Google the phrase "An armed society is a polite society" and you will find hundreds of references to gun lobby spokespersons who claim that the push to arm every man and woman in America will not only make us safer but result in a utopia of good manners (sort of like the threat of mutually assured destruction in the nuclear age was at one time thought to temper angry rhetoric among nations). It is worth looking at this claim again in light of a disturbing new report issued yesterday by Media Matters for America. The report demonstrates a clear link between armed violence and the contemptuous political rhetoric that seems to be the raison d'être for Fox News.
The United States is a country with well over 200 million firearms in civilian hands, and since the demise of the federal Assault Weapon Ban in September 2004, the firepower in general circulation has become increasingly lethal. So there's no doubt that the "armed society" part of the gun lobby's catchphrase has been realized, in large part due to porous gun laws. Unfortunately, the "polite" side of the equation has not come to pass. For example, featured speakers at the 2010 NRA convention ranted about "gun haters," warned that "political elites" are a "cancer" that is "corrupting the rule of law," and described the current Democratic administration as "Marxist revolutionaries" and "a secular, Socialist machine--a system which combines the corruption of Springfield with the machine politics of Chicago with the radicalism of [Saul] Alinsky" -hardly polite talk. These same commentators simultaneously derided all efforts to regulate firearms and actively pushed for the increased arming of average citizens, at home and in public.
If the consequences of a false and silly slogan were simply that the gun lobby was wrong, there wouldn't be much to write about. Unfortunately, far more is at stake. And nobody is a better poster child for the dire consequences of an impolite society where anybody can get a gun then Glenn Beck.
Consider the effect that Beck had on Byron Williams, the gunman who engaged in a shootout with law enforcement on a California freeway this summer. Williams' plan, before he was interrupted, "was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU." His mother, Janice Williams, told investigators that her son was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these Left-wing agenda items."
Williams, 45, was unemployed and on parole after being released for a 2002 robbery in Chowchilla, California, when he planned his "revolution" (his criminal career included additional convictions for assault, property destruction, hit and run, and a DUI). First he stole a 9mm handgun, a shotgun and a .308 caliber rifle from his mother. Then, on July 18, after drinking copious amounts of alcohol (his mother would later find "18 or 20 beer bottles" by his sink), he loaded his guns into his pickup truck with a large quantity of ammunition and headed west to San Francisco.
Williams was on I-580 in Oakland when California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers stopped him for driving erratically. Williams opened fire, injuring two CHP officers and sustaining five gunshot wounds himself in a 12-minute gunfight. His life was likely saved by body armor that he had donned that morning.
One month after the shooting, Media Matters sent freelance reporter John Hamilton to California to personally interview Byron Williams and his mother, Janice Williams. Those interviews have brought clarity to the motivations behind Williams' planned attack. For full details, watch this video from Media Matter. In a nutshell, over multiple shows in June of this year, Beck sketched out a cockamamie conspiracy theory about President Obama, George Soros and the Tides Foundation working together to sabotage BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig so that Soros could profit on the rising stock price of the Brazilian energy company Petrobas. Williams bought it hook, line and sinker and was incensed about it.
Beck's attacks on businessman/philanthropist George Soros and the Tides Foundation are nothing new. Since his arrival at Fox in 2009, Beck has repeatedly linked the two parties together (describing it as "George Soros' Tides Foundation"), even though contributions from Soros' Open Society Institute amount to less than 5% of Tides' total funding. Nonetheless, Beck has vilified Tides as part of a progressive plot to "create mass organizations to seize power" and claims that they are "involved in some of the nastiest of the nasty." All told, Beck attacked Tides 29 times on his Fox News show in the year-and-a-half leading up to Williams' shooting spree.
Beck, of course, was the keynote speaker at the National Rifle Association's annual convention this year in Charlotte, North Carolina. His hostile and confrontational rhetoric was on display as he told those in attendance, "'Courageous restraint?' I'm sorry, you're coming at me with a gun, I'm going to shoot you!" and encouraged them to form citizens' militias to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
NRA President Ron Schmeits, like Williams, couldn't get enough, telling Beck, "Glenn, we're big fans of you and your show." Perhaps the NRA sees a bit of their own influence in Beck. After all, the NRA was demonizing Soros and the Tides Foundation with propaganda long before Beck ever appeared on FOX.
Williams, too, has been influenced by the gun lobby. During his interview with Hamilton, he insisted that his planned rampage was legitimated by the Constitution. "[America's Founding Fathers] gave us so many rights and so much sovereignty, that they felt that we even have the right to overthrow our government if it became oppressive," he stated. "That's the real nature of the Second amendment of the Constitution. It's a right of forming militia and protecting ourselves against foreign bodies and domestic bodies. It was a right to have equal firepower even against our own government."
Such language could have been lifted from the NRA's amicus brief in the 2008 D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court case. Or perhaps Williams heard Newt Gingrich speaking at the NRA's 2010 annual convention. Gingrich addressed those in attendance on the same day as Beck and told them, "I want to preface my explanation of the Second Amendment by saying it is not in defense of hunting. It is not in defense of target shooting. It is not in defense of collecting. The Second Amendment is in defense of freedom from the State."
The NRA billed their 2010 convention as a "Celebration of American Values." For those in the crosshairs of extreme right-wing rhetoric, however, there is little to celebrate. "I wish Glenn Beck would grow up and learn that he has real responsibilities," says Tides founder Drummond Pike. "He has a very magnified voice in the media landscape ... We have become so polarized, and portions of the population so fearful, that we are risking our American tradition of openness and tolerance in very scary ways."
Beck seems totally unconcerned about how toxic his brand of political rhetoric is when combined with unrestricted access to firearms, however-- unless it involves saving his own skin. To great applause, he told the NRA faithful on May 19:
God forbid there's another Timothy McVeigh. And god forbid that guy has in his wallet an NRA card. Now have you donated to the NRA? I have. Have you? If they find that, could they make the case that this is a terrorist organization and that you are funding a terrorist organization? I know they damn well try with me. And suspend my right to a fair trial? Hell no!
Byron Williams was obviously not 100% mentally stable, but good mental health is not currently a prerequisite to amassing an arsenal of firearms in our society. Those who perpetuate conspiracy theories and spew political vitriol should remember that in the future.
Follow Josh Horwitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSGV
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html
Don't be shy. Just compose a response that is defensible and civil.
" . . . the existence of a militia no longer being of any service to the federal government, the right to bear arms is now abridged and limited to any use that is not deemed to threaten the power of the federal government." http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i84597
While Mr. Horwitz tries to associate Glenn Beck with Byron Williams' actions, he does not explain why the vast majority of Glenn Beck fans do not go on armed rampages against the police. Certainly if Mr. Beck is responsible for Williams' action, we would expect to see many more of his millions of viewers going on armed rampages against the Tides Foundation.
Of course, Mr. Horwitz doesn't target First Amendment rights. To the extent the reader is stirred to fury and action by thoughts of Glenn Beck, that fury and action is channeled towards the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
But again, Mr. Horwitz fails to articulate any actual, causal connection between the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, on the one hand, and the criminal misuse of firearms, on the other. That's probably because that's not the point -- the point is to numb people to the idea of eliminating Second Amendment rights by associating those rights with political extremism. The approach would work equally well for those committed to eliminating the protections of the First Amendment.
I can play the same game. Using the same inherent logic, I could claim that the apparent desire of the "Left" for lenient treatment of violent criminals combined with their outspoken opposition to 2nd Amendment rights, can only be interpreted as purposeful incitement of parolees to commit violent acts against innocent unarmed civilians.
It is just another rehash of the argument to "associate the right to keep and bear arms with extremism, and then get people riled up about extremism." Otherwise stated, marginalizae an entire group of people based on stereotypes. "If you don't like Glenn Beck, you'd better support legislative actions that will burden 'those types of people.'"
I appreciate that DW took note of that.
Unfortunately, far too many are unaware of this Faustian pact, so we need these articles to draw much-needed attention to the Becks and the Fix Newsies. The connections of the radical right to the all-guns-all-the-time mob are extensive and deep-rooted. Kind of reminds me of a medical show I saw where doctors removing an enormous tumor had their surgery complicated by its blood vessels being incorporated within the healthy human suffering from it.
I see that the usual gun, UH, enthusiasts are still using their underhanded and fallacious tactics to attack my friends. With them, it's not a bully pulpit, it's a bullying pulpit. Thanks folks; nothing shows the rationality of gun control better than irrational opponents. Especially armed irrational opponents. Carrying guns everywhere.
But nothing will eventually move America away from accepting gun violence as much as the words of those who -- if they don't tacitly endorse it -- weasel their way to any excuse for refusing to limit America's grotesque, astronomical gun death and injury rate. When a typical tactic is to use one of my friend's possible name error (at least that's the totemist's contention) to try to reject the totality of a reasoned discourse, your commitment is to nothing but rejection, not to discourse.
By their actions you shall know them. By what they refuse to face you'll know them better.
But no news there....
Like what, for instance?
Call that bullying if you like, but if insisting on facts and calling people out for using dishonest tactics and outright misrepresentations and lies, then it's a sad world.
Most gun owners in America are reasonable people -- who favor reasonable, sensible gun laws to prevent gun violence.
Some gun owners may be thuggish. Fetishists. Extremists.
And this was discussed.
Because the gun owners who post are mostly interested in propagandizing, anything I say, or what any opposition to NRA policies says, will be misconstrued. Twisted.
The majority of gun owning Americans do not act like this.
I repeat once again as I have done before, gun owners are not a monolithic group. Not at all.
What do you know about the majority of gun-owning Americans, and where do you get your information?
I have repeatedly tried to recruit posters from the largest gun-owners' forum on the Internet. These are hunters, LEOs, target shooters, military people, gunsmiths, and the majority who own guns for defense. They are the average American gun-owners you speak of.
Out of every 20 responses I receive, 19 of them want nothing to do with you people. They cite general dishonesty in your tactics, name calling and ad hominem attacks, and the way the rules would sometimes not apply equally to both sides on this forum.
They often admit that they just don't have the stomach.
I don't even bother trying to recruit them any more.
They won't come here and debate because they know that the law is on our side concerning the 2nd amendment. History is on our side. Public opinion is on our side.
Just wait until the supreme court justices are up for re-election and your precious "victories" will be overturned faster than I can spit on an NRA member.
Quote: "I now continually maintain a list of references to specific comments that are consistent with my hypothesis that advocates of civilian disarmament, such as yourself, are frequently ill-informed, dishonest and irrational. I have referenced your previous postings not to identify statements issued by you that "sound derogatory", but to identify -
- statements issued by you that are demonstrably incongruent with reality." Unquote!
Dimensio is lying. I am not an "advocate of civilian disarmament." I support gun ownership: well-regulated. But when posters don't agree with the NRA's policies on ease in gun sales, the pro-gun team resorts to name-calling; calling posters "hoplophobes" - which is a made-up term to mock the non-gun enthusiast as lilely afflicted with a pathological fear of guns: a mental illness.
Posters who oppose the NRA free-for-all gun policies are incessantly referred to as "gun-grabbers," and "gun-banners," (GunBanObama was a huge NRA campaign to fear-monger about the erroneous threat to confiscate guns).
When posters don't agree with the NRA, they said we "hate" the Constitution.
Dimensio and the gun team harass posters with name-calling, hyper-hypocrisy, and reprehensible defamation continually making statements to claim that we are the ones who are: "ill-informed, dishonest and irrational." Unquote!
The gun team's harassment and abuse of other posters on gun threads has continued for several years on HuffPost.
You continuelly misstate their policies.
"the pro-gun team resorts to name-calling;"
As your friend likes to put it, "Pot Kettle Black".
"Posters who oppose the NRA free-for-all gun policies are incessantly referred to as "gun-grabbers," and "gun-banners," "
Primarily because they misstate the NRA's policies and at the same time espouse policies which would be illegal, or useless, or levy an undue burden on firearm owners, etc.
Generally, you are. Much like you constantly referred to the wrong Haynes court case and have refused to actually read most of the reference material we present and instead rely others to interpret things for you and spoon feed you their own take on what the material actually says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1cYzATHcqA
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The federal archives seem to have a different version! Maybe you should go & straighten them out!!!
Old SF MJT
You sound just like Beck and his chalkboard.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to respond to your posts because the HuffPo has been scrubbing the majority of yours.
A change in tactic might be in Order.
Is that what you'ld do?
... Agent McPherson is concerned about threats against law enforcement.
"The anti-government rhetoric can quickly turn to action," he said.
That's what the FBI says happen in this case of 45-year-old Jerry Kane and his 16-year-old son when they were pulled over on May 20 during a traffic stop in West Memphis, Arkansa on their way back to Clearwater.
"He tried to present his paperwork to a police officer," Agent McPherson told Doug Smith. "'I'm a sovereign citizen you have no authority over me,' eight pages of legal jargon and legal-speak, which isn't legal."
The FBI says Jerry Kane argued with police, then his son pulled out an AK-47 and opened fire. One officer was shot 11 times, the other hit with 14 bullets.
Authorities trapped and rammed their van in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and both father and son died in a shootout with police.
"There's a small subset who are willing to kill over those theories and we've seen that again and again with these groups," said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
.
Finally, given your demonstrably false claims and your thus-far refusal to justify a number of unsubstantiated assertions, for what reason should claims that you issue be considered to be credible?
You call all posters "liars" who don't agree with the NRA and gun lobby policies.
You misconstrue all other posters who oppose the NRA.
You are consistent.
You are not credible.
You harass.
That's why NRA members buy machine guns; to kill cops.
"FBI Concerns Grow Over 'Citizen Extremists'"
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/investigates/fbi-citizen-extremists-investigates-101110
The article referenced a specific instance of one extremist (already a convicted felon, where have we seen that before?) illegally possessing a firearms.
Cute and all, but what about the other 99.9% of gun owners who obeyed the law today?
Your contention about the other '99.9%' numerically obviates the legitimacy of any perceived threat by these groups.
A fair (and defensible) point to make - as you have on multiple ocassions - but another question remains: what exactly SHOULD we do to prevent such well-armed groups from potentially acting out their violent rhetoric? And, yes, I already know what you think we shouldn't do (disarm law-abiding gun owners).
From the gun control side, just advocating for tougher sentencing AFTER the crimes is not a very compelling argument. What else can be done that your side supports?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0116-09.htm
anti-law enforcement officers,
anti-government,
anti-President Obama (GunBanObama),
fear-mongering lies about gun confiscation
The NRA should be held accountable for their lies, lies that incite violence.
Woodburn bombing (killed two officers, critically wounded another): Former employee says Bruce and Joshua Turnidge feared Obama would restrict gun rights -- 10/14/2010
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/woodburn_bombing_former_employ.html
SALEM, Oregon -- Joshua Turnidge did not keep his anti-police and anti-government feelings a secret. ... his concerns that government had outgrown its constitutional authority.
But the November 2008 election of President Barack Obama triggered more worries for Turnidge and his father, Bruce Turnidge, said Marissa Sherwood, who was an executive assistant for their biodiesel business, BD Oil. The two feared that an Obama administration would crack down on gun rights ... .
Sherwood testified Wednesday that the father talked of establishing a "tent city in the woods ... where people that have the same beliefs as he did about the government and the troubles that he saw possibly coming with Obama that they could go live."
Oh, that's right....you didn't provide one.
anti-law enforcement officers,
anti-government,
anti-President Obama (GunBanObama),
fear-mongering lies about gun confiscation"
Kindly show an example of NRA anti-law enforcement sentiment, or anti-government rhetoric.
As far as "fear mongering lies" about gun confiscation, do you deny that firearms have already been unlawfully confiscated from law abiding citizens of the United States, namely in the State Of Louisiana, City Of New Orleans?
Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional
A Clark County judge says Wisconsin’s ban on carrying concealed weapons is unconstitutional. In the case, authorities charged a Sauk City man with carrying a concealed weapon, after he admitted he had a knife in his waistband. He never threatened anyone. In light of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, attorney William Poss filed a motion to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds. Judge Jon Counsell obliged Wednesday, ruling the law is overly broad and violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
“The government has to have a compelling state interest to do so (restrict the right to carry) and they have to have the least restrictive means of doing that,” said Poss. “Public safety obviously is a state interest, but there’s all kinds of ways to do that in this regard.” In his decision, Counsell states the law forces citizens to “go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law or carry openly,” but notes displaying weapon’s openly isn’t a “realistic alternative."
http://www.wrn.com/2010/10/county-judge-rules-concealed-carry-ban-unconstitutional/