Gun Control I'm For It- I'm All In- Are You? Really?

[JReed]

The United States has poured money into training the Malian military in the last several years. Above, U.S. Special Forces inspect weapons in Mali in 2007. (Credit: The U.S. Army/ CC by 2.0)

That means you'll be protesting the big weapons dealers as well as the small ones. Right?

[Kingwithnothrone]

1. nah,we're having a "National discussion on gun control"

700 military bases in a 130 countries,a culture of Capitalist conquest and brutality in a fundamentally sick society.Dr.Drew and Dr.Phil weep for the victims(ours of course)...surely something can be done to stop the violence........

[BainsBane]

2. they are connected issues

the same culture that tolerates mass murder of children and the proliferation of domestic WMD spreads violence abroad.

[Kingwithnothrone]

4. you missed the bitter sarcasm

Not only are they connected,but i would say the underlying cause.When you have a culture that worships brutality,militarizes its police force in every city in America,and glorifies the concept of War for profit and then calls its victims "collateral damage" ,you have a fundamentally sick society of hypocrites who mourn selective victims of violence while the stench of the dead of those "others" doesn't even enter their nostrils.Is that clear enough?

[BainsBane]

5. I understood your post this way

and forgive me if I was mistaken. I noticed a comment on the hypocrisy of mourning about domestic victims while ignoring the lives of those who die abroad. I also thought you might be implying that gun control activists were hypocritical because they were not focusing on those who die outside the US through war mongering.

[Kingwithnothrone]

7. yes you're correct

Some,not all gun control activists.I am not entering that debate though.I view it as a distraction in the overall picture of what the root causes are in what we have become as a country.Disarming the populace in the face of tyrannical Capitalism and a militarized police state is not the answer.And in case you're wondering,no i am not a gun owner.

[BainsBane]

8. there is no serious debate about disarming the populace

the issue surrounds limiting domestic use of the kinds of weapons used to slaughter people in places like Mali.

Dead children are not a distraction, whether American or not.

[Kingwithnothrone]

9. do not play games with words

I said nothing of the sort,that dead children are a distraction.What I said was the "gun control debate" being waged by certain elements,for lack of a better word, is not a debate at all,it is a distraction and a crusade.

Crime and violence are indeed mounting,caused by the miseries of a decaying pathetic capitalist society.The ruling class, society’s biggest criminals,breed misery and violent crime in many communities.One of the favorite pet projects of the gatekeepers of Capitalism is gun control...take weapons away from everyone but the police and the military.That is not the call now,but if some "elements" in the gun-control crowd have their way,it will be.I do not agree with that stance at all.

You might choose to live in a world where everything is black and white.Good guys and bad guys. Americans and our military and police are the good guys fighting a war against evil.Some of us don't live in that world.The distinction is not that clear.

In any event don't put words in my mouth,because it is not appreciated or called for.

[BainsBane]

11. you do realize

that the gun industry is a massive, multi-billion dollar corporate industry. They profit from murder, just like the Military Industrial Complex. The only difference between them is one profits from domestic blood and the other foreign.

The gun control debate is all about murdered children. We would not be having the debate without Sandyhook.
"Some elements' is a meaningless excuse. Some elements will argue anything. They have no chance of succeeding. The issue is whether gun profits continue to trump human life. You evidently think gun companies profits are somehow noble while the defense industry is not. Murder is murder. Evil is evil. They are the same.

[JReed]

10. Look at the "debate" all around us

By and large it reflects the debate in the mass media. I see little to no discussion here about eliminating the large scale weapons that the Pentagon uses to slaughter thousands. So it's odd to see so much focus on the domestic situation when contrasted with foreign policy and weapons sales/distribution to other countries. It is hypocritical.

[BainsBane]

12. We have multiple nuclear weapons treaties

yet no limitations on WMD at home. Moreover, the entire position of cutting defense spending is exactly about limiting weapons of war. Your argument doesn't hold water.

[JReed]

13. Are you kidding me?

The US is supplying weapons to rogue nations all around the world not to mention it's vast array of fighter jets, DU bullets, destroyers, tanks and every weapon known to mankind in massive amounts. This isn't argued.

One trillion dollars a year to the Pentagon and you're seriously trying to make that case? Wow.

[BainsBane]

15. yes, it is wrong.

but to claim there is no discussion of limiting defense is categorically false.

There is also some overlap between your precious domestic industry of mass murder and the one for foreign use. Some of the same weapons are used both domestically and internationally.

[BainsBane]

16. hypocrisy runs both ways

[JReed]

18. Sure it does

War spending (call it by it's real name) increases every year. Prove to me that is not the case.

Show me exactly how these "weapons of war" have been limited. Details please.

[BainsBane]

19. I don't claim that isn't the case

Federal spending in general increases every year. But the fact is there discussion about cutting it. Your assertion was that no one talks about that is patently false. Half of all the sequester cuts are to defense. You are simply factually incorrect.

Here are some examples of restrictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons#Disarmament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

All of this far exceeds any discussion on limiting WMD domestically.
The value of purchases of gun sales also steadily increase. While we have made efforts to curtail the most deadly weapons of war, guns are increasingly deadly every year. The bloodlust of gunners demands it. They aren't satisfied if they lack the ability to slaughter 100 babies in sixty seconds.

So once again, you are proven wrong. Guns grow in deadliness and killing capacity, while the worst weapons of war are regulated and decreased by international treaty.

You clearly have no moral issue with weapons that kill. Pretending that the machinery of death is only consequential if it is the result of a state military as opposed to a personal stash to be levied against defenseless babies, even American babies, is a vacuous argument.

Pacifists don't own guns. Nor do they defend their proliferation.

[JReed]

21. Wrong

Your list does not address any of the points I make.

You've also erred in your personal assessment. I clearly stated I am in for gun control, how in the world could you have missed that?

I'm the one who is consistent here, gun control for all actors be they individual or state.

No one is pretending anything and while I would not call myself a pacifist I have never owned or even fired a gun. I wouldv'e preferred to have kept it from the personal but there it is. So you see you have been quite mistaken on all accounts. Next time I hope you'll think this through.

[BainsBane]

22. the list doesn't address your assertion that no one is talking about limits on military weapons?

Sorry I mistook you for a gunner. My memory is obviously faulty on the subject.

[Robb]

3. Matthew 23:26.

"First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. yep, every time I use my dishwasher it happens.

[WillyT]

14. Yep... K & R !!!

[loyalsister]

20. I dislike the word "control"

I wish they would use the term gun ACCESS. I definitely support limitations on the acquisition of guns. And would also definitely like to see a little more discussion about what some guns are designed for and simple understanding that they are designed to kill people - sometimes LOTS of people. That small fact seems to not be part of the discussion among people so much.

[freshwest]

23. Yes, purpose needs to be discussed. Glad you brought that up.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. I'm not ready to ban guns, but....

I DO wish that unions and community organizations would take the lead in gun usage and gun safety classes and instruction.