If the fear and paranoia that is the alleged basis of ‘need for guns’ in republican circles continues we’re doomed to a constant stream of deaths of innocent people and children who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Like their schoolrooms. Or the grocery store or a concert or a tavern. Or like Donald Trump has threatened all of this country ‘ You come after me ill come after you’ .
A wonderful example of why he should never again be a President of a Democracy.
If you don’t go along with his shaky takes on people who disagree with him, you could be killed.
He has openly declared hostilities by his followers.
Many of whom own guns and see that as their solution.
Ron De Santis . Another republican candidate for the presidency. ‘ will slit throats on day one’ .
These are important messages. Remember, ‘when they tell you who they are , believe them.’
And the ‘Cruelty is still the point’.
These individuals actually condone the atmosphere of mass shootings .
They both want to be presidential candidates .
Is this really the best
America has to offer ?
American republicans want to be killers of anyone who gets in the way of them getting what they want .
And that includes people who want to “ shoot turkeys” with automatic weapons.
And anyone else who gets in their way , including children.
If the Pro-Lifers were really pro-life they would be huge supporters of stronger gun regulations. If the Law and Order/Support the Blue ( Police ) rallying cry were true there would be a huge push for stronger gun regulations. If we truly wanted to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk we would elect politicians who would support and legislate for the true morals and ethical values of our majority, or have we??? As Thom says, tag your it, see you at the voting booth.😊
Pro life is just a bumper sticker, for the patriarchal minded. They detest women, especially their female supporters (for being full fledged idiots).. Women of their own mind and self validation are a threat to these weaklings (they may be strong in body, but are weak in mind and self exteem) and the only way they can "get it up" is to be in charge of the sex object, that is why so many are pedophiles, not that there aren't female pedophiles).
To complete the sex act males need to be dominant, look around at nature and you will see what I mean, and the female has to go into heat (estrace) to make her acceptable to breeding.
Human males and females don't even think of breeding until puberty when the hormones start up, except when the see something on TV, the movies in a book or from their peers gossiping in the school yard, then it is curiosity, not the sex drive.
And another reason they fear abortion, is because abortion is a rejection of the male and his mini me.
I wholeheartedly agree that the situation with modern semi-automatic rifles and shotguns is appallingly deadly and must be seriously changed. Their purchase must be made contingent on having a current hunting license appropriate to the weapon being purchased along with some or all of the conditions Thom mentions above. But I suggest that the virtual banning of them is unnecessary. I recommend a fundamental change to the design of their receivers will accomplish much the same thing:
Abolish ALL receivers with an open floor that accept a separate magazine of ammo.
The WWII M1 Garand, as conventionally manufactured, did this while the M1 Carbine did not. In the case of the standard issued M1 Garand, a "c;lip" holding 8 rounds had to be inserted from the top of the receiver. No magazine could be inserted from the bottom of the receiver. This should be the requirement for all semi-automatic rifles. And the space allowed within the receiver for such a clip could be reduced to make only three or four rounds insertable.
In the case of shotguns, whether a pump or a semi-automatic, all shells must be manually loaded, one at a time with the built in magazine capable of holding no more than three to five rounds.
Actual hunters do not need large numbers of rounds on board. With regard to rifles, one usually gets only one accurate shot opportunity with big game. And when hunting birds, the number of good shots available is also usually limited to one. If hunting ducks or geese in flight, one can get, maybe, three or four clean shots off if the flock(s) is/are large.
Again, the point is to make large (as in anything larger than three or four rounds for rifles and not much more for shotguns) capacity magazines -- separate, insertable magazines in particular -- disappear, not necessarily the whole weapon. The design and manufacture of the receiver must be made such that it cannot be modified to accept a separate magazine. All tooling for existing open floor receivers must be destroyed.
And then we come to the issue of all those rifles and shotguns with open receivers already on the streets. They must be bought back and destroyed. Ditto for all large, capacity magazines. And their manufacturers must be required to pay a large portion of those buybacks. If/When the manufacturers declare bankruptcy, their only recourse is total liquidation.
M. Conrad, excellent idea about top loading vs. Bottom loading guns. Just might work yet still allow genuine hunters more than one shot at their targets.
