[lbo-talk] Collective idiocy....

shag carpet bomb shag at cleandraws.com
Wed Dec 19 04:19:09 PST 2012


heh. as you must remember, grumpy, I used to have a federal firearms license and owned a gunshop with the wasband, a cook and amateur gun smith. so, I'm quite familiar with the restrictions on gun ownership.

something in the convo reminded me of the book, Culture of Fear. I wasn't a big fan, but I recalled his discussion of a school shooting in Scotland. 16 5 year olds were shot.

Glassner says that, at the time, the media was rife with commentary about the motivations - claiming he was gay and a predator - and that was why he went on a rampage. There were all kinds of concerns - about media, etc. etc. - but few discussions about gun control - at the time. Similarly, in the Hungerford Massacre, people blamed the shooting on, among other things, his supposed status as a "mummy's boy".

Anyway, misplaced concerns eventually faded away and there was eventually calls for gun control. But Glassner cites several sources that, at the time, dismissed the idea that gun control would resolve the problem. Glassner, of course, is a GC advocate, so his complaint is that there was an obsessive fear of homosexuality that was misplaced. Interesting differences in the reaction.

At 01:27 AM 12/19/2012, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>shag asks:
>
>>Is that even what well regulated means?
>
>Yes, SCOTUS has said several times that "well regulated" means "laws can
>be written to regulate, but not remove" the right to bear arms. Thus in
>the US there is no right to anything that's known as "crew serviced" --
>like a canon, which requires more than one person, typically, to make it
>work. Or for that matter, automatic weapons, or shotguns with barrels
>shorter than 16" ... the list is endless. Did you click on the list of
>people who cannot possess guns in California?
>
>If you are the subject of a temporary restraining order, for instance. If
>that's not regulation, I don't know what is.
>
>>I'd always assumed well-regulated meant that they were disciplined
>>and trained as _militia_ not that the guns were "regulated."
>
>Well, you know what happens when you assume ...
>
>The Militia is specifically NOT the trained armed forces. They are the
>whole of the people (minus the armed forces), expected to have ZERO training.
>
>Oh, well, except women. But still :-)
>
>/jordan
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list