Conservative wags are dancing on the graves of the 84 victims of the Nice massacre by challenging liberals to call for truck control:
“I fully expect by tomorrow morning that President Obama will have rediscovered his left-wing roots and will give a press conference in which he will explain the problem is too many trucks,” [Newt] Gingrich said. “If only we had truck regulation then we wouldn’t have problems like Nice. Because it is trucks that are dangerous. I mean that is the exact analogue to Orlando and just tells you how nuts the left-wing in America is” [Evan Popp and Celisa Calacal, “Conservatives Call for ‘Truck Control’ in Wake of Terrorist Attack in Nice,” ThinkProgress, 2016.07.15].
The analogue between Nice and Orlando, Dallas, San Bernadino, Roseburg, Chattanooga, and Charleston is far from exact. We already have truck control. A truck operator must undergo training and obtain a commercial driver’s license. A truck owner must pay special taxes every year, affix a highly visible license plate, and submit the vehicle to inspections. We ban trucks from certain roads and neighborhoods, restrict the weight of their loads in springtime, limit idling and emissions, and ban jake braking in town. We strictly regulate the use of trucks to protect public safety, health, and infrastructure.
That strict regulation does not eliminate accidents or, far more rarely, deliberate use of trucks to harm others. Those harms are far outweighed by trucks’ daily utility as literal economic engines. Like airplanes, computers, and cold medicine, trucks can be repurposed to do great harm, but with sensible regulation, we minimize that harm while maintaining their immense practical benefit for hundreds of millions of people.
Guns in Dallas, Orlando, San Bernadino, Roseburg, Chattanooga, Charleston, and other sites of mass shootings were not repurposed from some benign use. Those shooters used guns exactly as they were designed, to shoot and kill. The Dallas shooter used his gun to revolt against and punish those he perceived as tyrannical agents of the state, exactly as the gun rights movement advocates.
Guns provide no countervailing daily utility. I won’t walk down Main Street today and see guns being used in any practical way by regular citizens to make their lives better. Guns don’t move couches, pave roads, shingle roofs, teach kids, relieve poverty, or cure the flu. Guns serve one purpose: to do deathly damage. Yet I can’t propose for guns even a fraction of the regulation that we impose on truck owners without being branded a lily-livered gun-grabbing liberal.
Trucks provide immense utility, yet we impose on them strict regulation. Guns provide almost no daily utility—Canada tightly restricts gun ownership, yet their economy and social institutions hum along nicely while they enjoy a far lower firearm homicide rate—yet many Americans adopt a strange absolutism against any gun restrictions.
We have truck control. We need comparable gun control.
There are already controls in place regarding WHO CAN/CANNOT OPERATE A TRUCK, and how HEAVY (number of rounds) and what type of cargo (type of munitions) can be carried. Not only that – there are actual government officials out wandering about randomly checking, and thousands of permanently placed stations at which said officials do spot-checks of operators’ credentials and RECORDS of WHERE THEY’VE been with said trucks, what they’ve got on board, etc.
Careful with those analogies naïve conservatives.
Note that the commenters cited all claim that Obama has called for a ban on guns, which he never has. He’s called for controls on keeping guns out of the hands of those in whom they would be an obvious danger. His detractors need to falsify facts to support their claims. And as Colber King has said in the Washington Post, this is, in fact, the nation we have become.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-national-disorder-is-who-we-really-are/2016/07/15/9fa6aa4a-4a15-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
That darn Muslim usurper in the WH politicizing another terrible tragedy by saying “Truck Lives Matter”.
Fortunately it wasn’t a yellow Ryder rental or Obama would be facing impeachment charges, even if cowardly congressweasels skipped town early for another vacation.
“D” accused African Americans of blaming everyone else for problems that exist “in their community.” Citing high birthrates among black single mothers, “D” demanded that blacks start “telling young Black girls to keep their legs together and young man [sic] to keep the zipper up on their pants.” A reduction in births by black single parents, “D” declared, “would make one hell of a difference in their community and our nation.”
I distinctly remember a poster here recently squawking the problem was we was aborting Black fetuses by the bunches.
I think America needs to treat guns almost like automobiles. You should need a license and liability insurance to own/use the thing.
Great post Cory. And Adam’s position make complete sense.
Additionally, we have truck and motor vehicle control in front of federal buildings, in front of many public buildings, and along pedestrian thoroughfares. These are often dressed-up as planters. In other cases we have moveable concrete blocks, barriers, and caltrops that situationally increase control by denying truck/vehicle access. The after-action review and lesson learned from Nice will include the use of mobile truck/vehicle barricades at sites where large numbers of people gather.
It has become predictable that Republicans pander to the people’s prejudices when there’s a tragedy. Gingrich is smart enough to know that you can’t deport Muslims based upon their religious beliefs, but he proposes that anyway just to whip the ijits into a frenzy. It’s a game – a cynical and irresponsible one. Trump is a master at that game. Anyone looking for adult leadership is not going to find in in the GOP party.
Richard @845
The CDL regs are getting to be a nightmare, you are correct, not only are they watching us on the road to see if we are legal, we are first screened at the medical examiners to see if we are healthy enough to drive. Medications, diabetes, sleep apnea, forget it, no cdl for you…… And the fee is your not legal when you get stopped? Forget about it, no insurances pay those costs. We do not need anymore regulations who can drive a semi, they are trying to also “chip” us. “Chip” the automobiles out there, see how that goes over.
And I hope that John Thune, Kristi Noem and Mike Rounds enjoy their 7 week vacation. They have truly earned it – working so hard and getting so much done.
When trucks are outlawed only outlaws will have trucks. Like Max the Mad in the movie.
