Archives for posts with tag: Aurora
This recent exchange started with this picture on Facebook:
Image
Mr. Blunt and Cranky re-posted it on his personal Facebook page, and the following exchange ensued:

(Name Removed) Since when has anyone ever asked for a background check to vote, buy a home, get a driver’s license, etc.? Is it too much to prove you are who you say you are to exercise your right to vote by showing a valid Photo ID? I don’t think so, and that’s a far cry from a background check.

To which the B & C response was: “Actually, when you register to vote, they do quite a bit of checking behind the scenes, to make sure you’re legally able to vote, aren’t voting in more than one place, and so on. Getting a  driver’s license in our state includes a check of your criminal record. And anyone who has ever bought a home knows that you have to give them a whole helluva lot more information to get a loan than you ever have to if you want to buy a gun. So I’d say these are not persuasive analogies.”

The reply? Silence.

And that’s a pretty representative example of what happens when wingnut talking points are countered immediately with facts. The wingnuts either shout you down, or shut up and go talk to somebody else. Another example:

(Name removed) As some have pointed out, when is the last time a criminal or those wanting to participate in a criminal act going to apply for a background check let alone a background mental health check?

(B & C) You’d be surprised –  the FBI intercepts quite a few. And making everyone get a background check restricts the overall gun supply for crooks and crazies, making it harder and more expensive for them to buy guns. Plus, the current system is unfair to licensed gun dealers: if you go to a gun show, they get undercut by the shadow sellers; because the legit dealers have to run background checks, and the shady characters and individuals don’t.

(Name Removed)  The FBI may intercept quite  few, however, the criminal then turns around and acquires them by another means. All the FBI did is delay the process and the crime. The outcome is still the same. Don’t you think? Thanks for the honest discourse.

(B & C) If we make it harder for crooks to buy guns, that’s a win. Most of the “other means” cost more and add risk. Right now, all a criminal or adjudicated individual has to do is walk into a gun show with cash. He or she walks out with a gun. That’s too easy. Making it harder to get the gun in the first place changes the outcome.

Again, silence ensued. Loverly.

The lesson for us all? Don’t just ignore wingnut talking points. Counter them, debate them, respond with facts. Whether or not they are persuaded, they will at least shut up. And that, friends, is a win in and of itself.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Here is the story of Rand Pail and eleven other Senators who are making sure that crazy people and violent criminals can buy any guns they want, any time they want to. They will filibuster any and all legislation that would keep kooks and perps away from weapons that could be used to slaughter innocent adults and children.

These twelve Senators are standing firm in their support for violent, insane, sociopathic murderers like Adam Lanza. They are shoulder-to-shoulder with terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. They support convicted felons who want to mug little old ladies and shoot them. They just love the two teenaged scumbuckets who shot a baby in the head last month. Yes, America, if you want to have guns, the Dirty Dozen wants you to have them too: even if a judge has found you to be mentally incompetent, or if you have a history of committing violent felonies.

You see, among the proposals that would be up for a vote in the Senate is one that would close some loopholes in our current background check system. 90% of Americans support this measure. That is ninety percent of our fractious, divided nation agreeing on something. When is the last time you saw that many of us agree on anything? We don’t want lunatics running around gunning down our children. We don’t want convicted felons shooting our babies and grandparents. That is what almost every American believes.

But these Senators don’t give a damn what we the people think. They only care about pocketing their large paychecks from the NRA. Never mind if the rest of us get our asses shot off by someone who should not legally be able to purchase a weapon. Nope, they are not concerned with the opinion of the law-abiding majority of Americans. They are watching out for the rights of the felons and the criminally insane to have assault weapons.

One doubts that the twelve sleazebuckets would say so themselves , of course. They’d prattle on with some conspiracy theory about black helicopter-riding Soviet assassins, coming to take our guns and canned goods, because they hate our freedoms; that, or something even less coherent.

But since what they do supports the gun rights of loonies, terrorists and criminals, then they are supporters of loonies, terrorists and criminals. Ladies and Gentlemen, we present Senators Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Lee, Moran, Inhofe, Burr, Johnson, Enzi, Risch, Crapo, Coats and Roberts: the Crazy Criminal Caucus.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

NPR’s Melissa Block got herself pretty well embarrassed by our Vice President yesterday. Mr. Biden did what politicians rarely do: he pushed back against her repetitious quoting of NRA propaganda with his own facts and viewpoint, without flinching, yelling or screaming. You can listen to it or read it here.

The “journalist” kept on trying to steer the conversation back to Gun Loony Land, but Joe was having none of it. Time and time again, he called BS on her “questions” (all too often, they were statements masquerading as questions) and responded with the facts.

As someone who is fed up with the sorry state of the “news” in this day and age, it was a treat to hear a politico nut up and school one of these biased, unprofessional weasels.

