Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 31, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

FRED AND THE GUN NUTS....Fred Thompson says the UN wants to take away your guns. Mark Goldberg counters with logic and facts, but it's a hopeless task. Thompson is just pandering to Higher Wingnuttia here. For the straight stuff on this, let's turn the mike over to conspiracy theory central:

National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre insists the U.N. is concerned about more than illicit arms in African hot spots. He says the global body wants the firearms of American citizens — and much more.

"So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated," says the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. "I can hear it now: 'Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.' No thanks."

The illustration on the right, complete with reprogrammed American family blissfully Heil Hitlering the UN headquarters, comes from "Freedom in Peril," an NRA comic book that graphically explains all the various forces conspiring to take your guns away and turn us into a nation of slaves. Or, to use their own words: "Second Amendment freedom today stands naked in the path of a marching axis of adversaries far darker and more dangerous than gun owners have ever known. Acting alone and in shadowy coalitions, these enemies of freedom are preparing or a profound and foreboding confrontation in which they will not make the mistakes of their predecessors."

Your logic and your facts will get you nowhere here. Fred is just telling social conservatives, "I'm one of you. And I'm not afraid to look like a complete loon if that's what it takes to prove it."

Kevin Drum 1:12 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (70)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Posted by: Al on October 31, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I always wonder about the gun-rights folks' doomsday scenario:

They will take our guns.And make us do stuff.

Uh, what stuff?

Reintegrate us into civil society.

Ooh, scary.

Posted by: Raymondo Magnifico on October 31, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

shorter al: i'm crazy.

shorter fred: i'll pander to anyone in order to get a few votes.

you know, i hear dems being disparaged for playing interest group politics but at least most of those interest groups are sane. can't say the same about the other side.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on October 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I think hundreds of heavily armed people from diverse backgrounds should be permitted unescorted visits with nearly every member of the current administration.

Posted by: steve duncan on October 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Idiots vote for idiots. It's only right.

Posted by: chance on October 31, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives need to get their story straight. When liberals say the UN should be used more to help promote peace, conservatives argue back that the United Nations is and always will be so weak that the US is forced to do things on on its own.

But change the topic to gun control, and the conservative line is that UN is secretly running the world, and is on the verge of completely taking over our own country.

I guess expecting logical consistency from conservatives is a bit unrealistic.

Posted by: bobo the chimp on October 31, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

of course the only thing that is preserving our freedoms is the second amendment and guns in the hands of a vigilant citizenry ready and willing to go toe-to-toe with the 82nd airborne.otherwise, the government would be shredding the constitution ...

Posted by: mudwall jackson on October 31, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Is Fred back on his chemo?

Posted by: sid on October 31, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

During my brief psychiatric rotation during medical school, I learned that you can't reason with crazy people. What logical argument can be made to dissuade someone from believing that the TV is speaking directly to them? In the same vein, the response to political craziness should not be sane discussion and rebuttal. It should be identification and derision. We make the mistake of trying to explain why *they* are wrong. That presupposes that their point of view has merit. I would suggest that we presuppose that their position doesn't have merit and respond with identification and derision to belittle it. Put them on the defensive. For example, the correct answer to "The UN is trying to take away your guns," should be more like, "Sure, Fred, just like Santa Claus and the Soviet Union...both of which you still think exist."

Posted by: Josh B on October 31, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go I wanna be sedated
Nothin' to do and no where to go-o-oh I wanna be sedated
Just get me to the airport put me on a plane
Hurry hurry hurry before I go insane


Posted by: Joey on October 31, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

You know, a lot of people in the NRA are nice normal people. Wouldn't be able to tell them from any liberal in San Francisco...but the second I mention, "no, I disagree with the politics of the NRA, but thank you for inviting me to join them."
They go rabid, eyes ablazed with fury, and I'm thinking, "wth?"
I wasn't looking to join the NRA, I'm being polite and clearly stating I disagree with the NRA's politics, but suddenly because of that I'm a "G-d hating, gay abortionist, constitutional burning liberal, and America hating One world government drone!"
I think from now on I'll just politely excuse myself from their presence and quickly run away.

I'm a hunter, but I'm not stupid either. Guns, like driving cars and flying airplanes, is a priviledge earned, not a right inherited.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on October 31, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not surprised at all -either by the statements of Fred Thompson or Wayne LaPierre (French? Surrender Monkey?!)

I have a friend (who's a captain with American Airlines) whom I like, irrespective of the fact that he's a conservative and a gun nut. As you can expect, he was intensely worried about the millennium's approach; buying a generator, stocking up on water and MRE's (meals, ready-to-eat)and installing a wood burning stove in his home so he would have heat while our gas supply was shutdown... seriously!

He also presented me with a copy of the NRA magazine (bear in mind, every fatalistic or cataclysmic scenario that the NRA portends has the net result of driving gun sales...)

This article detailed the problem the country would face with the coming of 2000 and the computer systems in our prisons opening the doors and 'releasing' all the prisoners into society... the article ended with:

"Do you want to be unarmed and unprotected when
these murderers come for you and your family?"

Incredible, I know, but true...

Posted by: Brian on October 31, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Wake me up when the UN comes for my refrigerator.

Posted by: craigie on October 31, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Well, since it is Halloween - reading some of the NRA stuff is like reading some of the KKK stuff- you are like 'wtf?!'

Back in the 70's when a black guy came through rush at my frat I was suddenly exposed to the bigotry of many of my housemates - guys I thought I knew. That was a big bad shock. Finding out someone is a gun-nut gives the same feeling. Same with the Jesus freaks. Which actually is starting to sound like the GOP - no wonder I switched. I didn't leave the GOP - they left me in the 80s. When the gun nuts and fundies and bigots became public I became gone. Yuck!

Posted by: Tripp on October 31, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

If you ever want to see some frightening people -- really scary, not Halloween scary -- go to a gun show.

To a man, the dealers have this look of unbridled hatred in their eyes. That such people own guns, let alone traffic in them, makes you shudder.

And what's the deal with all the Nazi memorabilia? No souvenirs from wars against the Japanese, Vietnamese, Russian, Korean, or other nations we've ever fought in wars hot or cold. Just Nazi crap everywhere. Everything from potato masher grenades to Zyklon B canisters.

Just a bunch of sick, angry freaks. Do they even know how to operate a voting machine?

Posted by: Matt on October 31, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. Facts, schmacts.

Posted by: Homer Simpson on October 31, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

This paranoid right-wing fear mongering is an old vintage. It is only interesting in that it is still drinkable after fifty years. There are some depressingly fearful people living out there beyond the city walls in the shadow of a stalking beast.

Posted by: bellumregio on October 31, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Just a bunch of sick, angry freaks. Do they even know how to operate a voting machine?
Posted by: Matt on October 31, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove showed them how. They would be the 'base'. The 27%ers. The CHUD of America. The septic heart of the republican party.

Posted by: Northern Observer on October 31, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Posted by: Al on October 31, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Spoken like a true commissar.

Posted by: Northern Observer on October 31, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Holy crap, I'd accepted the fact that the NRA clan (klan?) are now a pack of loonies, but I had no idea how far they'd flung themselves into orbit.

Note how they try to co-opt the police into their cabal. Every cop I know thinks we need more, not less gun control. Heh.

Now where can I get me some of that Soros jihad money? I want to go after a couple of amendments, and then upgrade my furnace.

Posted by: trollhattan on October 31, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I think hundreds of heavily armed people from diverse backgrounds should be permitted unescorted visits with nearly every member of the current administration. Posted by: steve duncan

It's kind of interesting that more of them haven't been volunteering for service in Iraq. I thought that group preferred to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here?

Posted by: JeffII on October 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Is Fred back on his chemo? Posted by: sid

Don't know about that, but he's obviously on meds of some sort.

Posted by: JeffII on October 31, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Wake me up when the UN comes for my refrigerator.
Posted by: craigie

Pussie! What about your TV and DVD player?

Posted by: JeffII on October 31, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

it's kind of interesting that more of them haven't been volunteering for service in Iraq. I thought that group preferred to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here?

no, they prefer to have someone else fight their wars.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on October 31, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

This paranoid right-wing fear mongering is an old vintage.

John Birch Society, '59, I believe.

Posted by: Gregory on October 31, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

What about your TV and DVD player?

They can have my DVD player when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Posted by: Gregory on October 31, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

hey kevin,

you know, as nutty as the nra'ers are about this, they did not make up that graphic, right?

there really is a statue just like that outside the u.n. headquarters:
http://www.blueofthesky.com/publicart/works/nonviolence.htm

that's at least peripherally relevant to measuring their degree of insane paranoia.
(it still goes up to 11).

