Tough guys don’t dance…
This week, after Nasim Aghdam entered the Youtube campus, shot two people and then killed herself, the coverage was relatively subdued. Outside of an NY Times editorial that stated that big tech, Silicon Valley must now enter the gun debate, the story faded.
Not surprising, here are the details:
Nasim was not male, not “white” or a conservative. She was a vegan and she did not use an AR-15. She was not an NRA supporter and committed the crime in a strict gun control state, as well as in a “gun free zone”. Bummer, dudes. So much for the gun narrative de jour.
Here’s the problem. Since Parkland, the American political left, essentially Northeast Postmodern Bourgeois Liberalism, has attempted to frame an argument in the name of “common-sense gun control”, which, after pulling back the curtain is simply an argument for giving up more rights and being submitted to more government control. It’s really just about control.
What has been unmasked is the darkness and vicious nature of these proponents. While they bemoan the tragedy and hysterically cry about ‘children’s safety’, behind it all is an abject hatred for those that disagree with them politically, and the yen to dominate and control the ‘flyover people’.
NRA members have felt the brunt of this.
As an NRA member, you know that almost 100% of us believe in gun control, even as we insist on being able to legally purchase the proper firearms for the task, whether for self-protection, hunting, or range work. Rather than consulting the NRA, which was the first group in this country to promote gun laws and gun safety, the left has instead attacked them as terrorists, somehow blaming them for the actions a few very disturbed people.
And by the way, the AR-15 is a hunting rifle.
This is where we stop listening. We understand what this is about.
I’m less sad than disgusted by what this country has become. When did it become overrun by a bunch of Le Chattes? I understand that a large portion of the country has been lobotomized by eight years of Obama, but I never realized things had gone this far south. It made me remember something Norman Mailer said during a lecture many years ago at George Mason University. He was describing a scene from his novel Tough Guys Don’t Dance. The main character climbs a 100 ft. tall monument, and once at the top, realizes he cannot get back down. But he wasn’t worried, because he knew that someone would eventually come and get him down. As Mailer noted, “individual responsibility, owning the good and the bad is all but gone…replaced by blame, or the belief that someone will be there to rescue you.” Free to be as stupid and boring as you want.
“The essence of spirit, he thought to himself, was to choose the thing which did not better one’s position but made it more perilous. That was why the world he knew was poor, for it insisted morality and caution were identical.” – Norman Mailer, The Deer Park
I get what he’s saying. We’ve lost some toughness somewhere. Not so much about fighting, but having some consideration, having a backbone, some grit. America used to be politeness and hard work. Now, you tell me.
We now occupy a world of #Dystopian Soda Flavors such as FBI Fig, Government Grape, Zuckerberry, Twitterlicious Tamarind, Cranberry Censorship and Social Justice Starfruit. As they like it.
As a programmer in the early 1990s, I remember the distinct excitement surrounding development around the world wide web. Then came the Mosaic web browser, which was co-written by Marc Andreessen, and eventually, Netscape Navigator. What many of us believed, especially in the open source community, was that this tool represented freedom–freedom from government control and censorship, freedom from corporate domination. We were wrong. The Google motto of ‘do no evil’ has turned out to be a sham–it has been appropriated. Facebook willingly gave away personal data to ensure an Obama victory, Google and YouTube actively censor viewpoints and mines user data, Twitter and YouTube actively censor ‘inappropriate’ accounts (usually conservative).
We thought the web would be the tool to free us, it is instead the tool used to watch and keep us in line. Of course, that is what the progressive movement has wanted since 1912. Say hello to the NSA…Snowden knows.
That brings us back to the gun control “debate”. The fact that people are stupid enough to fall for this garbage is truly depressing. Face it, the chance of dying from a gunshot is very, very small. To be sure, your death is imminent, but the chance of meeting your end from the barrel of a gun is practically non-existent. You are more likely to get struck by lightning in a boat, or even more likely to die in a car crash…let’s not even talk about the threat of disease. For guns, if you take business (drugs, organized crime, etc.) and suicide out of the data, and it almost doesn’t exist.
Yeah, I know, murders and bad things happen every day…I drove a cab in the DC Metro area during the 1980s during the glorious reign of Marion Barry. I’ve seen it. However, back then just being in the vicinity of a murder, or being robbed at 2 a.m. didn’t make you an expert on anything…except on how to try and shake it off. You never really do though.