Mr. B & C

Yes, you read that correctly. Over the weekend, President Obama pointed out to the rest of the country what is already common knowledge amongst rural Americans: that we have a different environment and culture than city dwellers, so gun control measures need to take that into account. No big deal, you say? Think again, dear reader.

The bulk of “news” coverage and political soundbite production has been focused on a few conflicting one-size-fits-all messages. This is bad because, like toques, socks, condoms and bathtubs, one size never fits all. In fact, such articles usually don’t really fit anyone all that well. But in an effort to simplify things, we still try to make everything fit into a single solution, and the devil take reality.

In this case, Obama is quite right to tell both Liberals and the NRA that they have to broaden their thinking. Here at chez Blunt and Cranky, we don’t have to worry as much about muggers or home invasion; we do have to mind coyotes and feral dogs, and the odd rabid critter. So the guns we need are different than those required by a downtown apartment dweller. And any new laws must take the full spectrum of gun owners into account if it is to be accepted and effective.

One isolated intelligent comment does not mean that our government will suddenly get smart. But it is heartening to see that a politico who had a diverse upbringing can be capable of putting himself in another guy’s shoes. And noticing that they don’t fit.

Mr. B & C

As noted yesterday, the incredibly misnamed “American Family Association” has decided to blame all sorts of “liberal” organizations for the recent horrific events in Aurora, Colorado: said organizations including Mr. Blunt and Cranky’s ancestral church, which in fact is decidedly NOT liberal (one of its nicknames is “God’s Frozen People”, which should give you a fair idea of how ossified an organization it is).

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. This writer could make the case that the erosion of personal responsibility could just as easily be blamed on groups like the AFA (who blamed “liberals”) and individuals like Russell Pearce (who blamed the theatre audience for not stopping the shooting).

In each case, they shift responsibility away from the actual perpetrator and place it on others.  By so doing, they take the shooter off the hook to some extent: “the shooter was encouraged by (liberals or fake Christians or fill-in-the-blank) to take this action”. 

Firstly, these loudmouths have no idea what was going on the shooter’s mind, so they have no business saying such crap (unless there is case-specific, documented evidence to support what they are saying). Secondly, it creates an environment in which personal responsibility is diminished, because offenses committed by criminals become the fault of said loudmouths’ political and cultural “enemies”.

When everything becomes a tool for partisan advantage (even the acts of criminals and the grief of their victims), we find ourselves in a world that tells would-be mass murderers that they will not bear the blame alone. We tacitly assure these scumbuckets that others will have at least part of the responsibility foisted upon them, whether deservedly or not; all in the service of political gamesmanship.

So, we have shifted the blame from the criminal (and liberals and audience members) to the AFA and Russell Pearce. How’s that shoe feel, now that it is on your foot, gentlemen? Does it fit? Is it comfy? Do you like “wearing” the responsibility for mass murder? No, you say? Imagine that.

Your curmudgeonly neighborhood blogger most humbly suggests that we all shut the f***ing f*** up about how factor x or y is responsible for the actions of criminals (unless there is actual data to support such a claim), and instead let criminals know that they, and they alone, will take all of the blame and bear all of the punishment imposed for their crimes.

Mr. B & C

As someone who was raised in a mainline Protestant family and church, Mr. Blunt and Cranky has to say that Tony Perkins and his posse have absolutely no  business claiming to represent  him, his family, his faith, or indeed American families as a whole. The American Family Association can (and should) re-name themselves something else, like:

  • The Johnny-Come-Lately Denomination Association,
  • The Latter-Day-Pharisees,or
  • The Pompous, Rich, Hypocritical And Bigoted White Men’s Association

The AFA recently responded to the Aurora, CO killings  by blaming, well, pretty much everyone but themselves (and the killer himself, one must note): singling out other churches that are different from theirs for special abuse. In the case of the average schmoe, Mr.  B & C lets that sort of thing go. But not the professionals, who know better  due to their seminary education, but spew their self-righteous hatred anyway.

Short history lesson: when the R.C. Church got too corrupt and full of itself, some of its members asked for reform, and protested when they were kicked out of the church. That is where all Protestant churches came from. The early denominations (Presbyterians, Lutherans and such) got killed, tortured, robbed, and generally had a tough time surviving. But they persevered, and won for the denominations that arose later  the right to worship as they saw fit.

And what gratitude comes from these newer denominations? As when dealing with any spoiled children who have never known want or struggle, what the older churches get in return for their sacrifice is abuse from their offspring. Now, we are being blamed for the acts of a senseless loon with a pile of weaponry.

Memo: the person to blame is the killer. Not the ACLU, or Episcopalians, or gays, or any of the others the AFA routinely demonizes: no,  the killer should be blamed for this. And no one else.

Mr. B & C

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/afa-news-director-says-liberal-churches-media-share-responsibility-colorado-shooting