Posted by: kid bitzer on October 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Plus, look what they've done to the barrel of that gun! They're gonna tie our penises in knots!

Posted by: larry birnbaum on October 31, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure we can soon expect lots of editorials from the likes of David Broder and the WaPo Op-Ed page tut-tutting how the GOP is hostage to its extremist fringe, and how these sort of crazy out of the mainstream statments from Frederick of Hollywood risk alienating Republicans from the sensible middle....right?

Oh, no, wait, I forgot. Those rules only apply to Democrats....

Posted by: Stefan on October 31, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

peni

Posted by: Matt on October 31, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Do they even know how to operate a voting machine?

Not enough time has passed since that was the official excuse for Al Gore losing Florida* until Democrats are allowed to use that line. Hits to close to home for too many of the core constituency who couldn't tell the difference between Buchanan and Gore on a simple voting card. Hence, they're Democrats.


*prior to the morons stepping in & saying it was stolen; yeah, they're morons

Posted by: RW on October 31, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hasn't this bunch been saying that since the U.N. was created?

Posted by: Daryl on October 31, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Remember that John Bolton, before he was the unconfirmed ambassador to the UN, was the NRA's point-man at state, and scuppered the UN Small Arms Treaty, somehow under the impression that global rules designed to limit the ability of militias to arm kidnapped children with AK-47s would be a fatal blow to the second amendment.

Your NRA at work: objectively pro-child soldier.

Posted by: ahem on October 31, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Apparently, truthiness in the face of reality is not a sin, either.

Posted by: Indiana Joe on October 31, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

The NRA's choice of format for "Freedom in Peril" is telling.

Posted by: david on October 31, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa succeeded in getting the earth to completely disarm, whereupon we were invaded by Aliens with sharp sticks who proudly proclaimed “You superior intellects are no match for our pathetic weapons.”

Posted by: fafner1 on October 31, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Don't go looking to Goldberg for facts and logic; even the UN specifies explicitly that its own Article 51 refers to an individual and collective right of states to self-defense (ie. acting alone or in concert), not of individual humans.

The UN's mistakes are severalfold:
1) A peculiar notion that self-defense is an offence against another which should be excused, rather than simply a reaction to another's violation which requires no excuse at all.
2) A peculiar notion that if the right to self-defense (or the use of small arms) isn't explicitly mentioned, the right may not exist. The right is in fact inherent with the right to life.
3) A limited view of tools of self-defense as a means of thwarting criminals, when the real point of the right to bear arms is to thwart tyrannical government.

Many of the UN's member states would like it just fine if they had an excuse to disarm their peoples, and the UN's deliverables show it.

Posted by: VRWC on October 31, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:"The illustration on the right, complete with reprogrammed American family blissfully Heil Hitlering the UN headquarters,..."

Kevin,
Might want to take another look at the illustration.

Posted by: majarosh on October 31, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Why do conservatives think they have to create scenarios that are just plum pitiful in order to get people to vote for them?

I guess it must work at some level. The rest of us just shake our heads in amazement that the most powerful people in America fear a UN takeover. Hell, you could probably take over the UN with just the firepower and personnel stationed at Blackwater Lodge in North Carolina. (Note to the NRA: but don't try it, it won't work in the long run).

Obviously, the issue isn't gun control. What is the real NRA/conservative agenda anyway?

Posted by: pj in jesusland on October 31, 2007 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Plus, look what they've done to the barrel of that gun! They're gonna tie our penises in knots!"


Who's more of a sick freak, the guy who thinks of his gun is a penis substitute...

or the nanny-stater who want to take everybody's penises away? ;)

Posted by: L on October 31, 2007 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

I hate that UN because I was looking forward to concealing my handgun under the burka the Islamofacists are going to make us wear.

Posted by: jrw on October 31, 2007 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon, guys - you missed the dog whistle. The people who are the target are those who have read Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins LEFT BEHIND series. The whole scenario for the end times - the big kahuna - the God-setting-everything-right is that the Antichrist becomes Secretary General of the United Nations and immediately disarms all the nations - taking everyone's weapons, including the nuclear aresenal of the U.S., Israel, Britain, and France. La Haye and Jenkins didn't know about India, Pakistan, etc., when they wrote the series and they had the Russians and Ethiopians (I am so not making this up) using their nuclear arsenals against Israel (to no avail - they just ended up exploding harmlessly in open fields). So remember that unless you know the entire backstory, things that seem stupid and idiotic to you are just confirmation of what some people consider to be authentic foretelling of the future.

Posted by: BC on October 31, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

I missed this gem on first passthrough:

"The U.N. will reach our kids before the NRA can."

The horror.

Posted by: trollhattan on October 31, 2007 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

I have been waiting for the 'Armed Liberal' movement to appear. Given the authoritarian streak in the Republican Party, the NRA, and behavior like Col. Boylan's I think being heavily armed is not a bad idea for this side of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Nat on October 31, 2007 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Gosh, doesn't that illustration just look awfully, well...PHALLIC?? Can it be that all wingnuts are really just afraid of someone tying their di**s into nots.

Or maybe progressives just have dirty minds. We're all about the sex scandals you know.

Posted by: bluewave on October 31, 2007 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

You hear a lot of extreme rhetoric from the NRA, but, the UN is going to take our guns and reprogram our brains?

I have often thought these sorts of statements were just red meat thrown to the mouthbreathers to get them all hopped up. But something like that? I can't help but conclude Wayne LaPierre actually believes what he is saying. He has to be totally down with the black helicopter crowd.

In light of the fact conventional wisdom has found Kucinich to be a nut because of the UFO thing, when can we expect LaPierre, and the NRA by extension, to get the same treatment? I can guarantee you that a lot more people believe in the existence of extraterrestrials than in the likelihood of UN mind control regimes.

Posted by: Joe Bob on October 31, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

It's a shame this issue is so polarized. I know quite a few gun owners and collectors who aren't "gun nuts" and who are actually very intelligent folks who don't buy into the whole UN-confiscation NRA scenario, yet find themselves leaning that way. I don't believe that the Democratic party and 2nd Amendment rights are necessarily polar opposites, but that's how it's portrayed. Gun ownership seems to be one of those either-or issues like abortion. I believe a savvy Democratic candidate could really make some headway with a more nuanced approach to gun control and gun ownership.

Posted by: shnooky on October 31, 2007 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

The people who are the target are those who have read Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins LEFT BEHIND series. The whole scenario for the end times - the big kahuna - the God-setting-everything-right is that the Antichrist becomes Secretary General of the United Nations and immediately disarms all the nations - taking everyone's weapons, including the nuclear aresenal of the U.S., Israel, Britain, and France.

Of course, Dennis Kucinich is a nutcase for saying he saw a UFO. while people who believe that 'Left Behind' is prophetic are taken seriously in US politics.

Posted by: ahem on October 31, 2007 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

It's a shame this issue is so polarized. I know quite a few gun owners and collectors who aren't "gun nuts" and who are actually very intelligent folks who don't buy into the whole UN-confiscation NRA scenario, yet find themselves leaning that way.
Posted by: shnooky

Your gun owning acquaintances are the root of the problem. The NRA was hijacked from people like them to become the National Assault Rifle, High-Caliber 15-Round Clip Handgun and Armor Piercing Bullet Association.

I work with a half dozen guys that hunt. Doesn't bother me in the least.

Posted by: JeffII on October 31, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

Your gun owning acquaintances are NOT the root of the problem.

Is this what you meant, Jeff? Otherwise your statements don't make sense. And I agree. Many people I know who were once members of the NRA have dropped their memberships because of the NRA extremist agenda. I am one who believes in reasonable gun control, but don't deny me the right to own one. I think the problem is more of enforcing what we now have on the books rather than restricting gun ownership more.

Posted by: bob in fla on October 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't Ron Paul also say that the UN wanted to take Americans' guns away? Of course, on most days, I can't remember what I had for lunch. Perhaps. I misremembered that, too.

Posted by: Mazurka on October 31, 2007 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

A limited view of tools of self-defense as a means of thwarting criminals, when the real point of the right to bear arms is to thwart tyrannical government

Millions of gun owners in the USA; a fine job of thwarting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney they've done...

Posted by: dr sardonicus on October 31, 2007 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

VRWC: A limited view of tools of self-defense as a means of thwarting criminals, when the real point of the right to bear arms is to thwart tyrannical government.

Maybe 200 years ago armed individuals were the answer. Not today. Today the tools and techniques necessary to "thwart tyrannical government" are a bit different. If you're seriously concerned about it, then pay less attention to your guns, and more attention to improving government accountability, transparency, the integrity of the electoral process, the importance of a free press, etc.

Posted by: has407 on October 31, 2007 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

The thought of mandatory UN-sponsored, Saturday afternoon gun collections at firehouses across the country boggles the mind. Or perhaps the blue helmeted UN troops would go door-to-door searching our closets or looking for freshly dug holes in our back yards? And who would pay for the UN to do all this?

This is another example of conservatives taking their self-pitying persecution complex and adding a dose of anger in order to rile easily manipulated gun owners who have no common sense.

The GOP national nominating convention must be a real head trip. Here's a thought: at the next GOP convention the GOP leadership should practice what they preach and allow attendees to carry their guns openly, just like the GOP and the NRA insist people be allowed to do in Virginia restaurants and shopping malls.

I wonder what kind of a convention they would have then -- "The chair recognizes the distinguished delegate from . . . BLAM! BLAM! OK, while his wounds are being treated the chair will next recognize the delegate from . . ."


Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 1, 2007 at 4:32 AM | PERMALINK

Who, exactly, is going to go from door to door to take these guns away? What law enforcement officer, in their right mind, is going to go through the "hollers" of my home state of WV to confiscate guns?

I suggest that not one would do it. If they did, then you would have thousands of Ruby Ridge/Waco scenarios.

But still, its fun to point out to the NRAers that the first place a governmental body could go for a list of gun owners is the NRA membership list...and the NRA office is conveniently located right down the street from the Justice Department.

By they way, I own 9 guns - 3 handguns, 2 rifles, and four shotguns.

Posted by: Luther on November 1, 2007 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

VRWC: when the real point of the right to bear arms is to thwart tyrannical government.

That's right, but as usual, the conditional phrase gets dumped. The "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the common defense" always gets 'left behind', too. The Federalist Papers spend little time on this issue but there is the thought that 1 to 2 weeks per year of training in military evolutions should be sufficient.

I'm in favor of gun ownership along with annual training. That way, the strict constructionists could be satisfied, the gun owners are happy and the country has a larger pool for service in Iraq. Gun owners would be partly trained already.

Fred's subtext, along with others mentioned, is the whole one world government idea. Another cognitive dissonance moment for Rs ready to listen to Fred since the UN can't be seen as a useless appendage and a serious threat to dominate the world at the same time.

Posted by: TJM on November 1, 2007 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

>Maybe 200 years ago armed individuals were the answer. Not today.

There are people in countries other than the US who would disagree, if they were still alive to speak against the governments which slaughtered them or failed to prevent it.

The Second Amendment's prefatory clause does not set a condition; it reminds States of the Union of their obligation. The right to bear arms is unconditional for precisely the reason that governments can be expected to sometimes ignore or pervert their obligations.

The principle is simple: people have an inherent right to resist a threat to life with equal force, and an inherent right to overthrow tyranny. That means ownership of means at least up to and including contemporary small arms, whatever they might be for the era in question - muskets, breech-loaders, or assault rifles. All the arguments which hinge on the interpretation of laws or drafting of new laws are just attempts to subvert the principle by pretending it can be defined away.

Posted by: VRWC on November 1, 2007 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

By they way, I own 9 guns - 3 handguns, 2 rifles, and four shotguns.

MAL: Jayne, how many guns you planning on taking? You only got the two arms.

--Serenity

Posted by: ajay on November 1, 2007 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

"The principle is simple: people have an inherent right to resist a threat to life with equal force, and an inherent right to overthrow tyranny." -- VRWC

VRWC, does your principle also apply to industrial polluters, health insurance companies that deny patients life-saving procedures, mining companies that send workers down unsafe tunnels, drug companies that market poorly tested products . . .??? If so then I could sign on to your statement, otherwise it's just more NRA gun-totin' hot air.

FYI, guns can only protect our lives under a relatively narrow set of circumstances and even then it's problematic.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 1, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Download the book. It looks like something you'd see in the old National Lampoon: enemies of freedom in glaring primary hues ("SENATOR SAM and his COMMITTEE of DOOM!"), our noble heroes Lapierre and Clyde Tolson as the men in black as engraved by Elk Eber.

It takes a weird type of brain to believe this stuff. Most of us think in three areas: past, present and future, which allows us to take long, considered views. But the target demo of this drivel only thinks in the now. They don't mind the fact that they're two paychecks away from homelessness because they can't even manage thinking ahead for two days. Ever notice how the WalMart ads come out no more than one day before the sale?

Posted by: Steve Paradis on November 1, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Go after polluters in the courts. As for the rest, change your insurance provider or pay your own way, quit your mining job or strike for safer conditions, and avoid untested products. I assume you're not trying to conflate your response to someone threatening you with imminent death with your response to non-imminent threats.

Posted by: VRWC on November 1, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

...The thought of mandatory UN-sponsored, Saturday afternoon gun collections at firehouses across the country boggles the mind. Or perhaps the blue helmeted UN troops would go door-to-door searching our closets or looking for freshly dug holes in our back yards? And who would pay for the UN to do all this?...
Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 1, 2007 at 4:32 AM
^^^^

I was at a family Thanksgiving two years ago and a Navy guy (mid 20's) and his wife were there. Starting chatting with him and drinking beer after dinner and he started telling me that if Hillary Clinton got elected that the "Blue Hats" were going to *invade* the US and confiscate all our weapons! It took me by surprise... "Blue Hats"? What's that? What are you talking about? The guy was some sort of electronics specialist-probably had to pass trigonometry at least. Whoa. Wasn't a fundie though. I think there is some sort of critical microprocessor of sorts that is well... missing here. A chip is missing in their heads. Some sort of critical discriminator chip. There, that's it.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 1, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on November 1, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, there are Gun Nuts in America.
They are not the normal law-abiding citizens who desire to use firearms for self-protection or sport. Not even the NRA, whose level of hyperbole is not anything more than the Sierra Club on the environment.

The real gun nuts are the nuts who want to ignore a part of the Bill of Rights and take away that self-defense right by regulating and banning guns.
And to justify these trampling on right, nothing works better than to dehumanize and denigrate those who disagree with the Agenda as mentally unbalanced, sick, etc. Like the - "Just a bunch of sick, angry freaks." - comment.

Now, imagine the topic was the beliefs of inner city minority resident. Then look at the comments. What would you call the people saying things like "A chip is missing in their heads"... hmmm.

Posted by: Pj, PhD on November 3, 2007 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

But hey, Kevin, don't let some inconvenient facts (i.e. the UN Report says exactly what Thompson says it does) ruin your totally awesome rant:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/11/fred_thompson_t_1.shtml

Speak that truth to power, baby!

Posted by: SoCal Dave on November 3, 2007 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, Mark Goldberg is a paid subsidiary of the UN Foundation, so you are a hack who puts out press releases of enemies of the US Constitution. You are the loon and the nutjob in this instance, Kevin.

Posted by: daveinboca on November 4, 2007 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin,

When are you going to print a correction?:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_10_28-2007_11_03.shtml#1194117113

I wonder if everyone-in-this-thread's head is going to explode when they find out the righties are right on this one!

Posted by: Bill in Boston on November 4, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Mudwall Jackson,

it's kind of interesting that more of them haven't been volunteering for service in Iraq. I thought that group preferred to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here?

no, they prefer to have someone else fight their wars.

Yep, you're welcome


Posted by: E9RET on November 4, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think I have seen such a large group of people who have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment and the RIGHT to bear arms. From reading what I see here everyone who owns and wants to continue to own a gun(s) is a nut? And if we disagree with you we are on par with the KKK etc.
Nice use of inflammatory statements to quell conversation. And to the fellow who said owning a gun is a privilege not a right ought to check out his history again. It's the RIGHT to bear arms.

Posted by: 3rdClsPO Dugas FMF Corpsman on November 4, 2007 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Sooo, did any of the people blissfully participating in this massive circle-jerk actually read the articles in question, including the UN report? The report itself explicitly refutes the right to self-defense, and a fifty year old reference to a completely different piece of paper is not in any way a valid defense of the UN report. Which means that freddy boy was right, and Kevin Drum, along with those who agree with him on this issue, are people who have the reading comprehension of a drugged out goldfish or an amazing capacity for self-deception.

Posted by: ravenshrike on November 5, 2007 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly