Tom Toles for July 22, 2009

Tom left the guy’s NRA hat off. As a gun owner, LaPierre makes me VERY nervous. Given the pull NRA has in Congress, I’d say folks can pretty much ignore health care, they won’t live to make it to the hospital.

dtroutma, the NRA isn’t nearly as big a problem as the attitude, of far too many, that firearms possesion equates to adulthood and physical equality.

The target should be on a Thomas Nast genre fat cat government official.

THAT, gentlemen is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. A little factoid you never seem to get straight. Also, that pesky Amendment just happens to protect your right and ability to spout your inanities.

As to adulthood: There are a lot more responsible adult weapon owners and NRA members than in the entire Congress of the US of A.

As to physical equality: Another misconception. It has never been about physical equality. It has been about leveling the playing field for the average citizen against the madding crowd of the political/ruling class.

You gentlemen may wish to correct you aim toward the people that are more deserving or your attention, i.e., The Congress/White House, et. al.

WKE, MSgt USAF (Ret) CCP owner and NRA member

Yes, I feel so much safer, so protected against any possible tyranny by the Federal Government, or maybe some out-of-control Governor, because there’s a bunch of guys with automatic rifles in their closets and trucks. Oh yes indeed, that’ll stop ‘em. You bet. My right to free speech is being protected because the NRA is making sure that there is an ever-increasing number of nitwits with guns. Yeah, the Supreme Court tramples my right to be secure in my home and papers and… what? the moron militia is going to flood the streets to take on the 82nd Airborne? Yeah, that’ll work.

Hey Sarge, what if I’m more afraid of the gun owners than of Federal Tyranny?

Dmajor, you may have a point. More Americans are killed by (legal) gun owners every year than by the Federal government.

The question is, what exactly are these guns supposed to protect us against? Intruders? A good alarm system connected to the police works better and more reliably. The government? Don’t make me laugh. A mugger? Aside from the likelihood of getting yourself shot first…

Besides, if you’re Christian, the point is moot. Jesus says if someone tries to steal from you, give them more than they demand. All the guns simply show a lack of faith.

Having said that, shooting a gun is kind of fun, and I like shooting at targets. But for protection?

The First Amendment protects your right and mine to spout inanities, not the Second. That’s why it is first. Too bad the NRA doesn’t support that one the way it does the Second. As I’ve mentioned before, the NRA seems to have a limited idea of what the Second Amendment is about, and I’m not just talking about the “well-regulated militia.” It seems to limit its focus to firearms, as many and as powerful as possible. If they really believed in “arms,” they might also like, oh, swords, maces, nunchuku, throwing stars, polearms – all of which are illegal in most states. Funny how they only defend the most Freudian weaponry.

High gun sales are symtomatic of the deeper problem – an oppressive socialist federal government that keeps taking away our liberties and is getting worse! You had better be very fearful of that over citizens concerned about losing their freedom.

I don’t understand why the NRA claims the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own and use guns with multi-shot clips, revolvers, assault rifles with laser sights, etc., but not bazookas, shoulder-mounted ground-to-air missiles, or shoulder-mounted tactical nuclear weapons.

None of these weapons existed when the second amendment was written, so it’s impossible that the authors intended them to be included. The only reason modern hand guns and rifles are included is because of conservative judicial activism.

But if the reason they’re included is for us to form militias to fight a tyrannical government, then why not include the missile and nuclear weapons? Surely they’d be more valuable in such a fight than a pistol.

Very inconsistent and arbitrary, NRA.

DWyant, please provide just a lil’ backup to your broad, cliche-riddled opinion. I hear from folks like you that President Obama wants to take away our liberties, starting with our guns. I hear he wants Americans to be subject to him somehow in this regard. Where do you get the information for this (rather unpatriotic) opinion?