T–I can’t believe the DOT is watching you on the public highway to see if you are legal! What could be gained by having safety requirements for 80,000+ pound vehicles that take a country mile to stop? And the nerve of asking a professional driver to be medically qualified to be behind the wheel of a dangerous rolling missile with a couple hundred gallons of diesel fuel on board? And you should be able to run overweight vehicles on the public highways too, right?
A lot of cars have chips in them these days that limit speed and keep track of information like speed and breaking.
Adam’s post probably would have gotten him jeered off this site anytime before Scalia smothered himself. With one more moderate Scotus justice, Adam’s ideas might at least get a hearing.
@CAH. “Guns provide almost no daily utility?” Almost as naive as the purported statement “let them eat cake.” Our Founding Fathers understood the recipe for this nation to remain freei. Firearms have been, and currently are, instrumental in preserving the freedom and security of this nation. The enemies of freedom, most notably Islamic terrorists, salivate at the naive rhetoric of disarming law-abiding people. Our nation remains free from the crucial role firearms play.
The reality is that the umbrella of safety that you are so comfortable in as to call for the absence of firearms, is provided through the employment of the very weapons you fear.
Nothing good comes from taking firearms away from law abiding people.
The terrorist attack in Dallas was an unmitigated act of evil. The attacks in Nice and Orlando likewise.
Ah my good friend Stace, maybe I missed something but I saw no comments advocating disarming law abiding people. Rather, the ideas I have seen here suggest that we regulate weapons in a manner that keeps them in the hands of law abiding people and out of the hands of anarchists and murderers. I can’t imagine any rational law abiding person having a problem with that idea.
Back in my day – lol – we didn’t have governor chips in cars to limit top speed, nor did we have insurance companies offering cheaper insurance to drivers who’s cars are ‘chipped’ in order to measure and record the safety related habits of drivers.
I think I like those chips. No one needs to drive over 100 mph, and everyone wants cheaper insurance.
Sounds like Nelson was trying to paraphrase Col Horse’s Arse from a few good men.
If your convicted, in court, of spousal abuse related charges while you own a guns, I’m with the U.S. Supreme Court – you just lost your right to own firearms. The government should only confiscate them if you refuse to turn them in.
Stace will never get off of that wholly disproven “they are going to disarm us” rhetoric. Sigh, this is why we can’t even have a conversation about problem solving gun violence in this country.
But while you always are invoking our “founding fathers”, Stace…..what did those founding fathers have to say about weapons of war, capable of shooting hundreds of rounds of ammo in a minute, being available to the general public? what did those founding fathers say about high capacity magazines – back in the day of shooting musket balls, maybe one every minute for someone who loaded quickly – that those are what the second amendment was all about. did those same founding fathers say that “open carry” is no problem, so when the crap hits the fan (like it did in Dallas) that police officers will still be in good shape as they waste time trying to figure out who the good guy with the gun is and who the bad guy with the gun is. Oh, and I’m sure that those founding fathers had no problem with the types of weapons being “invented” over time, that those same weapons would cause law enforcement to be out-gunned at every level. Yeah, I’m sure those founding fathers gave all of that a thumbs up.
The one thing that the founding fathers did happen to mention, was “well regulated”. Sigh. A guy that is pro life, even after hearing about little children being slaughtered in a classroom, just shrugs his shoulders and says – “oh don’t you dare disarm us!”
The old saying, “if you keep doing things the way you have always done them, you will always get what you’ve always gotten” is so appropriate. People like Stace, not wanting to admit that some common sense gun safety reform could help, (no Stace, that isn’t disarming), are giving tacit approval to this senseless violence. We are the only nation where this happens – Stace’s answer? Founding fathers and don’t disarm me. sigh
@cah: “Dancing on the graves of the Nice victims massacre”? Hardly but then I forget about Cory’s Rules of the Misuse of Idioms allowing you carte blanche on the redefinition of phrases.
I do agree that the truck/gun analogy is a poor one though as it ignores that ownership of a gun for personal defense is a Constitutional right (State as well as Federal) while ownership of a vehicle is one more of privilege and the licensing and permitting of the vehicles/drivers is a cash cow for government.
It is ALMOST impossible to have a job while not owning nor operating an automobile. People pert near 100% require a vehicle to have a chance of success in life.
To have a job is not a privilege. And so in today’s world, vehicles should perhaps be seen as less of a privilege than in they were in decades prior.
Actually, in a modern sense we have had truck control ever since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. We can debate whether it is good or effective enough, but why do you think an American family can no longer drive down Pennsylvania Avenue past the White House in their SUV as tourists anymore? Why do you think now days you see cement and metal barricades in front of shopping malls and other public building entrances? Now, the effectiveness of these controls can be debated, but I think it is fair to say we our better off today because of them than without them.
As to Mr. Nelson’s comment, “Firearms have been, and currently are, instrumental in preserving the freedom and security of this nation,” that is a classic line of the NRA and many of its supporters.
And let me just say that no one can deny that the West was won with the help of firearms or that Samuel Colt made all men (potentially) equal, but that universe of past centuries in American history existed and evolved not because of guns, rather the true reality is, that as a young and vulnerable nation, that the degree to which guns were instrumental in building this nation into the free political, social, and economic powerhouse it has become was totally dependent upon the protection afforded to our nation, when it was younger, through the tremendous protection which two great oceans afforded to us from external aggression back then, and not the guns.
In fact, the 2nd Amendment speaks specifically to the “right to bear arms” in the context of a assumed militia. So that the militia could be effectively used, if needed, to protect the young United States from foreign aggression. But this right, or presumptive preparedness, was a distant second to the true and natural secure protection afforded to our nation, when it was young, because we had two great oceans to protect us before we became the powerhouse which could overtime then afford us to have two great ocean navies to further protect us to this day.
