NRA Ex-President Compares Gun Control to Racism

20130105-085814.jpgRemember how we took a break from talking about the fiscal cliff to talk about gun control laws? And then remember how Wayne LaPierre gave a press conference that will probably go down in history as the worst press conference in the history of press conferences? Oh, how we laughed and mocked! — until we got bored and started talking about the the fiscal cliff again.

Good times.

Welp, lucky for us, Marion Hammer has thrust the NRA back into news. Hammer, ex-president of the NRA and Kathy Geiss impersonator, gave a TV interview during which she compared gun control to racism.

Yes, seriously:

Appearing on an episode of the NRA news show The Daily News on Wednesday, Hammer concluded a discussion of the prospects on gun control initiatives prompted by the Newtown, Conn. massacre by drawing a comparison between attempts to ban guns and racism.

“And they even admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it’s about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works,” host Ginny Simone said toward the end of the segment.

“Well, you know, banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago,” Hammer responded. “But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It’s just bad politics.”

Guns have it pretty rough in this country, especially scary black guns. We should start with some common sense solutions — like increasing diversity in gun manufacturing. Maybe we should set some quotas.

This discrimination must end.

[cross-posted at ABLC]

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

75 replies
  1. 1
    Alison says:

    This story is the reason why the Internet gave us the term “LOLSOB”. Because I want to laugh and cry in equal amounts.

    Because WAT.

  2. 2
    Zam says:

    If you look at it though, a lot less people have been killed by white guns than black ones.

  3. 3
    efgoldman says:

    I am ever thankful for these here intartoobwebs. Without them, 99% of us might never know about all the perverted, stupid, evil things that people say.
    Mixed blessing, I’d say.

    ETA: Ads in right side of frame for “Calibex Body Armor.” I blame ABL.

  4. 4
    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again) says:

    …Kathy Geiss impersonator…

    I love that so much I want to take it behind a middle school…

  5. 5
    c u n d gulag says:

    OY! ! !

    SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

    That’s all I gotta say…

  6. 6
    Michael G says:

    I refuse to believe that is a photo of an actual person and not a character in a Christopher Guest mockumentary.

  7. 7
    StonyPillow says:

    Another mass murder in Aurora. Three down, plus the shooter, after a police standoff. Smart money says the gun owner was a member in good standing of the NRA. But you’d never prove it — his membership data went down the memory hole hours ago.

  8. 8
    Elizabelle says:

    Don’t let your purse get the drop on you.

    Another gun story out of the Republic of Crazy.

  9. 9
    Smiling Mortician says:

    Um . . . “the NRA news show The Daily News”? Does this mean the NRA has its own cable network or perhaps just its own news division? Doesn’t surprise me, just increases the likelihood that I’m gonna vomit sometime soon.

  10. 10
    scav says:

    @Elizabelle: purse stood its ground. Would you want to get fumbled?

  11. 11
    Betty Cracker says:

    Hammer is also the genius behind Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.

  12. 12

    This is not an accidentally bad phrasing, or merely ignorance. White conservatives have Racism Envy. Their deep feelings about the Other have been successfully publicly painted as wrong. They badly want both to lessen the stigma of racism by diluting it and to wield that moral high ground for their own issues.

    EDIT – And I believe there is a whoooole lot of overlap between the conservatives who are crazy over guns and the conservatives who are mad that they can’t say the N Word in public anymore.

  13. 13
    dexwood says:

    Clearly, more pink guns are needed.

  14. 14
    Mutt says:

    Actually, while her analogy to rascism is stupid, the crux of her statement is correct, like it or not. With well over 40 MILLION semi auto “ugly” guns in citizens hands in the US, this bizarre crusade to criminalize the 99.9998 % of gun owners who bother no one is a strange bit of human foible i don’t get. You don’t LIKE firearms, fine. Don’t own them. Ditto abortions, and a host of other things. But this going after tens of millions of people for the crimes of a handful make zero sense.

  15. 15
    Humble Lurker says:

    @Mutt: Uh, an idiot or crazy having a gun could very probably be my problem. How would someone getting an abortion? How do those two things compare, again?