This quote from dwyant pretty much sums up the right’s entire position: “You had better be very fearful…”

2816, I’ve looked and looked on ebay for the “good” weapons to improve my local militia’s anti-terrorism capabilities. So far, I’ve had responses only from the ATF and the FBI. And THOSE responses were less than satisfactory. I did receive a reply in regards to my entry for “bazooka”, but it turned out to be a middle aged Republican with a “thing” for Bazooka Joe. My fault for not being specific. Will keep trying. Maybe Amazon; they have free shipping!

On a serious note, my husband was pulled aside at a small-town gun show at the fairgrounds this summer and given a really low quality “brochure” the dealer had made showing the big stuff he could get. Grenades and land mines, interestingly, are pretty cheap…

Doonesbury’s “Uncle Duke” is looking less and less like satire every year…

striper, all you show is a great deal of fear and alarm. All your words can be boiled down to that; fear and alarm.

“In all countries that outlawed guns, crime went up.”

Proof please.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

I’m from Georgia and know that this article is accurate.

BE, here’s another MSGT(Army, ret) telling you that you should review some history and read the entire second amendent. PS Yes I have a couple of weapons and have done some reloading. Let NRA membership expire when the NRA become an embarrassment.

Tripe sez:

“I remind you did this same Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword latter in the New Testament?”

Where? Book of Armaments?

Do they stock those swords right next to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?

As a gun owner, my greatest concern IS the NRA eventually bringing out more protests against rational ownership as described in the second amendment. The Constitution ALSO defines attempting to overthrow the government as Treason. An armed insurgency of “bemoaning boneheads” put upon by their government taking their toys away, is not rationale.

The sale of ammunition and guns in the last 8 months makes me worry a LOT more about “skinheads” than a liberal political plot. Why does the National RIFLE Association put almost all their emphasis on protecting CONCEALED weapons, armor piercing bullets, and automatic weapons(legal if you pay the tax)?

If you want to find hard to single out weapons try “LAW” (Light Anti-tank Weapon), they are fun to fire, but don’t want to be driving a Brinks truck if some “law-abiding” citizen shows up. They are the U.S. variation on RPG.

Hmmmm, M-79 grenade launchers are even more fun, perfect for hunting large herds of rampaging, over-foraging rabbits.

From The Straight Dope: “A 1986 National Institute of Justice survey of convicted felons, to take one example, provides at best a mixed bag of insights: more than a third of the felons questioned said they worried with some regularity about being shot by victims, but roughly 40 percent said they never considered the possibility; while 39 percent said that at least once they’d decided not to go through with a crime because they believed the person they’d targeted was armed, nearly 25 percent insisted they were actually drawn to the challenge of confronting an armed victim. With data like this, you’ve got all the reliability problems that typically attend self-reporting plus what may be an extra helping of bravado — I’ll buy that a few criminals really do get off on going up against a gun wielder, but a quarter of them?”

U.S. Constitution, Amendment II. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What did “well regulated Militia” mean to the framers of the Bill of Rights?Did Militia members need to own and maintain their own weapons, ready for call up?

What does it mean in today’s terms? How does it compare to the National Guard?

When the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to mean people can own any and all kinds of firearms, what do these interpreters do with the first phrase of the Amendment: “A well regulated Militia”?

Good on ya’ Triper. I missed that one (even having looked at Luke 22).

However, the weapon was to no avail, and Jesus decried its use. The disciples were apparently “outgunned”, so to speak. Jesus never advocated stupidity.

More misguided gun control.

Has anyone figured this out yet…gun control laws only work on law-abiding citizens. Criminals don’t care about another gun charge. They never did.

Oh, and do look at the results of Britian’s gun bans…please do! They successfully got rid of their guns but now have a knife violence problem. If we think gun control is difficult try knife control. They traded a big problem for an even bigger one. Way to go!

The shooter, not the gun has ALWAYS been the problem in the equasion of gun violence.

The knifer, not the knife, has always been the problem with knife violence.

Human beings were injuring, warring with, and killing each other long before gunpowder was invented. In violent crime in general the gun is not the common denominator. The human IS.

A number of years ago I had a nice conversation with a police captain. My car had been stolen front right in front of my home and I was “down town” filling out the official report.