I might add, one of the great ironies of those who are supporting Trump, and are also great advocates of gun rights in most cases, is the fact that on the one side they claim that guns make and keep us free and secure, while on the other hand these same gun owners shake their heads in agreement to Trump, when he claims we are being invaded from the south. Well, if we are being invaded right now from the south, what good are your guns in preserving “freedom” and “security” in this country? Whose right?…. Trump or the gun owners?
“Firearms have been, and currently are, instrumental in preserving the freedom and security of this nation. The enemies of freedom, most notably Islamic terrorists, salivate at the naive rhetoric of disarming law-abiding people.”
“Nothing good comes from taking firearms away from law abiding people.”
Sorry Stace, I can’t agree with that. It isn’t individual citizens armed that keeps us safe from terrorists, it’s a well-regulated militia (i.e.: military and law enforcement) that keep us safe from the tyranny you say our nation would suffer from. If anything, you walking around with a concealed weapon, or even an open-carried rifle would increase the risk to my personal safety, not reduce it. Not one open-carrying citizen in Dallas was able to do squat against the shooter who took out those police officers. It just made things more complicated when trying to identify the perpetrator.
That’s righter than right. Ownership of a gun is a right. Operation of a truck is a privilege.
And even innocent children who pretend to have a real gun in an open carry area are in more danger of being killed by a good guy with a gun, including in 12 year old Tamir Rice’s case being gunned down by a police officer.
For the most part carrying a gun either open or concealed makes neither the carrier nor the public any safer, but it seems to act as a substitute for Zoloft for those suffering irrational fear of everyone they encounter.
If a person is trying to build themselves up in their own mind as a John Wayne or Colonel Jessup wannabe, it helps to have the specter of armed upheaval in the background of their mind. Add in the false narrative of the government coming for your guns and away you go. Now mix in the proliferation of mental disorders with the militarization of civilian arms and you have the recipe for where we stand today.
Enjoy your car chip, Adam. That’s just the beginning. Pence and the GOP party are going to hook up a chip to your gonads and transmit the data to the sex police under the Patriot Act – without a warrant.
DArin @1238
No I’m not saying I should be able to run illegal, I’m just saying there are enough regs before one gets behind an 18 wheeler to see if they are “qualified” And there are plenty of regs once your hauling….We don’t need anymore. You need different license to haul hazmat vs grains, there are regs for that, you need different license to haul triples and doubles, All regs make sure you know what your hauling, and you have to be legal to do so… Just saying there are plenty of regs, if one idiot doesn’t follow them. The rest of us shouldn’t have to go thru more hoops, we have enough.
Democrats, many of whom don’t value your 2nd amendment rights, are coming not for your guns but for your gun privacy. They will want you to register your guns so government can keep track of what you own. Some will want to do guns like cigarettes – trying to quintuple the price of them by imposing punitive taxes.
Republicans, many of whom don’t value your 4th amendment rights, are coming for your phone, e-mail and financial records without a warrant or any notice to you using the Patriot Act.
Maybe it’s time to give the Libertarians a shot at running things.
I haven’t had a car for a while but it makes me wonder if they had chips in them back then. But Mr. Rorschach, it’s not the GOP party. It’s the GO Party, or the GOP. GOP party is redundant.
Like AIDS syndrome.
PIN number
VIN number
ATM machine
Grand Old Party party means they are having an actual party with drinks and finger foods.
You may be right, Mr. Rorschach, about the Libertarian party. There are some interesting fellows there and they are for the most part swell and not overly obnoxious. There are exceptions of course.
If somehow the driver at Nice had survived and could one day be freed, it is likely that no amount of “truck control” would be able prevent him from illegally acquiring and driving a truck similarly and hurting people again in the future. Yes, there are truck controls, but this particular terrorist incident did not happen due to a lack of legal controls on trucks. Adding further truck controls would not prevent it from happening in the future. Similarly gun violence does not occur because there are no gun controls. In fact, there are gun controls already in place.
It makes sense to me that an abundance of guns in society would make it easier (generally) for criminals to illegally acquire guns and to commit crimes with them. However, they are already violating various “gun control” laws (and other laws) in order to do so. Would having additional controls or laws really prevent this? If we are being honest, what gun control advocates really want is to ban all guns. Logically this should have the effect of reducing the abundance of guns in society in general — especially over time. However, adding another layer of minimal control is just a nuisance to the many legal gun owners without offering much hope of moving the needle on gun availability in general.
Newt’s analogy is not perfect, but it is more decent than folks seem willing to admit.
Here’s a comment by Washington during his 6th address to Congress. It came after the Whiskey Rebellion (an event which seems relevant to the 2nd Amendment debate).
“The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor, and a perfect title to public gratitude. I, therefore, entertain a hope, that the present session will not pass, without carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”
For more context, you can read the rest here:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/washingtons-sixth-annual-message-to-congress/
Guns in homes are more likely to be used against occupants of that home.
ps-that HRC friendly FBI is harassing and intimidating BLM leaders ahead of the wingnut convention. Protestors outside the convention will be armed. Oaf Keepers have already confirmed they will be there and armed. NBP haven’t decided if they will be armed. This could get real interesting and bloody real quick.
Timoteo says “If we are being honest, what gun control advocates really want is to ban all guns.”
Really, what a bunch of hogwash! So, by advocating for better background checks, mental health considerations, restrictions on clip size, stricter regulation of military-style assault weapons, removing the gun show loopholes, I actually want to ban all guns? Sounds like an NRA propaganda argument to me. You don’t argue facts, you make up straw-men to knock down or create figments of your imagination to contend with.
I guess I should argue that anybody that is against gun control is for giving guns to criminals if you don’t want any regulation. It makes about as much sense as arguing any gun control means a gun ban and frankly I’m sick of hearing this crap.
Grudz, you devil. I am eating new potatoes I just dug today. Nice new Kennebecs with a pork steak cooked in the crock pot with fresh onion and c of mushroom soup. You don’t get any taters.
