James von Brunn, Yet Another Guy With a Gun Making the Rules
James von Brunn is the most recent addition to the list, in the words of National Rifle Association head Wayne LaPierre, of "guys with the guns who make the rules."
Before him, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, arrested for shooting two soldiers, killing one, outside an Arkansas military recruitment center. Before him, Eric Roeder, accused of shooting and killing Dr. George Tiller. Who next remains to be seen. But according to those who watch the various bands that comprise the spectrum of violent extremism in the United States, it'll be all too soon.
LaPierre's head-bobbing apologists (see comments below) will always find a way to rationalize his statements -- except for those who view the NRA as a sell-out and favor more 'hard core' groups like Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership -- while condemning those who act based on a literal interpretation of his words. As one of von Brunn's fellow white separatists (an important distinction in the hate crowd) told the Washington Post, "The responsible white separatist community condemns this....It makes us look bad."
Yet experts who watch and understand this dark corner of American society warn of the validating role played by those who cater to the fears of their followers with little concern for those who embrace volatile words to justify violent actions. As Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates wrote yesterday following the shooting:
Apocalyptic aggression is fueled by right-wing pundits who demonize scapegoated groups and individuals in our society, implying that it is urgent to stop them from wrecking the nation. Some angry people in their audience already believe conspiracy theories in which the same scapegoats are portrayed as subversive, destructive, or evil. Add in aggressive apocalyptic ideas that suggest time is running out and quick action mandatory and you have a perfect storm of mobilized resentment threatening to rain bigotry and violence across the United States.
What historian Richard Hofstadter famously described as the "paranoid style" in American political rhetoric can quickly move far beyond the conscious intent of those who practice it.
Sometimes words are more than just words. Especially when those listening have their finger on the trigger of a gun.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Sugarmann:
It is not unreasonable to request that you debate issues on their merits, rather than by attempting to draw negative associations to viewpoints with which you disagree.
Your attempt to associate civilian gun ownership rights in the United States with oppressive groups fails on its merits. The oppression of racial and minority groups is in fact associated with gun control. A key attribute of the Third Reich was its gun control, which sought to license and register guns and owners, and then made it impossible for oppressed groups to own guns and difficult for disfavored groups (non-party members) to possess them. After the Civil War, Congress passed the 1868 Civil Rights Act to prohibit state goverments from stripping black Americans of their gun rights. The theme: restricting gun ownership rights enables the oppression of defenseless groups.
Stripped of its ad hominem nature, your argument seems to boil down to: if people have guns, then imbalanced anti-social people like von Brunn will go on rampages against minorities, so we'd better restrict gun rights if we want to protect minorities. We all know that it is unlikely that some sundry gun restriction would have stopped von Brunn. Do we consider how those laws will make victimization easier?
"The guys with the guns make the rules." Under the gun control regime you embrace, "the guys with the guns" are von Brunn -- the law-breakers. Taking the statement as true -- I don't want von Brunn making the rules.
Hear! Hear! With such salient points you make the argument so clear supporting gun ownership that I am surprised the Huffington post would permit your post.
You mean that the Huffington Post would deem my opnion "ad hominem" because I do not have a "liberal"/ socialist outlook? But would then ignore Mr. Sugarmann's attempt to associate law-abiding gun owners with neo-nazis, white supremacists, and holocaust deniers --- because he does have that outlook? That would be viewpoint discrimination.
It never ceases to amaze me that purportedly "liberal" people are often so closed minded to alternative viewponts. I think that to some extent the "liberal" view is grounded in the assumption that an unnamed faceless "non-liberal majority" is oppressing the "liberal majority" and imposing its anti-demoractic policies on society. There is an implicit assumption that any alternative viewpoint is simply wrong. For example, when Congress finally passed the rider that makes National Parks Service regs follow state law -- a long overdue and logical reform that mirrors the way other NPS regs are structured -- Mr. Sugarmann did not say "we anti-gunners should have lobbied harder" or "we will need to try to get a different law passed" or "gee it's too bad we couldn't hold a majority on that one." Instead, he said that it was about "the guys with the guns making the rules" in a post that seemed to insinuate that some sort of travesty of the democratic process had occurred. What is implicit is the assumption that if Mr. Sugarmann would not have voted for the laws, then neither would anyone else, so it's passage shows that democracy doesn't exist.
Dave--I wish more of the progressives here realized the basic truth of your position--gun control was not put in place to control guns; but rather to control the new freemen in the defeated Confederacy and to control the new immigrants that were "different"--be they Asian on the west coast or Irish and Italian immigrants on the east coast
This is especially the case here in New York with the Sullivan Law, which was explicitly lobbied as a means of discriminating against minorities and immigrants. This is why the Sullivan Law allows the licensing officer a wide range of discretion when any one individual applies for a license.
