;)
The Commentariat -- Dec. 18, 2012
Cliff Notes
Ezra Klein: "All at once, a 'fiscal cliff' deal seems to be coming together. Speaker John Boehner’s latest offer doesn’t go quite far enough for the White House to agree, but it goes far enough that many think they can see the agreement taking shape." Klein outlines the tentative details. ...
... Carrie Brown of Politico has an update in which she outlines the broad strokes of President Obama's supposed counteroffer to Speaker Boehner. And, yup, I'll be paying for this deal in lower benefits. Thanks a bunch, Mr. President.
** Dylan Matthews of the Washington Post explains "chained CPI": "... taken all together, it’s basically a big (5 percent over 12 years; more, if you take a longer view) across-the-board cut in Social Security benefits paired with a 0.19 percent income surtax. You don’t hear a lot of politicians calling for the drastic slashing of Social Security benefits and an across-the-board tax increase that disproportionately hits low earners. But that’s what they’re sneakily doing when they talk about chained CPI."
"Unacceptable." How popular is Obama's agreement to reduce Social Security benefits & raise taxes on the lower middle class? Not very. Jon Cohen & Philip Rucker of the Washington Post: "Most Americans want President Obama and congressional Republicans to compromise on a budget agreement, though they, too, are unhappy about the options that would avert the 'fiscal cliff,' according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The strong support for compromise belies widespread public opposition to big spending cuts that are likely to be part of any deal. Most Americans oppose slashing spending on Medicaid and the military, as well as raising the age for Medicare eligibility and slowing the increase of Social Security benefits, all of which appear to be on the table in negotiations. Majorities call each of these items 'unacceptable.'”
Brad DeLong explains chained CPI: "'Chained-CPI' is code for 'let's really impoverish some women in their 90s!' It's a bad policy. It should be off the table. Failing to extend the payroll tax cut is bad policy. It should be off the table. Failing to boost infrastructure spending is bad policy. It should be off the table. This deal would still be on the table in January. And odds are Obama could get a much better deal than this come January."
Paul Krugman: "Those cuts are a very bad thing, although there will supposedly be some protection for low-income seniors.... We shouldn’t be doing benefit cuts at all; but if benefit cuts are the price of a deal that is better than no deal, much better that they involve the CPI adjustment than the retirement age. But is this rumored deal better than no deal? I’m on the edge."
CW: Who doesn't like the idea of 90-year-old widows paying for corporate tax breaks? Let's hope the AARP has something to say about that.
** Reid Wilson of the National Journal: "Republicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office. Senior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.... Senior Republicans in Washington are overseeing legislation in [Michigan, Pennslyvania & Wisconsin] to end the winner-take-all system." ...
... Charles Pierce: Republicans "have largely given up on persuading a majority of American voters that their ideas matter, or that they are the best choice to lead the entire country.... They are not planning on adapting to a changing country. What they're planning is to change the system of presidential elections so that they never have to do so."
CW: when I saw the artwork to the left in a Google search, I assumed it was meant to be ironical. Not at all. This is the logo of a company called Modern Musket. Its stated "philosophy" begins, "So-called 'assault weapons' bans pose the greatest threat to Second Amendment freedoms. These bans place prohibitions on many common, semi-automatic firearms solely because of their appearance and their ergonomic and cosmetic features." It is people like whoever is behind Modern Musket who are determining gun policy in this country. Basta.
** This Bloomberg News Editorial advocating for gun-control legislation is the most powerful I've read.
Debbie Wilgoren, et al., of the Washington Post: "President Obama on Monday began the first serious push of his administration to attempt to reduce gun violence, directing Cabinet members to begin formulating a set of proposals that could include an effort to reinstate a ban on assault rifles. The effort will be led by Vice President Biden...." Congressional Democrats, including those with strong pro-gun records like Sens. Harry Reid (Nevada) & Mark Warner (Virginia), are urging action. "Republicans remained largely silent...." ...
The fact is that Democrats have been paralyzed on this issue for fear of losing voters they have already lost; and after an election in which Obama won only one-third of white men, the constituency most resistant to gun control, and still won a solid victory, the party's paralysis doesn't make much sense electorally. -- Ron Brownstein of the National Journal ...
... Fucile Non Grata, 1. Mark Scott of the New York Times: "The private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management said on Tuesday that it would sell its investment in the gunmaker Freedom Group in response to the school shootings last week in Connecticut. Cerberus acquired Bushmaster — the manufacturer of the rifle used by the gunman in the Newtown attacks that killed 27 people, including 20 schoolchildren — in 2006." Via Greg Sargent. ...
... Fucile Non Grata, 2. Susan Candiotti of CNN: "Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the largest sporting goods retailers in the world, says it has removed all guns from its store nearest to Newtown, Connecticut, and is suspending the sale of certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles from its chains nationwide." Via Greg Sargent. ...
... Nate Silver: "... Republicans are more likely to own guns than Democrats. But the differences have become much starker in recent years, with gun ownership having become a powerful predictor of political behavior.... America is an outlier relative to other industrialized nations in its gun ownership rates. Whatever makes this country so different from the rest of the world must surely be reflected in the differences in how Democrats and Republicans see the nation."
... Jon Cohen & Peyton Craighill of the Washington Post: "In a major reversal, a slim majority of Americans see the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary as a sign of broader problems in society, not merely an isolated act of a troubled individual, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.... However, beyond broad opinion change in assessments of the cause, few underlying opinions about gun control have shifted significantly in the immediate aftermath of the latest shooting." ...
... For those of you who, like me, know very little about guns, Brad Plumer of the Washington Post takes "a look at what the 1994 [assault weapons ban] actually did, where it failed, and whether it could be reworked to significantly reduce gun violence." (The ban expired in 2004 & the Republican Congress did not renew it.) ...
... Nicholas Confessore, et al., of the New York Times on the power, policies & tactics of the NRA. CW: This is a largely impressionistic piece, long on anecdotes & short on evidence, but it gives you a good idea of the hopes & dreams of the NRA leadership.