@Darin: It would seem that I didn’t put that well. Let me try again.
I would imagine that better background checks, mental health considerations, restrictions on clip size, regulation of assault weapons, and elimination of gun shows are going to be ineffective in reducing gun crime. These measures would not move the needle on the availability of guns in general. If a person really wanted to fix the problem, the only way to do so would be to ban all guns and disarm the public.
Mike, you are from Iowa so you no doubt eat a lot of pork, but your taters do indeed sound good. I am having some reconstituted ones with a healthy dollop of brown gravy tonight they tell me. And some sort of meat loaf.
Tim, when you say “ineffective in reducing gun crime” you might be conflating “reducing” with “eliminating.” If only one person who wanted to committed mass murder (or any other crime) during some psychotic episode was unable to access a semi-automatic rifle and a 30 round magazine, then by definition gun crime would be reduced.
Reducing gun crime is not an all or none proposition. Rational regulations can and will help deter such crimes. Even someone who opposes all regulations should be able to see the logic – if we make it more difficult to obtain a weapon needed for a crime then the criminal will have a more difficult time obtaining that weapon. That won’t stop all gun crimes nor all bad guys from getting guns, but there is no logical argument that it won’t “reduce” those crimes, especially crimes of passion since with time slowing them down many people might even rethink their planned criminal behavior.
The answer to truck control is the same as the answer to drunk driver control – or car theft control. One should have to insert a current valid driver license – relative to the type or specific vehicle ones is about to drive – in a similar fashion to inserting your bank card into an ATM in order to be able to even start the engine.
And have a nose print, Mr. Schriever. Otherwise you are encouraging a rash of drivers license thefts and more government control. We need biometers. The kind of biometers that scare the bejezus out of Ms. Hubbel where bill boards can read your eyes and scan the data base of pictures and know who you are.
David Newquist, excellent point. Gingrich and other Obamaphobes can’t win on a debate about the actual policies our President and we fellow Democrats offer, so they erect not just straw men but figments of their imagination to debate. They debate as if they were George Lucas, conjuring some awful Death Star which can be destroyed by one lucky shot down an absurdly unguarded thermal exhaust port.
President Obama has never called for a ban on guns. We could stand to call for restrictions on guns comparable to the sensible restrictions we’ve already adopted on trucks to protect the general welfare while still making trucks available for daily utility.
Timoteo, you committed the fallacy David Newquist identifies. As Darin points out, you cannot boil every gun control advocate’s argument down to, “Let’s ban all guns.” I’ve never advocated that position.
You properly recovered and clarified your statement, contending that anything less than a total ban will not “move the needle” on gun violence. That snudges your argument a little, but you’re still trying to box gun control advocates into a false dilemma: “Gun control advocates either advocate entirely ineffective policies, or they advocate a ban on all guns.” That false dilemma allows the NRA and GOP to scare us into completely ineffective and irresponsible inaction.
Making guns less accessible, limiting rounds per clip, and other measures will move the needle. Gun homicide rates in Canada and other countries with restrictions indicate it’s worth a try, with no peril of falling into tyranny.
Put biometers on guns.
Actually, republicans have been doing everything in their power to endanger us with this behemoths. There does need to be more regulation, ask Tracy Morgan, for one, how being sleep deprived can ruin your life. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/opinion/a-foolish-attempt-to-weaken-truck-safety.html?_r=0
BTW, talk to some of these long haul truckers if you can speak Russian or one of the stans. Am I right on this T? These are the guys that are going from coast to coast with no regulations and bull puckey for their liar, er log book.
Timoteo- Now we are getting down to the heart of your argument–that nothing we do short of a total ban on guns will make any difference.
So, you don’t think that background checks help to keep guns out of criminals hands? So, we should just get rid of all background checks because it does not make any difference in your opinion? The clinically insane, convicted felons and persons of interest to the FBI should just be able to buy a gun without any impediments or red flags being thrown up to the authorities?
You probably know that the NRA has opposed any research being done on the effects of gun control initiatives. It is almost as if they have something to hide.
Well, at least Timothy McVey didn’t drive his Ryder truck through a crowd of people, he just used it to bomb the hell out of a federal a kill 160 people.
I’ve heard it said that there are more guns in this country than there are people (don’t know what the estimated number is), but what I can’t figure out is how the government could possibly confiscate every gun out there.
Roger, there is approximately one gun for every man, woman and child in the US. That is on the order of 350 million. From 1986-2012, we manufactured or imported 164 million new firearms. Before Obama leaves office, we could have 400 million firearms in the US. It is an explosion of weaponry.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/gun-ownership-by-the-numbers/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Taxes on trucks should be greatly increased. They destroy highways something like 15,000 times as much as a car according to highway engineers. Paying their fair share would rationalize a lot of prices and greatly reduce unnecessary transport. Get the heavy stuff back on steel rails.
Here is a good one. Prior to 9/11, the national Republican Party was opposed to any form of truck control. There 1996 and 2000 party platforms specifically opposed Clinton’s closing off of Pennsylvania Avenue from public vehicle traffic in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. It took 9/11 for them to wake up to this new reality. My only question or concern is, what will it take for the Republicans to finally wake up to the need for true gun control reform in this country today?
(last paragraph)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html
Douglas @2052
Hard to get stuff back on the rails, when all the rails have been taken out. There is tax on trucking, heavy use tax, fuel tax and usually from 2500 to 3000$ for licensing, it’s not like we aren’t paying our fair share, can’t help the tax collected doesn’t make it to the road budgets
Mike from Iowa I’m sitting here eating a porterhouse steak and baked potato with DB Cooper wondering how to spend this 200k now that the FBI has closed the case…..
@Newquist: BS. Let’s cut to the chase. Obama is a dissembler of the first order. Just as he lied about gay marriage and the public option with health care, he has lied about the confiscation of guns. He has called for a confiscation of guns after the Charleston church massacre last summer and after the Oregon community college shooting just as Australia did in 1996.
Obama’s gun control measures are greasing the slippery slope to an right ban or de facto gun confiscation by rendering the guns unusable with unrealistic magazine capacities, regulation of guns by appearance, discriminatory taxes on ammunition or the use of “may issue” permits for gun ownership.
Wishing we could edit posts: outright instead of right
Obama, King OBAMA one should say, DID BAN GUNS from any Veteran who has sought mental therapy. he did it with one of his executive orders (edicts) that had NO opposition from Republicans. People should do their homework so they aren’t so utterly ignorant in public.
Adam,
This blog proves we need a automobile type testing and licensing procedure for the 1st Amendment. The vitriol and idiocy found here prove most posters here are not to be trusted with the Weapons of Word. The Founders never envisioned anything beyond the quill pen, parchment, and printing press. They had no problem with anyone owning a grenade, but they would deny a 10 round magazine? Where’s the logic? Poorly thought out positions and hatred are too easily spread with computers, phones, and the Internet, as they are used to injure and kill. We must reel in these anti-social posters who spread their lies and hate daily, and prohibit them from doing their damage by instituting licensing and bans.
Adam,
If you swear at your wife or in front of minors or on the Internet, you should lose your Right of Speech for life. What is good for the 2A is good for the rest.
Darin,
Please elaborate how any one from your laundry list of Banning Tools will accomplish anything productive.
Cory couldn’t, in a previous post, provide any with regard to magazine capacities.
People should do their homework so they aren’t so utterly ignorant in public.
Speaking of ignorance and up jumped krist on a krutch. You are deliberately missing the point like usual for your side. Preventing mentally ill people from owning guns is NOT a total ban on guns! Most convicted felons are “banned” from having guns. Toddlers are banned from having guns. See how this works?
Craig from Arizona- but, was it a freshly dug potato and a properly aged Porterhouse steak? Got to be new potatoes and the onions I raised this year are to die for.
So while ‘they’ have us arguing over insignificant topics like guns, we don’t call them out for stolen primaries, Gitmo, 7 week vacations by entrenched corporate lackeys, drug prices, polluted air and water, corporate welfare… the list is too long.
Cory is one of the “they” as he prompts these divisive and mean discussions over more important topics.
by rendering the guns unusable with unrealistic magazine capacities, regulation of guns by appearance, discriminatory taxes on ammunition or the use of “may issue” permits for gun ownership.
I’d bet the founding fathers would have cremed their jeans to have weapons that fired more than once every thirty seconds.
iowa was a “may issue” state and Guv Braindead changed that to shall “issue” which put guns in the hands of roughly 150 convicted felons. Just what we needed.
They carved out an exception of no guns for domestic violence convicts so LE thugs could keep their jobs and guns.
Barry, you don’t think that universal background checks would accomplish anything? It wouldn’t make it harder for people like convicted felons to obtain weapons they are prohibited from obtaining under law. Read this:
https://newrepublic.com/article/118286/facts-about-gun-control-and-universal-background-checks
By having safety and regulations and appropriate taxes updated with the wages needed to survive on a legitimate work schedule, the trucking industry could again be viable to the safety and economy of the nation. Trucks need to be smaller and rail needs to be built to carry the heavier loads. http://www.businessinsider.com/american-truck-drivers-are-getting-squeezed-out-of-their-profession-2014-8
So now, where are the divers coming from to take up the slack, immigrants of course. Here is who is driving the big rigs up and down the interstates and secondary roads. Indeed the Russians are coming and so are many others. So the republicans nailed it when they said “truck control”, too bad they do not mean it. There is a strong lobby that will never allow any change, just more danger and abuse to an unsuspecting country full of rubes. http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-21/america-s-trucking-industry-faces-shortage-meet-immigrants-helping-fill-gap Bastille Day could happen in any major city right here in the good ol’ USA, with not one problem whatsoever.
“I fully expect by tomorrow morning that President Obama will have rediscovered his left-wing roots and will give a press conference in which he will explain the problem is too many trucks,” Says the man that cheated on three separate mistresses.
The significance of his insignificance is what Newt lives on.
The Blindman
Wonder why Newt’s serial philandering hasn’t been an anchor attached to him like Bill Clinton’s imagined,but mostly unproven, philandering has dogged him?
@ Darin: I would theorize that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by criminals who did not pursue legal means to acquire those weapons. So I have very little confidence in the ability of universal background checks (etc) to decrease gun crime.
Timoteo– This issue is about making it harder for those who should not have a weapon by law from obtaining a weapon. If you are comfortable with criminals obtaining weapons at a gun show because there is no background check, I think you should just be honest and state that.
Some criminals will find a way to get a gun in any case as you say. But some will find it harder to get a gun which may interrupt their plans to immediately commit a crime. Some criminals may not know who to trust to obtain a weapon. Some will get caught trying to illegally obtain firearms. The price of a gun will rise as the ready supply for criminals decreases. Thus, we make it harder for criminals to do their dirty work.
This is no panacea to be sure. It is just a common sense effort to reduce (not eliminate) some of these gun deaths.
And what is the downside of universal background checks?
Barry freed – that’s not “banning guns” – that’s banning PEOPLE.
” Preventing mentally ill people from owning guns is NOT a total ban on guns!”
Well, it is if all the GOP people holding guns are recognized as being mentally ill. Perhaps the GOP cynical bigwigs and the NRA realize this.
Three more police officers were killed in Baton Rouge this morning.
Where were the good guys with their guns?
Grudz, I figured you travelled mostly by mule, or wagon train?
IMHO, the problem is mental health not the Weapon. CDL drivers are checked by Medical Providers to determine if they are physically healthy enough to drive a Commercial Vehicle, BUT no one checks their Mental Health. Unfortunately there is no data base that we can check to determine how many “Weapon Deaths” are to the person being “Mentally Incompetent”.
My 2 ¢
Iraq has finally figured out why they are so vulnerable to car/truck bomb attacks and the reason is not Obama. Iraq must be run by Bush family members (not a compliment).
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36210829
Bomb detecting wands are still used there even though they were proven worthless years ago. Like wingnuts in government, they do not work.
Here is the appropriate link. Won’t them damn Rolling Stones ever die?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/04/iraq-orders-withdrawal-uk-fake-bomb-detectors-baghdad-haidar-al-abadi-james-mccormick
Stace Nelson,
I believe this is what you are referring to:
http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb380/Gary_Floyd/tolesgunviolence_zps3c87ee78.jpg
Excellent find Curt!
Cory is one of the “they” as he prompts these divisive and mean discussions over more important topics.
Start your own blog and then you can control the topics. Another problem solved.
@Curt So? Should we blame the 1st Amendment for American Lefists being the all time history eugenics champions? http://newsninja2012.com/bereft-lefts-mutually-exclusive-program-anti-guns-and-pro-abortion/
My good friend Stace seems a bit confused with the term “eugenics.” Liberals support the fundamental constitutional right of all women to decide whether to give birth without regard to her reasons, race, or the condition of her fetus.
Eugenics is premised on a cleansing of a race, nationality or religion like when one identifiable group, such as white Christian men decide to rid our country of Mexicans, Latinos, Muslems, etc.
One can dislike abortion rights, but that doesn’t justify making false and inflammatory claims about the motives of those who believe in enforcing the Constitutional rights of women. She can own a gun and decide for herself who or what can use her body.
Your newninja article is full of inaccuracies about guns and abortions,Stace. Who would have guessed. Here is a whopper- When a woman becomes pregnant, she simply carries another life within her. The baby does not share the mother’s blood stream, etc. The mother is the “oven” in which the new life grows. That baby is no more part of that woman’s body than fleas on a dog (forgive the poor example). It is a separate life.
A woman can do anything she wants with her own body. I have no problem with that. The real issue though is that this baby she is carrying is not part of her body at all. She has no right to murder it or pay someone else to murder it.
That separate life cannot survive on its own outside the womb before about 24 weeks- viability. Abortion-since you can’t seem to remember is a constitutionally protected right for women-not you. Murder is not. Abortion is not murder. Killing with guns is.
Before Stace comes unglued again, Margaret Sanger did not eugenics blacks with abortions. Sanger died 6 years before abortions became legal in America. The whole country was caught in the eugenics craze for a short period of time. Sanger championed birth control for black women because they had trouble accessing birth control.
If you abort for certain reasons like gender or disability, are you using eugenic principles? Even if you maintain it’s legality, does it raise a moral concern?
*Sorry Cory, I suppose we’ve gotten off topic*
Eugenics can only be forced upon a population by an official governmental policy. Before the SCOTUS recognized a Constitutional right of privacy in family planning decisions the State of Virginia (along with some other states) enacted laws permitting the State to forcibly sterilize teenage girls the State deemed to be unfit. In 1927 the Supreme Court upheld such a law in Buck v Bell stating “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/39.html
The extension of the right of privacy to family planning decisions in the 1960’s overruled, in effect, the decision in Buck that upheld the power of a state or federal government to impose forced sterilization.
If anti-choice people succeed in convincing the SCOTUS to overrule Griswald and Roe – eliminating this right of privacy, then they will open a Pandora’s box where if Stace’s eugenic bogeymen get elected to office they will be able to enact laws that force a woman to have an abortion or be sterilized.
That said, I’ll try to get back close to topic and simply warn that we all will face a runaway killing machine of a truck if we empower the State to trump our family planning decisions. Lo siento Cory, perdóname.
@BCB Oh contraire, I am very aware of the evil behind Planned Parenthood. While Leftists do everything possible to subvert their long history of racism, history has yet to be cleansed of those misdeeds via CCSS. Their is a reason for Lefists juvenile “Goddard rule.” http://www.ferris.edu/isar/archives/eliminating-inferior.htm As Mike IOWA attempts to vaccinate the conversation, liberal hero Margeret Sanger was a eugenics supporter and a founding figure in Planned Parenthood which just happens to murder 4X as many minority babies as white babies. Compared to the Nazis, and Commnunists that American Ledtists supported? American Leftists have tallied over 58 MILLION in their brutal body count. Compared to Stalin, Mao, Pot, and Hitler combined? Not even a contest.
I’m sure liberal white privelge excludes the ugly racist facts of Planned Parenthood http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html I mean any ideology that couches the evil and barbourous practice of murdering innocent unborn in the womb by claiming it is a “Constitutional right” and the even more ignorant “women’s healthcare?” Insidiously brilliant.
Donald J. Trump is finally correct! He blames the Baton Rouge killing of three police officers on lack of leadership. He is spot on. His laying the blame at the feet of the republican leadership is the correct response to yet another tragedy in America. Who else could he blame it on?
Nelson, back from the dead, the only white privilege you know is the mug looking back at you in the mirror. Only someone as mentally challenged as you could equate abortion with trucks. Your next act will be to link gluten intolerance to Obama and planed parenthood because of trucks and stuff.
With further apologies to Cory for being off topic (although I am sure he will forgive someone with my personal deficiencies who happens to be, as you have clarified in prior comments, juvenile, intellectually dishonest and too dumb to rub two sticks together – no wonder I oppose eugenics), I thank you for your link as it underscores the point I was trying to make. It might not be such a great idea to give back to the states the power to decide whether we can reproduce. And, another important point is “that was then, this is now.”
Today, pro-choice folks generally argue that neither the state nor the feds should have the power to decide whether any woman can get pregnant, give birth or terminate a pregnancy. Unless you are absolutely confident that every future legislator will agree with your views on abortion, you might want to reflect on the potential danger of overruling Griswald and Roe on the Constitutional right of privacy.
Damn Jerry, Stace does sound like the ignorant Donald Trump.
Stace simply repeats himself every time the abortion topic comes up, nothing new at all.
If you have read one of Stace’s comments, you have read them all
I’ve always wondered whether or not republican women travel to Minnesota or other states to get a legal abortion.
Has anyone in Stace’s family had an abortion?
Love when the far right learns new words like Steve with coveting and Stace with white privilege.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population
NPR fact checks Nelson, Carson and Hermain Cain.
Margaret Sanger never advocated eugenics. I checked the American eugenics movement. A lot of names pop up. Curiously none of them is Sanger’s. Sanger’s idea of controlling what types of children were born was rooted in her work
for birth control.
Stace seems to have a real streak of racism in him. He keeps bleating that we abort 4 times as many black fetuses as white. Nelson apparently believes that PP runs out and grabs pregnant black women off the streets and forces them to abort.
Someday it will dawn on him (maybe) just how illogical his mind works.
[I am disappointed with the abortion distraction. Back to guns and trucks, please.]
Stace, guns have little to no daily utility. I am willing to assert that every participant in this conversation made more active and positive use of toilet paper today than of a firearm. Trucks delivered that toilet paper.
@CAH Which argument is it? Gun deaths are so low that only cops should have guns? or, gun deaths are so high (to include use of force deaths by LE) that we need to ban guns through any means necessary, and cops should be protested and attacked? The Left is sending mixed signals.
58 Million babies killed since Roe v Wade, a disproportionate amount of them minority babies, but that’s a distraction from 11,000 gun deaths a year!?
The free air you breath came from hard men wielding a gun to defeat tyranny AND remains free at this moment by hard men and women wielding those guns you claim are of no daily utility. I hate to break the liberal bubbles, the USA is free and remains free because of the guns you fear, and the people like me you loath, who wield(ed) them… not from liberal apologist rhetoric or gun free zones.
@Owen & Mike IOWA I understand that it is the worst type of white privilege to white wash the racist history of the institutions you support. The facts defeat your efforts to do so Sanger was a racist who was heavily involved in the Leftists eugenics movement http://www.denverpost.com/2010/06/02/margaret-sanger-and-the-eugenics-movement/
Stace, I don’t think I make either argument. Again, like Gingrich, to avoid the weight of practical evidence and arguments against Second Amendment absolutism, you concoct arguments no one here is making.
Yes, abortion is a distraction in this debate. Your statement about babies killed does not refute one iota of my critique and turn of Gingrich’s hyperbole.
The free air I breathe comes from diplomats, lawmakers, teachers, and voters who create and sustain civil institutions, public morality, and international agreements that prevent the disorder that would require the deadly action of hard men wielding guns. Resorting to guns is a sign that far better efforts have failed.
Besides, the utility to which Stace appeals, the not invalid claim that the bullets fired by the Minutemen 240 years ago and the bullets Marines stand ready to fire today if international order collapses help me enjoy the liberty to buy toilet paper and groceries hauled by truck today, is utility conducted by the military in an environment that tightly controls the use of firearms. It is not utility secured by civilians strolling around town twirling pistols. Stace’s “hard men/hoo-yah!” rhetoric is a clever macho patriotic distraction from my argument that Gingrich is full of bull and that guns provide little to no direct daily utility in our civilian lives, and that guns. And like Gingrich, Stace makes an error, offering an argument that actually supports my point: just as sensible truck control is a template for sensible gun control, the strictly regulated military use of firearms (intense training, ongoing drills, strict inventory control, use only in accord with decisions made by rigid chain of command) actually supports my call for sensible regulation of firearms in civilian life.
@CAH The arguments you claim are not made here, havr been uttered repeatedly here and in the national scene. Your new argument? That guns aren’t a necessary utility, in your opinion, so we should regulate them extensively? Even weaker than the other arguements from the Left (that you claim aren’t made). Imagine a USA only protected by empty rhetoric as you claim is the umbrella of safety we all enjoy to utter these “let them eat cake” moments. How long would Hillary, Donald, Obama, etc, etc, survive without armed security? How long would our nation last if all of our servicemembers were disarmed as you claim they are now?
Just because you are unaware of how crucial armed people are to the security and safety of this nation? It doesnt change the reality of what you deny. Firearms are the most critical tool for the preservation of security and safety for all Americans. The reality is, there is nothing more important to that preservation. It is not happenstance that the worst place in the USA are areas (Chicago) where liberal’s have been successful in imposing their 2nd Amendment violating policies.
Interesting political approach you are using though… ? Any chance we can get all the Democrats to put that out on their campaign material here in SD? “Democrats don’t think you need guns, so trust us Democrats as we try and take them away from you” should go over well.
“Like airplanes, computers, and cold medicine, trucks can be repurposed to do great harm, but with sensible regulation, we minimize that harm while maintaining their immense practical benefit for hundreds of millions of people.”
Cory, your pro-capitalist argument just destroyed the legitimacy of the left saying the NRA are just protecting the gun manufacturers. On top of that response, you also need to understand that the gun manufactures also use trucks to transact their business.
And third, it is sad that the left danced on the graves of gays in Orlando.
And continuing along his usual vein, Nelson continues to repeat himself, same comments, different post.
Nelson is that broken record we have heard about.
“Nelson is that broken record we have heard about.”
Yes, repeating the truth does not always cause the deceived to see their errors. And it is really sad when people believe they deserve special rights because they are being deceived into thinking that they are being picked on.
Be careful Nelson or you will offend those hard men who you support with you votes in the SD legislature. You act like standing up to corruption is some kind of noble thing when that is what you and the rest of the elected officials are sent to Pierre to do. It is fraudulent on your part to lay claim to being whatever the hell you say you are that makes you different from other elected officials. Do your job, that is all we ask. Protect the citizens from truck violence on our roads with drivers that have driven too many miles with too little sleep in trucks that are too friggin big for our highways.
Sibson, you are the scratch in that record.
“It is fraudulent on your part to lay claim to being whatever the hell you say you are that makes you different from other elected officials.”
Jerry, Stace got kicked out of the SDGOP closed door caucus. How many legislators has that happened to and what would be the percentage?
Firearms are the most critical tool for the preservation of security and safety for all Americans. The reality is, there is nothing more important to that preservation.
I’m guessing this isn’t Nelson’s “humble” opinion.
Sibby when you or Nelson repeat the truth, that’ll be a first.
“Democrats don’t think you need guns, so trust us Democrats as we try and take them away from you” should go over well.
Nelson’s idea of truth-lies about Dems taking your guns.
Sibson is obsessed with convoluted conspiracy theories and doesn’t know or understand the truth.
How’s your blog coming, Sibson?
So far no one has countered a single point I made on this thread. The effort is directed at personal attacks fueled by hatred from the left.
So how can Cory argue that trucks are off limits because they are important to capitalism, and then we here the gun control crowd spew hatred toward the NRA for promoting the gun manufacturing industry?
Next, I would like to hear what percentage of South Dakota politicians have been kicked out the SDGOP Establishment closed door caucuses?
If you folks want to throw insults instead of dealing with facts, then I laugh when you voice your opinion about truth.
Stace, I’m disappointed that you fabricate statements and put words in your opponents’ mouths. I have not advocated disarming soldiers, police, or the Secret Service.
Firearms have their place, and they are certainly critical to restoring security in a firefight. However, in our daily civilian existence, in the things that the vast majority of Americans do every day, and even in the daily routines of police and soldiers, we do not use guns as frequently or as usefully as we do a wide variety of other tools.
No gun would have stopped the SDGOP from kicking Stace Nelson out of the caucus.
Steve, read again: I didn’t say that trucks are off limits to restrictions due to capitalism. I said that the daily utility of trucks makes it foolish to ban them completely, but we still impose a wide range of restrictions on truck possession and use. I then said that guns have even less daily utility, but I offered the compromise position of calling for comparable restrictions on gun possession and use rather than inversely proportionally greater restriction. My logic is remarkably consistent, and my generosity to gun advocates is nothing like the fake radical positions Stace and the NRA try to ascribe to people like me.
Well, let me be the first to thank you for your generosity to the gun advocates. =)
” I then said that guns have even less daily utility”
Cory you said:
“Guns provide no countervailing daily utility. I won’t walk down Main Street today and see guns being used in any practical way by regular citizens to make their lives better. Guns don’t move couches, pave roads, shingle roofs, teach kids, relieve poverty, or cure the flu. Guns serve one purpose: to do deathly damage.”
It is OK to back off on your radical position once confronted with some common sense. Guns serve multiple purposes, not just “deathly damage”.
You still have not address the special status you placed on trucks’ role in capitalism, while you support the lefts attack on the NRA for supporting capitalism regarding the gun industry. Seems you place your “utilities” above others, and that makes for a dangerous special interest politician. You will fit in nicely with the liberal corrupted environment we find in Pierre should you happen to win election.
I used to be disappointed at Mr Nelson’s fabricating statements. Guns, abortion, etc. (although, the one thing he never fabricates is on the corruption in South Dakota. On this, Mr Nelson and I agree) , you name it. He is a “cut and paster” from some of the most extreme groups and websites. Because those folks say what Mr Nelson wants to hear, he nods dutifully, and without shame, repeats unsubstantiated and often disproven “facts”.
Like I said, I used to be disappointed. Not anymore. I come to expect it from him. What is disappointing is that this comes from someone who is in a leadership position. Head shaker.
“repeats unsubstantiated and often disproven “facts”.”
This is coming from a comment that has no facts and instead a series of unsubstantiated personal attacks.
Trucks are too damn big and dangerous. Make them smaller, by doing so will save the expenses of repairing roads to the extent we now have to do. They could be more local to haul freight and other commerce that they get from the rail system that could be built with the money saved from the carnage caused by these behemoths each day. The rural areas could once again be viable as could the more populated areas. Huge trucks with the coast to coast mentality have passed their usefulness and are now nothing more than a huge drag on the economy. They just do not dollar cost average themselves in today’s world. I would hope that the next administration deals with the facts and starts to downsize that industry as a matter of national security. Bring back the rails and the service they provide for good, reliable clean transportation.
Jerry agree semis are big but don’t agree they are dangerous when properly operated, one thing people need to realize is we downsize the semis, food commodities and agriculture will be impossible to get harvested. The smaller semis in other countries cannot pull the freight needed to transport combines and equipment on harvest runs thru Texas up to North Dakota. We know, we looked into this, trying to be more environmental friendly. There is no way downsizing can pull the corn out of the fields to the elevators. The farm semis in accidents are usually self induced, meaning when in transport odds are accidents involve themselves, I don’t mean this is acceptable, I just mean usually( and I say usually, does it happen, yes) doesn’t involve public. Now, get outside SD yes, our Walmart goods should be downsized, but then prices go up, which maybe okay with some. The point is, down sizing the semis in our agriculture area isn’t feasible, unless you downsize the entire farm equipment industry, and I doubt if John Deere, new holland, and others will do so. Look at that accident in white river Sunday, a pickup and car took 5 lives, semis are no more dangerous than automobiles.