| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Help keep poeTV running

And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 35
Born in the RSR - 2012-12-18

Cos the principal of the School was like Max Payne and she could of lunged heroically and fired in bullet-time.

TeenerTot - 2012-12-18

Just what I was thinking. What is it with that unshakeable pro-gun fantasy?
To quote a recent Frank Conniff tweet: Those who say more guns make us safer base their belief on the solid statistical evidence of many, many action movies.

Jet Bin Fever - 2012-12-18


Louis Armstrong - 2012-12-18

As N.R.A. president Wayne LaPierre expressed in a recent statement on the organization’s Web site, more guns equal more safety, by their account. A favorite gun rights saying is “an armed society is a polite society.” If we allow ever more people to be armed, at any time, in any place, this will provide a powerful deterrent to potential criminals. Or if more citizens were armed — like principals and teachers in the classroom, for example — they could halt senseless shootings ahead of time, or at least early on, and save society a lot of heartache and bloodshed.

As ever more people are armed in public, however — even brandishing weapons on the street — this is no longer recognizable as a civil society. Freedom is vanished at that point.

And yet, gun rights advocates famously maintain that individual gun ownership, even of high caliber weapons, is the defining mark of our freedom as such, and the ultimate guarantee of our enduring liberty. Deeper reflection on their argument exposes deeper fallacies.

In her book “The Human Condition,” the philosopher Hannah Arendt states that “violence is mute.” According to Arendt, speech dominates and distinguishes the polis, the highest form of human association, which is devoted to the freedom and equality of its component members. Violence — and the threat of it — is a pre-political manner of communication and control, characteristic of undemocratic organizations and hierarchical relationships. For the ancient Athenians who practiced an incipient, albeit limited form of democracy (one that we surely aim to surpass), violence was characteristic of the master-slave relationship, not that of free citizens.

Liberty entails precisely the freedom to offend. A gun in every pocket would stifle that.
Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality. But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worthy of the name — that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for, guns chasten speech.

This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend."

Louis Armstrong - 2012-12-18

Also his great study is bullshit in another level. South Africa used to be such a high crime area, that everyone had a gun. Problem was the criminals knew this, and still robbed. People still got car jacked before they could pull their gun because the car jacker had the initiative. People where held hostage in their homes, and usually asked to unlock their gun safe with an intruders gun pointed at them. Fuck Louis Gohmert and his "study".

Bort - 2012-12-18

Bingo -- any mugger or carjacker is going to see to it that you are overwhelmed and unable to resist. It's their job and they know what works, and what works is to prevent any resistance at all. So that scene in the movies where the mugger stands a comfortable six feet away with his knife and says smartass things that some hack in a hot tub thought would sound "street" ... ? In real life the mugger's unlikely to be sloppy enough to give you the opportunity to pull a gun. Hell, the mugger was probably prepared for violence before you were even aware of his existence, right there that's a nearly insurmountable advantage.

Also, don't be such trouble to the mugger that it's easier to kill you than to just take your money. But that's a bit of good sense that the NRA wouldn't want people to think about either.

spikestoyiu - 2012-12-18

A favorite gun rights saying is “an armed society is a polite society.”

Jesus Christ, why is this a good thing? They really want everyone scared shitless of being shot at any given time? When some fuckface in a giant pickup truck cuts me off in traffic, I can't honk because he might be armed? This is the world that these people want to live in.

Also, I know a number of teachers... they make pretty much zero money. It's hard to find good ones to being with. And now these assholes want to arm them and I imagine also train them how to use firearms so that they can shoot someone if need be. You're going to scare away even more potentially great teachers. And who's going to pay for these guns and this training?

Bort - 2012-12-18

Right wing fantasies are rarely about everyone being on equal footing; they're usually about the speaker. So what it comes down to is, if I (as a right-wing shitheel) were allowed to carry a gun everywhere, people would be polite to me because they know I could shoot them.

I don't believe most of them have thought it through, and the other guy might be better armed, faster, or more primed to respond to impoliteness. But in any confrontation between two such people, one of them is mistaken.

There's also the whole masculinity angle, but I say, if you want to be at all manly, use a bow or an atl-atl.

Gmork - 2012-12-18

It must be weird to live in a universe where you guys can't understand that not everybody who is pro-gun wants guns proliferated throughout society, especially by people who aren't interested. This is about not punishing the people who abide by gun laws, yet that's the only thing legislation will accomplish - it will have zero impact on the easy access and wide availability of assault weapons by unscrupulous individuals. The only way to keep crazy people from doing crazy things is to monitor them. And how can you monitor someone who has no record but still snaps and murders a ton of people? There's nothing to look for until it happens.

You're taking tums when you should take prilosec OTC. You're tackling the wrong problem.

Bort - 2012-12-18

And how'd the shooter get his guns in this case, GMonk? From his mom. Not from shady Mexicans or blacks with their stolen cars and rap music, but from his well-to-do "prepper" mom who believed, and probably taught him, that guns equal safety.

spikestoyiu - 2012-12-18

If you're talking to me, I don't know what I said that would give you the impression that I believe all pro-gun individuals want guns everywhere all of the time, regardless of the situation. I'm not naive enough to believe that the kind of people who say asinine shit like "an armed society is a polite society" represent all gun owners or whatever you want to call "pro-gun". I also know people who only own ONE GUN, amazing as that is, and have zero interest in owning any more. I also know people with far, far too many guns. Both represent very different (equally stupid to me) viewpoints, and I understand that.

spikestoyiu - 2012-12-18

Bort, bows are also for pussies. There's nothing at all masculine about weapons. What happened to the good ol' days where we could just punch each other for a while?

FABIO - 2012-12-18

WHY should people have to right to own any of these guns period?

Home defense? Ignoring the vastly more common instances of gun ownership causing more trouble than it prevents, why would you need anything more than a revolver or double barrel shotgun for this?

Defense from the government? You're insane.

Because it's fun? Sorry not good enough.

Boo hoo why am I being punished.

(guns are for pussies)

Gmork - 2012-12-19

Somehow I knew someone would miss the point and try to use the happenstance convenience of his crazy mom as the reason it all happened.

You really think someone that deranged wouldn't have just gone somewhere else for a gun if his mom wasn't a survivalist nut?

Not giving enough credit for his insane motivations. Mom not being able to supply him would have been enough to stop him? Really? That's what you're going with?

Gmork - 2012-12-19

FABIO all your credibility (and you still had some) just flew out the window

Bort - 2012-12-19

Having the guns right there in the house sure didn't diminish his opportunity to kill a lot of people, now did it.

Nor did it keep the mom safe, when you think about it.

Yeah if his mom wasn't insane he might have had to go elsewhere to find an assault rifle, and perhaps he could have ... then again, perhaps he would have said or did something that tipped off the right people and prevented this from happening. We can't know either way. But a complete absence of barriers to acquiring the firepower he wanted certainly didn't help matters.

But let's play it the GMonk way: NOTHING would have been enough to stop him? Really? That's what you're going with?

Binro the Heretic - 2012-12-18

Wow, all the guys saying this stupid shit are appearing on FOX.

Also, they're all old and white.

What a shock.

kingarthur - 2012-12-18

Because what this massacre was really missing was crossfire!

Jet Bin Fever - 2012-12-18

Hooray! Let's give underpayed, overworked, overstressed people the right to carry guns in schools! That's a fabulous idea!

Nikon - 2012-12-18

This is just a thought:

maybe we could have better access to mental health care. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-m ental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Gmork - 2012-12-18


Bort - 2012-12-18

Funny how the only time conservatives call for more and better mental health services is when their precious precious guns are at risk.

Let's talk about the mom's mental illness; it wasn't diagnosed as such, but when you've got more guns than you are capable of using, and you're stockpiling guns and ammo in case (and possibly in hopes) of societal collapse, you are mentally ill. And when you've got a disturbed young man in the house, and still you're stockpiling the guns and ammo, you are presenting a threat to your community.

Still, all those guns really helped when she was assaulted in her home, now didn't they.

spikestoyiu - 2012-12-18

Wait, so the party of smaller government wants everyone to have better access to mental health now? Or do they expect everyone to pay for it themselves? Sounds reasonable!

And what is this shit where there's only ONE PROBLEM? Why are these issues mutually exclusive? How about we have an issue with mental illness as well as guns?

SteamPoweredKleenex - 2012-12-18

I do hope any time they bring up more GOVERNMENT-RUN mental health care and GOVERNMENT MONITORING of the mentally ill, someone mentions that Saint Ronnie Reagan was the one who dismantled our nation's federal mental health system.

Not that I expect facts or cognitive dissonance to have an effect on Republicans. It's more for when the future archaeologists dig up our civilization, they'll have a record of the loonies running the asylum.

StanleyPain - 2012-12-18

62 mass shootings in the United States in the last 30 years.

Out of those 62 shootings, only one shooter(Carl Robert Brown in 1982) was killed by an armed private citizen, and, in the greatest cosmic irony, he was killed by accident (the citizen intended to fire a warning shot, not actually hit him).

If breathlessly pro-gun people can provide me a list of spree killings, mass murders, and onsets of tyranny that were prevented before or soon after they started by privately armed citizens, then I suggest now would be the time to provide that lengthy, carefully annotated list to the public.

Oscar Wildcat - 2012-12-18

I think arming teachers is a wonderful idea. In fact, I encourage all union workers to arm themselves. Why does the left not think this is a good idea?

boner - 2012-12-18

So now if you want to shoot up your school, you don't even need to bring a gun, just disarm your teacher?

EvilHomer - 2012-12-18

It'd cut down on school shootings, sass mouth, AND goofing off!

Rudy - 2012-12-18

If only the shooter's mother was armed she could have stopped his rampage before it even began!


Oh, right.

STABFACE - 2012-12-18


Bort - 2012-12-18

If she'd owned JUST ONE MORE GUN, that would have fixed everything.

FABIO - 2012-12-18

So what happens when a disgruntled armed teacher is fired and snaps?

SteamPoweredKleenex - 2012-12-18

The really sad thing is that being given a gun is the closest the GOP will come to giving underpaid teachers a raise.

Except they probably can't sell them.

FABIO - 2012-12-18

Alright, here's the solution:

Start a massive PSA campaign playing on the fact that gun enthusiasts are insecure dickless losers. In every ad space that formally had a "Got Milk?" spot, start putting ads starring assault rifle toting waffentwerps with bikini models mocking them with a "one inch" finger gesture. Turn said gesture into a silent national catchphrase, the new bird to flip every time you pass a gun store, shooting range, or hunting ground. Stigmatize weapon worship until gun ownership becomes the new "fag".

Bort - 2012-12-19

Five well-regulated stars.

As an added bonus, this sounds like something they could do easily enough on Facebook, so it wouldn't even require billboard space.

Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement