Skip to content

Guns Overturned Elections And Derailed Social Movements

January 30, 2012

Another national call for sanity.

This episode joins a long list of elections overturned and social movements derailed by men with guns, as in the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, George Moscone, Harvey Milk, Martin Luther King, Jr. Somehow, people who should never have guns never have trouble getting them. John Kennedy’s assassin, a disaffected former Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, bought his by mail order.  King’s assassin, a wanted fugitive, bought his over the counter.

###

After all, the solution here is not rocket science.

We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases — no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.

We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter.

We need to encourage gun safety classes so that poorly secured firearms stop ending up in the hands of little children.

At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.

6 Comments
  1. January 30, 2012 6:17 PM

    Purplepenquin

    Why are you Addressing only Men – and not WOMEN ?

    And who should determine “Unstable” Within what boundaries ?

  2. January 30, 2012 5:44 PM

    “A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.”

    A mentally unstable man should not be allowed to move around in public freely, period.

  3. January 30, 2012 5:22 PM

    I try to have 3 or 4 opinion pieces each week on the blog, such as the one about UW sports and Gov. Walker that was posted Saturday. I also have shorter opinion pieces such as the one today about Frank Lasee. Then for the rest of the week I also have a series of quick grabs from the paper or news/talk radio etc. where I might add a paragraph or as in the case of this post the link with a one-line opinion. For a one person blogging operation there is just no way to do more.

  4. January 30, 2012 4:48 PM

    Well, you know what they say…. “You folks all sound alike”….

    As fussy as you are about others not posting stuff other people wrote on your blog, I’d have thought you would have added some originality to the post…

  5. January 30, 2012 4:31 PM

    I just want to make clear that the article was written by Leonard Pitts, the national syndicated writer. I agree with what he said but just want to be clear about who did the piece.

  6. January 30, 2012 4:25 PM

    Your first two ‘we need”‘s are at best bullet points for anti-gunners built upon emotion and not a shred of logic. In the first one you infer that it’s OK for mentally unstable women to have guns, and in the second one you decide in advance what constitutes a hunter… Only law abiding people are at all affected by the rules, regulations and laws.. the law breakers the sheep think they will be protected from by by this drivel ignore such admonitions…That is why they are called law breakers.

    If you had written in number three “We need to encourage gun safety classes” I would have – and do – support that notion 100%. That’s why I have spent almost 50 years teaching Hunter Education and Gun Safety classes – to children from 7 years old to 97 years old – it’s not just for kids any more… It’s when you throw the feel good crap into the sentence that I lose respect for you and your thoughts. “So that…….little children” sounds good if you say it fast – one more “Its for the Children feel good” that is used by gun control nuts, more money for schools to pay them for poorer results, etc. crowd… Come on, you can do better than that!

    As for the last sentence, ” At the very least. we need to have a serious national dialog” part of the sentence I couldn’t agree more with that notion. I have a problem with the rest of the sentence ” about these and other possible solutions”. You try make your earlier statements (the first two needs) foregone conclusions that they are in fact solutions, and that there may be others…So you want to contaminate these “Serious national dialogs by assuming the first two “needs” you stated are correct and not up for discussion ? I don’t think that’s gonna work.. especially with folks with open minds… Serious dialog can only happen when the anti-gun people can sit down and cast aside their “Feelings” and have a serious dialog about facts and figures.

    You folks could gain some real ground if you were able to do that, instead of having a hissy every time something happens that you think you have all the answers for resolving and can’t see any other resolutions – that would be gun control, gun control and lets see… ..gun control.. – and which makes your suggestion for a national dialog such a joke. When and if you ever get to the point you can discuss issues with your brains instead of your hearts, set some of your biases aside, control your emotions, and act like adults…Then bring it on!

    And in the meantime… you could work on dealing with murder by automobiles, alcohol, knives, falls, baseball bats, tennis racquets, poison, drowning, etc.

    Have a good day.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: