Seeing the Tree, Not the Forest

looking_down_barrel1I am, unfortunately, in the business of evil.

I see evil every day. I see the worst of humanity: the intolerance, the ignorance, the stupidity of a group of people so ideologically vested in a failed premise—and too weak to defend it in the arena of ideas—that they are willing to lie to anyone to get them to invest in their twisted, cult-like fantasies.

I see evil every day. I am an MSNBC watcher.

There’s Lawrence O’Donnell, a man so intellectually biased that it beggar’s the profession of “journalism”. O’Donnell recently made the comment that, “there are no words that can wash the blood from the NRA’s hands.” He’s right, but only so far as there’s no blood on the NRA’s hands, removing the need for words.

An example in narrative fail: The National Rifle Association, while staying mostly quiet in the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting in Connecticut, has registered an average of 8,000 new members a day since the tragedy, an NRA source told Fox News.

Of course, O’Donnell isn’t the only moron on MSNBC. There’s Chris Matthews—who’s probably standing over a sticky issue of Time Magazine as we speak—who uttered this:

The people on the far-right, on the NRA front, never lose their passion. They think about it every day of their lives. They go to bed at night, they put on their heads on the pillow, afraid somebody’s going to take that gun away from them. Normal people have other interests–like, their spouses, their lives, their children, and even their generalized politics isn’t driven by one issue.

Someone might want to explain to Matthews that gun right advocates are focused like a laser on exactly those issues: their spouses, their lives, and their children. Sportsmen see guns as the tools they are, it is the left that has anthropomorphized the gun.

But no one on the network is as special as Special Ed. In response to a caller on his radio show (who would listen to this clown?) who supports the 2nd Amendment:

OK, all right, let me, let me back up a little bit. Respectfully, the founding fathers aren’t here anymore. We are the founding fathers of this country now. Things change in America. Social mores change, attitudes change, habits change, the way we think change (sic), technology is changing. The idea that we need to be stuck in the mud of a different generation because some dead people think that’s the way we oughta live 200 and some odd years later, I’m not there. I’m not there.

Societal behavior in this country has gotten to the point where we need to do something. We can still be free and we can still be a great nation and we can love, you know, ice cream and apple pie and our next-door neighbor and our family members and we can still prosper as a nation, but dammit, it’s the guns. Period!exremenatal-elloquence

We’re the Founding Fathers? Again, he’s special, but it is the last bit that holds the most value. “Societal behavior has gotten to the point where we need to do something.” Well, I think they call this Irony. Societal behavior? The left has championed the collapse of societal behavior for decades. Destroy the family unit: check. Destroy inter-relationship dynamics like respect and marriage: check. Attack moral institutions that focus on character and morals: check. Remove individual accountability and responsibility: check. No, no; it isn’t the fact that societal norms for behavior and discipline has degraded under liberal assault, it’s the inanimate object called the gun.



Something about chickens coming home to roost comes to mind.

We commonly say that, “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People” because we don’t ascribe to the fable that guns jump over the moon or dance with the Spoon and the Fiddle. The Left, Doubling Down on Stupid, demonstrates its lack of intellectual development every time they challenge the validity of this statement. People kill people, for a multitude of reasons. The worst case of domestic violence in this nation’s history never involved a single shot. If we used the logic of the left, we’d ban box trucks, diesel fuel and fertilizer.

The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School broke 41 gun laws. Would a 42nd have made a difference? He tried to buy a gun and couldn’t, because it was against the law. Connecticut has the 5th strictest gun laws in the nation. He tried to climb through a window at the school, he tried several locked doors at the school, he was determined to do what was in his mind regardless of what the law said. How is another gun law, instead of enforcing the one’s we have, going to make this any different?

As for the effectiveness of gun laws, let’s keep in mind as well that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation, as well as the highest murder rate, in the nation. How’s that working out? Liberals won’t answer this question.

The left’s answer is not a gun law, but a gun ban. They claim that we need to go back to the “Assault Weapons Ban” during the Clinton Administration, except every liberal I talk to cannot define to me what an assault weapon is.

In United States politics and law, an assault weapon is a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

  • a folding or telescoping stock
  • a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
  • a bayonet mount
  • a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
  • a grenade launcher

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.[8]

A folding or telescoping stock is cosmetic and is for comfort. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon is again cosmetic and for comfort. A bayonet mount, well, who uses bayonet’s anymore, right? So really, that leaves a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or a grenade launcher. Flash suppressors have function, but most include them for the cosmetic feature more than the functional advantage they provide. Grenade launchers require a Federal Firearms License. So we’re attacking appearances rather than functions.

Maybe we should stop and think about this for a second. Is it the gun that’s the problem of the person using the gun? The Tucson, Aurora and Newtown shooting were all committed by folks with mental issues. For all the talk that we’re hearing about guns, we’re failing to discuss the cause of these issues: mental illness. Let’s stop playing politics with the symptoms and instead focus on the disease—quite literally—of these events.

I’m a parent and every time I see violence against children, it angers me like nothing else. But I want a discussion on solving the problem, not political grandstanding by partisans looking to take advantage of a crisis.


Additional reading on hypocrisy and effectiveness – in that order.



         Figures collected by Syracuse University’s TRAC project, the authority on prosecutions from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, shows that the administration has reduced the focus on gun crimes and instead steered prosecutors and investigators to drug crimes.

Gun prosecutions peaked at 10,937 under Bush in 2004. A current TRAC report shows that the Obama administration is prosecuting about 6,000 weapons cases.





·         Another weapon from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency’s controversial Operation Fast and Furious was recently recovered at a Mexican crime scene, CBS News has learned. Congressional investigators say the crime scene was likely where a recent shootout took place between reported Sinaloa drug cartel members and the Mexican military, in which Sinaloa beauty queen Maria Susana Flores Gamez and four others were killed.




·         Police say about 5:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, a man walked into Modern Nails at 2645 E. Second St. and asked a female employee if she wanted to buy some diamonds. The man walked toward the front desk area and the woman replied that she had no money to buy diamonds.

A witness said the man then reached into his coat pocket and began to take out a silver-colored pistol.

At that moment, a woman who was getting her nails done reached into her purse and got her own firearm. Police say the man never fully raised the gun and left the building after seeing the customer had her weapon out.



·         Police detectives and sheriff’s investigators say the incident started in the China Garden Restaurant on Southwest Military Drive about 9 PM Sunday, when an employee of the restaurant walked in looking for a woman.

When the woman, who officials say is also a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, the man pulled a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

“It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

Investigators say some of the terrified restaurant patrons poured into the movie theater, and the gunman followed.

He opened fire, shooting one man in the chest, before Antu says an off duty sheriff’s deputy who was working security at the theater shot him once.



70 thoughts on “Seeing the Tree, Not the Forest

  1. Great post G.

    You link back to January 2011 proves what you’ve said here about the ignorance-driven agenda from the loudmouth lefties. We could’ve cut and pasted the exchange following the Giffords’ shooting to this very post and not missed a beat.

    1. Yeah, and I had contemplated doing just that to make a point. This is an issue of mental illness and it needs to be addressed. I don’t pretend to have the solution, but talking about tangential issues that fulfill lefty wet-dreams isn’t going to solve anything either.

  2. I don’t have time to read through the entire predictable screed.

    A bayonet mount, well, who uses bayonet’s anymore, right?

    I don’t recall your saying that when Obama smacked Romney in the head during the first debate with that very point. At that point I got a lecture from you and yours about how bayonets were still issued widely to military personnel. Make up your mind.

    Connecticut, a state with one of the strictest gun regulation laws allows grenade launchers. That’s state law. I’ve heard nothing about any Federal regulation interceding there so kindly document your supposition.

    Other than that, you lose all credibility blaming the decline of society on the left. No God fearing conservative ever got a divorce, heh? I’d bet dollars to donuts Nancy Lanza was a conservative. We know this much, she was a “gun enthusiast” with a nutty kid who couldn’t handle things. She took him target shooting, i.e. trained him to kill.

    So you ask what law needs to pass in CT? Nancy doesn’t get to buy a bushmaster anymore. That’s the law I want passed. She can defend her home with a less robust weapon. She can go hunting with a less robust weapon.

    You started your blog post with a serious comment and then ruined it with foolishness. You DO see evil every day in your line of work and one would think you’d have no interest in making it easier for domestic terrorists (which is basically what these mass murderers are) to act out their evil.

    1. Tucson didn’t involve an assault style weapon. Neither did Auroa. I asked you to define an assault weapon, and you can’t, because you know nothing about the subject matter.

      You and yours went on and on about how bayonets are no longer important, so don’t get pissy with me because your argument bites you in the ass now.

      Explosives require an FFL. Period. A tube means nothing. I have a used AT4 Anti-Tank launcher at home because it looks cool. I can’t load it, so it’s a big hunk of plastic and metal that makes a great conversation starter.

      What’s the difference between this:

      AR 15

      And this:

      Remington 7400

      I’ll bet dollars to donuts you can’t answer that question and this is why I get pissed when morons like you try to tell me what I can or can’t have with my Constitutional freedoms. I’m positive you didn’t bother to read the Congressional Research Service report I posted to. Pity, because you might actually learn something, like only 2% of gun crimes involve assault style weapons. It’s like you and your ideology: it’s all about looks and never about substance.

      And fuck you, I get to throw stones at the hypocrisy of the left all day long. You fuckers go out of your way to remove moral milestones, and then have the fucking temerity to gripe about societal behavior? Fuck you. You have zero high ground on this, just the pompous self-importance to justify the fruits of your labor on inanimate objects. Its that way with you. YOU want to ban speech you don’t like. YOU want to ban Constitutional freedoms you don’t like. YOU are the only one talking about banning shit rather than talking about the REAL reasons why we are where we are.

      I think daily on the safety of my family. I don’t even own a military styled weapon. Not one. I don’t have an AR15 or a Bushmaster, I don’t have an SKS or an AK knock-off. I have over two dozen guns and not a one of them fits the cosmetic look of an assault style weapon. But fuck nuts like you, who don’t know their asshole from a hole in the ground, are going to tell me what kind of gun I can or can’t have based off of arbitrary, cosmetic distinctions? I’m about ready to buy an AR on general fucking principle, because you don’t get to tell me how I can express my rights.

      So tell you what, why don’t you take your ass down to Chicago city hall and demand to know why, after having the strictest gun laws in the nation, that you have the highest murder rate in the nation. And while you’re at it, ask them why it is that—without fail—the stricter the gun laws are, the higher the murder rate climbs. If your foolish premise on guns held true, then places like Montana, Wyoming, Washington state, etc, etc, etc, would have astronomical rates of gun violence. It is the EXACT opposite. In fact, concealed carry state have 20% lower violent crime rates than states that do not allow concealed carry.

      None of the facts back up what you say or what you want to do, but that isn’t the point, now is it. Emasculated pricks like you feel like we have to do something, and this just makes you feel better about yourself, despite the fact that it has been demonstrated—repeatedly—that it will not work.

      Stop ignoring this point:
      Tucson Shooting: Shooter had Mental Issues
      Auroa Shooting: Shooter had Mental Issues
      Newtown Shooting: Shooter had Mental Issues

      Hmmmm, maybe we should spend some fucking time on mental issues, you think?

    1. Yeah. If only there were a ban on the Bushmaster she’d be alive today. Would Not want a “robust weapon” when one is protecting their home, family or business. 🙄 As Pratt said, “tell that to the Koreans under siege in SC LA during the riots.”

      Imagine if R actually knew something about the subject matter about which he pontificates instead of tirelessly repeating his MSNBC talking points.

      Try your hand at what an “assault weapon” or “military grade” weapon is and how it would affect the outcome. We’ll wait. . .( just kidding).

      1. Folks have been quick to lecture me about how my support of Democratic platforms is mortgaging my kid”s future. Tigre, you’ve got a young kid. And you’ve shared some of the lousy things that have been said to your kid by other kids. Even If I often find you an ass, I’ve always felt empathy for your kid.

        Your kid and my kid are at risk because of over-the-top weapons (better than military-grade, ok?) Are you willing to support limitless gun buying and gun-carrying right up until the day your kid gets killed? Do you think Newtown is special? You don’t think it could happen at your kid’s school?

        I’m not letting ideology get my kid killed. So this is the deal I said on my Internet radio show the other day and in my comments section: If you guys don’t back down off this blind support of carrying every weapon under the f*cking sun, then I will gladly sign up for plan B and make sure at least a few people in every school are armed.

        I have a simple bottom line. I don’t want my kid killed.

        Frankly I don’t know where the f*ck your bottom line is. 👿

      2. No, your kid is at risk because your political side is setting the conditions for diminished accountability and responsibility, while fostering an environment that degrades societal behavior.

        YOU destroy the family unit.

        YOU remove moral compases from the public square.

        YOU champion and excuse disgusting behavior that’s political sympathetic to your ideology.

        Your ideology has already set the conditions for your kid to get killed. It’s your blue states that have the highest drug use, drop out rates, violent crime, and poverty.

      3. It’s actually a great article by Charles. Note how he ends it:

        But there’s a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing “entertainment” violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech.

        That’s a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there’s no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties.

        We made that trade after 9/11. We make it every time the Transportation Security Administrationinvades your body at an airport. How much are we prepared to trade away after Newtown?

        He doesn’t say no to measures to curb these mass killings. He just points out there is a price to pay. He acknowledges that a three point approach is needed for the insane, 1. Keep the guns out of their hands, 2. keep them off the street whenever possible and 3. exercise some sensible control over the negative stimulus they get.

        Krauthammer’s piece is amazing for its honesty. Everyone picks their partisan solution to this problem. I get nervous about 1st amendment infringement. You’re in the Charlton Heston crowd “from my cold dead hand”. I’m willing to admit my bias. You won’t admit yours … instead using a pile of statistics and skewed logic to justify doing NOTHING.

      4. My bias? Pray tell?

        Your bias isn’t 1st Amendment infringement, its 2nd Amendment legitimacy. You’re nervous about limiting free speech, but not nervous about banning 2nd Amendment rights. Keep your holier-than-thou assumptions to yourself.

        I’m concerned about gun laws because:

        A) they don’t work

        B) how will they be defined

        C) the honest integrity of the intent behind them

        Limiting the availability of certain guns, I’m perfectly fine with. Banning guns because of cosmetic reasons I am not fine with. I think if you have a concealed carry license, you should have no limits beyond FFL requirements. Your vetted. I’m not even adverse to closing the gun show loop-hole, except that you cannot show me a single instance in which gunshow guns have been involved in a crime like this.

        And again, fuck you. What gives you the right to say that she could or could not own a certain type of gun. Adolph Hitler’s Mein Komph and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto have lead to the death of nearly 200 million people. Therefore, based on your logic and your ideological proclivities, you should not be allowed to own a computer, because you MIGHT spout premises supportive of such.

      5. LOL … now I’m a likely candidate to blog in favor of Hitler?

        Well at least it’s good to see you suggest there might be SOME limits to what guns folks should own.

        I’ve heard a few talking heads take the stupid car/gun analogy and actually suggest a solution that exploits it. I may write about it once I’m done whining about Rambo’s. 😉

        P.S. You’ll be pleased to know on my Internet radio show Tuesday a fellow named “Sarge” gave a vociferous defense of the right to bear arms. He was shocked I didn’t kick him off the air. Damn, you folks think so little of us liberals.

  3. Rutherford, I have two kids — both the age of the children slaughtered in CT. I assure you that my thoughts about what an ass you are greatly exceed what you think of me. You are incapable of conducting reasoned dialogue because the only authority of merit to you is MSNBC. I’ve seen you made a fool on a variety of topics that you know nothing about (economics, law, firearms, urban race relations etc. etc. etc.), only to watch go back to the well and repeat the exact same talking points over and over no matter how many times you’ve been corrected.

    And frankly, I have no more tolerance for the tenor and content of your remarks to me and others leading up to and following Obama’s election. It’s truly remarkable that you managed to be an ass in both instances — first when you felt threatened, then when you felt validated.

    I have told you countless times that I do not carry gun, am not a gun rights advocate, and have plenty of reason to want to arm myself but do not for reasons of my choosing.
    As is so often the case, you know nothing about the subject about which you speak and can’t even link your proposed “solutions” (which are still not clear because you haven’t been told what they are yet) to the tragedy you unwittingly exploit. You don’t have a fucking clue what an “assault weapon” is or a “military grade” but don’t hesitate to claim that banning them is a solution? Do you have any idea how pathetic that is? (that’s rhetorical — obviously you do not).

    What I (and a turnip) are smart enough to know by simply pausing to think for a moment and ask questions TO LEARN rather than disguise shallow advancement of a talking point is that your deliberately inchoate mindset is dangerous. As I said at BiC’s, the closer to emotion based thinking the further from rational thought. A “discussion” (ha ha) that has to occur now or the moment will be lost? I wish you had the capacity to stop and think about what’s going on here for a minute.

    So, you don’t know what my bottom line is before hurling insults? Try this: a solution to senseless killing like we just saw if there is one. You offer none. I know damn good and well that a ban like the one you visualize and unthinkable wish to advance wouldn’t have prevented this from occurring. It wouldn’t have prevented the Giffords incident from occurring, or the Fort Hood shooting, or Columbine, or Oklahoma City or any others. And since I don’t have a solution that would enable the immediacy you demand and for the shallowest of reasons believe can only be obtained through federal legislation, I won’t spout off with misdirected venom like you.

    Of course, my real objective isn’t the same as yours, i.e. to pin blame on your political opponents for tragedies like Giffords and Sandy Hook. If you really wanted a solution, a good starting point for you might be to figure out why you feel the need to.

    1. Keep spouting your MSNBC mynah bird line. It gets old. Nancy Lanza should not have owned a bushmaster. Period, end of story. THAT would have made it harder for her son to do what he did.

      The easy availability of these guns is PART of the problem and as I said to Gorilla, your refusal to go anywhere near there shows you’re a partisan hack.

      Let me see if I can get one concession out of you. How about closing the gun show loophole? Would that drown the 2nd Amendment in the bathtub?

      1. R, do you have a list of guns that she owned?

        How easy is it to get these? I’m curious, because he TRIED TO BUY ONE AND COULD NOT.

        Let me see if I can get one logical comment from you…

      2. How easy is it to get these? I’m curious, because he TRIED TO BUY ONE AND COULD NOT.

        Yup, and if the bushmaster wasn’t available for ANYONE to buy, his mother would not have had one. He could not buy one because he was underage. She could … and shouldn’t have been able to. (She might have purchased the gun in New Hampshire where she was from originally … I don’t know … and I don’t know NH gun laws).

  4. R, why won’t you answer any of my questions before posing your own? Was some kind of gunshow loophole responsible for this act? What is my position on the second amendment as you view it from anything I’ve said? What are you relying to conclude that a gun ban of any type has a positve rather than negative impact when it comes to mass shootings in gun-free zones?

    If you have something to prove your point, pony up. This is getting tired. I suffered through your asinine Giffords rants, and those that followed every tragedy since. I heard about ones that occured before I ever visited your blog. Zimmerman was a recent gem. All I see is you trying to pin blame on those that don’t share your political views — never with any logic — just your substitute for it, i.e. the emotions whipped up by that box in your living room.

    Sorry the MSNBC comments touch a nerve. I am also sorry it’s so true. Newsflash, EVERYONE — yes, EVERYONE — even the ones you stroke on your blog Fat Granny-style — knows it. You denying it is beyond laughable and more proof that it’s impossible to have an honest discussion or debate with you. The biggest waste of my time I have ever engaged in is setting out detailed responses, explanation,s or arguments that contradict what you’ve heard on MSNBC, even when it comes to the law and my own profession. Nothing quiet like being lectured to on subjects you are intimately and deeply familiar with by someone with a doctorate from MSNBC. 🙄

    Why it seems like only yesterday a group of Amish children were gunned down in a school by a deranged psycho and you had nothing to say about it. Tells us more about your epiphanies when it comes to gun control. Amazingly selective for an independent thinker such as yourself. A real coincidence that it always parallels MSNBC’s — including the lack of specifics or nexus to the underlying event. 🙄

    So if I am not in favor of whatever ban MSNBC tells you to advocate (something you still haven’t figured out), I am in favor of my own or other children getting killed? Is this what you’re learning in you online debate course? Too stupid for words, Rutherford.

    If you have the ability, make your case. Link it up. Whether you disagree with him or not, Gorilla’s offered plenty. You? Not so much.

    p.s. The comments to my boy that I described to you from way back were not from his classmates. They were from dumbass adults like you that have convinced themselves that becuase his skin is pink he must must atone and feel shame for the sins of others with pink skin. Glad you recall the discussion.

    1. They were from dumbass adults like you that have convinced themselves that becuase his skin is pink he must must atone and feel shame for the sins of others with pink skin. Glad you recall the discussion.

      That makes the comments all the more reprehensible. The reason I assumed they were from classmates is I could not imagine any adult would say such things to a kid. And despite your implication, I WOULD NEVER say such a thing to a kid. I don’t blame the sins of the father upon the child until the child grows up to be a spitting image of the father.

      As I said over at my place, sometimes an act inspires a reaction that might not relate to the act directly but helps in similar circumstances. So yes, some of what I advocate might not have helped Sandy Hook. That doesn’t mean Sandy Hook shouldn’t prompt a reevaluation of our gun laws.

      You know full well I don’t think you want your kid shot or that you truly favor ideology over your kid’s safety. I said it to shock you into some concessions. But you ARE so wed to a conservative ideology that you refuse to entertain even the slightest changes in gun laws to make these acts less likely.

      Australia saw a DRAMATIC decrease in shooting sprees after enacting strict gun control. Other nations in the world have kids watching violent video games and they don’t have their President/Prime Minister giving condolence speeches four times in as many years. Doesn’t that suggest we need to do something?

  5. “But you ARE so wed to a conservative ideology that you refuse to entertain even the slightest changes in gun laws to make these acts less likely.”

    Make your case R. For fuck’s sake, make your case. Show me how these are less likely. You haven’t even said what it is you’re proposing or why. Shit. You’re the one that came over here to take a dump on G’s blog.

    At least address the substantive points or say you can’t and STFU. Trying to argue that anyone not blindly agreeing with some kind of gun ban as a solution is an asshole, or uncaring, or stuck on cruise control etc. etc. is just worthless. You are the one being led around with a false “solution” through pretend outrage by those with a political agenda — and the fact that you can’t see it is just sad. And worse, you do it EVERY FUCKING TIME.

    Get your head out of your ass. Since you want to change the status quo, logic dictates that you carry the burden if persuasion. If you can’t, the least you can do is go elsewhere and stew in your own hate-filled juices.

    1. You want the contours of a solution? Here’s a mix that I’ve heard from different sources that comes together nicely IMHO:

      1. Limit capacity of ammo clips sold to the general public.
      2. Close the gun show loophole.
      3. Take the absurd car/gun equivalency argument made by gun advocates and turn it on its head —

      a) No one gets to purchase a gun before proving proficiency in its use, and taking a written exam that demonstrates knowledge of current local gun laws (just like a drivers license).
      b) Background checks for EVERY gun buyer.
      c) Mandatory liability insurance for every gun owner.

  6. “I don’t blame the sins of the father upon the child until the child grows up to be a spitting image of the father.”

    No. Your type blames a ten year old boy’s for the sins of his ancestors believing it’s social justice. All to ingrain some kind of guilt or retribution so you can reap the rewards of it at his expense when he matures. And they aren’t even his ancestors. Pffft.

    1. I’m truly sorry you feel that way. I don’t blame your kid for a damn thing. From everything you’ve said in the past, he sounds like a perfectly nice boy. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that since you have a racially mixed family that your kid is probably more tolerant than most kids are.

      1. All kids are tolerant and color blind. The first time my boy really struggled with race was when the agendas of the adults were thrust upon him with selective graphic lessons in slavery and lynchings . . . in first fucking grade. He’s 10 and I still can’t get over it. They don’t make them any sweeter, more intelligent or empathetic. It had a real impact and most unfortunately the one that was desired.

        Frankly, given the “victim/oppressor mindset” that dominates your thoughts on race that I loathe to the core, I would think you approve though never admit it.

      2. You should have taken it up with the school board. I don’t recall my kid learning a thing about slavery in the first grade. In fact, she’s in the third grade now and I don’t think the subject has been broached other than very lightly … certainly not in any heavy handed way.

        We’re all poisoned by our experiences and I think you’ve had some bad ones that skew your thinking just as much as you find my thinking skewed. Your problem, similar to G and BiW is that you caricature me to represent this liberal boogey man and don’t give me even he slightest credit for common human decency.

        The notion that you think I would harass your kid on racial grounds is incredibly insulting.

      3. Oh, I spoke my peace. It’s a charter school. It was like talking to you Rutherford. 🙄

        Having read your views on race, I know you’d approve the purpose. You ARE that sanctimonious liberal with twisted and counterproductive views of social justice. I got an earful (eyeful?) of your bullshit when I was first visited your blog and was labeled a racist. So, blow me.

  7. “The biggest waste of my time I have ever engaged in is setting out detailed responses, explanation,s or arguments that contradict what you’ve heard on MSNBC, even when it comes to the law and my own profession.”

    Not entirely wasted, Tigre. Those very responses and threads like this are amazingly effective in unbending a whole lot of bent logic and emotional chaos coming from the livingroom loudmouths.

  8. While the general hypocrisy coming from the livingroom loudmouths is to be expected – get this…

    A woman I know – a college professor – owns several guns. She has a mentally unstable son (TBI) that lived at home until about 4-5 years ago. His father wasn’t around but for the first several hears of his life.

    I witnessed at least one combative episode where he quite lost control, and the ensuing discussion led me to believe this was not uncommon. The incident I saw involved a guest in the home asking him if he knew how to use the remote. He wound up storming out.

    A few other facts (relevant or otherwise)…

    The woman has taken her son boar hunting at some point, which I found curious at the time but now see that maybe it was a bonding thing.

    The woman is an alcoholic. Her son drinks too, but I don’t really know to what degree. He’s in his late twenties now and no longer lives with her. I knew them when he did live with her from around 2005 – ’07 or ’08.

    I never knew to what degree her weapons were registered, but I assumed they were. She’d always seemed socially responsible. Mainly because of her drinking, and unfortunately because her son could be classified as mentally unstable – I worried about the guns. I was forthright about my concerns, though I mainly generalized my fears and I don’t think I mentioned her son, just her drinking.

    A couple of years ago she had a yard sale. She put up one of her guns for sale and sold it to a man she did not know. I can be dumb and so I never asked her the logistics but something about the transaction made me think that it wasn’t a registered gun she sold.

    Now it’s entirely possible that the weapon was a collectible pistol or some such thing. It’s also possible that some sort of paper trail did follow the transaction. But as I recall she was asked about the gun she was selling and the buyer and her haggled and settled on the price, and the buyer came back later with the cash and left with the gun.

    I’m uninformed about gun laws and not particularly interested in them as collectibles. So all of this may have been a legal transaction. It’s also just as likely in my mind and all things considered that it was not. In any event, she didn’t know this man and she let him leave with a gun she sold to him for several hundred dollars.

    I’m not sure what to make of all that exactly, but my point in telling it is that this woman describes herself as “uber-liberal” and is extremely outspoken about the evil extremist right-wing. I haven’t spoken with her much in recent years but she was always pretty quick to engage in the scapegoating game that often is the first and frequently the only contribution from the left to the national debate du jour.

    And while the livingroom loudmouths (both on TV and the idiots yelling back) squawk on with all the wisdom gained from existing entirely in their own heads and taking in only what they already agree with – in the outside world some of their own blamers-in-arms are the worst offenders of all. In other words, Mrs. Lanza may or may not be conservative, but whatever gain there is in labeling her as such is imagined.

    1. Muffy, that was a very roundabout way of telling me not to label Lanza conservative. I said it mostly as an afterthought. I don’t hinge my argument on it. She could be as liberal as the day is long, I still say she had no biz with a bushmaster and she certainly had no business teaching her unstable son how to fire it AND she obviously did not take proper precautions to lock the guns up … again all the while knowing she was living with an unstable person.

      1. Well, I think I was saying that as you view the world through the prism of cable TV shows from the lofty perch of your livingroom – you might as well be watching As The World Turns to shape your perspective of the outside world.

        That and I have been meaning to share with the class that I read an article a day or so after the murders took place and the writer used “registered Republican” as an adjective to describe Mrs. Lanza and also Mr. Lanza. Apropos of nothing else contained in the article, just fer scuz. Just for that “I knew it” moment that bigots love to induce.


      1. Yet you want to relax drug laws.

        Who’s this “you” you’re talking about. I’ve always been ambivalent about the war on drugs. I happen to be one of the old fuddy duddies who think pot is a gateway drug to more dangerous drugs. I just don’t know which is the better way to go, treatment or prison.

        I know I’m a convenient lightening rod for your anger at liberals. I’m not nearly as cookie-cutter as you’d like to believe,

    1. Funny. If we could keep drunks from getting drivers licenses in the first place, we would. Usually their license only gets revoked after repeated offenses, and hopefully before any damage is done.

      Tell me, in those cases where a license to carry a gun (a permit?) is issued, under what circumstances is that license revoked?

      Should criminals be able to buy guns at gun shows hassle free? Thank goodness, at least G said no to that.

  9. R, you’ve not answered my question. What’s the difference between the two guns I referenced earlier?

    You keep saying that no one should own a Bushmaster, but you cannot tell anyone why.

    You think the car analogy is stupid because you can’t argue against it, yet you recommend solutions that only strengthen the analogy. You already have to get tested for guns in many states to hunt or even purchase (hand guns at least). I’m all for it, but that has no bearing on type. Functional restrictions on gun capabilities ALREADY EXIST. The difference between those two guns is ZERO. They are identical in the functional capabilities, but are cosmetically different. So you gun argument is shallow, just like your argument that blacks can’t be racist because their black.

    Cosmetics don’t change the function or the act.

    1. R, you’ve not answered my question. What’s the difference between the two guns I referenced earlier?

      I don’t plan to. This is a case where you use your “expertise” to obfuscate the bigger issue. The term “assault weapon” is used regularly in the news media and it really doesn’t matter worth a damn if it doesn’t match your definition. An assault weapon as used in common parlance, is a weapon designed to fire lots of bullets very quickly. That’s as deep as I need to go. I don’t need to be an expert on all the different types of guns and their technical operational differences. All I need to know is that the gun fires lots of bullets quickly, thereby killing lots of folks quickly.

      The car/gun analogy is asinine. Cars are not made to maim or kill. Guns are. But since the stupid analogy is a regular staple of the gun rights advocates, I’m willing to go along with it and take it to its natural conclusion. “You already have to get tested for guns in many states” … the key phrase there is “in many states”. I want guns regulated on a federal level.

      1. Not going to answer because the “term” has entered common usage among the uninformed.

        Hey dumbass, If you’re going to legislate it you have to define it. To regular people, it’st’s a logical necessity. But to someone who doesn’t need facts, all that technical mumbo-jumbo you’re gonna sling just means you’re in favor of little children getting shot at school.

        How’d that common usage work with the now expired “assault weapons” ban under Clinton? (hint: Not damned thing other than to increase arms sales)

        So long s it makes you feel like you’re doing and something. That’s all that matters. 🙄


  10. Learned something new on MSNBC today (you guys and gals should watch it now and then, you might learn something). Circa 1967 when Black Panthers carried their guns in self defense it prompted gun control legislation in California backed by Ronald Reagan. Kinda funny how we don’t have a problem trampling on the 2nd amendment rights of blacks.

    Just shows how much total BS revolves around this topic.

    P.S. It’s interesting that the objections to stop and frisk in NYC tend to involve profiling and human rights but not 2nd amendment. Why is that? You think stop and frisk would go down well in Texas? I kinda doubt it.

  11. I wish all here a Merry Christmas with a heavy heart. Why the heavy heart? Because after over a week of having pro-gun advocates scream at liberals or at me in particular I have come to the conclusion that the situation is hopeless. We have a choice between two evils:

    1. A dystopian society armed to the teeth to protect ourselves and our loved ones because those in society officially charged with that responsibility (law enforcement) are inadequate to the task. OR

    2. More gun control legislation which will do nothing. Yes, the one thing I must concede after being yelled at for a week is that more gun control won’t do a damn thing. Criminals and psychos will get guns no matter what we do. I now understand after being lectured by many, that MOST of our guns are semi-automatic so banning all of them would basically ban most guns which is not feasible.

    It’s hard to be merry this year. Our society has reached a new low and there is no moral high ground to take at this point.

    G, throw me a small bone this Christmas and fix your damn headline. Forest is spelled with one “r” not two (unless I’m missing some attempt at a pun).

  12. No need for heavy heart. Although you obviously persuaded no one, perhaps you’ve learned that reactively instituted federal legislation is not a solution to all problems. Sometimes the solutions lie elsewhere or nowhere at all.

    You’ve also should’ve learned that you suck at debate. Dale Carnegie you are not. 😆

    A week of you insisting “causation” and “knowledge of the facts” were unnecesarry? Fuck man. Pretty sad.

      1. I happen to love Penn if for no other reason than he has the good sense to reject organized religion.

        I think the problem here is you (and Penn) seem to think there is no place for emotion in this situation. Everything has to be decided by “data points” as Penn puts it.

        Yes the three women (sadly they were all women) come off sounding a bit like boobs and Penn comes off sounding reasoned. But it is awfully frustrating that you refuse to concede why someone would come to the common sense conclusion that magazines with more bullets are more lethal in a mass shooting than those with fewer. That’s common sense. Sure, maybe changing magazines doesn’t take a lot of time. But the notion that anyone who thinks more bullets = more lethal is somehow retarded is awfully smug of you and your cohorts.

        It’s one of many reasons why the conversation is so hard to have. Folks like G, experienced in fire arms, treat those unfamiliar with condescension and ridicule. There’s this “my what a fool you are, how could you possibly think that firing 30 bullets without reloading is somehow more convenient than firing a ten bullet magazine and reloading twice?” Well it’s not outlandish or foolish. It may not be fully realistic but it is an understandable opinion to have.

        It is equally unrealistic to think that someone who has trained with his gun on the range would necessarily react effectively in a crisis situation. But that assumption seems ok with G and folks who defend him, like you.

        If you agree that blaming the video game is as ridiculous as blaming the gun, then I’m waiting for your condemnation of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA who did just that … blamed he media, blamed video games, blamed Hollywood.

        Penn is right that Sandy Hook is an anomaly but we should be alarmed if the frequency of the anomaly increases. In New York State yesterday some firemen responded to an alarm and got ambushed. I think two died. Is there nothing we can do to stop our society from flushing down the drain? (Yeah, I know, elect more Republicans).

      2. No, I treat those unfamiliar with firearms yet seek to ban or restrict them on principles they admittedly know nothing about with ridicule.

        Training with a gun at the range is exactly what one needs to do to effectively deal with crisis. It may not be the only thing to do, but if you can’t shoot straight, than you’re more than likely to not effectively deal with the crisis at hand. Reaction is about muscle memory and training.

        The anomaly has not increased, in fact, it has been the exact opposite. I posted a study showing these types of events have decreased, not increased, in the face of increased gun ownership. Yes, more people own guns today than in the past, and the number of these events have gone down. Related? Maybe, but it spits in the face of your stupid argument…

      1. Typical hypersensitivity for self combined with blatant disregard for others.

        Your race baiting in the midst of your wailing over the slaughter of innocents makes you as big a scumbag as you think Huckabee is. It’s the same exact shit.

  13. Well, so much for my idea of a 30-day waiting period for Rutherford to spout off after a tragedy.

    I’m still laughing at Rutherford’s “screw all your facts and details, I’m gonna believe what I want to believe — and there’s nothing wrong with it because I mean well” polemic. Real persuasive there, Clarence Darrow. Is that what your debate class taught you? 😆

    Maybe we should impose limitations on his access to the Internet. There’s no reason anyone should be allowed to say so many stupid things for the world to see in such a short span of time.

    On another topic, has anyone noticed that our celebrity ex-First Lady/ Sec of State has supposedly been incapacitated 2 weeks with a head injury and our media isn’t interested?

    1. Hillary’s studying for her testimony. When she’s ready for her close-up she’ll get in her human suit and shoot her big testimony scene. Cake.

      Supposedly the heads within the State Dept that rolled didn’t roll at all. Where does that buck stop again?

      The entire left has lost their moral center, if they ever had one.

  14. Rutherford you have a lot of the talking points but lack the context en total. Disengage the personalities and assorted entities that have vested interests and agendas.
    The media,movies and video games have a role in things because they perpetuate a myth that plays on bad base instincts.
    I was debating to bring this up to PF at your place but there is research coming out of Germany on porn. The studies are finding that youth.young adults are consuming porn at increasing levels and it is having very negative impacts on them.
    Anyway lets try this again as I derailed myself a bit.
    Media specifically bad/guilty given their exploitive “journalism” which really only helps nurture the sicko seed in some of these folks heads.
    Movies & video games helps to desensitizes folks and quite frankly way too many people fail to recognize this and then fail to moderate the activity. Its crazy how parents all across America prides themselves on little Johnny wearing a helmet on his bike and that little Molly doesn’t drink but they’re oblivious that the marathons on Black Ops and GTA are anything.
    Also as I’ve said before we as a nation need to get right on the mental health issues in public and inmate release thing too.
    I get you’re moved by the events in CT and believe you truly are. My advice though includes disengaging from some of the chatter and get some real focus. A deep breath and baby step kind of thing.

  15. Focus isn’t what R does Alfie.

    Libs need that hyperventilating mode of argument–it shows they really care. All emotion and no facts makes a libs day special.

    Chicago, which has the strictest gun laws in the nation, just had its 500th murder this year. But gun laws work. No, really they do…

    And like the bit I just linked to above, again gun bans work too. No, really…

    R has zero evidence that gun bans or restrictive gun laws work. He can’t point to statistical decreases in crime, he can’t differentiate crime levels from state to state, nor can he point out where bans saved lives. He’s admitted that he knows jack and shit about guns, yet he KNOWS that banning something, whatever that something is, will be good, even though he doesn’t know what that’ll look like either.

  16. Gorilla if you would just look back at Rutherford’s first words in reply to your post you would see that he doesn’t “have time to read through the entire predictable screed.”

    Just time to shoot his mouth off and cast blame on law-abiding gun owners, blame the police for telling the truth, race bait, bash religion, scream and then scream about being screamed at, pump his fist over some fop talking out of his ass with a British accent, and whine about how bad it feels when people do bad shit.

    What’s it supposed to feel – good?

    Calling us drama queens and lunatics and then when reality finally sinks in goes full-on woe-is-me like he sees something new. Stop seeing evil in the people who can see evil. See the fucking evil.


    Lol Nuge. Hey Piers. Kiss my ass too!

    1. Something you’ll all appreciate… except for R I suppose:

      According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

      Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
      And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

      For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

      1. G, he doesn’t care, Cause and effect are not important. Mindlessly carrying the MSNBC message is all that matters. If he thinks he can improve on the “pitch” he’ll try, but Lord knows he won’t abandon his mission just because facts and logic don’t support it. He’ll just childishly name-call and assign improper motives to anyone that opposes the message. Cult-like. Tiring.

  17. ( – A new Justice Department study looking at violent crimes committed against “youth”—defined as Americans from 12 to 17 years of age—discovered that the rate of “serious violent crime” committed against youth by a perpetrator using a firearm dropped 95 percent from 1994 to 2010.

    The study—“Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994-2010”–also discovered that American youth who were victims of a serious violent crime in 2010 were six times more likely to have been attacked by a perpetrator wielding a knife than one wielding a gun.


    1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.

    The violent crime rate – which includes murder, rape, and beatings – is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.

    2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.

    Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.

    3. Schools are getting safer.

    Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.

    4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.

    Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gunownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.

    5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.

    While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns that has no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. “Should it be renewed,” concludes a definitive study, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s