Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Great. A bunch of paranoid right wing racists with guns and a black Democratic President.

Posted by: barry21 | November 12, 2008 10:15 AM

Y'know, the argument that Obama has no executive experience has really lost some credibility now. I mean, who do these people think selected the personnel and provided the leadership for the team that got him elected? Those skills are EXACTLY what a good executive needs - the ability to select a strong, competent, knowledgeable staff, provide them guidance and direction, and let them perform.

In comparison, we had a candidate who showed an inability to lead his staff in any coherent direction, and a remarkable lack of ability in choosing his highest-profile subordinate. That subordinate, in turn, showed a history of MISusing her executive power for the brief time she has had it. Compared to that, Obama looks like a wonderful choice for Chief Executive.

Posted by: BobApril | November 12, 2008 10:20 AM

Don't be so quick to blame only right wing lunatics. There are wingnuts on both sides. I have several friends who are convinced Bush will still declare martial law and send them to prison camps being built by Blackwater just because they are gay.

I. Am. Being. Serious.

(own guns and voted for Obama)

Posted by: yoshi | November 12, 2008 10:33 AM

The store's management was slightly less overtly racist about it

The store's management was not overtly racist at all, from what I can tell.

Posted by: Gretchen | November 12, 2008 10:39 AM

It's not so much actual gun control proposals from Obama, it is more about the political spin that was put in place by the NRA.

This per factcheck.org

Posted by: Canni | November 12, 2008 10:48 AM

yoshi,

Your statement is not an exaggeration. There is a large segment of this country that believes exactly that.
I've posted this link before, but it's worth checking out if you haven't seen it:
http://forum.gon.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9

The above link is to a Georgia hunting/fishing forum. Some priceless threads over there. Don't blame me if you suffer from irreversible brain damage from ready those threads.

Posted by: Deepsix | November 12, 2008 10:53 AM

My opinions on gun-control policy aren't all that firm, but I gotta say I never cease to be shocked at the sheer childishness of these gun nuts. It's never "Proposal [X] is wrong because it will have the following bad effects..." but almost always "They're gonna take away our handguns!!!" It's no better than a little boy crying and throwing a tanty 'cause his mommy wants to take away his favorite toy. And these overgrown babies want AUTOMATIC RIFLES?!

This isn't a political issue, it's a psychiatric issue.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 12, 2008 11:00 AM

Ummm -- where's this "civilian military force" meant to be recruited from, given that Obama is meant to be against the gun owners? An unarmed "civilian military force" doesn't even make delusional sense. 'Help, help! The pacifists are going to forcibly take a way our guns at flower-point!'

I have no problem with them having their paranoid delusions, but would really prefer if they had some passing superficial resemblance to internal consistency.

Posted by: Hrafn | November 12, 2008 11:11 AM

Y'know, the argument that Obama has no executive experience has really lost some credibility now. I mean, who do these people think selected the personnel and provided the leadership for the team that got him elected? Those skills are EXACTLY what a good executive needs - the ability to select a strong, competent, knowledgeable staff, provide them guidance and direction, and let them perform.

"Anyone capable of getting themselves made President should by no means be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams

Posted by: sinned34 | November 12, 2008 11:31 AM

I don't own any guns, not even a Salad Shooter, but it's not because I hate guns. I LOVE guns. I love the noise they make, the holes they can make in things and the smooth, efficient way they work when properly designed, crafted and maintained. I don't like that so many people use them to kill members of their families and other people they don't like and I don't like the fact that they almost certainly increase violent crime statistics. But, guns, per se, don't bother me. What bothers me are the complete fucking morons that are represented by the folks Ed talks about here. Paranoic, delusional, hate-filled fucks with guns? They bother the hell out of me.

Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2008 12:12 PM

yoshi said:

"Don't be so quick to blame only right wing lunatics. There are wingnuts on both sides. I have several friends who are convinced Bush will still declare martial law and send them to prison camps being built by Blackwater just because they are gay.

I. Am. Being. Serious.

(own guns and voted for Obama)"

Count me among the lunatic fringe, as I was quite concerned about Bush doing something that would fill those concentration camps. But, I think my fears although apparently unfounded, were still rational.

After all, Bush DID:

* secretly build a ton of internment camps

* imprison anyone he defined as an enemy combatant against all notions of convention and law

* effectively suspend habeus corpus

* disappear at least one American citizen

* set up secret CIA torture ships in international waters

* routinely "rendition" political prisoners

* have a father who said atheists should not have citizen rights

* made it easier for a Presidential order to use the armed forces for domestic riot control.

Basically Bush was (is) a fascist - why would it not be reasonable to have fears about those camps?

Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 12, 2008 12:29 PM

Don't be so quick to blame only right wing lunatics. There are wingnuts on both sides. I have several friends who are convinced Bush will still declare martial law and send them to prison camps being built by Blackwater just because they are gay.

