Ben Carson has a great idea: Oregon massacre victims should have gotten their shit together and banded together to attack the shooter.
More thoughts on gun culture and the aura of menace from TPM Reader JR ...
Your commenter BF notes there is no equivalent to the anti-abortion protests, against guns. There are a lot of reasons for this, but I'd like to highlight one I think most people are genuinely afraid to talk about. The pro-gun forces have guns, and practice how to use them to protect "their rights" all the time. They fantasize about pointless shoot outs and martyrdom, as resistance to tyranny.
More thoughts on guns from TPM Reader BF ...
A new gun shop just opened in my neighborhood. There was apparently a protest there one day, though I only heard about it afterwards, and there has been no activity there since. I'm a registered Democrat, a liberal voter, a donor to all sorts of liberal causes, yet no one bothered to reach out to me and ask for support in protesting this new store, or invite me to come out picket. There may be national groups doing something, but at least in my neighborhood there is no grassroots gun control movement at all.
I don't think I've ever written anything positive about WaPo editorial page editor Free Hiatt (so maybe I should give this more thought?). That's mainly because of the page's relentlessly establishmentarian tone and our radically different ideas about foreign policy. But here's a column that is important and which you should read. Hiatt gets at a key issue: the biggest victory of the NRA over the last generation isn't so much making even the slightest and most modest gun control measures a political impossibility. The bigger win is the strategic victory of focusing the 'debate' on to such small-bore measures. Let me unpack what I mean by this.
There's a lot of news going on this week (no, we're not complaining). So let's take a moment to observe a pretty embarrassing series of developments in the House GOP leadership transition. Last week, out-going Speaker Boehner scheduled a vote to succeed him for this Thursday, Oct. 8. In case you're just waking up and need this emphasized, that's really, really soon - just three days away. Meanwhile, heir apparent Kevin McCarthy chose last week to kick off an embarrassing gaffe saga which not only raised serious questions about whether he's ready to be, effectively, one of the party's key national spokesmen, but also threatened a critical GOP asset: the ability to use the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi in 2012 to raise money and lower the poll numbers of Hillary Clinton. In other words, a big deal. The story was pushed out of the headlines in part by the horrific massacre in Oregon. But the story seems to still be escalating. So McCarthy's march to his coronation is likely to continue to proceed in parallel with a chorus of calls for him to apologize, recant, prove he's not a doofus and even drop out of the run for Speaker. And those are all coming not from Democrats or the media but from Republicans!
In a heated post late Friday, I argued that we've made our choice about guns as a society. Some people called this defeatist. But it's not. I'm not saying the choice can't change at some point in the future. I'm just stating the obvious, which is that the choice is settled and un-conflicted: no amount of massacres or scales of body counts or simply annual numbers of people killed by firearms matter. The ability to have unfettered access to guns is an absolute. This is confirmed by a substantial amount of public opinion research that shows not only that pro-gun sentiment has increased since the Newton Massacre in 2012 but that by many measures it has crossed a historic threshold where 'gun rights' has become the dominant US position.
Jeb weighs bringing in W to save dying campaign.
On eve of mega storm, Christie cans transportation chief over ties to ever expanding Bridgegate scandal.
On eve of Vatican synod on the family, Vatican priest comes out as gay, introduces his boyfriend and is promptly fired from his job.
Our latest gun massacre raises the troubling effectiveness of the possible use of profiling to limit access to fire arms ...
1. Are you a man?
2. Are you white?
3. Are you between the ages of 15 and 30?
4. Are you currently in a mutually satisfying romantic relationship?
5. Do you feel alone?
6. Do you feel angry?
7. Do you frequently visit 4chan?
8. Do you spend a substantial part of every day thinking about firearms?
With all you've learned about Prime in the last two weeks, probably the only question left is: how much more dignity does Josh have left to expend on this drive? Well, a lot. Because Prime is important and if you're a daily reader of TPM we think you think TPM is important. Prime improves your TPM experience and makes you part of keeping TPM vital and focused on what it does best.
We are just 11 subscribers shy of 800 new signups in our Prime sign up drive so far. So now is the moment. Go directly to this link, pull out your credit card and join TPM! I know it's easier to do it later. That's the biggest hurdle for most folks. I'd probably do it later. But I'm hardly the standard you want to aspire to, people. So really, can you take a moment and do it now? Seize the moment and sign up for Prime.
The level of hysteria and Putin-worship in the Beltway foreign policy bubble is getting intense and comical.
Over the course of the day we've had a handful of readers write in to ask or demand that we not report the name of the shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, in the Oregon school massacre. As the massacres continue, an increasing number of people think that we should expunge the names of the offenders both to obliterate their memory and deny them whatever infamy or perverted glory they hoped to gain by their crimes. I respect this viewpoint. I simply do not agree with it as something a news organization can or should do. There are various specifics of the argument. But for me it comes down to this: news organizations should report all relevant news. Criminals, of all people, should not directly or indirectly affect that. Except in very specific cases, when grave and overriding equities are at stake, that's the rule we should follow. You can agree or disagree. If it's the latter, I respect your disagreement. But that's not the real point I want to discuss here. Over the course of yesterday and today I've noticed a new phenomenon that seems to have come into its own with this latest tragedy. The refusal to name these offenders' names is now transforming into a purported symbol of action and defiance.
It looks like the Sheriff overseeing the Oregon massacre probe, John Hanlin, isn't just a pro-gun extremist. He's also a Sandy Hook Massacre Truther.