Ok, NRA nutjobs, I'm on board with your plan for more guns

December 21, 2012

I get it. I do.

You think the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution lets you own guns in the event of a need for armed insurrection against a tyrannical government. Frankly, given what happened under Dubya Bush, I’m kinda surprised more of my libbie-leftie friends didn’t join me in this understanding. But whatever.

Most of you, even on the rightwing, tend to reject my argument for equal force- nobody seems to be fond of Michigan Militia wingnuts getting their hands on tanks and F16s and Stinger missiles…so we’re stuck with lack of parity. I mean, I don’t get it…if you think this is what the 2nd means (and I do) then why you are not trying to pick up one of these modest multi-billion dollar weapons systems on the blackmarket is a mystery to me. but….ok. something less than parity with the US armed forces. That’s a first principle.

Second, hunting. Now true, the 2nd Amendment does not seem to guarantee your right to blast small woodland creatures into oblivion but what the heck. Sure. By all means let us justify the sort of weapon that is necessary to bring down a deer or something. And leaves it….well, edible. As opposed to, say, riddled with heavy metal projectiles of a 0.223 calibre.

Third, you seem to think that the solution to gun violence is that we have more guns. More people with more access to guns at any moment in the event we need to put down a mad dog, I mean, defend a movie theatre against a disgruntled neuroscience graduate student, er, nutter. Fine. I agree. If someone is actively shooting up the place, if we could have some calm, cool, collected return fire….well it looks fine on paper to me.

So how can we have more guns, available for hunting, best for accurate shooting and with some inherent features that exert a calming effect on the rate of fire?

The bolt-action rifle. Preferably with the magazine limited to 3 or 5 cartridges.

So here’s what I propose. We ban, and I mean BAN, these stupid penile replacement firearms. Period. No handguns, no AR15 military bullshit. No magazine/clips bigger than 5 in capacity. No goddamn cammo stocks. No. Muppet. Hugging. Grandfather. Clause.

And in exchange you nutjobs can have as many bolt-action rifles as you want and as many long barrel shotguns as you want. You can hunt, grab them out of the rack on your pick ’em up truck in case you happen by a Sikh temple when some shit is going down from a white supremicist and have them under your bed come the armed insurrection.


35 Responses to “Ok, NRA nutjobs, I'm on board with your plan for more guns”

  1. Juniper Shoemaker Says:

    Now your blog is advertising “Free Concealed Carry Magazine Issue for Self-Reliant Americans!”

    “Self-reliant!” Self-reliant.

    . . .

    I’m confused. I’m going back to work.


  2. dsks Says:

    “So here’s what I propose. We ban, and I mean BAN, these stupid penile replacement firearms. Period. No handguns, no AR15 military bullshit. No magazine/clips bigger than 5 in capacity.”

    Meh. This wouldn’t have stopped Charles Whitman. And there’s nothing to prevent crazy people from taping/coupling mags together, or customizing extended mags. The kids murderd by the latest crazy were methodically shot with two to three rounds according to the medical examiner. The killer used an AR-15, which was what Mom happened to have have in the house, but he could have accomplished the same with a Remington 700 and a clutch of 5 round clips.


  3. drugmonkey Says:

    It is interesting how you can claim what would or would not have worked in any given situation. also that you cannot imagine that slowing the rate of fire/reloading would have any effect on kill rate.

    Now what sort of bolt action takes “clips” and, if they exist, why is there anything impossible about regulating them so that these are not possible to mount up, save with gunsmithing-like mod talents?

    (if you mean speed loaders, 1) these can be banned too and 2) they still don’t get you to the fire rate of a semi-auto with one of those 110 round magazines being discussed on the radio)


  4. Eli Rabett Says:


    Ferguson had emptied two 15-round magazines during the shooting. While reloading his third magazine, somebody yelled, “Grab him!”[14] Passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled Ferguson and pinned him to one of the train’s seats.[15] Several other passengers ran forward to grab his arms and legs and help hold him pinned across a three-seat row with his head towards the window and legs towards the aisle. While he was pinned, Ferguson said, “O, God, what did I do? What did I do? I deserve whatever I get.”[14] He also repeatedly pleaded with those holding him, “Don’t shoot me. I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” Five to six people continued to hold him pinned for some time while they awaited relief. While those who hadn’t tackled him, but were holding him down, inquired as to the location of the gun, they were assured that it had been kicked away and that there had only been one gunman. Most if not all passengers still in the car were concerned that no further violence take place and that the shooter be held rather than attacked. He was held down for several minutes. Soon, Andrew Roderick, an off-duty Long Island Rail Road police officer who was picking up his wife from the train, boarded the train car and handcuffed Ferguson.[15]”


  5. dsks Says:

    “Now what sort of bolt action takes “clips””

    Dude, are you serious?

