BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

"You are why Al Gore isn't in the White House."

  
 
Baz Auckland
21:47 / 28.04.02
From Yahoo News

Senator Zen Miller (D-Georgia) speaking at the NRA convention "Like many of you, I've got more guns than I need, but not as many as I want," Miller said.

Is it ironic that just a few hours away 4 people were killed and 17 injured in a gun fight in a Vegas casino?

"Miller echoed the words of NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, who told more than 4,000 delegates at the annual meeting Saturday afternoon, "You are why Al Gore (news - web sites) isn't in the White House."

"What many do not understand is that the gun issue is not just about guns. It's about values. It's about setting priorities. It's about personal freedom. It's about trust," he said.

Opposing viewpoint:

"Rather than working to prevent gun violence, the NRA fights to keep military-style assault weapons — high-powered weapons with no civilian purpose — easily available on our streets," Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

I don't really know much about the NRA aside from the odd article like this, but are they really about as scary and clueless as the American Family Association? Creepy people that talk about guns=freedom and the idea that there should be controls on assault rifles is evil?
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
06:20 / 29.04.02
The right to bear arms is not about hunting or trap shooting, but to protect the populace from the government. The ol' right of revolution. It is very likely that the Second Admendment was put in for exactly that reason. If you think this idea is defeatist and a bit crazy that is your prerogative. But however "creepy" it may be, the NRA is pretty much right in the eyes of the law.
 
 
The headmaster
08:12 / 29.04.02
If the right to bears arms is really about the working man being able to defend himself against the government, then I would like to see the republicans extend this privilege to the right to buy and use nuclear weapons too.

Hey, I'm an idealist!
 
 
Rev. Orr
11:23 / 29.04.02
I haven't got a copy of the 2nd ammendment to hand at the moment, but I've got to take issue with your interpretation of it, Mole.

The ammendment itself, as I recall, begins along the lines of "An armed Militia being necessary for defense...". That is a hideous paraphrase, but I hope my memory isn't distorting the meaning. Basically, the right to bear arms is predicated on the young republic's inability to maintain, financially, a standing army. There is no sense in which the legislation is acting in defense of the individual versus the state. The assumed aggressor is the English government, but by this stage they are an autonomous nation, not a rebelling grouping of English subjects. They are establishing the basis of a means of defending the country from an outside power. Essentially, this function is maintained today by the National Guard, not millions of NRA members with assault rifles and armour-piercing rounds under their beds.

The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with 'the ol' right of revolution' and everything to do with striking the balance between minimal central taxation and adequate national defense in a new republic with little sense of national identity or unity. That the NRA is right 'in the eyes of the law' has more to do with the weighting of the supreme court towards the Republican wing during the last century than the intrinsic intent of the initial legislation. Given that the country, the army and technology have all moved on into realms not contemplated by the ammendment, it is questionable whether any of it is applicable nowadays, in terms of common sense. Legally, with the fetishistic attitude towards the constitution, is a whole 'nother ball game, but the historical and rational justification for the NRA's position is shaky at best.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:11 / 29.04.02

I thought that the second amendment was put in to allow Americans to shoot each other with impunity but more importantly those pesky untrustworthy Red Indians during the expansion of the country in the 19th Century.
 
 
Annunnaki-9
20:50 / 29.04.02
I'm a gun owner myself, but would never join the NRA. They involve themselves with too much other right-wing activity. If they'd keep to guns and gun-control, by which I mean taking all means necessary to keep guns out of the wrong hands, I'd join. But they don't.
Why do I own guns? Primarily because I hunt. I don't really eat grocered meat. And second, I'm not going to surrender my guns yet allow the police and military to retian theirs. Sorry, but no go.
Now the 2nd Amendment has come up, and sure enough, I don't know it by heart, but a militia in the US is NOT regular army. We have laws currently being infringed upon in the US (the posting of National Guard in airports) forbidding US military from being used within the country for any reason other than disaster relief. It presumably has to do with 'crossing the Rubicon' style politics.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
06:00 / 30.04.02
so to all you gun-owning, 2nd amendment quoting americans -- what do you see as being the solution to the unbelievable amount of gun violence in the us? i'd love to hear your concrete ideas.

or do we just have to sacrifice thousands and thousands of people a year in order to keep that "revolution" going?
 
 
Rev. Orr
08:45 / 30.04.02
Ok Annunnaki, here goes.

Yes, there is a difference between a militia and a national standing army. Did you read my post? Yes, the term is often used nowadays to refer to independant groupings of armed citizens outside centrally mandated reserve forces. However, have you not realised that this is a political usage? Read a dictionary. A militia is a force of non-professional troops raised from the populace in a time of emergency. Misapplying the term to a bunch of redneck wackos who love big bangs and hate taxes plays into their agenda such as it is. Calling them a militia confirms their claim that they are an emergency force resisting the government on behalf of the citizens. The fact that they are responding to an attack that has yet to happen is apparently a minor point.

As to your point about not handing over your weaponry whilst the police and military retain theirs what is your fear other than blatant paranoia? What is inherently threatening to you personally about the country you are a citizen of possessing an army? Why do you assume that your government is about to shoot you? So you think the US government over-reacted after September 11? Is a longer wait for an airplane really comparable to the massive destruction of national infrastructure and civilian loss of life suffered by the Afghanistan peoples?

I find it deeply disturbing that the people who are so keen to enforce America's ideology and philsophy on the other nations of the world are so mistrustful of their own society at home. I'm not saying any individual here has linked the two, but NRA figureheads and the rest of the anti-federal right always appear to be the first to wrap themselves in the flag when it comes to foreign policy whilst still preaching domestic ditrust of the American system. It's either the land of the free or it isn't. Either American capitalist democracy works or it is a threat to personal freedom that requires the citizen to arm himself in defense of his own government. You can't have both.

In the meantime, while Charlton gets to keep his assault weapons and his millions, the poor of America are faced with more fear, death and violence.
 
 
m. anthony bro
09:30 / 30.04.02
I think the question isn't if guns mean freedom, but why. Why do people think that it's okay to have a big stash of guns, being potentially able to end human life at your discression and then call it 'self-defense'. How can you be free on the defensive?
 
 
Annunnaki-9
14:06 / 30.04.02
OK, OK, I only skimmed the post, and Orr, your right about the difference between militia and army. Sure, I can accept that it started as 'the young republics inability to defend itself against presumably the British,' but by now it is indeed a fine and useful tool to prevent what I have called 'crossing the Rubicon style politics.' If a general had the right to moibilize troops on US soil at will, well, we might not be in this pickle we are currently in, for better or worse.
Regarding my purported paranoia. Yes, I really do believe that the government's interests are neither my own nor that of the general populace. Enron, president court appointed, secret dealings designed to craft an energy policy, including cabals to ensure that Americans get to keep their SUV's rolling and money flowing into the coffers of the Bush's and Cheney's of the country, tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting aid programs to the less fortunate,..... blah, blah, blah. I don't think it takes much research to uncover the disparity between those in power and those forced to obey.
Personally, I have been harassed by the police, I assume merely because of my looks. Oh, and I used to live in a southern state where it seems it was always open season on anyone not white, mentally handicapped, or just plain different.
And regarding the Afghanistan thing, I do think the US overreacted. Immediately putting it on a war-footing denies the very ideal of the justice or injustice of the actions of those responsible. Not releasing the 'evidence' was also a big mistake. And as you hear in every newssource, linking up with the Northern Alliance is dicey at best. Don't even let me get into the US's supression of the land-mine ban proposed by the UN (or opther high-handed relations with the UN)- and that done by a democrat- Clinton, no less.
OK, I'm ranting, time to wrap up.
As I said, while I am a gun owner, I am not member of the NRA. And I am highly critical of the US, both domestically (A democracy? Really?) and abroad (unilateralism and the mass-marketed cultural imperialism of consumerism).
I am for measures of gun control, but not elimination of guns. Because there are idiots in the nation doesn't mean that the lowest common denominator needs to be pandered to. Indeed, among my circle of friends, hunters, we are more wary of the power of guns than most- we've seen what they can do. I can see a good long waiting period more than a week, even contingent on a waepons safety program. I don't however feel the need to ban assault rifles or pistols. I don't own any assault rifles, and even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy one. Pistols on the other hand, ever seen a Colt Peacemaker? Ever shot one? They're mighty cool.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:46 / 30.04.02
Much better than a real penis....

The bit I like here is:

"You are why Al Gore (news - web sites) isn't in the White House."

The NRA voted Nader? That was kind of left-field...
 
 
Rev. Orr
15:53 / 30.04.02
Yes, I've done some match shooting with pistols and mighty fun it was, but I never felt the desire to take the gun away with me from the range. To be fair, there's also not a lot of hunting to be done in the wide open spaces of South London so there wasn't a much I could have done with it had I done so. There are legitimate uses for a firearm in the hands of a private citizen, but I think we are in agreement that complete freedom of access is undesirable.

I accept that you have beliefs and a viewpoint significantly at odds with the current plutocracy but what is changed by your ownership of a gun. I don't mean this as a personal attack and you do suggest that your primary reason for having a gun isn't political, but generally, how does the private ownership of weapons prevent the government from acting in its self-interest? The only way a gun can affect any interaction is if it is raised in anger. As you point out, the Bush government is acting against the interests of its citizens let alone the rest of the world, but there is widespread ownership of guns already. Are you saying that it would be worse if there were fewer guns in circulation or that they are the only thing preventing all-out looting of the earth and the disadvantaged peoples of it?

As for the police, surely if the number of weapons in society is lowered significantly then the 'necessity' or justification for the police being armed is removed. An unarmed cop can do many things to your civil liberty and person, but he can't shoot you. The last decade here in London has seen a rise in the number of armed police units permitted to patrol our street. It is no coincidence that the same period has also seen a similar rise in deaths caused by mistaken, hasty, or in a few cases prejudicial police action.

I guess I just can't see guns as a form of defence to anything. Mutually assured destruction is no basis for peace. We can't un-invent guns but I don't think it's naiive to see a corelation between the number incirculation within a society and the number of related deaths.
 
 
The Monkey
17:15 / 30.04.02
US gun control, as presented in legislation introduced by Democrats, is a joke. The"weapon bans" stop the sale of one particular model number of a particular automatic weapon...meaning that the factories barely slow down long enough change the serial number in the press. The press events at which a political figures "bans x number of automatic weapons" are nothing but exercises in cynical manipulation of the hopes of constituents. Al Gore is a cunning self-interested twat; George Bush is a stupid self-interested twat - both are snuggled comfortably in the pockets of lobbying groups who don't have your best interests in mind.
 
 
Lionheart
17:59 / 02.05.02
First of all, that Senator is an idiot. Most people in the NRA hate Bush. Most right-wingers and left-wingers hate Bush too. Why? Well, let's not look at the gun issue at the moment and just look at everything else. Which president has made the U.S. a virtual police state? (Virtual as in the state has the legal right to be a police state it's just not exercising their.. "legal right" at the moment.)

Second of all, there's not an extreme amount of gun violence in the U.S. Before making statements like this please do some research on gun control.

Third of all, so is the U.K. any better since they banned guns?
 
 
Lionheart
18:00 / 02.05.02
Oh, and one more thing. To the best of my knowledge there is no law in the United States banning citizens from possessing nuclear weapons. The only laws that exist regarding nuclear weapons are the ones that make it illegal to denote them.
 
 
Baz Auckland
19:22 / 02.05.02
Second of all, there's not an extreme amount of gun violence in the U.S. Before making statements like this please do some research on gun control

From a quick look-around:

Gun violence kills 10 children every day

From a 1993 study:

Almost 4,200 youths ages 15 to 19 were killed by guns in 1990, or about 11 every day. Lois Fingerhut, an epidemiologist for the National Center for Health Statistics: "These are just the deaths. We're not talking about the kids who are shot and don't die."

Although it seems that the homicide rate has been decreasing since then:



BUT: Then there's this:

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, and 9,266 in the United States.

...and that's just the handguns....
 
 
Annunnaki-9
19:59 / 02.05.02
Well, I'm going to start with two hunches- I have neither proof, nor interest/time enough to check these out.
I) I bet the right wing is very pleased with Li'l dubya. He's doing for them what they've been wet-dreaming about for years, increasing arms expenditures, dropping public education like a live grenade, tax cuts, screwing world opinion.... What's not to like? And he hasn't done anything about gun control or legislation. All the NRA folks I know are big Bush backers.
II) I would guess that most- surely not all- but most gun violence in the US is via handguns. Yes, your high profile rampages are often executed (bad pun, I know) with longguns, but I would suspect that most isolated instances are pistols.
I really don't want to rant on and on, essentially, my point has been made: I own guns primarily to hunt, secondarily because I don't trust the gummint wit'em and me witout 'em. Finally, an anecdote: I have been on the rtecieving end of gun violence. No, I wasn't shot, but I was shot at- thank ? for that van! But I was in a dumb place, doing dumb things, for dumb reasons.
 
  
Add Your Reply