After Newtown, Can We Never Use Gun Metaphors Again?

I happened to be watching CNBC's Closing Bell this afternoon which featured a segment in which various analysts were trying to explain the upbeat equities markets. One of the analysts was Michael Pento, of Pento Portfolio Strategies, who decried again the "Keynesian counterfeiters with their Kamikaze monetary and fiscal policies have taken over the developed world."

In any case, the discussion turned to how Congress and President Obama's administration could screw up the economy over the upcoming debt ceiling crisis, etc. To describe the situation, everyone on the panel was using the conventional metaphor of Congress and the Feds "shooting themselves in the foot." Toward the end, the irrepressible Mr. Pento, said something along the lines of (I've failed to find the video so far, I will try to link to it later):

Not only are Congress and the Feds shooting themselves in the foot, but by racking up trillions of dollars in debt, they're shooting our children in the head.

Insensitive lout that I am, I thought it was actually a pretty good metaphor for the point Pento was making. However, one of the CNBC presenters (not Maria Bartiromo, but another guy who's not the usual co-host) was evidently offended. When the camera switched back to him, he rather frostily asked Pento if he'd like to change the way he characterized public policy? Pento looked confused. Once the segment was over, the presenter made it clear that he thought that gun metaphors, especially those involving children, to describe disastrous fiscal policies were inappropriate.

No actual children were harmed by the metaphor, but Federal fiscal policy definitely will.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Sounds like the host went off half-cocked.

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    Bartiromo's definitely shooting blanks.

  • juris imprudent||

    Just another flash in the pan.

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    Oooo! A flintlock reference! Well done, sir!

  • Tejicano||

    We must rid our language of guns references lock, stock, and barrel.

  • Drake||

    Joe Biden (for real):

    “And so I’m going to be submitting to the president a proposal as to how to proceed. I’m shooting for Tuesday.”

    http://www.zimbio.com/Biden/ar.....ng+Tuesday

  • cw||

    Reminds me of the final scene in Cosmopolis (a fairly wretched movie) where the evil billionaire asset manager says to the poor lefty he fired (who had alleged the manager's business contributed to pollution as far as India), "You never actually gave a shit about other people."

  • ||

    If only that host would shoot himself in the head.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Once the segment was over, the presenter made it clear that he thought that gun metaphors, especially those involving children, to describe disastrous fiscal policies were inappropriate.

    I wonder if Weimar Germany analogies give him the flutters.

  • robc||

    Imperial Japan analogies were apparently okay, he let the kamikaze one pass.

  • Jordan||

    More proof that the Newtown Massacre really was a religious experience for gun grabbing idiots.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    ESPN likes to do this immediate apology crap all the time. I think it was the during the 2010 NFL draft when Matt Millen called Ron Jaworski a "pollock" in jest. Immediately following the next commercial break, they had Millen address the camera on air to make an apology. Let that sink in a minute; they didn't even wait to see if anyone was actually offended before they issued a complaint.

    Same thing with this incident. Yeah, you don't want to lose your viewership, but at least wait to see if there are any actual complaints before you cut to the awkward apology that just makes viewers even more uncomfortable.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    *"issued an apology"

  • Jeff||

    Well, you really can't be too cautious. The Fish-American community is a notoriously touchy one.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I personally hate racial and ethnic stereotypes, and I don't see I problem with the corporate guys issuing a statement online or through other news services apologizing for the remarks.

    But, let's face it, the insincere, single camera focus as the offending party apologizes for the remarks just minutes after they spontaneously blurted it out just makes the broadcast all the more awkward and uncomfortable to watch.

    Matt Millen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJsGSUQKrs

    Also, Lee Corso: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnVcSjZAuZM

  • Tman||

    So when are they going to apologize for Matt Millen?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    What, didn't like Bunker's "guineau fat thumb on the scale" to describe an Italian butcher wasn't funny?

    I'm Italian and me and my buddies laughed hard at that one. And we're born after the All in the Family.

  • ||

    I always liked this one.

    Shep

  • Entropy Void||

    He really shot his wad on that one.

  • Killazontherun||

    Stalinism and sports news media go together like pollocks and deep dish pizza.

  • SIV||

    Do you know who else had children shot in the head?

  • ||

    Obama?

  • Generic Stranger||

    No, he has them murder-droned. It's slightly different.

  • Lyle||

    Bang! Pow! You've been shot.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We're going to be under the gun to come up with a replacement set of phrases before our economic outlook is finally shot.

  • cw||

    Oh, just shoot me!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You dodged a bullet!

  • juris imprudent||

    You didn't really have him in your sights.

  • ||

    Now we all live under the spectre of the gun.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Lock and load!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Is this like getting rid of war metaphors in sports after 9/11?

  • cw||

    How about war metaphors in politics?

  • Mensan||

    I'd rather get rid of sports metaphors in war.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It's 3rd and goal, 2 outs, and no timeouts left. Gotta sink that Free Throw in Afghanistan or we go to Sudden Death Extra Innings.

  • Gene||

    Or god forbid, a shoot-out.

  • ||

    Looked like the league had to bite the bullet on that one.

  • Cowboy||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFLq7cyHKMg

    one of my favorite futurama lines.

  • Xenocles||

    Don't even have to watch it to know where you're going.

  • Entropy Void||

    I'm all for targeting that.

  • ||

    Do you think that using "shooting children in the head" as a metaphor has ever been anything but tasteless?

  • Jordan||

    Yes. Lighten up, Francis.

  • ||

    Poor McGlone

  • SIV||

    Chief Cosmotarian at Cato Institute sez 20Rounds is Enuff!!

    He also proposes allowing "experts" to draw up a list of unpopular guns to ban:

    I don’t consider myself an expert on the technical features of firearms, and so I’m not prepared to say exactly which weapons would go on the list and which shouldn’t, but I think experts should be able to come up with a pretty good list — obviously not needed for self-defense, obviously dangerous, not in common use. And that would be the new assault weapons ban.

    tags: beltway orange line cocktail party consequentialism cosmotarian "for the childrenz!"

  • Jeff||

    "Why do you NEED that kind of gun for self-defense?"

    Why do you NEED to prove that you NEED something in order to own it in a supposedly free country?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I'm getting tired of the "Well, the government has jets, tanks, and nuclear weapons, so the Second Amendment is outdated!" argument.

    I feel that embedded in such reasoning is a careless glancing over of a fact that the pro-defense against the state people have been saying all along. Namely, that the government has grown too powerful and that if there were a rebellion against a tyrannical state, such an uprising would be too easily suppressed by the more advanced weaponry of the state.

    So, either you admit that guns can be helpful to the defense against the state, or you admit that the state is WAY too powerful and that we should be looking for ways to shrink it to an easily controllable size.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    An armed forces that is small enough and low tech enough that it can't easily defeat a disorganized band of civilian rebels, will not be able to repel an invasion by one of the other world powers.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Is there a single belligerent country in the world today that wouldn't find the infantry forces of America enough of a deterrent to invading the continental US?

  • Jordan||

    There isn't a single country in the world with the logistical capacity to invade the continental U.S.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Thanks to the cocoon of protection that our military affords.

    Which Caleb apparently wants to break open like an ankle blister.

  • ||

    No, thanks to them having to cross an ocean or come through Canada to invade. You don't have to prove to us again that you're a dense, tedious idiot, Tulpa. We already know.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Crossing an ocean isn't a big deal. You may have noticed that there are 2-3 oceans between us and Pakistan and Iraq, yet we managed to pull it off. And Afghanistan is not only 2-3 oceans away but landlocked. Yet we managed to do it.

    And if a country wanted to invade the US over land, they wouldn't pick Canada to go through, they'd pick the country whose border we've long been unable or unwilling to secure.

  • ||

    We would still have a Navy, just a much smaller one. And our subs would sink their troop transports. It's impossible for anyone to come over the ocean. Even assuming no subs, they have to make beachheads, establish perimeters, hold them, and then get more men all while needing tons of supplies and being under constant attack.

    Yeah, sounds like a breeze. And coming through Mexico? How did you get there?

  • Jordan||

    NO WITHOUT A TRILLION DOLLAR MILITARY THE BARBARIAN HORDES WILL OVERRUN US!!!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's cheating. If the feds still have a nuclear navy, they can crush the rebellion in the US, since the battle on the seas will be yachts and jet skis vs. subs and aircraft carriers.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Well, there was real concern on the part of both Canada and the USA that the Soviets would invade from the Arctic during the Cold War. It's part of the reason why NORAD was created and maintained by both countries.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, there was real concern on the part of both Canada and the USA that the Soviets would invade from the Arctic during the Cold War. It's part of the reason why NORAD was created and maintained by both countries.

    Norad - North American *Air* Defense - was created to deal with nuclear missiles and bombers coming from over the north pole (shortest distance between us and them), not because we expected soldiers and tanks to come that way.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm much more concerned with what Californians can do in the House of Reps and Senate with their ballots than I ever will with North Korea can do with a landing party.

  • Agammamon||

    ". . .they'd pick the country whose border we've long been unable or unwilling to secure."

    Soo, Canada?

  • Jordan||

    The ocean provides most of the defense that we need against foreign invasions. Russia and China have almost no heavy lift capacity or the ability to sustain supply lines to support such an operation.

  • robc||

    Costa Rica is doing fine without a cocoon of protection.

  • Agammamon||

    "There isn't a single country in the world with the logistical capacity to invade the continental U.S."

    Well Canada and Mexico could make a pretty impressive attempt.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What do you mean by "belligerent"? A lot more countries would be belligerent toward us if they thought they could beat us.

    Russia and China would chop the US into pieces if our weapons technology was backwards enough to give a civilian uprising a chance at success.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I don't know about Russia. But China probably likes the current trading relationship it has with the US more than the potential spoils it could reap from a war with the US.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Unless they're idiots, they'd value a North American colony full of industry and natural resources more than a pile of soon to be worthless pieces of paper, which is what they're trading for right now.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not to mention the women, which are going to be in short supply for the next generation of Chinese men.

  • Redmanfms||

    Unless they're idiots, they'd value a North American colony full of industry and natural resources, blah blah blah

    Fucking Jesus, seriously?

    If invading for natural resources because some nation is militarily weaker why hasn't China invaded and annexed Africa?

  • Jordan||

    That must be why Eastern Europe has been reconquered by Russia.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If the US military was weak enough that it could be defeated by a civil insurrection, they would have. Russia is afraid of NATO.

  • ||

    I'm sure if China could take America, America probably wouldn't be worth taking anymore.

  • Agammamon||

    "If the US military was weak enough that it could be defeated by a civil insurrection, they would have. Russia is afraid of NATO."

    You're making a rather poor assumption - that the US military is a homogenous block loyal to DC. We're not, never have been.

    1. Small scale insurrection is a *state* thing - in order for the feds to get involved *militarily* (not police, actual soldiers) either the state governor has to request that or things have to be so bad that the governor is OOC (ie the revolt is so large-scale the governor has lost control or is part of the revolt himself)

    If its that large then there's a good chance that some not small percentage of the army would refuse to respond, respond ineffectively, or flat out join 'em.

  • Jordan||

    If the Iraqis can give the most advanced military in the world a run for its money, I think we'd be okay. Not to mention that U.S. military personnel are Americans too, not robots.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If the US wanted to crush Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan under our boots and force their culture and uniqueness to service ours, we could have done it. The Iraqi resistance was only not futile because our mission was to get them to play nice with each other.

  • ||

    Do you really think that the US could oppose a popular insurrection by treating it like it was an invading horde?

  • ||

    Yes, yes he does.

  • RFID||

    Is it 1812 or something? Which foreign power has the ability to even threaten the civilian population of the US? And why would they want to?

  • Jordan||

    Nobody, despite the protests of neocon pantswetters.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Because they want our natural resources, our industry, and our wealth. Why does anyone conquer anyplace?

    You guys are fooling yourselves if you think the US would be OK without a modern military. It would be a sitting duck, a road apple.

  • ||

    The business infrastructure and industry, as well as much of the material wealth, isn't something that would be theirs through a simple military takeover. They'd have to completely ruin the former, and at least partially the latter, in the process. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure they understand this better than you.

  • juris imprudent||

    I think Tulpa is operating the Chavez-Imanutjob level of crushing the Great Satan.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I think you guys are all flerking deluded, if you think random guys running around with ARs can defeat a modern army that isn't held back by human rights concerns like ours mostly is.

    Thank god you don't have any real political power if your goal is to unilaterally disarm and count on the oceans and Mexicans to protect us.

  • Coeus||

    I think you guys are all flerking deluded, if you think random guys running around with ARs can defeat a modern army that isn't held back by human rights concerns like ours mostly is.

    If we're politically concerned enough about the human rights of foreign people on the other side of the planet to hold back, why in the hell would you thing that those concerns would not apply to citizens on american soil? Especially considering the risks of collateral damage to the bootlickers that they rely upon for power?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm not talking about the American military, I'm talking about a potential foreign invading military.

  • Coeus||

    I'm not talking about the American military, I'm talking about a potential foreign invading military.

    So why wouldn't we have the superior tech, then? Nobody wants to burn the science books, we just don't want a huge standing army.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You need more than science books to repel an invasion.

    The standing army isn't the reason any rebellion would probably fail, the existence of the technological weaponry is.

  • Coeus||

    The standing army isn't the reason any rebellion would probably fail, the existence of the technological weaponry is.

    And who here is saying we shouldn't have that?

  • ||

    Yes cause the Feds are going to nuke huge swaths of the breadbasket. Jesus Christ Tulpa, stroke that Pentagon boner harder.

  • Ted S.||

    The War on Drugs doesn't seem to be doing much damage to the folks in power, unfortunately.

  • Agammamon||

    "Thank god you don't have any real political power if your goal is to unilaterally disarm and count on the oceans and Mexicans to protect us."

    Wait, who is saying this here? What I see is you saying that the *citizens* don't need to worry about defense from the government because the military is so powerful - therefore *we* should disarm, not the government.

  • Redmanfms||

    It's just Tulpa up to his usual contrarian horseshit again. He thinks he is injected Drano into the clogged toilet that is HandR's glibertarian commentariat, but he is too poorly informed to understand that he is the one full of shit.

    This is why I don't like military movies, morons like Tulpa gleen all they know about the military and servicemembers from watching them, then act like they have the slightest fucking clue what they are talking about.

  • sloopyinca||

    If anybody needed a good example of why Tulpa is full of shit, they need look back no further than WW2. We had shrunk our military level to nearly nothing and we went from being invaded/attacked in Dec of 1941 to annihilating two powers on two/three different continents in under 4 years.

    All we need to do is keep the tech, and if we're ever invaded/attacked again, the lines of men and women signing up to defend America would be miles long at every recruiting station. And they could use that tech and our ramped-up industrial sector to crush any enemy we wanted to.

    History: use it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 1.11.13 @ 11:01PM |#

    You need more than science books to repel an invasion.

    Yep, everbody forgets the dozens of invasion the US suffered from 1866-1940 when we had one of the smallest militaries in the world.

  • GILMORE||

    TULPA WATCH RED DAWN2, TULPA KNOW DETROIT IS FIRST CITY TO FALL TO KOREAN PARATROOPERS

    (frankly, give it to them)

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    What is the first rule of war, Tulpa? War is an extension of politics. Second rule of war? The victor is determined by whomever gained the most from the war (regardless of kill ratios). Who won the Vietnam War? The North Vietnamese and (what was left) of the Viet Cong. The US and even the South Vietnamese killed a lot more Communists, but they ended up winning anyways. It's not about who did the most killing, but who got what they wanted.

    Yes, a handful of armed civilians has no hope of defeating any sizable or competent army. Even a few million would be unlikely. Tens of millions? Now we are talking.

  • robc||

    Tulpa didnt learn the lesson from the American Revolution.

    A band of militias cannot defeat the greatest army in the world, unless they want to win more than them. The British could have crushed the colonies if they were willing to do it. But they werent willing to spend the lives and capital to do it.

    Same for US and Vietnam or US and Afghanistan or US and Iraq or Russia and Afghanistan.

    Same for US and US.

    For Japan and Germany we were willing to do it. But if you really want to lose to a rebellion, try being the president who nukes his own country.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    Exactly.

    A lot of the weapons the American military has at its disposal would be useless in an armed uprising. Aircraft carrier, submarines, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, and so on isn't very helpful when dealing with insurgents in the first place. Never mind on your own soil.

    Just so one takes what I am saying out of context. I am talking about when the government becomes undisputedly tyrannical. Like willing to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people. I am talking about the type of situation where a President would declare himself President for Life or if there was a coup or some other hypothetical situation that many people think could never happen in the US or in democratic countries (despite the historical evidence that suggests that democracy and relatively free society are the exception, not the rule).

    As much as think the current leadership of the "Free World" sucks; it could be worse. Much worse. That is why I support the right to bear arms. Because if the "worse" does happen it is best to have other options available. If crushing protests could lead to a massive armed uprising that would force the would-be oppressors to choose between being overthrown or slaughtering their own people while destroying much of what is worth fighting over, they might be a little reluctant to crush those protests in the first place.

  • ||

    a. Ask the US Military if an enemy with nothing more than "assault rifles" can mount an effective defense against a superiorly armed force.

    b. If the insurrection is legitimate, and in my opinion the only legitimate insurrection can be due to the government disregarding the Constitution, the military is bound to fight with the insurgents. The oath is to the Constitution, not the government.

  • Agammamon||

    Not to mention - allies.

    Who's to say that the insurrection wouldn't be supported by foreign nations. Nations doing the exact same shit we've done all over the world during my lifetime - provide training, guns, money, and sometimes even fighting allongside the revolt.

  • Xenocles||

    Just ask those people "So who won the air war in Vietnam? Who's winning the air war in Afghanistan? Who's winning the air war in Syria?"

  • KPres||

    "I'm getting tired of the "Well, the government has jets, tanks, and nuclear weapons, so the Second Amendment is outdated!" argument."

    Well, I assume that the first order of business for the insurgency would be to steal as many of those jets and tanks for themselves. You don't think a few MILLION armed citizens could overtake whatever several THOUSAND soldiers they have guarding them?

    As far as the nukes, that's out of the question for the same reason nukes are out of the question in any other war. It would draw the rest of the world into the conflict against them.

  • Redmanfms||

    Most people have no conception of just how poorly defended most CONUS military installations really are. Armed with some wire cutters and bolt cutters one can quite easily gain access to armor and artillery repositories. Shawn Nelson did it all on his onsies.

    A huge number of the people rebelling would themselves be veterans, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see wide-scale desertion too.

    Also, humans are needed to operate these machines. I'm not going to be going head-to-head with a MBT, but I can surely fuck up the driver of the unarmored tanker that is needed to keep it running with an AR. Drone operators have to eat and sleep and go somewhere when they aren't on duty, same with airmen. And if they aren't easily accessible, their families will be pretty easy to target for retribution.

    A wide-scale armed rebellion would be successful in destroying the U.S. government, even granting the statist assumption that the military doesn't fracture and the Feds mobilize and maintain control of National Guard assets.

  • Gray Ghost||

    As far as the nukes, that's out of the question for the same reason nukes are out of the question in any other war. It would draw the rest of the world into the conflict against them.

    I don't know about that. Would we really have gotten involved if a hypothetical Soviet Civil War had gone nuclear? Other than to say that if we saw any ICBMs flying, we're going to assume they're aimed at us. We owe a giant debt of gratitude to the people who secured the WMDs during the fall of the Soviet Union and the coup that followed. I'm sure they also have one hell of a story to tell. Still surprised they didn't misplace/sell any.

    If we're going to compare a hypothetical U.S. insurrection with the Iraq/Afghanistan situation, aren't we also assuming that D.C. will end up looking like the Green Zone or Bagram? The point being that the President may be very well protected, but Members of Congress aren't. Statistically, one of these gun nuts that we think is going to start another Waco, isn't going to wait for the Gov't to come to him. And then the repression will go to 11.

    I wonder what the plans are at the National Guard level for coping with a state-wide insurrection, and what the results were when it was gamed out?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    (Addendum: Of course, the weaponry of the citizenry need not be as advanced as the state to cause enough of a determent to full-fledged tyranny. Remember, the Colonials were tremendously outgunned by the British military, but they were able to stave off the invading forces long enough to bring the support of the Spanish and French governments.)

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The asymmetry between the Brits and the colonials was nowhere near as stark as that between the US and nearly every other military on earth. Let alone the asymmetry between the US armed forces and a bunch of pasty IT guys running around with ARs.

    What advanced weaponry did the Brits have that the colonials didn't, anyway? The biggest advantage they had was their navy. Which is why they controlled pretty much every port for the duration of the war.

    And of course 46 years later they pasted our militias while fighting another war in Europe.

  • SIV||

    a bunch of pasty IT guys running around with ARs.

    Projection?

  • ||

    No no, Tulpa is a pasty faculty guy.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    Read up on guerrilla warfare tactics. Read up on what various successful and semi-successful guerrilla leaders have done. I'm talking about Mao, Che, Giap, Washington, and others. You don't just keep what you have and you don't attack the enemy at their strongest if you can avoid it. You capture weapons when possible, you fight as close to them as possible so air support and artillery support becomes risky. You use sabotage and try to attack their most dangerous and expensive assests (like attack helicopters) when they are the easiest to attack like during refueling or maintainance on the ground.

    Plus, you need to remember we are talking about a hypothetical civil war here. Remember there are different degrees of oppression and even some tyrants get a bit squeemish about killing TOO many people. Sure, a handful of disappearances are no big deal. Maybe running over some protesters with tanks might happen, but the idea of literally declaring war on the population is a step too far for many tyrants.

  • robc||

    You use sabotage and try to attack their most dangerous and expensive assests (like attack helicopters) when they are the easiest to attack like during refueling or maintainance on the ground.

    Add on:

    You kill them in their sleep on Christmas.

  • SIV||

    Ahem

    You kill them in their sleep on Christmas. during the Holiday Season

  • Gray Ghost||

    Also read up on what a guerrilla war does to the population and society in which it's fought. Short answer: it's extremely ugly, and you'd rather have just about any other result than that.

    Question for the older members of the commentariat: was there talk of secession and insurrection/killing members of the Executive during the various desegregation crises of the late 50s through the 60s? If not, why not? Is it that the country is now much more polarized politically than it was then?

  • tarran||

    Yes there were.

    The last succesful insurrection that I know of was the Battle of Athens Tennessee in August of 1946 where several dozen veterans of WW-2 armed with rifles fought a pitched battle with the country sheriff's department for control of the county jail.

    It broke the back of the corrupt group running the county government and prevented them from being able to conduct the normal fraud they used to win elections.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    I'm talking purely hypothetical and as a response to people who claim that armed citizens stand absolutely no chance against a modern military in the case of either the government turning into a dictatorship or an invasion by a foreign power.

    I'm not some paranoid militia member who is planning some crazy shit. First off, I do not believe that it is anywhere near that point where armed resistance is more attractive than legal or technically illegal, but non-violent means of change. Second, I do not own a gun nor do I have any plans to own one in the foreseeable future. Third, I am currently living in Australia.

    As far as the 1950s and 1960s go, I would say they were more polarized. Keep in mind that the KKK was acting a virtual secret police for the Segregationists and often killed and beat Civil Rights workers and the occasional "uppity" black. Plus, you had a lot of Leftist terrorist groups like the SLA, Black Guerrilla Family (which now functions as a prison gang), and the Weatherman who did want to overthrow the government. Watch some "alternative" media from the time like Fritz the Cat and see how many characters openly talk about revolutions and killing off political opponents.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    "Why do you NEED that kind of gun for self-defense?"

    Because while I'm busy clearing the chamber, I can be attacked and butt-raped by several other people.

    Why do you support the butt-rape of innocent citizens?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Meh, I say 30 rounds is enough. 31 and above you're just trying to pad your obviously weak gangsta resume.

  • Jordan||

    but I think experts should be able to come up with a pretty good list

    TOP MEN. This guy's about as libertarian as Shriek. Nobody needs anything other than a mud hut and daily ration of food and water.

  • ||

    Damn you Jordan. I need to read ahead.

  • ||

    experts should be able to come up with a pretty good list

    Top. Men.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Good thing they kept the Kochs from taking over Cato and turning it into a mouthpiece for one of the major parties.

  • Cowboy||

    I think a ban on magazines of 20 rounds and above seems to me to be reasonable.

    ...let us address options that might be more effective, including earlier detection and treatment of mental illness and, frankly, the NRA’s proposal, which I think is a good idea, for armed guards at school.

    And even more...if I highlighted everything he said I take umbrage with, I'd be copy pasting pretty much the whole interview.

    Seriously? This motherfucker is the chairman of the CATO board? And he was a lawyer on the Heller case? And he's saying all of this TOP-MEN, there's no such thing as a slippery slope, let's turn schools into statist prison camps bullshit?

    Is there a different libertarian group I can donate my money to? I get the feeling CATO isn't really on our side if these are the things their chairman believes.

  • ||

    It's because they don't have the balls to say the right thing to do is nothing.

  • Cowboy||

    Then they need to keep their stupid yaps shut. It sure is great when the largest libertarian think-tank chairman is selling out their own people.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And he did it to a Style "journalist".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He also sits on the boards of the Federalist Society and Institute for Justice.

  • SIV||

    Even your "libertarian establishment" figures know "doing nothing is not an option".

    We're all Megan McArdle now.

  • juris imprudent||

    When doing nothing is less viable than doing something stupid - we are well and truly fucked.

  • Coeus||

    When doing nothing is less viable than doing something stupid - we are well and truly fucked.

    Welcome to the 21st century. It was a great ride, but I think it's about over.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Even your "libertarian establishment" figures know "doing nothing is not an option".

    The Cosmos are top men now, so central planning is a-ok for them as long as they're on the board.

  • Proprietist||

    I know it's my lifelong dream to be a top man and centrally plan the state, obviously because I love gays, brothas and debauchery, hate those nasty all-American families in flyover country and don't believe in Skydaddy or the Jewish Zombie.

    Do you realize how stupid you sound?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Is it that inconceivable to suppose that your house could be attacked by multiple assailants, and that, rather than carrying around several magazines, you'd rather carry a single high-capacity magazine for simplicity's sake?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Are you claiming that having a high capacity magazine gives you an advantage in a gunfight?

    You need to debate Jacob Sullum from this morning, who claimed otherwise.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Sullum might know more about the topic than I do, so I won't risk the embarrassment of debating him. But I would argue that everybody has to make that split second decision about how they are going to protect their lives during an attack. If you think a high-capacity magazine is a better option than a standard size, then you should be able to make that choice in a free society that respects the right to self-defense.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Haha. And they say you guys aren't a TEAM.

  • ||

    Haha, and you say you aren't retarded.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Now be honest.

    I don't ever recall Tulpa claiming to not be retarded.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't answer personal questions like that.

  • ||

    What the fuck was "team" about his comment?

  • ||

    He refused to get into an argument with Sullum.

  • ||

    So not wanting to embarrass yourself in a debate because you don't know enough about the topic to fully explain your point of view is caving to the team?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Sullum claimed that the magazine switching time wouldn't make much difference when gunning down first graders, or panicked, confused moviegoers in a dark, noisy, smoke-filled action movie.

  • ||

    Whoa there ant, let's not bring the truth into this matter.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And yet allowing the teachers and moviegoers to CCW will solve the problem, according to libertarian dogma.

    Think about that; they're not competent enough to tackle a guy while he reloads, but they can pick him off with a small handgun without endangering any bystanders just fine. Sure.

  • General Butt Naked||

    So, if you're in a mass shooting you would rather the bad guy have a ten round magazine and you have a phone to call the police, than the bad guy possess a thirty round magazine and you have a pistol?

    If you're playing devil's advocate, you're doing a good job of making the devil look like an idiot.

  • GILMORE||

    ullum claimed that the magazine switching time wouldn't make much difference when gunning down first graders, or panicked, confused moviegoers in a dark, noisy, smoke-filled action movie.

    because thats the main application of a defensive weapon, apparently?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    How many officers are assigned to a SWAT raid on average? 5-10? Cory Maye probably thought that greater than 10 rounds at a time was pretty reasonably amount to protect his daughter at the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

    Reginald Denny probably thought greater than 10 rounds at a time was pretty reasonable when he was dragged from his truck and beaten senseless during the LA Riots:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....nald_Denny

  • ||

    How about...

    2A has nothing to do with home defense. High capacity clips make it easier for citizens to defend against a tyrannical government.

    And if they don't like it, they can fuck off and die in a fire.

  • Cowboy||

    Or even better, the 2nd amendment is about the people's right to keep and bear arms, with no infringement, regardless of the justification for doing so.

    if they don't like it, they can FOAGDIAF.

  • nimdaplus||

    there you are: www.lowerpricebuy.com

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    2A has nothing to do with home defense.

    Justice Breyer agrees with you. You should be proud.

  • ||

    So Tulpa, enlighten us...

    What do you think 2A means?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms suitable for defense of themselves and of the state. That's the wording found in most contemporary state versions.

  • ||

    And defense never means defense against the state?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not in that context. That would kind of contradict the idea of the "militia being necessary to the security of a free State".

  • sloopyinca||

    Not in that context. That would kind of contradict the idea of the "militia being necessary to the security of a free State".

    I think it is in context. And the word that makes it so is "free."

  • ||

    Did you climb up the retard tree and then hit every branch on your way down? The whole damn constitution is about limiting government as much as possible.

    And you can't have a "free state" if the gov, especially the fedgov, is being tyrannical. Much less be a free people able to defend yourself.

  • ||

    So you disagree with Jefferson?

    2A isn't for the citizenry to defend themselves FROM a tyrannical government?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Jefferson had nothing to do with the second amendment.

    And it would be kind of stupid for the founding document of the federal government to have a clause authorizing the overthrow of said govt.

  • Virginian||

    God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.- Thomas Jefferson

  • ||

    Tulpa, you truly are an idiot.

    Did I EVER say Jefferson wrote it?

    And it would be kind of stupid for the founding document of the federal government to have a clause authorizing the overthrow of said govt.

    Sure Tulpa, Stupid? They just fought a revolution. I'm pretty sure limiting the government was the entire point.

  • Coeus||

    Are we saying that 30 rounds is high capacity? Cause I'd call it standard capacity for a rifle. And when you go much beyond that, yes, there are very real jamming issues.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    don’t consider myself an expert on the technical features of firearms,

    so stop talking about it then.

  • juris imprudent||

    C'mon, this is just cocktail chatter.

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes you jsut gotta roll with it man! Wow.

    www.DotAnon.tk

  • ||

    When the camera switched back to him, he rather frostily asked Pento if he'd like to change the way he characterized public policy?

    The correct answer:

    "No, and fuck you you politically correct hack. I don't give a shit what you think."

    The only way to defeat political correctness is to not allow them to use it as a weapon. The second you acquiesce to their demands they win.

    FUCK THEM!

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I did some featured writing for a magazine in Canada. It was a mag for people with disabilities. Great people I interviewed and the people running the mag did God's work.

    But after getting a list of PC terms I realized that shit wasn't for me. If "What the fuck is this shit?" goes trough your mind best you move on with your life.

    "But Ms. Editor, fucking retard is a key description in this gang bang scene!"

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    Anybody know what ever happened with the deaf kid named Hunter? The one where the ASL-sign name for the kid supposedly broke the school's zero tolerance rule so they wanted the name-sign changed?
    (No, I'm not quite sure why this reminded me of that.)

  • Jeff||

    He is presumed to have been droned.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In case I don't get to post this tomorrow:

    David Gregory's wife knew the prosecutor who gave Gregory a pass on the whole gun thing:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....y-general/

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The Friday afternoon scandal dump tradition continues.

  • juris imprudent||

    Because the law is only for you little people. I hope they all fucking die in a fire.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition...

    Some animals are more equal than others.

  • BoscoH||

    Child please. He was only offended by the metaphor because he disagreed with the sentiment behind it. Taking offense is nothing but a convenient rhetorical screwdriver.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I watched about two minutes of Chrissie Matthews earlier.

    Holy shit.

    Those people have got their hate on, and they do not want to let any opportunity to drag the dead decomposing corpses of those children through the streets get away from them.

  • Paul.||

    It's their fault. I'm done pulling punches on these shootings.

    We've lost our minds.

    The logic behind what liberals want to restrict with guns is bathed in blood.

    The ruling class wants to restrict magazine carrying capacity so that if or when a madman engages in a shooting spree, they hope that the increased frequency of him having to stop to change magazines will give us precious seconds to either flee or engage the gunman in hand-to-hand combat, but when I suggest that maybe I be allowed to shoot back and defend myself, my family or the people in my midst with reasonable firepower, they look at me like I'm a bloodthirsty zealot.

    I will brook no ground on this gun control fight.

  • Redmanfms||

    but when I suggest that maybe I be allowed to shoot back and defend myself, my family or the people in my midst with reasonable firepower, they look at me like I'm a bloodthirsty zealot.

    Our resident obtuse contrarian fuckwit believes the exact same thing.

    Funny, no?

  • Paul.||

    CNBC's Closing Bell

    Rhymes with Clucking Bell.

  • ||

    Isn't that the fast food place in GTA IV?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Yup. That and Burger Shot.

  • ||

    Stop calling me, I don't want to go bowling with you Roman!

  • ||

    Sudden loud rip!
    Who fired that shot?
    .
    .
    .
    I f_rd it.

  • ||

    OT: White House responds to Death Star peititon: This administration does not support blowing up other planets.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I thought that was on page 543 of their platform?

  • General Butt Naked||

    By "planets" they meant small pakistani children.

  • An0nB0t||

    See, I told you glibertarian yokeltarians: Most transparent administration in history!

  • KPres||

    "The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it."

    Just mint a 850,000,000,000,000,000 coin.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Stimulus!

  • ||

    This administration does not support blowing up other planets.

    Just economies.

  • sloopyinca||

    Just economies.

    Hey, don't sell them short. They like blowing up schools, churches and private residences all over the middle east and northern Africa as well.

  • ||

    So *THIS* is a petition that they spend actual time on replying, while far more serious ones get not much more than a perfunctory response. Great.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Kathleen Parker: Reagan was anti-gun because of racism, but he was right because of big mags, or something.

    "But but but, my DADDY owned guns!"

    I'm sure he did Katy, and he's probably spinning in his grave over the swill you write.

  • ||

    Wait, so gun control has a clear history of racism...and that bolsters the moral standing of the gun control side?

  • Coeus||

    Why not? It seems to have done so for them for: abortion, minimum wage, drug prohibition and unions.

  • Coeus||

    Everybody see the multiple postings of that survey that showed that fat women are more likely to get a conviction from men than thin women? And did you wonder why there wasn't a similar correlation with women convicting a fat man? The reason might surprise you. Turns out that, unlike men, women are prone to lying on anonymous surveys.

  • SIV||

    Turns out that, unlike men, women are prone to lying on anonymous surveys.

    Give 'em enough rope...

  • Gladstone||

    So there is a flu epidemic? While I can accept that it could very well could be worse than before I get the feeling that the term has been abused.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It's flu season, and more people are getting the flu now then when it's not flu season.

  • ||

    my wife was working at a (nonprofit) that prohibited the use of the term "bullet points" as in the bullet points in powerpoint. bullet points!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    nonprofit

    I think I see the problem here.

  • ||

    yea, i'm PRETTY sure it was non-profit. catholic hospital system...

  • Ted S.||

    I'm astonished that anybody would marry Dunphy.

  • Proprietist||

    I'm sure there are women in the world with a police brutality fetish.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Why the hell didn't they prohibit powerpoint.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Good point.
    "Powerpoint? Like point a gun? BANNED!"

  • Coeus||

    Krugman now makes no sense at all.

    Guess whose state budget crisis seems to be over?

    As best I understand it, what’s going on in CA is a microcosm (a pretty big microcosm, actually — maybe more of a mesocosm or something?) of what’s going on at the national level. A severely depressed economy led to big deficits, because tax receipts are strongly affected by the state of the economy — indeed, are almost certainly much more cyclical than they used to be.

    In response to those deficits, there was a lot of spending reduction plus some more modest efforts to increase revenue. And now that we have the beginnings of real recovery, it’s turning out that those efforts were enough to remove much if not all of the “structural”, as opposed to recession-driven, deficit.