    “It is interesting how you can claim what would or would not have worked in any given situation. “

    All I’m saying is that Charles Whitman raised merry hell with a hunting rifle and a shotgun.

    And btw, you think rapid fire is high tech? Have a go at a 70 yr old M1 Garand sometime. 8 rounds in 3 sec and no more than 3 sec to change the magazine.

    I’m all for regulation, but effective regulation is better than bullshit regulation.


  6. Vene Says:

    dsks is just saying what we all know, if a preventative measure doesn’t completely solve a problem, then it’s no good. Putting extra police patrols on the roads during holiday weekends might reduce the number of drunk driving crashes, just as limiting the ability of killers to fill a room with bullets might reduce the number of deaths, but since neither completely eliminates the problem, we shouldn’t do that either. Or, to use an example more in line with a biomedical science blog, we shouldn’t vaccinate because no vaccine is 100% effective. We also shouldn’t bother with heart surgery because some small percentage of patients will develop an infection and die.

    Nope, it is far wiser to live in a world of absolutes, merely making progress towards the goal is of no value whatsoever. We demand perfection in all pursuits.


  7. DrugMonkey Says:

    You didn’t answer the question dsks. Both parts.

    spot on Vene, spot on.

    ER- what is bullshit? Sounds like you are providing evidence for my point to me.


  8. Acme Rocket Says:

    Exactly, an M1 Garand is pretty devastating despite lacking the 30 round magazine of an AR-15. There’s a reason General Patton called it “The greatest implement of battle ever devised.”

    How exactly do you ban these items? Have you read how fast 30 round magazines have sold out in the past week? In an ideal world we could pass a law banning certain firearms and magazine and we would never hear about them again. But, we do not live in that world. There are over 300 million firearms in this country and millions of those are of the M-4/AR-15 type semi-automatic rifle. Sure if a ban went in place people would stop showing up to the shooting range with them, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Also, the Mosin-Nagant is damn cheap you can get a decent quality rifle for under $200.

    Since this blog is frequently visited by those working in physical and life sciences, I have general question for your readers. How many chemicals do you have access to on a daily basis that if used ‘improperly’ would cause serious harm to others? As a chemist by training I can tell you that if I ever went pyscho-killer a gun would not be my weapon of choice.

    That last part may sounded a little extreme. I’m actually a very nice well-adjusted individual.


  9. Vene Says:

    ACME Rocket, a good number of those chemicals are hard for private citizens to obtain and they don’t necessarily have the knowledge to know how to use them to effectively harm others. A semiautomatic weapon is pretty simple; you put the bullets in the magazine, slide the magazine into the right slot, charge the action, point it, and pull the trigger, pull it again until it doesn’t shoot anymore, and then swap out magazines.


  10. Acme Rocket Says:

    The point I was trying to make was that there is no legislation to prevent misuse of those chemicals. Last I checked instant cold packs are still available for sale without a permit. Isolating some crude ammonium nitrate and mixing with fuel oil does not require a chemistry degree. Would it be the most efficient way to take out a building? Probably not. The scary question, would a homicidal lunatic give a hoot?


  11. becca Says:

    I want to live in a world where knowing that chemists can kill people is knowledge everyone has and takes for granted (it lives up to the memory of Nobel, after all), but knowing simply the price of a decent riffle makes the claim of “nice well-adjusted individual” seem incongruous.


  12. Vene Says:

    Okay, ACME, point me to the number of people killed by such acts. Convince me that the Adam Lanzas of the world will actually make homemade bombs for their mass killings. While you’re at it, show me the bomb culture where people keep bombs in their house for defense and accidentally use it on their neighbors. Also show me the examples of children finding their parent’s home defense bombs unlocked and killing their friends with it. The chemical thing is a complete and total red herring.


  13. Acme Rocket Says:

    Oklahoma City, a person made a very large ANFO explosive and parked it outside a building and 168 men, women, and children were murdered. All of this committed by a monster who had access to firearms and the training to use them. Okay how about something a little closer to my own field, the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subway. I can tell you with some certainty the making sarin is no cakewalk and not something to be attempted without training.

    How does knowing the approximate retail value of a fine WW2 era rifle make me any less of a nice person than yourself? Before you judge people who have a fascination with firearms I would suggest you actually get out and meet a few of them.

    But the even larger point I wanted to bring awareness to is this, if the technology to cause harm exists it will likely be used. No law can simply erase these technologies from society.


  14. Vene Says:

    So, Acme, your most recent example is from over 15 years ago? And it was an example where people’s ability to obtain explosive agents was restricted at that (such as tracking people buying ammonium nitrate fertilizer). Very disingenuous.


  15. Acme Rocket Says:

    If it was restricted, then how was someone able to use it for terrorism? You can obtain ammonium nitrate for certain instant cold packs. It’s no where near the same quantity you could obtain via fertilizer but over time it would be enough to destroy a small building. Or if you know someone who legally obtains large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer you can steal from them. I live out in the cornfields of the Midwest, every year there are a couple of police reports describing the theft of anhydrous ammonia (a reagent used in methamphetamine manufacture). If people are willing to steal for meth they would steal for a bomb too.

    Vene please don’t compare the gun culture to mass murderers. The gun community is no more responsible for that monster in Newtown than the gay community is responsible for Jerry Sandusky. If you think that’s an outrageous statement, that’s exactly my point.


  16. Eli Rabett Says:

    Because after Oklahoma City access to large amounts of fertilizer WERE restricted and tracked. Just what DM asked for. (And yes there are examples of shooters being jumped when forced to reload, see above, so the size of the magazine has an influence on the number of bodies). Acme, you own a piece of those 20 kids’ bodies and you are peddling fast to try and deny it.


  17. Jim Thomerson Says:

    You might take a look at the Wiki on Richard Speck, who raped, tortured, and killed eight nursing students. Three things struck me as interesting: (1) he did not use a gun, (2) he had a history. Could he have been identified as a potential mass murderer? (3) he was or, was not, a supermale with YYX chromosomes rather than the usual YX.

    I own two hunting guns. One is a lever action 30-30 which holds (as I recall) more than five rounds in a tubular magazine. The other is a pump 22 rimfire which holds 15 long rifle shells in a tubular magazine. Note that magazine laws I have seen exempt tubular magazines. So far as those two rifles go, you can take them out of my cold dead hands, but I have no intention of buying any more guns.


  18. DJMH Says:

    Acme, in fact when we buy tetrodotoxin or bungarotoxin, both of which could be lethal if delivered appropriately, there is indeed strict oversight of quantities purchased on how it’s stored etc etc. So, you’re wrong.

    I still say mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners. It would be cheap to get insurance for guns that are used mostly in hunting realms, and cheaper still if the guns had locks. But expensive as all get out for assault weapons. So it would not be an undue burden on those who actually use guns to get game, it would help prevent the vast number of accidental child deaths (because it would be cheaper if the guns had individual locks), and it would mitigate both the availability and the accessibility of more dangerous weapons for nut jobs and dystopianists alike.

    Plus, the insurance industry would be thrilled with all their new business, there is no problem with having to collect the arsenal that is already out there, and so it is a capitalism win.

    It should be just as difficult to own a gun as it is to own a car, after all.


  19. DJMH Says:

    But DM, I am curious to know why suddenly you’ve changed your tone, from your previous 2nd amendment at all costs rhetoric. Does this mean you’re acknowledging certain realities that the rest of us had picked up on a while ago?


  20. Jim Thomerson Says:

    The Constitution guarantees my right to own guns, but does not address whether I can own a car. Keep this in mind when comparing the two. My homeowners covered me when I stuck a model airplane through a guys car hood. Do you know if Dick Cheney’s homeowners covered him when he accidentally shot a hunting companion?


  21. DrugMonkey Says:

    I am curious as to why you assert I have changed my tone, DJMH. Also why you have characterized it as you have done. My prior post in this was about what the 2nd means, and took no position on whether it should prevail with or without costs.


  22. Grumble Says:

    “The gun community is no more responsible for that monster in Newtown than the gay community is responsible for Jerry Sandusky.”

    This is a ridiculous analogy. Gay people have been advocating for the right to marry, serve in the military, etc. Gaining those rights does not in any way increase the amount of illicit, criminal pedophilia going on in the community. Gay rights and pedophilia are simply not related in any way, and to imply that they are is both false and disgusting.

    On the other hand, gun advocates – the NRA and its membership foremost among them – have been advocating for the right to bear weapons with far more killing power than needed for any legitimate, non-criminal purpose. They have successfully gained those rights, and the consequences are perfectly predictable: lots of people have these guns, some of them are mentally disturbed or just angry young men, and so they go and use their guns on people. Because these consequences are 100% predictable, and because gun advocates continue to insist on their “rights” despite the continuing occurrence of these massacres, I blame gun advocates for the tragedy in Newtown – and for all the other perfectly preventable tragedies that have and will continue to rob us of our children.

    If YOU want this absurd level of firepower to be present in our communities, and YOU push for the free availability of guns to everyone, then YOU are responsible for the consequences. You and Wayne LaPierre and your entire crowd of fellow gun-loving whackjobs should at least have the decency to accept that responsibility.


  23. Acme_Rocket Says:

    Can you explain your statement, “Plus, the insurance industry would be thrilled with all their new business, there is no problem with having to collect the arsenal that is already out there, and so it is a capitalism win” Explain to me how there is no problem collecting the existing arsenal. From my perspective that is the mother of all problems and a major reason most gun control measures are moot.

    If you truly believe that collecting all the potential illegal firearms is no problem, then I would encourage you to send a sample of whatever drug you are taking to DrugMonkey. Please, do the scientific community a favor so that we might further understand its effects.

    I may be relatively new to target shooting and the gun community but never once did I hear a fellow shooter, range officer, or gun shop staff tell me that my firearms would be effective for killing children and should give it a try. Perhaps you have been involved in the gun community longer than I and could enlighten us all as to when the gun community or the NRA ever actively promoted the idea of killing children or other innocent people.

    Newsflash Grumble, guns didn’t suddenly become more lethal once Eugene Stoner started designing firearms. Shot placement is the most significant variable in a firearm’s effectiveness, always has been.

    Here’s another analogy. I’m a fan of microbrews and after a long week in the lab I like to pound back a few. By your logic, not only am I involved in the drinking community and beer industry, but I’m partly responsible for every victim of drunk driving.

    I like to think that Americans never lost the right to possess semi-automatic rifles rather than being some new right that we somehow gained in recent years.


  24. Grumble Says:

    Gosh, Acme, I guess all you gun communitists or whatever the fuck you are, are just plain old innocent and it’s all someone else’s fault.

    Look. Who supports the NRA? Gun owners, or a large fraction of them. What does the NRA do? It demands that our laws respect the “right” to bear arms, no matter how great their firepower, no matter how utterly useless they are for anything other than killing other people in anger (not even self-defense). You know very well that the NRA’s success at getting whatever they want is bad for all of us. You know very well that eventually, someone somewhere will get ahold of one of these guns and start shooting innocents. In fact, you know it happens over. And over. AND OVER AGAIN. And yet you sit on your pretty little community asses and don’t do a damn thing to get the NRA to espouse a more reasonable policy.

    As for collecting the existing arsenal, the failure to do so is one big reason why the 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t work as well as it could have (that, and other loopholes and deficiencies, most of them courtesy of your friendly neighborhood community representatives, the NRA). And one big reason why Australia’s gun control law has been *extremely* successful in preventing massacres is precisely because their law required the government to buy all these weapons off everyone whacky enough to own one. So what exactly is the problem with sensible gun control plus arsenal collection, Acme? We have EVIDENCE that it works, but of course your community doesn’t care much for that, does it? (For more on that evidence, read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/proven-way-end-slaughter_b_2341815.html)

    As for the beer analogy, wow, that’s pretty impressive – two absurd analogies in about as many days. Drinking is a problem for some people because they are alcoholics. That’s who can’t control their drinking, and who ends up killing people with cars. We know that prohibition doesn’t work, so we have a reasonable policy of restriction, taxation, public awareness campaigns regarding alcoholism and drunk driving, punishment for drunk drivers, and so on. The same is possible for guns. Banning them entirely is on almost no one’s agenda, but at least as far as guns are concerned, our current balance of freedom to do whatever the fuck we want vs regulation is far out of whack. There needs to be far more restriction and regulation so that this EPIDEMIC of murder can finally be made to subside. That is why anyone who stands in the way of a reasonable solution is responsible for these atrocities.


  25. Acme_Rocket Says:

    Murder is already a felony. Mass murder even more so.


  26. Grumble Says:

    Brilliant, Acme. That’s working really well, isn’t it? Maybe… laws against bad actions aren’t enough. Maybe we need to regulate bad things. As in the discussion above: the government regulates toxic chemicals, so why not weapons of murder?


  27. Acme_Rocket Says:

    If the death penalty or life imprisonment can’t deter these massacres, I highly doubt reducing the availability a certain type of technology is going to help (or reduce body count). If someone is capable to gunning down, blowing up, stabbing, or simply beating to death 27 people, then that monster is capable of damn near anything.

    @Jim T., You’re right, that’s why the analogies to cars are inapplicable. It’s also the reason why the idea of national databases, and special taxes fail. Would anyone seriously consider we bring back a poll tax or make a list of Muslims living in this country? Of course not. But somehow it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about putting gun owners into a national database (with the number and type of firearm they own) and demanding they pay a special fee to exercise a constitutional right.


  28. Grumble Says:

    “If the death penalty or life imprisonment can’t deter these massacres, I highly doubt reducing the availability a certain type of technology is going to help (or reduce body count). If someone is capable to gunning down, blowing up, stabbing, or simply beating to death 27 people, then that monster is capable of damn near anything.”

    Bullshit. To claim that these nutcases would find other means to kill as many people displays an utter lack of common sense. On the exact same day as the Newtown massacre, a man in China went wild with a knife in a school. Not a single person died. That is why we regulate guns and knives differently (but not, as far as I’m concerned, differently enough). By your “logic”, we should regulate sodium chloride and sarin gas the same way, because you can kill people with both. Never mind that you’d have to drop a huge drum of salt on someone to kill one person, yet you can kill many people by releasing a small amount of sarin gas into an enclosed space.

    On top of that, you continue to insist that gun control won’t limit the massacre death toll, yet you ignore the evidence from Australia that a good gun control policy (which, incidentally, allows guns for hunting and I believe even self-defense) has eliminated massacres that used to be regular occurrences.

    I have to say, I am absolutely amazed at this combination of character traits displayed by you gun communitarians. I’m talking about your complete moral bankruptcy, as displayed by your unwillingness to share ANY of the responsibility for these ongoing murders of children and other innocents, coupled with your eagerness to parrot the most asinine arguments in favor of stupid weaponry, and ignore the best arguments in favor of regulating it. When I think about all those dead children, and that yours is the typical response of the pro-gun contingent of my fellow countrypeople, I get physically ill. You disgust me.


  29. DrugMonkey Says:

    “Regular occurrences” in Australia? Really?


  30. Grumble Says:

    More than 12 in 12 years means, yes, regular occurrence. From the article I linked to above (emphasis mine):

    “From 1984 to 1996, Australia had over a dozen mass murders by firearms, largely copycat killings prompted by media coverage in the U.S. and in Australia. Unstable people do insane things. After one lone nut gunman killed 35 and wounded 21 people in 1996, the Port Arthur Massacre, Prime Minister John Howard banned all semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns because of the outrage felt by Australian citizens. He introduced highly restrictive gun licensing laws. Hundreds of thousands of guns were purchased from Australian citizens and destroyed.

    Do you know how many mass shootings we have had since then? Not one. In addition, firearm homicides have dropped 59% with no corresponding increase in non-firearm murders.”

    Well, I guess that just about covers all the arguments the pro-gun microdicks can come up with.


  31. DrugMonkey Says:

    JT- would it really cause you a problem if your tubular mag rifles were 3- or 5-shot limited?

    Acme Rocket- I’m not grasping how gay rights makes more pedophiles available for criminal use? And even if we stipulated the entirely, blindingly incorrect and ignorant-ass assertion that pedophiles are the same as gays…wouldn’t that logic suggest that normalizing and reinforcing consensual gay relationships would minimize attacks on children?

    Since we seem to have one or two gun nutters on the line- would one of y’all care to address the Stinger missile question? Why can’t we have tanks, protected under the 2nd?


  32. Grumble Says:

    Rocket-propelled grenade launchers? Stinger missiles? Tanks? SCUDs? Tactical nuclear bombs? ICBMs? What’s the problem? Have you ever heard the gun whackos say they don’t want public access to these things? How else do you think they’re going to resist the dictator gov’mint the next time someone suggests that maybe the current arsenal does not belong to a “well-regulated militia”?


  33. Juniper Shoemaker Says:

    Why can’t we have tanks, protected under the 2nd?

    I don’t know if you were listening to NPR several days ago, but there a self-identified Christian conservative and proponent of gun ownership said that this question is already answered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. His argument is that its stipulations against civilian ownership of machine guns and “Destructive Devices” restrict Second Amendment rights to arms lesser than automatic weapons. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the argument that heavy regulation of semi-automatic guns is a violation of Second Amendment rights and the admission that civilians really shouldn’t own tanks, missiles, nuclear warheads, etc.

    This argument confuses me. First, I’m reading the Act now and it turns out that it didn’t exactly prohibit civilian ownership of automatic weapons, etc. until 1968. It just forced people to register them. Second, the 1934 version is now void. Third, I don’t know why this person thinks it was all right to pass arms control laws in spite of the Second Amendment in 1934 but doesn’t think it’s okay to do it now. But if you really want one answer to your question . . .


  34. wowzers Says:

    what is up with all this extremist anti 2a talk? it sounds like 1775 in here


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: