It's time to marginalize a fringe group called the NRA
The NRA leadership has hijacked the American political system with fear and paranoia. It's time for bold direct action for the majority to win the gun conversation.
It's time to marginalize a fringe group called the NRA
“The election season's overheated political rhetoric is adding fuel to the fire," [said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center.] The more polarized the political scene, the more people at the extremes.” Many Americans are enraged by what they see as America's decline, and opportunistic politicians have done their best to stoke those fears and demonize President Obama in the process.
-- The Southern Poverty Law Center, 2012 report.
It's time for America to wake up to a new reality -- that for more than a generation, a radical fringe group has held sway over the American political process, a cadre that now traffics in conspiracy theories as loony as many militias or "Patriot" groups, that has with no evidence accused the president of planning to grant himself dictatorial powers while embracing "black helicopter"-style tropes about the U.S. surrendering its power to the United Nations, a posse that's clashed with America's police chiefs over issues like so-called "cop killer" bullets and has thwarted all efforts to eliminate weapons that are only good for committing mass murder.
This is not about the millions of decent, law-abiding American gun owners are not only responsible in handling their weapons but who overwhelmingly support reasonable steps toward preventing violence. No, this is about the leadership of the National Rifle Association -- a group that has veered far, far away from its 20th Century origins as a sensible gun-safety group -- and about their allied merchants of death who've learned that paranoia can be profitable, and about a handful of radical foot soldiers who pretend to speak for all.
The horrific events that took place last Friday at the Sandy Hook Elementary School -- the systematic mass murder of 20 first-graders and six teachers and administrators -- should make America finally think differently about the NRA, and any role it will play in in the national conversation. The NRA should not be silenced -- that, too, would un-American -- but it must be marginalized, pushed to the far fringes for promoting hysteria and enabling violence, drowned out by the voices of the majority of Americans who desperately desire gun sanity.
Candlelight vigils in the wake of our all-too frequent mass killings are just the first first baby step of a thousand-mile journey. This must be a radical movement -- brave Americans willing to take direct action to get in the face of the extremists who run the NRA...every single day. Politicians who've accepted money from the NRA and done its bidding should be shamed, and then defeated, regardless of their party, and the cities that agree to host its convention should be embarrassed, even boycotted.
It must be shameful to have your name linked to the NRA. That's radical. But that's what it takes.
It didn't have to be this way. The overwhelming majority of Americans -- regardless of ideology -- support reasonable, well-regulated (in the language of the 2nd Amendment) gun ownership, and there was a time when the National Rifle Association served the interests of its members well. It's hard to believe now, but the NRA -- in addition to supporting gun safety and proper training -- actually endorsed the common-sense, limited gun control measures enacted in 1934 and again in 1968, the year that Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated.
That was all before the great unraveling, the post '60s backlash and the rise of a radical right-wing that learned that learned through its talk-radio megaphone what the gun manufacturers soon also discovered: That selling fear and paranoia could be hugely profitable, and maybe win a few elections in the process. After the 1994 passage of an assault weapons ban and the NRA's role (along with a lot of other factors) that fall in ousting some of the Democrats who voted for it, the Gun Rights Express veered further and further to the extreme right.
I saw this first hand in 2009 and 2010 as I reported my book on the rise of Tea Party movement. I spent a couple of days in Kentucky at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot (yes, that's a thing) where the NRA set up a tent in the center -- telling anyone who would listen about Obama's gun or ammo confiscation, or both, that was surely coming even if he hadn't even mentioned guns in his early days in office -- while groups like the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters militia worked the fringes. Later, I spent time in a Pittsburgh-area gun shop called Braverman Arms, which featured an NRA-produced poster highlighting Obama as "Firearm Salesman of the Year," since fear of our first black president and his "coming gun ban" had sparked record sales. It was there that a troubled young man named Richard Poplawski made weapons purchases -- before his fear of the supposed Obama firearms confiscation fueled his murder of three city cops.
Incredibly, the NRA grew even more extreme in the years that followed, to the point where its official, high-level rhetoric differs little from some of the fringe right-wing groups that have been cited as hate groups by watchdog groups like the SPLC. Just read this:
In a fundraising letter last spring, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre charged that, “all of our freedoms, all of our rights, all of our values … All of them will be lost if Barack Obama is reelected.” In an October column in the NRA’s flagship publication, “First Freedom,” LaPierre wrote: “With four more years of Obama, your firearms freedoms are gone. And we’ll spend the rest of our lives mourning the freedoms we’ve lost… Every freedom we cherish as Americans is endangered by Obama. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Meanwhile, extreme rhetoric dovetailed with extreme policies. In the last generation or so, the NRA has opposed any and all regulation of firearms -- even when its opponents are admired law-enforcement officials like the police chiefs. The NRA has thwarted any number of common sense proposals from background checks at gun shows and other private sales (comprising 40 percent of gun transactions) that could prevent weapons from reaching criminals or the mentally ill, as well as legislation to stop the high-capacity magazines that allow mass killers to kill and maim so many people in a matter of seconds. In this crazed climate, there are far more guns in U.S. circulation than ever before, even as fewer households own weapons, and a corresponding rise in mass killings, leading to the current crescendo of violence.
The NRA has created an un-virtuous cycle. Its fear mongering over the non-existent threat of government gun confiscation has caused gun sales -- and donations from members -- to soar, enriching the gun manufacturers who return some of those profits back to the NRA and its political arms. In recent election cycles, the NRA has outspent the overwhelmed gun-control groups in both donations to politicians and in lobbying by ratios as high as 25-1. That's created the current climate, where even an assassination attempt on a U.S. congresswoman did not spur her colleagues to action, where even a tepid gun-control commentary like the one from NBC sportscaster Bob Costas-- provokes an outburst of hateful scorn. In July, an unnamed Democratic congressional staffer said of the NRA to GQ: "We do absolutely anything they ask."
The irony is that the leadership of the NRA has grown so extreme that it no longer represents its own members. Most Americans don't even realize that even before Newtown, some 74 percent of NRA members said they support background checks for all weapons purchases, and most support other reasonable regulations. And yet we've allowed the NRA's highly paid cadre of extremist leaders and its most radical supporters, who flood the airways and newspaper comment sections, to control the debate.
Today, in the wake of Newtown, the decent majority Americans will have to reassert themselves. with numbers -- and with dollars. It will be hard work, and time consuming. When the NRA gets its most fanatical 60,000 to show up in Houston in May for its convention, the gun sanity folks should ring the building with 70,000 people. The gun sanity movement should outspend the NRA 25-1 instead of the other way around. And it will mean difficult political choices, backing gun sanity candidates not just against Tea Party Republicans but in primaries against Democratic enablers.
Frankly, I never thought this could happen until today, when a Democratic congressman, New York's Jerry Nadler, declared that "we are at war" with the NRA leadership, when leading gun-control activist Sarah Brady called for radical action against the pro-gun lobby, and when the editors of Mother Jones published this, which I could not agree with more:
What would such a movement look like, arising out of Newtown? Would it be mothers—of those slain children, or those who never want to find themselves in their place—donning black and holding candlelight vigils each Friday night? Would it be fathers, siblings, loved ones of children murdered in schools and shopping malls and their own living rooms across the nation, taking to Facebook and to the National Mall? Would it look like Argentina's Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, who dared the world to forget their disappeared kids? Would such a movement take a page from Mary Harris "Mother" Jones, who led 200 children, some missing limbs from mining accidents, in a march on Teddy Roosevelt's home? Instead of "We Want to Go to School and Not the Mines," would the placards read "We Want to Be Safe at School"? Yes, it might sometimes appear corny, sometimes crude, sometimes cringe-worthy, but movements that make a difference are sometimes all those things. They engage the gut as well as the brain. They batter down cynicism and conventional wisdom and groupthink, and they take on the merchants of doom.
Personally, I think it would look like the Freedom Riders of the early 1960s, brave young men and women who took the matter of desegregating interstate buses into their own hands, risking life and limb -- and winning. Real social change only comes through courage, and never from compromise. And so who will be the Freedom Riders of gun sanity?
When I started researching this piece, I wondered if it was fair and appropriate for society to label the NRA as a hate group. That's probably not the right term -- the traditional definition of a hate group is one that targets a defined racial or religious minority. But then the reality is that when a group will so callously fan the flames of fear and intolerance and promote societal inaction while gun violence claims so many U.S. lives, it doesn't really matter what we call them. What matters is that we push the leadership of the NRA off to the far sidelines of the American playing field, while the rest of us fight for our better future.
guess they shouldn't be allowed their free speech rights. you, will, of course get to keep yours right?— rysagr- I joined the NRA on Monday. Next step is a gun purchase. Revolvers are almost failure free I hear but I like the idea of an automatic. Maybe both. — mephisto
- the right of gun owners often times infringes on the rights of others' life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
why is there a need for assault rifles?— the lopez! - wolverines! — the lopez!
