federal Government encroachment on States’ rights and the Bill of Rights itself, mostly thru the ‘magic’ of the Interstate Commerce clause . So the only way to get “gun control,” within the present definition of “Union,” is to amend the Second Amendment with a new Amendment, as has been done a number of times in our history.

Why is that? Is the interpretation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment not right? Or perhaps you are thinking that I’m not capable of entertaining an idea without believing in it also? I’ve always appreciated your comments, so I’m hoping you have something other than another ad hominem attack.

Oh yeah. They are going to bubble that paranoia till it pops. They like playing John Wayne too much to mind the con.

The capitalist cowboy mentality is sheer lunacy.

With the degree of corruption and foulness pervading the ruling elites these days, the second amendment is a check on absolute government power that everyone ought to be thankful for.

The Second Amendment wasn’t put into the Bill of Rights by the founding fathers so Americans could protect themselves from marauding neighbors–it was their way of ensuring the center would never be able to gain complete domination of the periphery. Be thankful for it.

Here’s what I found out………….

Fighter jet cannot be visible from the street.
MIssiles, same EXCEPT, missile and launcher can be visible from the street during launching only.

Neither can occupy a utility easement without permission of the utility company.

The Second Amendment [...] was their way of ensuring the center would never be able to gain complete domination of the periphery.

Ho ho ho. And you believed them?

I don’t currently own a gun, but as an expression of freedom and an exercise of my Constitutional rights I’m thinking of picking up a few.

No. You’re interpretation of the original 2nd amendment is not right. The Union needed an Army because the British were bound to invade again, but the Union could not afford an Army. So they gave the populous the right to arm themselves, and individual states passed laws requiring citizens of fighting age to own and maintain a rifle.

This became obsolete the moment we had a national military.

The gun lobby really needs to get into making drones. Kill a few thousand brown people via drone and liberals cheer your macho liberating missiles. Kill ten white people and your front paged on FDL, and Bloomberg gets all irrate.
Sure your average psycho with the slightest knowledge of chemistry could kill more people in a packet theater. Lets ignore that. Lets ignore a good fire scare could rack up that total in people stampeeding for the exit. Lets just ban guns. That will work, we’ll round up all the people that have them now and ask nicely. If not, we’ll just shoot them,that will lower gun deaths drastically. Think of all the young males who won’t be able to commit suicide because they won’t have access to firearms.

I always say…..”Better to have something you don’t need than to need something you don’t have.”

(I actually made that up, circa 1982)

“Obsolete” Let’s not go that far.

Let’s just say……redundant.

Redundancy is good. Right???

No andreww@50 ,guns are not the problem .If you teach at an urban school ,you should know guns are the byproduct of illegal drug trade.Drug markets cannot function without guns serving as a regulatory ,security ,market acquisition and judicial force .The gun epidemic expanded with the drug epidemic in the late Sixties .The only causal link other than drugs was arming of the burbs when the urban riots spread .There is only one way to eliminate tens of millions of firearms : perish the need .

Meanwhile children die and people live in fear unnecessarily because of a single lobbying group. We can walk and chew gum. I happen to think breaking the purveyors of weapons and attacking all those abstractions you mention go hand in hand.

Make sure your drones are not visible from the street asnd the HOA is fine with that.

And here I thought the things were for shooting people.

Again, you chip away at that mountain, while some actually try to accomplish something concrete. Yes, we all want utopia,but sometimes you just want to be able to walk down your block. Obviously, the number of problems back of the possession of weapons: the machismo salved and the emasculation compensated for because of the possession of said weapons, and the territorial squabbling over a drug market in apartheid conditions and the myriad other injustices heaped upon urban folks account for the overarching problems, and those should be attacked relentlessly, but I fail to see how attacking the gun lobby hurts the cause of fighting those larger injustices.

No, you’re wrong. It wasn’t about not being able to pay an army. A standing army wasn’t to be maintained. The fathers of the constitution were well aware of the perils of a standing military. Citizens who had firearms were less likely to invade other countries. You know, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc. etc.
Guns weren’t used just in case red coats showed up back in those days. You can argue the situation has changed. I’m sure Bloomberg would but that’s disigeneous. There is a reason why tea partiers can take assalt rifles to protests but OWS gets raided and beaten.

