Pro-Guns, Anti-Obama »
Posted By Progressive 6 months, 1 week ago in Political NewsNot everyone is celebrating Obama's 100 days. Max Blumenthal takes his cameras into America's gun shows, where paranoia, conspiracy theories-and Nazi flags-abound. Watch his report.
Read Full Story at thedailybeast.com »
1013 Views Share Story 199 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Progressive
There are only two kinds of people who are really fascinating: people who know absolutely everything, and people who know absolutely nothing. -- Oscar Wilde
I ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 199 (view all)
-
75%
Progressive6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the US and Mexico, a plague much more widespread than swine flu continues to pick off its victims, regardless of age, health, or hometown. "While federal and state authorities are preoccupied with preventing a swine flu pandemic from overwhelming the United States, the epidemic of gun violence rages on, unabated and little noted," writes Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Reply
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/...-
32%
tanglang6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No one really cares what the Atlanta Urinal Constitution has to say. The Al Jazeera Constitution is more biased than the NY Times. For instance, during the Tea Parties the Atlanta Journal Communism claimed that 1000 people gathered in front of the Capitol building when the city and every other media outlet estimated it was between 15 and 20 thousand. This is why they are struggling to stay in business.
Reply -
-
-
43%
calitennflo6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amendment II
Reply
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.
I got the dictionary...and I do not care for the supreme courts interpretation ... they must not know English...
infringe - conflict: go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afoul of the law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules"
infringe - encroach: advance beyond the usual limit
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn-
87%
Bacalao6 months, 1 week ago
-
53%
UnusualSuspect6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've always thought old laws and amendments have to be reviewed from time to time, and the Second Amendment is no exception...
Reply
I think a new amendment is in order...the 28th Amendment, repealing the part of the 2nd Amendment referring to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"......amended in such a way as to outlaw handguns (38s, 45s, etc,) AK-47s and similar types of mass-murdering weapons, etc...
They repealed the 18th (Prohibition of alcohol) with the 21st...and rightfully so...
Everything changes, doesn't it? -
14%
holyman24u6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Admnt11 nice going about time that truth comes out about the faggotized supreme supposedly justices ! more like supreme commie earthworms in plain english which they do not comprehind . they represent the few liberals that would like you think their number is wall to wall more truthfully they are [butt to mouth] with little Obama's sticking out of their most hidden creveices the real fact about the politcale things is it is not politcale any more it is the beginning of a real war,and like the british, the libs will be running down the mississippi heading for ther home port 0f cuba !!
Reply -
-
-
75%
tadair9196 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."
Reply
According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.
Read more: http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/research-bus...-
75%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And in Congo, who listened to the United Nations and disarmed its citizens, in some villages, up to 90% of the women and girls have been raped because the rebels are armed and the villagers--including the strongest men--are unable to stop them because they lack arms. Here's one report:
Reply
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040308/goodwin -
100%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't confuse the anti-second amendment crowd with those pesky facts.
Reply
I think the president and his minions need to get on board with the fact that most of us agree with him on a good number of issues, but he took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
-
-
15%
HMMace6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More guns--more ammo--until the day of retribution---
Reply
The days of open season on politicians---
They pay no heed to thier electorate--they have it coming.
It would be nice to just get rid of them by not re
electing them--but--some areas stuff the ballot box,
so as no one can be removed from office..So--not knowing
the good from the bad--we remove all..
Makes sense to me...
What is the difference between an American politician,
and a Mexican politician ????
----n o t h i n g ----------
-
63%
Bacalao6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
then we can do the same to their replacement, and their replacements, and their replacements, and their replacements, and their replacements, and their replacements, and their replacements, and their replacements, and their replacements, and their replacements.
Reply -
71%
jakesguile6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wowwowowowowowowow, did you seriously just advocate for armed slaughter of our politicians?
Reply
I think Homeland might have something to say about that... as well as the P-Mods, assuming they're paying any attention.
You're clearly psychopathic, which is an insult honestly.. to most psychopaths.
-
-
46%
stephen-johnson6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This excerpt is from the article Obama and the Second Amendment:
Reply
"But Holder’s nomination raises other questions about what President-elect Barack Obama claimed he believed during the campaign. Numerous times he promised that he supported an individual’s right to own guns and that he wouldn’t do anything to take away people’s guns.
Just last year in a brief to the Supreme Court, Holder argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” that it only protected government militias’ rights to guns. He claimed that the Second Amendment posed no obstacle to implementing gun bans.
I can’t find even one gun control law that Holder has opposed. On every gun control regulation he has discussed, he has been supportive, including: bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.
Even more troubling, while Holder served in the Clinton Justice Department, he oversaw the background check system, but he has never been asked to explain why the system broke down so consistently while he ran it.
The breakdown in background checks, which had been a problem for years under the Clinton administration, magically fixed itself within weeks of President Bush assuming office in 2001, and the problems have not recurred."
You can always, when dealing with a mass movement, cherry pick subjects for interviews that portray the entire movement in a negative light. There are, to be sure, neo-Nazis stocking up on guns because of Obama's skin color. Bu there are many other people who are stocking up because they know that Obama is opposed to gun ownership, period. In spite of what he said on the campaign trail about it.-
78%
jakesguile6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods."
Reply
I like every single one of those ideas. We don't need to walk around carrying rocket launchers.
We don't need kids under 16 or so owning guns, their brains haven't developed enough reasoning (in the majority of cases) to handle a gun responsibly. Some can, some can't, depends on the maturity of the child and of the teacher teaching the child.
Do people HONESTLY need to buy a gun more than once a month? Do your guns break so often and to such an irreparable extent that you need to buy 2, 3, 5, 7 guns every month? Gun collections are nice but it's really not that necessary to buy more than one a month.. seriously. If you're buying them for collections then something needs to be done to prevent them from ever being used.. like if it's a simple pistol, load caulk or cement into the chambers to prevent them from ever being put in use again.
Registration and licensing is a fantastic idea. Buy a gun, you register it. If you kill someone with it, guess who's gonna be knocking at your door. You get a car, you license that baby up or the impound people come and take your car away. You register that car at the DMV to make sure it's tied to you. Guns with no paper trail is a recipe for disaster.
I don't really see the problem with waiting periods either... If you're buying to hunt, use another gun. if you don't have another gun, postpone your hunting trip a little. It's a "waiting period" not a "You're not going to ever get this item" period. They're saying "wait x days and it's yours." Patience is a virtue my friend. -
-
67%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The statistics from the recently released report on terrorists suggests about 3.5% are right wing extremists. That means most of them are not. I can't believe people negged you for just reporting facts, s-j. But the far left and the far right both are rabid. All the more reason to fight for one's second amendment rights.
Reply -
Neutral
willottica6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.
Reply
Provided the ban is not an outright ban, and is a ban on select highly-destructive weapons, then all of those sound reasonable to me. (I also don't know the age that someone can possess a gun - I think it should be in line with the age of majority, raising beyond that seems unreasonable.)
Registration and licensing: Good. You know where guns are, and can track guns used illicitly, or penalize those who refuse to register. The argument that they'll know who to come for if they decide to confiscate guns ignores the fact that the ones they're coming for will be armed and dangerous and unwilling to yield said weapons.
One-gun-a-month limits? Why do you need more than one gun, or more than one a month? Unless you are re-distributing them illegally? Why can't you wait a month for your gun, unless you intend to use it against someone immediately?
-
-
72%
Charlson6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obsession best describes the far right's compulsive preoccupation with guns often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety that they will be taken away. I believe in the 2nd amendment but the far right's unreasonable stance on assault weapons and background checks before purchase are two things I vehemently disagree.
Reply-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned11 Replies
-
25%
DaneL6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Charlson
Reply
"I believe in the 2nd amendment but the far right's unreasonable stance on assault weapons and background checks before purchase are two things I vehemently disagree."
The same old misinformed talking points. Try educating yourself. -
100%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I'm not the far right. I'm an atheist, and I advocate for church-state separation, abortion rights and stem-cell research, and I'm certainly not for the wealthiest Americans getting tax breaks. However, I consider the U.S. Constitution to be the glue that has held this country together, and I am an even stronger advocate for the second amendment, which I view as the one that at least makes government think twice about tyranny. As long as government fears the people, they are less likely to try really stupid stuff.
Reply
The same people who scream "police brutality" and "military abuse" turn around and say only the police and military should have guns. That's working really well for the Mexicans, isn't it?
-
-
-
60%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Guns are tools of self-defense. It is the only reasonable means of self-protection against larger and stronger attackers for women, the elderly, and the frail. The correct way to enforce the second amendment is to stop abridging rights.
Reply
If Western democracies want to disarm themselves, that's their choice. But this republic has a constitution that says it's our right to keep and bear arms, and it's been working well for us for quite some time.
-
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned31 Replies
-
64%
beavith16 months, 1 week ago
-
56%
Progressive6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you had read the article, you would have seen this at the bottom:
Reply
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com. -
-
-
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
100%
Will13136 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
never though I'd agree with lRf.. but I OWN.. I CARRY.. why...
Reply
I carry a gun... because I cannot carry a cop... unless Global_Warmer.. wants to retire.. and stay with me 24 / 7.. which I would not like any better then he.. I'll keep my gun..
not paranoid... just prepared..
I've undergone SEVERAL background checks.. ... -
-
-
100%
canadianrancher576 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have often wondered exactly what was going through the minds of those who wrote the 2nd amendment, the war to get away from maybe not British rule but the taxburden of the British could not of likely happened without the efforts of those who where not actually military but were a militia. In my mind they were not really worried about the rights of the individual at this time but more for the security of the nation, and to make the nation safe they knwew the advantage of armed citizens,[not just citizens but a well organized militia] in fighting an invading force. The leaders of that time likely never thought that the right to bear armes would be an idea that American people would cite for protection not from an outside force but against the government of their own country.
Reply
When I see comments from both liberal and conservative people on this topic I can't help but feel that things have regressed to the point that once again the people of the country feel that they really have no voice in what those in charge do, representatives are elected by the people but do they still today actually speak for the people, or are they just the British of today.-
100%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, they WERE concerned about the rights of individuals on homesteads to defend themselves from highwaymen and other predators. They also hunted for food and joined in the militia when needed. They were required to keep and know how to use a gun.
Reply
There is a recent book I keep recommending because it's the best I've seen: Halbrooks' "The Founders' Second Amendment. It does a good job of pulling the pieces together and giving us a picture of what was going on in the framers' minds. -
100%
willottica6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I must disagree rancher. At the time, they had just used guns against the government of their own country (England was technically their government just prior). So they would have been all too aware of the necessity of being able to fight against their own oppressive government.
Reply
On the other hand, by putting it in the constitution, they made certain that any attempt to become so oppressive would have to be signalled in advance by taking away their guns. If the government is of, by, and for the people, they should have no reason to try to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens.
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
75%
oleheat6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We gun owners are on to every tactic the anti-gunners can muster. It is my hope that they continue to view us as uneducated, redneck philistines...This is the way we will defeat them; we will always hold the upper hand while they underestimate us. They actually believe if they take away our rights a little at a time we either won't notice or won't care. Wrong on both counts. What was true in 1994 is still true today. If the politicians compromise our rights- well, I'll just use the words of Donald Trump: "You're Fired!"
Reply -
100%
Ratskii6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Two comments.
Reply
1) Up to about 50 years ago guns had their own limits. A person who didn't know how to take care of a gun would soon find it inoperable. Unfortunately the technology has improved a lot and any idiot can keep his guns functioning with minimal maintenance.
The original revolutionaries who established our nation had to be extremely educated on how to use and maintain their guns, or they would lose usage of them. Even the best trained militiaman couldn't fire more than three shots a minute.
2) If I were to buy a gun, I think it would be to protect myself from the right wing nuts. -
100%
fjgalt6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In Switzerland, the citizens can own any kind of weapon, even machine guns. Switzerland borders on Germany and in both world wars, the military advised the Kaiser and Hitler than Germany would be unable to conquer Switzerland because its citizens were armed. Crime rates in Switzerland are very low, too.
Reply
Since states in the U.S. began enacting conceal carry laws, crime rates have dropped. Criminals feel it's too risky to assault a possibly-armed victim. A handgun makes a frail old woman the equal to a well-muscled young would-be rapist and murderer. -
-
75%
Icantwait6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Americans: Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people and they don't need a gun. However, I may live longer if I own a gun in this day and age because of all the criminal activity occurring around the country. Most Real Americans grew up, owing some type of gun. No, normal American gun owners are banning together and creating a wave of mass murders. A gun brands an American and the trials and tribulations he along with his country has endured. The World knows America is armed and they keep their distance. Now, the Criminal is beginning to realize the average citizen is becoming once again armed and will start to keep their distance. Personally, I hope everyone in my neighborhood, goes out and buys a gun. I will feel a lot more secure just knowing that I am protected on all sides. What a wonderful feeling just to be aware of the fact that someone wants to pillage my neighborhood they best be prepared for an all out assault. I even thinking of putting out a few land mines just to make my neighborhood a little more interesting. Guns are Good, People who fear Guns need us around to protect them. We can teach those who fear Guns that their is nothing to fear with a Gun than fear itself. Was that Roosevelt? The Real American
Reply-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
100%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Guns were the tools of our freedom from British rule, and guns were the tools of freedom of blacks from slavery. They are tools, and if we treat them as such, and teach children safety and discipline with them, then we'll have people who can come to our aid in the event of a riot, criminal attack, etc.
Reply
I have seen people just show a gun and the bad guys backed off. Later I learned that 98% of reported self-defense incidents involving guns do not involve shots fired. Just showing a gun is enough to stop most violent acts.
-
-
100%
memestryker6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IMHO, Blumenthal is one of the paranoid quacks he claims to write about.
Reply
Most people at gun shows are just people who either own, are buying, or collect guns or related items. The loud extreme left just doesn't see himself as a mirror image of the loud extreme right. -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
frctm56 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've come around on this issue. I used to be anti-gun, but now I see the benefit of empowerment. In fact I want to start a charity or non-profit where we subsidize gun ownership among the poor and disenfranchised. I want to get as many guns into the hands of these groups as possible in conjunction with their political unification. Especially the homeless. Imagine every street person packing heat! This would serve as a counterweight to all those who wish to beat up on the politically vulnerable by giving them the tools and the organization to fight back. This is a short cut to respect.
Reply
I am joking, but if you buy into the absolutist interpretations of the second amendment, you would have no argument against such an idea.-
Neutral
willottica6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not a bad idea. The rights of the homeless are trampled on all the time, and they generally lack the funding to seek legal recourse.
Reply
Of course, an education campaign to give them free legal aid against such violations of their rights might go a lot farther...
-
-
Neutral
hamy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I still will never understand why anyone feels the need to own a gun. I had a bb gun when I was a kid and that was all I needed. Hunters don't need assault rifles. They can kill animals just as dead with a bow and arrow and that actually requires some skill to use. I guess I've never needed to compensate for other shortcomings by owning a boomstick.
Reply
More News
Fox News Politics
Iran, North Korea Top Clinton's Overseas Agenda
Pawlenty Delivers Keynote Speech at GOP Dinner in Iowa
Republicans Question Abortion Agreement in Effort to Stop Health Care Momentum
Clinton to Confront Nuclear Impasses With Iran, N. Korea on Overseas Trip
Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? Analysts Divided on Fort Hood Massacre
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.