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.
A gun bill currently rests on Gov. Jay Nixon’s (D-MO) desk, after passing the Missouri legislature by a veto-proof margin. Should it actually take effect, it would neutralize three generations of federal gun regulation, invite firearms into elementary schools and hold the First Amendment at the barrel of a gun. Here are four of the most bizarre ideas packed into this bill:
Returning Gun Laws To The Hoover Administration:
Not only does the bill claim the power to declare federal gun laws “null and void and of no effect in this state,” it then lists a long list of longstanding laws that it purports to nullify. Among them are “the federal Gun Control Act of 1934,” “the federal Gun Control Act of 1968,” and “any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens” — so a federal ban on machine guns would cease to exist in Missouri if this bill took effect. Nullification bills such as this one conflict with the express language of the Constitution, which provides that duly enacted federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Armed Kindergarten Teachers:
The bill also permits school districts to “designate one or more elementary or secondary school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer,” a designation that authorizes them to carry a concealed firearm on campus. These armed educators also gain a limited power to detain people — “[a]ny person designated as a school protection officer may detain, on view, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or any policy of the school.” Such detention may only last up to four hours, however, before the person being detained must be turned over to real police.
Gun rights advocates are jumping at recent polls showing that gun violence has decreased, and the public is unaware of this phenomenon. Rush Limbaugh argues that, “as America arms up, gun violence goes down,” parroting the infamous book by Dr. John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Emily Miller argues in the Washington Times that, liberals have been “muzzled” by the news. But, in fact, research shows that those who oppose gun control ask the wrong questions.
Let’s begin with the question of declining violence and the public’s unawareness of this decline (which has been chalked up to the “liberal media”). It should be chalked up to “media.” As Steven Pinker notes in The Better Angels of Our Nature violence has been declining everywhere, and yet few people are aware because, as much as a despise cliché “if it bleeds, it leads.” People drastically overrate the possibility of their children being kidnapped, for example, because of prominent media coverage. They underrate their child’s chance of drowning in a pool. Sadly, since gun violence is still sexy, it will dwarf coverage of other deaths. All violence has declined, but gun violence still amounts to a good portion of it. And being an economist, it represents a sort of violence which is easy to decrease on the margin: something we can easily reduce without significant harm to society because nothing has addressed it as of yet.
But let’s dig deeper, into the assumption of the gun rights advocates. Do more guns mean less crime? Is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun? As Jon Stewart brilliantly points out, identifying a bad guy is nearly impossible without gun control. Furthermore, much gun violence is committed by “normal guys” in a violent passion.
The NRA takes a page from the Republican leadership — use highly slanted push polls push polls to get the answers you wanted before you came up with the questions.
The National Rifle Association, which thwarted new background check legislation in Congress, recently mailed a “survey” to gun owners with 12 questions related to gun rights, gun laws, and politics. I use scare quotes above because this NRA document (read it here) is a deeply misleading push poll, not an actual survey—and it lies about President Barack Obama’s positions on gun control.
The survey, provided to Mother Jones by a reader, claims that “President Obama has supported a national gun registration system allowing federal government officials to keep track of all your firearm purchases.” This is an all-too-common NRA talking point. NRA honcho Wayne LaPierre echoed it in January, saying that Obama “wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry.”
That’s not true.
Federal law has long banned a national gun registry. And the recent gun control bill that died in Congress, which was cosponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and fully supported by Obama, did not create a national gun registry. In fact, the bill expressly prohibited such a registry. Obama emphasized this point repeatedly, and award-winning mainstream media fact-checkers backed him up.