I. Am. Being. Serious.

I don't know if that's really comparable. At least in that case, there's the precedent of Bush imprisoning American citizens with no trial or even charges, as well as his attempts to put Blackwater above the law, at least while it's operating in Iraq. And haven't I heard about Blackwater being used for a few jobs in-country?

If their little fantasy had had him populating those camps with liberal activists and other political enemies, I'd have trouble dismissing it at all.

Posted by: Seraph | November 12, 2008 12:36 PM

My fundie right-wing neighbor has been flying his Battle of Bennington flag at half-mast since the election. If I were a bit younger and more foolhardy, I would be tempted to pound on his door and shout "ATF! We've come for your guns and your white women! Open up!" and run.

Posted by: Shygetz | November 12, 2008 12:47 PM

So I guess that stuff Obama said about rural folks was pretty true.

Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 12, 2008 12:53 PM

I love the fact that this right-wing nutjob got in trouble with veteran's groups, who do not take the act of flying the flag upside down lightly. From the Record-Eagle story:

The U.S. Flag Code states that the American flag should never be flown inverted "except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property." Experts suggest it is unreasonable to argue political protest constitutes dire distress.
Disabled World War II veteran Maury Cole, of Fife Lake, said the flag incident offended him. Since the flag flown above the store was desecrated by its inversion, Cole said, it should be properly removed, folded and turned over to a Veterans of Foreign Wars post for appropriate disposal.
"My concern was with the disgrace to the American flag," Cole said.
Quartermaster Doug Jordan, of the VFW Post 2780 in Traverse City, a Marine and Vietnam war veteran, said the post would accept Hampel's flag for disposal in a ceremony with other tattered flags.
"We'd accept it and destroy it and I think it would be appropriate because they displayed it improperly," Jordan said.
Jordan also said respect should be shown for the new commander in chief.
"It doesn't matter whether you voted for him or not," he said.

Posted by: Taz | November 12, 2008 1:58 PM

What I don't understand is why the gun lovers are rushing out to buy more guns if they are convinced that the new government is going to pass legislation to take them away???

Seems dumb to me...

People who are convinced that Democratic rule means gun prohibitions are buying guns and ammo anticipating a time where they won't be able to buy guns. The fear of confiscation is much less, especially in areas where I live (sparsely populated, deep woods). If you buy into future prohibitions being inevitable with Democratic rule, their purchasing equipment now is arguably rational.

We had a person on this website several weeks commenting that he was convinced that Obama would stop the sale of hunting rifle ammo because it does in fact have armor piercing properties ("Sam" I believe). This meme made it in our local newspapers up here in an area where nearly everyone is packing and a high percentage hunt, including me. Of course his claim had no merit; it was based on his misreading of a bill and one Kennedy mis-statement where Kennedy refuted his own written position with one verbal gaffe.

I have not stocked up on .30/.30 cartridges.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 12, 2008 2:15 PM

If I owned a gun shop and a rumor that guns were going to be taken away and ammo prices were going to be increased 500%...well who am I to argue?

Posted by: ed | November 12, 2008 2:28 PM

"(The inverted flag is) an international signal for distress and we feel our country is in distress because the n--- got in,"

At sea. The inverted flag is (or was) an international sign of distress for a ship in peril...before the days of radio and such. Now it's the fabric-flapping version of flipping the middle finger. See what happened when that Marine flew the Canadian flag upside down at Skydome in Toronto that time.

Posted by: Dave S. | November 12, 2008 3:06 PM

To the gun fanatics, the whole point of the second amendment is not so that you can shoot other citizens, but so that you can protect yourself from a government gone amok. You need the fully automatic weapons so that you can level the playing fields when the Feds come to take away all your guns.

Posted by: Scott | November 12, 2008 3:57 PM

Would someone please tell me what specific gun-control proposals have come from Obama that have the wingnuts so riled up?

