Stuff to Weaken the Gaskets a Bit


PDA






JCF
April 20, 2007, 05:51 PM
Excerpted from SF Chronicle/SFGATE - APril 20, 2007.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2007/04/20/notes042007.DTL&type=printable

Everyone Should Get A Gun!
Then no one would kill anyone, right? Also: Guns are fun. Americans like fun!
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, April 20, 2007



You know what offers just tremendous amounts of pleasure? Shooting guns.

It's true. Shotguns, handguns, rifles, BB guns, squirt guns, you name it. Try it yourself: Just head out to a shooting range and have the gun boys yank you some clay pigeons and blast those things out of the sky and oh my God it's just a ridiculous barefaced thrill, a sense of godlike power, a rush of adrenaline to go along with a hot buzz of precision and concentration and the smell of gunpowder and much manly macho grunting.

I am not at all joking. I've done it. I've even enjoyed it, quite a bit. Sport shooting is an intense rush, a unique sort of pleasure, scary and powerful and deadly and fascinating and, in its deep, pure violence, rather beautiful. What's more, guns can be gorgeous pieces of precision engineering, sexy and brutal and often superbly made and so dumbly phallic and obviously homoerotic it makes the men of the NRA tingle every night, secretly.

But let this be known: Guns are also, quite clearly, something that could exit the human experience entirely and we would, very simply, only be the better for it. Much, much better. Oh yes we would.

Look, it's easy enough to point out all the obvious gun-control arguments the brutal Virginia Tech massacre slaps across the face of the pro-gun culture. Guns are far too easy to obtain. Gun fetishism is far too prevalent and glamorized and legitimized in the States. Guns are often easier to get hold of than a driver's license and we don't even perform instant background checks, and in places like Texas it's now easier than ever not only to own a gun, but the state's newly expanded gun laws mean it's A-OK to shoot and kill someone for pretty much looking at you sideways, and if you do, not only is it unlikely you will go to jail for it, many Texans will actually applaud.

But the truth is, these issues aren't really the point. And as many politicians -- even Democrats -- are already pointing out, new gun-control legislation in the wake of VT isn't exactly a priority, mostly due to the vicious power of the tiny-but-vocal gun lobby and especially given the faux-cowboy gun-lovin' warmonger who currently holds the White House veto stamp in his insolent little fist right now.

But even the obvious fact that no new gun-control laws are likely to emerge hasn't stopped the pro-gunners from tossing up what is easily my favorite pro-gun argument of all time, one that's popped back up on blogs and forums and in right-wing columns all over the Net in response to VT, like some sort of cute, thuggish mantra of happy cancerous violence.

It goes like this: If only more people had guns, no one would get shot. If only everyone was armed and everyone was packing heat and everyone knew everyone else could kill them at a moment's notice, why, no one would dare shoot each other for fear of getting killed themselves before they even had a chance to enjoy their own murderous rage.

In other words, the solution to the too-many-guns-too-easily problem? Even more guns.

More to the point: If the professors and students at Virginia Tech just so happened to carry their own swell Glock 9mm in their backpacks or in their purses just like insane sullen loner Cho Seung-Hui, maybe he would've been less likely to go on that rampage because, gosh golly, he'd surely know he'd be quickly shot dead by 100 trigger-ready students as soon as he fired the first shot. And what satisfaction is there in a brutal gun rampage if you don't get to kill more than a handful of kids? It's such perfectly insane logic, they should print it on the NRA brochure. Hell, maybe they do.

I love this line of thinking. It's like bashing your own skull with a brick and calling it intellectual stimulation.

Hell, it worked great for the Cold War, didn't it? Every major nation enjoys a grudging, caveman-esque respect for each other's massive nuke stockpile and whoever can annihilate the world the most times over gets the most power and we all live happily ever after in a brutal, anxious, fear-based society, some juvenile vision of a macho Wild West that never really existed. Beautiful.

It doesn't matter how overtly reckless and idiotic the "let's arm everyone" argument is. What matters is millions actually believe it. What matters is how many people, especially many who make the laws of the land (or coerce and lobby those who do) still believe this is some sort of core, defining ethos of the United States and even the world. It is, you have to admit, one hell of a way to run a planet.

But it is not the only way.

Here is the flip-side argument. It is at once simple and obvious and makes a calm sort of moral sense, and is therefore is sneered at by every gun lover and bitter Second Amendment misinterpreter and NRA lobbyist in the land.

It goes like this: If all guns were banned outright tomorrow, or even if we took the strict British/Swedish approach and only allowed them for hunting and in highly controlled shooting clubs, well, guns would slowly but surely disappear from the popular culture. As a fetish, as a gang weapon, as some sort of bogus macho self-defense argument, as an obvious and too-easy means to shocking schoolyard massacre, guns and the fear-based culture they create would, slowly but surely, fizzle and die.

It would not be instantaneous. It would not be easy. But slowly, as manufacturing largely ceased and gun shows shut down and fewer and fewer new firearms entered the channel and the black market slowly dried up from lack of decent supply, and as the upcoming generation simply wouldn't know a world where guns were prevalent and easy and stupid as paint, well, guns and the numb ultraviolence they inspire would disappear within a single generation, maybe two.

I know, it would ruin the all-American fun of shooting. I realize a beloved American hobby would have to be replaced by, well, roughly 10 thousand other options. I know it would infuriate countless collectors and responsible gun owners who merely appreciate the craftsmanship, the gun-maker's art, the simple joy of shooting deadly weapons into controlled targets and who have zero urge to kill anything, ever. I know.

But, well, so what? Giving up such a rather hollow, morally indefensible, outdated pleasure seems a tiny price to pay for the end result of a dramatically less violent America, a less suspicious, reactionary worldview, a nation not shot through with an undercurrent of fear and blood-drenched headlines and childish notions of angry, armed retaliation.

Hell, we've done it before, with all sorts of other harsh social practices and beliefs that, we finally realized, served the soul of our species not at all and actually caused much deep harm. Slavery. Hangings. The slaughter of Indians. Monarchical rule. Chamber pots. Flamethrowers. Smoking on airplanes. Lack of women's suffrage. Eugenics.

Really, has the time not come for guns to exit the wary American dream? Can we not even imagine it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Stuff to Weaken the Gaskets a Bit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lobotomy Boy
April 20, 2007, 06:11 PM
Assuming for the moment that a person believes that eliminating guns is a good thing, how does this nit wit think he would ever accomplish such a goal? It would be cool to build a bicycle path to the moon, too, and about as logistically possible. Another example that is a bit more immediate involves deporting all of the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, which is another nonsensical, pie-in-the-sky utopian (distopian is more accurate) idea.

When we read this we should all be grateful that our opposition primarily consists of delusional moonbats like this.

El Tejon
April 20, 2007, 06:18 PM
Terrified children bleating for mommy to protect them.:barf:

Ratzinger_p38
April 20, 2007, 06:19 PM
Wont happen. We are not Europe, thank god. My rifles/pistols are not going to be kept in a safe at a 'gun club'. They are staying right here in my closet. There was a time when more people had guns, but less crime. I dont know if it was an 'arm everybody' thing, but the number of things that carried a death sentence or 30 year prison stretches seemed to work well. Something happened between 1946-1970 that seemed to ruin everything.

It is at once simple and obvious and makes a calm sort of moral sense, and is therefore is sneered at by every gun lover and bitter Second Amendment misinterpreter

Hm, he no longer should be listened to. Most libs now admit what the 2A is for (although they try to make it more about 'hunting') but this joker is trying to argue for the 'collective right' or the even more ridiculous 'civic right'.

Slavery. Hangings. The slaughter of Indians. Monarchical rule. Chamber pots. Flamethrowers. Smoking on airplanes. Lack of women's suffrage. Eugenics.

"slaughter of Indians" - yeah that was a hobby at one point. This must be the same idiot who wrote the nice column about how military reenactors were evil.

Henry Bowman
April 20, 2007, 06:22 PM
But the truth is, these issues aren't really the point. And as many politicians -- even Democrats -- are already pointing out, new gun-control legislation in the wake of VT isn't exactly a priority, mostly due to the vicious power of the tiny-but-vocal gun lobby and especially given the faux-cowboy gun-lovin' warmonger who currently holds the White House veto stamp in his insolent little fist right now. Not very "high road" of his, eh?

It goes like this: If only more people had guns, no one would get shot. If only everyone was armed and everyone was packing heat and everyone knew everyone else could kill them at a moment's notice, why, no one would dare shoot each other for fear of getting killed themselves before they even had a chance to enjoy their own murderous rage. No. False argument. No laws will prevent such an act of a deranged person. What more guns can do is stop it short.

More to the point: If the professors and students at Virginia Tech just so happened to carry their own swell Glock 9mm in their backpacks or in their purses just like insane sullen loner Cho Seung-Hui, maybe he would've been less likely to go on that rampage because, gosh golly, he'd surely know he'd be quickly shot dead by 100 trigger-ready students as soon as he fired the first shot. And what satisfaction is there in a brutal gun rampage if you don't get to kill more than a handful of kids? It's such perfectly insane logic, they should print it on the NRA brochure. Hell, maybe they do. Agan, no. A false argument. Don't characterize liberty and self defense as a "cold war" strategy. :banghead:

NeoSpud
April 20, 2007, 06:26 PM
Thats a perfect example of the naive, sarcastic, hey-I'm-smarter-than-you, too-educated-with-no-common-sense type of person.

It's like I've said for years... being intelligent doesn't make you smart. The veiled ignorance here is visibly risible :D

Risasi
April 20, 2007, 06:26 PM
Cool. So soon everybody will be disarmed but me?

TT
April 20, 2007, 06:35 PM
Morford’s a hysterical gun-hater. He’s penned quite a few articles like this. Sadly, as loony as his diatribes are, I think they accurately reflect public opinion where he resides (SF Bay Area).

nobody_special
April 20, 2007, 07:02 PM
But the truth is, these issues aren't really the point. And as many politicians -- even Democrats -- are already pointing out, new gun-control legislation in the wake of VT isn't exactly a priority, mostly due to the vicious power of the tiny-but-vocal gun lobby and especially given the faux-cowboy gun-lovin' warmonger who currently holds the White House veto stamp in his insolent little fist right now.

Not very "high road" of his, eh?

Sometimes the truth hurts. :p

Thats a perfect example of the naive, sarcastic, hey-I'm-smarter-than-you, too-educated-with-no-common-sense type of person.

No kidding. To me, it's tempting to write a semi-anonymous opposing piece with the hope of be dismissed as unintelligent, ignorant, uneducated etc... and only then reveal my true background. :evil:

Morford’s a hysterical gun-hater. He’s penned quite a few articles like this. Sadly, as loony as his diatribes are, I think they accurately reflect public opinion where he resides (SF Bay Area).

All too true... I lived in the Santa Barbara area for 10 years -- a much more conservative area than SF. Many people there would agree with this nonsense.

bogie
April 20, 2007, 07:16 PM
When in doubt, it can be kinda fun to torque on 'em a little...

======
Miss Morford, you really need to consider...

...that there are a lot of female NRA members who get all tingly too...

And let's not forget the GLBT community - www.pinkpistols.org - it's sorta difficult to bash someone when they're trying to shove a Glock down the would-be basher's throat - oh, the imagery!

Now, if those poor children had had someone who could do more to defend them than try to block a door by heroically throwing his poor old carcass in front of it, some of 'em could be being interviewed as witnesses instead of being buried. What we really need is a progressive action toward repeal of the repressive gun laws that only allow thugs like Cho to act without fear.

Guy B. Meredith
April 20, 2007, 07:55 PM
Morford loves to hear himself simper.