    As this reality becomes more obvious, the deficit scolds will of course go wild. They have staked their careers on crusading against supposedly intractable deficits, and they have their hearts (and more important, their wallets) set on exploiting the alleged fiscal crisis to dismantle social insurance programs. Good news will be a blow to everything they want, and will be furiously and vigorously denied.

    But once again: deficits are receding as an issue before our eyes.

    2 things here:

    1)Krugman is banking on those projected surpluses

    2)He said that they come from austerity

    Tha fuck?

  • An0nB0t||

    No, no, it's only austerity (draconian austerity, to be precise) when Republicans do it.

    Although it will be fun to see his non-reaction when those "modest efforts to increase revenue" finally hit home in the form of stagnant or decreased revenues along with even higher unemployment and a continued exodus of taxpayers.

    It's almost enough to make a Nobel laureate think that the economy isn't driven by detailed models, but rather the actions of individuals who respond to incentives.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You done Nutrasweet'd the link.

  • Tman||

    You started at Krugnuts, so you didn't need two things.

    The sad thing about California is that its sheer size and diversity allows it to withstand the worst machinations of government largesse, so despite a giant entitlement black hole at the middle of its economy idiots like Krugnuts can attempt to celebrate a "surplus".

  • juris imprudent||

    As best I understand it

    Well, that explains everything right there.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Lakers getting booed at home. Shit they suck.

  • Tman||

    And yet Black Mamba is still leading the league in scoring.

    The window is closed Laker fans. You had (another) great run with Mamba. But now you are watching Dwight Howard do a terrible Karl Malone impression and Nash doing the Gary Payton thing, mmmph..not so good.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    They have lost Jordan Hill. Injuries are plaguing them, but they still don't have the chemistry they need.

  • Tman||

    They'll still make the playoffs though, and probably be dangerous if healthy.

    But Kobe has what, 5? In ten years?

    Woe is you, Laker fan.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I"m more of a Nash fan.

  • Tman||

    Mooseheads.

    Everywhere.

    Even tiny point guards running around throwing poutine at everyone.

    They must be stopped.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    We are the superior beings. You must learn to acquiesce.

  • Tman||

    It was 70 degrees here in Nashville today. Mooseheads can't take the heat. Global warming will force you all to give up curds and gravy and switch to ribs and hot sauce.

    The assimilation is inevitable.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I'm in the middle of a blizzard and eating ribs.
    What's your point?

  • Tman||

    Mmmmm....ribs..

    Seriously though, poutine is nasty.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    poutine is nasty

    You're doing it wrong.

  • Ted S.||

    Tman probably eats deep-dish pizza, too.

  • robc||

    They'll still make the playoffs though

    That is looking questionable.

    Right now, 8th in the west is on pace to win 46. Lakers would have to go 31-15 the rest of the way to get to that. Doable? Sure. Will they really need 46? Maybe not, but looking at recent history, seems about right for the west.

    Every loss before they get healthy makes it a harder task.

  • robc||

    And yet Black Mamba is still leading the league in scoring.

    I dont get the yet, that follows.

    The Lakers have always been at their best when Kobe didnt have to shoot too much.

  • ||

    Hey you got your rifle in my Linux!
    You got your Linux in my rifle!

  • General Butt Naked||

    I want one.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Just got back from the huge ass gun show in Washington PA.

    I think I uttered, "you've gotta be shittin' me" in response to the prices about 600 times. Bought another 17 rd magazine for my carry piece, because it was only 4 clams more than it was months ago online. Got 3 pairs of woo socks for ten bucks, as well. ARs, all around two grand, no matter the condition or make. AKs, all at about a grand, and most were not high quality ones.

    One stand had a "survivor special", or some such nonsense: 5 pmags and a little first aid kit (or some other trinket), $260. Fuck me.

  • juris imprudent||

    Imagine the buyers remorse when no new laws are passed and someone is the price of 2 or 3 guns into 1.

    We'll need a new bailout.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Especially when they have to explain to their wives why their $1800 MandP is on sale at Cabelas fro $650 in three months.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I never went because I heard there would be bad visibility on 79 this morning. Then I read some of the PAFOA reports about the show and was glad.

    Sorry if I inspired you to go to something unpleasant.

  • General Butt Naked||

    No, I was planning on going anyways. Like I said, I got some cheap wool socks and a magazine that I couldn't find elsewhere.

    I did get stuck walking behind a couple that smelled like cat piss for about twenty minutes, that was not good.

    I don't think the overpriced stuff was actually selling. I walked around the place twice and all of the expensive stuff was still there. High hopes on the part of the sellers, I imagine.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I loaded up on mags last summer for all my firearms, but broke a BX-25 for my 10/22 at the range with some moldy old Remington ammo that had been sitting in Tupperware for a year. It jammed and I destroyed the mag trying to release it. So I only have one of those left.

    So they probably didn't have anything I wanted anyway.

    I heard PICS was completely down this morning too. That would have seriously sucked.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've seen a bunch of knock-off 10/22 mags for sale, but I wouldn't advise buying them. My dad has a bunch of 'em from before ruger came out with theirs, and it seems that one breaks or malfunctions every time we go to the range.

    Haven't seen any ruger mags though.

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes dude, you jsut gotta roll with it. Wow.

    www.hot-anon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement