Right Wingers Are More of a Threat to Gun Owners Than Liberals

As the shooting massacre in Aurora Colorado roils in the minds of many, lies and half-truths of shooting from conservatives and gun nuts bubble up blaming President Obama, liberals, progressives, gun control advocates and they even try to criticize a corporation, Landmark Theater.

They blame Landmark Theater using the Second Amendment, because the corporation created a rule that prohibits carrying a concealed weapon as a condition to enter into their theater, according to a conservative pro-gun lobby group USA Carry. Yet further research into the ownership of said theater company brings up some interesting facts…it’s owned by some pretty conservative groups like: Bain Capital, J.P. Morgan Partners, the Carlyle Group and Spectrum Equity Investors, to name a few.

Bain Capital? Mitt Romney Bain Capital? Yes. Under these major investors, the guidelines were created regarding the conditions under which people may enter into their theaters. These conservative groups have every right to put on conditions they deem necessary, as the right to bear arms ends when you step into a private corporation, much like banning members of the NRA from entering into their meetings with firearms.

Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban

12:00AM / Thursday, July 08, 2004

Now Governor Flip-flopper changed his tune about the ban, but has kept the ban in place for the people of Massachusetts. And yes, people are blaming: President Obama, liberals, progressives, gun control advocates for the ban. So what is the difference between gun control and gun ban?

Gun control means that there are rules and regulations that gun owners must follow in order to own a firearm. The rules require: background checks, training, education, and how to properly maintain your firearm (cleaning and storage). These rules require the shooter to know how and when to shoot a firearm. A gun ban is the total confiscation of any and all firearms regardless of training and knowledge of said firearms by the government.

Currently, there is no Democratic President that has taken away firearms. But during the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, FEMA and Blackwater (AKA XE), under the guidance of the Bush Administration, ordered the State of Louisiana to confiscate all firearms from homes. The confiscation was not just from homes affected by Katrina, but homes who were not affected by the rage of the hurricane.

And now these same right winged anti-Obama groups are saying that SB-2099 will legally confiscate all firearms from people of the United States and their territories…which is patently false according to Snopes. The origins of this accusation is:

The item quoted above about a pending Congressional bill requiring gun owners to list their guns on federal income tax is both outdated and contains a good deal of misinformation. The referenced bill, SB 2099 (the Handgun Safety and Registration Act) is not currently before Congress was introduced to the Senate back in February 2000 (not 2009), and it was referred to the Committee on Finance, where it languished without ever coming to a vote.  It also had no provisions for requiring handgun owners to list their guns on federal income tax returns.

Yet Republicans from past experience seem to be eager to take away your rights to firearms and shift the blame to Democrats. And as I type this story, on the NRA‘s website, there are still no comments about the shooting or the investors. Apparently, when their own kind limits the freedom of gun owners, they are silent. But they are bringing up George W. Bush’s operation “Fast and Furious” and shifting the blame to Obama and Eric Holder.

 

16 Replies to “Right Wingers Are More of a Threat to Gun Owners Than Liberals”

  1. Well, clearly, during Hurricane Katrina, they had to take away firearms from icky black people lest enough of those successfully defend themselves to thwart ethnic cleansing. The Second Amendment only applies to ril uhMericuhns (white, “Christian” males).

  2. (Shakes head in disgust.)

    I’ve heard that the Republicans actually did something like that (but didn’t pay much attention) and were more likely to actually disarm the people, but didn’t know that had happened during Katrina and that it was “for real”. This goes to show how little they really care for freedom or the 99%.

    I’ve heard a lot of foul tales from Katrina… including truckloads of needed supplies being sidetracked and kept away when they were so badly needed (a cousin was commissioned to deliver a truckload of said supplies, and was stopped and put on hold a long distance from the disaster area for several days because of “organizational difficulties” – I think he had bottled water and MREs). What I heard happened to people’s pets… (I don’t even want to even think about it.) The Republicans really screwed that whole thing up… and I do believe that a form of ethnic cleansing was attempted (drive poor minority people out so they can get the land for a pittance, and then turn around and sell it for a profit). I’ve wondered how much of the screwup was because they tried to privatize so much of the government. (Funny… the areas that were flooded were mainly where poor people lived, with only a few middle and upper class residents. The rich and upper middle class areas were largely undamaged and the levees and so on held for them.)

    Talking about disaster areas…

    I wonder how things are progressing in Aurora… how people are doing and what is being done to help them. I’ve heard that people are trying to come to grips with it, but that’s about it (and hints of news about the perpetrator, but nothing concrete except that he was likely a sociopath).

  3. Indeed, since the levees did not give until well after the hurricane had passed, and since so many relief effoerts were sabotaged, I have long suspected that there was a deliberate effort to kill as many of the minorities and poor as possible.

    Between the passing of Katrina and the coming of the flood, the presstitute corps obediently focused on back looters. Only when the cruelty and desperation of the stranded became patent did they remember they were journalists, and in so doing, I think, saved several thousand lives. I wonder how many more might have lived had they sounded the alarm sooner.

    My ex, not black, but poor, left New Orleans two months before Katrina. Had he not, he might well have been one of the rotting corpses in the floodwaters.

  4. I hate guns. I hate the idea of guns. No matter what anyone says about how guns don’t kill people, people do, it’s a load of bull. They are instruments of death. That is their purpose. That is what they are made for. Even target practice is simply an exercise in getting better at using a gun to kill. People who try to say that cars kill or knives or tire irons kill completely miss the point that those items actually have other purposes, and their secondary ability to be used as a weapon is incidental. Their sole purpose is not as an instrument of death. If guns had never been invented, there would be millions and millions fewer deaths in this world. I wish that gun enthusiasts would at least be honest about what guns are and not try to whitewash them with bullshit bromides like “guns don’t kill people,” when they sure as hell do. It is interesting to me that in Europe there are some countries that are very pro-gun, and one of them is Finland. As it happens, they also have a very high murder rate for Europe and a higher per capita murder rate than Central and West Africa which are not exactly known for their tranquility (http://www.finlandforthought.net/2008/01/22/homicide-rate-in-northern-finland-higher-than-in-central-west-africa/). Where people love guns, violence ensues.

    So, it is with great effort that I try to make peace with the fact that they exist at all. Since they do, I also have to make peace with the fact that they are not going away, and this leads me to several conclusions. First, I can see that the Constitution framers did want people to have the capacity to fight back against a rogue military, foreign or *domestic* and that is why they instituted a right to arms. Fine. Second, I am just paranoid enough to agree that liberals need guns as much as conservatives do, because the fact of the matter is I don’t trust those nuts not to start some sort of armed insurgency against us. Third, so gun owners, have at it, buy to your heart’s content. Kill critters, practice shooting at targets so you can aim right when you want to hit a living thing, make peace with the fact that regardless of your justification, you are orienting yourself to kill. I may even join you if the right wing gets more threatening.

    What I do not understand is why folks don’t start a liberal version of the NRA. It seems there are plenty of liberals who love to tote guns, and people need a sane alternative to their crazed thinking on gun laws. The liberal version could advocate for gun rights while also negotiating some reasonable gun regulations. For example, Jack Rice was filling in for Ed Schultz on Friday’s radio show, and he made some excellent points as a former CIA agent with plenty of gun time logged himself. The military doesn’t give soldiers guns without requiring that they are well-trained. We don’t give people driver’s licenses until they can demonstrate competence to operate what so many have pointed out is a potentially deadly machine.

    Why aren’t gun buyers required to complete comprehensive training to become responsible gun owners? Why can’t we have a licensing system similar to what we have for driving? The fact is that gun educators would be excellent candidates to begin spotting potentially violent people. Nearly every spree killing that’s occurred happened with legally obtained guns. The people who committed the crimes were typically not criminals and did not know criminals (they were mentally disturbed), thus their access to illegal guns was limited. As so many people point out, individuals who go off on rampages rarely do so without sending out red flags to the people around them. Short programs of training would be an opportunity to identify some of these people.

    This is not a request to ban guns. Far from it. It’s a plea to limit collateral damage such as all the times children end up playing with their family gun and getting killed. It’s an attempt to ensure that if people are going to carry all the time and try to intervene in a spree that they don’t end up hurting bystanders instead. It would at least address some of the many worries I have about trigger-happy people not knowing what they are doing. And yes, criminals would still get guns, but at least it would be easy to arrest people for having one if they hadn’t gone through the right procedures to get them.

    As an aside, if you missed reading the article on the truth about the Fast and Furious scandal, it is really worth reading. A liberal gun organization could counterbalance what the NRA did in this whole saga: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

  5. Loaded weapons are not allowed at gun shows. Anyone bringing a weapon inside the building, has to have the weapon secured with a band through the chamber and barrel as a safety mechanism. No right winger complain about that abridgement of their second amendment rights. The cause? … insurance. Imagine that! Either they secure the guns or they don’t have the show. Just like the theaters.

  6. “And yes, criminals would still get guns, but at least it would be easy to arrest people for having one if they hadn’t gone through the right procedures to get them.” I’m not conservative. I’m far from it. I’m all for rights of individuals (gay rights, pro choice, etc.). However, I’m also for the right for someone to defend themselves. I’m not scared of guns. I used to be. I was so deathly afraid of guns that I wouldn’t even handle it at a gun store. That changed when I educated myself. Because I am no longer afraid and have since a few years of experience and training, I don’t advocate for the controls you speak of. Yes, the controls you speak of may prevent negligent discharges in the home or self-defense shoots gone wild. However, the restrictions you speak of will also limit all the events where the armed citizen defends themselves successfully because their access to firearms weren’t as rigid as you wish them to be. (). Bad stuff happens in this world, you can’t protect everyone. However, you can grant the liberty to those who can and chose to protect themselves. I like the idea of another NRA. However, I’d push for a more independent/libertarian NRA. The left can be as tyrannical as the right when it comes to personal liberties. (ex-Democrat, ex-Obama voter, current Libertarian)

  7. The Second Amendment was written from concern for “the security of a free state.” At the time, there was strong suspicion of a standing army, and the United States depended on militia groups for the bulk of its soldiers in times of war. Now,the National Guard is the militia.

    While the people are given the “right to keep and bear arms” this is done for a purpose that is directly and dramatically divergent from the massacre in Aurora, CO.

    The NRA is trying to cover its profit mongering behind a constitutional pretext, but it is simply a shill for arms merchants/

  8. Yeah, I’m never interested in what a libertarian thinks. Your support, indirect or direct, for Romney as a non-Obama voter pretty much discounts any alleged non-conservative beliefs you claim to have. Thanks for nothing.

  9. All gun control laws ultimately devolve from racism.
    The actions taken post-Katrina are no different.
    Gun rights *are* civil rights.

  10. Very good Tim from LA, I enjoyed your article.. I posted it to my facebook page. It was funny about bloggers riling about gun ban.. too bad the situation is so solemn.

    You should put in FB link.

  11. wow man conservatives are so stupid lmao i think all people need to have guns taken away from then they don’t know what the hell and i think that the top 1% should be taxed 95% so the poor can be compensated for it #ronpaulsucks #obama2013 #romneysucks

  12. According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.

    The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well:

    74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training. (***AHA, This new survey would appear to back up what I was saying***)
    68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
    63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
    75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.

  13. Sane gun owners try that all the time. Read about the American Shooting and Sporting Association and Bob Ricker (an NRA whistleblower who went to start his own more mainstream group). Boston’s local gun control group is run by a gun owner. They are all immediately panned by the NRA as gun grabbers in disguise, and are unable to secure any footing due in part to the vast difference in funding. It seems to be impossible to level the playing field between gun manufacturers (for whom the NRA is the mouthpiece) and anyone else hoping to have any sort of conversation about guns. I don’t think a madman opening fire on an active session of Congress would make a difference– the NRA would simply pay to get all new reps in office. I think it’s a waste of time for people to talk about guns at all. The media should point the spotlight on the NRA. Gun owners should be ashamed to have any ties with them in any way.

Comments are closed.