I sure do like your post. Only I would go further and ban anything other than a bolt action rifle and a double barreled shotgun.
As for home defense, nothing is better than a shotgun.And other than law enforcement, nobody needs a pistol or revolver, and these days I don't trust LEO's, as they are fascist Trump Humpers who see the badge and uniform as a hunting license for two legged game., most of whom are POC.
My husband is now deceased, but served in the U.S. Army during the Viet Nam era. He went through basic training, earned a Sharp Shooter medal, but served as a percussionist in the Army Band. He owned a couple of hunting rifles. Many times I heard him say, “No one in their right mind should own a military type weapon.”
Wow, on all this Thom. What great reading on this. I’m going really. Whatever the reason to want these guns is a list of just killing and maiming people. All of this is deep though. I just think people are fixated on just having a weapon in their hands. It gives them a sense of power. To me power is being able to control your need to want to hurt people with the gun in the first place. Thank you Oh, Captain my Captain letting me understand the thinking on all this. More guns than people, come on.
Mr. Hartman, the best I have read on the subject. In fact I am not sure anyone has, until now, clarified the points you have made in this article. Gun enthusiasts will easily follow your argument. Those unfamiliar with guns should be able to follow you as well.
I think some people own guns because they think the government is tyrannical (or could become so) and they see themselves as akin to the Founders and Revolutionary War soldiers. Like the heroes of the Revolutionary Era they are armed and therefore able to fight tyrants and protect liberty.
This may sound crazy but I think this is the reasoning of some Americans and motivates them to be armed with military weapons so they are ready when the time comes for them to preserve or restore liberty.
I noticed that the application for owning an automatic weapon does not include alcohol consumption, when it is well known and proven that alcohol is actually a drug, that causes you to lose control, and causes a person to be violent. Marijuana is just the opposite, people get mellow, laugh easily and eat gross amounts of junk food.
Don’t you get tired doing all the detailed railing at what doesn’t work? For sure you won’t run out of things to write about, but how about another tack where you deal with righting the wrongs that are everywhere by looking at what causes them? Like change how people feel about what humanity is here for. We should have a humanitarian society where caring rules and not an economic one where greed rules and so many struggle to survive. What to do about that? And by the buy, as long as you’re on the subject of guns, why wouldn’t you popularize how they handle them in Japan that has no school shootings? I link to that info in my Substack where I talk about things that are so different from our understanding that we go blind to even seeing what’s in front of our eyes: https://tinyurl.com/4vmc7kfv.
Suzanne. I will quote what I just heard on Justified, : City primeval from the defense attorney
Carolyn Wilder (Anjanue Ellis). You do your job and I will do mine.
Thom's voice is very much needed, because he brings facts and even solutions to the table.
Your voice has it's place, but is not viable, because you don't have any workable solutions.
To simplify: Thom: This is the world as it is.
You: This is the world as I wish it was.
If wishes were horses.
Thom lays out facts that are the basis for organizing (people have a need to organize), quite different from sitting in comfy chairs having a spot of high tea, while high browing with like thinking friends.l
Recommend apologizing to Thom for being so snippy.
Thom, did you think I was snippy? If you thought so, was it okay, as in adding some zest to things? You are too valuable to be pushed out of sorts, so bad me if you felt snipped at. William, you are so nice being protective of Thom, our mutual treasure. But, don't judge a lifetime by a comment. You will enjoy seeing how interesting my solutions are: https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/s/changemaking-now. Am actually looking for like-thinking friends -- am open to hearing from folks.
I did not feel that you were being snippy to me, if you were, then water off a ducks back.
It was Thom and your response to his well informed and factual rant. I don't idolize Thom I have knowledge of facts that, some time refute and other times expand on his rants. And I do not use the word rant disparagingly. My comments are usually rants, especially when they are TL:DR I am well aware of my own faults, failings and deficits. We are, after all,imperfect beings.
If the fear and paranoia that is the alleged basis of ‘need for guns’ in republican circles continues we’re doomed to a constant stream of deaths of innocent people and children who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Like their schoolrooms. Or the grocery store or a concert or a tavern. Or like Donald Trump has threatened all of this country ‘ You come after me ill come after you’ .
A wonderful example of why he should never again be a President of a Democracy.
If you don’t go along with his shaky takes on people who disagree with him, you could be killed.
He has openly declared hostilities by his followers.
Many of whom own guns and see that as their solution.
Ron De Santis . Another republican candidate for the presidency. ‘ will slit throats on day one’ .
These are important messages. Remember, ‘when they tell you who they are , believe them.’
And the ‘Cruelty is still the point’.
These individuals actually condone the atmosphere of mass shootings .
They both want to be presidential candidates .
Is this really the best
America has to offer ?
American republicans want to be killers of anyone who gets in the way of them getting what they want .
And that includes people who want to “ shoot turkeys” with automatic weapons.
And anyone else who gets in their way , including children.
WTF is wrong with these people?
So much , so very much.
I must say, WTF is wrong with these people about a million times a day...
If the Pro-Lifers were really pro-life they would be huge supporters of stronger gun regulations. If the Law and Order/Support the Blue ( Police ) rallying cry were true there would be a huge push for stronger gun regulations. If we truly wanted to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk we would elect politicians who would support and legislate for the true morals and ethical values of our majority, or have we??? As Thom says, tag your it, see you at the voting booth.😊
Pro life is just a bumper sticker, for the patriarchal minded. They detest women, especially their female supporters (for being full fledged idiots).. Women of their own mind and self validation are a threat to these weaklings (they may be strong in body, but are weak in mind and self exteem) and the only way they can "get it up" is to be in charge of the sex object, that is why so many are pedophiles, not that there aren't female pedophiles).
To complete the sex act males need to be dominant, look around at nature and you will see what I mean, and the female has to go into heat (estrace) to make her acceptable to breeding.
Human males and females don't even think of breeding until puberty when the hormones start up, except when the see something on TV, the movies in a book or from their peers gossiping in the school yard, then it is curiosity, not the sex drive.
And another reason they fear abortion, is because abortion is a rejection of the male and his mini me.
I wholeheartedly agree that the situation with modern semi-automatic rifles and shotguns is appallingly deadly and must be seriously changed. Their purchase must be made contingent on having a current hunting license appropriate to the weapon being purchased along with some or all of the conditions Thom mentions above. But I suggest that the virtual banning of them is unnecessary. I recommend a fundamental change to the design of their receivers will accomplish much the same thing:
Abolish ALL receivers with an open floor that accept a separate magazine of ammo.
The WWII M1 Garand, as conventionally manufactured, did this while the M1 Carbine did not. In the case of the standard issued M1 Garand, a "c;lip" holding 8 rounds had to be inserted from the top of the receiver. No magazine could be inserted from the bottom of the receiver. This should be the requirement for all semi-automatic rifles. And the space allowed within the receiver for such a clip could be reduced to make only three or four rounds insertable.
In the case of shotguns, whether a pump or a semi-automatic, all shells must be manually loaded, one at a time with the built in magazine capable of holding no more than three to five rounds.
Actual hunters do not need large numbers of rounds on board. With regard to rifles, one usually gets only one accurate shot opportunity with big game. And when hunting birds, the number of good shots available is also usually limited to one. If hunting ducks or geese in flight, one can get, maybe, three or four clean shots off if the flock(s) is/are large.
Again, the point is to make large (as in anything larger than three or four rounds for rifles and not much more for shotguns) capacity magazines -- separate, insertable magazines in particular -- disappear, not necessarily the whole weapon. The design and manufacture of the receiver must be made such that it cannot be modified to accept a separate magazine. All tooling for existing open floor receivers must be destroyed.
And then we come to the issue of all those rifles and shotguns with open receivers already on the streets. They must be bought back and destroyed. Ditto for all large, capacity magazines. And their manufacturers must be required to pay a large portion of those buybacks. If/When the manufacturers declare bankruptcy, their only recourse is total liquidation.
M. Conrad, excellent idea about top loading vs. Bottom loading guns. Just might work yet still allow genuine hunters more than one shot at their targets.
I sure do like your post. Only I would go further and ban anything other than a bolt action rifle and a double barreled shotgun.
As for home defense, nothing is better than a shotgun.And other than law enforcement, nobody needs a pistol or revolver, and these days I don't trust LEO's, as they are fascist Trump Humpers who see the badge and uniform as a hunting license for two legged game., most of whom are POC.
My husband is now deceased, but served in the U.S. Army during the Viet Nam era. He went through basic training, earned a Sharp Shooter medal, but served as a percussionist in the Army Band. He owned a couple of hunting rifles. Many times I heard him say, “No one in their right mind should own a military type weapon.”
Wow, on all this Thom. What great reading on this. I’m going really. Whatever the reason to want these guns is a list of just killing and maiming people. All of this is deep though. I just think people are fixated on just having a weapon in their hands. It gives them a sense of power. To me power is being able to control your need to want to hurt people with the gun in the first place. Thank you Oh, Captain my Captain letting me understand the thinking on all this. More guns than people, come on.
Mr. Hartman, the best I have read on the subject. In fact I am not sure anyone has, until now, clarified the points you have made in this article. Gun enthusiasts will easily follow your argument. Those unfamiliar with guns should be able to follow you as well.
I think some people own guns because they think the government is tyrannical (or could become so) and they see themselves as akin to the Founders and Revolutionary War soldiers. Like the heroes of the Revolutionary Era they are armed and therefore able to fight tyrants and protect liberty.
This may sound crazy but I think this is the reasoning of some Americans and motivates them to be armed with military weapons so they are ready when the time comes for them to preserve or restore liberty.
I noticed that the application for owning an automatic weapon does not include alcohol consumption, when it is well known and proven that alcohol is actually a drug, that causes you to lose control, and causes a person to be violent. Marijuana is just the opposite, people get mellow, laugh easily and eat gross amounts of junk food.
Don’t you get tired doing all the detailed railing at what doesn’t work? For sure you won’t run out of things to write about, but how about another tack where you deal with righting the wrongs that are everywhere by looking at what causes them? Like change how people feel about what humanity is here for. We should have a humanitarian society where caring rules and not an economic one where greed rules and so many struggle to survive. What to do about that? And by the buy, as long as you’re on the subject of guns, why wouldn’t you popularize how they handle them in Japan that has no school shootings? I link to that info in my Substack where I talk about things that are so different from our understanding that we go blind to even seeing what’s in front of our eyes: https://tinyurl.com/4vmc7kfv.
Suzanne. I will quote what I just heard on Justified, : City primeval from the defense attorney
Carolyn Wilder (Anjanue Ellis). You do your job and I will do mine.
Thom's voice is very much needed, because he brings facts and even solutions to the table.
Your voice has it's place, but is not viable, because you don't have any workable solutions.
To simplify: Thom: This is the world as it is.
You: This is the world as I wish it was.
If wishes were horses.
Thom lays out facts that are the basis for organizing (people have a need to organize), quite different from sitting in comfy chairs having a spot of high tea, while high browing with like thinking friends.l
Recommend apologizing to Thom for being so snippy.
Thom, did you think I was snippy? If you thought so, was it okay, as in adding some zest to things? You are too valuable to be pushed out of sorts, so bad me if you felt snipped at. William, you are so nice being protective of Thom, our mutual treasure. But, don't judge a lifetime by a comment. You will enjoy seeing how interesting my solutions are: https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/s/changemaking-now. Am actually looking for like-thinking friends -- am open to hearing from folks.
I did not feel that you were being snippy to me, if you were, then water off a ducks back.
It was Thom and your response to his well informed and factual rant. I don't idolize Thom I have knowledge of facts that, some time refute and other times expand on his rants. And I do not use the word rant disparagingly. My comments are usually rants, especially when they are TL:DR I am well aware of my own faults, failings and deficits. We are, after all,imperfect beings.
Cheers
Re-read what I wrote. You aren't responding to it.
I did and here is what I was responding to when I said snippy
"but how about another tack where you deal with righting the wrongs that are everywhere by looking at what causes them?"
And yes that is snippy
Frankly you appear to be telling Thom to change his style, stop educating and join your team.
You and Thom have your own emphasis, your own ideas. your own motivation. your own purpose.