|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 4, 2015 12:22:17 GMT -5
Yes, the US gun fetish culture... Living in France and Sweden, I never heard or read in our fiction the expression "my/your FIRST gun"...
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Dec 4, 2015 12:41:04 GMT -5
I shot two guns at a range for the first time about a year and a half a go with a former co-worker. You would not believe, not to perpetuate a stereotype as a lot of people down south here really are hunters not fetishist, the surprise I would see that someone my age hadn't ever shot a gun. I shot a 9mm and like .232 rifle, I think. No thrill for me. But some of the other guns seen there at the range that people owned .... the only thing they were need for is taking down dinosaurs that slipped through time somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 4, 2015 13:35:25 GMT -5
I often think that the mass killing problem isn't an issue of the US being peopled with violent killers, it's more of an efficiency problem. Our violent killers are being given the equipment to be far too efficient on their killing sprees. If automatic or semi-automatic, high capacity assault weapons weren't available and all they had to use were low capacity hunting rifles or handguns, the number of fatalities per killer would drop. If they didn't have handguns available and had to use knives, then the number would drop again. To carry it to the point of ridiculousness, if they didn't have knives and had to use rocks and sticks, the numbers would drop again. We've simply made it too easy for nutjob killers to be too efficient. I do think, though, that we have a culture steeped in gun violence. The gun is a fetish that we as a culture glorify and even sanctify, from the Minutemen and their muskets to Boone and Crockett and their long rifles to the Colt .45s of the Old West, to the tommy guns of gangster movies, to Dirty Harry's Magnum, and on and on. We are immersed in a popular culture and a historical tradition in which using a gun is the answer to problems, from cleaning up the streets of Dodge City to making war on terror. (Another empty slogan. When does the war on horror begin?) Thus it's no mystery that the easy availability of virtually any kind of gun coupled with our celebration of gun violence in movies, comics, TV shows, fiction and non-fiction has made for an evil brew, made even more toxic by our nonchalant acceptance and acquiescence. Part of the problem is that the "historical tradition" is almost entirely a myth. Yes there were gunfighters and gunfights in the Old West. But they were very rare. One of the many precipitating factors in the Gunfight at the OK Corral was the enforcement of Ordinance No. 9, which made it unlawful to carry deadly weapons in the city. Contrary to what the Gun Lobby would have you believe towns and cities in the Old West, including Dodge City and Tombstone had very harsh gun control laws. Much more strict than what we have now. It's also a myth that it was dangerous to live in the Old West at the time and you had to have weapons for protection. Part of the problem is that the populations were so small that the per capita statistics are horrendously skewed. It was far more dangerous to live in New York City or Chicago than it was to live in Dodge City or Virginia City. But that doesn't make good movies, books or legends. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 4, 2015 14:10:59 GMT -5
Egg-zackly, Slam.
We love the comfort of the old saw that advises printing the legend, which means that you live in ignorance and denial.
When I see the title card that opens Gone With the Wind, with its dewy-eyed, nostalgic, absolutely moronic vision of the “Old South,” I am struck by how willingly, eagerly people went along with it: Yankees, too, believe me.
“There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow... Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind...”
Now it makes me throw up in my mouth. (FWIW, blame Selznick, who is its attributed author; apparently it’s not from the novel.)
It’s not just syrupy goo, it’s poison, the kind of poison that still infects people of a certain view of the world who send Confederate flag-bedecked Christmas cards to their legislative colleagues, urging them to beg for forgiveness at this holy time of the year for their failure to vote in favor of its flying above Columbia, South Carolina.
It’s the same poison that makes those types of people long for days that were “simpler.” When certain people knew their places, in other words, and protecting the neighborhood was just another name for vigilantism.
And of course, now, the family of the San Bernadino killers has hired a Sandy Hook denier as their lawyer/spokesman. Good move.
And Trump is way ahead, he of the interview with Alex Jones, another Sandy Hook denier who is now proclaiming that the San Bernadino slaughter is the work of false-flag types who are pro-gun control.
Anyone who ever thought that the political content of Frank Capra’s Meet John Doe was simplistic should rewatch it tonight. Much of it is like a blueprint for the Mt. Rushmore of the Despicable: Cheney, Bush, Trump, and Cruz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 4, 2015 16:19:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 4, 2015 16:45:51 GMT -5
I hope this gets included in the 2016 edition of "Deepities and Wordicisms of the GOP."
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 4, 2015 16:54:33 GMT -5
I see that the NRA slipped Rubio his talking points and cue cards this week.
Which corporate interest will it be next week?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 4, 2015 17:22:40 GMT -5
I see that the NRA slipped Rubio his talking points and cue cards this week. Which corporate interest will it be next week? Maybe the NBA. (National Bomb Association) |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 4, 2015 21:12:55 GMT -5
I see that the NRA slipped Rubio his talking points and cue cards this week. Which corporate interest will it be next week? Maybe the NBA. (National Bomb Association) I think Rubio is the Paul Ryan of the 2016 campaign cycle. Remember how they made a big deal about Ryan's intelligence and integrity? And then remember how Joe Biden totally pwned him in the VP debate? And I'm sure Ryan is at least 30 or 40 pts higher than Rubio on the IQ scale. Somebody should talk Rubio into stepping down. He is way out of his league. Almost as bad as Dr. Carson or Scott Walker or Rick Perry or Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum or Bobby Jindal or Lindsey Graham. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 4, 2015 22:14:43 GMT -5
Rubio graduated Cum Laude with his law degree from University of Miami. He's not stupid by any means. What he is, is bought and paid for by corporate interests. He doesn't have to have an original thought because every policy he espouses is carefully put together by a think tank for maximum benefit of his campaign contributors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 4, 2015 23:13:08 GMT -5
Rubio graduated Cum Laude with his law degree from University of Miami. He's not stupid by any means. What he is, is bought and paid for by corporate interests. He doesn't have to have an original thought because every policy he espouses is carefully put together by a think tank for maximum benefit of his campaign contributors. And did you know that his father was a bartender? And that his parents came from Cuba? And that he made quite a bundle peddling his influence as a Florida legislator? |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Dec 5, 2015 10:36:11 GMT -5
Rubio graduated Cum Laude with his law degree from University of Miami. He's not stupid by any means. What he is, is bought and paid for by corporate interests. He doesn't have to have an original thought because every policy he espouses is carefully put together by a think tank for maximum benefit of his campaign contributors. This is what bugs me about Rubio. When he's talking, from his way of speaking, I get the sense that he knows that much of what he's saying is total BS. I don't think he's a moron who thinks "climate has always been changing" is an intelligent argument against doing something about drastic man-made climate change. I think he's so dedicated to personal gain that he'll feed the monster the GOP has created the lies it wants to hear. Is it worse to put forth ridiculous arguments you know are silly or to actually believe those arguments? |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 5, 2015 12:42:32 GMT -5
Dr. Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon. But outside of his field, he's as dumb as a post.
I don't know about Senator Rubio yet because I haven't really seen him enough to decide. But, man, that "bomb control" comment was really stupid. I don't think that's a meme provided by the gun lobby.
Has it shown up anywhere else? Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the "bomb control" comment seems too dumb to get any traction. Did Rubio come up with it himself, and nobody on his staff wanted to speak up because he's an authoritarian ass? Or did he see it somewhere on the Internet and he just didn't have the sense to see how stupid it is? Or maybe he knows it's dumb and has so much contempt for the people that will support him (completely understandable) that he just went ahead and said it because he knows how much they love gratuitous attacks on "the Left" even when they are really stupid and make the GOP rank-and-file look like a bunch of rubes.
I'm beginning to suspect that he is more like Dr. Carson than Senator Cruz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 5, 2015 16:01:39 GMT -5
I don't know about Senator Rubio yet because I haven't really seen him enough to decide. But, man, that "bomb control" comment was really stupid. I don't think that's a meme provided by the gun lobby. Has it shown up anywhere else? Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the "bomb control" comment seems too dumb to get any traction. Did Rubio come up with it himself, and nobody on his staff wanted to speak up because he's an authoritarian ass? Or did he see it somewhere on the Internet and he just didn't have the sense to see how stupid it is? Or maybe he knows it's dumb and has so much contempt for the people that will support him (completely understandable) that he just went ahead and said it because he knows how much they love gratuitous attacks on "the Left" even when they are really stupid and make the GOP rank-and-file look like a bunch of rubes. I'm beginning to suspect that he is more like Dr. Carson than Senator Cruz. I think he was trying to be ironically funny. He ain't Colbert or Oliver, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 11:02:02 GMT -5
The latest Trump outburst has apparently shown him as too insane "straight-talking" even for the Republican party in full-on "tack right for the primaries" mode, so he is allegedly thinking about running as an Independent (assuming the whole candidacy wasn't a publicity stunt and he doesn't bow out at the last minute). [that's "allegedly thinking about running", not just "allegedly thinking", which would be harder to prove]
So, question - 3rd party candidates in the US would generally save themselves a lot of time money and effort by just setting fire to most of their (and their supporters') money - would a Trump run as an independent "straight-talking / anti-PC" candidate stand any more chance? Unlike Nader, for example, he's got enough money to do it - would he run? Would the Republican vote split, or would he just attract the crazies (assuming that's not one question rather than two)? Are there enough votes in the crazy wing of the Republicans + the non-Republican right-wing crazies to get him anywhere?
|
|