... I must owe my proposal to control ammo sales to Chris Rock:
... Whither the NRA? Chris Boyette of CNN: since the Newtown killings, "... the National Rifle Association has remained conspicuously silent. As of Monday evening the largest and most powerful gun-rights lobbying group in the U.S. had not posted anything to its website since Friday morning.... The NRA's Facebook page has been deactivated, and visitors are redirected to a bare-bones page where comments are disabled.... Its Twitter account, which typically posts several times a day, also has been quiet." ...
... Gabriel Sherman of New York: Rupert Murdoch is a gun-control advocate, but his Fox "News" network is not: "... David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox’s weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air. 'This network is not going there,' Clark wrote one producer on Saturday night.... The directive created a rift inside the network."
Local News
Here's Charles Pierce on Rep. Tim Scott, Gov. Nikki Haley's pick to replace Sen. Jim DeMint: Scott is "wingnuttier than DeMint ever thought of being, and DeMint thought of being pretty damned wingnutty." CW: I would suspect a GOP conspiracy to find an African-American who makes African-Americans look nutty if not for the fact that South Carolina Dim-o-crats ran African-American Alvin Greene, who had recently been indicted on an obscenity charge, against DeMint in 2010. Greene's economic development plan was to manufacture & sell Alvin Greene action figures.
Paul Egan of the Detriot Free Press: "An apparent loophole in a gun bill passed during the Legislature's lame duck session means public schools would not be able to stop licensed gun holders with advanced training from carrying guns on school property in Michigan. Senate Bill 59 was passed late Thursday by the Republican-controlled Legislature and is on the desk of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who is mulling whether to sign or veto it."
Kentucky Republicans Prefer Candidate Who Is Worse than America's Least Popular Senator. Henry Decker of the National Memo: "According to Public Policy Polling’s latest Kentucky survey, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now the least popular senator in America. The poll finds that only 37 percent of Kentucky voters approve of McConnell, while 55 percent disapprove.... Despite McConnell’s deep unpopularity, PPP finds that he is a good bet to be re-elected.... McConnell’s greatest threat may come from within his own party...; only 50 percent of Republican primary voters want McConnell to be their nominee, while 35 percent would prefer a 'more conservative' alternative.... He remains quite vulnerable to a Tea Party challenge."
Share Article
Reader Comments (44)
Ron Brownstein does not know what he is talking about. There are enough Democrat NRA members in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania to swing those states either way. Gun owners in these and other mid-west states believe that the NRA is the only thing that is protecting them from PETA and the "bunny huggers" that want to take their guns and end hunting.
These Democrats need to be assured that their traditional hunting guns are safe and that hunting will be protected. Without a good selling job to these Democrats, they will dig in their heels and their cringing Congressmen will be afraid for their jobs and will vote against any gun control bill.
As I suggested on an earlier thread (Dec. 16), participants in this forum who want to see anything resembling "meaningful gun control" discussed at a national level would be wise to listen to @Carlyle's words.
@carlyle. "Ron Brownstein does not know what he is talking about." Prove it.
I just looked at some of Michigan's electoral maps as a ferinstance. There are 14 Congressional districts -- 9 went to Republicans in 2012, 5 to Democrats. Most of the Democrats represent urban areas. Both U.S Senators are Democrats. Obama did best in urban areas, tho he did barely win two Upper Peninsula counties.
The majority of urbanites favor sensible gun control laws. I couldn't find any stats for NRA membership in Michigan, but my guess is that it is higher in "red" counties, areas where -- as Brownstein asserts -- voters are not going to elect Democrats anyway.
The only Michigan Democratic Congressman the NRA gives a decent rating is John Dingall, who gets a 75% rating. Others, like John Conyers, Sander Levin & Gary Peters, have a 0 (that's zero) % rating. So does Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Sen. Carl Levin -- a strong advocate for gun control -- has an "F" rating (the worst); I don't know what his NRA percentage rating is. I don't see any sign that these members of Congress "will be afraid for their jobs and will vote against any gun control bill."
You also don't account for the fact that members of the NRA (as opposed to the leadership) favor some gun control legislation -- like universal background checks & waiting periods.
I was close to just deleting your comment altogether in view of its statement of "fact" -- Brownstein doesn't know what he's talking about -- that you don't back up. Brownstein, BTW, is a pretty smart guy, & he was looking at statistics when he made his assertion. I let it stand because you made one assertion that has some factual basis: that some NRA members think the NRA is protecting them from tough gun legislation.
But the next fact-free comment from anybody -- especially one that insists somebody else is dead wrong while the commenter's unsubstantiated hunches are right -- is going to "get disappeared."
I mean it. I don't have time to check out the veracity of everybody's free-form thoughts.
Marie
@Zee. See my comment on @Carlyle's post. "Listening to Carlyle's words" is akin to listening to fairy tales, as far as I can tell. Except fairy tales don't pretend to be accurate.
Marie
Based on everything that I have ever heard from people who have lived in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other northern, mid-western states, school does indeed let out for the first day of deer hunting season.
I have no statistics to back up @Carlyle's assertion, but I think he is correct. Local congresscritters in Michigan may not have high NRA ratings, but I'll bet that they toe the "NRA party line" when votes are close, protecting "hunters' rights."
I guess that I am shocked that you would have considered censoring @Carlyle's remarks,--if I correctly understood what you said--a stalwart who has generally toed the "Progressive party line" but who dared to deviate this one time, on the topics of guns.
@Zee. Bullshit. Read my comment. Read what I wrote about the Michigan Democrats in Congress.
And if you don't know why I'd delete a comment that was a pile of shit aimed at "refuting" a considered opinion that is based on actual data, then you missed all those discussions we had back when you were commenting/making up stuff regularly.
Do you have any fucking idea what "censorship" means? Any idea at all?
Marie
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." -- Wikipedia
Perhaps "censorship" was the wrong term to employ, since you are neither the government nor a "media outlet," as nearly as I can discern. Reality Chex is your blog, and I won't presume to tell you what you can or cannot publish or delete within your desmene.
