Just Another Hater With A Gun

Daniel 12

In saying that we could all easily adapt to any culture that has ever existed, I was referring more to the exerience of the sensations of living, in a general sense. I think you may have mental block about this way of thinking. I was not really referring to the fact that rich people feel more comfort, and I was not really referring to the movers and shakers like the kings and emperors and presidents, but just people living, day to day.

You for example have access to this blog, where you can air your opinions and views, and that is a good thing about living now. But don't you also have a number of frustrations and problems that people of all eras and epochs may have had? You have indicated this.

Anyway, I don't think you got the idea I was intending. The poem that I quoted says, "we see the same sun our fathers have seen..."

Do you think this is true or do you think it is rubbish?

Farnaz

She said there's a loophole.

J

Hi James210,

You write:

"Ironically, I was having a conversation with a friend last night and she was complaining about Crazies and wasted space.

I'll ask her to review
the blog and RENDER JUDGEMENT!"

Great! Look forward to hearing her thoughts!

Farnaz

For those who may have forgotten:

My Synopsis of Catholicism/Christianity-

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.)

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology, all male hierarchies and strange banking and funding.

Farnaz,
Ironically, I was having a conversation with a friend last night and she was complaining about Crazies and wasted space.

I'll ask her to review
the blog and RENDER JUDGEMENT!

J

As noted previously:

from Farnaz: "Why have no Catholic OnFaith panelists remarked upon the murder in the Museum? What say you?"

Again, there are only two "luke-warm" Catholic panelists who routinely make comments on the On Faith blog i.e. Father Reese and Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo. The "catholic in name only" Professor Crossan makes commentary only on rare occasions. Ditto for the orthodox Catholics William Byron (last commentary made on 11/02/2007) and George Weigel 06/19/2008).

Again none of these individuals speak for the RCC anyway. (See the official RCC response at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops web site - www.usccb.org)

There are currently over 75 On Faith Panelists. Only 12 of these have commented on the atrocity at the Holocaust Museum. So this somehow makes over 63 of the panelists somehow anti-semitic????

Hardly, since these 63+ panelists rarely comment on any topic.

One can also conclude that the interest in the On Faith blog has waned considerably on the part of panelists and commentators over the past year as it appears what has been said about religion has been said especially with regards to the flaws and errors of said religions.

We now wait to see how long it will take to clean up the mess!!!

Far from being a right-wing conspiracy, even the lefties have loved eugenics at different times and places. A pretty good overview can be had right here in Wiki....

If only a little humility was as easy to come by as the typical above-average IQ, the world would probably be a better place.

As for honesty - the Red Wings really sucked last nite. Pittsburg probably played their best game ever.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

"Any of us could easily adapt to any culture that has existed upon earth...". What a load of rubbish. First of all Western civilization has been the only civilization which has managed to break out of the monotony of despot upon despot and strive for a state of the people for the people. And one look at the world today shows how difficult it is for other peoples to adapt to this concept. Somewhat of the reverse is true as well: Take a state founded on sheer military technology (correct use of weaponry and advanced weaponry, tactics, strategy) such as the Roman. Plenty of cultures would have loved to equal the Romans at the time but never did--they just could not imitate the Romans. The Romans just laid waste to them...If more examples are needed just ask...Daniel in Lion's Den just transport yourself back to Roman times, tell us how you fare. Oh, we know: You will be in the Lion's Den praying....

Part one.

To Onofrio and all those concerned with my statements about respecting the Jews because they have demonstrated superior intelligence...what you asked me Onofrio is why it is a person should need some clearly valuable quality to be treated like a human being--why for example the Jews should be treated well because they have great intelligence and not because all humans deserve to be treated well.

Essentially Onofrio, you say all people deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that one does not need some valuable quality to deserve these rights. Well let us study the problem.

I assume Onofrio that you went to high school and that there were a few chicks more than hot. Did you ever get to sleep with any of them? In all probability you did not. And why? Because as the old saying goes, you were out of their league. They quite simply felt they could do better than you. And you Onofrio, did you ask out the ugliest girl in the school? No you did not, you were not there to give her any life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--especially the latter, the happiness.

The point: We all pick and choose, we all elevate this person over that one. Our entire society is based on qualifications for this and that. The notion of life, liberty and happiness for all is a myth--and fortunately so. If we did not work toward standards of evaluating humans we would be worse off than virtually every other species whose members try desperately to breed with the best that they can find.

In short Onofrio, your sentiments are typical left wing socialistic sentiments and ironically for all the left wing elevation of the theory of evolution over creationism the creationists are more in tune with evolution than the liberals. Why do I say so? Because the creationists at least believe humans are fallible and must be corrected, must be changed in the direction of God. But liberals for all their belief in evolution overlay evolution with a thick layer of socialistic beliefs which have as their prime tenet that all humans are equal, that we should not try to find differences between people and elevate the best over the others.

Essentially the socialistic beliefs of the liberals take us around in circles, the best existing to elevate the stupid, etc.--no forward direction, no taking a stand on who are the best humans among us, those most capable of ensuring the future of the human race. Fortunately it seems in defiance of these socialistic beliefs that humans at least in some measure know they should defer, sacrifice themselves to the more qualified among us--and this sentiment will only be strengthened the more the genetic sciences advance.

Part two.

Far from eugenics being a thing of the past, it is something the human race has been struggling to perfect--something that began imperfectly just like the concept of democracy. For centuries upon centuries all too often attempts at democracy would just lead to a chaotic society and society would have to turn back once again to some form of despotism. In short, all too often in the past democracy was evil because it led to chaos rather than a better order than a despotic state (read Edmund Burke's sentiments on the revolution in France).

Well eugenics moves along the same lines. All too many people consider such evil, but that is because it has not arrived at an appreciable measure of perfection. But that day is arriving and if the U.S. wants to get on some moral high horse and refuse to even make the attempt at perfecting eugenics it will find itself left behind because some other nation will make the attempt. Where technology exists an attempt will be made.

And of course the U.S. when threatened with being left behind will suddenly change its sentiments and actually be in the advance in promoting eugenics by sophistication of genetic understanding...

That is just the way it is. The question is not whether we should pick and choose and select the best among us--we have been trying for that for many years. The question is whether we will get more sophisticated at it, both better at picking and choosing and making it ethical.
Today we believe we are being ethical in saying all people need to be treated equally but we quite hypocritically pick and choose the best from among us.

We do pick and choose--so how can we become better at it and make it simultaneously more ethical? Or will we continue boasting of treating all people equally while the ugly girl in class goes home to only more homework and maybe a pet to snuggle up with?

Figure it out--because it will not go away.

More than half the participants at the Wannsee Conference (20 Jan. 1942) held the Ph.D. It was at this event that the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem was "finalized." Eichmann took the minutes.

Although academia had been nazified by that time, among the older Ph.Ds. were those with pre-Hitler degrees, the finest obtainable in the known world.

Hello Danielinthelionsden,

Many thanks for your response-with-verse - as considered and thoughtful as ever.

"And on the subject of the "equality of all people," I do not believe literally that all people are alike in their talents and capacities. Rather, I think of the "equality of all people" as a legal doctrine as people deal with and face the apparatus of the state."

Exactly. I would term this an *existential equality* - the "born equal" of those U.S. Founding Folks (in their pigtails and stockings).

Methinks the supremacy of the *brightest* prophesied by t'other Daniel would turn out as bad as those other wannabe supremacies of the *whitest* and the *rightest*.

To Onofrio on his comments to Daniel 12

What you said makes alot of sense. We as humans, want, do, and believe very few things. Any of us could easily adapt to any culture that has ever existed upon the earth.

The generations upon generations of humanity that have proceded us are like the flowers that bloom for a short time in the warmth and sun of Spring, then wither and die.

From a poem by "unknown":

"We are the same as our fathers have been
We see the same sights our fathers have seen
We drink the same streams, and see the same sun
And run the same course our fathers have run.
We make in their dwellings a transient abode
And meet what they met on their pilgramage road..."

I wish Daniel12 could understand these things. It is not practical to suppose that genetic science will measurably alter the inner mechanisms that make humanity tick.

Most people have babies with only miminal medical intervention, only when something seems to be wrong. Most people in the world just have babies with no medical assisance at all.

While it might be possible to experiment on specific cases, which I doubt would ever by ethically sanctioned, this kind of medical intervention in the procreation process is not likely ever to be competitive with simply "having babies."

And on the subject of the "equality of all people," I do not believe literally that all people are alike in their talents and capacities. Rather, I think of the "equality of all people" as a legal doctrine as people deal with and face the apparatus of the state.

And above and beyond that, if you have an open mind and an open heart, it is not so hard to like and even befriend any kind of person at all, that you might meet from any kind of background, even a gay person, even a Jew, even an Arab, even a Communist, even a Republican.

"For the one thousandth time, I did not mention a statement on behalf of the RCC."

Yes, daughter. But you do, and rightly, hate them. After all, don't the sewer creatures like them deserve it? Savor your hatred. Cherish it. Drink it in and let it fill your heart. Let it fill our existences ever more with each passing day. Your hatred makes you strong.

Well done.

Hi Athena - my post was in meant to be in agreement with Onofrio's rebuttal to the oft repeated Daniel12 hypothesis that through science, we are verging on ridding the race of inferior genes, limited gene pools, and brainless swimmers that are floundering at the shallow end and causing all kinds of trouble. This to me is a pretty limited view of the constellation of forces that create societies.

I strongly agree with science being used to rid the world of maladaptive genes and genetic anomalies - but in my view improving intellect (genetic engineering) is a far more subjective and selective use of genetics - and open to vast abuses e.g. eugenics.

Daniel's view seems to be that if we improve intellection (IQ scores) through gene manipulation and selective mating (which many research studies have found to be a natural human process anyway) then we would rid the world of a host of stupid and even deadly behaviors.

Since books have been written on the subject, not much can really be said here - except to offer the counter-argument that sheer intellectual power in and of itself is probably over-rated. On the other hand, I don't like stupid people telling me what to do either.....

In addition, there is really no shortage of smart people in given population distributions, of either gender. But we do see that student populations in the USA are lagging behind in math and science, when compared to other populations elsewhere - why? Well, that's complicated.

My guess - variations in cultural, sub-cultural and societal values. I offer sports & gun insanity, and religious fundamentalism, as three examples of counter-productive cultural pre-occupations that impede general intellectual growth and development through their widespread and unbalanced impact on society.

While it's true that limited thinkers cause no end of trouble for themselves and others, this is due more to being thoroughly conditioned in the views, beliefs, values and behaviors that are at the root of a wide variety of social problems. Bright people are subject to the same kind of conditioning mechanisms, and the same skewed beliefs and values as the rest of us.

So in other words, nurture predominates over nature (raw intellect) in my view, when it comes to producing well-adjusted successful people that contribute to society. By comparison, very smart mal-adjusted folks with personality disorders don't do as well in this regard.

A vague concept to be sure, but I believe balance is the key to good individual mental health and a generally successful life - on the human continuum.

I admire Abraham Maslow and his concept of self-actualization realized by way of a series of peak experiences - as being both the pinnacle and purpose of human development.

He believed that most people plateaued well short of this fairly rare accomplishment - being reasonably intelligent may certainly help, but is no guarantee of ever reaching this rarified realm, given the distractions along the way.

This is certainly one way of viewing the spiritual (although not necessarily conventionally religious) pursuits that would ideally take a fair amount of our private time later in life.

BTW, I fully expect the Red Wings to prevail in game 7 of the Stanley Cup series tonight - in Detroit. Don't miss it!!

For the one thousandth time, I did not mention a statement on behalf of the RCC.

The current contributing "catholic" On Faith panelists (Reese and Arroyo) are "catholic" in name only and do not speak for the RCC.

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, www.usccb.org/

"Cardinal George Calls Violence at Holocaust Museum Appalling; Cites Need for Education against Racial, Religious Prejudice

WASHINGTON—Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the violence of the June 10 shooting at the Holocaust Museum was “appalling.” He added that “This tragic incident only serves to reinforce the need for continued education throughout society against bias of every kind, but most especially racial and religious prejudice.”

See the complete statement at the referenced web site.

Apparently, Farnaz has access only to the On Faith web site.

Persiflage,

Anti-intellectualism. Another hallmark of the problems of our current society. When a guy who dropped out of college can criticize a Yale Law School, Phi Beta Kappa graduate for being "not bright", things have gotten out of hand. After all, the first people that are generally killed in any revolution are the intellectuals, because they are the ones that emerge as leaders.

I generally enjoy your posts, but equating all intellectuals as capable of being mass murderers is almost as bad as Mean Spider calling anyone that disagrees with him an idiot.

Persiflage,

When you have a moment, hop on over to Fr. Reese's thread where I have engaged TTWSY and so forth.

I had asked a question, most notably, on Fr. Reese's thread. I pointed out that, thus far, on the murder in the museum, we have heard from among OnFaith panelists Jews, Bahai, Muslims, Protestants, Christians, Mormons. Of the "Abrahamics," only the Catholics have been silent.

I had asked Fr. Reese to comment. I then asked TTWSY and so forth why no Catholic had responded to the atrocity. He has replied.

Need we mention that the whacked out the Holocaust Museum psychopath/murderer was touted as a member of Mensa?? High intelligence alone says nothing about moral character and other (socially) desirable personality traits.

In fact, it can just as easily result in the kind of self-centered narcissism that festered in this hate-mongering would-be mass murderer for a life time.

Another brilliant psycho of note - the genius intellect of social loner/letter bomber Ted Kazyinski, along with various other 'bright' suspects in recent anthrax related/other mail bomb scares?? No, not a dummy in the lot......the list of very bright but morally defective killers is a long one.

The genetic engineering of high intellects for 'the good of society' is a red herring of the first magnitude - one of the pioneer researchers in both genetics and the social philosophy of eugenics was French physician Alexis Carrell, a nobel prize winner and noted antisemite.

Breeding for intellect might work for show dogs, but is a distinctly slippery slope for humans - and is not in any way a viable research concept that will ever see the light of day......for very good reasons.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"With the genetic sciences advancing it seems we are on the threshold of making many humans obsolete, that we are moving toward just plain selecting better humans. That everyone is equal is a myth even now."

I am an irrationalist and mythmonger who believes in the equality you view as near obsolete. (Sorry, Friedrich N, we part ways here.)

We humans are utterly levelled by our born-and-dying, walking-and-talking, thinking-and-feeling, forked-and-fleshly shared nature; all of us stretched between the one molten core and the one sun, each of us an equilibrium of the same elements.

Any futuremongery that denies this basis is just another all-too-human nightmare-to-be, no matter how sophisticated its science.

Guns DO kill. Killing is easy with a gun. Without a gun, killing is not easy.

Take the Alfred Hitchcock movie "Torn Curtain" for example.

A farm couple was collalborating with Western Intelligence against the East German regime. An East German agent was suspicious of their activites, and came to their home to let them know that their days were numbered. They knew the only way to survive was to kill him, on the spot. They either didn't have a gun, or didn't want the sound of a gunshot, I forget.

They stabbed him, with a kitchen knife and the blade broke off in his body. They choked him. They hit him in the knees with a shovel so he couldn't escape with his injuries. They dragged his still struggling body to the stove, and held his head inside the gas oven, until hi suffocated to death. His body shook and convulsed for several minutes. It was pretty gruesome.

Even though he was the villain, and the farm couple was the heroes, it was hard to watch and you felt empathy for this guy.

It is not so easy to kill someone without a gun. I think that it is simply nonsense to say or think otherwise.

Could the VA-Tech killer have done all that damage without a gun? Would all those little Amish girls have been killed in their school if the killer didn't have a gun?

People DO kill people, and they do it easily and witout effort, with guns.

Rural areas have less gun restrictions, but that is not why they have less crime. They have less crime because rural areas are more culturally stable, not not densely populated.

Should we give guns to nurses and doctors? to the clergy and priests? to pilots and flight attendants? to waiters and waitresses? to teachers? to students and little children? to little Amish girls? to secretaries? passengers on planes? clerks and cashiers in stores and banks? to janitors and maids? to mental patients and crazy people who might snap at any minute?

Should members of Congress carry guns inside the Capital? Would that make them feel safer from assasination?

To Onofrio from Daniel. You made a good point--this question of why we would choose one person over another based on this quality or that. And I have to confess myself biased in favor of anything which brings forth genius in the human race. In other words, if I were to have absolute power I know from a simple and honest examination of myself that I would be a quite horrifying tyrant, except different from tyrants from the past by trying my best to separate the more intelligent, capable humans from the mass. If that sounds shocking to you you might want to take a good honest look at the most advanced societies. More and more in the advanced societies, no matter democracy, human rights, that all people deserve to be treated equally, the economic calculus grinds ever finer. From the first day of school to the last one is tested and inevitably all too many are just left behind. More and more a society meritocratic exists. And we all seem to be accepting it pretty much--which is to say saying such things that this person deserves that position and pay, that person deserves that position and pay. In fact more and more it seems that in the advanced democracies we have a process of selecting the best humans to represent us and receive the best medical care, the best houses, the best social network, etc. We are slowly but surely exercising a tyranny of selecting the best and brightest and supporting them the most. A tyranny out of our own free will. And the question is just how selective and ruthless we will become. With the genetic sciences advancing it seems we are on the threshold of making many humans obsolete, that we are moving toward just plain selecting better humans. That everyone is equal is a myth even now. Go try to become an actor. Try to play in the NFL. Try to get a position at a prestigious university. Do I really need to continue? All that remains to be said is that I am indeed rationalizing here, trying to prop up my position. The question is how close is my rationalization to the truth? That is what we all should be afraid of. We are quite simply entering more and more into the era where it will be asked out loud-- no longer "just happen"--who are the most valuable humans among us...Not least because it seems so many of our problems are due to quite frankly problematic humans, those excessively religious, those who cannot keep their population in check, those nationalistic--the list goes on and on. The best way to refute me is to just solve the problem. Certainly I am not pleased that God makes all too obviously people unequal. Maybe that is just more proof that God does not exist. I really do not know what to say further. Just consider me wrong. But where is the right? I really do not know what to say about this problem.

FRANKBD

Thee on Islam:
"It is a religion and a culture with a history of discrimination against others and women."

That's applicable not only to Islam, but to every *religion and culture* that has ever been.

Even those sans-god religions...

"Racism, Jew Hating, Islamophobia are all products of ignorance. There are no exceptions."

Islam is not a race. It is a religion and a culture with a history of discrimination against others and women.

Hate and ignorance go together.

Racism, Jew Hating, Islamophobia are all products of ignorance. There are no exceptions.

Daniel12,

You:
"Kill a Jew you kill one of the most probable intellects to solve the pressing questions of our time (cancer, climate change, energy problems, space program, economics)."

This futurist utilitarianism makes me queasy, Dan le Douze.

Look, it wouldn't matter if Jews had the lowest IQs, and had produced no thinkers/artists of note, and were not incubating your future saviours. Vilifying them, demonising them, harassing them, and murdering them are just stark raving WRONG. Just as it is wrong to vilify, demonise, harass, and murder any people. Whether they have among them an over-supply of philosophers, pop stars, cinemakers, and Vulcans is utterly beside the point.

Why is it even at issue? Why must there be special *reasons why*?

Calsailor,

"And the rest of the world thinks we as a nation are insane over guns. And we are."

As a dweller in that Other, I can say "Spot on!", Pr Chris.

To the modern day *minute men* (tiny, that is):

THE REDCOATS HAVE GONE; PASS IT ON...

The true *swine flu* of jew-loathing paranoia is still among us, however...mutating endlessly.

Mutant men; mutilatory, retaliatory, microphallic men...

I cannot answer this question. With each passing day I am more and more biased in favor of the Jews. I grew up listening to David Lee Roth with Van Halen: Geddy Lee with Rush: Gene Simmons with Kiss; watching Spielberg's Close Encounters; Richard Dreyfuss fantastic in Jaws; Leonard Nimoy in Star Trek--and I cannot list all the books by Jews I have read (Berlin, Kafka, Bellow, Maimonides, Spinoza,--it goes on and on). I read that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest I.Q.s in the world with the possible exception of the citizens of Hong Kong and South Korea and Japan. Kill a Jew you kill one of the most probable intellects to solve the pressing questions of our time (cancer, climate change, energy problems, space program, economics). I cannot answer this question. A question I have no right to answer because I cannot be objective.

Kert1,

Sorry for the misnaming. I had meant my last post for you.

Ken1,

"Let's keep in mind that we are "shocked" because these type of completely racially motivated murders are actually rare in this day and age."

On a level it is hard to say what is rare. The media are adept at focusing attention on the negative, and particularly the controversial and negative stories. You will always hear of the female white child, (remember JonBenet Ramsey?), that is abducted, but not the black one from the projects. She goes uncovered.

That said, I agree with you that these kind of cases are rare. America is essentially 'blessed' that there is more civil protections, an effective government and policing, and relative safety. We export our violence. You would not want to be a Shi'ite in a Sunni neighborhood in Bagdad these days. Violence is, one understands from those media reports, common in that city. As well as in Rio, Caracas, Mogadishu, ...

We have it good, really.

Hello Ken16,

"His hatred was broad spectrum and it is arrogant and sloppy to describe him as "right-wing.""

I agree that the term right-wing does not always work to define the many variations of 'fundamentalism', and this shooter does not fit into common ground shared by many conservatives, but he certainly is not a 'liberal' by standard definition of that word. Hardly.

Oswald was called a communist with ties to Cuba, but was he that? So much conspiracy in that thing that it is hard to believe. Yet, some communists are not liberal by any fashion. Mao did not run a liberal ship, and Stalin, though 'socialist', was not liberal if you consider humanism as a more liberal domain. Both were happy with a gun in their hands, and assassination just made conflict shorter...

I agree with you. Guns are not the cause, or even the issue. They are just a tool that people use, lunatic or rationalist, to further their aims. Without guns, other weapons are used. This is not about the tool to murder, but about the mind that has justified that they can and should murder. It is about hatred, and guns are just a more effective tool for hatred than knives or explosives.

BobMoses,

"And this has something to do with faith?"

Why, yes, BobMoses, it does. Faith and hatred have gone hand in hand for millennia. Not that they are in accord but in the tribal sphere.

BTW, what is your tribal affiliation, BM? They are often anti-something. Yours is anti-liberal?

"You can always count on this when news breaks about a gun-toting murderer killing Americans: the shooter wasn't a liberal."

Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist. The Holocaust shooter hated neocons and Bill O'Reilly. The FBI warned the Conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard, that evidence showed he intended to target them also. Perhaps it was the leftwing lunatics that pushed him over the edge with their intemperate internet ravings? His hatred was broad spectrum and it is arrogant and sloppy to describe him as "right-wing."

Susan Jacoby is right to say that this is the work of a lunatic. She then makes an unwarranted leap into blaming guns. Contrary to her assertion, the government did not permit this felon to carry a firearm. For someone who insists publicly on using reason and facts there is no excuse for ignoring the data that shows a decrease in violence correlated strongly with fewer restrictions on citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, Ms. Jacoby, the issue isn't the guns. Quite frankly it isn't hard to kill one person, no matter what the means. Even if all guns where illegal, they still wouldn't be hard to get.

Of course, I don't believe we should sell guns to criminals or those with real mental problems but this is a side issue. I don't know if this guy would qualify, even with his radical views.

Let's just admit with was a really crazy person with very radical views. It is a very unfortunate incident but radically changing policy over one shocking death isn't the best solution. Let's keep in mind that we are "shocked" because these type of completely racially motivated murders are actually rare in this day and age.

A really insane lone wolf has his own unique mad view of the world, and does not share it with anyone else. So this was very much an act of terror on the part of Von Brunn.

