Category Archives: NADA

New American Dark Ages

Jesus would be alive if he had had an AK-47

The NRA is working on a time machine. They plan to go back in time to arm oppressed people everywhere. (And to arm their oppressors, too — that’s just smart business and only fair.) They’ll start with automatic rifles for the apostles.

If Africans had had firepower, they wouldn’t have been enslaved. (After all, the slavers did have guns.) If the Slaves had had guns, the Civil War would have ended sooner. (Slave holders had guns.)

If women had had machine guns, they wouldn’t have been beaten and imprisoned for demanding the right to vote.

The only thing standing between good and evil is a time traveler with a gun. See you at Little Big Horn. (Wait! No! Everyone had guns there.)

The frightened Right

I feel sorry for the people who are foaming over the threat they perceive behind sensible gun legislation. Some people fear their government and their fellow citizens. Some are furiously certain that liberals and Democrats want to take their guns as the first step toward a new Holocaust. It’s sad that clutching a weapon of mass murder doesn’t make people one whit less afraid. And it’s alarming that frightened, paranoid people serve the Gun Industry. Sales will rise again this week Ca-ching!

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Trump and ISIS Depend on Irrationality

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Trump and ISIS Depend on Irrationality

Congress was elected to protect our children, not sell them out for campaign contributions from gun manufacturers and the NRA. They can yammer about the Second Amendment all they want, but that’s just another smoke screen so we don’t notice that their jobs are paid for with our children’s blood.

Who really needs assault-style rifles that can kill 50 people and wound 53 more in a matter of minutes? Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson claims the people need them to fight off “a growing police state.” Johnson believes when citizens have assault weapons, the government is more likely to grant them due process. Read that again; it’s as crazy as it sounds.

The AR-15 has to go, by Amanda Marcotte, Salon

Meet Jon Stokes: Former editor at Wired, founder of Ars Technica, and a man who really, really loves his AR-15. It’s a gun he hastens to explain is “technically a Sig Sauer MCX,” in case you were worried that his piece at Medium defending his beloved weapon would be anything but a tone-deaf temper tantrum by a man who appears to love things more than people.

“If, for you, my AR-15 ownership is prima facie evidence of my mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you, then I honestly don’t care what you think about this issue,” Stokes scoffs, before writing his loving, erotic ode to this gun in a fashion that does very little to dissuade the reader from concerns regarding lack of conscience or sexual inadequacy.

It’s a little unclear why Stokes felt this week, of all weeks was the proper time to write his engorged tribute to his favorite toy. I realize that he really wants the world to know that his precious is imbued with awesome stopping power, but the grim fact of the matter is that the news cycle this week has done more to show off the dazzling kill abilities of the AR-15 than anything Stokes could write. If you are in doubt, here is a point-by-point comparison.

“This is all part of the reason why I, a civilian, ‘need’ a military-grade combat weapon,” Stokes explains. “I don’t want to shoot and miss; I don’t want the gun to jam because it’s dirty or cold; and I don’t want to hit my target and then have it run off into the woods and die lost and wounded because I didn’t ‘bring enough gun’.”
– – – – –

Read the whole thing. It’s a brilliant juxtaposition of the selfish gun loon against the chaos and death his weapon of choice caused in Orlando. These guys drive the profits of the industry.

Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

NBC News Tony Dokoupil

“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.” …

The ex-Marine and “avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter” never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one. …

“What has happened, good or bad, since his patents have expired is a result of our free market system,” Stoner’s family said. “Currently, a more interesting question is ‘Who now is benefiting from the manufacturing and sales of AR-15s, and for what uses?'”

That’s the question for the rest of us.
– – – – –

See the following for the answer to who gets rich off of mass murder:

Fully Loaded: Inside the Shadowy World of America’s 10 Biggest Gunmakers

They’ve kept their fingerprints off laws designed to protect their businesses — especially one that shields them from liability for crimes committed with their products.

By Josh Harkinson | June 17, 2016

One Person, One Gun

by Adam Gopnik

Once again, the overriding lesson, as settled as social science can ever be, remains: If we had gun laws like the gun laws of most countries that resemble ours, we would have lower levels of gun violence, as they do. That would not mean that we would have no gun violence. It means that we would have less gun violence. Deranged fans would not casually assassinate young singers, and young men would not be sending desperate texts to their heartbroken mothers. It is possible to believe both that Islamist terrorism is real and that Islamist terrorism is uniquely empowered here because of the availability of guns designed to kill many people very quickly. It is impossible to make gun terrorism impossible. But it is easy to make gun terrorism hard. It begins with controlling the weapons that terror loves.

“I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.”

By NATE BETHEA

These weapons are intended for the battlefield. I don’t want an assault rifle, because I don’t want to think of my home country as a battlefield. I don’t want civilians to own assault rifles, because I think the risks outweigh the rewards. If people really do believe that they need them, maybe it’s because they see a battlefield where others don’t. …

I don’t want to believe that we live in a place so dangerous as to require these weapons. Maybe I’m naïve. Maybe I’m just waiting to be victimized. I’d rather be naïve and hopeful than face the alternative: the howling terror, the sensation that danger is kept at bay only by that familiar weight, those familiar clicks, and what comes after.