    Oh that’s right, they don’t. Because there was never an abortion that killed 20 kindergarteners. You idiot.

  16. 16
    Culture of Truth says:

    this bizarre crusade to criminalize the 99.9998 % of gun owners who bother no one is a strange bit of human foible i don’t get

    To what specifically are you referring?

  17. 17
    gogol's wife says:

    @Humble Lurker:

    Hang on for lightning strikes, cars, chow-chow dogs, and sharks.

  18. 18
    Keith says:

    Kathy Geiss impersonator

    I would have pegged her as an impersonator of Lloyd Christmas from “Dumb and Dumber” (I’m assuming that shirt has ruffles)

  19. 19
    Mandalay says:

    @Mutt:

    this bizarre crusade to criminalize the 99.9998 % of gun owners who bother no one

    A straw man bullshit lie.

  20. 20
    Joel says:

    @Mutt: Unlike abortions, guns can be used to kill us. So, there’s that.

  21. 21
    Chris says:

    I’ve had it before. “People used to have an irrational fear of black people, now they have an irrational fear of guns.”

    Sounds slightly better than their usual line, which is “guns don’t kill people, black people kill people.”

  22. 22
    Paul says:

    @Mutt:

    You don’t LIKE firearms, fine. Don’t own them. Ditto abortions, this bizarre crusade to criminalize the 99.9998 % of gun owners who bother no one is a strange bit of human foible i don’t get.

    You LOVE firearms, fine. Then stop killing innocent people. A gun-owner is a law-abiding citizen until he is not. Hell, there was a work place shooting in my state about 2 months ago. Six people were murdered. Guess what? The killer had bought the gun LEGALLY.

    I have given up going to political rallies because of people like you. What about my freedom not to get shot?

  23. 23

    To paraphrase Harlan Ellison: she couldn’t have been born yesterday, because no one can get that fucking stupid in only 24 hours!!

  24. 24
    👽 Martin says:

    @Mutt:

    You don’t LIKE firearms, fine. Don’t own them. Ditto abortions, and a host of other things. But this going after tens of millions of people for the crimes of a handful make zero sense.

    Look, the position of Democrats on abortion is ‘safe, legal, and rare‘. There’s an acknowledged viewpoint that abortion has the potential for abuse, and while legal, should be carefully regulated.

    The gun community takes no such attitude. The gun community can either police themselves, which they refuse, or they can be policed by broader society. It’s your choice – and you’re failing miserably. Either progressive gun owners need to nut up, tell the NRA to go fuck themselves and back sensible gun regulation so that the majority of illegal guns aren’t so easily sourced from you, or you’re going to get whatever policies the rest of us dream up right down to banning them, because we don’t fucking care if you lose that right. With rights come responsibilities, and the gun community refuses to address those responsibilities.

    That’s the cost of ceding policy responsibility – you give it people that don’t share your interests. So either step up, or accept what the rest of us decide.

  25. 25
    Betty Cracker says:

    @👽 Martin: Well said, Martin.

  26. 26
    Mandalay says:

    Slate is documenting every gun death reported in the news since the Newtown massacre.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....oting.html

    And if that doesn’t depress you enough, you can always search Google News for “accidental shooting” to read about people killing their friends and their family every day.

  27. 27
    Mandalay says:

    @👽 Martin:

    or you’re going to get whatever policies the rest of us dream up right down to banning them

    I’m with you in spirit, but I don’t share your optimism that any significant legislation will be passed.

  28. 28
    gelfling545 says:

    @Keith: I thought she kind of resembled the alien in a human suit from Dr. Who – the ones took that wanted to destroy the earth to have a big salvage sale and had that gas problem. Has anyone checked her for forehead zippers?

  29. 29
    Smiling Mortician says:

    @Mutt: I hope you don’t mind if I borrow your comment for use in an argumentation class I’m teaching. I can’t think of another example of such a short text packed with so many easily identifiable logical fallacies. Even my freshmen should be able to pick them out fairly easily.

  30. 30
    I am not a kook says:

    According to Mutt’s “statistics” there are 800 bad gun owners in the US, who murder about 14 people each, every year.

    Quite the enterprising bunch. But of course we can’t do anything to stop them, that would be Wrong.

  31. 31
    mdblanche says:

    You’ll have to forgive Hammer. She’s been very distraught ever since a kindergartener killed twenty gun owners last month.

    To make matters worse, she’d just heard this from Louie Gohmert.

  32. 32
    arguingwithsignposts says:

    @Mutt: Is there some kind of gun-shaped silhouette on a searchlight that calls you people out?

  33. 33
    PurpleGirl says:

    There was a police shooting in NYC a few days ago. Four men tried to hold up a Bronx car dealership. They shot an off-duty cop at the dealership (his family owns it). And would you be surprised that the handgun was stolen in North Carolina one month ago. Probably legally bought but the owner didn’t take the proper care to make sure he retained ownership.

  34. 34
    Gracie says:

    @Mutt: False equivalencies aside, you’re right. Abortion doctors should always carry guns.

    /off to gaze at the sky in my light bulb moment

  35. 35
    KCinDC says:

    Isn’t that Kathy Geiss, who was briefly Jack’s (mentally challenged) boss on 30 Rock?

  36. 36
    gogol's wife says:

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    LOL. This must be true.

  37. 37

    I keep hearing this line that we want to ban the AR-15 because of how it looks. OK, please someone list the firearms that look less “scary” that have the same capacity and performance.

    Really, I would like to know.

    Its also a bullshit arguement becuase existing laws dont’t regulate firearms on looks, they regulate certain calibers and functions.

  38. 38

    I keep hearing this line that we want to ban the AR-15 because of how it looks. OK, please someone list the firearms that look less “scary” that have the same capacity and performance.

    Really, I would like to know.

    Its also a bullshit arguement becuase existing laws dont’t regulate firearms on looks, they regulate certain calibers and functions.

  39. 39
    xian says:

    @PurpleGirl: that gun’s owner should be liable for negligence.

  40. 40
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Which just goes to show that the true mission of the NRA is to sell guns, or help create a climate that sells guns.

    They’re succeeding, wildly.

    This “defense of the 2nd Amendment” crap is just a smokescreen to obfuscate the true mission of the NRA: sell more guns for its sponsors, the firearms and ammunition manufacturers of America, the merchants of death.

  41. 41
    Mutt says:

    you have about 180 million gun owners in the US. Only 4 million belong to the NRA. Out of 180 million gun owners, and 300 million people, you will get defectives and nuts. The percentage of these defectives is vanishingly small. You propose to criminalize, one way or another, 180 million people who have .nothing< to do with "gun crime". Im supposed to see this as logical. Tell me, say you criminalize scary looking rifles- just them. Thats at least 40 million of them…. (as a side, someone good at math may divide 40 million- we'll use a conservative estimate- by the number of people who have used "assault weapons" in crimes in the US- whats the fraction of a fraction of a %, there?) you think the cops are going to go door to door disarming people, because you don't like firearms? And if you say- I don't care what happens, I want it done- well, you've just approved a whole lo90t- it will be many thousands- dead/wounded trying to pull this off. But this is a website that is run by a fellow who thinks Obama is a fine chap, wars, banksters, torture and renditions aside, so maybe you can pretzel that logic. I dunno.
    And, again: if you advocate "majority rule" you are opening the gates of hell for a LOT of people- gays, coloured folks, women who seek abortion & family planning services- to the bigots and crackpots that make up the bulk of many parts of the countries polity.

  42. 42
    gogol's wife says:

    Don’t forget drones.

  43. 43
    West of the Rockies (formerly Frank W.) says:

    @Mutt: I really don’t get the guns/abortions comparison. You tell me not to get an abortion if I’m against abortion. Fine. I won’t. (As a man, it’s a moot point anyway, of course.) But other people getting abortions won’t harm me.

    You tell me also not to get a firearm if I’m against ’em. Fine. I won’t. But that does not protect me from those who DO have the damn things. Their decision to acquire guns clearly does harm hundreds of innocent people every damn year. Maybe you should try to go with a an alcohol/drunk driving analogy instead. Oh, and do a bit more homework.

