The New Republic

I have vowed from now on that any politician who is endorsed by the NRA shall not receive my vote. (unless the endorsement is of the lesser of two evils with the evil being...um..pretty evil that is I would vote for Biden over McCarthy hypothetically)

- blackton

December 21, 2012 at 1:53pm

The mental health comment really ticked me off. Nancy Lanza was an NRA poster child, blond, well-to-do and (apparently) sane. How about a database on people who own assault weapons? Not that a database is going to be too helpful, what is it good for after all? We could put all the owners of such weapons in a database and label them "antisocial" maybe and make it impossible for them to buy ammunition. There. Fixed. And, I see no movement by the NRA toward reducing poverty or stress or isolation in poor neighborhoods, none that work toward supporting social safety nets which even the rich require. Just moral outrage at other people, at the entertainment industry - never a look in the mirror at the immorality of enabling the sale and ownership of weapons meant to do one thing and one thing only: kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Oh by the way: is the NRA going to pay for those armed guards? Right wingers aligned with NRA are busting teacher's unions, our schools are crumbling, and NRA is aligned with right wing outfits determined to weaken public schools, lower taxes on the wealthy and further impoverish poor and working and middle income people - although, Columbine, Newtown and the school where my niece's best friend was shot to death are all in nice affluent neighborhoods, far from the dread "inner city."

- Sophia

December 21, 2012 at 2:06pm

Oh by the way, here's the essential stupidity involved with the "armed guards" (or worse, armed teachers) solution - it doesn't work. There was a shooting just now in Pennsylvania, four people were killed and three (armed) state troopers were injured: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/12/21/us/ap-us-rural-road-shooting.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 So. Why didn't these armed state troopers prevent several people from being shot to death?

- Sophia

December 21, 2012 at 2:11pm

I watched the NRA "press conference," where no questions were allowed. Lapierre's solution to the assault weapons problem: here a gun, there a gun, everywhere a gun gun. He lied that the Newtown shooter shot his way into the school. He broke in through a window. He could have easily skirted an armed security guard after studying his or her movements. The real problem in the Newtown incident was a moonbat survivalist mother who took her mentally-ill son to a shooting range to train him in the use of the very Bushmaster that was used to kill her, 6 teachers, and 20 small children. The very person Lapierre advocated for, the mother, was ultimately responsible for the slaughter. Lapierre rightfully did mention violent video games as part of the problem, and he cited the names of several of them, but he conveniently forgot to mention that VIRTUAL GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE--REAL GUNS DO, the very real military weapons that manufacturers are selling via the NRA. U.S. troops have verified that the Bushmaster is one of the main weapons they're using in combat. Lapierre lied again when he implied that even minimal gun control means all weapons will be taken away from Americans, and he lied flat out when he said the media portrays all guns as evil. I almost expected him to advocate for a background check for every gun buyer, but, no, he simply wants to see shootouts all over the U.S. between "the bad guys with guns" and "the good guys with guns." Once a loon, always a loon. As I type Americans who are peeing their pants in fear are running to buy more guns. Lapierre has done his job as the middle man for the gun manufacturers. But he has failed as a decent, thoughtful American. Like criminals, some of whom he is arming, he thinks the only solution to a serious problem is shooting someone. Fortunately for America, 70% of its citizens, including gun owners, want at least some restrictions on gun ownership. The NRA may be like the Republican Party--on its way out the door.

- magboy47.

December 21, 2012 at 2:12pm

Give it 6 months. Not a thing will change: the NRA will be calling the shots again and Democrats will cower. Nothing will come of this shooting.

- tmmats

December 21, 2012 at 2:37pm

There are too many guns in America, and what's worse, a lot of them are in the hands of people with the emotional maturity of a twelve year old. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of Bushmaster and its marketers. Who else but a twelve year old, with zero self-awareness and constantly worried that the big boys in the locker room will laugh at his little pee-pee, would respond positively to an ad that says carrying a gun will make you a man?

- GeoffG

December 21, 2012 at 3:07pm

We need money to combat the NRA's money; hopefully Bloomberg will help provide it, in the form of campaign contributions to those who buck the NRA. We need to support legislators who go against the grain (or the perceived grain), much as Republican NY state senators who backed gay marriage were supported by liberals (including with money) for going against their party. (Of course it would be better if no money played a part in any of this, but that's another battle, seemingly even more difficult to win.) So we need campaign funds for the NRA-supporting Democrats if they have the guts to support gun control, and for any Republicans who will change sides. (So far, Manchin, Warner, and Casey have indicated a change of heart. Let's see if they stick with it when faced with a bill they actually have to vote for -- but if they do, they need our support.)

- shellski

December 21, 2012 at 4:53pm

As Sophia illustrated with her example of the inability of state troopers to protect innocent citizens in the Pennsylvania incident, the good guys don't always win. Today's American conservatives don't understand how civilized values must be nurtured, reasonable regulations enforced, and and the benefits of civilization paid for with taxes. It's a cognitive failing. They think they can easily survive a Mad Max blowout.

- amidut

December 21, 2012 at 6:48pm

A quick search indicates that 2 U.S. states still include hanging as a method of capital punishment, and perhaps 10 countries do so. It's hard to estimate, but if this article is correct, perhaps we have finally given the NRA enough rope to do a number on themselves. I am not holding my breath.

- skahn

December 21, 2012 at 7:03pm

Sophia "Oh by the way, here's the essential stupidity involved with the "armed guards" (or worse, armed teachers) solution - it doesn't work. There was a shooting just now in Pennsylvania, four people were killed and three (armed) state troopers were injured" The NY Times article doesn't prove that "armed guards" don't work. First the "guards" were not on the scene when the shooting started. They were police officers who arrived on the scene after the shooting started. Second, had the "guards" not come on the scene the casualty rate would have been much greater. Third, I agree that armed school teachers won't work as a solution and said so elsewhere. Fourth: there is no one solution. We need serious gun control, we need guards in places where people would be at risk, and we need better health care in this country. In France I saw armed guards in front of every bank. I read that there are also armed guards in front of synagogues and at Jewish schools. Yet banks still get robbed and Jews (including children) get shot. This doesn't mean that these protective measures don't work. It means they are necessary.

- arnon1

December 21, 2012 at 8:17pm

Btw; I would also like to see demonstrations (like the take over wall street demonstrations) in every city demanding more effective gun control laws.

- arnon1

December 21, 2012 at 8:20pm

"Btw; I would also like to see demonstrations (like the take over wall street demonstrations) in every city demanding more effective gun control laws." I agree with you, arnon, but all the Wall Street demonstrations did for Republicans was convince them that their opponents are unwashed heathens. Ditto for demonstrators who would oppose ownership of an unlimited number of guns with no restrictions or safeguards. The GOP is now certified batty. I can see the Democrats taking over the House in 2014. It's our only hope for at least 2 years of progress in America.

- magboy47.

December 21, 2012 at 8:48pm

In the end, I don't think the NRA really cares if they look nakedly stupid--they figure that they can just wait this out and spend this out. And when you get down to the nitty-gritty, even if you effectively discredit their arguments and prescriptions, they will always believe that any attempt to control access to guns is a Plot By The Gub'mint to take away our guns and force us to become Secular Humanists. And Swedish, no doubt.

- lump516

December 21, 2012 at 8:50pm

I tend to agree that the NRA can sort of sit (or squirm) this one out, as there are legions of batty supporters out there who think that a group of constitutional and political thinkers sat down in Philadelphia 200+ years ago in order to give them a permanent right to hoard combat-level armaments to fight the government that the group of constitutional and political thinkers created.

- ironyroad

December 22, 2012 at 12:13am

In high school and college I belonged to the NRA and did frequent and extensive competitive target shooting, including 10 days at the 1957 National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio, where those matches have been held every year since 1907 and where several thousand shooters compete. I do not and never have hunted. I find killing for sport distasteful and, in any case, meat is more easily obtained at the local market. I have believed for years there should be a federal ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, including any weapons capable of firing more than six shots without reloading (this would allow individual collectors to keep six shooters from the past). Museums, law enforcement, and the military would be exempted. In both target shooting and hunting, there is absolutely no need for semi-automatic or automatic weapons, or high capacity magazines. The ban should make the manufacturing, sale, and possession of such weapons illegal, with an automatic penalty of ten years in prison. Current owners would be given 90 days to turn in such weapons to law enforcement authorities, throw them in the ocean, or otherwise destroy them, with amnesty granted during that period for owners not licensed in accordance with state or local laws. After that, possession would be an automatic ten years in the slammer. Authorities would not have the power to search homes or automobiles for such weapons without reasonable cause. Not being a lawyer, I can’t opine on what would be a reasonable cause, but I would think it would be similar to that required for illegal drugs. Again, there is absolutely no need for such weapons when engaging in legitimate hunting or target shooting. Within populated areas, target shooting should be restricted to ranges licensed by local authorities. We are not in a war zone, so the added protection that might be afforded someone against intruders in their home is not worth the risk of allowing such weapons to be available for someone to steal or misuse. The rednecks who feel it’s OK to plink cans or explode Tannerite targets or propane tanks in populated areas or anywhere they want to, or to obliterate targets or game by firing multiple rounds from an automatic weapon at them will have to find other forms of amusement. These Neanderthals will have to start behaving like grownups. If they can’t exist without such entertainment, let them pursue it on video games at the mall, where no one can get hurt.

- truthman

December 22, 2012 at 1:08am

A lot of what thruthman has said goes to the heart of many facets of the nutso gun lover problem. Since many NRA members reasonably oppose high capacity magazines and these non-sporting people killer gun variants, one may assume that they are the "captive NRA members" who are forced to join in order to be able to use certain shooting ranges. As a wild fantasy, perhaps we should push for "right to shoot" laws (a tad less ironically named than "right to work" laws) in states where Democrats control the legislative process. The intent of such laws would be to get rid of the NRA hooks clawed into these shooting ranges and thereby deprive the NRA of a chunk of its rather lucrative but partially imposed revenue stream. Alas, one fears that the gun and ammo manufacturers and a few very rich crazies could easily make up the lost revenue; but at least the message would be sent that the NRA won't be able to "tithe" quite so extensively on folks who really enjoy rather sane target shooting activities and do not support the reprehensible and insensitive positions held by the NRA and so nauseatingly trotted out by Wayne LaPierre on Friday.

- spolnaszek

December 22, 2012 at 3:09am

It is disappointing, though not surprising, that LaPierre failed to endorse a ban on “assault” weapons, or endorse greater restrictions on the acquisition of legal firearms. Beyond that, however, I don’t see how LaPierre’s comments are “crazy,” or even necessarily wrong. Putting armed police officers in every elementary schools is not crazy. It may be wrongheaded for a number of reasons, including that it would be cost-prohibitive, that it would probably be counter-productive, and that it doesn’t address the prevention of similar shooting sprees in other contexts. But it is not crazy, even if misguided, to think that the presence of armed police officers in schools might deter the kind of attack that occurred in Newtown. Nor is it crazy to opine that our culture of violence, including movies and videogames that permit people to vicariously enjoy the most despicable forms of violence, is a major contributing cause of not only these mass shootings, but of gun violence in general. Nor is it crazy to opine that we need to do better at addressing mental illness (though I am skeptical about a governmental list of mentally ill persons). Nor is it illegitimate to tag the media for heaping notoriety on the mass killers and thus incentivizing “copy cats.” Indeed, while a ban on assault weapons MIGHT reduce the frequency of such mass shootings, or reduce the number of people who could be killed in such shootings, it is highly unlikely to eliminate them. And a ban on assault weapons will do virtually nothing to stem the gun violence across our country that kills thousands of people, including children, every year. A ban on assault weapons is a worthy goal, but we should not let it distract us from addressing our mental health issues and our culture of violence. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 22, 2012 at 10:02am

"It is disappointing, though not surprising, that LaPierre failed to endorse a ban on “assault” weapons, or endorse greater restrictions on the acquisition of legal firearms." The NRA exists to perpetuate the false belief that we a have a right to bear machine guns. Does anyone know what the NRA's relation to the gun manufacturing industry is? It's up to the voters to force Congress to pass restrictions on semiautomatic weapons. The first step could be the setting up of a counter NRA organization: something like MADD. They should call it PASAG or People Against Semi-Automatic Guns.

- arnon1

December 22, 2012 at 12:13pm

"But it is not crazy, even if misguided, to think that the presence of armed police officers in schools might deter the kind of attack that occurred in Newtown." I think you make a fair point, dhurt, but it is very strange, to say the least, to imagine that we (a) live in a generally orderly society in which the rule of law is taken seriously and (b) simultaneously require armed guards in every school in the land to prevent massacres of children. To that extent, I think that probing a little deeper into the state of affairs brings us up against some oddly crazy things, and someone in a leadership position seriously proposing solutions that are cost-prohibitive, counter-productive, and limited in their scope while studiously ignoring other relevant facts might be one of them.

- ironyroad

December 22, 2012 at 2:13pm

How disappointing. You chide the nra for failing to make a proposal to limit guns, as though that was the end to be achieved. I know of know law to limit guns that would pass constitutional muster that would have prevented Sandy Hook. I believe as does the nra that good guys with guns can stop bad guys, especially the cowardly types prone to commit such murders. It is not enough to lambaste laPierre. Tell us why, in your opinion, his proposal will not work.

- horsefly

December 22, 2012 at 2:58pm

"....we (a) live in a generally orderly society in which the rule of law is taken seriously and (b) simultaneously require armed guards in every school in the land to prevent massacres of children." Al societies that I have read about seem to be steeped in blatant contradictions. If you compare the contradictions inherent in the right to bear arms and the right "to life...." never mind the right to liberty or pursuit of happiness, this contradiction is minuscule compare to the contradiction that accompanied the birth of this nation between the right to liberty and the right to possess some people as property. I hope we won't have to fight a civil war to resolve the latter contradiction.

- arnon1

December 22, 2012 at 2:58pm

His (The NRA's) proposal want work first because it's insufficient, second because there is no clear distinction between good guys and bad guys, third because the same people who support the NRA wouldn't want their taxes raised to pay for the school protection, and fourth because the NRA itself is part of the problem.

- arnon1

December 22, 2012 at 3:03pm

I would add to arnon's list the following: a) the distinct possibility that a shoot-out in closed spaces between a guard and a would-be perpetrator would cause carnage and an equally distinct possibility that a guard could unwittingly fire a shot that richochetted and wounded or even killed a child; and b) La Pierre's argument that violent video games or movies caused such shootings (seemingly not the case in Sandy Hook, at least) crumbles when asked the question as to why other advanced western nations, where similar media fare is likewise available, face little to no threat of armed massacres -- that does suggest strongly that weapon availability has a big role). Indeed, the exceptions (e.g. Dunblane in 1996, the island near Oslo in 2011) are so few that everyone can recall them.

- ironyroad

December 22, 2012 at 3:16pm

“the distinct possibility that a shoot-out in closed spaces between a guard and a would-be perpetrator would cause carnage and an equally distinct possibility that a guard could unwittingly fire a shot that richochetted and wounded or even killed a child…” Yes this is possible, of course, I won’t deny it. The first duty of a well-trained of policeman is to protect the lives of innocent people in a crime scene, oftentimes at the risk of their own lives. Protecting the innocent isn't always possible but that in itself is no argument against the presence of policeman in schools. If one would have to choose between one innocent victim getting wounded, or dying from ricocheting bullets and the deaths of countless children the choice, it seems to me, is clear. This is why I said that gun control should be the first option. Until that magical moment arrives, though, we need to do everything possible to protect our children; that includes policeman in schools paid for by a special tax on semiautomatic weapons.

- arnon1

December 22, 2012 at 7:07pm

Good idea, arnon. Tax the hell out of automatic weapons and the ammunition that goes with them. The Constitution does not say that weapons of slaughter should be free. If they are so dear to gun worshipers, make them dear in the monetary sense, too. Then they could be fondled like, say, a precious stone would.

- magboy47.

December 23, 2012 at 2:44am

I think the 2d amendment is anachronistic. And I think the "right to bear arms" has been construed much too broadly by the current Supreme Court. But it is incorrect that taxing the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be an abridgment of that right. The test is "undue burden." "Taxing the hell out of" the exercise of a constitutional right might very well be an undue burden. That said, it is not at all clear that the 2d amendment – even as currently construed – encompasses the right to bear automatic weapons, any more than it encompasses the right to bear bazookas, Howitzers or armored tanks. Second amendment worshippers fail to understand that NO constitutional right is absolute. Of necessity, any constitutional right must be balanced against other legitimate interests. The jurisprudence of the right to free speech under the 1st amendment is a prime example. The 1st amendment does not protect fraudulent or defamatory speech. It does not protect speech that incites violence. And it does not insulate speech from reasonable time and place restrictions as long as the restrictions are not based on the government’s disapproval of the content of the speech. Likewise, the right to bear arms need not necessarily be construed to protect the right to own weapons that are designed for aggression against other humans rather than self-defense, or to protect gun possession from reasonable restrictions to ensure the public safety. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 23, 2012 at 9:41am

At this point, it's too late to do anything about guns. The politics of gun control are simply intractable, when a significant minority of the population, many of whom have accumulated large arsenals of lethal firepower, has been led to believe that any curtailment of their fundamental human right to own guns is an instance of tyranny comparable to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. That's no exaggeration--that's exactly the hyperbolic rhetoric they invoke. While events like Newtown and the daily litany of gun deaths from road rage, domestic violence and drug warfare are very painful for all those involved (especially those who don't survive), these killings actually affect only a miniscule minority of the population. And we face other issues that affect far larger numbers of people. It's impossible to do anything effective about guns. Legislation, even if it manages to get enacted, inevitably gets watered down to the point of meaninglessness. There are many other serious problems affecting much larger numbers of people that call for solutions--solutions that in themselves will require an enormous expenditure of political effort. Why bother expending the effort on the gun problem, serious as it is, when it doesn't touch the majority of people's lives, apart from making them feel very insecure? As disgusted as I am about the pervasiveness of firearms in America, and as outraged as I am about events like Newtown, I'm deeply pessimistic that anything can be accomplished to put an end to this.

- BillW

December 23, 2012 at 10:09am

That nut LaPierre was on Meet the Press this morning. He made it clear that he wants no background checks on any gun sale, because "it doesn't work." He then lied that changing any gun law at all will result in all guns being taken away from all Americans. This is a big, Hitler-type lie. People who believe this are just as crazy as mass shooters; they simply aren't as violent--yet. Remember, the Newtown shooter's mother believed this, and then she took her mentally ill son to a shooting range and trained him in the use of a Bushmaster. LaPierre lied that people who want to change gun laws in the slightest are trying to get rid of the Second Amendment (I strongly support the Second Amendment). Everything is a matter of degree. LaPierre is an extremist gun dealer. He doesn't understand a small degree of change. I agree with his idea to put armed, trained guards in schools. But then he again lied that the Newtown nut shot his way into the school. He didn't; he snuck in. How many guards do you need at a school to prevent somebody from sneaking in wearing armor? And, yes, the only way to pay for the number of armed guards that make a difference is by taxing the hell out of automatic weapons--forget the other weapons--just the automatic ones that lead to the slaughter of schoolchildren. Taxes on cigarettes lead to treatment of lung cancer and emphysema, not only for smokers, but for those around them. Taxes on military assault weapons can partially prevent mass slaughter in schools (another lie that LaPierre told is that assault weapons are not used by the military). How about using Bushmaster taxes to pay for bulletproof vests for all students? How about installing bulletproof glass in every school window? How about putting a laser shield around all school zones? Hmmm? And, hey, as long as we're being extremist, like LaPierre, why don't we make it a constitutional right to train mentally ill people in the use of military assault weapons, like the Newtown shooter's mother did? Anything less is literally ripping every last gun from the cold, dead hands of Americans.

- magboy47.

December 23, 2012 at 10:26am

With regard to the relationship between violence in the entertainment media and gun violence: As horrific and unacceptable as mass shootings are, they have not happened with sufficient frequency to make any meaningful statistical inferences. I wonder what the comparison would look like if we focused on the relationship between violence in the entertainment media and gun violence generally. My guess is that the combination of a culture of violence and easy access to guns creates a much more combustible situation than either a culture of violence or easy access to guns would create by itself. But I simply don’t understand the dismissiveness by some of the notion that violent video games could cause violent behavior. If media cannot affect behavior, then what is the premise for the advertising/marketing industry? What is the premise for using the media to try to persuade the public to engage in certain conduct, whether it be political or otherwise? Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 23, 2012 at 10:29am

I agree with BillW--completely. We have crazy shooters who slaughter people, and we have crazy gun worshipers who think happiness is a warm gun. America is not only going down the fiscal slope, but the mental one. All civilizations die. Get used to it.

- magboy47.

December 23, 2012 at 10:31am

BTW, Lindsay Graham was on Meet the Press, too, and he agreed with LaPierre, saying he himself owns an AR-15 and that taking away his right to own one is eliminating the Second Amendment. Later, when talking about the debt ceiling, he made it clear that the Republicans are again going to hold America and the world hostage when dealing with Obama. Extremism in one area breeds extremism in others. Many Republicans have the mindset of religious fanatics--everything is black-and-white.

- magboy47.

December 23, 2012 at 10:42am

I agree with truthman and others here, but a major problem is that many gun-nuts of my acquaintance aren't interested so much in protecting their right to hunt or shoot at the range or even defend their homes against burglars (although they would still like to be able to do these things); for them, the 2nd Amendment is about being able to resist putative "tyranny." That would almost seem reasonable if we didn't live in a world where a moderate and often ineffectual technocratic president was deemed a "tyrant" by large portions of the population. So how do we engage with people like this about reasonable gun restrictions without feeding right into their paranoia? Incidentally, the most recent person to expound upon this topic did agree that private citizens shouldn't have nukes or F-16s, although by his own logic, I wonder why not.

- frippo

December 23, 2012 at 11:29am

I have to say this. It is my impression that those who insist that their right to horde assault weapons is derived from the Second Amendment relate to the Second Amendment, which is merely a kind of glorified and authoritative law written by human beings, as if it were an Item of faith. It tells them everything they need to know about mass murder and accessibility of weapons and what not. There is not one visible chink of doubt in their attitude that I can notice. In this they remind me strongly of those devout Muslims who believe, without any trace of independent thinking or awareness, that their prophet was indeed the perfect human being, and whatever he did or wrote was the only way to be. Thus if he married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9, then it is perfectly moral and sensible to continue to do so today. What's the difference between the two attitudes? I don't see any. Is there any way you can talk to or reason with people who take something that was written a long time ago as the beginning and end of their moral universe?

- Noga

December 23, 2012 at 3:03pm

"There is not one visible chink of doubt in their attitude that I can notice. In this they remind me strongly of those devout Muslims who believe, without any trace of independent thinking or awareness, that their prophet was indeed the perfect human being, and whatever he did or wrote was the only way to be." The difference between Shariah law and constitutional law is that the latter is continuously being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Another difference is that the Constitution can me amended while the koran "is the perfect word of god" and hence cannot be amended or changed in any way. The difference hence is huge.

- arnon1

December 23, 2012 at 4:16pm

I don't understand why there is a quote of mine in arnon1's comment and then commentary that elucidates what was actually a primary assumption in my rumination which could not be understood without it: "It is my impression that those who insist that their right to horde assault weapons is derived from the Second Amendment relate to the Second Amendment, which is merely a kind of glorified and authoritative law written by human beings, as if it were an Item of faith." That's as if I made some remark about butter being an undesirable food for the lactose intolerant and someone would respond by saying: there is a great difference between butter and margarine. Some people cannot consume butter because it is made of milk.

- Noga

December 23, 2012 at 5:52pm

As is her wont in justifying ignorance Noga scribbles more nonsense: "Some people cannot consume butter because it is made of milk." Some people can't consume the US constitution because it's made of abstract precepts. An amendment to a law or a system of laws means that the law is not a universal principle that can never be altered. The very definition of the term amendment is to change or modify. That some in the NRA think (erroneously) that the 2nd amendment is written in stone doesn't change that.

- arnon1

December 23, 2012 at 7:37pm

arnon keeps insisting on proving that he has serious reading comprehension issues. Let me try again: My comment was not intended to draw an analogy (as in equivalence) between the Constitution and the Quran, but between those who regard the Constitution as if it were holy writ, the way some Muslims consider the Quran to be holy writ. Why arnon, a pompous incontinently self-admiring Mr. know-all, keeps misinterpreting this simple comment is beyond my ken. BTW, before I forget, wishing you all very happy holidays, joy in Christmas and a tolerable year in 2013. To ask for more is to tempt fate.