How do people really expect this thing to end? Instead of focusing on our relative affluence and all the real opportunities in the American world, the narrative of white privilege, the gun lobby, the evil alt-right, etc. is used to strategically divide and marginalize. People are just dumb enough to believe it. It just pisses the rest of us off.
With a populace anesthetized, lobotomized, weak, subdued and bathed by the phone and computer screen, the cult of personalities actively use the techniques of mass media, propaganda, spectacle, the arts, patriotism, and organized demonstrations and rallies to create an idealized, heroic, and very big lie.
It’s just so easy, and so attractive. Much more enjoyable than work.
I support increased gun regulation in the interest of public safety. All regulation should be supported by data, like the kind you posted in “Real Data on Gun Control and Mass Killings.” This is the role of government: deciding how to balance individual liberties and the common good. For instance, most of us obey traffic rules. Yes, people speed and run yellow lights, but you don’t see people driving on the wrong side of the road doing 90 mph. Drivers choose to follow the rules. Why can’t the same principles be applied to gun regulation?
Let’s say a person with an AR-15 goes to Cape Charles beach on a sunny summer Saturday and opens fire. He or she kills 12 and injures 50 others. A less extreme hypothetical is a person entering a store with a handgun and shooting several innocent bystanders. In both cases, do we just shrug our shoulders and say, “Gee, what rotten luck”? If so, would we feel the same way if a friend or family member were shot?
I understand that shootings in general are unlikely. So are earthquakes and epidemics. New construction in many earthquake-prone areas must meet standards so they can withstand some shaking. American students must be vaccinated–I’ll ignore the anti-vaxxer crowd here–to attend school because herd immunization works. Building codes and vaccines protect the common good. I don’t think firearms should be exempt. There must be a middle ground between “Ban them all!” and “Everyone should be packing 24/7.” I hope we can find it.
Wayne, the unfortunate reason that the story faded has nothing to do with the perpetrator. The story faded because she was 1 victim shy of being labeled a mass murderer. So her crime was no different than the hundreds of other killings that happen in a day that go unreported by the media. The reason that this received press was because of the location.
Amen, brother! So true, so sad.
She did have a legal pistol registered to her name, and she was found sleeping in her car by the police, before the shooting, but after her family reported her missing.
What we really should be talking about is what the hell kind of real sick society we now live in where being somehow snubbed in some undefined way by something called YouTube is enough to drive someone berserk enough to actually take the time and trouble to drive from down near San Diego up to almost San Francisco, a fair distance, so she could then kill [people at You Tube, even though she apparently did not know who they were.
This place called America gets more bizarre by the day.
Maybe we should now call it Numerka, to reflect the change.
And Stacy, seriously?
A person with an AR-15 goes to Cape Charles beach on a sunny summer Saturday and opens fire, killing 12 and injuring 50 others?
How is that happening?
And suppose the person had a shotgun, instead?
Or a machete?
Or suppose some of these left-wing antifas armed with their pipes and clubs went berserk because they perceive the people of Cape Charles to be a bunch of right-wingers whose voices they want to stifle?
Or suppose a rogue wave somehow managed to get that far and washed away a bunch of people as happens in Ireland with fair frequency?
What would you say then?
Would you feel as bad for those people as you would for the ones in your hypothetical example being shot by the AR-15?
And Stacy – an AR-15, like every other rifle or shotgun, is simply a tube of metal of a certain bore diameter through which a bullet passes.
It is a bullet delivery system.
In and of itself, it is quite harmless, not really being heavy enough to use as a club.
If damage is caused, it is not by the rifle, but by the bullet fired, and that same bullet that comes out of the barrel of an AR-15 is the same exact bullet used min a number of other bullet delivery systems, i.e. rifles, that are not AR-15s.
So if someone used one of those other rifles to fire the same exact bullet as the AR-15 into your hypothetical crowd of people, would that then be different, because it was not an AR-15?
Banning a rifle because people find it scary looking, a “weapon of war,” as the ditzy Hillary Clinton calls it, or as Parkland “school shooting survivor” Cameron Kasky was quoted as saying: “You’ll notice in all these shootings– not just the ones in schools and movie theaters, airports, churches, nightclubs– there’s no specific mental health issue that you can tie to every single one, the only thing you could tie to every single one is weapons that belong in the hands of soldiers in the hands of citizens who are untrained;” doesn’t really do much if the bullets are still available, because it is the bullets that do the harm, not the rifle they are fired from.
So where do we find this so-called “middle ground?”