  44. 44
    Paul says:

    you have about 180 million gun owners in the US. Only 4 million belong to the NRA. Out of 180 million gun owners, and 300 million people, you will get defectives and nuts. The percentage of these defectives is vanishingly small.

    Not sure where you are getting 180 million from. According to this article, it is 80 million.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P.....-Feinstein

    You propose to criminalize, one way or another, 180 million people who have .nothing< to do with "gun crime". you think the cops are going to go door to door disarming people, because you don't like firearms? And if you say- I don't care what happens, I want it done- well, you've just approved a whole lo90t- it will be many thousands- dead/wounded trying to pull this off.

    Above you claim that just about all of the gun owners of America are law-abiding and basically saints. Yet, now you are basically insinuating that these so called law-abiding gun owners will murder police officers in the thousands if they try to confiscate guns. That sure as hell doesn’t sound law-abiding to me.

  45. 45
    Ben Cisco says:

    The STOOPID.

    It’s like getting road rash, having alcohol poured on the wound, the wound being set on fire, someone trying to put the fire out with liquid cayenne pepper extract, and THEN getting thrown under a bus.

    A STABBITY bus!

  46. 46
    RAM says:

    I keep thinking that banning assault weapons is probably futile since there are so many of the things. How about banning all removable magazines with a capacity of more than 5 shots? And that would be for handguns as well as long arms.

    Granted, you can switch out a spent mag easily, but you’d have to do it four times to get to a standard 20-round load and six times to get to a 30-round load. That’s a lot of changing out spent mags and would at least slow the morons down as little, during which Megan McArdle would have a chance to gang rush the guy and tackle him.

    Prohibit sale and manufacture of such mags for anyone other than the military and police, and civilian possession of mags with a capacity of more than 5 shots subject to a really significant fine for each mag.

    This way the guys who like to play cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, or imagine themselves fighting off the next Cuban or North Korean invasion or who masturbate thinking about taking on the government with their militia buddies could still have their ridiculous-looking assault rifles with laster sights and mounted flashlights and what the hell else they clip and bolt on to them but they’d be less lethal for mass shooting incidents.

  47. 47
    gnomedad says:

    Liberals are the real racists, and everything they like is just like racism. MLK would totally be a Republican today, and Gandhi would be president of the NRA.

  48. 48
    jayboat says:

    @Paul:
    The number I’ve seen used repeatedly is 60 million registered gun owners. 4 million nra ‘members’.

    20% of the owners own 60% of the guns.

  49. 49
    Pococurante says:

    @dexwood:

    Clearly, more pink guns are needed.

    There is a market for everything.

    @Paul:

    Not sure where you are getting 180 million from. According to this article, it is 80 million.

    He may be confusing the total number of guns with number of gun owners. I’ve seen estimates range from 120 to 380 million guns of all types.

    Charlton Heston probably owned a quarter of them when he was still alive.

  50. 50
    Pococurante says:

    @gnomedad:

    … and Gandhi would be president of the NRA.

    Gandhi was the guy whose response in 1942 to learning about the concentration camps in Poland was that they should accept their fate in the name of non-violence, and that India should surrender to the Japanese for the same reason (again knowing of the atrocities in the Pacific Rim).

    So his advice to us today would probably be of great comfort to the NRA freaks of today.

  51. 51
  52. 52
    xian says:

    @jayboat: what is a registered gun owner?

  53. 53
    chuckieboy says:

    The GOP SUPERSTORE

    Aisle 1: RACISM

    Aisle 2: GREED

    Aisle 3: FEAR

    SORRY ALL OF THE OTHER ARE EMPTY

  54. 54
    jefft452 says:

    @The Other Bob: “Its also a bullshit arguement becuase existing laws dont’t regulate firearms on looks, they regulate certain calibers and functions”

    All true,

    But whenever I hear the “they want to ban ugly guns” argument, the first thing that pops into my mind is: you’re not upset that they want to ban ‘ugly’ looking guns, you’re upset that they want to ban ‘cool’ looking guns, and if “which one make me look more badass?” is a major criteria in your gun choice, maybe you’re not mature enough to own one

  55. 55
    ruemara says:

    Every day, I wonder if America has finally hit the end of it’s hateful and stupid well. And every day, the answer from the universe is, “no”.

  56. 56
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @jefft452:

    you’re upset that they want to ban ‘cool’ looking guns, and if “which one make me look more badass?” is a major criteria in your gun choice, maybe you’re not mature enough to own one

    Hence the “Man card” advertisement for Bushmaster.

    As some hunters who chanced upon my ROTC cadet company in the Coburg Hills north of Eugene, and saw us toting M16s around (with blanks, and blank adapters on them), remarked “that’s a deadly looking weapon!”. Mind you, they had the live rounds, we did not. But gosh our firearms were BADASS!

  57. 57
    mclaren says:

    Okay. Then it’s equally reasonable to compare anti-gun control advocacy to child molestation.

    Turnabout is fair play.

  58. 58
    Ruckus says:

    @👽 Martin:
    Very well stated.

    @ruemara:
    That well is bottomless.

  59. 59
    sm*t cl*de says:

    Hammer, ex-president of the NRA

    Her nickname is “Sledge”, right?

  60. 60
    ottercliff says:

    I think she has hit upon a most valuable marketing idea here. If the NRA mounted a PR campaign, rejecting any form of gun control as nothing more than “gun racism”, the combination of a well thought out idea and Wayne LaPierre’s huggable persona would no doubt be a winner!
    They could augment it with some tape of Allen West (or Herman Cain or that Alan Keyes fellow) firing off a few Bushmaster clips to reinforce the point.

  61. 61
    Bill says:

    I feel that I should note something here:

    The assault weapons ban of 1994 was written in such a way that it regulated and restricted firearms based primarily on their appearance.

    As if some junior staffers who didn’t know the first effing thing about firearms were shown pictures of an AR-15 and an AK-47 (actually an AKS, the ‘civilian’ version) and instructed to construct legislation to regulate firearms “like these”.

    Once the bill became law, the weapons mfrs. simply removed the flash hiders, and connected the shoulder stock to the pistol grip in what is called a “thumbhole stock”, and continued to sell the same effing weapons, firing the same effing cartridge, at the same effing rate of fire, perfectly legally.

    Pistol magazines were regulated to 10 round capacity, so you just went to a gun show and bought all the 14 or 15 or 17 round “pre ban” mags that you could afford, which fit perfectly into the mag well of your “post ban” pistol. Or you just ponied up an extra hundo or so at the gun shop and bought a “pre-ban” pistol, all legal-like.

    The problem with the 94 assault weapons ban is that it was:

    A: Written by people who didn’t have any fucking idea of what they were doing, who didn’t even speak the goddamn language, and

    B: It didn’t accomplish a fucking thing.

    And what makes us think that we’ll get something that resembles an effective law this time around? Are we going to ban 30 round magazines? Do you have any freaking idea how many millions of thirty round magazines exist in this country? How the hell do we propose to get them away from people? There aren’t any records of who has them!

    Cop: Ya’ll got any high capacity magazines in here?

    Citizen: No sir, none of those here.

    Cop: Alright then.

    We are fighting a battle we’re not going to win, because we, and by extension, the people we elect to represent our views, by and large do not understand the game or even the field upon which it is played.

    You’re not going to get the guns, or the magazines. Offer people twice or three times what they’re worth in a buyback program, and you’re not getting the guns or the magazines.

    Stop selling the guns and the magazines, and you won’t even put a dent in it. The only part of an AR-15 that’s regulated at all is the lower receiver, and they don’t wear out. There are magazines, new in the wrapper, from the 70s and 80s still on the market. The only people who know where and how many are the people that own them.

    It’s really not even the collectors or even the stockpilers who are the problem- it’s the people who don’t lock up their fucking guns who are the problem. It’s the people who don’t lock up the ammo separately who are the problem.

    THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE HAVE IS PEOPLE WHO LET THEIR GUNS GET INTO THE HANDS OF CRAZY FUCKERS.

    Hate the guns, fine. Hate the people that own them, whatever; I’m sure that some of them hate you right back. Just try to understand what we’re up against- The best we can do is get people to lock the damn guns up, and make sure that crazy fuckers can’t find the keys.

    We’re going to need social workers and psychologists to be required by law to advise parents of emotionally unstable kids to get the guns out of the house. They won’t, but they’ll have been notified, and then we can lock them up when their kid kills. Et Cetera.

  62. 62
    Trakker says:

    @Mutt:

    “Tell me, say you criminalize scary looking rifles…”

    Mutt, why are you turning “military style, semi-automatic guns” into “scary guns” in this argument? I don’t give a damn if they look scary, these firearms ARE scary because with large capacity clips they can kills dozens in a minute AND THEY HAVE NO USEFUL FUNCTION OTHER THAN AS PLAYTHINGS FOR ADULTS! What about “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment? I went to a public hearing once about passing some gun laws and the gun nuts came and disrupted the hearings, screamed at anyone who supported better laws and pretty much scared the crap out of the audience. It was a frenzy of hatred – and one assumes those people owned firearms.

  63. 63
    magurakurin says:

    @The Other Bob:

    From what I have been seeing, it actually is a problem. A wood stock, semi automatic .22 caliber rifle can hold large magazines,fire the same types of damaging bullets at the exact same rapid rate as the “assault rifle” looking gun. It’s one reason that the assault weapon bans are not very effective. There is no clearly defined animal as an “assault rifle.”

    Short of banning semi-automatic weapons altogether it is actual very difficult to limit weapons like the one used in Sandy Hook. Yes, it would look different, but the destructive power would be the same.

    Personally, I’m for banning semi-automatic weapons of all types. Obviously, that will never fly in the United States. Short of that, I imagine that large magazines, reduced weight stocks, night scopes and such things can probably be eliminated. I’d also like to the see the end of the sale of things such as body armor(seriously, why is anyone buying that) and ammunition like the “cop killer” bullets and such.

    In my kingdom, the 2nd Amendment would just be repealed. Hell, I’ve immigrated to Japan and I happily gave up that right moving here. Don’t need it, don’t want it. But I’m not the king.

    Really don’t understand why a six-shooter and a non semi-automatic hunting rifle or shot gun is enough for hunting and or protection.

    But an assault rifle ban is no where near as simple a matter as it first may seem.

  64. 64
    Trakker says:

    @Bill:
    Bill, you make some good points. Most of us know the odds, we know that anything we do now will be too little and definitely too late. We know it’s going to be a long, uphill battle, but we have to start, NOW. We’ve been fighting cruel diseases like cancer all my life and yet still too many die from it each year.

    At least now, finally, the country is facing the fact that we’ve been duped and duped badly by the NRA and others.

  65. 65
    Bill says:

    @Trakker: I just want to make sure that the discussion, at least at BJ, if nowhere else, is as informed and insightful as we would all expect it to be. Banning semiautos or assault rifles or high cap mags is all a fine idea, a noble pursuit, but it just ain’t gonna happen. There is just not enough public support, even after Sandy Hook. I would imagine that drunk drivers kill a shocking number of kids every year, but we’re not going to ban cars.

    If we send the cops door to door for guns, the smart people will just say that they sold their semiautos at a gun show, or in a private sale, just as all the hysteria was ramping up, and made out like a bandit. The less-smart people will get in firefights with the cops. Kids in houses will be killed by bullets.

    I can walk into a gun store tomorrow at 9 am, buy an AR-15, and walk out at 9:15. If someone came looking for the gun the following day, it would go like this:

    Do you have an AR-15 here?

    Nope.

    You purchased one yesterday morning at 9:05 am.

    Yes.

    And it’s not here?

    Sold it.

    To Whom?

    Guy I met at the range.

    His name?

    I didn’t ask, nor am I required to have asked.

    Was this man legally prohibited from owning a firearm?

    I have no reason to believe that he was legally prohibited from owning a firearm.

    Do you have any paperwork on this sale?

    I am not required to record the sale, so no.

    Thank you, sir.

    You’re welcome.

    That’s it- private sale, perfectly legal. Happens all day, every day. If the government tries to collect people’s guns, they will hear about a staggering number of spur-of-the-moment private sales. Or sales at gun shows. We can’t even get meaningful background checks passed, do we think we’re going to be able to effectively regulate ownership and documentation?

    You’re absolutely right, the NRA has done this while we were doing other things. But you need to understand that people who like guns are almost a different species from those that don’t. Those who fetishize guns are a step or two beyond that mark. They’re waiting for someone to come for their guns, and if it happen to be able to be blamed on a black president, so much the better as far as they’re concerned. It’ll be a siege, and most of them are ready for a siege. It’ll be a few thousand little Wacos or Ruby Ridges. Their unofficial motto is Molon Labe- Come and Take Them. You’ve got to realize that these people are fucking nuts, if just in this one small but powerful way, as far as you’re concerned. Things that you would see as reasonable would be seen as insanity by them. Things that you find horrifying are probably not even distasteful in their opinion.

    Shit, I think people who don’t drive Subarus are lunatics, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to run them into a ditch when they decide to take their various bald-tired shitboxes out on the roads for a spin and/or slide when it’s snowing and the plows are trying to do their jobs. I don’t run them into ditches, I never have, in fact I often pull them out of ditches that they have run themselves into, but do you see my point? Everyone has things they feel very strongly about: Our side is afraid of/concerned about/worried sick about/fed up with guns. Their side: Cold Dead Fingers. Grew up with ’em/always had ’em, always will/forget it, hippie.

    We here at BJ need to be having a solid, productive discussion about this subject, and I felt that my perspective was so far unrepresented, and might be useful.

  66. 66
    GregB says:

    Marion Dumb as a Sack of Hammers.

    When will this persecution end?

    Guns are the Jews of liberal fascism.

  67. 67
    Yutsano says:

    @magurakurin:

    Don’t need it, don’t want it. But I’m not the king.

    Sorry, all I could imagine here is the massive kerfluffle over a foreign emperor. :)

  68. 68
    redshirt says:

    Molon Labe needs to be a Swedish death metal band.

  69. 69
    scav says:

    I presume they’re not going to ban abortion then because of the ubiquity of coat-hangers, correct?

  70. 70
    Xenos says:

    @Bill: Strict liability seems to be a pretty good approach here. If someone makes a private sale and wants to transfer that liability then they need a signed receipt and they need to mail it to the ATF.

    Gun collection and hoarding is a form of materialism. Threaten people’s ability to own stuff and you will be pressuring them in an effective way.

  71. 71
    e.a.f. says:

    Its all about colour, is it? How interesting. She has to be dumber than a southern politician. I don’t care what colour you paint an automatic weapon I still am not going to like it. Pink does not make an automatic weapon kill less people. Nor will any other colour gun. Anyhow everybody knows the new black is grey. With a touch of tourquise. I don’t care how many Martha Stewart paint coloured guns they might put on the market, they all are meant to kill. In a country which has about as many guns/rifles as there are people, enough is enough. The NRA is going to have to come up with some better arguments.

    Those of us who live in countries with gun/rifle restrictions know its the number of weapons in a country which lead to the number of killings by gun/rifle. Chicago had about 500 murders this past year. Canada, not even close. Japan, even less. what is the differance? Gun control, real gun control. now of course we know Switzerland is different, they have guns but not the type of murders they do in the U.S.A. but Switzerland is a wealth country without the wealth gap the U.S.A. has. It is just a more civilized country.

    Oh, well, when ever these NRA types open their mouths, we can all be thankful we aren’t as stupid as they are.

  72. 72
    Cacti says:

    @Paul:

    A gun-owner is a law-abiding citizen until he is not.

    The late Nancy Lanza was a peaceful, law-abiding, gun owner…

    Who saw no harm in teaching her mentally unstable son to shoot, and enjoyed spending quality time with him at the firing range.

  73. 73
    Patricia Kayden says:

    So I guess according to Mutt, we shouldn’t pass any gun control laws at all.

    Because of “coloured people” and all that, doncha know?

  74. 74
  75. 75
    John M. Burt says:

    @The Other Bob: We don’t object to the AR-15 because it “looks like” an M-16. We object to it because it takes less than 15 minutes to turn an AR-15 into an M-16.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments are closed.