Out of curiosity I asked what his views were on gun control. I was VERY surprised to find that he was against it. This of course contradicted EVERYTHING that the main stream media was telling us. He told me that he believed that EVERYONE has a right to defend their selves. He said that the bottom line is this: ” … if someone enters my home and kills me - the best that he can do is write up a very nice police report but, I’ll still be dead. There just are not enough police to protect everyone. ” I asked him if he knew of anyone else in his department felt different and he said “No.”. That’s when I started to realize that we were all being lied to.

vhammon:

Read DC v. Heller. The dissent too. All questions are answered, abliet differently by Justices Scalia and Stevens.

Nomad said: “This of course contradicted EVERYTHING that the main stream media was telling us.”

Sorry, I had to chuckle at this. Do you mean to say that the msm has it wrong on police calls for gun control because this one cop you spoke with held a different opinion? I’m sure you don’t hold that logical fallacy, but the way you expressed your comment implies you do.

Striper, a lot of folks like to point to that passage to prove that Jesus was somehow pro-gun. I should alert people to the fact that Jesus’ rather cryptic words here have been variously judged by scholars to be ironic , metaphorical, or unhistorical. And regardless of how one takes these words, it is clear from Luke 22:49-51 that Jesus did not endorse the use of swords.

And Big Al, there is a rather striking question left open by the article you posted about crime in Kennesaw, GA. Namely, was crime a problem before this ordinance was passed? From what I’ve heard, there was never a crime problem in Kennesaw. The law wasn’t designed to bring crime down. Rather, it was written to thumb a nose at another city which had criminalized gun-ownership.

That said, when you go from, say, 4 burglaries in one year to just 1 the following year, you’ve had a seventy-five percent drop. Sounds impressive, but we’re only talking about a difference of three burglaries. (I’m not purporting to present real Kennesaw crime statistics here. I’m just using these numbers to illustrate that percentages can jump through the roof when the sample is small enough.)

Nomad, be careful of sampling error.

Dunno where you live, but here in California if you ask similar questions of police in the liberal San Francisco, you’ll likely get different answers than if you asked police in the conservative Central Valley.

All, my point was that when you turn on the tube it sounds like the national consensus among ALL law enforcement agencies is that guns should not be available to the average citizen. Sorry that I wasn’t clearer on this.

DrCanuck - nice try but, it was the Media love fest that got the Dems and “The One” in office. Not that the GOP and Bush didn’t screw up. But still, it wasn’t a fair fight.

http://people-press.org/report/463/media-wants-obama

Nomad, that article is based mostly on what the voters thought of the media coverage. That’s hardly a reliable indicator.

Also, even if you accept this notion, did you notice this part: “At this stage of the 2004 campaign, 50% of voters said most journalists wanted to see John Kerry win the election, while 22% said most journalists favored George Bush. In October 2000, 47% of voters said journalists wanted to see Al Gore win and 23% said most journalists wanted Bush to win.”

Obviously even if the journalists behaved like the voters thought, it didn’t have any great effect on the outcomes.

I think your observation that the GOP and Bush screwed up is far more on the money.

“Drive-by knifings”.

Heh.

“Excuse me, could you come over closer to my car…?”

I really liked Chris Rock’s stand up routine wherein he advocates making guns cheap and available so people can show off, but each bullet would cost $5000. So a “drive-by” shooting would go more like: the driver rolls down his window and points a gun, and starts yelling at his target “I’m gonna start saving, and I’m gonna get a bank loan and maybe my mom will gimme some money and I’m gonna buy some ammo and YOU are a dead man then!!”

Thanks CharlieKane. I’ll do that.

Striper wrote: “cdward You mentioned if you’re Christian, the point is moot. Jesus says if someone tries to steal from you, give them more than they demand. All the guns simply show a lack of faith. I remind you did this same Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword latter in the New Testament?” – Indeed, but not the sword of the aggressor. Rather, Jesus was telling his disciples that they would be persecuted, that their own families would turn against them. Nowhere does he encourage them to take up arms.

“What is the bibles stance on abortion, gay rights, bestiality, child molesters, perverts, welfare, laziness (I believe Paul spoke of this),” *– abortion: bible says nothing gay rights: says nothing, BUT, there are a few passages that condemn homosexual behavior. HOWEVER, those passages (and if you are conversant in biblical translation, then you now this) are largely corrupted, and more recent translations disagree on many points. –welfare: says nothing –laziness: condemns it but so what? What’s that got to do with anything in this discussion?*

“How about worshiping false gods, Muslims, government, etc.” *– worshiping false gods: condemns it. What’s your point? –Muslims: says nothing: Islam didn’t exist in biblical times. –government: says we are to honor those in government.*

“You claim to be a Pastor, but you always side with liberals. Look at your symbol, What does the bible say about witches, wizards, fortune telling, etc. What happened to Saul?” – I don’t CLAIM to be a pastor; I AM an ordained priest. I side with the Gospel, which I might point out often has little to do with what you write. Remember that the Gospel is about loving your enemy and your neighbor, about caring for the poor and vulnerable because these are acts of love. I don’t see anything in the Gospel of Jesus Christ about buying guns and defending yourself. And what is your point about witches, wizards, etc? Have I said something about them? Do they have any bearing on the discussion at hand? And what on earth does my avatar have to do with anything? It’s Scooby and Shaggy – cartoon characters who uncover mysteries.

I’m going to follow this thread, just to see what Striper tells us about the “bibles (sic) stance on abortion”.

Also: Striper, you said “You mentioned your (sic) against gun ownership.”

Show me where I said that, Striper. Or else come to grips with the fact that your bible says you’re going to hell. Rev 21:8

Wow, Love Doctor. Fairly presumptuous of you as regards cdward. Just about everybody on these boards will agree that he has shown himself to be one of the kindest and most fair-minded Christians around these pages. I doubt the same could be said of you.

And Striper, did I just understand you to say that if the Jews had only committed genocide, they would not be in their present troubles? Cause that’s about as un-Christian as you can get!

A general note on the bible. Not all Christians read it literally. There is no reason why we should. The bible (that great collection of books) does not say we should take it literally. It was not written to be taken literally. It is a heavily redacted series of works in which the editors do not always agree with each other.

So why bother with it? Because it is a faithful record of the people of God struggling with their relationship with God. That’s why Ecclesiastes is such a fascinating and wonderful book. That’s why Job is so important even if boring for the middle 30 chapters or so. That’s why we do not have to jump and salute just because Paul says something in one of his epistles.

For the record, one thing the church teaches and has taught since its inception is that Jesus is the Word. God gave us himself rather than a book. (but please note that the Hebrew for God’s spirit is Ruah, which is feminine). Therefore, though it is all good for edification and inspiration, you simply must believe that not all Christians - not all denominations - are literalists.

For the record, I am an Episcopal priest (as I’ve said before). I go to a weekly pastors’ bible study with pastors from many denominations, and we generally come to accord on most of these issues. You’d be amazed how much common ground you can find when you talk – and listen.

how the hell did we start with a cartoon on guns and end up on religion? I’m relatively certain there is no mention of guns or gun control in the bible…

I think we can pretty well figure it wasn’t a bunch of angry women who sat around and wrote the Old Testament.(or New) CD’s linguistic point should be well-taken- who was the comedian who stated, “God’s coming back and SHE’s p—!”

cdward has been very patient, frankly. striper, Jesus was extremely clear: he said to love your enemies. He also said that if someone strikes you on the cheek, to turn the other cheek. You are taking one line out of context to completely misinterpret the whole Christian ethos. “Blessed are the peacemakers.” He went away with his murderers willingly, remember? And yes, the Old Testament has a lot of violence. Note that Jesus is in the New Testament. Jesus also made it quite clear that he was wiping away the old rules, including Mosiac Law, and replacing it with the law of love. Nothing about guns, sorry. And LoveDoctor, the idea that the Bible is literally true is a very recent phenomenon, and it doesn’t work. Try to resolve those two flatly contradictory stories of creation, for example. Most Christians don’t believe in the Bible literally, which is wise, as it contradicts itself in many other places as well. Certainly Catholics, Episcopalians (like cdward), and indeed most mainstream Protestants don’t believe in literalism. That is limited to a relatively small group, mostly evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Striper, you said “You mentioned your (sic) against gun ownership.”

Show me where I said that, Striper. Or else come to grips with the fact that your bible says you’re going to hell. Rev 21:8

Hey, seniorbullwinkle, I see your avatar is the ’60s universal symbol for the American Chicken. And, as usual, the track is pointed south away from the sound of the guns.

Read the “Federalist Papers” on the Second Amendment and you will find the Founding Fathers thought it was necessary for the State’s populace to be armed in order to keep an overreaching Federal government in line, a direct response to King George III and British Parliament’s “taxation without representation” among other attrocities perpetrated against the Colonies.

BTW: In my original tome above, motivemagus, I meant that the Second Amendment PROTECTS the First (Freedom of Speech, “spouting inanities, if you will,” et. al,). Forgive me for not making that more clear.

WKE

Why are you blathering on about *my* opinion? This isn’t a case of my opinion; we’re talking about a very clear sentence from your bible that says all liars are going to what sounds like a fairly hell-like place.

It’s in the last book of the bible, so you can’t pull the trick where you say you don’t have to follow the rules in the old testament because of stuff in the new testament.

You don’t have to listen to me; you can read it for yourself. And then you can choose to ignore it at your peril. Or you can try to stop lying.

(My opinion on the matter, by the way, is that the whole concept of life-after-death and heaven/hell is just another human-contrived mythology. However, given the number of times I’ve heard fundie christians say the only reason they behave is to avoid hell, well, “heaven help us” if they stop believing in it!)

Sorry Striper, I know this might be taken as quibbling, but I always get suspicious of people who claim to know a lot about the Bible and then go on to refer to the last book of the New Testament as “Revelations”. That just gets on my nerves to no end.

And LoveDoctor, you’re getting less and less relevant as you continue to post here. You may not use terms like “good guy” and “bad guy”, but you are de facto accusing cdward of either not being a Christian or of being a bad one (yea though he has here demonstrated many more Christ-like qualities than have you).

I think it’s high time you fundamentalists (which I use in its original, non-pejorative, meaning) stop accusing the rest of us Christians who take the considered thoughts of scholars into account when reading the Bible of “not believing the Bible”. I’ve been studying the Bible my entire life and deeply love it. I cannot say for sure, but I would imagine cdward could say much the same. Kindly stop trying to hijack the Bible and try walking humbly with your God (per the prophet Micah).

And by the way, LoveDoctor, the opinions expressed by cdward and others are mainstream Christian beliefs, based on the work of theologians, ministers, and priests – not atheists.

All people who voted for Obama are going to hell – LOL!!

You just get better and better, Striper.

(And you’re still completely missing my point….While I’m sure it gives you a lot of comfort to say that my opinion doesn’t count, you should be worried about Rev 21:8, not my opinion.)

Here is the exact verbiage:

“Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Nothing about a free pass for liars who’ve accepted Christ as their lord and savior.

Nothing about being fine if you work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

So either there’s a blatant contradiction in the unerring word of god, or liars are going to burn no matter what they do.

Hmm.

L. Doctor, why on earth would you say I’m acting as “Judge and Jury” if all I’ve done is quote the bible??? Given that I don’t believe in hell, I certainly wouldn’t have written that all liars go there. That’s just what the bible says, in no uncertain terms. Not enough to stop people like Striper from lying, but still.

Regarding your last line, sure enough!

Striper: “Is that the way it is?”

No, Striper, once again you’re confusing your fantasy world based upon your self-admitted assumptions with the real world.

Once you learn to put your strawmen aside, come join us for a real discussion.

Seriously, I’m sure you’re just having fun with us…you’re way too over-the-top to be real. Having made your point, how about congratulating yourself on a job well done, giving it a rest, and coming back to earth?

(And if I’m wrong, and you’re really this unbalanced, then explain to us how your god killed every single innocent unborn child on the planet, yet caused you to be against abortion?)

By the way, why, in the face of very different concerns. did you paste the exact same drivel to so many different threads? Where are you copying it from?

http://www.gocomics.com/bensargent/2009/07/21?comments_page=2

http://www.gocomics.com/chuckasay/2009/07/24/

http://www.gocomics.com/tonyauth/2009/07/23/

http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/07/23/

http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2009/07/22?comments_page=2

Striper, please stop now. You’re embarrassing yourself. There are, in fact, inaccuracies in the Bible as we have it today. Exactly no intelligent people deny that. We know, for instance, that the earliest texts of Mark’s gospel ended with the women running in terror from the tomb and not reporting to anyone else what they had witnessed. We also know that the earliest texts of John’s gospel do not contain the story of Jesus saving the woman caught in adultery.

Check your Bible. Any reputable translation relates these facts, even the conservative NIV.

And no, cdward and I (and other liberal Christians) do not simply throw out passages like these. They are part of the Bible as we have received it and, as such, have much to teach us. But if we tacked the fundamentalist line, we would be incapable of learning these things because we would be incapable of being honest about how the Bible came to us.

L. Doctor: Some christians won’t acknowledge “minor discrepancies” in their “Word of God”.

Apparently doing so would make their god less than what they desire.

For those of us who can take a more dispassionate view, and see the bible for what it is, a collection of books written over a long period of time, selected and edited to a great extent based on various agendas, then the minor, and not so minor discrepances, make perfect sense.

But not to those who have decided that the bible is perfect.

Fair enough.

Love Doctor, did you simply stop reading when you got to my last paragraph? You say that I “feloniously purport that these discrepancies illegitimizes (sic) the Word of God”, yet in my last paragraph, I specifically say that I do not simply throw these portions of the Bible out.

Dude, you really do have a distorted view of reality that simply filters out all the things you don’t like, don’t you?

What exactly do you mean by “accepted Christian Dogma”?

The last words of Jesus…does that qualify?

Jhn 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Since Jesus, by my own observation, seems to weigh fairly heavily in the christian religions, I would think his final words would be of some import.

Not to mention the ending of the Gospel of Mark (the first written of the gospels). I would think that how the story ends might be considered consequential.

And I would echo Anthony’s question about the meaning of “accepted Christian dogma”.

For what it’s worth, I believe that the message of Christ is principally concerned with orthopraxy (right practice) over orthodoxy (right belief). Christ was “theologized” mostly by Paul and John.

This is all well and good, but let us not miss the overwhelming witness of Jesus himself, which is well summed up in his parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31-46). If you want to know whether you’re “right with God” check your life against that list.

When he was hungry, did you feed him? When he was naked, did you clothe him? When he was in prison, did you visit him? Etc.

That non-answer sounds just like ANandy.

And this relates to our questions about how you’re defining christian dogma how?

Puppy, why do you keep changing your ID? It’s really irritating. There’s enough people to keep track of on here without your childish antics.

And what Jesus meant by “It is finished” isn’t the issue. The issue is that John says those are his last words; Luke says they aren’t. This is offered in response to your statement “Tpenna, the “inaccuracies” you cite are inconsequential. Do you have any that militate against accepted Christian Dogma to any significant degree?”

The fact that you’re choosing not to address this sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

C’mon, Senor. Puppy is just another christian who’s ashamed to be a christian.

No wonder she (he?) keeps trying to hide her (his?) identify.

Puppy, I have no problems accepting biblical contradictions and inaccuracies when one accepts the book for what it is.

But there are those that claim it’s the inerrant word of a perfect god. Guess not.

Puppy, the bible clearly attributes two different sentences as Jesus’ last words (and that’s ignoring the other accounts).

And that is just one of the many errors and discrepancies in the bible.

For you “I’ve yet to find a single mistake in the Bible” simply means you’re either lying again, or you’ve never looked.

Take a look at all the mistakes other people have found.