While no specific proposals have came from him yet, he has made it very clear that his head is as far up his ass as possible when it comes to this issue with his voting records and statements he has made. Among other things he has stated that he would like to make the assault weapon ban bill that Clinton signed into law for a ten year (I believe it was a ten year period) permanent, despite studies done on the subject showing that there was no noticeable decrease in crime rate during the period of the ban. He also supported legislation which would define 'armor piercing' rounds much more widely, in addition to this, he supported legislation that essentially deemed any shotgun of 28 gauge or 'stronger' to be an 'assault weapon.' To put some perspective on this, the only thing that this would leave a person access to is a 410 gauge shotgun. People don't even go bird hunting with those, much less defend their home with them. The only thing they are used for are shooting small to medium sized snakes (at close range) and rodents (rabbits, rats, etc.). He has also stated that he supports a national ban on the concealed carry of handguns. In addition to all of this, he voted in the past against allowing a loophole in Illinois state laws in regards to pistol bans which would keep people from being thrown in jail for pistol possession if they were caught with one because they used it in their own fucking home to defend themselves. His grounds for voting against this was that it would 'erode the pistol bans.' Let's look at that again: He cares more about keeping pistol bans in place than seeing to it that innocent people don't go to prison just for defending themselves in their own home. And he supports all of this without a single piece of evidence that indicates that any of this legislation helps lower the crime rate, or for that matter, that any legislation currently in place keeps the crime rate down. Particularly disgusting when you can find many peer-reviewed studies that show the opposite to be true. (The data runs strongly against the idea of a concealed carry ban lowering the crime rate, in particular.) Whether we like it or not, the man is as much of a fucking zealot about this issue as the people that are freaking out over this. I would say more so since the evidence supports their position and not his if not for the fact that I'm not entirely sure that many of these people are aware of that. Either way, there is every reason to suspect that he will institute some draconian gun laws given that he has made it very clear that he supports them and he has a majority democrat congress that will no doubt be happy to do his bidding if he wants to institute them as president - and push them through congress so he can sign them.

As for the factcheck.org page, they're not right about everything, please get the real story here: http://volokh.powerblogs.com/posts/1222201928.shtml I do recommend...skimming the comments thread, though. Some of it is actually quite insightful and relevant and some of it...well...is not.

That commercial was pretty goddamn clumsily worded and should have been done differently, but the facts weren't that far off from the truth in terms of content (as opposed to presentation).

You can get his statement that he would pass a concealed handgun ban bill here and the video contains a link to the source with the complete interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

The Volokh Conspiracy page I mentioned earlier gives a pretty good summary of his voting record, by the way.

My opinions on gun-control policy aren't all that firm, but I gotta say I never cease to be shocked at the sheer childishness of these gun nuts. It's never "Proposal [X] is wrong because it will have the following bad effects..." but almost always "They're gonna take away our handguns!!!" It's no better than a little boy crying and throwing a tanty 'cause his mommy wants to take away his favorite toy. And these overgrown babies want AUTOMATIC RIFLES?!

Let's be reasonable, shall we? No one who proposes these laws or supports them ever acts on ANYTHING stronger than a gut feeling that it 'makes us safer.' They think it is their business to take restrict or remove a constitutional right, and for that matter, a very basic human right of self defense, just because it makes them feel better. If someone asks for evidence, the best you will get is vague bullshit about how 'well, in Europe they have a gun ban and have a lower crime rate...' and the implied observation that correlation apparently equals causation on this single issue, even though there are about a million other factors that could account for this. (Never mind that this argument is a major over-simplification that doesn't hold up when scrutinized closely, anyway.) Basically, why would one hold the pro-gun side to a higher standard than their opponents and expect a mature reaction from them when they're being told that someone who knows better is going to take their rights away--even though this person has no evidence to back up their position that it makes anyone 'safer'--and is doing it just because it makes them feel more comfortable? There is a strong analogue here to the gay marriage controversy. In both cases we have a group of people screaming that we need to restrict or take away a freedom just because it makes them feel better, and we have people responding in angry, immature ways. No one expects gay marriage advocates to sit there and tell their opponents 'Gay marriage is NOT going to bring about the downfall of society because x, y, and z.' They -- rightly -- expect them to be angry over the insulting behavior of a group people thinking it's their right to tell them that they should not have a freedom just because they don't like it and to ridicule them for this behavior. Why should this issue be any different?

What I don't understand is why the gun lovers are rushing out to buy more guns if they are convinced that the new government is going to pass legislation to take them away???

Seems dumb to me...

Gun bans of any kind are almost always preceded by the institution of federal gun and ammunition registration systems so that when the gun ban occurs the government knows whose door they need to send the cops to knock on and/or kick in to make collection easier. If you go out and buy guns/ammo prior to such a registration system being put in place you have a lesser chance of having your guns confiscated and/or having your house raided by virtue of not being on the government's (immediate) radar. This is the reasoning behind these actions.

Posted by: Thomas M. | November 12, 2008 4:07 PM

To the gun fanatics, the whole point of the second amendment is not so that you can shoot other citizens, but so that you can protect yourself from a government gone amok. You need the fully automatic weapons so that you can level the playing fields when the Feds come to take away all your guns.

Yep, which will be interesting since the likely Fed response to a full-on militia uprising will be something like a troop or two of D-Boys augmented by the 3rd Ranger Battalion, with the RR Brigade of the 82nd sitting on deck. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Josh | November 12, 2008 4:28 PM

@ James Hanley -
"Every president who's won an election would, by that logic, be a qualified executive. And yet so many of them have utterly failed to be decent chief executive of the U.S."

Good point, however I note that some have run campaigns that were strong only in comparison to an even weaker opponent (e.g., Dubya), where Obama appears to have run an extraordinarily strong campaign by any measure. Other Presidents have been strong executives carrying out bad policies (e.g., Nixon, maybe?), thus being noted as bad Presidents in spite of their executive skills.

However, your comment about different types of executive skill, as seen in "turn-around" CEOs and long-term CEOs is wonderfully apt, and I have no counter for it. Touche.

Posted by: BobApril | November 12, 2008 4:33 PM

Thomas M. - I suggest embracing the paragraph.

And no Thomas, Obama never supported legislation that would have banned shotgun shells larger than 28 gauge during the debate in the Senate where Kennedy made his gaffe.

The bill I believe you are referring to would apply only to ammunition which is "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability." The "marketed" prong is easy, since rifle ammunition makers do not tout such capability in their advertising, nor do 20, 16, or 12 gauge shotgun manufacturers. Also, this same ammo is not designed for armor piercing capabilities, some products just happen to share that property. Therefore, based on the plain meaning (which could have been worded better), but also the original intent of the congressional record, there is no evidence that Obama ever "supported legislation that essentially deemed any shotgun of 28 gauge or 'stronger' to be an 'assault weapon.'"

Here is my source which I'll stand by for the specific topics I raise here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

Also, here is the dialogue that occured here prior to Thomas M. bringing it up again (a tangent occuring in the comment section): http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/10/obama_threatening_tv_stations.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

Finally - Neither the Democratic party nor Obama have promoted prohibiting hunting rifles, shotguns, or their ammo. Nor will they; there is no political capital within the party nor is there the political will in the Democratic party to do such a thing. In fact the contrary has been occuring since the start of the Clinton years; they've been actively marketing their party to hunters.

I live in the heart of a hunting area and we are swamped with their political campaigns' rhetoric regarding their friendliness to both hunters and their being conservationists, mostly PR like Obama doing interviews with some of the outdoors/hunting-centric magazines, "Field and Stream" for example. If you Google the story, it shows his voting record that's "key" according to this publication - no sign there of taking our hunting guns away, just defending the right of the individual to sue in court (I didn't link since that 3rd link would have sent this post to the moderator).

Obama has advocated gun control by geography as noted in the FactCheck article. Given the fact he's an intellectual and the local prohibition he voted against was four years ago; I have no idea if he's adapted his view given his perspective has certainly widened from that of a Chicago district to the entire country - his rhetoric during the Heller proceedings has him emphatically stating it has - so I give him the benefit of the doubt given he's one of the most honest politicians I've ever encountered.

I don't pay attention to municipal gun control laws/prohibitions closely so I can't comment on them with the exception of Heller where I supported the majority. In my neck of the woods, we are at near-zero risk of anyone restricting our access to the types of weapons used here or their ammo.

I was also thrilled to hear the head of the Democratic party claim that the 2nd amendment defends an individual right to keep and bear arms rather than referring to state militias - that is a milestone in my lifetime.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 12, 2008 5:01 PM

Thomas M. - I suggest embracing the paragraph.

And no Thomas, Obama never supported legislation that would have banned shotgun shells larger than 28 gauge during the debate in the Senate where Kennedy made his gaffe.

The bill I believe you are referring to would apply only to ammunition which is "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability." The "marketed" prong is easy, since rifle ammunition makers do not tout such capability in their advertising, nor do 20, 16, or 12 gauge shotgun manufacturers. Also, this same ammo is not designed for armor piercing capabilities, some products just happen to share that property. Therefore, based on the plain meaning (which could have been worded better), but also the original intent of the congressional record, there is no evidence that Obama ever "supported legislation that essentially deemed any shotgun of 28 gauge or 'stronger' to be an 'assault weapon.'"

Here is my source which I'll stand by for the specific topics I raise here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

Also, here is the dialogue that occured here prior to Thomas M. bringing it up again (a tangent occuring in the comment section): http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/10/obama_threatening_tv_stations.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

Finally - Neither the Democratic party nor Obama have promoted prohibiting hunting rifles, shotguns, or their ammo. Nor will they; there is no political capital within the party nor is there the political will in the Democratic party to do such a thing. In fact the contrary has been occuring since the start of the Clinton years; they've been actively marketing their party to hunters.

I live in the heart of a hunting area and we are swamped with their political campaigns' rhetoric regarding their friendliness to both hunters and their being conservationists, mostly PR like Obama doing interviews with some of the outdoors/hunting-centric magazines, "Field and Stream" for example, but also bumper stickers and road signs. If you Google the story, it shows his voting record that's "key" according to this publication - no sign there of taking our hunting guns away, just defending the right of the individual to sue in court (I didn't link since that 3rd link would have sent this post to the moderator).

Obama has advocated gun control by geography (municipality as more practical matter) as noted in the FactCheck article. Given the fact he's an intellectual and the local prohibition he voted against was four years ago when he represented an area that had problems with gun-related crimes; I have no idea if he's adapted his view given his perspective has certainly widened from that of a Chicago district to the entire country - his rhetoric during the Heller proceedings has him emphatically stating it has widened - so I give him the benefit of the doubt given he's one of the most honest politicians I've ever encountered.

I don't pay attention to municipal gun control laws/prohibitions closely so I can't comment on them with the exception of Heller where I supported the majority. In my neck of the woods, we are at near-zero risk of anyone restricting our access to the types of weapons used here or their ammo.

I was also thrilled to hear the head of the Democratic party claim that the 2nd amendment defends an individual right to keep and bear arms rather than referring to state militias - that is a milestone in my lifetime.

I do not agree with Obama on his narrow interpretation of our gun rights, but I certainly don't fear him or the party as a hunter who uses a 30/06, 30/30, and a 12 gauge.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 12, 2008 5:08 PM

Art sez:

The lack of evidence being their single most substantial proof.
This is like believing in God because there is no proof and so belief is a 'test of faith'. Evidently they get extra credit for irrational belief. The more irrational the belief the greater their 'faith' and so the greater their reward. Which pretty much raises irrationality from a human foible to an assumed absolute good.

Posted by: WScott | November 12, 2008 5:32 PM

As a non-American, I do not understand the obsession with firearms. For those who claim the availablility of firearms improves safety, the figures and tables in http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/GlobalGunEpidemicRev07.pdf are worth looking at. Clearly something is different in the US.

Posted by: Richard Simons | November 12, 2008 5:44 PM

Thomas M.,
I always wonder about those statistics. No one ever says if the murder rate declines. That is what most urban dwellers want when they want some restrictions on gun ownership. We could give a crap about what you hunt with,your ammo or if you kill each other while hunting. Most people in our environment don't ever see thoes scenarios that are given to convince us that we are wrong.

Posted by: Hathor | November 12, 2008 6:17 PM

BobApril,

owever I note that some have run campaigns that were strong only in comparison to an even weaker opponent

Posted by: James Hanley | November 12, 2008 6:40 PM

Another thing that's different is the huge black market for guns in the USA. That's why the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" argument comes from. Over here, guns are so difficult to get that most bank robberies are committed with toys or other imitations...

Of course, there's a vicious circle here: the mentioned black market is continually resupplied by theft of completely legal weapons. Over here there are too few legal weapons for that.

Posted by: David Marjanović | November 12, 2008 6:47 PM

Well, one thing that's different is that -- I hear -- when you call the police over there, they take half an hour to come, if you're in a good neighbourhood. If you're in a bad one, they may not come at all.

Over here, if you call them, they come within five minutes.

If that's true, I'm not surprised so many Americans believe they must literally defend themselves, something that used to strike me as ridiculously paranoid.

Obviously it varies from place to place, but you can find some numbers by Googling "average police response time". Looking over the results, I would estimate the national average is roughly 6-8 minutes.

Posted by: lylebot | November 12, 2008 7:17 PM

I suppose that when we're talking about objects that can confer the power of life and death, we're bound to uncork a little madness in the population. Power and fear don't bring out the best in everyone.

But I have to belie my own observation with something that surprised me. After handgun bans were lifted in several Chicago suburbs recently, there was no great rush to buy handguns. Perhaps even more interesting, suburban attendance at public meetings about lifting the bans was sparse. When the bans were instituted during the 1980s, the battles were ferocious.

Posted by: Dr X | November 12, 2008 7:50 PM

I think people should have a right to bear arms, but I think a lot of the gun nuts have a reactive mentality. A lot of them go on and on and on about how we need guns for defense against crime. Because the world is dangerous. Yet what are they doing to make the world less dangerous? A lot of them do not want to oay taxes to build schools for poor people's children, yet they have no problem paying taxes to build more jails. (Granted, some of them think jails just grow on trees, but that is a whole other issue.) I know that just building more schools in and of itself is not the answer, yet a lot of the "pro-gun" crowd seems to care more about punishment than prevention.

Plus a lot of gun nuts think we need guns in the possession of citizens to prevent the government from imposing tyranny. But as gingerbaker above pointed out, George W. institutued quite a bit of tyranny in the USA. I am sure many would point out that the Bush Administration would only do bad things to terrorists. But who is in the position of defining who is and who is not a terrorist? Well, the government, of course. And to paraphrase Martin Niemöller, what will stop the government from labelling you a terrorist if you had no problem with everybody named "Abdul" being rounded up?

I subscribe to the idea behind the Sinclair Lewis quote that "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." But I think that fascism in the USA is also like the proverbial frog in boiling water. It will not happen overnight. There will not be tanks rolling down the street one day. It will happen slowly, by degrees, just like it is now. To keep us all safe, of course.

Posted by: Blue Nine | November 12, 2008 8:31 PM

Sadly, these are the people who need guns the LEAST.

Posted by: phoenix | November 12, 2008 8:48 PM

David Marjanović -

If you call the emergency response line, in any location I have lived, the police are there within minutes. If you call non-emergency, it depends on what else the officers are dealing with. In the really shit neighborhood I just left, if you call emergency response, they arrive in a very few moments - especially when there are shots fired.

There are a very few neighborhoods left over here, where the police won't respond. I am hesitant to say none, but I doubt there are any.

Of course, there's a vicious circle here: the mentioned black market is continually resupplied by theft of completely legal weapons.

Not the least bit true. Like any other contraband, the majority are imported. Ironically, they most often come from the middle east these days. Pakistan produces a lot of weaponry that ends up (eventually) over hear. Usually via drug producing nations. China is also a pretty strong source for weapons that will make their way to the U.S. black market.

It is remarkably difficult to steal guns in this country, unless you steal them from an individual. Stealing from individuals is simply not practical, if you want to sell any quantity and risky in and of itself. Stealing from a gun shop is a spectacular method for ending up dead. Owners are required by law to heavily secure their stores during off hours and if you try to steal from them during hours, in most places they are legally required to shoot your dumbass.

Trying to steal a shipment is also a really bad idea, again, a spectacular way to end up dead. It would be possible if you had a team that has military training, but would in itself require a hell of a lot of firepower.

Posted by: DuWayne | November 12, 2008 10:13 PM

Michael Moore's film festival which is starting to receive national attention in only its third year of operation.

you seem to be off by one; 2008 saw the fourth Traverse City Film Festival. although it did start getting national attention as early as 2006 --- the first one was, IMAO, the best so far, precisely because that one was the most local one.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 12, 2008 10:20 PM

Despite all the gun advocates who insist they need firearms to prevent crime, I've never actually met anyone who claims to have accomplished this. I have heard plenty of stories, however, of gun advocates shooting themselves, family members, each other, innocent bystanders, the family dog...

Posted by: H.H. | November 12, 2008 10:45 PM

Lawfully-armed citizens shoot innocent bystanders far less often than the police do.  It has something to do with police arriving on a scene and not always knowing who's the good guy vs. the bad guy, while a citizen who's being robbed is usually very clear on that.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 12, 2008 11:19 PM

EngineerPoet - Sure, operators of handguns MIGHT know who the bad guy is,
but do they tell the bullets? -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 12, 2008 11:57 PM

"actually, they do seem to have quite some success in Afghanistan."

Only because the US military and NATO is exercising restraint.

The Russians virtually wiped out the Mujahadeen and were only defeated when the US started supplying them with Stinger missiles.

Posted by: Ian Gould | November 13, 2008 1:02 AM

actually, they do seem to have quite some success in Afghanistan.

Seeing how bombs appear to be more effective in defending oneself against a tyrannical regime, I wonder when we'll hear advocacy for "the right to bear bombs".

Posted by: Beowulff | November 13, 2008 7:25 AM

Despite all the gun advocates who insist they need firearms to prevent crime, I've never actually met anyone who claims to have accomplished this.

i hate to link to a blog run by a person whose politics and ethics i both detest, but perhaps you should look into some of these episodes of people accomplishing just that.

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 13, 2008 8:37 AM

It's been a tough go for servicemembers lately, trying to determine when their lawfully appointed superiors are giving unlawful orders, but I am quite confident, with a confidence based on personal exposure to my fellow servicemembers, that very few soldiers would take arms against American civilians on a large scale for an extended period. The vast majority recognize that their oath is to defend the Constitution, not the government.

Posted by: RedHairBlueSkin | November 13, 2008 9:08 AM

Quoth Michael Heath:

I continue to stand on my argument if an AG ever tried to encroach beyond his limited powers even with the original language; there is no way such a challenge in court could be upheld given the plain meaning of "designed" and "marketed".

Then there's the real-life case of David Olofson. He was arrested, prosecuted and convicted because a gun he loaned to a friend malfunctioned after (a) firing several hundred rounds and (b) having the safety moved beyond the "fire" position. In this state it could be induced to fire several rounds before jamming. BATF raided his house, tested the gun and found that it was not a machine gun. Upon pressure from the prosecution, the gun was re-tested using ammo with sensitive primers and the malfunction was reproduced, so the BATF called it a "machine gun".

The gun parts involved had been recalled for safety reasons (this exact malfunction). Evidence of this was withheld from the jury. A summary of this case is at Firearms Coalition.org, with further links at the bottom of the post.

This has obvious implications for the "design" question; if the government feels like interpreting the word in a particular way, they'll do it. Even if they ultimately don't get away with it, they'll ruin a lot of people and nobody involved will be fired or even demoted. Government shouldn't be allowed to ruin people to suit their whims; that is what the Constitution and law are supposed to protect us from.

Anyone who is up in arms over the Bush use of Guantanamo, rendition and other practices should be just as outraged by these abuses of BATF regs to persecute gun owners. Your outrage appears to be very selective.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 13, 2008 9:23 AM

no, judging by what happened at Ruby Ridge, i think it's more likely we'd just shoot the women and children.

Yeah, you're right. That is a possibilty.

The vast majority recognize that their oath is to defend the Constitution, not the government.

Yep, but the reason that things can become sticky is that our oath is to defend the constitution against both foreign and domestic enemies. That same oath also requires us to obey lawful orders issued by POTUS et al., who would of course be the very ones determining which groups were classified as domestic enemies. I agree completely "that very few [US] soldiers would take arms against American civilians on a large scale for an extended period." The question is at what point do these soldiers stop viewing members of an armed militia as American civilians and start viewing them as enemy combatants. I do not know (for me personally, camoed up, in full battle rattle, and taking fire from said militia) the answer to that question. My memories of various briefings/discussions on this subject suggest (again to me) that many of my brothers might not know either. What I do know is that lots of stuff that appears clear cut when it's getting discussed in the team room suddently becomes very murky when rounds start getting sent down range.

Posted by: Josh | November 13, 2008 9:46 AM

NO CIVILIAN NEEDS

...a hummer.

but in a free country, we do not make laws to restrict what manner of property citizens may own based on what we think they need.

if you could present a plausible case that owning some manner of weaponry truly presented a significant threat to peace, life, and safety in society, which threat could not be addressed by any lesser means than a ban on ownership of said weapons, then you'd have a compelling government interest in such a ban. can you present such an argument?

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 13, 2008 10:10 AM

Ok, can we all get back to the real world here. Large scale civilian uprisings are a fantasy of people for whom their guns are actually a part of their identity. Never going to happen. Those who would like to see it happen, such as folks who live in terror that Obama is going to steal their guns, have absolutely no support from the vast majority of their neighbors. Indeed their neighbors would be the ones calling for help if they tried, because most sane people don't want to live in a fucking war zone.

And you can count me among the gun owners, who if asked (quite unlikely as it is) would be happy to help quell such an attempted uprising. Sorry gun nuts (not those who believe in the right to bear arms, but actual nuts), but there are few of us who would like to see our families put in harms way by your lunacy. Just like there are few of us who think you should have the right to fully automatic weapons, missiles or nuclear weapons (yes, I have come across those who actually believe we should have a right to every sort of weapon our government possesses).

RedHairBlueSkin -

I have very little doubt that if called to quell an uprising, the national guard would do as ordered. The likelihood of it ever getting beyond the capacity for civilian law enforcement is slim to none, but I doubt the national guard would ignore orders.

Engineer-Poet -

Great stats, but they don't actually answer the fact that cops are involved in a great many more shootings than civilians. What is the ratio of right/wrong person civi shootings? Because without that, the comparison you are making is completely meaningless.

Posted by: DuWayne | November 13, 2008 10:23 AM

still ass-backwards, jws. the burden of proof is on you, not me. else i'll have to ask you for an itemized inventory of everything you own, complete with a detailed explanation of why you need to be allowed to keep each item.

(nor am i impressed by appeals to authority. the founders are two centuries dead, who can tell what they'd think of uzis? i could just as easily speculate that Ben Franklin would go "hey, neat! i bet i could build something like this!" and George Washington might say "if those darn militiamen'd had one of these each, they might not have been so bloody useless in battle".)

Posted by: Nomen Nescio | November 13, 2008 10:23 AM

I seem to have a sticky

Posted by: RedHairBlueSkin | November 13, 2008 10:40 AM

...but in a free country, we do not make laws to restrict what manner of property citizens may own based on what we think they need.

Yes, actually, we do. Ever notice how many regulations there are to govern what size and designs of cars we can drive on public roads? Ever notice we don't allow undisciplined civilians to own functioning tanks, artillery and nukes? That's because we've decided (wisely IMHO) that civilians don't NEED those sorts of weapons badly enough to tolerate the threat to public safety that unregulated posession of such weapons would create. That's why we create governments and security forces, remember?

And guess what -- it's not unconstitutional. The Second Amendment explicitly states, in plain English, that a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE; which means it's perfectly okay -- dare I say sensible? -- to regulate (even to the extent of prohibition) the traffic and ownership of weapons to protect the security of a free state. And yes, reducing the ability of common criminals to outgun the cops (without the cops having to bring outrageous amounts of firepower to the streets) is indeed good for the security of a free state.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 13, 2008 12:36 PM

RHBS -

Nope, I'm not in the guard. However a great many of my friends and family are military or retired from.

...but what is more likely to happen is that the Guardsmen will look over the barricades and see their buddies and ask, "What they heck are you doing, man?"

What the fuck makes you think that in such a situation, the government would put Guardsman from the area in the situation? They won't be looking at their buddies, they'll be looking at armed insurrectionists. Insurrectionists who are probably holding neighbors hostage, if it really is a relatively large scale situation. Because here's a hint, very few folks anywhere are going to cooperate with an armed insurrection, so either they are going to become refugees from their homes or hostages. And unlike Ruby Ridge (which at the least fomented some changes in how the FBI operates such situations), they aren't family members of the insurrectionists and are unlikely to become targets.

Indeed, even if some of the Guardsmen know people on the other side of the barricade, as it were, they are unlikely to attempt to interfere with any negotiations. If they did, they would probably be arrested.

And I for one, would love to hear about these folks who decide to disobey orders. I am aware that it has happened and would probably happen again, given the proper circumstances, but such incidents are exceptionally rare.

Your fantasy scenario just isn't likely to ever happen.

Nomen -

Honestly, and mainly because I paid attention to that thread on Matt's blog, I wasn't really including you in the nut category. I imagine that you and I would disagree some on the degree of regulations, but we aren't that far apart. I absolutely agree that folks should have a right to own pretty much anything, subject to regulations protecting the health and safety of the folks around them.

Posted by: DuWayne | November 13, 2008 2:07 PM

as for your reading of the second amendment, take it up with the supreme court. they interpret it differently from how you do it...

I haven't read the rulings in great detail, but from what I've seen, beneath the choice of words and emphasis, their interpretation really isn't that different from mine. True, they're PRETENDING to find a kinda-sorta-inalienable right to bear arms, just to apppease the right-wingers in power; but in fact, they're also going out of their way to state that they have no intention of overturning more than one or two specific gun regs. They're giving de-jure recognition to a right to bear arms, but they're also giving de-facto recognition to the overriding state interest in regulating the traffic and possession of firearms for public safety.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 13, 2008 2:35 PM

"So I guess that stuff Obama said about rural folks was pretty true."

Nail on the head, almost.

Posted by: slpage | November 14, 2008 8:56 AM

jws:

So I guess that stuff Obama said about rural folks was pretty true.

Sort of. My impression is that anyone living in a rural area who's saner than Rod Nyland and his ilk* probably doesn't engage in the ultra-demonstrative behavior that the Nylands of the world do, mainly because it's the sort of behavior that only hardcore nutjobs engage in.

(*Traverse City may not be Detroit or even Grand Rapids, but it's a suitable warning that the Great American Stupid is hardly confined to the deep south.)

Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | November 14, 2008 7:40 PM

I feel the need to clarify for some of you, that Traverse City is not a bastion of right wing nuts by a long stretch. Like most of MI, it is pretty staunchly moderate, with a few extremists in either direction. My own experience in TC is that they mostly have some of the very best weed you'll find anywhere in MI and you don't have to take out a small mortgage to afford it. And they're something of a resort town.

I can give you a pretty good summary of why Nyland probably got fired. His idiot commentary would have put the store under, as would the flying the flag upside down. The owner had to back peddle precisely because TC is not a racist, backwoods hickville. It's not just the loss of tourist business that they needed to be concerned about - tourists usually don't pay much attention to local bullshit anyways. It's their bread and butter, the locals they depend on year round to survive.

There are racist, ignorant fucking morons everywhere. I just moved back from the People's Republic of Portland, OR - a fair liberal bastion if there ever was one. And guess what? There are racist fucking morons there too. There are even those who advertise it on their cars and a couple of businesses that make veiled anti-gay commentaries on their sign boards (Portland is extremely queer, chock full of gays too).

So lets not paint the whole area, because of one fucking racist moron, who hires racist fucking morons please. The northern lower peninsula is actually pretty fucking cool, with a few morons here and there. Yeah there are militia types who congregate here and there, but they mostly keep to themselves (paranoid) and try hard not to be noticed by their neighbors. Everyone else just tends to wander through the woods with their guns, trying to avoid shooting the snowmobilers and skiers - those who aren't busy in their art studios or making wine.

And the U.P. is just - different. I wonder sometimes why Canada doesn't annex the U.P. altogether, as yoopers tend to "speak Canadian," act Canadian and are even rather clean like the Canadians. I suspect because the U.P. and yoopers are a lot of fun and many Michiganders love to be able to visit Canada without actually crossing the border. But yoopers are definitely not big on the racist fucking idiocy.

Posted by: DuWayne | November 14, 2008 11:36 PM