The NRA “Gun Cult”

Wow, this particular post got me pretty riled up:

As Buzzflash says, you can thank the NRA for this “surge” in the vicious drug wars devouring thousands of people in Mexico. As the Post notes, the NRA-led lapse of the U.S. ban on assault weapons is a primary cause of the escalation in the scale of violence.

It helps to know what you’re talking about before typing out accusations like this. The assault weapons ban applied only to semi-automatic rifles, not to automatic rifles like AK-47s. AK-47s have been illegal to import into this country since 1968. You won’t find them at gun shows, because they are illegal. What you will find are semi-automatic rifles that look like AK-47s.

Grenades and grenade launchers are destructive devices and are heavily regulated by the federal government, and generally forbidden to civilian use. There is no such thing as a “cop killer” bullet. Any center fire rifle cartridge will penetrate soft body armor, including rounds common for hunting.

Picked up largely at the many unrestricted gun shows in the Southwest and smuggled in piecemeal past overwhelmed – or bribed – border guards, the heavy weaponry is overpowering Mexican law enforcement and degrading civic society.

Except all the same laws that apply normally, which include background checks for purchases, filling out your form 4473, showing ID and proof of legal residence are as much required at gun shows at everywhere else.

The assault weapon ban lapsed in September 2004, with little demur from the Democrats, who were too busy chasing the mythical “NASCAR vote” to risk looking “soft” on selling souped-up, body-shredding death machines to anyone who put down the cash – terrorists, druglords, mafia goons.

It was allowed to expire because it was worthless. Machine guns are already, for all practical purposes, illegal. The assault weapons ban covered things like pistol groups, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs. Can you explain how any of these impacts the function of the rifle?

Read the rest of the post. It’s vile stuff. I sincerely hope this blogger can put aside the hate, and start having a serious debate with us about the merits of the laws he proposes we pass.

18 Responses to “The NRA “Gun Cult””

  1. Rustmeister says:

    Comments are looking good there. Almost reasoned.

  2. BobG says:

    After reading the rest of the article, I think debating with him would be a waste of time; you might as well argue with Sarah Brady.

  3. Linoge says:

    Bleh. My bloodpressure did not need this this morning. I would comment, except that it would become far too long, and probably far too heated. Such is life.

  4. Matt says:

    Heated is already there, Linoge. :)

    I probably won’t pursue it but I’d like to see what our self-professed expert comes back with. It is impressive how fast folks on the left come out with the knives and personal attacks for answering a question.

  5. Noops says:

    Hey Matt,

    Ease up on the left. It’s as bad as saying, “All gun nuts are a bunch of right wing fascists.” Same thing. You paint just as broad a stroke with that brush…

    I might suggest that “left” is an ill-defined term and overloaded as well. You’ll find that the “left” in Oregon is a very different thing than the “left” in Massachusetts. I’ve lived in both. That kind of thing just alienates potential allies, especially in places with “lefties” or “democrats” that don’t quite see eye to eye with a Massachusetts Democrat. We need those people. They may not comprise all “lefties” but they sure do seem to have a high impact on swing votes (Oregon, Indiana, West Virginia).

    And certainly, the “right” doesn’t hold back on the same types of attacks for different issues. Although “right” has as little meaning in a narrow context as “left.”

    I think you mean “anti-gunners” or something like that. I’m a leftie with some pretty nice shooters and lots of formal training. Proud of it too. The more of us you bring into the fold, the more you put a nail into the coffin of this issue. The more you alienate, the harder the fight is.

  6. Sebastian says:

    There’s always going to be a problem with political labeling, because people are individuals and even getting people with similar labels to agree on anything is like herding cats. But labeling is useful as long as you don’t take it too seriously.

    I use “left” in lieu of “liberal” a lot, because to me, I’m a liberal. Some folks operating previously under the banner of progressive co-opted that term. Now liberal is a dirty word in politics, and they are going back to progressive. But the word liberal is forever ruined, forcing me to get labeled a conservative, which I’m not really.

  7. Matt says:

    Point taken, Sebastian.

    The problem is how do you define a belief system? Gun ownership crosses lines. Am I left? By your definition probably not. But certain ideas put forth by those self-described on the left I do agree with. Not all but some.

    I try not to paint broad strokes but it is hard not to by accident. If I do, it is not intentional. Beyond the initial assumption on my part of the poster in the referenced thread being “leftist” (which was wrong based on the author’s own self-proclaimed leanings), I’ve not done so again.

    Unfortunately, it is very easy by ones own words to come across as bashing “left” or bashing “right”. Certainly not my intent if I offended you, I apologize.

    On the topic, what is “Left”? What is “Right”? What general group of belief and ideals do they encompass? I’m sure someone on the left in Maryland would have some common ground with such a person in Virginia and vice-versa on the right. Is it merely support for certain ideas that either side have claimed for themselves or does it run deeper?

    I think such notions of left and right are convenient for splitting us into simple groups that they paint themselves with. It isn’t accurate as there are enormous nuances and overlap as you cross various lines. But what are the lines?

    You and I probably have more common ground than not outside of guns. Guns are a focal point and something we have in common. I’m sure there is more.

  8. Sebastian says:

    What I try to do is avoid statements like “The left clearly favors gun control for this reason…” which is a broad statement. Matt’s statement was difficult to do without pissing someone off. That’s an instance where you almost have to use a label, which is bound to be inaccurate applied to every individual.

  9. Matt says:

    Sorry Sebastian, I misread your name in my response to Noops. Been a long day and the eyes get frazzled.

    In rereading my post, yes I did paint liberals and leftists in a broad stroke. Was it meant to offend? No. I did it to point out a common tactic used among self-described members of those groups in their immediate poo-pooing on those that don’t agree as someone to be attacked.

    The extreme right does it too with words like unpatriotic and invoking religion. It is too easy to paint broadly with such terms as you’ll easily suck in a large number of people no matter what term you use.

    I try to ask why someone favors a particular policy or interpretation without regard to political stripe. I’m left and right on a lot of issues. I’ve been called a flaming socialist and a heartless conservative in the course of a single conversation. It all depends on the issue at hand. When it come to gun rights and gun control, you better believe that I am pretty far right. And that is how I am painted. It doesn’t bother me that much anymore.

    I now return you to Sebastian’s blog. :)

  10. Guav says:

    souped-up, body-shredding death machines

    HAHAHAHAHAHA … holy shit. Next they’ll be calling them “Satanic Skull-Smashing Babyslayers.”

  11. Noops says:

    OK, I’m off it, and I appreciate both of your perspectives. Thanks guys.

  12. Ahab says:

    souped-up, body-shredding death machines

    I saw that as well; my first thought was she was talking some kind of fitness equipment.

  13. Alcibiades McZombie says:

    What about bomb throwing anarchists? Can we make fun of them?

  14. Art says:

    How about the drug A holes get real jobs like the rest of us and they won’t need to kill each other and other people or we could let them burn out like the fires in California.

  15. Linoge says:

    Oh, the hate was definitely there, as well as the stupidity and the intentional ignorance and the general-purpose superiority… and that was all without me stepping in. Just as well, trust me.

  16. Matt says:

    Oh goodie, more fun! I have evening activity set now. :)

  17. Phil LaForce says:

    That would be a good name for a band. The Souped Up Body-Shredding Death Machines, I mean. Either that, or The Dolphin Loving, Will & Grace Watching, Tree Worshipping Wiccans for Al Gore.


  1. Call me Ahab » Blog Archive » Read this post - [...] From Sebastian.  I’ve actually addressed the issue of the drug/gun wars in Mexico, and how the media is trying…