Submitted by lambert on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 5:49pm
Submitted by danps on Sat, 12/29/2012 - 6:46pm
It's really tough to have a debate on guns with pro-gun types because they are nuts. And by nuts I mean: they typically don't follow and discernable logic for establishing a proposition through argument. The comment thread here from earlier in the week shows two of the favored strategies for gun nuts: derailment and ignoring. Here is how the derailing worked. Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Mon, 12/17/2012 - 8:31pm
Cross posted from Pruning Shears
The massacre in Newtown has once again opened up the discussion of firearms in America. We are getting the usual dumbassery about how this is a punishment from God or the fault of video games (which apparently are unavailable outside of the US) and the usual preemptive whining about how this is not the time to talk about firearm legislation because it would politicize the issue. This is the same spirit in which we refrained from discussing terrorism after 9/11 for fear of politicizing that issue.
It appears that the gun nuts are feeling a little defensive though. Unlike with previous gun massacres, this one has been accompanied by a real push on the role of our abysmal mental health care system. It's actually a great point: we've basically outsourced mental health care to our prisons, with predictably disastrous results. We need to do a much better job of investing in mental health care, removing the shame that surrounds it, and making sure it is available to anyone who needs it.
That doesn't mean it's an either/or situation though. We can both improve mental health care and implement sensible policies to reduce gun violence. One obstacle to the latter is a certain air of resignation and fatalism ("I'm fresh out of ideas. Anybody?") which - surprise! - is a stone's throw from demands for a comprehensive legislative strategy for implementation. Because that is the only way to discuss any issue, and it also explains the absence of war, abortion, finance, inequality and gender policies from our national dialogue. Read below the fold...
Submitted by DCblogger on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 12:01pm
Submitted by The Mayberry Lane on Tue, 04/20/2010 - 6:09pm
Now, as a good ol’-fashioned Southern girl, I always try to give credit where credit is due…and I’ve always been fair about givin’ credit to the Right for their amazing ability to make people vote against their own best interests. Despite all the Right’s talent, I was still amazed that they managed to motivate (translate: terrify) people into protesting an issue that doesn’t even exist. Now that’s somethin’!
Today, hundreds of pro-gun folks swarmed Washington to protest the non-existent Obama plot to repeal the Second Amendment. Un-Fuckin’-Believable! Read below the fold...
Submitted by captain nemo (not verified) on Sat, 01/16/2010 - 3:38pm
Seriously.
Apparently, this guy was even on the shortlist to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Raw Story:
In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated “cognitive infiltration” (What a nice word) of groups that advocate “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11.
Read below the fold...
Submitted by jeqal on Sat, 05/03/2008 - 2:47pm
I often wonder if it is my strict fundamentalist upbringing that allows me more skepticism when someone is trying to sell me swampland in Florida.
I have seen this comment before, I started this campaign pro-Hillary, I loved her since the Clinton era.
I knew that the attacks on her were on her because she was a moderate female. It is a rare thing to have a moderate “equalist” woman anywhere. The top 50 pundits had 7 women only one was a feminist and she was also a moderate.
I am tired of obama supporters, really tired of them.
I will not be blogging as much as I start back to the grind next week. Read below the fold...
Submitted by chicago dyke on Thu, 03/20/2008 - 2:45pm
Dadburn it, I can't find the story I was reading the other day about this now. But there's an extra layer here: the guy in this case is a gay man, and had the help of a bunch of gay-rights groups to get this case as far as it did. His argument was that as a gay man, the streets are extra unsafe for him. He was chased by a gang of kids while walking down the street with his partner. He claims if he'd not brandished a gun, they would've severely beaten or killed him. What do you think? Is this a useful argument to make, for anyone gay or str8? Read below the fold...
Submitted by chicago dyke on Tue, 11/13/2007 - 8:54am
Submitted by onealbear on Sat, 04/28/2007 - 11:01am
This is just terrible. Here you have a highly-trained Police Officer accidentally killed by another highly trained Police Officer. Wait just a minute. Excuuuuuse me. I want Michelle Malkin and Newt Gingrich and Bill O’Reilly and John Derbyshire to explain to me again about how great it would be if everybody on every college campus in America started packing concealed heat. Lunatic fringe, I’ll tell ya.
New York Trooper Believed Killed by Fellow Officer.
Read below the fold...
Submitted by ddjango on Fri, 04/20/2007 - 9:28am
Submitted by Jakebnto on Wed, 03/28/2007 - 1:59pm
Jim Webb has stood for some good stuff since becoming a Senator. How in the HELL could he imagine that it's ok to carry loaded pistols, and who knows what all else, in DC? Read below the fold...
Submitted by lambert on Mon, 12/11/2006 - 2:36pm
This story from the Times didn't get any play on Sunday, so I thought I'd take a look at it today. The short version:
Question: How can you "stand up" the Iraqi army when they're selling all their new guns in the black market?
Answer: You can't. We are so fucked. Read below the fold...