This man was not a lone wolf. He was a member of a pack of wolves that believe in white superiority and despise above all the Jews who they believe are the spawn of the devil and cause all the bad things that happen in this world. To them, the Jewish people themselves embody the anti-christ. Only as far as we know did Von Brunn act alone. I heard a specialist who follows these hate groups say that because they are suspicous (rightfully so) that their supremist organizations are infiltrated by the FBI, they usually work in small groups of three, that way insulating their plans from being spied on.
Von Brunn acted because he wanted to impress his fellow haters and urge them to act the same way. Just as the man who killed Dr. Tiller meant his act to encourage others in his hate group (that believe it is a good and sacred act to kill abortionists).

This was not the act of one insane person. It was the action of a member of a group that is obsessed with hatred and who right now believe they are losing the battle and the U.S. power stucture is no longer dominated by white Christian men.

And this has something to do with faith?

They need to stop calling this blog "OnFaith" and change it to "LiberalOpinions".

"It's time to kill the Jews." James Von Brunn
___________________________

As the staff of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum mourns the death of Steven T. Johns, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's words, which echo his oft-noted sentiments take on a new significance. Unlike the Rev. Smith, who managed to omit Jews as a people loved by God, indeed, cannot mention Jews, even now, the Reverend Wright has no such qualms, today, June 11th, 20009.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wright_0610jun10,0,7603283.story

'"Of course I voted for him; he's my son. I'm proud of him," Wright said. "I've got five biological kids. They all make mistakes and bad choices. I haven't stopped loving any of them.

"He made mistakes. He made bad choices. I've got kids who listen to their friends. He listened to those around him. I did not disown him.'

Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: 'Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office.'"

Well said Susan.

When ministers start having "Bring your guns to church" Sunday, and we have phrases such as "pry my guns out of my cold, dead, hands" and a guy takes out a bunch of cops because of a hypothetical fantasy that someone will take his away, we seriously have to ask a whole segment of the population about idolatry: Just who do you worship anyway, God, or guns? I seriously think, if forced to choose, many in our society would have trouble making that choice. My God doesn't have a caliber.

And the rest of the world thinks we as a nation are insane over guns. And we are.

Pr Chris

Susan Jacoby, et al:

Please stop doing the old sidestep. Vonn Brunn was a life-long Jew hater, whose rants are reminiscent of those we see continually on WaPo and onFaith blogs.

While the right to own guns figures in this discussion as much as it does in Tiller's, where, btw., neither Susan nor anyone else raised it, the motive here was JEW HATRED.

This was an attack on a Holocaust Museum by a lifelong JEW HATER. For a specimen of the type, read one of the main thread's posting.

Read Shark2's posting, on OnFaith, of the Protocol's of the Elder's of Zion. Read the thread from Berlinerblau's piece on cyber-antisemitism. On a quieter antisemitic note, read this weak's "Catholic World," courtesy of Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, he who is wont to cite young Jewish women, etc.

THIS ATTACK WAS ABOUT JEW HATRED, that which can only express itself, but never speak its name.

JEW HATRED. HATRED OF JEWS. RACISM. ANTISEMITSIM.

JEW HATRED.

I recently heard a guy talking proudly about his uncle, "Oh, yeah, he's a full-on right-winger: totally armed, an AK-47, the whole bit."

As a liberal, I try to imagine how utterly weird it would sound to speak of my "left-wing uncle" as being "totally armed, and AK-47, the whole bit," as a way to define his left-leaning politics, and being more proud than concerned.

Why is membership in the conservative side of the political spectrum almost defined by the size of the arms cache?

Could you imagine how freaked out everyone would be if leftys and liberals armed-up to the equivalent degree as conservatives and right-wingers, embracing gun-ownership as a political duty, denouncing all moves toward gun regulation as liberty-killing "confiscation," and Unitarian ministers holding Bring Your Guns to Church Day?

One thing connecting all these frothing murderers: all of them come from the ranks of the gun nuttery.

You never find supporters of sensible gun control (See: “well-regulated militia”) opening fire on people in churches, museums, schools, etc.

You can always count on this when news breaks about a gun-toting murderer killing Americans: the shooter wasn't a liberal.

Growing up in Detroit in 60's, I experienced the chaos of the times: riots, assassinations, the vietnam war, Nixon, John Birch Society, KKK, Black Panthers, etc The significant difference today seems to be that rightwing extremists have an extremely powerful media voice at their disposal (EIB, ClearChannel, Murdoch, Fox, etc) Radio, TV, News, and a well coordinated internet presence.

This makes it much easier to cajole and convince the already marginal paranoid right extremists that white men in particular are under attack from every institution in america e.g. latina Supreme Court judges, black presidents, jewish bankers, etc.

In as much as I recognize that the rightwing has always included a particularly well-armed, fanatical, delusional, and paranoid segment of the amercian population, we can certainly expect more, much more.

An opinion for your kind consideration.

Murder in the Cathedral No. 2

This bastard Von Brunn's rantings are identical to those I have read in WaPo and on this blog whenever someone with a last name that could be construed as "Jewish" figures in the news, whenever Israel makes it to the front page, or simply, whenever.

This bastard's delusions didn't come out of thin air. They are part and parcel of the thinking of the racist bastards we read every day in this prominent newspaper and in the OnFaith blog. Indeed, these very blogging bastards more than enabled the bastard Von Braun.

They armed him.

When Bin Laden and his ilk stop trying to come up with Dr. Evil like meglomaniac plots and just send a few fundies over to a few gun shows and reap havoc on some malls, u guys may finally realize that you have a gun problem.

Susan is right, why are peole so shocked. Pro gun is not pro life, u r killing yourselves and u dont care and instead save your rage for abortion providers and homosexuals.

5 or 6 9-11's happen a year with gun related violence and u just make it easier to kill. It is too much however to expect rational debate in this country, its sick and sad.

Older weapons don't have serial numbers, Pagan.
Street or inherited.

J

GenuineRisk:"This nut already spent time in prison for kidnapping and gun charges, so how did he get the gun? "

Well, it appears he actually used an antique rifle, (They didn't say what type, though one source said it was around a hundred years old) whether for his own reasons or to try and make what he planned to do *not* about gun control, or perhaps *to* try and amp that up, I dunno.

Rifles, in any event, are somewhat less-regulated, I think even felons in some states can have them.

Apparently he got off five shots and 'only' killed one, perhaps we can be *glad* he hadn't gotten hold of anything more effective for the thing he was trying to do. I don't believe you can legally have anything in DC, anyway. It's an urbanized patch of ground with no hunting to be had.

It might be time for the right-wingers to apologize to Secy. Napalitano for the condemnation of the DHS "lone-wolf" extremist report.

Guns... Now there is a topic to place on your burner, Susan.
Power of the Spirit too protect, or the gun.

The cost of ammo has increased dramatically.

I remember a few years back, I turned my weapons in. Had them destroyed. They called me crazy for doing that.

I don't see Israel givng up the Bank, do you?
Jerusalem, the old UN decision. That was just.

J

It appears quite clear that these sorts of occurrences have increased exponentially; perhaps he should moderate his rather extremist policies. They seem to push some vulnerable people over the edge and this is the unfortunate result!
Posted by: gjdagis | June 10, 2009 5:30 PM
__________________________________________

Who is "He" and why is anyone but the crazy with the gun being blamed?

The guard had a gun and he got killed, so much the NRA's mantra that if everyone had a gun there wouldn't be any killing.

This nut-job was definitely not a member of the "greatest generation"!!!! And once again, people of any age can pose a threat. Someone, somewhere should have recognized the problems with this individual and put him on a watch list!!!

It appears quite clear that these sorts of occurrences have increased exponentially; perhaps he should moderate his rather extremist policies. They seem to push some vulnerable people over the edge and this is the unfortunate result!

Genuinerisk has a point. Unfortunately for him, it's the opposite of what he intended. It was already illegal for this guy to have a gun. So how can making it illegal for OTHER people to have guns affect this crime?

I'm glad the cops shot the guy. The world is full of whack-os, no telling what's going to set these guys off. Maybe if it were easier to lock up whack-os in mental hospitals against their will we would have fewer of them. And fewer homeless people too.

BTW Genuine, people might take you seriously if you drop the name-calling.

This nut already spent time in prison for kidnapping and gun charges, so how did he get the gun? Or does he just carry it for "protection" as the American Taliban (Rethuglican Party) would have you believe?