I’ve been sure that ever since the slaughter at Sandy Hook went unanswered that it is simply impossible to come up with genuine means of limiting gun slaughter. In the latest incident in Florida, the lunatic shooter bought his guns through legal means and was not deterred from doing so, even though he had a mental health record, a record of loving guns and talking about slaughtering people in the high school that expelled him because he was obsessed with guns.
What in the world can be done about it? When the vast majority of the population want to make it impossible for known menaces to obtain guns but the NRA won’t permit it and the politicians line up behind them, how can the lame ášš politicians be compelled to take actions that will save lives?
Well, as a matter of fact, I think I’ve got an answer. An answer that was first suggested in 411 B.C.
Aristophanes wrote a play, you see. It was entitled “Lysistrata” and it centered on the title character convincing Greek women to withhold sex from their men until they agreed to end the Peloponnesian war.
I think that is what every wife of every Senator and every representative of the House should do. All the women should band together and say, “No sex until the gun crisis is brought under control. No sex until we have genuine gun control laws. No sex until you all say to the NRA, ‘Fûçk off.'”
Because that is how you hit these áššhølëš where they live. They’re so obsessed with big guns which are, let’s face it, just phallic symbols anyway.
If every wife figuratively cuts off their husbands’ sexual proclivities, I would like to think that that is going to be what turns them around.
PAD
• 
I dunno, Peter. I think part of the problem is that these gun lovers aren’t getting any anyway. And it’s pretty much proven that most of the GOP isn’t having sex with their wives anyway, and any woman who would have consentual sex with Paul Ryan wouldn’t have the fortitude to make a stance on white or wheat bread, let alone something that important.
Small problem:
Politicians are widely known for being involved in extra-martial affairs. And closeted Republicans with young men would actually benefit the most from this, as they no longer have to worry about keeping up the image for their wives.
Some politicians are. I suspect the majority, however, are faithful. And that’s all we need is a majority.
.
PAD
We need a veto-proof majority.
That is certainly way to get their attention and initiate action. Something is better than anything, and this is certainly viable, if the wives and mistresses would actually cooperate.
And then, we can tell these same people to go screw themselves… literally. Thanks for the good idea, Mr. David!
I like it!
The other problem, besides congressional infidelity, is: Of the wives of Congresscreatures who do not already support gun control, how many are just as ammosexual as their hubbies? Second problem: How many anti-gun control reps from red districts/states are less afraid of blue balls than they are of NRA loyaist challengers in their primaries?
Sadly, the plan hinges on the idea that the wives (and husbands) of most the key required members needed for the votes think that the lives of children are more valuable than NRA donations and other perks. Such faith may be misplaced.
You’re assuming, though, that the wives don’t have the same mindset as their husbands. I see just as many women post on my wall as men about “this is a mental health issue, not a gun control issue.”
Yeah, Spike Lee did an update called Chirac, which is a pretty good movie. That being said, the ADL identified the shooter as a member of an alt-right organization. So maybe on top of the guns we can address that crap as well. Because that now makes this domestic white terrorism.
I’ve seen polls that claim the vast majority of NRA members are in favor of reasonable gun controls. To which I call bûllšhìŧ because if they truly were then they would oppose what the NRA does in their name. Either by taking over NRA leadership and changing the groups focus (exactly like a small group once did at an NRA annual meeting, and switched the focus from teaching gun safety to political advocacy) or at least leaving (taking their membership dues dollars with them.
.
Alternately, I f everyone opposed to the NRA’s agenda joined the NRA we could neuter the organization from within. (Of course, that would just cause the gun fanatics to start a NEW group, but at least they’d be slowed for a while.)
.
Sad truth is that politicians will NEVER do ANYTHING to stop gun violence until it is more costly to them to do nothing than to act. Until doing the NRA’s bidding clearly costs them at the ballot box. A small group playing Lysistrata wont work. A sizable group voting out anyone who takes NRA money will.
Unfortunately, i believe that the current bosses at the NRA have meddled with the by-laws to make that sort of takeover harder.
.
And what makes you think that they’d the members’ dues, anyway?
.
A huger percentage {possibly the majority} of the NRA bosses’ income comes from lobbyists.
OOOpps.
.
“huge” not “huger”.
.
I re-wrote that sentence on the fly and didn’t catch all the edits i needed to make.
“Unfortunately, i believe that the current bosses at the NRA have meddled with the by-laws to make that sort of takeover harder.”
.
Yeah, I wondered if a repeat take over would be possible.
.
And even if the by-laws didn’t prevent it, they’d certainly immediately change them to something that would once they noticed the influx up progressive members.
Peter,
Once again there is a shooting, and once again the calls for THEM to do something about it. Usually, this entails the requirement for THEM to develop telepathy and clairvoyance to somehow determine which individuals have decided to create mass mayhem long before the individuals know in order to somehow block their access to weapons.
I understand your frustration and compassion for the victims. I really wish there were a realistic way to accomplish this goal. Blaming the NRA for their constitutionally supported stance helps relieve frustrations, but doesn’t change the reality. If you have a non-psionics or magic based solution, please advance it. I will be proud to support your solution!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43067530
It does not take psychic abilities to make sure guys like this do not aquire firearms through legal means.
Don’t be so naive, the problem is you and everyone like you not acknowledging that there are pretty easy steps to at the very least HELP prevent this, but nobody in your backwards country cares enough to do what’s right, as so many other countries have successfully done.
Ah MZ,
So, EVERYONE knew this guy was a time bomb, and NO ONE did anything, so MAGICALLY if you consulted everyone they could determine EXACTLY who will, and who won’t go mass killer!
Sorry, it really isn’t that easy, except in hindsight. For every nutso that ‘everyone’ expected to go postal, there are dozens, if not hundreds of just as nutso cases where they never do anything. You can’t punish them for the ‘possible’ problems they might have.
There are NO EASY STEPS!!!!!!
If there were, we would do them!
The FBI had this guy on their radar.
.
He trained with a white supremacist group that {probably illegally} provided him with a rifle.
.
Beyond that, if it were a HÊLL of a lot harder in general to acquire {multiple} firearms, it would be a lot less necessary to spot the dangerous crazies specifically.
.
Your argument is a typical specious Second-Amendment-absolutist talking point; dodging the real point of debate by trying to narrow the focus to a small subset of the larger discussion, ignoring the real substance of discussion
With that argument, why have any laws? We can’t tell beforehand who will break them so why even have laws, right?
Conservatives have shown that they don’t care about mass shootings or dead schoolchildren, as long as they can have their Rambo fantasies, so don’t try to take any moral high ground here.
Tom,
Having laws against murder and theft do not eliminate murder and theft, they just specify the penalty for those that do. These penalties just reduce the likelihood that individual will do those acts. There are existing penalties for mass murder, but they still happen
So, no, this isn’t a moral high ground, it is a pragmatic, practical high ground. You can’t legislate miracles. However, you come up with a practical, usable plan, and I am behind you 100%!
Sorry to burst your fantasies…
Fûçk you, CharlieE. Practical, usable plans have been proposed ad infinitum, and áššhølëš like you keep pretending they don’t exist. If dead children don’t bother you, and you’ve shown that they don’t, go to another site to spread your poison.
Tom,
Language! Obviously you should go to some site where only your own fantasy world is observed, as you obviously can not tolerate any difference in opinion.
And, NO, there have been no practical plans proposed. There have been fantasy plans requiring massive police state databases, maintained by incorruptible political appointees (not irony inherent…) with perfect accuracy. Sorry, still living in reality.
There are easy steps. What does a parent do when the child can’t handle their toys? Takes them away.
Sure, the children will cry and scream, and say it’s not fair.
But obviously the children don’t know better.
Like I said. It works for other countries. Yours isn’t that special. At least, not anymore.
Mz,
Sorry, but it ‘works’ in other countries by basically making it extraordinarily difficult for ANYONE to obtain weapons, a solution constitutionally prevented here. Again, you punish large numbers of people to prevent a very small minority from abusing a privilege. This is not practical or realistic here.
Please try again.
This guy had a record (expulsion from high school, mental health issues, etc) before he bought the guns. If they were required to check for such things and not sell to these sorts of individuals, then he wouldn’t have the guns. That seems like it might have helped.
Now, you might say that he might have acquired guns some other way, or killed those people via some other means. Even though we can’t know that (we aren’t clairvoyant), lets say you’re right. In that case when it happened we could consider the best way to address that problem. That’s how things get better – one step at a time. It starts by not throwing up your hands and saying “we can’t do anything”.
Sorry, Charlie. But the Constitution STATES “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free people” before that “right to keep and bear arms” bit.
Unfortunately, that’s a point the NRA WILLFULLY ignores in their propaganda and a point that a group of “original intent” áššhølëš on the Supreme Court also chose to ignore in the Heller case. (Ah, yes. “Original intent.” The right to abortion and a right to consensual sex in the privacy of your bedroom don’t exist, according to the “original intent” brigade but, take the actual text of the Constitution and throw it out when it’s inconvenient for your political POV.)
You want (or need) a gun to keep you safe from wild animals? Great. The Constitution actually stands behind that. But, just to HAVE a gun? Then you should be part of a “well regulated militia” like the Constitution SAYS.
And, just to remind you Charlie, but there have been mass shootings EVERY SINGLE WEEK this year–some getting far more coverage than others.
You know what I’d really love to know? Why is it that the NRA–in ALL their conventions–PROHIBITS the carrying of any guns during the actual meetings? You know, when folks like Wayne La Pierre are at the podium, spewing their half-assed “gun rights” bûllšhìŧ, in front of what one has to assume is a “friendly” audience, and those folks are NOT allowed to express their “God-given 2nd Amendment rights” by carrying a loaded handgun or shotgun into the meeting room. Why is that? Why would the NRA–which OPENLY advocates MANDATED “open-carry” (and “concealed carry”) EVERYWHERE (in schools, in courtrooms, in hospitals, in private businesses)–deny their own members that right in their conventions? Double standards? Hypocrisy? (Hëll, even most LEGAL gun shows are against allowing loaded weapons on the sales floor–for obvious reasons. But the NRA thinks such venues shouldn’t be allowed to prevent it.)
The NRA was ONCE a respectable organization, truly advocating the rights of gun owners. In the 1990s, the NRA started working on behalf of gun MANUFACTURERS and started taking large contributions from the manufacturers. Poll after poll has shown that gun OWNERS support SENSIBLE legislation to control and regulate guns–ESPECIALLY after senseless school shootings–but the NRA and their lackeys don’t care. No. It’s ALWAYS “too soon” to talk about gun control; people are “letting their emotions” take control and we need to “wait for calm.” Kind of fûçkìņg hard to do when there’s another school shooting happening a week or so after the last one.
Sorry, Joseph,
I know it is a major fantasy from gun opponents that for over two centuries the second amendment has been misinterpreted, and that now, we will finally correctly parse the grammar, but, really, GET OVER IT!
It has been interpreted by the courts and legislature to mean that the two clauses are independent statements. I know that in your fantasy world we will all suddenly say ‘Wow! We were looking at this all wrong!’ and change a thousand laws and precedents, but it is still just a fantasy. You really want to change what it says? Simple, just write a new, unambiguous amendment, and get all the other right thinking folk and legislators to vote it in. What? You think that would be too hard? Sorry…
This guy had a record (expulsion from high school, mental health issues, etc) before he bought the guns. If they were required to check for such things and not sell to these sorts of individuals, then he wouldn’t have the guns. That seems like it might have helped.
Now, you might say that he might have acquired guns some other way, or killed those people via some other means. Even though we can’t know that (we aren’t clairvoyant), lets say you’re right. In that case when it happened we could consider the best way to address that problem. That’s how things get better – one step at a time. It starts by not throwing up your hands and saying “we can’t do anything”.
Jordon,
Check how, and check where? In some all knowing federal database that would be required to contain all this info? And, should be accessible to any and all who would now have a ‘need’ to verify such info?
Sorry, but they have enough data stored on me already, and at least it is fairly well secured. Big Brother is close enough as it is!
In the mid 1980s I was involved in a high school production of Lysistrata. I point this out only because I still find it hilarious that we were able to get away with a high school production of Lysistrata.
Only slightly more likely to happen but…
https://mystudentapt.com/2015/10/06/theres-a-way-to-stop-mass-shootings-and-you-wont-like-it/
Right on Bill! An actual, reasonable plan!
But, it requires YOU to DO SOMETHING!
Actually, I can see the David kids implementing this plan quite well!
As I read that article, all I could think of is how often the guys who are shooting up schools make sure to target their friends.
.
PAD
Actually, Peter, I think they target the people they THOUGHT were their friends until they somehow betrayed them,usually as a final straw…
Peter David: If every wife figuratively cuts off their husbands’ sexual proclivities…
.
The great thing about this suggestion is that you can replace “proclivities” with “organs” and it becomes a completely different suggestion that is just as equally (if not more) viable!