Friday, July 20, 2012


The rightwing stalker of this blog commented on a previous post that if a theatergoer in that massacre in Colorado last night had been "packing" there would have been less death and injuries. I realized my response to his comment is my response to the entire "gun control" argument.

The insanity of that kind of automatic rightwing thinking is what has created the atmosphere we now live in, both the actual atmosphere (the air we breath etc.) and the political and social and cultural one. The escalation of arms whether literally or metaphorically has created a nation, and in some cases a world, where the answer to every tragedy is to raise the stakes.

The gunman who killed those twelve people in that crowded movie theater in Colorado was wearing armor, not just a bullet proof vest but a helmet and gear to protect his head and neck, so he was prepared for any police officer or military person who are taught to aim for the neck or head to avoid wasting shots on armored vests.

The rightwinger stalking my blog suggested that if a theatergoer had been "packing" the gunman might have been stopped. But the theatergoer would have had to be packing armor piercing weaponry and an automatic assault rifle to counter the gunman's personal arsenal and armor. So if this gunman learned from past gun massacres to up the ante in terms of armor and weaponry, in order to counteract that escalation theatergoers would have to not just carry assault weapons but also wear armor and then the next homegrown "terrorist" gunman might come armed with rocket propelled grenades so theatergoers and attendees of churches and sports events and schools and other locations of these kinds of individual homegrown "terrorist" attacks would have to bring their own tanks or armored vehicles to events.

It's ludicrous to continue to defend the so-called "right" of anyone to buy assault weapons and armor etc. let alone handguns. There is nothing in the second amendment that pertains to automatic assault weapons, obviously, because they didn't exist when that amendment was passed. Guns should be licensed and registered and limited to non-military weaponry. There is no need for a hunter to have an automatic assault rifle, a single shot old style hunting rifle should suffice anyone's desire to shoot a defenseless wild animal where legal (which I am personally against) or beer cans or whatever. And handguns should be outlawed like they were when I was a kid and gangs fought with their fists or at worst switchblades, so innocent bystanders weren't shot and killed in drive-bys etc.

But the escalation of what "gun rights" means to the right, from owning hunting rifles to owning submachine guns and all kinds of military weaponry, is matched by the escalation in mudslinging, distortion of facts and lying about anyone who challenges whatever the right's latest position is. The present hubbub over Michelle Bachman and other rightwing politician's trying to tie the disgraced ex-Senator Wiener's wife to the Muslim Brotherhood because her father, deceased for many years knew a guy who knew a guy who might have had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood so therefore they could accuse her of secretly working for that organization even though she's married and has a child with a Jewish-American strong supporter of Israel (etc.!) is emblematic of everything wrong with our nation.

The right throws this crap against the wall to see what might stick and distract the conversation (the media and many of the rest of us) away from what is destroying our very world, not to mention our health and well being etc., and that is corporate power overriding any and all concerns and perspectives other than their own greed. The very oil corporations that have created the climate mess we're in are more profitable than at any time in their history, as are the very financial institutions that have created the financial mess we're in.

Anything that distracts us from confronting the unbridled power of "corporate America" and bringing it back under the control of government and law and we the people is a rightwing ploy.  


JenW said...

The mindset of your blog stalker, based on ignorance of facts and rejection of any rational solutions to problems, is an outrage. I am with you Michael completely on tightening the gun control laws and your view of hunting. What’s the sport in killing defenseless wild animals? We have evolved so rapidly in science and technology. Why is there such a delay in overall awareness of our fundamental connection and existence- how humans, animals, plants and our entire planet are interdependent????

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lally said...

I hear you Jen. The problem is they can't think things through. My argument above is that this gunman was armored (more even then I mentioned, he had armored leggings as well as groin gear) in anticipation of exactly what the righwingers advocate, someone among their victims carrying a gun. And they also don't understand, though psychological studies as well as neurological ones show that self-identified "conservatives" like the stalker fear much much more than self-identified "liberals." This guy assumes that I and others he labels "liberals" would "cave in" to physical aggression because we're for gun control. "Liberals" won World War Two. It was conservatives that wanted to give in to the Nazis. And I was in the service with an awful lot of "liberals" defending their country while a whole lot of "liberals" (including the stalker and Bush/Cheney and most of their warmongering cronies) (oh and Romney too) somehow avoided serving their country in the military. My cop brother and brother-in-law and other cops in my family growing up were "liberals" as well, and in fact the vast majority of cops and others who put their lives on the line daily to protect the rest of us are FOR gun control. This stalker just parrots the NRA line which has drifted further and further right as its funding from arms corporations grows. So no argument will convince him that his rightwing corporate masters line of the day isn't the one he should be mimicking until they change it (go back and read his comments on this blog since Bush/Cheney were in office and you will see his words express whatever the rightwing media line of the day is changing his positions again and again as they dictate).

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Mayor Villagarosa calls for a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons ban and some puppet from a gun group spouts that tired old lie: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. REALITY: PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

People without guns are far less likely or able to kill people.


JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert G. Zuckerman said...

WWG: "World Without Guns"

Jim as usual misses and/or evades the point. James Holmes gave no indication of being a "criminal" in fact, just the opposite. When you can respond to this squarely like a man, you will see that your argument is nothing more than a sham.

JIm said...

it would just be deleted robert.

Lally said...

Only if it was based on a lie or lies.

Anonymous said...

There's no reason whatsoever that justifies assault rifles! For deer? so you can feel like a man when you shoot and kill an animal who can defend themselves? And put their pelt on your wall? Or to protect yourself? I have survived some rough placed without guns. james Holmes bought 6 guns in 60 days at legal gun stores and thousands of rounds of ammo online and none of this raises a flag? So you can put people in jail for downloading music "illegally" because the artist doesn't appear to suffer too much but this doesn't raise ANY flags?

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Precisely Anon. What a topsy turvy world. Look at some of the sadly moronic schoolyard comments posted on the article where Mayor Villagarosa calls for a Federal Ban on Assault Rifles. Pre-school emotionality at best.

AlamedaTom said...


Remember, you once said the following in the 60's in a discussion on gun control, which my father overheard and loved to quote:
"Ever hear of a drive-by knifing?"

Along the same line, as you point out in your post, when the second amendment was crafted there were no assault weapons, not even rifles. In fact what they had were muskets; which meant you had one shot, then you had to reload a powder charge and musket ball via the muzzle, tamping down the charge with a metal rod.
Here is a one-minute video showing the process:

How many shots would this devil have gotten off with a musket?

Lally said...

I hear you Tom, and thanks for the link to the musket loading video. It's so absurd that the NRA propagandists have been so successful at framing the whole argument in terms of an invented "freedom" (to use assault weapons etc.) and that our side hasn't. Once again they've hired people schooled on the way words can be used to reframe an otherwise illogical argument into one that convinces some people it's "logical" and in the use of neurological and psychological studies and research to trick the brain into believing black is white and assault rifles and automatic pistols are freedom, etc.

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

This article talks about "Hollywood Not To Blame" in shooting. C'mon already. This is such a cowardly, irresponsible cop out. Of course it can be said Hollywood is not solely to blame, but to deny that it has major respnsibility in the imagery it purveys and in the actions/behaviours/choices it makes thinkable (that should be unthinkable) is, as I just said, irresponsible and spineless. They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so how about writing screenplays, greenlighting ideas and making films that are violence free, that instead entertain and engage us and fill us with imagery of dialog, of working things out without guns, of elevating and advancing us, rather than, as is sadly the case, of appealing to our loweest instincts and keeping us in the mud? I hereby challenge everyone involved in the entire process of film and tv making to no longer participate in projects rife with gratuitous violence and instead support and create projects that inspire and lead us to betterment. And peace and safety.

Lally said...

As you know Robert, I wrote about this a lot back in my Hollywood days in the 1980s and '90s. The idea that corporations spend billions on researching the best ways to influence what people buy and wear and drive etc. etc. and then try to use the excuse that movies and TV have no impact on peoples' behavior is on its face absurd.

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

agree Michael. It is beyond absurd it is ignorance and complete irresponsibility. Our time here is so fleeting, to choose this posture and behaviour is tragic.

Young Holmes is a product of our culture and a harbinger too, and all the dead and wounded are the Christs of our time.