Still, occasionally, loyalty should count for something, and I think that @Carlyle should have earned a little patience--and, maybe, loyalty--on your part.
For my part, I expect nothing from you, though I would like to know where I have been "making stuff up" recently. Certainly, I have not been accused of that in my recent exchanges with @cowichan's opinion, @Calyban, @MAG, etc.
Toodleloo,
Zee
PS: I still consider you to be the best news/commentary aggregator out here.
@Marie: Apart from Carlyle's objectionable first sentence, I think he has a fair point, albeit one that would be difficult to substantiate with statistics. But intuitively it seems credible that in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania there would be an appreciable segment of Democratic voters (perhaps union members) who are hunters and believe strongly in gun rights. If that is correct, then any elected Democrat in those areas would be wise to couch gun control proposals in terms that would not be threatening to those voters, who could be critical to winning elections there. There is certainly room for discussion on this point, and Carlyle should not be threatened with deletion for making his case, even if he was not able to come up with hard data to prove his point.
@ Zee. That's right. Unfortunately, you don't seem to know the difference between censorship and editorial standards.
I publish anything here that is lawful speech, roughly fits within the subject matters we cover here, and doesn't violate copyrights or my "civility" standards. What I ask is that if people want to express opinions, they must be at least vaguely fact-based. Commenters interpret facts here every day in ways with which I disagree, & that's absolutely fine. Sometimes I'll say I disagree, but often I don't. In no case do I consider deleting a comment because the writer expresses an opinion I don't share. (Though those of you who don't think David Petraeus is kind of sexy-looking are of course on very thin ice.)
But as I have repeated ad nauseum, people cannot use this site to invent stuff & present it as the basis for a prediction, as Carlyle did. If a commenter challenges someone else's assertion, as Carlyle did, he has to show why the assertion is or might be wrong, not just say so, then go on to make fact-free assertions that "refute" the original assertion, as Carlyle did.
Writers who want to make up stuff -- or simply ignore inconvenient facts, as you did in your second comment today -- should get their own sites or find other venues to express their fanciful opinions. This is not news to regular contributors here.
Ergo, if I set a rule -- whether you think it's reasonable or not -- in fact, whether or not it is reasonable -- contributors have to more or less play by that rule. I don't have different standards for comments I agree with and comments I disagree with. Therefore, my deleting a comment because it violates one of the few editorial standards I have -- however senseless you may think the standard -- is not in any way censorship.
The New York Times doesn't allow commenters to use obscenities. It's a rule. If the moderator agrees with a comment, if the moderator thinks the comment is brilliant or hilarious or memorable or Pulitzer-worthy, she is still not going to publish that comment if it contains an obscenity. That is not censorship. It is following a NYT editorial standard.
No contributor has a "right" to publish whatever he wants to here even if you think "anything goes" is the only fair "rule." This is not a soapbox in a public park (where you might have to get a permit to speak). I have to pay to maintain this site. This is a private enterprise. Every comment here is in essence a "submission."
(I think you wrote once that you've published in juried journals. If so, you know that you have to meet the editorial board's standards. If they [or whoever they ask to review your paper] find your research methodology unconvincing, for instance, they may turn down the paper or ask you to rework it. They are not publishing your paper, but they also are not "censoring" your work. For whatever reason, they claim that the paper doesn't meet their standards.)
And, no, the "loyalty" of contributors doesn't count. I have deleted a comment by someone I consider a very dear friend, someone I hold in the highest possible regard. Yes, I am "loyal" to that person, but that doesn't mean s/he can violate my editorial policy any more or less than can someone who is commenting here for the first time.
I hope you read this, though your "reading" earlier today suggests you can't see words with which you disagree, so I'm not counting on your understanding anything I've written. But if what I've written is of no use to you, perhaps it will be helpful to someone else who feels s/he has an inalienable First Amendment right to rant on Reality Chex.
Marie
Another dangerous conversational place, this gun thing; anyone who enters it should check his ammunition or if unarmed spend a lot of time looking over his shoulder.
Nonetheless....I said (or implied) yesterday if we don't want the massacres to continue, shedding evermore blood and murdering even more innocents, we have to do something. To repeat: admitting it will be difficult given our growing gun lunacy is not an excuse to do nothing now. When it comes to guns we must energetically pursue a national climate change; we surely need one.
I believe the climate we've created and that surrounds us is the main issue, not the Second Amendment. Aside from the explosive mixture of undiagnosed and/or untreated mental illness and guns is the simple but profound meaning guns have for too many. In a culture where few have to hunt to survive and even fewer need weapons to defend themselves, gun ownership (I have three I inherited from my father; I gave a fourth away to to man who likes to hunt) is for too many a cheap way to feel powerful. Assault weapons? Who really needs them except for the feeling of faux agency they provide?
The fundamental problem is we acquire things for the way they make us feel: Big trucks that never appear on a construction site and big guns that make us feel bigger than we are, a feeling particularly welcome in a society that has stripped a positive sense of self from so many. (Years ago, I was given a box of "affirmations" to share with my staff, for Christ's sake! My reaction: Who wanted teachers around who thought so little of themselves they needed a steady diet of canned compliments? The kids would have torn them apart.)
There are many causes for all this (I have trouble typing the next three words, but sometimes cliches exist because what they express is so common) low self esteem. There are the economic causes of flat wages, debt and a sense of stagnation. The social causes, particularly for middle and lower class whites who sense their day in the sun is ending. And geographic. If you don't like your life where you are, where do you go? We can't, like Huck, light out for the territory.
This sense of emptiness, even hopelessness, has been filled by products, thousands of them, all designed to make us feel, look and think better of ourselves. Often, though, the powerlessness is still there and guns too often fill the void. Seemingly senseless murders, like those that have occupied us too often recently, make sense only if thought of as horrendous and inhumane expressions of rage and disappointment at what a miserable life has had to offer. They are nihilistic statements of impotence, made tragically potent by a gun.
Dealing with our broken culture may not be possible, certainly not in the short term because it is now so entwined with our designated roles as consumers, but it should be possible to ban assault weapons and control the availability of ammunition, anything to make a clear statement that we don't like what we (abetted by the NRA and those who make millions pandering to our weaknesses) have used a misinterpretation (that once in the long ago made practical sense that it does not today) of the Second Amendment to become.
@Calyban. Yes, that was another reason I let Carlyle's comment stand. But there is too often a suggestion that there is some deep intellectual divide between hunters & non-hunters. I don't think there's much basis for that assumption; in fact, there's a great deal of evidence that this is not the case. More members of the NRA (87%), for instance, agreed with the statement "Support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals" than did members of the general public (84%). Hunters don't want their loved ones strafed by a madman any more than do non-hunters.
Moreover, hunters have no more reason to favor a right to purchase 100-round magazines than do non-hunters. As Cowboy Joe Manchin said yesterday, he usually doesn't use more than 3 bullets on a deer-hunting trip.
Yeah, I'm sure hunters find that getting a hunting license or filling out a background check form is an inconvenience, but not any more than I find getting a driver's license or a permit to put a new roof on the house. Licensing & permits -- theoretically at least -- fulfill some public purpose. They are supposed to protect the licensee &/or the general public. People understand that. New gun legislation will probably require background checks to purchase guns at gun shows or from private individuals, so that will pose some additional inconvenience, but I think it's marginal. That inconvenience is surely far outweighed by the legislation's purpose to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals."
Carlyle suggests that "Midwestern gun owners" are knuckleheads when he writes that they think the NRA is their only salvation from PETA. I'm sure there are plenty of Midwestern hunters who do not belong to the NRA & plenty more who aren't slightly afraid of PETA power. If I were a Midwestern gun owner reading that remark, I'd be rather offended. I think it is true of some Midwestern gun owners, but I doubt it's anywhere near the majority.
Carlyle argued, without evidence, that Democratic politicians would "dig in their heels ... and vote against any gun control legislation" in Michigan & other Midwestern states. But in the only state I looked at -- Michigan -- Democratic politicians would have to be so moved by the Newtown massacre that they would change their voting records from voting for gun control legislation to voting against it, if Carlyle is right. If Carlyle thinks pro-gun-control members of Congress are about to become anti-gun-control MOCs, he'll have to say why. He didn't. It just doesn't make any sort of sense to say that a gun-control advocate like Carl Levin is going to reverse his long-held, well-known position as a result of the Newtown killings (or something else). Every single member of the Democratic Michigan delegation -- including Dingall -- has voted for &/or expressed support for gun-control legislation. And they're still standing.
Pro-gun advocates always make the point that the vast majority of hunters are reasonable, law-abiding citizens. I completely agree. Therefore, there is no good reason for hunters to oppose reasonable gun control legislation. It is just not going to have any appreciable negative impact on them, and it should make them & their families safer. Pretty much everything regular hunters are doing right now is in voluntary compliance with laws that Midwestern Congressional Democrats would vote for.
The "hardship" gun-control laws would impose would not be on hunters but on crazed militia types who are convinced President Obama is a communist bent on confiscating their last bullet -- people that as Brownstein argued, would never vote for Democrats anyway.
Will legislators have to explain the gun-control legislation they propose to their constituents, as Carlyle wrote? Well, yes, they will. The NRA & other gun lobbies will be sending out interminable messages about how onerous the proposed legislation is. And legislators planning to vote for the gun-control legislation will have to counter that.
In my view, in his short comment, Carlyle made three unsupported statement: (1) Brownstein doesn't know what he's talking about; (2) Midwestern gun owners think the NRA is their only salvation from PETA (this appears to be an unfair generalization); and (3) Midwestern MOCs would not back gun-control legislation. That's a lot of unsupported suppositions in two very short grafs.
Marie
Thanks for the Politico link, which answers the burning question, "Has he sold out yet?"
What was it Charlton Heston said? " From these dead hands."
@Raul. The very worst thing is that this hits the very people whom both parties promised not to damage: current seniors & the lower middle class. Dylan Matthews: " it’s basically a big (5 percent over 12 years; more, if you take a longer view) across-the-board cut in Social Security benefits paired with a 0.19 percent income surtax. You don’t hear a lot of politicians calling for the drastic slashing of Social Security benefits and an across-the-board tax increase that disproportionately hits low earners. But that’s what they’re sneakily doing when they talk about chained CPI." If Matthews is right, this means that the hardest-hit of all will be seniors whose incomes are around $30-40K. They'll receive less in Social Security payments, but they'll pay higher taxes on their miserable incomes. Why? So working families earning $250-$400K can get a tax cut.
It's a sell-out all around. I'm thoroughly disgusted
Marie
Lets get this straight. The gun issue has absolutely nothing to do with hunters. At last count there were 12.5 million hunters in the US, a seriously declining number, and 310 million guns. The latest estimate is about 50 million people own guns (legally). The vast majority of guns used in crimes of all sorts have nothing to do with hunting. You know, bolt action, not semi-automatic, not handguns. If we eliminated all assault rifles and handguns, it would have zero effect on hunting. Of course, under the second amendment, when the 1st. Armored Division sends tanks to take away your freedom, you can protect yourself with your Glock automatic.
@Carlyle: what Heston said at the 2000 NRA convention was this: "For the next six months, [Democratic presidential candidate and then-Vice President of the United States Al Gore] is going to smear you as the enemy. He will slander you as gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America. Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding gun owner in America to register to vote and show up at the polls on Election Day. So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands!'"
I think you deserve some kind of recognition. In less than 24 hours you have broken two of my three rules: (1) don't make up "facts"/back up controversial assertions with facts; (2) don't make me do your homework.
My third rule is not to libel public figures or insult other commenters. So if you would just call John Boehner a pedophile or tell Akhilleus he can't write his way out of a paper bag, you'll have won the trifecta.
Marie
Marie, you don't have to know a lot about guns to express your opinion. I carried a predecessor of the Bushmaster carbine in Vietnam known as the CAR-15 (Carbine AR-15). It had only one purpose: to kill people. To say that such a weapon has anything to do with hunting is ludicrous. For one, in my opinion, the .223 is not a suitable caliber for deer hunting. We found in Vietnam that the bullet is easily deflected in heavy vegetation. No one said anything about taking away Grandpa's trusty .30-30, which is fine for deer hunting, but not so much for mass murder. My brother does just fine with a bow and arrow!
To lighten the load a bit (or not), I present you my latest creation, entitled: Coming to a Future Near You.
It's a parody of Michigan life as the wing-nut NRA would like to see it. It's a little over the top, perhaps. Nevertheless, sociologically we're an interesting experiment.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/stripgenerator/strip/87/86/07/00/00/full.png
Thanks for the discussion regarding the conflation of speculation with fact. It's difficult to continually have to filter out ideology or conviction presented as evidence. We know what sort of epistemic closure there is on the right and how groups of any stripe can reinforce their members' predispositions and, one would presume, their later decisions and actions. I believe that one of our little sources of pride on the left is that we try to see the world for what it is, not for what we hope or fear it to be.
So, when I "learn" on this site that the members of a state's congressional delegation will be unlikely to vote for common-sense bans on assault weapons and/or stricter regulation of gun sales, I tend to believe what I read. Perhaps I shouldn't; perhaps I should take everything I read anywhere with a grain of salt. I can't. I may as well stop reading. To quote Lear, "O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; no more of that."
I choose where to turn for news and opinion. Those to whom I choose to turn like Krugman, Yves Smith, Taibbi, and Silver, present fact as fact and opinion as opinion. Krugman's writing, as prescient as it usually is, can be chock full of mitigating language. Krugman wants to convey to the reader why he interprets reality as he does, although he admits that he could be misreading the tea leaves.
Similarly, I turn to RealityChex for evidence that's more than sufficient to support opinion. When I teach high school students to write persuasive essays, I always tell them to "speak softly and carry a big stick"--i.e., keep your thesis reasonable and your evidence strong. If the evidence is strong, it will convince.
Thanks Marie. As Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, Ma'am."
@ Marie: This has been great fun so far. I would like some explanation, well documented of course, of the power of the NRA if it is not that even sensible gun owners feel that it protects them from those that will take their guns and those that will end hunting.
Lacking your research ability I thought Brownstein's theme that those guys don't vote or us anyway was a bit broad and mainly opinion.
I have been a hunter, a factory worker, a union member, and a life long New Deal Democrat and had plenty of company of gun owner Democrats, many of whom probably support the NRA. This is an opinion.
Re: Deeper into the woods; "What's wrong with bunnies? I like bunnies." Hugh Heifner.
Marvin is on to something. Barbarossa is right about a heaver slug in the woods. And in my opinion... the NRA would like nothing better than to direct the dialog from assault weapons to hunters rights.
Let's pretend that a gun is a tool; it is. As a tool a gun's purpose is to shoot something, nada mas. Some guns are designed to shoot people, lots of people, nada mas. Let's separate guns that are designed to shoot a lot of people from the guns that are designed for sport or protection. Even dumb bunnies might get that reasoning.
The mental health of our teenagers might be a topic to discuss too.
I made up that quote by Hugh; sorry.
@Carlyle & @Zee. There is a perverse & rather repulsive irony in your "having fun" taxing me, taking away from my time to do other things & demanding that I provide a "well-documented explanation" because you don't feel like doing any research yourself.
Your central premise is of course a tautology. "... sensible gun owners feel that [the NRA] protects them from those that will take their guns and those that will end hunting." "Sensible" gun owners of course do not think there is some evil force out there planning to "take their guns" and "end hunting."
I started this site to be helpful to people, not to be abused. You and Zee have repeatedly abused me & I'm pretty sick of it. If you won't cut it out, I'll deal with that one way or the other. I've decided against dropping this site just because there are a few people like you who take pleasure in inconveniencing and vexing people who have done you no harm.
I will not be replying to any more of your comments. I will remove those that violate Reality Chex standards & let those stand that fall within the parameters I've set.
Marie
Chained CPI, explained in the Matthews link, relies on the substitution effect to achieve lower adjustment increases. The example given: when the cost of propane goes up, consumers will switch to less expensive forms of heat. That creates lower benefit increases.
Not readily apparent is that only consumers who are buying propane at the margin of their purchasing capacity will do that; people with sufficient funds will save less, or shop sales only, increase coupon use, etc. You get the picture. So by the time chained CPI actually fits behavior, the consumer has exhausted (or precommitted) saved earnings, earnings potential (ergo lost ability to borrow), and already taken low-impact cost-avoidance steps. At about that point cat food can be substituted for the cheap tuna and canned salmon. And longevity will start to drop, saving even more on the long end of SS benefits.
Unrelated -- if global warming continues, we will have a shortage of ice floes for all the starving grannies. And the few remaining floes will be populated with starving polar bears.
Seriously, don't worry. By saving our children and grandchildren from this massive debt (owed to the children and grandchildren of bond-holders), our progeny will be able to afford granny pods and have to put up with us when we can't drive to the Safeway to buy our own cat food. If they have jobs. And some disposable income.
But what will the poor bond-holders do for income when we pay off that debt?
Smelling salts! Quickly!
...while I recover from the waves of nausea triggered by hints that the president may be seriously considering giving in to the Speaker's demands for cuts to go along with Republican's semi, sort of, kind of but not really tax hikes on the tiniest percentage of the wealthiest Americans. You know, because the Republicans have to save face, and all.
So much for the Chicago Way. (I know he's never really been THAT guy, but just once....)
But what is he thinking? He just kicked their asses. AND if it weren't for the multitude of sleazy vote suppression schemes, fear campaigns, and other still as yet (but extremely likely) voting machine shenanigans, it might have been a landslide of historic proportion.
After WWII when the Japanese said "Okay, we'll surrender, but we wanna keep our guns, rebuild our military, and, oh yeah, you have to give us Guam, Hawaii, and the Philippines as compensation for going along with your crazy capitulation demands" did Truman say, "Oh, well, okay, sure. And here. We're sorry we asked for so much. Why don't you take Australia too. That way you can save face."
Nooooooooooooooo. He did not. He said you can keep your tinhorn Emperor but as for everything else? Your ass is mine.
Okay. I'm exaggerating a teensy bit.
But seriously. We don't have to give them shit. They LOST. Their policies were roundly REJECTED. No one wants cuts in benefits and they have not made even the smallest case that the two (fiscal wherewithal and earned benefits) are linked. In fact, killing some benefits will end up being more of a burden on the economy.
Ahhh...crap.
Okay. Back later for a few second amendment thoughts.
Double crap.
P.S. Does anyone believe for a millisecond--a nanosecond--that, had the election turned out differently, conservatives would give us anything? Crumbs off the table would be swept up, encased in glass jars and waved in front of our faces to great gales of giddy laughter.
Christ! Where are those smelling salts!
It was good to read this article, reported from one small area in Pennsylvania where hunters and target shooters are quite prevalent, because it does show that sense and sensibility are not lost on the true hunter, true sportman.
"For the first time, customers at Whites Crossing Sports Shop in Carbondale Twp. are saying that restrictions on the sale and ownership of certain guns may be called for in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, said shop owner Tom Prawdzik. "
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/gun-owners-debate-new-stricter-laws-1.1418057
Elsewhere it appears that the NRA has disappeared down some rabbit hole.
...from C. Pierce ("You know what the real culprit is?") puts this into perspective with one word:
"Profit."
Read more: Gun Violence And Profit - Their Profit And Our Loss - Esquire http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-violence-and-profit-121712#ixzz2FPryA3Cl
The focus on so-called assault weapons distracts from a more fundamental issue. I grew up hunting and fishing in rural South Louisiana. Our house and that of my grandparents had shotguns, sidearms and a rifle or two in closets, cabinets and on the wall. I was and am a respectable marksman, at least with a rifle. I see no harm in the possession and use of firearms either for hunting or marksmanship. However, as an experienced marksman, I cannot understand the usefulness of semiautomatic firearms OF ANY STRIPE, FOR ANY PURPOSE. For hunting, a bolt, lever or pump action rifle, limited to three to five rounds in an internal magazine is adequate for anyone. If the first shot misses, so will the second. Semi-automatics with clips simply reward machismo and poor marksmanship. I have no problem with a sidearm for home protection. But the most I would need is a revolver with a six-chamber cylinder. What possible advantage would a Glock or Sig Sauer afford me in the infinitesimal chance that I might confront an invader?
So, how about banning manufacture, import, sale and possession of any semi-automatic rifle or sidearm? For those already in possession, no penalties, and a buy-back. Nay-say#1: Then only criminals will have them. So what? Most shootings are amongst themselves. And the less common holdups are almost never thwarted by the victims’ guns; more often the victim is shot in the attempt at defense. Nay-say#2: There are already so many out there it can’t make a difference. Don’t take such a short view. It may take decades or generations for the supply to decay away, but decay it will. The longer we wait, the more mass murders, so let’s get started. Nay-say#3: It will just enable a big black market. Listen: This is not like drugs, that users crave beyond control. Just make the penalty for buying or selling a felony and it will stop. Nay-say#4: This will not stop the likes of Terry Nichols and Lee Harvey Oswald. No, it won’t, but is will raise the bar for them and maybe make it a little more visible in advance. In any case, we’ll just have them and not the rest of the mass killers, who will have to stop and reload, slowly, every five rounds.
And while we’re at it, why do the police need semi-automatic sidearms? Police Special 38’s were just fine all the way through the Capone years right up to the ’70’s. Maybe if they had revolvers and shotguns there would be fewer frenzy shooting like that those in Illinois and Queens where the victims (yes, victims) had been unarmed. They have well-stocked arms cabinets and communicators for the rare situation where such firepower is really needed.
And finally, the Second Amendment, even if it is interpreted as an individual right, is not specific. What kinds of arms? The authors knew only muskets and cannons. Do I have a right to an RPG or Gatling gun? If not, why not?
As Whyte Owen suggests, regarding the second amendment, there actually is no specificity where types of weapons are concerned but there is a specific reference to a "regulated" militia. Without getting into the many possible interpretations of what "well regulated" meant to the founders, I think its possible to find some common ground, especially concerning regulation (eg, banning of) automatic and semi-automatic weapons. And as many other hunters have indicated, no one goes hunting with an automatic weapon. Would you go rabbit hunting with an assault rifle? There'd be nothing left. And most hunters I know consider it a skill sport, not an exercise in evisceration.
There are other points to consider as well. As I mentioned the other day, there will always be a way for those who feel that weapons of the automatic, assault variety, are a, shall we say, "professional" necessity (ie, criminals--at least certain criminals). I'll concede that. The problem with using that argument to head off regulation of any kind ("we can't stop these mass murders because criminals will always have guns") is that none of the mass murders of recent years were committed by criminals. In fact, as far as I know, none of the murderers at Columbine, in West Virginia, at Newtown, in Colorado, or the shooter in Arizona had as much as a speeding ticket. The most famous gangland mass murder was the Valentine's Day massacre and that was 7 guys in a Chicago garage over 80 years ago.
Another thing to consider about the second amendment (and all the others) is that it was an AMENDMENT.
It was a recognition that times and conditions can change. The originalist crap being slung by Scalia and his supporters is a fantasy that has nothing to do with the founders' intentions. Naturally, I don't pretend, like Nino, to be able to channel the private innermost thoughts of Madison and company, but it's clear from the very existence of an amendment process that they expected there to be changes and adjustments. So claims that gun regulation will shred the Constitution are silly. Besides, the text does make reference to "regulation". I think we are free to assume that doesn't mean we have to allow the worst of the NRA "no regulation" types to traffic in anything that shoots projectiles. Otherwise, why not have RPGs?
This is not the famous slippery slope. But it would be a clarification of what we are about as a nation, as a people. Will criminals still be able to get them? Probably. But they ain't the ones walking into first grade classes and opening fire.
It has to start somewhere.
I propose the following Constitutional Amendment to amend the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."
@JJG: "Let's separate guns that are designed to shoot a lot of people from the guns that are designed for sport or protection."
I might be wrong here (Zee please give us your expertise), but I always thought that guns that are "designed . . . for protection" are perforce "designed to shoot a lot of people."
A thoughtful piece on the connection between American norms of "masculinity" and gun violence (almost all mass murders are committed by white males):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/men-gender-gun-violence_b_2308522.html?utm_hp_ref=media
@Calyban. As I said earlier, in this discussion danger lurks on every side but (still looking over my hunched shoulder), I'd suggest the protection argument fails on two fronts. First, outside of occasional gang-related assaults, (I don't have the numbers here, but judge from the dearth of headlines about such attacks) by far the most armed attacks, either domestic or on the scale of the mass shootings that get our flagging attention, are launched by one or at the most two persons. Two is not "a lot of people."
Maybe more to the point is the one I tried to raise earlier about gun culture. There I suggested what I think to be big guns' appeal and considered it a sign of a cultural pathology we should be paying more attention to. We cannot continue to people the nation with powerless people who feel good only if they are taking the right medicine, driving the right vehicle or owning a big gun.
Here I'd suggest that arguing that people need guns for protection and applying that argument wholesale in effect encourages the creation of an arms race in every home and community. As we should have learned from our centuries of geo-political mistakes, nations that pursue that path suffer from the whipsaw effects of fear and belligerence until something finally explodes.
Why would we expect a different result down the block?
@Calyban--
I would enjoy the opportunity to offer my firearms expertise and personal experience on a number of topics that have been raised on this and the previous threads, but I have refrained from doing so because I'm not sure just how welcome such a discussion would be.
Still, to try to answer your particular question based only on long personal experience, without any backing from scholarly studies or statistics:
Yes, guns that are designed for protection are, in general, designed to shoot a lot of people. Or, at least as many as possible within the constraints of portability and available technology.
Still, it is fair for society to balance public safety against the right to self-defense, and to place reasonable constraints on the types of firearms that the ordinary citizen can own for personal defense.
Assuming that some type of national debate on gun control actually takes place—and I have my doubts about that, even though I believe it should happen—this balancing act will be at the very heart of the discussion if any progress is to be made.
Everyone will have an opinion as to how much firepower is enough for home/personal defense, and the arguments will be heated. @Whyte Owen, for instance, has suggested that the public—and police—should be limited to six-shot revolvers and shotguns, with all privately-owned semi-automatic weapons “bought back” by the government.
But my personal choice for home defense is my semi-automatic, Colt 1911 Government Model chambered in .45 ACP along with a couple of spare, loaded, seven-round magazines, in the bedside table. Equipped with that 100+ year old piece of technology, I feel quite well armed. Under stress, the Model 1911 is much more accurate and easy to fire than a stiff, double-action revolver, based on long personal experience.
So @Whyte Owen and I would have much to discuss regarding what's adequate for personal defense, and what should be banned.
He believes that his six-shot revolver is adequate to “stop” an “invader,” but what if there's more than one “invader, ” say, maybe two or three? What if, in the heat of battle, I misplace a shot or two? What if, after having dialed “911,” I'm barricaded in my bedroom with my wife awaiting the police? What if, what if, what if...
Still, @Calyban, confronted with one or more home invaders, I think that both @Whyte Owen and I would agree that we prefer some sort modern firearm for our defense, rather than the “musket” that you would authorize us under your revised Second Amendment.
@Whyte Owen: Please don't think that I'm picking on you. You seem knowledgable about firearms and prepared to take part in a realistic discussion on the topic of gun control, both of which I appreciate. Moreover, I am deeply appreciative of your suggestion that those who might be asked to surrender various types of firearms should be fairly compensated by the government for their loss; for all the talk of various types of gun bans, etc., in this and other forums, the Fifth Amendment appears to have been forgotten by just about everybody.
@All--
In closing, let me say that at least twice now during my year-and-a-half or so participating in this forum, I have inadvertently angered @Marie and others by unfortunate choices of words. It has not been my conscious intention to do so, and to those whom I have offended, I once again apologize.
But today, I'm reminded once again that the choice of words does matter. They will matter immeasurably in the upcoming national debate on gun control, if such a discussion actually occurs.
Those of you out there who care to participate in a meaningful debate in order to enact additional, meaningful gun control legislation, don't need to be experts on firearms to do so.
But to become more knowledgable about firearms, hunters, other types of firearms-related sporting activities, and personal defense with firearms wouldn't hurt, either.
On both today's thread and earlier ones I have read many inaccurate statements and terms related to all these topics that I would like to gently correct, as they are guaranteed to be “polarizing, red flags” that will be raised in any future discussions with knowledgeable firearms owners with strong feelings on the topic.
As @Marie has forcefully brought home to both me and @Carlyle today, it's important to have some basis in fact when participating in any discussion.
@Ken and Zee: I was not seconding JJG's statement that guns for "protection" should be allowed; merely pointing out the inconsistency between wanting to outlaw guns "designed to shoot a lot of people" and allowing guns for "protection." (in quotes)
@Calyban. And I was saying, again poorly it seems, that a performance distinction between guns that could "shoot a lot of people" and those designed for protection could and, I would say should, be made. In other words, I don't see the inconsistency you do.
I think I'm done now.
@Calyban--
Thanks for the clarification, although I agree with @Ken Winkes, insofar as I understand what he's saying.
BTW, the Wikipedia article to which you referred me has made for very interesting reading, assuming that it is reasonably accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Canadian firearms laws appear to be far less restrictive than I have hitherto believed, and if it is true that subsequently-prohibited firearms that were lawfully-owned prior to enactment of the 1998 bill and its predecessors were"grandfatherable," Canada's laws might serve as a reasonable starting point for a real discussion for the reform of America's firearms laws.
Based upon my reading of that same article, it also appears that Canada even recognizes the right to use firearms for self-defense, although I will have to investigate the real meaning of this further.
@Calyban--
Thanks for the clarification, although I agree with @Ken Winkes, insofar as I understand what he's saying.
BTW, the Wikipedia article to which you referred me has made for very interesting reading, assuming that it is reasonably accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Canadian firearms laws appear to be far less restrictive than I have hitherto believed, and if it is true that subsequently-prohibited firearms that were lawfully-owned prior to enactment of the 1998 bill and its predecessors were"grandfatherable," Canada's laws might serve as a reasonable starting point for a real discussion for the reform of America's firearms laws.
Based upon my reading of that same article, it also appears that Canada even recognizes the right to use firearms for self-defense, although I will have to investigate the real meaning of this further.
@Zee: Here is an article on the Canadian right of self defense (which is contained in the Canadian Criminal Code):
http://www.tbuckner.com/Chapter%2010.htm
In general, the right to self-defense appears to be more circumscribed in Canada than in most American states. No more force than is absolutely necessary is allowed, and there is a duty to retreat if it is reasonably possible.
As Ken W. says, "I believe the climate we've created and that surrounds us is the main issue, not the Second Amendment". I come here in the morning, as time allows, and wah lah: in the afternoon discord, disharmony and drivel. When I say drivel, I mean to talk stupidly. For lack of a better word, the crazy gun lovers suck all the oxygen out of the room better than the people who want to shoot each and every wolf until they are extinct. Your gene for balance is missing. Most certainly your gene for balance as well as comity is absent.
I've long thought that the ability to interact interdependently is the hallmark of civilization.
A crazy young person went and shot a bunch of kids with a gun that was easier to obtain than a little old lady taking a pair of knitting needles on an airplane. I'd like to re-boot the whole conversation and start right there.
Re: Those pesky home invaders; Tonight, after a long day of toil I came to not one, not two, not ten, but thirty ninja types crossing my property lines. Thank god for trip lines and claymores. The anti-personal mines plus some bouncing brown bettys that I had placed around the parameter slowed down the assault. After throwing a frag and and a couple white phos grenades I retreated to the bunker covered by Big Rusty the pit bull who layed down a covering fire with his M-50. Once inside the bunker we ammoed up and hit the tunnels. Surprised on the flank the remaining Ninjas were easily picked off by the four chihuahuas and their streetsweeper auto load shotguns throwing double o buck and deer slugs.
Calyban;That's how fuckin' absurd your statement sounds on what kind of gun one needs for protection. Zee and I had a conversation over a year ago about guns. He knows I am not anti-gun. I am anti-stupid fucks that think a thirty shot mag gives them a bigger penis.
And now I have probably pissed off Marie and I don't want to do that. We need real dialog between people that are not living in fantasy world of heroes and villians. All this talk is really about dead babies chewed to shit by guns that you think are needed.
Hey, look at the exit wound on that little girl. Bullshit.
Bullshit.
When I was young, I reeeally was a bambi lover and a bunny hugger. Everyone, everywhere around me were hunters. No one showed up for work on the first day of deer season. I could come home from school and see the neighbor's wife gutting the deer so soon after it had been shot that the dirt road was purple with blood. Up and down the long country road you could see the carcasses hanging from tree limbs. I didn't like it, but I knew, as everyone did, that the herd needed thinning and that the hanging deer were meat on the table for the hardscrabble farmers. There was no sentiment. I knew that hunting was useful for people, regardless of what my feelings were.
This is soooo nothing like the pro or anti gun positions that have come up recently. Since my turn of mind is to try to see a bigger picture regarding why our country is having so much trouble arriving at a reasonable consideration of this, I do think of the very large number of psychological studies of weapons and violence which is out there, ready for consideration but ignored.
So I will instead turn to the movies: remember in "Full Metal Jacket" what they said in basic training?
"This is my weapon; this is my 'gun.'
One is for fighting; one is for fun."
This issue is complicated. No wonder things get heated.
@JJG--
I do indeed recall our previous discussions regarding guns, and I know that you are not anti-gun. I hope that in replying to @Calyban's question, I did not imply otherwise.
I have seen some of the faces of the beautiful children who were murdered in Newtown, including an adorable little girl who only a year ago resided next door in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.
You are right, it is all about the children now.
I have tried to say it before in this forum and elsewhere: it is indeed time to revisit gun control in this country. I sense that you are prepared to engage in such a discussion, too.
Would that we could sit down at that bar somewhere in SoCal with your
wise, grizzled, veteran buddy-as I recall-and sort out the issue of guns over a whiskey or two.
@Marie, I think your quote from Jon Cohen & Philip Rucker says it all: "The strong support for compromise belies widespread public opposition to big spending cuts that are likely to be part of any deal."
As an electorate, we want A, but we don't want it. We want B, but we're also adamantly opposed to any version of B, thank you. We want C, but we just voted in a bunch of guys who have loudly vowed to destroy C.
Fiscal austerity--good. Fiscal austerity--not good. Proof that humans were not invented with built-in contradiction-detecting brainware. It scares the hell out of me, really. Sometimes I feel grievously underinformed, but at least I know not to insist on something while opposing it. We'd love to imagine that everyone does.
"Imagine" is the word. Thanks for keeping us up to date on this latest sell-out, even if the news is more depressing than a night of Poe.
We seem to have passed the original upset so I am certainly a fool to bring it up again. Forgive me. Worse, I have no expertise - just a huge lack of any confidence that Americans will do the right thing which puts me in the Carlyle corner. Now I'd not be fool enough to post that without having something more to offer than my very bleak view of our body politic until I picked this up from Sullivan's blog. It is an article from somebody (never heard of him) at The Guardian. This "somebody" also feels that there are a fair number of urban Democrats that are not especially in favor of gun control. He has percentages and an April poll and everything. I think a lot of what were formerly fixed opinions are up for grabs and it will be interesting if we still remain interested say about a month from now. Here's the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/congressional-obstacles-obama-gun-control
Now pardon me while I run for cover.
Have to agree with @citizen625. The conversation has become very tedious. And I'm not pointing fingers or taking names... although I easily could.