- Memphisto, 835union and like minds:
I have been through war, I have been in situations where I did not think I will see another dawn or another sunset, I have seen what guns can or cannot do!
There is no place for military-style weapons in a civil society: you do not need them unless you are in the armed forces or in law enforcement!— EIK - Will must be absolutely giddy this happened. Now the NRA is a hate group? I think Will is coming unhinged. Not once has Will blamed the shooter, or mentioned mental illness, in any of his posts.— LouDiamondPhillipsheadScrewdriver
- here you go, i'll mention mental illness - let's regulate assault weapons sales so they don't get into the hands of people with or people related to (in the Newtown case) others with mental illness. dope.
- That law is already in the books, both Federal and in all 50 states. There's no jurisdiction in the U.S. where it is legal to sell a gun to a mentally ill individual, or where a mentally ill individual may possess or carry a gun legally. — DonQ
Will - You have captured my feelings about the issue at hand, the NRA, it's foot soldiers who comment on blogs, and the Assault Weapons Ban.
I'll probably never get the chance to engage chief wingnut Wayne LaPierre. Let's marginalize the pos and his Tea Party hacks who echo his talking points.
Praying for change and hugging your children tighter accomplishes absolutely nothing. The only way to enact change is to put enormous pressure on our elected representatives. Anything less will not suffice.— wokmaster- Liberal ghouls that dance on the graves of children to further their political agenda are the scum of the Earth.— MilesLong1
- Not as scummy as gun worshippers who believe that the murder of 26 people is an acceptable price for their being able to keep their toys. — carl and sons
- More people were killed last year by hands and feet then by a rifle. But don't let the facts interrupt things. — Taxpaying Voter
- No, I won't let stupid irrelevant uncited "facts" like that get interrupt anything. — carl and sons
Will- I thought the left were the party of inclusion? What no one wants to talk about is that these heinous crimes were committed by mentally unstable individuals. Everyone wants to dump on the gun owners. Where is the discussion about helping these individuals with their illness? I have not heard one conversation about it...not a one. These people were hell bent one harming innocent people. They would have used any means possible.
I have been a responsble gun owner for 15 years. I haven't had one urge to go into a school, movie theater or mall and shoot up the place. Why? Simple, I am not mentally unstable. Remember everyone, a lot of people that own guns are doctors, lawyers, civil servants or other business professionals. I have a feeling they will have a say in what happens in the future. Any new gun laws will never really address what need to be fixed. All it will be is a band aid. That is it..
My heart goes out to the families of the dead. This was a tragedy and I believe is a terrorist act. More importantly, I believe the media feeds off this frenzy. Wackos like this guy love the attention. The media should also be more responsible in reporting tragedies like this. State the facts and that's it.- Sorry, Banned, but I have read a fair number of comments by gun fanatics lately, and it is almost comical the extremes they go to to blame Friday's shooting and other gun tragedies on extraneous factors.
It is the fault of the mental health professionals because they have not diagnosed these people properly. Or it is because we do not have adequate security at the schools. They come up with every possible excuse except the obvious: the ridiculously insane number of lethal guns in this country and their ready availability to almost anybody. All their excuses are just meant to obfuscate the true nature of the problem.
In my estimation, these people and all the gun fanatics, who resist meaningful means to limit the violence, are themselves accomplices to the killings. They may not have pulled the trigger over and over again, but they surely have done their share to make it possible. I don't know how they can live with themselves.— wokmaster - Amazing piece of commentary -- thanks for writing!— Edward Creed
- We've had a small glimpse into the mind of right wing gun nuts over the last few days. And it's not a pretty sight. People such as DonQ, Mileslong, "professor" and Screwdriver are sickos. They value guns over the safety of 1st graders.— wokmaster
- so which sign would work better on the schools front door. gun free school zone or staff armed and trained. any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force.— rysagr
- Bunch....stop trying to blame the fork for making Oprah fat. Nobody is more "fringe" than you....— kelprod2-freemarket
- Wasn't funny the first 20 times you posted it. — wokmaster
- But still right on. — CD75
Comment removed.- Like most right wingers, you're living in the past. As each year and each election goes by, there will be fewer and fewer gun freaks and "makers". The reality is that it's you angry old codgers dressed in your Tea Party outfits who might want to start looking for a new country. "Your" paranoid fantasy country is gone and it's not coming back. — abendteuer
- It's been a bad year for conservatives. The ACA was upheld by John Robert, Obama won re-election, Tea Party clowns were voted out, Dems took seats in the House and Senate. Can't say I'm suprised that the angry Tea Party hacks like Cheswald are circling the wagons to keep assault weapons legal. But 2014 isn't looking so hot for these neanderthals either.— wokmaster
As usual, the far-right commenters (see most of those above) miss the point entirely. Will is absolutely right that the time has come to put the leaders of NRA in their place. Normal gun owners and members of the NRA do not support the NRA's attempts to preserve the right of citizens of the US to possess and use guns that can fire 30 times in rapid succession without reloading--the functional equivalent of machine guns. Hunters and recreational gun owners don'e need such weapons. Neither do those worried about defending their homes. What to they expect? That an army will attack? Not likely here.- Mr. Bunch, you're letting your emotions run away with you. There are several other major issues that contributed to this tragedy, and you ignore them in your feature. The fact that you seek to marginalize responsible citizens who happen to enjoy owning and collecting firearms as a class, based on the actions of one individual, is repugnant. What role did the NRA play in this event, anyway? Can you tell me? Where's the actual correlation between what the NRA advocates for, and the events of last Friday? As stated above, please stick to the facts.— hondo1
- The NRA: over-compensating for having small birds with big guns, since 1871.— DoctorLoads
- It's time for change— stayoutofphilly
- There is nothing so hypocritical as an arrogant liberal who wants to make the Constitution a flexible document --except the 2nd amendment, which must be interpreted as narrowly as possible.— barneygoogle
- i support an assault rifle ban, but that's not going to stop criminals. There are more life killed by abortions than by guns (1.21 million abortions in the US in 2008). then again, dems don't consider the unborn life so that's ok. it's a choice. Then why are many people so damn happy they are pregnant?— palmyra21
- It is interesting to see these responses. It does raise the question of how we deal with mental illness. Larry...you are a dangerous man. Read what you just wrote....I wonder if that is what the shooters at Columbine or Va Tech or Sandy Hook were thinking. "My way or the highway". By the way...Obama won, so not enough of you came out from your forts to vote.— Bob K
- larry you rock. freedom isn't free. bob would bow down for a tyrant.— rysagr
- Yes. Freedom isn't free. The NRA has been selling "freedom" to people like you and making loads off of the concept. It's not about freedom. It's not about protecting the family. It's not about the 2nd amendment. Please. I know it makes you feel good to think it's really about that, but I have some cynical news for you: it's all about bucks, because in this country money talks and jive walks. — puttinonthefoil
- It's pretty obvious that most of the puerile Red Dawn fantasies are coming from losers who like a lot of Republican tough guys, have never been near any military service or seen how the United States military works. In the event that your paranoid fantasy came true, you and your assault rifle would be reduced to a vaporized mist of carbon atoms. If you are really concerned about freedom and preventing tyranny, you may want to vote for people who want to reduce the defense budget because you and the other armed bozos are no match for the US military. I personally believe that a lot of this gun-fetishism is no more than a compensation for the 2" blues but hell, I'm no psychiatrist so what do I know. — abendteuer
- tell you what wok my boy. why don't you put your money where your mouth is and put a big gun free house sign on your front lawn. or is that only for people like innocent little children. you are such a tough guy and don't need anything to defend yourself right? i mean you have a big you know and don't have to make up for it by having a gun do you? same goes for you doctor.— rysagr
- I feel sorry for a lot of you. You live your lives so afraid of what may be lurking in every shadow and every sound that goes bump in the night. You live your lives in a constant state of fear and paranoia. You fortify your homes/bunkers and proudly proclaim that you are ready, willing and able to shoot first and ask questions later. And you are so closed minded that you won't even consider having an intelligent conversation about gun control. You call people names and point out that any and all inanimate objects can be used as a weapon. But you don't want to talk about the weapon itself. A car was designed as a mode of transportation. A gun was designed to kill and destroy. That's the difference. I'm sorry you can't see it. Actually, I don't feel sorry for you. I pity you.
— TexColorado - Tex, no one cares how you feel. Get over yourself. — mephisto
- Memphisto:
Don't you think the same comment could be made about your comments or mine!
You need to come up with a better comment.
Yes, I know you don't care about my comment or me either!!!!!— EIK - 15,000 die a year from gun homicides. 800,000 babies die a year from abortion promoted by people like Will Bunch. Will and his people are the sick ones.— CD75
- Do people get a mandatory 5 year prison bit for committing a crime with a gun? Wasn't that a law once?— mephisto
- Where exactly does the NRA draw the line on weapons that should be outlawed?— Boru
- hey kelprod..your oprah metaphor is really getting old.— joegrink
- Beer made the man a drunk. Ban all beer.— CD75
- I've posted similar sentiments in another thread, but since I haven't gotten a response, I'll post them again here.
The incredible amount of whining being done by the pro-gun faction is puzzling to me. Presumably, all of you are already armed to the teeth. Unless there is something in a prospective gun control law that proposes confiscation of existing weapons from their owners, nobody is going to stop you from making love to the guns you already have. If the arsenal you already have isn't satisfactory, dig the bunker around your fortress a little deeper and go buy a couple of bazookas and an RPG launcher and calm down.
Maybe a few of you can put down your guns and straighten me out. Thanks.— flyer6851 - Will and his lil buddies are a bunch of damn facist and hypocrites, ya want my guns come and take them— Iknowyourider
- Will,
As usual you are wrong. Lets try this. Why not have places that the people that are violently mentally ill can go or be taken to where they are not a problem or a threat to society. Lets face it Will, some people should not be out and about in society. The issue is not a gun problem, it is a people problem.— Wildman Bill - an excellent article on the NRA's evil ways— altont
- When do we re-accept that your rights end where my nose begins. If you have weapons that endanger the lives of me or my family, those weapons should not be able to take us all out in minutes. End of conversation. I have no problems with hand guns or rifles. I have serious problems with anything automatic and semi-automatic. If you continue to support access to multi bullet clips and semi automatic weapons than you are complicit in the next murder spree.— jonline
- 835union:
Classic comeback!
When you do not have an argument to present, you try to belittle the person making the comment/argument!
Amazingly, your insult is the implication that the person is female? is that what you mean?— EIK - Planned Parenhood Stop Enabling Murder.— Fritz and Alice
- Guns are the problem. Obviously. More guns means more death and destruction. Guns in the home increase the likelihood of homicide by a factor of three (a conservative estimate) and suicide by a factor five. For women, it's much worse. Their chance of being killed when there's a gun in the home goes up by a factor of more than ten.
The psychology of the gun is also obvious. When it comes to someone contemplating mass killings, guns give them a sense of ultimate power. Guns give them a sense that their violent mission will be successful. A knife, a bat, or pretty much any other weapon won't give them that same "confidence" which spurs them to commit heinous acts.
Guns do.
And the gun manufacturers know this and exploit this fact. Take Bushmaster. They advertize their gun by saying "buy this and punch your man card." 61 out of 62 of our most recent mass shooters were males. Guns make the weak feel strong. Hence, the paranoid rightwing posters defending their easy access to deadly instruments.— wokmaster - Mr. Bunch is right.
I have never seen so much fearmongering and paranoia as I have seen reading posts on Newtown stories and gunownership. Some of the posts are incoherent!
So much tired old arguments that does not make sense to reasonable people. The classic: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I believe that people have a right to bear arms, but they don't have a right to be an army of one. Most people will accept reasonable limitation on right to bear arms.
Most people will also agree that this country has to discuss mental health issues as well.
I WILL VOTE AGAINST anybody who does not support reasonable limitations to gun ownnerships no matter what party they belong to!
I will not forget the panic I as a parent felt when I heard the latest news and wnated to make sure my son was OK. I do not want a gun anywhere near him for those of you who advocate for more guns at schools! The number of incidents for mass killings are rare but accidents are more common!— EIK - There's middle ground here gentlemen. No need to have military type weapons in the home for protection or for the thrill seekers to use for target practice. Its the need for checks and balances to stop the buying of those weapons from those that should not gain access to them.
How we go about it needs to be determined.
We are never going to stop everyone from getting a weapon and we not going to take away everyone's weapon. What is needed is a list of those weapons that the general population does not need to protect/hunt or target practice with!— gibby58 - So it's the NRA that's stopping us. People are, in general, afraid. There is always an uptick in membership at martial arts studios and self defense classes after incidents such as Newton. Not that any of that would help against a guy that can fire 30 rounds a second. The statement that there can be no compromise to effect real change is where Will goes off the road here. Basically, that implies it's just going to be a 'fight', someone 'wins' and the other 'loses' that's it. This plays right into the NRA's hands! This is what they use to tell all gun owners that they are coming for your hunting rifle. It's not realistic and it's just not achievable.
If Lanza did not have the big automatic weapon but instead had just the two pistols and had used those to commit this horrible atrocity only killing 10 kids and 3 adults, what would the position be against guns then? The NRA appears intransigent because they feel the other side is same! Painting your opponent as intransigent is a standard political debating tool, isn't it?— elbrewador - Thanks for your comment. My last comment on the previous thread:
I'm realistic enough to understand that my beliefs about the 2nd Amendment and it's current interpretation are not shared by a majority of Americans - yet. Most "liberals" understand that when all is said and done, our elected representatives will end up compromising on something far short of what we believe should be done. In the meantime, I'll do my part to bring pressure from the left in the hope that the eventual compromise on gun control ends up somewhere right-of-center.
elbrewador, gun control advocates are met with the same talking points each time something like this happens. A situation similar to this may happen again, with or without passage of tighter gun control laws. However, I will not let the messaging war be one by the foot soldiers of the NRA any longer.— wokmaster - I'm trying to understand what this entire article has to do with the tragic event on Friday. Even more importantly, what is the logic in this? Hence, if this crazy would've walked into a school and ran around stabbing people with scissors-killing 5-10 people, are we to assume we would think it logical to ban scissors? Just trying to figure out the logic here. Moreover, what do the actions of one (sick) human being have to do with the rest of society? I guess it's just too complicated for me to follow.— aldridkg
- Wokmaster, nice god complex. A self-love problem? So much anger.— CD75
- "So much anger."
Damn right I'm angry over this incident. So are most civilized humans around the world.
Unlike you, who's only angry that people want to restrict your gun "rights".— wokmaster - Try to marginalize big Pharma. They're the ones poisoning our kids with their drugs. Read this and weep. http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school— BothPartiesAreCrooks
- EIK, no I am saying he acting like a woman. Danger is everywhere. Just because there are a couple of aholes in this world, don't take away my rights— 835union
- Not about taking your rights, its about limiting them.
Just as free speech is limited,as other rights are limited.
Access to military type weapons should be limited, plain and simple. How we get there is the discussion now— gibby58 
There's 310 million Americans and 300 million guns among them. Assault weapons were banned when Columbine happened. No problem with banning them again and limiting clips to 10 rounds, but I'm under no illusions that this will solve the gun murder problem - might slow it down a tad though.
No, the real problem is a culture that condones killing six and seven month old babies, but then cries when six and seven year olds are murdered. The problem is a culture that holds Scarface and Biggie Smalls up as heroes. The problem is video games dripping in violence and sadosexuality...games that sick young men spend dozens of hours playing. So go ahead and ban some guns if it'll make us feel better. But don't think for minute the probelm is solved.— The Monk- Seeking a ban on arms would be justified if it is prove that it's a extremely and overwhelming problem in society. Again, I don't follow the correlation between the actions of one crazy person and the rest of society. The attempt to associate the two is incomprehensible. It would be the equivalent of saying that every driver is a drunk driver or a potential killer. We have already been down the road of trying to ban perceived evils from American society, i.e., Prohibition. History has a way to show us the error of our ways for those that actually care to pay attention.— aldridkg
- The problem with the NRA is they are so unreasonable that they refuse to even limit clip magazines to 10 rounds. My god, at least force the madmen to take time to re-load! Those precious seconds could save countless lives. How in the world can anyone be against even that modest proposal?— The Monk
- MilesLong, I'm sure you'll be happy when the NRA releases its own comments on the Newtown massacre. But that won't be politicizing, will it? DOPE!— philharmonic55
- I have no doubt this new gun law will pass, and then what? Will that mean mentally unstable people will say to themselves, "Looks like I can't go on a mass shooting because of this gun law." And why won't people like Will and wokmaster address the mental illness issue here? I guess it doesn't fit in to their ability to politicize this tragedy.— LouDiamondPhillipsheadScrewdriver
- "Bunch....stop trying to blame the fork for making Oprah fat." In your incessant, idiotic analogy, the fork is not the weapon - the food is. To answer your question, it was Oprah -- AND the food that made her fat. Does the free market for food need to be regulated, but still kept a relatively free market -- as in a mixed economy? Yes it needs to be. Why does it need to be regulated? Because there are people out there who, in an unregulated market, would manufacture and market po1sonous food. Its happened. This country is chock full of instances of food being marketed that would immediately harm. So its regulated. That doesn't not allow new products to come to market - new fattening foods are brought to market all the time. But under reasonable circumstances some foods cannot be marketed because they are harmful, and packaging deceives people - pictures of farmsteads and smiling animals. So, inclusively people and arms, together, must be regulated. For instance, if you are deemed, by the bureaucracy, to be unfit, unstable, have a history, prone to v111ence -- you lose your 2nd amendment right. Period. Full stop.— Murrayman
- Here's another idea: Keep your arms. Submit your name, address, and what you possess. It goes into a database, along with your public record, and all of it is available online. What do you think about that? So, therefore, I have more perfect information when in the market of keeping my family safe -- from the increasingly unhinged, paranoid, fearful, WEAK populace -- arming themselves endlessly. I go online, put my zip code in -- and there you are, my neighbors, with all of your hardware listed out -- along with your history -- your diagnoses, criminal record -- all of it. How do you like that INTERPRETATION of your rights?— Murrayman
- Bunch is right, but his view is way too narrow. I understand, just like the gun lovers he attacks, Will is anti gun and this incident is nothing more than a pulpit for him to preach his own personal view from.
But his larger point of a government that is controlled by money and special interest would make a much better read. The NRA, in this piece, could be replaced by any number of large, well funded groups that own the politicians on both sides of the isle. Many of these groups, even ones that Bunch openly supports, use the same tactics and fly the same flag of "Rights and Freedoms" to ensure the wants of the haves are forced up the populace.
"We The People", should be replaced with "We The People, unless a group with money says otherwise".
Again, this is just Bunch being outraged about how much control a group has over the politicians of this country, unless of course those groups are forcing his views on the rest of us.— barlowjames1 - Like the American Nazi Party, we should not infringe on the civil liberties of the NRA, but exposed them to the disinfectant of light. I want a national discussion about this fascist group, who often stops just short of armed revolution in their rhetoric about the effects of American democracy (which, as they have shown, over and over, they hate). This is an armed right-wing hate group and they need to be exposed for exactly what they have become.— Hamlet
- Ah, 1938 and 1968. Forget 1938. America wasn't yet demonstrating the levels of insanity which overtook it in the 60's.
Potok conveniently avoids the tumultuous rumblings taking root circa '68. Average law abiding citizens were seeing first hand the radicalization and transformation of a once proud America to a radicalized "Amerika." Black panthers, Weathermen, SDS, SLA, urban riots, etal., coupled by an empowered USSR, introduced high anxieties and the possibilities that danger was creeping toward their very own door steps.
These pending dangers haven't disappeared. Instead, they've transformed into newer, less aggressive actions in the form globalization, secularism, moral decay, loss of nationalism and exceptionalism. The average Joe feels helpless to stem the tide. He seeks comfort in associating with other like-minded individuals. For the left- purveyors of chaos- labelling strong opposition and proselytizing serves their purposes. Meanwhile, billionaires such as George Soros are extending their tentacles by devising more organizations and PACs to further the decay.— Right To Be Heard - I'm all for significant gun control, but I'm also for adult discussion that does not rely on calling names and claiming others are members of hate groups. Will, when you go extreme to one direction you are becoming part of the problem, not the sollution. Both media hacks like you and spineless, polarized, or inept politicians are the reason we have assult and military weapons available to the public. You can't have a rational discussion and create rational laws when everyone is too busy getting on their self righeous high horses and calling the opposing side evil hate mongers. Lets get to gun control as adults, not as spoiled, angry children as Will so often acts.— Greg S
- Correct me if I am wrong, but in the first sentence of your post you as for no name-calling ... and then proceed to some name-calling in the second sentence. Was this supposed to be ironic? — citylumberjack
- As a gun owner, and former NRA member, I have to agree with Will on this one. The zero-compromise position touted by the Tea Party and the current NRA leadership is entirely untenable and unsustainable. As noted in the editorial, the NRA used to be about responsible gun ownership (education, safety, and even supporting limited weaponry restrictions) not unlimited freedom. Why not support Americans' right to own nuclear weapons, or biological ones? Similar to fully-automatic weapons, these have no viable use to the average citizen (even in times of need to act as a militia). And the government already requires a permit for your car, a title for your land, a certificate for your birth and a social security number for your citizenship - have they 'confiscated' any of those things? The NRA would have you believe that registering your firearms is equivalent to surrendering them, and this is patently untrue. While I certainly do not support an outright ban of reasonable firearms, I do support the (to quote the 2nd Amendment) "well-regulated" ownership of them, as well as the severe restrictions on certain classes of weapons and ammunition.— citylumberjack
- "I'm all for significant gun control, but I'm also for adult discussion that does not rely on calling names and claiming others are members of hate groups. "
(Sigh) Over and over I have to tell people on the right that something is not true just because you say it is. I call the NRA a hate group because of the things it has said and done over the last twenty years. As others have said, the NRA used to be a mainstream gun safety organization. I have old, tarnished, brass medals my grandfather won in shooting contests sponsored by the NRA in the 1950s. One medal has the NRA emblem on the disk hanging from two bars on chains. The first bar has the pin, the second bar says "Sharpshooter".
Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to call the NRA a hate group and I don't do it to sensationalize. It is just the truth.— Hamlet - I don't think it is so much as a hate group but an organization that lost it's mission purpose and it became a cash cow for political purposes. They need to change their act, and be more accomadating. — angrywhtguy
- This article sealed it. I'm joining the NRA. And mind you, I'm not a gun owner. I think I'll do some last minute Christmas shopping at the NRA on line store as well.— teardownthisfishwrap
- As a father and grand father I'am saddened by the killings of those innocent children and adults as a result of those horrible acts of those sick gunmen. My tears have been nonstop seeing those innocent faces in the news, I firmly believe in the second amendment even though I do not own a gun, I know of many gun owners who are very responsible good citizens who respect the law, who are deeply saddened by Sandy Hook and the other shootings. Personally I'am against assault weapons and I can understand the arguments of for and against we should be working together to come to an understanding that we could all live with. We need a lot of checks and balances when it comes to these weapons without violating our rights, we as Americans will do the right thing some nut job will slip through the cracks again and this will not end. When you look at the Sandy Hill tragedy it was the irresponsible gun owner who was in denial, that her mentally sick son can have access to those weapons. She was the one who told a babysitter to not turn his back on her son, she did and it also cost her, her own life. We can only blame the person with the weapon in their hands and the weak laws that allow this.— angrywhtguy
- I'd say its time to marginalize the Philly Inquirer & Daily News but they've done that to themselves already.— teardownthisfishwrap
- Guns don't kill people, politicians who impoverish people do. Better get your assault rifle(s) NOW because when the left gets done with our once great country, you will need hundreds of bullets to defend your last loaf of bread. You certainly don't need an AR to hunt... I do it well with a bow and arrow but think about what it will take to defend yourself from looters and hungry people after an economic collapse. The likelihood that you will be killed like those poor children by a nut is very small. What are the chances that Obumbler will run our country into the ground until there is nothing left to produce and redistribute? We need Obamacontrol, not more gun control lol.— Fillzee
- It must be a real bummer losing your job as the mop-boy at the Forum Theater but, piece of advice, you may want to keep your doomsday delusions to yourself. — abendteuer
- A law, any law, passed for reason that people are in panic over an event is guaranteed to not only fail but to bring about consequences worse than the event that caused it. The same politicians beating their fists on the table demanding a ban on guns will soon be the ones decrying the lack of ability of the common citizen to protect himself against criminals.— DonQ
- We need new a language articulate our anti-gun position.
For instance, stop calling them guns and call them what they really are: "murder machines." These things are designed and manufactured solely to kill people. They serve no other utilitarian purpose.
The NRA and other arms industry advocates should be called what they really are, "merchants of death." They profit from promoting and selling products whose sole purpose is to kill. They have romanticized the gun way beyond it's extremely limited rational utility. Why? For profits.
Everyone who squeals, "We shouldn't politicize this tragedy," should be called "anti-democratic sheep" When, exactly, are people in a democracy supposed to politicize anything if not in times of tragedy or in the face of a clear and present anger to our citizens, especially our weakest?
— Mr_Cool - Moreover, I feel we should consider this: Everyone is a "law-abiding citizen" until they aren't. It only takes one rash, insane, irrational, and horrifying act to no longer be a "law-abiding citizen." I honestly can't look out there and decide who is and isn't capable of such homicidal madness. So why would I trust anyone who possesses military-grade weaponry capable of inflicting high-volume homicide? I don't.— Mr_Cool
- The NRA is a hate group? The NRA shouldn't have a voice in the conversation? The real people that should be feared are on the left.....while trying to trample the second amendment (and if you don't think their ultimate aim is to ban all guns you're naive) they trample on the first. I got my gun a year and a half ago.....get yours before Big Brother with full assistance their media lapdogs complete their takeover.— bannedrepublican
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