The reality is that a lot of "liberals" and progressives do realize that gun control is about individual liberty and the right to fully participate in society. While "conventional wisdom" hold that "conservatives" like guns and "liberals" don't, this assumption does not hold up on analysis. Look at the exit polls for the last 2 elections ----- gun ownership rates are higher among identified Republican and conservative voters, but it is obvious that there are many "liberal" voters who are also in favor of gun ownership.
Indeed, I have trouble understanding how someone can claim to be "liberal" -- e.g. in favor of maximizing personal freedom and individual express -- and at the same time take the position that firearms should be prohibited because of the possibility that individuals will misuse their freedoms. Why doesn't that reasoning apply to the First Amendment as well?
Von Brunn was a felon and not allowed to own a gun. He was not allowed to possess a gun in DC or one the holocaust premises. He was also breaking the law by committing murder.
Let's pass another law or two. It seems like killers really respect the rules.
Seems a large percentage of Attorney Generals, those who enforce the rules, don't agree w/ Josh:
On June 11, the top law enforcement officials of nearly half the states signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.
"We share the Obama Administration's commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans' access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems," the letter said.
The letter notes congressional opposition to bringing back the ban, and calls for increasing enforcement of existing laws.
http://www
I'm quite certain we will soon see the fearless Eric Holder in the media spotlight very soon loudly and forcefully rebuffing both those 65 members of congress and the 23 Attorneys General who dared go against the agenda of the all powerful VPC and Brady Campaign.
Or he might just curl up in the fetal position and mess himself.
Time will tell.
If Holder is smart, he will keep expanding on the RKBA--gun bans lose elections for Dems
Second posting--I would say the NRA is gaining power is because of membership, but as far as that goes since the shooter is a convicted felon--his being in possesion of a firearm means legally he could have been sent to prison for 5 or 10 years--problem solved
That's part of the problem: existing laws would have been, SHOULD have been, sufficient to curb this guy. There wasn't enough law-enforcement follow-up to see to it he was obeying his restrictions. It's the same problem that was discovered with that fellow Buford a few years ago that shot the Jewish day care and then the Filipino postman-- he, too, was a convicted felon who was supposed to turn over his firearms.
But the overworked, understaffed law enforcement agencies already don't have the money or personnel to do all the follow-ups they need. A massive gun ban would increase their load astronomically by making some 50+ million citizens into overnight criminals, the vast majority of which have not committed any actual crime.
More police, more courts, more follow-up.
and how do you intend to pay for all this new police stuff....a
Josh, it seems to me that what bothers you is not the hate, the rhetoric of exclusion, the viciousness, the bile, the lies of racial purity or superiorit
It's not the gun, it's the hate. Hate is the enemy. You're fighting the wrong war.
A lot of accusations being thrown around by Mr. Sugarmann.
Repealing concealed carry? Nope. DC doesn't have concealed carry.
Creating more gun-free zones? Nope. The museum was already a gun-free zone and it failed.
Banning hand guns? Nope. Von Brunn used a rifle.
Banning assault weapons? Nope. Von Brunn used what gun controllers call a "sporting rifle".
Banning .50 caliber rifles and "vest busters"? Nope. Von Brunn used a lowly .22.
What would have stopped von Brunn?
What would have stopped Von Brunn?
A properly funded mental health care system.
+1 on the mental health care system
How can you be sure he was mentally ill?
Just because someone is a hate filled fanatic doesn't always mean they are legally insane.
he's just flustered cause even the Left ignores him.
Uh, hey. Both you and me are currently not ignoring him. So, what's your point?
However the Democrats in Congress are ignoring him--the votes are going the NRA's way
Opposition to the Federal Reserve. Support of 9/11 truth. Tax protesting. Exposing the corporate/state swindle that is slowly giving sovereignty to multinationals like the IMF is dangerous.
Dangerous to government. Dangerous to the mental midgets who constantly use divide and conquer tactics like this right wing extremist garbage. When the Repubs are in office, it's commie anarchists that scare the right. When the left is in power, it's the militia types that scare the left.
Guess what, both groups are usually set up by the FBI or an equally dastardly organization like a private foundation or something. Then when the violence starts, Hannity and Rush take one side while Olbermann and Maddow take the other like their both pro-wrestlers and all the while the fight promoter at the top of the food chain laughs and steals the money from your back pocket while you're distracted by the crazies.
http://www
Josh is just upset that his 'apologists' are outnumbered 10:1.
WHat would help is if the VPC actually had a membership--I have a suspicion the fact that the NRA is gaining 90,000+ members a month and has been since November is most likely getting Congress's attention
Democracy in action. Law abiding people who own guns refuse to be classified as criminals without cause. There is virtually no support for gun bans in the country. Fortunately, the Democratic Party is beginning to wake up to this reality... finally.
well said!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
