Front Page  »  

Love letter to the NRA

April 5, 2013

Pete EvansOPINION By PETE EVANS

Recently the United Nations, those black booted thugs the neo cons hate, passed an arms control treaty (opposed by the National Rifle Association and its selfish allies) in an attempt to manage the obscene weapons traffic over international borders. This huge business has brought unimaginable terror, misery and death to countless millions of people. We have a similar situation here at home to contend with.

For 50 years I’ve watched the gun lobby, led by the NRA, undermine Congressional legislation by frantic lobbying in order to make money from the fear it foments. I have watched in horror as first our defenseless people, including lots of children, are murdered by misdirected cowards and have then seen the merciless and fallacious cowardly NRA evade all responsibility and actually blame the sane minds in government and society of attempting to subvert the constitution.

Guns are everywhere. Many guns and bullets are not regulated and much of the feeble regulation in existence is not effective or enforced. “Until 2006, the president had the power to install a director of the firearms bureau without Congressional approval. But under pressure from gun lobbyists, Congress changed the law that year to require Senate confirmation. Since then, the Senate has failed to confirm any nominee by either President Bush or Mr. Obama as senators who support gun rights have used their powers to delay nomination votes; Mr. Jones is the bureau’s fifth acting director since 2006.” This has led to disorganized regulation and crippled law enforcement.

We all know which party is primarily responsible for reducing or eliminating any safety regulation in this country; they are the darlings of the gun lobby. All the biggest (in fact almost all) donations went to right wing republicans like Bachmann and Boner, though plenty of Dems have been stampeded by the virulent NRA as well.

There is only one exact similarity at all the gun crimes, suicides and accidents in this country or any other. Guns. Only guns. Often the gun is a killing machine such as auto loader long gun or hand gun with large magazine. Sometimes the killer is crazed (whatever that means), sometimes crazy (whatever that means), sometimes just frustrated (like the fruitcake that threatened to shoot anyone who came for his guns (his license to carry was promptly revoked)), sometimes the shooter is just emotionally distraught and the opportunity for disaster was nearby in the form of a gun.

We have all heard the tired old evasions from the NRA and it’s minions-“guns don’t kill, people do.” “Only the mentally ill and criminals kill people.”  “The second Amendment is sacred and gives us the right to have any armaments we want.”

What a load of bull. The liars that spew that line of junk are counting on the public to be dupes, and idiots. I challenge any reader: where would you cut off the weapons that civilians should be able to have? .22 single shot rifle, .303 Enfield deer rifle, BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle), bushmaster (semi automatic assault rifle with large magazine), 50 cal machine gun, RPG (rifle propelled grenade launcher- great for bringing down planes), bazooka, small anti tank gun, stinger missile, small helicopter gunship (with a lovely mini/gun of course), F-16 Fighter plane, light destroyer for your bathtub pleasure, aircraft carrier, nuclear sub- what? Where do you cut off the debate on our frantic right to have (thereby lose to theft by stranger or relative) killing machines without any training, license or sense? Wait, I forgot to offer Sherman tanks or Bradley fighting machines. Did I mention a small tactical nuke to take care of that nuisance liberal down the street? How about one of those for the little lady for Xmas? So far I have not heard of anyone on the crazy side who has ever been able, or willing, to answer that simple question, they just want their guns!!!

I think the little people, with perhaps a small appendage they hope to enhance by clinging to a large gun, are just too greedy to listen to any sensible response to a society gone nuts with violence and deadly weapons. All I ever hear is ‘me, me, me’ from the gun nuts when the subject of reasonable gun control is discussed. What a bunch of babies, can’t see beyond their crummy little shortsighted horizons.

What about Gabby Giffords and the others shot to pieces in Tucson? What about all the school kids shot in all those attacks from Columbine to Newtown? The moviegoers in Colorado? What about all the people standing in line in the post offices — former historical favorite place to murder a bunch of innocents? Those who would cling to their guns with ‘their cold, dead hands’ have no conscience; they are sociopaths who have no remorse, shame or guilt.

Like so many other public debates truth has become a stranger, this has degenerated to a simple power struggle between good and evil. I can only hope that for once, good may triumph. We must discover a way to get rid of the avalanche of guns and the idiotic attitudes that have clouded our judgment.

I would like to get in a comment about our sheriff, who has recently licked the ground our local tea party fanatics walk on by pledging to not enforce any federal gun control plan. Good work, top cop! Violate your oath, become a crook in one foolish step, endanger your deputies. It has been my impression that most responsible law enforcement historically favors getting the machine guns and armor piecing ammo) off the streets so that a few more cops will survive any altercations with angry civilians.

“There is no reason that a peaceful society based on the rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round [ammunition] magazines,” states Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck during a March 2, 2011 news conference.” Such magazines transform a gun “into a weapon of mass death rather than a home protection-type device,” Beck notes.) July 13, 2009—After a birthday party shootout involving a semiautomatic AK-47 in which two young people were killed and 10 wounded, Miami Police Chief John Timoney tells ABC News, “For me it’s a no-brainer. These are weapons of war. Under no circumstance do they belong in the cities of America. Now police officers are facing—and citizens are facing—these assault weapons. If we don’t stop it now, what’s it going to look like 10 years from now? Rambo becomes reality.”

I’m so glad I voted for an honest sheriff candidate, a real man, Joe Cortez.

Recently that solidly American terrorist organization, the NRA, suggested in their latest evasion of the slightest responsibility in the carnage that teachers should be trained by the NRA to carry and operate weapons (New rep). What a joke, most teachers do not want that responsibility; they are teachers, not killers. But it led me to dream up a realistic compromise in this dysfunctional debate with mental midgets. What if the NRA (in league with the gummint) trained and licensed every gun owner in the land to safely own, protect and discharge a gun in an attempt to make sure all were mentally competent and emotionally secure enough to actually handle the great responsibility? Combine that with severe penalties for anyone in possession of a gun without said license. What about that, mister hot shot, gun-toting fire breathing gun lobby? Your goods, weapons and bullets, cost us billions each year, while you make billions in profits. Its time for you to get off the corporate welfare line and start paying your way. You are just another fat cat corporate thief feeding at the public trough- pay your way or get out of the way.

The NRA is even against background checks to make sure the absolute fruitcakes/criminals don’t get guns. It opposes ANY attempt to reduce the carnage; it is adamantly against any reform of our nightmare system. It opposes any research into the ramifications of all the unregulated guns in society. The NRA should be outlawed, for it is an outlaw organization. Many NRA members are law abiding, sensible and caring citizens. Many are not. The former should quit that outlaw group and form another with a heart.

I know many respondents will try to kick me into the middle of next week. I urge the sane readers to follow the lack of logic, lack of empathy for victims, and general lunacy of the landslide of vitriol that will spew forth from others. Some will say this message is too angry, too confrontational. Tell that to the parents, children, sisters, brothers and friends of those shot up by guns in our schools, theaters, homes, office buildings and streets. Someone out there come up with answers; I did, where’s yours?


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


328 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/. The major Repos are in bed with the gun lobby, the usual. All the Repos have to offer is obstructionism, at any cost to the American people.


0

This is such a useless addition to the conversation. Unless all you want to do is come off as some close-minded bigot. Seriously, I thought the left was supposed to be the tolerant bunch?


Just because “the gun lobby” does not do what you want, and lobbies against it, does not mean that they (read: us) “undermine” congress. Welcome to representational republic!


It’s such a tactic for whichever “party” is in “power” that those damn other guys (insert whatever childish nickname you pick for the day) are “obstructing” or “stonewalling” or whatever. Our system was DESIGNED to do this. So overly-emotional people (like yourself) do not run off and make hasty, rash decisions. Corrupted powerbases FEED off this. How often do we hear “we have to act now!” or “don’t think about it, just do it” – really? That’s wisdom?


I think you have devolved this entire discussion (such as it was) into something very small-minded and bitter. Sorry, Pete, if differing opinions upset you – but why would you write such a foolish op-ed if you do not have courage to honestly debate anything? Anytime a good point FOR gun control is brought up, you’re there. Great. However, when it’s a good point AGAINST gun control, you revert to childish tactics and what amounts to a quasi-intellectual temper tantrum. It is not becoming of the man most of us know you to be. Rise above it. Please.


0

I find it interesting that the author rants against guns and our current sheriff yet voted for Joe Cortez, who ran both a pro-gun and pro-concealed-carry stance in the last election…


0

I ranted about a specific stance the current Sheriff took. I do not think Joe ran a pro gun campaign, I probably would not have supported him if he had. I don’t recall our love affair with guns was an issue in the campaign.


0

Pete our “love affair with guns” is only a smoke screen so we do not focus on the real damage that is being done to the country. You are only exacerbating said damage. No one will even see it coming. Heck, it’s mostly here already (Common Core SS, Obamacare, the new re-visited mortgage problems via sub-prime – yes, they’re starting to do that AGAIN).


We have SO MANY unemployed, do you think that 90 million people not working is less important than gun control? Really? Do you know what happens to a nation that has such high unemployment? Look around, Pete (and anyone distracted by the smoke screen of gun control), look around.


0

Someday conservatives will wake up and realize they are letting the Democrats direct the conversation. Al Conservatives are doing is responding to what the Democrats are saying. The problem with this is the conversation deteriorates into name calling and meaningless banter back and forth.

Democrats put their ideas on the table for all the world to see then conservatives rather than putting their ideas out there they just try to make the Democrat who spoke look like a dummy. Doing it this way makes conservativeslook bad and allows the Democrats to control the conversation.Wake up conservatives, you are being manipulated and you can’t even see it.


0

Conservatives are, mostly, in hiding. Like real democrats of old, they had their party stolen out from under them some years ago. I will see a real conservative about as often as I see a real democrat/liberal – very rarely, if at all. Most are just progressives now, hoping that no one notices they all end up in the same place, but got their under different “parties” – I’ve been done with any political party for years now, and have not regretted it one iota.


0

I must have missed something. Last night I asked you all for your advice about a fund raiser I am organizing. Would you rather buy a ticked to see me tarred and feathered, or simply just lynched like ya’ll used to do down south? I need the money to buy a ticket outa here before either option comes true.


Since the chicken hawks here only do their ‘work’ in droves I figured either option would suit you since they both require a large number of eager participants and absolutely no personal back bone.


0

Pete: This last comment evokes pity, for you demonstrate a loathing for those of us who have taken time to read and respond to your article just because we don’t agree with you. Perhaps I missed something in the comments, but I don’t recall a single person coming even close to threatening your person. Instead of your disgraceful insults, you should be pleased that your piece triggered such a lively discussioin. The only “droves” here have been the people who don’t share your view.


0

You might be one of those in the former group of NRA members/admirers who I suggest form a new, compassionate and sensible club. Most of the chatter we see here is not very promising if one considers us a modern, enlightened nation.


0

Petester,


Check human history and don’t think it’s going to change. While some think we are an advanced society and have grown away from the basic DNA imprinted into our species, I feel you are mistaken. Nature is tooth and claw and so is life on earth. The only PEACE ON EARTH will be after the next ice age when this planet is rebooted. The stark reality is since humans became humans, it been tooth and claw in one fashion of the other. Be it a club, firearm or economic strangleholds, humans are not the infallible enlighten species you wish we were.


With that said, there is plenty of goodness to enjoy while we live. But never stop scanning your environment. There can be danger upon you in an instant. Don’t give up and self- immolate, just dig life for what it is.


0

I am so appalled at how many people keep spewing “our 2nd Amendment Rights.” Maybe we should make the rules now for the next hundred years. Pete, you are RIGHT ON about your thinking. If we are to succeed here as a species, I think we need to use higher level thinking skills….aka…..quit leaning on doctrine that was geared for times past. We are in a new world with new problems that were not in the equation back in the 1700’s. The idea of aircraft would not have been believed! Life and culture are changing. Time to get updated and real.


Now that we are “educated” peoples, PLEASE!! quit acting like the water is going to turn into wine! Rely on your sense of reason. You know, you should give yourself more credit over superstitions and paranoia in favor of reality. We can take control and live in a better world without being beholden to this hysteria about having our guns!


0

Would love to know who gave me a “thumbs down.” Perhaps you believe in the boogie man?


0

One would have to be completely ignorant of the environment that we live in to believe that there are evil people in our communities.


They get gas where we do. They buy groceries where we do. The buy clothing where we do. The eat at the same restaurants where we do. They engage in the same entertainment where we do. AND, they break into our homes and cars; sometimes while we are in those places.


The modern day boogie man is very real and lives amongst us. Without effective and immediate means of self defense, we are but lambs before these wolves. While some in our society have learned empty hand defense, the poor, weak, elderly, and disabled are at a severe disadvantage without having a firearm available for immediate use.


Oh, and yes, I was one of the people who gave you a thumbs down. Our Constitution contains the built in mechanism for amending/changing/removing its parts. Until such a change is made, the United States Supreme court has twice ruled in the last 5 years that the 2nd Amendment is about fundamental individual civil rights that are in no way tied to any kind of ‘militia’.


0

I’ll take the framers of the constitution over your rejection of “doctrine that was geared for times past.” and your notion of ” We are in a new world with new problems that were not in the equation back in the 1700′s.”


FWIW I suspect most of the framers were far better educated than you are. They were certainly wiser.


Sorry but no sale.


0

You don’t need a huge amount of education to see the obvious…..


The framers didn’t have answers to civil rights for Blacks or women or LGBTs did they? Sorry, all new stuff that they didn’t anticipate.


0

Are you suggesting that the framers wouldn’t have extended the freedom of speech to the Internet?


Or perhaps you think that the framers would have no problem with warrant-less wiretaps on telephones since they didn’t exist in 1776?


Please. We have changed the parts that needed changing. Added the missing parts. And removed some bad stuff along the way.


Of note here, the 2nd Amendment remains unchanged as it is as correct and applicable now as it was when ratified.


0

I have no idea what the framers would have thought or done as so much of one’s thinking only occurs within the context of your own environment. Look at the LGBT thing going on right now for example.


Guess I missed the part in the 2nd amendment where it said what types of weapons were permissible.


The arguments here return over and over to the idea that all guns will be banned, not just “assault rifles” or large magazines, but deer hunting type guns and handguns too. That is not what is being proposed.


But fear seem to be so intensified that the leap is immediately made to, “OH NO! Next step everything gone!” With that mindset, which is not shared by any majority, no wonder these people on this comment section are freaking out. I just don’t think it is realistic or shared by the majority of Americans.


0

“You don’t need a huge amount of education to see the obvious”

This about sums up your posts, in general, Lynette. Is this your reasoning for your views?


To say that the framers didn’t have “answers to civil rights” is like saying “the framers never thought of the internet” – duh! Civil Rights is a political creation, designed and utilized for gaining political power. It is how the progressives completely obliterated the Democrat party when they invested it, and how they tried (and are still doing it to) the Republican party.


Our framers did not see a need for “civil rights” because they enforced the only true rights we all have, and those are the God-given rights. Rights that cannot be taken away (as civil rights can). I’m sorry, it does actually take some education to see the obvious, sometimes. I hope you get some… and soon.


0

Do you not read the papers? Or watch the news on TV? Don’t lecture the law abiding gun owners, go lecture the criminals and gang members.


0

Your argue with nothing more than a phony claim to intellectual superiority. In essemce, “Of course, I’m right becasue I’m smarter than you.” Yet as far as I can see in the 6 pages of comments on Pete’s opinion piece, you haven’t written one word on the substance, probably because you have nothing to add other than chiming in with the other emotionally driven calls for more gun control.


0

Regarding the 2A chatter. The firearms of the day, both citizen own and the military were about the same. At that time flintlocks we the norm. Today the AR-15 is the norm for bot the citizens and military. The idea was to have protection from man or best (and the government!).


And I would not worry about our species survival. History tells us humans will not be around that long, say 80 million years from now. Just ask the dinosaurs.


0

Stop trying to play the martyr, Mr. Evans. You lost…


It’s a good thing when people post their beliefs to spur discussion. An open exchange of honest information is a very important process. Viewpoints can differ greatly but as long as the information being discussed is accurate, great good can come out of dialogue.


You on the other hand posted lies (ex. NRA is a terrorist organization, etc.), hyperbole (“Sherman tanks or Bradley fighting machines”, etc.) and extremist personal opinions that have absolutely no basis in fact.


You’re either lazy or you’re unable to make a cogent argument. Either way it’s people like you that are the problem, Mr. Evans, not guns.


0

Read the end of the article, it has all come true. Bunch of sad examples clinging to their big guns to make up for the small minds. Still not one decent offering of a solution, only endless whining from the crazies.


0

”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”


Ben Franklin


0

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes….Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”


Thomas Jefferson’s commonplace book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment (1764) by criminologist Cesare Beccaria


0

Here’s what I don’t get. Nobody is suggesting forbidding arms.


The proposed federal legislation isn’t about taking away the guns that you do have already, just about not being able to buy new weapons of the type that belong on a battlefield in the hands of soldiers.


So the pro-gun argument goes, that is just the first step, next they will try to take all my weapons away, doesn’t matter what they are, shotgun, derringer, etc..


But on the other side, the slippery slope thing goes, well, what is to stop you from having a barn full of drones then when you are not having enough fun with your assault weapons anymore, you’ll just push to escalate up!


0

Stop trying to equate fully automatic machine guns (AKA “weapons of the type that belong on a battlefield in the hands of soldiers”) with semi-automatic modern sporting rifles.


They are apples and oranges and no, you cannot sell one as the other.


Sorry but no sale.


0

Perhaps other than fun stuff – like shooting contests, what do you need a semi-automatic modern sporting rifle to do?


I looked up the term “semi-automatic modern sporting rifles” and found the AR-15 came up a lot. Is this what you mean?


I really don’t pretend to be a gun expert and what I have read seems innocuous enough, but it ALSO sounds like they are modifiable into something else altogether. Maybe why this is why they are called out IF they are on the to-be-no-longer-sold list of weapons?


Here is a quote off of a website, “However, as ARs continue to grow in popularity as hunting rifles and semi-auto hunting rifle makers continue to borrow features from the AR world (synthetic stocks, detachable magazines) trying to separate the types of guns on a philosophical level is an exercise in futility.”


0

To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To Great Britain:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I


0

I am originally from the British Isles . Violent crimes are rampant. Citizens unarmed. Police on the beat unarmed. Criminals armed…. Doesn’t make much sense does it.


0

Violent crime in the USA is far higher than the USA. The anti-Second Amendment people never admit that.


It’s all a bunch of noise anyway. Americans are not Europeans. We aren’t about to give up our firearms — no matter what the pressures might be to do so.


0

I am sorry. It should read: “Violent crime in the UK is far higher than the USA.”


0

Why does it always seem like the politicians here hold Europe and everything they do up to such high esteem. Their gun rights taken away, did that cure the violent crime.

Socialized medicine, are they healthier, are they living longer, is it free. I don’t think so.

High taxes, so does that mean their standard of living is better. I don’t think so. Petrol prices skyrocketing, drive these tiny cars, that in winter they have to weigh down with bags of cement in their trunks to hold the vehicle on the road (bet that helps the environment and their wallet) Went to the Euro dollar (except the Brits, give them a gold star for that) how did that work. Not so well. We didn’t come here to be Europeans, We came here to be Americans


0

I think it’s largely because gov’t absolutely dominates most European countries and many if not most politicians here in the USA like the idea of ultimately dominating the citizens and answering to no one.


0

And black is white, and purple is green. Ignoramus, or color blind?


0

Because it gives them a false sense of intellectual superiority, misguided and uninformed as they may be.


If gun control is so thorough and successful in the EU, why are the police generally armed with fully automatic-capable MP5’s and such? No one puts two and two together anymore.


The only place I ever felt was truly safe in Europe was Switzerland. But then again, they all have full-auto “assault weapons” in their homes, and are required to train and know how to use them.


0

That was debunked. Read this:


http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2013/01/mini-snopes-vs-british-crime-statistics.html


0

That is one high quality, peer reviewed, statistically grounded opinion web source that you are using.


Now, how about an actual study of crime rates and firearms that has lasted for decades that was done by an Ivy League professor: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/


0

I picked a blog source as that seems to be the level we are on here. Can you point out the errors in what John McKay cites?


So I go to look up John R. Lott. I’m not going to rely on his blog site as an actual source to back up crime rates.


Can you show me some peer reviewed study on crime rates and firearms (remember, it will be out of date as the NRA has squelched any funding to do research).


“In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[53][54] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[55] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[56] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it.” Wikipedia.


You might want to read a little more about Lott at Wikipedia. In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used “Mary Rosh” as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[58] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself “the best professor I ever had”.


“I probably shouldn’t have done it—I know I shouldn’t have done it—but it’s hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously,” Lott told the Washington Post in 2003


Sounds a bit suspect to me mentally. Being an Ivy League Professor doesn’t mean you can’t be nuts. Oh, BTW, (Lott) is currently a Fox News opinion contributor.


0
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10