Personally, I do not like guns, so I don’t use them, as a matter of personal choice after having been in combat with the things in Viet Nam.
But, living in the country, where they are essential tools of survival, even though city people and people living in condos on the beach and gated communities where everything is kept perfect are unable to understand that, or unwilling, I am the last person that wants them banned.
The predators and varmints that would overrun us would love that to happen.
Stupid, greedy, unregulated over-development up this way has already caused a nuisance deer problem that requires the state to give out mass permits to hunters to control their numbers, lest they destroy the environment around us by eating everything in sight, especially in the winter, when they browse trees for food.
But as I say, I don’t expect those in this country who live in protected luxury to understand any of that.
So then, with that lack of understanding of how country people have to live between us, how do we find common ground or middle ground?
I truly would like to know.
Why should kids entering a school be subjected to less screening than I do when I get on commercial airplane ?
Everyone should be able to carry whatever guns they want because people got killed by a wave in Ireland? Help me follow that logic.
What if the beach shooter had used a shotgun? Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face with a shotgun. Friend says he’s not mad. I think if Dick had shot him in the face with an AR-15, friend might at least be a bit peeved.
The AR-15 in this example is not a multi-purpose tool, as you have explained. It’s for killing people quickly. A machete, a shotgun, a rogue wave… all capable of killing people but that is not their manufacturers’ intent. Well, maybe the wave.
Educational Value: Feral pigs in the south and midwest are not trivial; wild pigs cause $1.5 billion in annual property damage. A Boar can weigh up to 300 pounds, run up to 30 miles per hour and turn violent (like coming for you). An AR-15 is not a requirement, with but with many pigs rushing at you at once, it helps. The semiautomatic allows you to take several shots at multiple pigs in a few seconds. When engaging a pack of wild pigs in woods or thick midwestern shrubbery, you will probably be thankful you have that weapon.
It appears that someone at the Mirror added the “educational value” to Scott’s comment.
So the logic to these arguments is that because rogue waves kill people and feral pigs exist, Americans need firearms. Gotcha.
Please note that in my first comment I did not call for abolishing the second amendment. All-or-nothing arguments are pointless and tiresome. Laws, regulations, and licenses should weigh the common good with individual liberty. In theory such laws would take into account the need for appropriate weapons in areas with feral pig populations.
There is no logic you can follow, Scott, because your proposition that because rogue waves kill people in Ireland, everyone should be able to carry whatever guns they want, is patently absurd.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
Where did you come up with it from?
I would love to attend a meeting of both sides with a moderator who is knowledgable and good at mediation. Where those attending could calmly DISCUSS this issue. Is there anyone out there who would volunteer to be this moderator? I would be willing to arrange the time and place of the gathering.
Diane D’Amico
Stacy,
Maybe this will be helpful.
If not for an AR-15, what?
How about a Mini-14? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
If not for a Mini-14, what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
If not for a couple of 9 mm handguns, what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
If not for a Remington 700, what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
If not for a .22 rifle and a shotgun, what? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367
If not for a knife, what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
If not for box cutters, what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Murrah_Federal_Building
If not for fertilizer, what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
If not for gasoline, what? https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/f…tedly-plows-crowd-bastille-day-france-n609621
There is a reason that Australia confiscated pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns. That is because they know that, up close, nothing is more devastating than a shotgun. Assuming you don’t think that pump- and semi- shotguns should be banned (but maybe you do think that…), just consider the carnage possible in a school full children. Take, for example, a Mossberg 835, 3.5 inch mag. You can buy 2 inch buckshot rounds and put 7 of those in the magazine and one in the chamber.
When I was in the service, a boarding party carried one M16(selectable to full auto) and a 870. I always chose the 870. Most guys thought they looked cool with the rifle but I knew how effective the 870 was. I would not have a M16 platform as a gift.
This is helpful. Thank you.
Your argument seems to boil down to “Humans will use all sorts of things to kill each other, so there’s no point in regulating anything.” Is that correct?
If I understand your argument correctly, there should be no restrictions on weapons that can be brought into a courtroom, all public schools and universities, Congress, and government-related events like political meetings and rallies. (I’m sticking with government-related stuff because it could be argued that the owners of private venues can restrict weapons.) Citizens should be able to carry any weapon into government-funded residences, like the governor’s mansion and the White House. Is all of that acceptable?
That is all absurd, Stacy, and that is not what I read David Cowan stating.
That is blatant hyperbole that presumes David Cowan to be some kind of primitive berserker who craves bloodshed and plenty of it.
That is insulting.
Unless I am mistaken David Cowan is an educated man.
Why would he then be for senseless violence?
Why do you mistake people who see guns as tools as some kind of mindless primitives who like killing and violence?
It’s interesting that you assume that I believe David to be a “primitive berserker who craves bloodshed” and “people who see guns as tools as some kind of mindless primitives who like killing and violence.” I don’t. You didn’t ask.
What I did do was lay out my understand of David’s post when taken to its logical conclusion, then asked David if I was correct. I was not. He politely corrected me. I appreciate this sort of debate and discussion.
What is often lost in the gun control debate is the fact that guns are tools expressly designed to injure and kill. Responsible gun owners use them to hunt, for protection, and for sport. Not everyone is responsible and there are literally millions of guns in the U.S. In my opinion this is why further regulations are needed.
Stacy,
There are over 300 MILLION guns in circulation, and most cannot be traced to their current owners. That ship has sailed and is not coming back.
The incidence of gun crimes goes up and down over the years and why is not really understood.
Since 1991 gun homicide and other crimes dropped about 50%. What policy could account for that, or could hope for such wonderful results?
Well, I sure don’t know. What we do know is that every year MILLIONS of new guns enter circulation. We also know that over that period MILLIONS of people became able to legally carry concealed weapons. And we know that the AR-15 became the best selling gun in the US. There are more guns than ever before, more people legally carrying guns than ever before, and more semi-automatic weapons than ever before. And a 50% DECREASE in gun crime.
Now, someone please explain what policy could do better than that?
Then please propose some.
It would be appreciated.
And please, don’t give us hysterical hypothetical examples like someone going to a beach in Cape Charles with an AR-15 and killing all those people and wounding all those others, as if the AR-15 was a .50-caliber machine gun or maybe a Gatling gun as a reason to enact national gun laws in every state of the Union.
As to shootings down there, check out the Delmarva Daily Times article “Man convicted in shooting of 3 people at Exmore party” by
NANCY DRURY DUNCAN, DELMARVANOW MEDIA GROUP CORRESPONDENT Published 11:13 a.m. ET Jan. 12, 2017, as follows:
A Capeville man pleaded guilty to shooting three people at a 2016 street party in Exmore, just hours before investigators said he shot and killed another man.
In a plea agreement with the commonwealth, misdemeanor charges against Alexander Picott-Cleveland, were dropped in exchange for his plea of guilt to three counts of malicious wounding and three counts of displaying a firearm in a threatening manner.
Picott-Cleveland, 22, is charged with murder and attempted murder in connection with a separate incident that took place hours after the Exmore shootings in June 2016.
On June 18, 2016, the defendant went with three other people to a street party in Exmore, said Commonwealth’s Attorney Bruce Jones.
The party was partially related to the recent high school graduation, he said.
Picott-Cleveland’s cousin Ronald Briggs was the driver of a white SUV and the defendant was riding in the front passenger seat.
In the rear seat were the defendant’s cousin and an older woman named Mona Jones.
Jones accompanied them because her niece was a recent high school graduate, said Jones.
“The defendant drank enough alcohol at Mona Jones’ house to be drunk,” he told the court.
Picott-Cleveland had a Luger 22 semi-automatic handgun with him.
His sister said later, he did not usually carry the weapon.
But, he said, he would not go to Exmore unarmed.
Soon after arriving, the defendant complained he lost his “front” a gold device that goes on the front teeth, sometimes called a “grill,” Jones said.
A man came up to Picott-Cleveland and said, “ ‘You are from Cape Charles and I’ve got something for you,’ ” Jones said.
Picott-Cleveland, apparently feeling threatened, turned and walked to the car and took out his pistol, Jones said.
“He unloaded the clip,” Jones said.
Rakeith Coston, the man who Picott-Cleveland said threatened him was shot in the back a number of times.
“He was badly hurt and taken by Nightingale to Norfolk Sentara.”
“He spent two weeks in the hospital but has recovered now,” Jones said.
The second shooting victim was Andre Johnson,
Johnson was sitting in his car when the bullet went through the window and clipped him on the chin.
The third victim was Mona Jones, the woman who accompanied the defendant to the party.
“She said she saw the defendant aiming the gun her way,” said Jones.
He said the bullet went into her face and into and out of her neck.
She did not realize how hurt she was.
She learned later the bullet came very close to her jugular vein, Jones said.
“She feels she was shot accidentally,” he said.
Five cartridges and the gold “grill” were recovered from the scene.
Jones said the defendant told police he thought his sister was in danger.
“He said he shot Rakeith intentionally and meant to kill him,” Jones said.
end quotes
Now, Stacy, there is a real-life shooting case from right down near where you are, and the weapon was not an AR-15 rifle, but a .22 pistol instead.
So tell us, Stacy, because I have no answers and claim to have none, how would your new additional laws prevent that from happening, given that it was already against a host of laws already.
I would like to know how you would have prevented that shooting from happening.
So would your neighbors, the police down there, and the nation.
What additional laws are needed, do you think, and how many more of them?
Stacy,
No, you do NOT understand my argument. But thank you for your polite response! Not enough around here lately.
Small areas can be made secure and (mostly gun free). Large areas, not so much.
There may well be a compelling interest in maintaining certain areas gun free, and I have no problem with that, as long as there are not attempts to make everywhere gun free. That is not possible. For example, screening persons entering an airplane is possible, but not fool proof. How would that work for 75,000 people entering a stadium? A million people entering a city?
An important consideration is that “banned” does NOT mean “gone”. The nation learned that between 1920 and 1933. We should have but apparently have not learned the same thing since the War on Drugs was declared in the 1970s. We have nothing but misery, death, violence, disease, corruption, and better quality and lower priced drugs to show for the billions squandered. That and civil asset forfeiture and the militarization of police. And some other bad stuff…
My argument is that, should AR-15s be banned, they will not disappear. And should they disappear (they won’t), other rifles with the same capability are available. And should those rifles disappear (they won’t), there are perhaps 70 MILLION handguns that can do the job. And should the handguns disappear (you know what goes here!), .22 rifles and shotguns will suffice. And knives. And box cutters. And improvised explosive devices. And trucks. And gasoline.
How far do we as a nation want to go to pursue safety? And is banning items the best way to do it? How many basic freedoms are you will to sacrifice for an unknown level of safety?
Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
David, thank you for your polite explanation. I better understand what you’re getting at and agree with much of it. Balancing personal freedoms and public safety is not easy and requires debate and compromise.
Seems like this might fit better in the opinion section.
Note: Thought it was tagged #opinion, but will have to double-check. All stories, however, are tagged as news so that they show up on mobile devices with priority. Thanks.
David, it is curious that gun homicide rates are down so much in the past few decades while the number of guns in circulation have increased. I do not have an explanation for that.
Paul, off the top of my head, the only way to have prevented the Exmore shooting you described above would be to ban and confiscate all handguns. Clearly that isn’t going to happen.
I don’t have all of the answers. We’re coming at this from different perspectives. I find the amount of gun violence in this country unacceptable. Based on the statistics David cited, reducing the number of guns in circulation alone will not reduce gun violence. So perhaps the problem is cultural. (I don’t think the issue is what Wayne condescendingly described above. That was straight out of “Culture Wars 101”.) From what I’ve read many of the shooters–even the ones not obviously unhinged–are entitled and narcissistic. They want what they want right now, and if they don’t get it, they’re going to get a firearm and punish those around them.
I don’t know how to solve this problem. I will vote for politicians that do want to solve this problem, and will debate people who are respectful.
For what it’s worth, I took a gun safety class a while ago and could have gotten a concealed carry permit. I didn’t. I didn’t want one, but wanted to learn about firearms, and I enjoy target shooting.
No one’s coming to take people’s guns away anytime soon. But for crying out loud, something has to change. In my opinion American culture has fetishized guns and it’s toxic.
I hope that my efforts to explain my views, which I believe are shared with a sizable minority of Americans, have been helpful to all, whether you agree or disagree.
Stacy,
You noted “… something has to change. ” It HAS changed. Gun crime and homicide are down 50%. At what point would you declare success?
Stacy, thank you for staying with the discussion, which you are contributing to greatly with your thoughts and input.
You say above that off the top of your head, the only way to have prevented the Exmore shooting which was described above in newspaper accounts from down here would be to ban and confiscate all handguns, and clearly that isn’t going to happen, and I happen to agree with you to a point.
I know for a fact that in Albany, New York, if the police get a credible tip about someone with an illegal handgun who is a danger with it, they go and take it away.
So, depending on where you are, handguns are indeed confiscated, so it does happen and has been happening.
And I am not against it, to be truthful, when some gangbanger gets stripped of his weaponry.
As to confiscations of guns as a matter of policy and reality, consider the New York Post story “Here’s some of the 15,000 guns the NYPD seized since 2013” by Tina Moore and Chris Perez on October 26, 2016, as follows:
This mountain of nearly 2,000 guns was amassed by the NYPD during a collection of street stops, gang takedowns, search warrants and other forms of old-fashioned police work.
The heaving pile of pistols, rifles and shotguns that cops showed off Wednesday at One Police Plaza represents just a fraction of the approximately 15,500 firearms seized or confiscated since 2013.
end quotes
Now, Stacy, do you see the words “other forms of old-fashioned police work?”
If there had been some form of old-fashioned police work down there in Parkland, Florida, that shooting would never have happened.
But there was gross negligence, instead.
Is that a problem for the national government of the United States of America?
Or is it in reality a Florida problem, which is what I believe it to be.
The nation should not have to suffer because they have slipshod law enforcement in the Democrat-controlled Broward County Sheriff’s Office.
Why isn’t the so-called “Justice” Department down there tearing the place apart, including the local FBI, to determine how they failed those children?
And what about this Exmore shooting, Stacy?
Is that too a problem for the national government to solve?
It was a mass shooting, afterall, with a military-style semi-automatic pistol.
You say you find the amount of gun violence in this country unacceptable.
Okay.
In truth, I don’t even think about it, gun violence, that is, not being in any way in control of it or responsible for it, but I will accept that you find it unacceptable, Stacy.
So here in Exmore, we have a real-life case study to review and perhaps draw conclusions from as to why there is gun violence, so let us conduct that review right now:
On June 18, 2016, the defendant went with three other people to a street party in Exmore, said Commonwealth’s Attorney Bruce Jones.
The party was partially related to the recent high school graduation, he said.
end quotes
So there we have some data points to consider, Stacy.
The shooting was at a party in Exmore.
Why?
Should parties in Exmore be banned to prevent mass shootings?
Getting back to that story, here is the military-style semi-automatic handgun entering into the narrative:
Picott-Cleveland had a Luger 22 semi-automatic handgun with him.
end quotes
The Luger, Stacy, is well known from its use by Germans during World War I and World War II, along with the interwar Weimar Republic and the postwar East German Volkspolizei.
Because of its association with Nazi Germany, the pistol has been used in fictional works by many villainous characters over the past several decades.
And my goodness, Stacy, there is one right there in Exmore!
WTF?
How could that happen?
Where there ever any answers as to that forthcoming down there?
And getting back to that story, this is what we now are confronted with:
His sister said later, he did not usually carry the weapon.
But, he said, he would not go to Exmore unarmed.
end quotes
Holy ****, Stacy!
He would not go to Exmore unarmed?
What on earth is going on down there, Stacy, that you can’t go to Exmore unarmed?
What the hell kind of lawless place is Exmore?
And because there is some kind of serious lawlessness down there from the sounds of things, should all gun owners in America have to be punished for it?
And you say, quite correctly, that we’re coming at this from different perspectives.
Yes, we are, Stacy.
I am a twice-wounded combat veteran.
I don’t share this fear that seems to infest this nation about guns, and all of these “what-if” situations.
If I am walking down the street and somebody comes along and manages to blow my **** away, oh well.
Twice-wounded means been there, done that, Stacy.
I’m not living my life in fear of the possible, fear of a bunch of what-ifs.
So I do not understand the fear you people have, nor do I find it admirable.
You say that in your opinion American culture has fetishized guns and it’s toxic.
I say that to me, American culture seems quite sick.
Part of that sickness would manifest as a gun fetish, I would suppose.
How do you cure a sick society with a gun fetish, Stacy?
How do you make the insane enlightened?
The candid world would like to know.
And I in my turn hope that my efforts to explain my views have been helpful to all, whether you agree or disagree.
As to the supposed political power of the feared NRA, here is an example of it from that New York Post article above:
The National Rifle Association felt the need to chime in, blasting the department for destroying the weapons rather than selling them at auction.
“Failing to sell these valuable tools to licensed dealers or law-abiding citizens denies the police department of funds that could be used to pay for training, equipment, or ammunition,” the gun lobby group said in a statement.
O’Neill ripped the idea — saying, “Why on earth would we do that?”
