But the scene above took place four years before Monica, in 1994, long before Clinton handed his enemies a scandal on a platter that seemingly made such references acceptable. It was not at a Republican caucus or Christian Coalition meeting, but at a gathering of right-wing “Patriots” who had come to hear about forming militias and common-law courts and defending their gun rights — indeed, their families — from the New World Order. They numbered only a hundred or so and only half-filled the little convention hall in Bellevue, Washington, but their fervor saturated the room with its own paranoid energy. And the speaker, who could have passed even then for a local Republican public official — actually, he was nominally a Democrat — in fact was one of the nation’s leading Patriot figures: Richard Mack, then sheriff of Arizona’s mostly rural Graham County. As a leader in the fight against gun control (his lawsuit eventually led to the Supreme Court overturning a section of the so-called Brady Law), Mack was in high demand on the right-wing lecture circuit as he promoted the militia concept to his eager acolytes. He usually sprinkles his “constitutional” gun-rights thesis with his theories on church-state separation — it’s a “myth,” he claims — and “the New World Order conspiracy.”
This is one of the leaders of the “movement” with which respectable conservative voices and some Republican politicians allied themselves over the last two weeks. Personally, I think that the reason you didn’t hear from any of the prospective “human shields” here is that Mack didn’t have the guts to ask them.
THE EDITORS of the New England Journal of Medicine last week accused the National Rifle Association of political blackmail because of the group’s efforts to block the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy as surgeon general.
While they were at it, the medical journal’s editors should have pointed out the political cowardice of those in Congress prepared to cave in to NRA pressure. They came close, but ultimately couched their criticism, instead calling the reluctance of at least 10 Senate Democrats to vote for Murthy “a demonstration of just how much political power our legislators have ceded to the NRA.”
In February, a bipartisan group of senators approved Murthy’s nomination and forwarded it to the floor for a full vote. Yet, despite stellar credentials, Murthy’s nomination is on hold and probably doomed because of personal views he has expressed on gun control.
One particular tweet by Murthy from 2012 “haunts” the nominee, according to David Weigel of Slate. In it, the physician wrote he was “tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”
Shocking! Colorado GOP Lawmaker: A ‘Good Thing’ Theater Gunman James Holmes had 100-Round Magazine (Video)
Colorado Republican state Senator Bernie Herpin made quite the gaffe during a hearing for legislation that would overturn the new ban on magazines of 15-rounds or more. Herpin and other Colorado Republicans are trying to overturn the ban imposed last year despite being outnumbered by Democrats in both the Colorado House and Senate.
Herpin tried to support his point by invoking the gun used by James Holmes, who killed 12 people and injured 70 when he opened fire in an Aurora movie theater back in July 2012. Here’s how the dialogue went:
Democratic state Senator Irene Aguilar: “My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally. So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. I was wondering if you agree with me.”
Herpin: “Perhaps, James Holmes would not have been able to purchase a 100-round magazine. As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. If he had four, five, six 15-round magazines, there’s no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up.”
Fox News host Martha MacCallum lashed out at Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein on Thursday because he supported gun control in the United States while wishing that Jews could have fought back with firearms during the Holocaust.
In an interview with radio host Howard Stern this week, Weinstein revealed that he was working on a film about the National Rifle Association (NRA) because he opposed guns.
“I don’t think we need guns in this country and I hate it, and I think that the NRA is a disaster area,” Weinstein said. “I’m gonna make a movie with Meryl Streep and we’re gonna take this issue head on.”
“They’re gonna wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”
It was that line that got Fox News host Martha McCallum and radio host Mike Slater fired up on Thursday.
“What do you make of a guy who made ‘Kill Bill’ carrying the torch for anti-NRA?” MacCallum asked.
“Harvey and his friends have built their careers on making incredibly violent movies, and they have contributed to this desensitizing to violence in America,” Slater opined.
“Let me remind you and our viewers at home that the one thing that stopped [Newtown shooter] Adam Lanza from continuing the rampage in the school was when he saw a gun and a police officer in his line of sight,” MacCallum insisted, turning to liberal guest Jehmu Greene. “Just recently, we had another school shooting. We have them almost weekly, sometimes it feels like almost daily, and what ends them all is when — or in most cases — is when there is a gun introduced into the situation that scares that person into stopping what they are doing.”
“Any responsible gun owner knows that you don’t need an AR-15 to protect your home, you need it to kill a lot of people,” Greene pointed out. “Any responsible hunter knows that you barely get off a third shot at killing a deer, much less a thirtieth shot… The NRA using responsible gun owners to protect gun manufacturers from stopping common-sense gun laws, they do need to be wiped off.”
“Spoons don’t make people fat and pencils don’t misspell words,” Slater shot back. “We need to strike at the root of gun violence. You mentioned, Martha, whether it’s mental illness or breakdown of society, breakdown of the family, breakdown of religious values. Whatever that is.”
Time and time again, conservatives have compared liberals to Nazis. It’s been their favorite comparison ever since President Obama first took office. It’s certainly a favorite of Glenn Beck. Throughout his tenure on right-wing radio, Fox News, and his current show, Beck has compared liberals to everything from Nazis to fascists to communists. And he did it again during an interview with the New York Times.
In an interview with Amy Chozick that ran in the Times on Friday, Beck said everyone in politics should just get along with each other. It was an interesting turn from the often controversial and divisive right-winger, but it didn’t last long. The interview turned sinister as Beck told Chozick that progressives should be hunted down like Nazis.
BECK: “Can we stop dividing ourselves? Do racists exist? Yes. Do bigots exist? Yes. But most of us are not. Most Americans just want to get along. Why can’t we do that? What has happened to us?”
CHOZICK: “But you said you were going to hunt down progressives like an Israeli Nazi hunter.”
BECK: “Oh, I will. I think these guys are the biggest danger in the world. It’s the people like Mao, people that believe that big government is the answer, it always leads to millions dead — always.”
So, it sounds like Beck wants all Americans to get along, but that they can only do so if left-wingers are hunted to extinction leaving only conservatives to run the country. That’s really dark.
First of all, it should be pointed out that progressives are nowhere close to being Nazis. Both groups are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Progressivism is left-wing while Nazism is an offshoot of fascism which is found on the right-wing.
Read more: addictinginfo.org
When guns are used in a crimes like these, there are understandably calls for more gun control. Some locations have that well covered already. Some don’t. But deadly weapons abound, to me it makes sense to learn how to reduce human violence without care for the particular weapon or method. Understanding what makes a killer from family annihilators to George Zimmerman saves lives across the board. This is one of those Pages that was difficult to distill down to 4 paragraphs. So I grabbed the essential finding. But please take a look at the full article. The full study will be out soon, and we can then pick over the details and methodologies.
Categorizing the Killers: Four Types of Family Annihilator
Self-righteous: The killer seeks to locate blame for his crimes upon the mother who he holds responsible for the breakdown of the family. This may involve the killer phoning his partner before the murder to explain what he is about to do. For these men, their breadwinner status is central to their idea of the ideal family.
Disappointed: This killer believes his family has let him down or has acted in ways to undermine or destroy his vision of ideal family life. An example may be disappointment that children are not following the traditional religious or cultural customs of the father.
Anomic: In these cases the family has become firmly linked in the mind of the killer to the economy. The father sees family as the result of his economic success, allowing him to display his achievements. However, if the father becomes an economic failure, he sees the family as no longer serving this function.
Paranoid: Those who perceive an external threat to the family. This is often social services or the legal system, which the father fears will side against him and take away the children. Here the murder is motivated by a twisted desire to protect the family.
SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers, back from their summer break and starting their final month in session, have a lengthy to-do list that features such politically volatile issues as environmental rules, gun control and immigration.
Some 1,100 bills — about 275 a week, or 55 a day — require action before the Legislature adjourns Sept. 13 if they are to become law by the beginning of next year. Among them are proposals to relax California’s landmark environmental quality law; place restrictions on the controversial oil extraction method known as fracking; and grant new benefits to those in the country illegally.
Lawmakers also are expected to decide whether to outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture of semiautomatic rifles that accommodate detachable magazines that hold multiple bullets — one of a raft of gun bills filed after last year’s massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
And they will consider a bid to increase California’s minimum wage by $1.25 an hour, to $9.25, over three years.
The English language is a strategic battleground in the war over gun control. Media, Bond tells attendees, are masters at devising buzzwords that twist the truth. “They use all kinds of terms to make us scary,” she says. Take the phrase high-capacity magazines. The better term, Bond explains, is standard capacity, because these magazine are “very common. They’re what people use. So they’re standard - not high-capacity.” Or consider universal background checks. Such a thing cannot possibly exist, she posits, because criminals won’t comply. “There’s no such thing,” Bond says, so we shouldn’t use the term. Wittgenstein might cringe, but the audience nods knowingly.
Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the media suggests.
Forget the hazards of operating an automobile. You are more likely to be killed by someone’s hands or feet, or by a club or hammer, than to succumb to rifle gunshot, the audience learns. Assault weapons, which the NRA considers a liberal smear term, are used in less than 2% of all crimes. As gun ownership climbs, violent crime has fallen.
Michael Bloomberg is the big NRA bogeyman.
So, THIS happened.
I’m trying to find something snarky to say about this, but instead of being snarky, I’m just sitting here saying “WTF?!”. I know the majority of gun owners aren’t like these two chowderheads…but holy crap.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe this week, Sen. Manchin (D-WV) fired a salvo in his escalating war with the NRA - or, as he tells it, the NRA’s Washington leadership.
Responding to an NRA attack ad that claimed he was ‘working with President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’ and betraying his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by pushing forward with the now-defeated Manchin-Toomey bill that would have strengthened background checks on gun purchases, Manchin said “They’re trying to say I’ve changed, but I haven’t changed… the leadership of the NRA in Washington has changed. In 1999, background checks were good!”
It’s notable not just that Manchin seems sincere about enacting background checks in the wake of Newtown, but that he’s willing to fight back against the NRA in doing so. The NRA’s attack ad tells its members to phone Manchin’s office and complain about his “betrayal”; Manchin turns the tables in his ad, and asks NRA members to phone the NRA and complain about their lack of support for background checks.
Manchin is, above all else, a shrewd politician. He’s a Democrat who has managed to win by large margins, first as governor and then as senator, in an increasingly red West Virginia. If he’s made the calculation to call the NRA’s bluff and dare them to come after him, then he’s decided that they’re nothing more than a paper tiger at this point, full of bluster about their ability to bring down politicians who don’t follow their increasingly retrograde orthodoxy but without any ability to follow through. If Manchin demonstrates that he can spit in the teeth of the NRA and not suffer any damage, it may well embolden other, more timid Democrats who think they need to maintain an A-rating in order to keep their jobs.
It helps that Manchin isn’t facing re-election for a few years yet, of course. It’s easier to be brave when you aren’t in the heat of a campaign. But this election cycle could end up being the swan song for Wayne LaPierre’s brand of crazy as a truly scary political force. Between Bloomberg’s Independence USA super PAC hammering Democrats who tow the NRA line, and Manchin attempting to prove that there are no real consequences for defying them, the NRA may suddenly find that they can’t make Congress dance to their tune the way they used to.
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But if there’s going to be real movement towards a better, saner gun policy in this country it’s clearly going to have to happen over the NRA’s grave. Manchin’s an experienced hunter, but this is the most important hunt he’s ever been on. I wish him nothing but luck with this one.