Tuesday, December 1, 2009

More About Responisbility and Blame

Buzzflash ran a very strong piece about the role the NRA plays in the continuous gun violence in America. The title sums it up nicely. "When It Comes to Enabling the Terrorism of Gun Deaths in America, No One Beats the NRA"

The NRA represents a fanatical philosophy that is akin to the fundamentalism underlying terrorism, and -- as a result -- is our chief domestic enabler of terrorism (along with the right wing media) by making sure that guns are readily available to just about anyone with the cash to pay for them.

The NRA is so extremist, it even has kept a military sniper rifle on the market that can assassinate a person (public official) from nearly a mile away with accuracy. Given the heightened number of death threats against President Obama, you would think a .50 caliber sniper rifle would be banned for civilian purchase, but not with the NRA around to champion terrorist weapons. (Only the State of California bans civlians from purchasing the .50 caliber sniper rifle.)

When it comes to the terrorist watch list, the NRA -- which fans the flames of armed militia and white male paranoia in the U.S. -- should be at the top of the list.

They are primarily responsible -- along with the gun manufcaturers -- for turning America into a shooting gallery, with a mind-boggling death toll.


What's your opinion? Is that a wonderful article or exaggerated hype from the gun control crowd? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

7 comments:

  1. Obviously Mark Karlin is your typical crying moonbat that makes no real arguments, just repeats the same old Anti-American trash.

    The National Rifle Association has made all this possible, including using its nearly omnipotent clout to forbid the FBI from stopping suspected terrorists from buying guns. That's right, the NRA believes people believed to possibly be terrorists have a "2nd Amendment" right to own guns!

    No, the NRA's position is that terrorists should not buy guns. If a known terrorist walks into a gun shop to buy a gun, he should be arrested and prosecuted on the spot. A "suspected" terrorist is just that, suspected. All the NRA says is the same as the U.S. Constitution: we have due process, follow it.

    The NRA is so extremist, it even has kept a military sniper rifle on the market that can assassinate a person (public official) from nearly a mile away with accuracy. Given the heightened number of death threats against President Obama, you would think a .50 caliber sniper rifle would be banned for civilian purchase, but not with the NRA around to champion terrorist weapons.

    Actually, the rifle in question was a civilian rifle before the military adopted it. The .50 BMG is a long range rifle. They are used every day in competition across the U.S. Not one public official has ever been shot with one yet Mark thinks it should be banned. None have ever been used in a terrorist act yet he calls them "terrorist weapons".

    When it comes to the terrorist watch list, the NRA -- which fans the flames of armed militia and white male paranoia in the U.S. -- should be at the top of the list.

    Now there it is, Mark answered his own question as to why anyone would oppose legislation that ignored due process. He would deny rights of 4,000,000 people because he does not agree with them. Suddenly he would see all members of the NRA labeled as terrorists with no way to remove yourself from the list.

    Another observation about this loon Mark Karlin too. I looked at a 50 BMG super-terrorist-anti-liberal-sniper-rifle this weekend. My thoughts when I saw it were: hmm, I don't have a range that would accommodate that but it is still neat. The last time I had a discussion with another gun nut about owning a 50 was "I wonder how many computer hard drives this would punch through." When Mark Karlin discusses the same rifle, he wonders how many terrorist acts he could commit with it or how it could be used to assassinate political rivals. Those thoughts never crossed my mind when I looked at the same rifle. Obviously assasins and terrorists never had these thoughts either since none have ever bothered to use such a dastardly device for those purposes. Since he has such thoughts, I believe Mark Karlin may be a suspected terrorist and should probably be added to the terror watch list. He even suggested that it could be used against the president. I would be happy if the only rights he was denied though were his 1st amendment rights so he would shut the hell up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No civilian owned .50BMG rifle has EVER been used in a crime, much less used to assasinate a "public official."

    As usual the anti-gunners rely on lies, distortion and outright hysterical fearmongering.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When It Comes to Enabling the Terrorism of Gun Deaths in America, No One Beats the NRA"

    I think it's the opposite. It's the gun controllers that enable terrorism.

    Why were none of the pilots armed on 9/11? Gun control. Why were none of the dead soldiers at Ft. Hood armed? Gun control. Who vapidly defends every gun free zone in this country? Gun controllers. Who pushed the legislation that made it impossible for private parties to do background checks before a gun sale? Gun controllers.

    We should learn a lesson from Israel: You don't fight terrorism by disarming yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And someone should remind the author that nearly every popular hunting rifle has it's roots in being a "military sniper rifle". .50 BMG rifles are the rare exception. They started out as civilian arms before being adopted by the military.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The pejorative term sniper rifle--How is that different than a scoped hunting rifle, or a scoped target rifle?

    What domestic terrorism has been enabled due to the availability of the .50? Without civilian ownership, the military would not have the M107--it started as a civilian rifle, and the company that invented and manufactures it states that they cannot survive on military contracts alone. Since there isn't even a recorded violent crime committed with a .50, the ratio of terrorists stopped to terrorists enabled is pretty good.

    .50 is effectively the legal maximum caliber for civilians. Do you think these people would be satisfied if that were .40, or .30, or would they be just as upset that civilians were allowed to own the biggest of whatever was left?

    Do you really support a list of names that lose civil rights without due process?

    Do you support anything in this article, or are you just trying to rile us up again?

    ReplyDelete
  6. How about this? Any bullet that you cannot hold in one hand, concealing it from a 5-year-old to play that game of "guess which hand it's in," is too big for civilian use.

    That's a joke, sort-of. Here's the serious business.

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/12/50-caliber-sniper-rifle.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. How about this? Any bullet that you cannot hold in one hand, concealing it from a 5-year-old to play that game of "guess which hand it's in," is too big for civilian use.

    Interesting bullshit test coming from someone who supports bans on weapons that fire MUCH smaller rounds than most hunting rifles.

    So you and your ilk want 50 BMG's banned because they're too big, yet also want AR-15's banned, which fire a very small round (especially if you also own one chambered in .22lr.)

    So really you want everything banned, regardless of caliber, effective range etc.

    ReplyDelete