“We went through a lot of hard work to get these off the street.”
end quotes
So much for the political power of the much feared NRA – they haven’t any, but they sure do make a convenient Boogie-Man for the anti-gun lefties in America to exploit for political gain, so we have to pretend instead that they are all-powerful.
How silly, isn’t it?
Congratulations, Paul. I’m taking the bait.
Do you repeatedly say people’s names in conversation like you would to a child, or do you just save that for when you’re being condescending online? You sound arrogant and obnoxious. Maybe you’re different in person, but online you’re a verbose troll.
You wrote, “I am a twice-wounded combat veteran.
“I don’t share this fear that seems to infest this nation about guns, and all of these “what-if” situations.
“If I am walking down the street and somebody comes along and manages to blow my **** away, oh well.
“Twice-wounded means been there, done that, Stacy.
“I’m not living my life in fear of the possible, fear of a bunch of what-ifs.
“So I do not understand the fear you people have, nor do I find it admirable.”
I do not understand your lack of empathy for people who don’t share your fatalistic views. Not everyone has the temperament to be a solider.
It sounds like you have no respect for anyone who’s not Dirty Harry like you. Okay, fine. That’s your prerogative. Enjoy your Lord of the Flies world. I’ll be over here with people who care about each other.
Freedom is not free,
but the U.S. Marine Corps
will pay most of your share. (Do not forget for a second, just where, yours came from.)
WOW, Stacy, how very insulting of you!
How self-righteous!
“Enjoy your Lord of the Flies world?”
That’s crap, Stacy.
I am a loving grandfather, and people in my family are not killing each other.
I don’t know where you get that “Lord of the Flies world” crap from, but you must be projecting from your own life experiences because that world does not exist here where I am, except perhaps down in the capitol in Albany where the politicians hang out.
And “It sounds like you have no respect for anyone who’s not Dirty Harry like you?”
HAW HAW HAW, Stacy.
I am hardly Dirty Harry, who was a cop, Stacy, not a soldier.
And I don’t carry a gun, Stacy, nor do I use one to target shoot.
So how can I be a Dirty Harry, then?
You’re the one who likes to shoot, so you are far more Dirty Harry and Lord of the Flies than I am.
And why do you like to shoot, Stacy?
Does it give you a feeling of power?
A rush?
Is it normal to like to target shoot as you do, Stacy?
And what about this line of horsecrap: “I do not understand your lack of empathy for people who don’t share your fatalistic views.”
First of all, I don’t have “fatalistic views.”
That is for all of you pilgrims out there quaking in your boots, waiting to get shot the next time you go out your door, as if people armed to the hilt with AR-15s and ten or twenty thousand rounds of ammo are hiding under your doorstep and in your bushes and even in your mailbox, waiting for the chance to gun you down in a spray of automatic gunfire, even though the weapons are only semi-automatic.
I don’t live my life in fear, and that really bothers you, doesn’t it?
Because you are afraid, you feel intimidated by those who aren’t, and so you then condemn us as being somehow less than you, uncivilized, in fact, with your “Lord of the Flies” comment, which is hogwash.
Because I do not live in fear, I have no empathy for those who do, plain and simple.
Sorry if that troubles you, Stacy, but such is the way it is.
And why would I live in fear, Stacy?
Why should I?
Why is cowardice now so admirable here in America, while people who stand up for your freedoms are reviled?
You say not everyone has the temperament to be a soldier.
How do you know that?
And why is it that way?
Why is David Hogg who hid in a closet while the firing was going on an American hero, while those who face real gunfire in defense of the people hiding in closets like David Hogg are reviled by people like yourself as not having empathy for David Hogg?
Any thoughts you can share with us on that?
This once was the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, Stacy, and I use your name because that is your name and you are who I am addressing this to – why isn’t it, anymore?
Paranoia strikes deep, Stacy, into your heart it will creep!
And it starts when you are always afraid.
Give it some thought and see where it takes you.
And as I say, Stacy, I am a grandfather.
What you might think of me isn’t really a function of my reality.
No offense, but that is just the way it is.
And talk about “hardened” targets, we have plenty of them already in America – these gated communities with the security walls around them, and the armed guards at the gate to keep out the riff-raff.
Rich and powerful people like Janet Yellen live in them.
So it those hardened targets are acceptable in America to protect the important people in this country like Janet Yellen, why shouldn’t it be that way for our school children, as well?
Nobody here is saying “ban all guns”, although some of the recent marchers expressed that opinion.
Reason magazine has an entertaining and informative little video on just that topic.
Share it with anyone you know who really does think we should “ban all guns”.
http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/07/how-to-create-a-gun-free-america-in-5-ea
MOLON LABE….
I would like to address the “Tough Guys Don’t Dance” issue. I heartily disagree. And here is a list to bear witness to my disagreement.
1. James Cagney
2. Patrick Swayze
3. Hugh Jackman
4. Sam Rockwell
5. Vincent Cassel
6. Tom Hiddleston
7. Christian Bale
8. Christopher Walken
9. Vin Diesel
10. Ewan McGregor
11. John Travolta
12. Burt Lancaster
To name a few…Now, tell me which one of these gentlemen and fine dancers you think is not so tough?
As far as “Freedom” is concerned in the year 2018, we are as free as we allow ourselves to be. This nation, as a whole, is no freer than say, Russia, China, France, England or Nova Scotia for that matter. You see, freedom is a matter of perspective. Try and freely walk into the White House. Go ahead, you as an American citizen, own it. Go ahead and stand in traffic to block the presidential motorcade. Try it. See what will happen. Freely express yourself to the newspapers about your dark side and how you’d like to “Do in” a senator or congressman or any head of state. See how well that expression of freedom works for you. You see, it is all a matter of perspective. I think if you knew the depths and lengths of the information gathered on each of you (and myself included), you would realize not only are you NOT free, but that information could (at any time) be used against you to completely destroy your life, your livelihood and your known reputation. It is being done all the time. In Russia, in China, in England and France and yes, in the United States. Continually and relentlessly. Nelson Blake said on here in his comment (thank you for your service, sir) something I disagree with. And I have a different perspective than his. But, I am sure, in his heart, he KNOWS he is correct. He said “Freedom is not free, but the Marine Corps will pay most your share.” This, I feel he is entitled to speak and say as a veteran who put his life and his freedoms on the line for this nation’s security. I admire him for that and again, thank you sir for your service. But, here is the part that I wonder what could he mean…He says, (Do not forget for a second, just where, yours came from.) In the Declaration of Independence, it states; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Liberty is freedom. Freedom comes from the Creator. I do hope that is what Mr. Nelson meant. No, freedom isn’t free. Freedom is a state of mind. If you don’t believe that is so, I suggest reading the biography of Maximilian Kolbe, a Polish priest who died at Auschwitz in 1941. His life and his death are the story of freedom, the essence of God’s highest intent, even though he died imprisoned.
These issues with guns and the regulations and taking away are as swatting at gnats with baseball bats. If this is truly an issue of freedom, then we must ask ourselves, who is threatening to take away those freedoms? Who has the power, the money, the resources to take the guns, the power, the will and the ultimate freedom out of your lives. And you must honestly face that question realistically and without bias. What is it, that you truly fear, happening to America? Face that question and you’ll have your answer. In the meantime, I’m going dirty-dancing with my wife.
Note: Metaphors tend escape many, as in this case. Mailer’s novel, and subsequent lecture used this metaphor, one based on a real story involving heavey weight champion Rocky Marciano, who was also known to be fine “dancer”. The author is also a most excellent tap dancer, if you remember “Christmas in New York” at the Palace in Cape Charles.
John Travolta was not a tough guy, Chas Cornweller.
And is anyone who can dance really all that tough?
Has anyone besides me noticed that the picture above is a take-off on the cover of an early 1970s issue of the National Lampoon? https://www.interesly.com/dark-twisted-story-national-lampoon-cheeseface/
David Cowen, yes…I did. Proving, then again, there really is nothing new under the sun out there. But I do think Wayne is brave to present this way, however. And Paul, perhaps Travolta isn’t as tough, say, as Burt Lancaster. But, they are movie actors all the same. Travolta in Pulp Fiction and in Get Shorty are as tough as they come. And Burt Lancaster for all his tough guy roles, really had a heart of gold and was known for his progressive social and political causes, including his march on Washington in 1963 for jobs and freedom for all Americans. Toughness in men can be misconstrued multiple ways. I think Norman Mailer (who coined the phrase) was one of these men who over-compensated for his stature by presenting as ultimate machismo. And Wayne, the image did not escape me, I just saw an opening for a counter-punch.
Editor’s Note: Yes, a futile and stupid gesture, which is the Mirror in a Nutshell…
When I got back to here after VEET NAM, the National Lampoon was one of my favorite reads.
Took me a while to realize it was fake news, that is how real it seemed to me at the time, anyway.