Guns for everyone. Guns for all.

[Katiecat]

The point wasn't who wrote the book. The point was about liberalism as defined in the book 58 years ago. But I'm well aware of Ted Sorensen and the controversy involving the Pulitzer. Sorensen probably wrote the definition that KatieCat quoted, as well as many of the famous lines from JFK speeches. It doesn't diminish what was said.

BTW, it's sleight of hand.

rj

Exactly. Many, many politicians have speech writers, or are quoted responding to interview questions. That definition of liberalism is a great one, though definitely not the only one. FDR's New Deal liberalism was defined very well in his Second Bill of Rights Speech, stating that American rights include jobs, education and food.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure....We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

And yep, I agree with FDR, too. And Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.

 

[Katiecat]

for the non-Americans...

It's very clear that Americans have a fascination, even an obsession, with guns. Not all Americans, mind you. I personally hate guns. In my teens, I lived in Montana. I had an abusive step-father, a rancher and hunter, who forced me to learn to shoot, so I did. I now have have no desire to ever own or shoot my own gun. My cousin was killed by his own brother in a hunting accident. I've had loved ones who have contemplated or attempted suicide. I won't have a gun in my home. There are other ways to kill oneself, but a gun makes it too easy and too quick to make a final decision.

It's in our Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We had just won our independence from England. A well-regulated Militia was our army, as much to protect us from our own new government from becoming oppressive as to protect us from foreign invaders, I think. But our new government already was oppressive; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in reality only applied to wealthy white males. Only land owners could legally vote.

Interesting to note that even today, our government is made up mostly of wealthy white males.

240 years ago, guns were primitive, single shot muskets, that took 30 seconds to a minute for an expert to reload -- just for one more shot. Nothing like the weapons we have today. With a modern semiautomatic handgun, a novice can fire 3 shots a second; a trained shooter, double that. A 20 round magazine in 3.3 seconds, and it takes less than 2 seconds to reload. If the shooter is carrying plenty of ammo....over 1000 bullets in 7 minutes. From one semiautomatic pistol. (stats from an FBI study)

But no matter how well armed an individual might be, or even a group of individuals that form a militia, they are absolutely no match for law enforcement or the military. If the government or the police really wanted to take away everyone's guns, they could do it with no problem. Oh, there would be casualties, lots of those. It's a dramatic fantasy that private citizens could arm themselves enough to go to war against the government. Give it a rest folks -- they have tanks, and they have drones. And they have a lot of them. They could definitely disarm everyone if that's what they really intended to do.

But they don't.

No matter what the Tea Partiers and the gundamentalists (right wing religious gun activists) and Clint Eastwood say, the government isn't taking away anyone's guns. The NRA is an extremely powerful political lobby, and they have invested a lot of money in their pet politicians. And they have a very effective propaganda machine to instill the desperate fear in people they might lose their guns. So they go out and buy more guns and stockpile lots and lots of ammo. Brilliant, isn't it?

Americans have idolized and romanticized guns, and they are ingrained in our culture. We write songs about guns, we make movies starring guns. We give our children pretend guns to play with. We buy real fucking guns that are actually designed for kids.

Even though if you Google "how many children have been shot by siblings", you will find:

a three year old boy shot and killed his one year old brother

a 5 year old Texas boy killed his brother with a handgun

a 5 year old Missouri boy fatally shot his baby brother in the head

5 year old Kentucky boy killed his 2 year old sister

These are all recent, 2013 to the present. There are more. Many, many more. Lots of kids that are old enough to know better -- like the 13 year old boy "playing" with a handgun who shot his 9 year old sister. But they don't matter because, you know, we all have the right to keep and bear arms.

The problem is, the genie is out of the bottle, and we can't stuff it back in. Gun rights folks usually come around to "if we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns." Which, cliche as it may be, is true. But now, not only "good guys" who are well trained to shoot and careful to observe gun safety have guns. Now any idiot with a few hundred dollars can buy a cheap gun. Give him a few thousand or a credit card, and he can buy an arsenal at a gun show.

And then take them all to Smash Burger, for some reason.

I would propose that guns are treated just like cars. You have to be of age to use them. You have to take a safety class and prove that you know how to own and operate a gun. You have to pass a test and have a license, and you must keep that license current. You have to register them so if a gun is used in the commission of a crime or causes accidental damage, the court will know who legally owns that gun. You have to carry liability insurance in case a firearm you own causes property damage, injury, or death.

I would propose all of that, but gun rights activists would never accept it. It might infringe on their rights to own guns, even if they are stupid, careless, or intend to cause harm.

And I won't be surprised if a gun enthusiast replies, "tl:dr", even though he wouldn't hesitate to read a 12 page porn story on this site. Because you know...12 pages of fantasy is a lot easier to digest than one page of truth.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Well, I have to agree with you that asshats are constantly trying to define liberals. Fox News, Asshats R Us, has been trying to define "libruls" since their beginning. They did a pretty good job of making it a pejorative in circles where banjos and guns rule. But liberals still define it the way JFK did 58 (not 40) years ago. He won the Pulitzer for Profiles in Courage in 1957 when he was a Senator.

You should read it and compare the bios of past senators with what is laughingly called a senator today.

rj

Not what I was talking about, but sure. We can also add the asshats in the White House and Congress.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

True -- although the majority of conservatives are gun rights supporters, they aren't the only ones. From what I've read of your posts, it comes across as written by a Republican or a Libertarian.

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal"
John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Yep, I'm a liberal. Typical? Oh I hope so. If so, I consider myself in very good company.

I prefer this...

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
- Robert Frost (1874 - 1963)

 

[Katiecat]

I prefer this...

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
- Robert Frost (1874 - 1963)

If the choice is between being broadminded and narrow-minded...I'd much rather be broadminded.

I don't like to quarrel -- that involves animosity, rudeness, insults, and personal attacks. Nothing positive comes from quarreling.

I'd rather have a conversation, discussion, or even a fair debate. I find that if I'm able to understand the other person's point of view, sometimes something positive can come of it.

I do understand your point of view; I just don't agree with it.

So, what can we do about children shooting other children --
or sometimes
they even shoot
adults.
it happens a lot more often than you might realize.

Guns don't kill people; kids who have access to the guns of irresponsible adults kill people?

There are clearly a lot of stupid, careless people who own firearms. Of course, loaded guns should be kept away from children, but it's obviously not happening all the time, and not being enforced. Sometimes the kids are killing playmates or relatives with their own gun, that was specifically made for and marketed to children.

As a gun rights advocate, do you have any suggestions to stop this from happening in the future?

 

[sr71plt]

So, does that make a conservative someone (not to take Frost's sexist "man") too narrow minded to look at the issue objectively in a quarrel? Seems so to me.

 

[DeYaKen]

The problem is, the genie is out of the bottle, and we can't stuff it back in. Gun rights folks usually come around to "if we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns." Which, cliche as it may be, is true.

This maybe a cliche, it certainly isn't true as anyone who lives in a country where guns are restricted will tell you.
As soon as you restrict the carrying of guns, illegal firearms become very expensive. This means that a burglar doesn't carry a gun for three reasons.

1) armed robbery carries a much higher sentence than burglary.
2) the householder will not be armed so he/she doesn't need to be, in order to guarantee survival.
3) the cost of acquiring a gun wipes out the gain to be had from a burglary.

As for not being able to put the cork back in the bottle, why not, the Australians did.

It is interesting that in Switzerland, which is a free gun society, though not as unrestricted as the US, gun ownership is on the decline.

I think that you are correct when you mention the fear. When people say they need a gun for their own protection, they are really saying "I am afraid." The irony is that they are afraid of other people who need a gun for their own protection.

 

[rjordan]

It seemed the major point you were making, by the wording of your post, was the JFK wrote the book. And, you're right, it's sleight of hand.

I think the Roosevelts would laugh at your idea that liberalism was defined by JFK, though.

None of this makes me not laugh at Zeb's assertion that he isn't a conservative of some far, far right, crazy reactionary stripe.

Why would he laugh? FDR defined liberalism in much he same way with his Four Freedoms. JFK defined liberalism. Lots of people define liberalism. It's a fairly flexible concept.

Conservatism, and by association the things that Zeb says, is the product of more rigid thinking...or no thinking at all. It's always been enforced more by fear than by reason. (Not sure"enforced" is the right word here, but close)

rj

 

[rjordan]

So, does that make a conservative someone (not to take Frost's sexist "man") too narrow minded to look at the issue objectively in a quarrel? Seems so to me.

Seems to follow.

rj

 

[sr71plt]

Why would he laugh? FDR defined liberalism in much he same way with his Four Freedoms. JFK defined liberalism. Lots of people define liberalism. It's a fairly flexible concept.

Conservatism, and by association the things that Zeb says, is the product of more rigid thinking...or no thinking at all. It's always been enforced more by fear than by reason. (Not sure"enforced" is the right word here, but close)

rj

The point was that the Roosevelts were there before JFK was. You certainly as milking this one, aren't you?

 

[rjordan]

The point was that the Roosevelts were there before JFK was. You certainly as milking this one, aren't you?

There appears to be more than one teat on this cow and you've certainly done your share.

rj

 

[sr71plt]

There appears to be more than one teat on this cow and you've certainly done your share.

rj

Mostly in response to your posts with you goading me to. Another common Internet discussion board game.

 

[rjordan]

Mostly in response to your posts with you goading me to. Another common Internet discussion board game.

Didn't realize I had so much power over you. I'll use it more wisely in the future.

rj

 

[Katiecat]

This maybe a cliche, it certainly isn't true as anyone who lives in a country where guns are restricted will tell you.
As soon as you restrict the carrying of guns, illegal firearms become very expensive. This means that a burglar doesn't carry a gun for three reasons.

1) armed robbery carries a much higher sentence than burglary.
2) the householder will not be armed so he/she doesn't need to be, in order to guarantee survival.
3) the cost of acquiring a gun wipes out the gain to be had from a burglary.

As for not being able to put the cork back in the bottle, why not, the Australians did.

It is interesting that in Switzerland, which is a free gun society, though not as unrestricted as the US, gun ownership is on the decline.

I think that you are correct when you mention the fear. When people say they need a gun for their own protection, they are really saying "I am afraid." The irony is that they are afraid of other people who need a gun for their own protection.

I wish with all my heart that it was possible, but in the US, I just can't imagine it happening because the problem is multi-faceted:

1. The right to own guns is in our Constitution, and that's the foundational document for our entire government. There are a lot of people that look at it like the Bible -- everything in it is literal and eternal, and the only right interpretation is their interpretation. No one considers how times have changed and how society has progressed -- and we have to fight and fight for years for changes like the 19th Amendment, finally giving women the right to vote.

2. Too many people in our country already own guns, and they don't want to give them up. Gun buy-back programs have been tried repeatedly, but they have had extremely underwhelming results.

3. Too many gun owners are...I'm sorry, I can't think of a nice way to say this, but uneducated and ignorant. They don't understand or pay attention to politics, world news, or current events. They are easily frightened and easily manipulated by propaganda and the media. They live in fear of foreigners, other races, other religions, and they truly believe they must have firearms to protect themselves from immigrants/blacks/Muslims/fill-in-the-blank.

4. The NRA is an incredibly powerful organization with very strong political ties. They own a significant number of judges and politicians.

5. Americans have bought into the glamorization/idolization of guns. Action movies, rap music, first person shooter video games, etc. all tell us guns are to be coveted, they will make us strong and powerful and brave and important and invincible. And our endless military actions -- welcomed by other countries or more often not -- have many Americans convinced that this bullshit is for real -- "America! Fuck yeah! Here to save the motherfuckin' day!"

 

[rjordan]

I wish with all my heart that it was possible, but in the US, I just can't imagine it happening because the problem is multi-faceted...

Excellent summary of the problem. I've given up on actual gun control for all the reasons you cite.

I think the only solution here is to do what was done with smokers. Marginalize them. Ridicule them. Shun them. Make limp dick jokes. Embarrass them. It sounds silly and pointless, but it worked to control smoking in public, and might work here.

Most of the rabid gun owners are men. Use ads like the cigarette ads showing that women are not attracted to a frightened macho man-child with a gun. Remember the wilting cigarette ad equating it to a dick? Guns with limp barrels are a similar message. Show dates gone wrong because the guy fumbled his gun, accidentally shot it in the restaurant. Show the guy pulling the gun on someone who flirts with his date. Endless possibilities to shame them, though most gun owners I've run across have little shame.

If I were to see someone in a restaurant (not a problem in California) with a gun, I'd leave, but talk to the manager first telling them why I'm leaving. If everyone opposed to guns did something like that, retailers would have to consider whether they want guns in their restaurant. It may be legal to have them there, but retailers could eventually come up with a solution. No guns or check your guns at the door. Something.

The NRA is trying to allow the mentally ill and domestic abusers to own guns. My guess is half the NRA membership already fits that category from the way they talk and act.

But something has to be done, and I don't see any evidence that guns will be controlled through other than social pressure.

rj