Kim
April 20, 2007, 08:11 PM
I disagree with the premise of the left on guns. They see a utopia without guns. But that is a lie. The true utopia will only occur when people freely own firearms and choose not to do harm with them. Using the FORCE of the government to penalize people to the point of trying to force the utopia they want can not work. It would be taking away freedom or the words they hate free will. Without FREEDOM there can not ever be their prayed for utopia. You just get oppression from the benelovent STATE. Their minds and thinking is evil. I truly believe this. Their politics is NOT based on freedom but oppression. And it is intoxicating to many and to the young on University Campuses. But it is surely a LIE.:what:

geekWithA.45
April 20, 2007, 08:13 PM
Summary:

Hey, let's talk about the real benefits of guns! They're fun! They're a hoot! They're trivial!

Now, let's denigrate the serious purposes of guns. Guns for defense is unenlightened macho BS, mmmkay?

Right then!

Now let's be grownups, and get rid of the evil guns, because that's the enlightned, grownup moral thing to do!

{skips into the sunset, spreading rose petals to the wind, reeking of patchouli}


Note:

This bit amused me the most: >>>Hell, it worked great for the Cold War, didn't it?

Well, as a matter of fact, it did, and nothing less would have sufficed.





Edited to add:

This was my 5,000th post. yay.

ptmmatssc
April 20, 2007, 08:41 PM
With people like this , until they face evil that wants to do them harm , they'll never get it . I never wish that on anybody , but some could use the rude awakening more than others . I guess the difference between me and him is that faced with someone intent on my harm or death , at least the next day I would be able to write about it , and that's all that matters to me .

chemist308
April 20, 2007, 08:57 PM
How many of us would be willing to write that paper and asked that indivual be canned for all the false arguments in that last article attacking our rights?

Standing Wolf
April 20, 2007, 10:31 PM
Again, too much beer on the Cheerios.

obxned
April 20, 2007, 11:40 PM
No logical argument or list of statistics will ever convince this man in a million years, but one large BG with a knife or tire iron would be able to make him see the light in a nanosecond.

Uenoparker
April 21, 2007, 12:35 AM
For better or worse, here's what I emailed the bloke:

Tell ya' what -- since you're willing to trivialize my right recognized by the 2nd Amendment, how about I trivialize yours recognized by the 1st? How about we treat anyone who questions a right recognized by an amendment as having committed treason? To heck with this freedom of speech, freedom of the press junk. It's obvious to any thinking person that it's resulted in corrupted youth, immorality that would be scorned by the nation's Founding Fathers, and such subversive organizations as the NRA. So let's get rid of the darned thing. And anyone who speaks out against a fundamental right, well, we'll just line 'em up and shoot 'em...

Er, um, hey, I guess I just became a traitor, huh?

Sage of Seattle
April 21, 2007, 01:14 AM
Hey, the 2nd is no longer necessary.

I'm thinking the best way to now move the veterans from Iraq from their uncomfortable billets in the VA hospitals to his nice, comfortable home. And while the vets are there, they can start going through his email and medical records to make sure he's okay. Of course, he will now need to obtain a writing permit for each article he writes, but it's to make certain he doesn't rile people up any.

Oh, and it shouldn't be too much of a problem to inform his wife that she no longer has the ability to vote. Another one of those pesky amendments that are no longer necessary which I'm sure he'll have no problem in giving up: after all, it really doesn't affect him any.

And when he's finally tried for writing treasonous publications, the government will just keep trying him in case he happens to slip through the system when a jury foolishly finds him innocent. The government has money. They can keep at him until they succeed.

Guy B. Meredith
April 21, 2007, 01:44 AM
ptmmatssc,

Don't apologize. Given the SF head in la la land attitude my often voiced thought is that if this country is ever the victim of a violent terrorist act again that it happen in SF rather than to innocents elsewhere.

That would seem to me to be the most appropriate place for a homeland security snooze alarm to ring due to the influence these people and the East coast elite have over main stream media pronouncements.

Morford, though, is just a tabloid shock jock. There are certain showboat types that just love to be what they think is cute. Strictly a matter of stroking one's own ego. Or whatever.

If you enjoyed reading about "Stuff to Weaken the Gaskets a Bit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!