- Noga

December 23, 2012 at 8:16pm

Here is what Noga said. I'll let people decide what her meaning was: 12/23/2012 - 3:03pm EDT | Noga "I have to say this. It is my impression that those who insist that their right to horde assault weapons is derived from the Second Amendment relate to the Second Amendment, which is merely a kind of glorified and authoritative law written by human beings, as if it were an Item of faith. It tells them everything they need to know about mass murder and accessibility of weapons and what not. There is not one visible chink of doubt in their attitude that I can notice. In this they remind me strongly of those devout Muslims who believe, without any trace of independent thinking or awareness, that their prophet was indeed the perfect human being, and whatever he did or wrote was the only way to be. Thus if he married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9, then it is perfectly moral and sensible to continue to do so today. What's the difference between the two attitudes? I don't see any. Is there any way you can talk to or reason with people who take something that was written a long time ago as the beginning and end of their moral universe?" The very analogy is stupid since I doubt even that self serving manipulator Wayne LaPierre of the NRA believes that the constitution can't be changed. The fact that he holds press conferences defending his position means that he is trying to convince others that he is right and that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be amended. The NRA has done everything possible for years to avoid a court battle on the meaning of the second amendment since they are nor sure they would win. http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12

- arnon1

December 23, 2012 at 8:52pm

I can serve you the food, arnon. I can't eat it for you. Which is a euphemism for what an idiot.

- Noga

December 23, 2012 at 9:04pm

Irony, wrote “other advanced western nations, where similar media fare is likewise available, face little to no threat of armed massacres -- that does suggest strongly that weapon availability has a big role” Unfortunately, things are no so simple. If “weapons availability” was the primary factor, then we expect to see other “advanced” nations with easily obtainable weaponry manifest gun related mass killings. However, that is not the case. Switzerland has the highest militia gun ownership rate in the world. Swiss law requires militia members to keep arms at home. Many Swiss citizens maintain a fully automatic military grade assault rifle with high capacity magazines. On a personal note, when I was in Berne for a conference in 2004, I was somewhat surprised to see these impressive looking guns make their way onto public transportation, ostensibly being transported for military training. Given that the necessary firepower is readily available in Switzerland, why do we not see mass firearm killings? Obviously the answer is complicated. Just like the reasons for America having a high number is complicated. I am not against an assault weapons ban, but I think illegalizing these exotic weapons will only make marginal improvement in the mass killing fatality rate. In the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people in Virginia Tech with a very ordinary and common handgun. Timothy McVeigh took 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, in the Oklahoma City bombing without using a gun. If someone is highly motivated, they will find a way to inflict serious damage. Banning assault weapons may satisfy the emotional need to “do something”, but it will not make a significant impact in practical terms. Unfortunately, the solution is as complicated as the problem.

- Nicomachus

December 23, 2012 at 9:41pm

Noga "I can serve you the food, arnon. I can't eat it for you. Which is a euphemism for what an idiot." It's not a euphemism, it's obvious that Noga thinks she is smarter than anyone else. It's also obvious that she is a weird self righteous bigot. Why would she even bring up the Koran in relation to NRA beliefs? Most of those people have their own religious fundamentalism beliefs. They don't need the Koran to turn them into absolutists. The reason Noga brought up the Koran is because it's her own obsession. The fact that a creep like you thinks I am an "idiot" makes me happy. I wouldn't want to be thought of as a sage by a cad like you.

- arnon1

December 23, 2012 at 10:29pm

Rate of gun ownership per country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Nicomachus: "Switzerland has the highest militia gun ownership rate in the world. Swiss law requires militia members to keep arms at home." What is the difference between gun ownership and "militia gun ownership rate?"

- arnon1

December 23, 2012 at 10:40pm

" Noga thinks she is smarter than anyone else. " Not smarter than anyone else. Smarter than you, for sure. But that's not hard to do.

- Noga

December 23, 2012 at 10:53pm

The bigot Noga has got to lie about her views. She thinks that she can win an argument by having the last word. What a stupid dork.

- arnon1

December 23, 2012 at 11:08pm

I am reluctant to join an exchange after it has sunk to name-calling, but, arnon, I did read noga's first post not as drawing an analogy between the Koran and the Constitution, but as drawing an analogy between those who regard the Second Amendment as embodying a sacred, immutable principle, and those who regard the text of the Koran in the same way. That said, it is indeed curious that noga picks on the Muslim faith in that regard, when the same observation could be made with regard to the sacred texts of Christendom and Judiaism. Dhurtado

- NR143296

December 24, 2012 at 12:13am

"Given that the necessary firepower is readily available in Switzerland, why do we not see mass firearm killings? Obviously the answer is complicated. Just like the reasons for America having a high number is complicated." Not too, Nicomachus. We Americans have a serious anger problem that the Swiss don't. We have been so spoiled by materialism, that we just want more and more out of life, much of which is unobtainable. Jay Leno said a few years ago in his monologue that everybody in America wants to shoot somebody. Not true, but close to a chilling degree. I doubt that the Swiss are pounded into the ground with ads for things most of them can't have like we are. Ultra-materialism is a lying devil. One of its biggest lies is that we can have power and control in the world. Those are the 2 most used words in ads. I guarantee you that a lot of NRA members are having fantasies of exercising power and control over "gun haters" right now.

- magboy47.

December 24, 2012 at 2:10am

"That said, it is indeed curious that noga picks on the Muslim faith in that regard" I picked on Islam because it is the most medieval religion among the major religions these days with the second greatest following in the world. Its oddities immediately come to mind. Unfortunately for your case, you won't find any Jew or Christian marrying a 9 year old girl while there are too many cases like that among Muslims. The kind of wrath that is evoked when this is referred to by puzzled people outside the faith is quite similar to its pitch and irrationality you encounter among the most devout gun lovers. I saw the other day some elderly person of some standing in his community stating that he needs assault weapons in order to protect his community against the government and cited the blessed forethought in the Second Amendment that thus enhances his freedom or something. Pretty weird stuff, as weird as that cited by some Muslims who quote the prophet as teaching that to hate the Jews is a religious imperative. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4322911,00.html "Oh Allah, you know what those accursed Jews have done, the corruption they spread across Earth… Strike them so that there is not one of them left. Allah, make the men and women sterile," Thank you for trying to drill some sense into arnon, a futile endeavor at any time but mostly when he is in "conversation" with me:) Happy holidays.

- Noga

December 24, 2012 at 8:47am

NR on the first point, we disagree, however it does see bizarre that someone should bring up the Koran as an example of absolute belief when most of the NRA that would appeal to religion they would use Christian fundamentalist beliefs rather than Muslim beliefs (or Jewish). I am guessing that the number of Jews in the NRA is very small. People used to point to Charlton Heston as a Jew not realizing that he was not Jewish.

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 12:33pm

Go fuck yourself, NOGA! You are still a bigot. She probably invented NR143296 to make herself seem more reasonable.

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 3:50pm

Nichomachus, I think there's a difference between the "availability" of weapons in Switzerland that is structured in a regulated tradition of mass military mobilization and "availability" in the United States that is essentially a consumer-driven environment more comparable to buying auto parts than anything else.

- ironyroad

December 24, 2012 at 4:25pm

"She probably invented NR143296 to make herself seem more reasonable." It's funny how arnon1 keeps coming up with these conspiracy theories about posters on TNR doubling under different names. He thought roi and Nayyerali were one and the same. And there was another case whose participants I forget who were accused of being the same person. The conspiratorial mindset must be a symptom of the mental disorder known as stupidity. BTW, NR143296 is Dhurtado who used to post here regularly and now appears more rarely.

- Noga

December 24, 2012 at 5:21pm

Noga I still posting and adding nothing to the discussion. She knows nothing about the history of gun control legislation in this country. She knows nothing about the Constitution or how people think of it. She knows nothing about the NRA its history or membership. What a jerk.

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 5:37pm

"Noga I still posting and adding nothing to the discussion. " Unlike arnon who consistently and invariably makes thoughtful contributions to the discussion, such as "Go fuck yourself, NOGA! You are still a bigot. She probably invented NR143296 to make herself seem more reasonable." Or "The bigot Noga has got to lie about her views. She thinks that she can win an argument by having the last word. What a stupid dork." Or: "it's obvious that Noga thinks she is smarter than anyone else. It's also obvious that she is a weird self righteous bigot. " Or, provides us with such useful tidbits such as "People used to point to Charlton Heston as a Jew not realizing that he was not Jewish". As if it has any relevance to the topic.

- Noga

December 24, 2012 at 5:53pm

She's baaaaaaaack. More NOGO self righteous nonsense. Wherever the bigot Nogo shows up she puts an end to the discussion. i

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 6:50pm

It takes some effort to explain to you your mistaken comprehension of what I write. If you were a bit more intelligent with better reading skills instead of insisting on forcing your quaint and malevolent interpretations on my words, you could have gotten your wish (presumably it is your wish to discuss. I'm not so sure about it). Your posts have a tendency to get increasingly more juvenile and meaningless as you keep trying to insult others into silence. I mean, what's the deal with the "NOGO"? How is that supposed to make any point about me? Hard to believe that any adult person could be so silly.

- Noga

December 24, 2012 at 7:02pm

One more post by NOGO. The NOGO knows nothing about the US Constitution, nothing about the NRA yet she decides that they think like Muslims. This is what chutzpah is. This NOGO bigot invented it.

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 7:20pm

The NRA creeps just had to think like Muslims to be creeps, pace NOGO. They couldn't think like Christian identity bigots or like some Christian fundamentalist who believe that the King James translation was dictated by god in English. If there are narrow minded fundamentalist they have to be Muslims they couldn't be Christian or Neturei Karta Haredim. This is the extent of NOGO's knowledge. She will do whatever it takes not to have to admit that she was wrong. She will lie and she will import irrelevant quotes, she will even pretend that she didn't say what she said. This is NOGO the bigoted creep.

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 7:37pm

It appears, with this latest comment of yours, arnon, that your reading skills are even more dismal than originally suspected. What was I thinking of, imagining one could have a rational conversation with an imbecile like you? Go on, respond with your usual childish baiting, which is the only thing you excel at. What an idiot.

- Noga

December 24, 2012 at 7:50pm

She is back, repeating her three or four rhetorical put downs. You have repeated them so often that they are as stale as last year's challah. Now, my put down is as fresh as this morning's daisy: GO FUCK YOURSELF NOGO!

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 8:09pm

I don't engage in putdowns, arnon. In puncturing hot air balloons, sometimes. You are too low to put down, anyway. It's not possible to put you down any lower than you have put yourself.

- Noga

December 24, 2012 at 9:52pm

irony, what you are essentially saying is that guns purchased on a private market rather than issued by the state somehow impact behavior. Or maybe you are saying that the Swiss are better at keeping guns out of the hands of unstable individuals. Or perhaps you agree with the NRA's "saturation" argument - everyone should have a gun and know how to use it. In any case, I think the reality is that the Swiss just don't want to shoot people en mass as much as Americans do. There is some cultural component at work here that we have not been able to fully isolate. Magboy's theory is that this is due to chronic dissatisfaction due to empty consumerism. It is a plausible theory, but I don't really see Lanza, Cho, Harris, Klebold, McVeigh, etc. as commercially dissatisfied. I think ultimately it is a complex set of societal factors: glorification of violence, anger, inability to address mental illness, macho man gun culture, access to weapons, lack of security measures, inability to deal with conflict constructively, etc. If we want to bring down the mass shooting rates, we have to try to address all of these to various extents. I don't think we can eliminate these types of incidents, but we can hopefully diminish the frequency.

- Nicomachus

December 24, 2012 at 10:24pm

I agree that there are social factors at work, but the availability of guns is also a major factor. We live here and not in Switzerland and until you can figure out what the social factors are we need to make the country safe from madman with guns. For now at least gub control is the only way. Do you have a better way of making, say, schools safe from killers with guns?

- arnon1

December 24, 2012 at 11:30pm

Arnon, Like I said in my previous posts, it depends on what you mean by "gun control". The Virginia Tech shooter, who has the highest body count to date in a single person shooting, used one of the most common, best selling handguns on the US market. The Columbine massacre high school students easily acquired guns illegally. Timothy McVeigh did not use guns at all and managed to kill 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. Banning assault weapons, the bad guy de jour everyone is now focused on, is purely symbolic and will do very little to curb mass shootings. "Assault weapons" are classified by superficial attributes like having a pistol grip or bayonet mount. The Ruger Mini-14 "deer rifle" used in the Norway attacks for example, would not be classified as an "assault weapon" even thought it uses the same cartridge, has the same firing speed, magazine capacity, and muzzle velocity as the Bushmaster XM-15 used in the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. If you are going to make a dent in mass shootings via gun control, you have to make most guns highly unavailable to most people. The vast majority of people can't be allowed to sell, buy, or own firearms. I assert that such an approach is politically and logistically infeasible. "Do you have a better way of making, say, schools safe from killers with guns?" No, I do not. Armed guards on school grounds may help, but this seems tenuous at best. Really, there is no answer. At the moment, it is an intractable problem.

- Nicomachus

December 25, 2012 at 7:36pm

Nicomachus “Like I said in my previous posts, it depends on what you mean by "gun control".” Nico, what I mean by serious gun control is deciding which guns are too dangerous for people to own and are unnecessary for hunting. We ban certain kinds of knives and have since the 19th c. We can surely ban semiautomatic weapons. I’ll leave it to the gun experts to decide which guns to ban and I am sure the country will be able to minimize its use. I am not convinced by arguments that so and so was able to acquire a weapon even though they had been banned. A few dmented individuals will be able to acquire banned weapons but most won’t even try. The boy who shot the children in Conn got his guns from his mother, for crying-out-loud. Where there is a will there is a way. I heard arguments of we can’t do this or we can’t do that all my life and most of them turned out to be false. Here are some of them: we could never integrate the races in the South, we could not stop fascism because most people in Europe support it (that was in the 1930’s); in the 1950’s the same argument was used to about communism. It will never be stopped. The list goes on. If governments in Europe and Australia can have gun control so can we.

- arnon1

December 25, 2012 at 8:08pm

Arnon - racism, fascism, and communism are not good analogies to the legality of guns. A better historical comparison is the legality of alcohol. Alcohol, like guns, has significant cultural appeal. It can be enjoyed responsibly and without causing harm to others; however, alcohol misuse can have deadly consequences. Same can be said for guns. In fact, more people in the US are killed in alcohol related accidents than in gun related homicides. Curiously, liberals are not clamoring for the total proscription of alcohol on that basis. They seem to have a specific preoccupation with guns. We saw what happened with government attempted to prohibit alcohol. A black market immediately sprung up bringing with it unprecedented criminality and violence. Most people that really wanted a drink continued to be able to get one. What exactly did this solve? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that our society likes booze, and it likes guns, and sometimes it likes to have both at the same time. This problem can't be solved by making shooting sprees more illegal than they already are.

- Nicomachus

December 26, 2012 at 4:20pm

"A better historical comparison is the legality of alcohol. Alcohol, like guns, has significant cultural appeal. It can be enjoyed responsibly and without causing harm to others:...." I will issue with that Nico. The primary purpose of a gun, any gun is to kill: when hunting you kill animals, when defending yourself you try to harm (by wounding or killing) the person you are fighting off. This makes guns very different from alcohol.

- arnon1

December 26, 2012 at 5:25pm