The fascinating thing about the cowboy capitalist, paranoia nexus is that having guns is presented as risk management: The gun will protect my property and freedom, they say. However, in their justification of guns, only this benefits column is ever considered. Human error, gun malfunctions, and, at the very top of the list, the right of others to be free of the dangers of their guns is never included in the cowboys’ calculations. Or to put it more simply, the cowboys insist that there are either no down sides to guns or that the benefits so outweigh the costs that the costs need never be seriously considered.

One only very infrequently hears any talk from the cowboys about others’ rights to freedom from gun violence. It is only about gun owners’ freedom to have guns. I often hear them talk as if they are sheepdogs protecting the flock of unarmed citizen sheep from danger. In this respect they are much like cops and soldiers forever justifying their violence as the guarantor of freedom for the rest of society without a thought about the cost of efficacy of that violence–or, god forbid, that their violence may actually decrease the freedom of the citizenry.

And at bottom, the public gun ownership issue is very often informed by fear. And this overriding fear is what probably accounts for their lack of empathy toward those who see guns as a menace. Fear will almost always keep you from seeing things from an opponents perspective.

Let’s be realistic rather than respecting others’ opinions.

Our military is obsolete. Nobody would invade the United States, there is no valid reason for us to invade other sovereign states, and if someone were to get the bright idea to invade… we have massive police forces and a National Guard.

Looks like we’re both kind of wrong. Read here.

Quite true! Although I don’t think the things I mentioned were abstractions. And I am no friend of the NRA. I despise them for the fear-mongerers that they are. As far as I am concerned, in no way do they help guarantee anyone’s freedoms.

I’m surprised that a nation that takes pride in and glorifies death and destruction, while demonizing sex, doesn’t see more senseless killing. The people seem okay with it when it’s done by our armed forces or police, especially when the victims are “others”.

Amen.

Wait … what? … you mean I can’t run away from an explosion or gunfire like Batman or Tom Cruise?

It’s sad, yet fitting somehow that this took place during a movie that shows the same sort of violence. Unfortunately death, destruction and violence up close is quite a different thing than on a movie or drone screen.

They are abstractions. Important ones, but they are. I’m not just being pedantic here. The point’s important. Abstractions lead to throw-your-hands-to-the-sky inaction. Lobbying for eliminating mandatory minimums, better job training, and yes, very harsh gun laws (which go after vendors/sales/production) are concrete. Saying you can’t or shouldn’t bother with guns till you’ve toppled corporate hegemony is unhelpful and cruel.

And the worse cost is obliviated, to the benefit of crapitalists, that being the delusion that the gun and stake is the final answer. “That’s the way things are in a man’s world, pardner.”

Fantasy land.

Hey andreww@66 .is injecting the NRA as straw man your best push back after getting intellectually spanked ? If you actually went to funerals ,then your your efforts to prevent future ones should.once, again ,focus on drug legalization as.opposed to Bloomberg .That is ,unless it goes against every fibre of your reactionary being ,to take civil liberties as opposed of giving them .My position is that of the ACLU ,yet that might be too dangerously radical for you .On planet earth ,the notion of some ban-the-gun pansies taking on the core of redneck America ,i.e. ,the NRA ,is about the most utopian exercise of pissing in the wind I can imagine .

Among those, fear only is an abstraction. They rest are not. Poverty, to me, is not an abstraction because I can put my hands on it. Nor does it–or even the abstraction of fear–cause me to throw my hands to the sky. I never made the argument that one shouldn’t bother with guns until the other issues were resolved. In fact, most of my other comments here were directed against the irrationality of many gun owners. My point was about the efficacy of addressing causes more so than symptoms.

Well, apparently I have done a poor job of expressing myself. I made a comment about balance of power and it came across to you and Bluetoe2 that I was defending the 2nd Amendment, which perhaps upset you. My apologies.

OTC, they gave up toppling capitalist hegemony and look what that cost.

I remember Parenti said something in “Power and the Powerless” about how part of the abuse of power is in limiting available possibilities to those over whom one would like to have coercive influence. He’s right. And here we see an excellent example.

It all just now reminds me of this: Very frequently I hear concealed carry folks talk about how having a gun makes them not feel afraid. I think, what about the possibility of just skipping straight to not being afraid?

I love you :)

I love all of you!

BTW, just read of 24 hours of twitter silence starting at 8pm EST. Not sure how many will participate, but I will.

Different philosophies in different states, I guess.

Here in Texas we us our guns to shoot snakes, crooked politicians and sheister lawyers. Albeit, that’s really just ONE thing.

Hey andreww, please respond to my query,which is why middle-class centrists are always so predisposed to cures that take freedom as opposed to giving it ? I know you remember gun confiscation pre-Holocoust ,and understand our fascist state is being hardened in every conceivable manner ,yet the dots are not connected It’s not just guns ,I remember censoring tv violence ,banning porno and sex work and endless other neo-puritan antidotes that gave emotional rescues in the name of crime fighting .Remember ,one could buy a bazooka in a sporting mag circa 1960 before illegal drug mainstreaming .Check back after 8PM .

… skipping straight to not being afraid?

Good ‘un. ‘cept that would be like becoming a Hindu for the cowboy capitalists under consideration. And their priests wouldn’t be pleased.

Power is about denial. Gunboys see that and want the handheld version.

We need a bigger vision. How come there is no white MLK?

Freedoms?? They have most of the whole country on its knees. I read DD’s post pretty quickly and scanned the messages even quicker, so I stand to be corrected if wrong, but I think your message at #75 is the first mention of the worst terrorist organization in the country.

Yeah, yeah, it depends on how you define “terrorist organization”. I define it as “The National Rifle Association”. And it is horrifyingly successful. Of COURSE the candidates for president are not going to even mention “gun”. I’m baffled that anyone would expect them to.

Well, I’m glad it’s boiled down to “spanking” someone intellectually. You pretty evidently don’t know what I believe. Who wouldn’t want drugs legalized or cops de-armed? I would absolutely.

Why do Ron Paul-ite paranoids such as yourself believe everything is resolved by violence? Do you think owning some piece of shit rifle or handgun that’s just as likely to explode in your hand as kill some proto-fascist of your fever dreams is going to ward off the National Guard? The only benefit that victims of the Nazis would have had by owning weapons would have been their ability to hasten their deaths by suicide. The Third Reich would have gotten who they wanted; armed citizens or not.

Believe me, if the world to you is simply a race to greater “freedoms” you’ll lose every time to someone more well-heeled and connected than you.

Then we agree: we can walk again chew gum simultaneously. Where we differ is that I don’t believe alleviating the symptoms is incommensurate with dealing with the causes, which is what your first post intimated, if not fully articulated.

People who believe that an “armed populace” prevents government overreach are the same idiots who fall for things like “balances of power,” and other high school history teacher-isms. Gunmakers must be brought to heel. Fuck your freedoms. Imbeciles.

Perhaps it should be no surprise in a hyper-consumerist nation like the US, but the odd thing here is that we treat freedoms as if they were commodities, consumer items to be bequeathed or safeguarded–even more oddly we insist that this is done by folks with uniforms and guns. To my mind, freedoms don’t come from constitutions or laws or soldiers or lobbyists bribing politicians. They come from each of us everyday. We either think and act free, or we are not. Isn’t this the personal responsibility of citizens in a democracy? The trouble here is that some folks think that freedom is a consumer product. And as freedom may relate to guns, they imagine that something like the NRA can help guarantee that freedom for them.

I would agree that the NRA is a terrorist organization in that it terrorizes (and lies to and provokes) at least its members. And frequently others as well. I wish I had a copy of the last “Please Join the NRA” letter I got from them to quote from right now–when you hunt and shoot it is hard not to get on their mailing list, apparently. The fear-mongering is way over the top. I could never take a group like this seriously: Really, NRA, your preferred tactic is to scare people into submission. No thanks. I’ll take my chances on my own.

So andreww,if you don’t believe in ‘live and let live ‘,and you say ‘fuck freedom’ .and believe in statist gun abolition ,you just painted yourself into a corner of totalitarian fascism .Why didn’t you just say you were a Stalinist and spare us the drivel about teaching and funerals .Yes,if Ron Paul believed in a strong safety net ,he would be the best candidate since Ralph and I would support him .Paul is the only one against the death penalty and we freedom types believe everyone should be liberated from such state terror .Gee you started out appearing so sane before the spanking ,and now it’s ‘fuck your freedoms imbeciles’ .I’m sorry if I made you become ,ah ,unraveled .

You are painting the folks at FDL with too broad a brush, fritter. But your point about the hypocrisy of efforts to control violence is a good one. The legitimacy of violence is frequently a function of rank, money, power. This whole issue is one of those times where I am reminded that the difference between liberals and conservatives in the US is often tissue paper thin.

There is no connection between violence at home and drone attacks, perpetual war, empire, a President whose murder is above the law, a culture that has made a fetish of punishment and torture, and spending most of our money on war. And you would be a fool and terrorist to make one. To be fair, it may seem easier to ban guns than to address the larger issues that provoke their use, which is why it may seem a more reasonable course of action.

I like KrisAinTx’s suggestion @ 40. I would gladly destroy every gun I own and never pick up another if the US military and police would do the same. I’ve had quite enough of their so-called “protection.” Now who is delusional? :)

I can smell a middle school Paul-ite a mile away. Too funny. How on earth you can say that bringing gun producers and NRA types to heel is statist is beyond me. There’s nothing more statist or fascist than the gun lobby as they dump guns into inner cities and lobby for stand your ground laws. Read: eliminate blacks. The only thing you can do to resist the state is resist. You can’t blow up the state.

Sure we agree. I never suggested it was an either-or, zero-sum game, only that addressing causes seems more efficient than dealing with symptoms in the same way that an antibiotic is more valuable than a cold compress in treating an infection. The one does not preclude or negate the other as you say: “but I fail to see how attacking the gun lobby hurts the cause of fighting those larger injustices.” Indeed. But dismissing the tangible causes of violence as abstractions or utopian aspirations can produce the effect of throwing one’s hands in the air, too.

And wouldn’t the best solution be one that maximized freedom to as well as freedom from?

As a teacher too, I sympathize with you on the deaths of your students. I see where you are coming from.

I always appreciate your comments and hope that there is no miscommunication between us. Nuance, sarcasm, innuendo, and a whole range of other subtleties don’t translate well on blog threads.

There are many kinds of freedom, defogger. The problem is that often one person’s freedom TO compromises another person’s freedom FROM. andreww is after freedom just as you are. He (I’m assuming) is interested in freedom from the gun violence that has claimed 5 of his students. That is a legitimate pursuit of freedom. I agree with you about the relative value of addressing causes, but for andreww and his students that may not provide the immediate freedom FROM that might save a life tomorrow. And that is not fucking drivel.

If you love freedom so much–and I don’t doubt that you are sincere–try expanding your definition of it.

“And their priests wouldn’t be pleased.”

Ha! Ain’t that the nut of it. The whole goddamn control system falls apart without the essential ingredient of Fear.

“Power is about denial. Gunboys see that and want the handheld version.”

Knocking them out of the park with the axioms, today. Since we are so far into all the things I typically hear CC holders say (I do spend a lot of time around them, and they are my friends), what I often hear the most fear-addled among them say is that they need their gun to stop someone else from doing what they don’t like. And this stopping goes well beyond averting a deadly attack. Making some evil “other” stop is a big issue for them. You hear the word over and over. It is what is behind the idea of a bullet’s “stopping power”–as if a 9mm slug could knock someone off their feet (you know, just like in the movies). In other words, denial.

“We need a bigger vision. How come there is no white MLK?”

“The better able a ruling class is to absorb the natural leaders of the oppressed, the more solid and dangerous its rule.” -Karl Marx

Hey Otto ,I know from past threads that you are a little slow so I will go easy on you .Should I expand my vision of freedom to encompass the tea-party definition ? That would entail the freedom to take away your freedom with second-amendment remedies .Do you believe they should have the freedom to not pay taxes for that which our taxes built and subsidized for generations ? Do you believe women needing healthcare to abort a pregnancy from rape should be denied because many taxpayers want the freedom to not underwrite perceived murder ? More to the point ,do you believe anything short of police-state liberticide would prevent today’s gun violence or urban drug violence that betokens the opportunity base in a climate of scarce resources for survival ? No wonder you were stymied by the concept of Christian anarchy .

Otto @100 ,you quote Marx appropriately ,yet you countenance andreww’s gun confiscation proposal in the name of freedom .You think an issue that is political leprosy ,capable of being the most fear-inducing ,divisive wedge of the century is a noble pursuit .You actually believe the NRA is where the national fear machine is rooted ? It is manufactured at the top and merely fortified via the NRA gun lobby .Expand your mind and accept giving freedom via vice legalization is far more noble than denying freedom to heartland America .Once again ,I think your defense o andrewsw’ ‘fuck freedom ‘ rant is tantamount to a tea party defense ,i.e. ,one of a moral imbecile .

Ha! Go easy on me. Indeed. Please do. I know that sort of thing makes you feel like a big man. And it is the Christian thing to do. I certainly need no concessions from you.

And I know from past conversations that your lack of empathy prevents you from being able to articulate an opponent’s point of view, which results in you not being able to understand what another is thinking or feeling (as you clearly don’t with andreww or the issue of freedom to meeting freedom from). You also exhibit no capacity to consider that one can think about an idea without believing in it, but ideologues typically have that characteristic. Your response here is a perfect example of all of this. The only thing that I’m stymied by is that I keep giving a pretentiously vicious fundamentalist like you the benefit of the doubt. You are probably right that I am slow. Maybe some day I will learn not to engage someone who values ad hominem attack more then thinking, and I will remember that the mark of a deliberately unreconstructed shit is that they must always be right.

Prove me wrong by accurately articulating andreww’s concerns from his subjective point of view. Or does fear have you by the short and curlies on that front? Because the one thing that prevents empathy is fear.

Sorry dude ,I really meant to go easy on you ,but saying I should expand my vision of freedom to include a freedom-hating belief by a person who says ‘fuck freedom-loving imbeciles’ is ,well ,a bit much .

Ye gods. OK, I’ll give you a hint. Every one of your sentences here is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization. Try again. The funny thing is–and this gets to that bit about being able to see things from a perspective other than your own ideological one–that I agree with the crux of your thesis here (although we may have to trade civilization for freedom), but you are too bothered and blind to see that. It might also help you greatly, if understanding and dialogue is your intent (yeah, I know, I’m a slow learner), to get past the Christian framing of mutually exclusive dichotomies (e.g. “giving freedom via vice legalization is far more noble than denying freedom to heartland America”–is this zero-sum binary construction the only way to imagine this?) The solutions here may not be (it’s just possible) one thing or the other.

Hey asshole I proved you wrong in ten different ways .If you think I’m vicious ,and you realize you are a simpleton ,why engage me with a condescending remark? Yeah .I remember when shooter kicked your ass a few weeks ago and ,as a last resort ,you played the empathy card .So I will do the same as he ,and advise you to just move on in the future You must be really pissed ,eh ? Cuz I never said a harsh word to you before tonight .

No need to apologize, defogger. I’m fine.

There may be more to this issue than just freedom-loving and freedom-hating. That seems overly simplistic to me. Might it be possible that what you see as freedom-denying reaction by andreww is actually, from his perspective, a request for freedom, a request for freedom from gun violence. If I had 5 of my students killed by guns with the very real possibility of more where that came from, I might conclude that a need for freedom from outweighs a need for freedom to–and I’m a gun owner for whom target shooting is a zen-like activity. But sometimes the good of the group or the happiness of another person may be greater than my personal freedom.

Plus, intolerance of others needs, no matter how inconceivable they may seem to us, doesn’t sound very much like the embracing of freedom. Surely freedom, if it is as valuable as we all imagine, is big enough to be a little more inclusive.

So you articulated andreww’s concerns from his subjective point of view? Where?

No, no. I said “pretentiously vicious.” I don’t think you are vicious. You might think that, but I don’t.

Is that what shooter did? I didn’t realize that, but I wasn’t keeping score. And I didn’t play the empathy card because this isn’t poker.

And why the hell do you think I would be pissed?

Wow. So American racism prevented the PTB from absorbing their leaders — and they had to reduce the racism sufficiently.

And now we have BO.

And the racist sous-cacophany masks that motive.

Your foggy incoherence is revealing.

Have you read Adolph Reeds’ numerous articles on Obama? I think he has a recent book out–a collection of essays, I think–too.

I agree. Let’s tell SCOTUS.

Its a lot easier to blame the weapons than say maybe there’s just something wrong with us as a country I think. Canadians have about as many guns as we do but don’t use them nearly as much. Why is that? That was one of the things Michael Moore never really explored, though he brought it up and was to me the most provacative part of killing columbine. At least IMHO. For all the factories that have closed in the US we still manufacturer desperation and hopelessness better than anyone in the industrialized world. You can’t take away someones hope and expect that if you also take away some of their weapons everything will be hucky dorry.