As more people from the far left move into positions of power and pro-gun Democrats like Howard Dean are pushed out by ideological purists, the level of discontent is bound to rise. A lot of these folks were pretty unhappy about the Bush administration and the Patriot Act and Real ID and other assaults on civil liberty. With the Democrats in power they see things going from bad to worse with a shift in emphasis from potential rights violations to direct and specific forms of oppression. Rahm Emanuel talking about a domestic security police force and national mandatory service and with the likelihood of tax increases in a time of economic privation, people are feeling very insecure and very threatened.
So they're buying guns and stocking up on ammo, because the future is uncertain and they see too many people with bad intent arrayed against them, and the government is the bogeyman and he's only getting bigger and scarier and getting ready to gobble us all up. But they're not really in a panic and they're not domestic terrorists, they're just hoping for the best while preparing for the worst. The great thing about America is that it's their absolute right to arm themselves to the teeth against a worst-case scenario, and so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process, it's just a celebration of the freedom we all have — at least for now.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bryan McKay
As a pro-gun progressive, I totally support your right to own firearms, but these gun shows scare me a little, especially the notion of people selling guns out of the backs of cars. Gun ownership should be protected, but it also ought to be regulated.
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
IMO the major reason for the greatly increased market for firearms isn't an actual danger of losing your 'Second Amendment rights', but a reaction to the fear- and hate-mongering by many on the far right, particularly the radio talk show hosts like Michael Savage.
That's why there have been more death threats against Obama than against any other president-elect...and this is less than two weeks after the election.
What they don't seem to realize is that sooner or later some right-wing nut-job just might try to take out our next president without having any comprehension of the nationwide riots, murder, and looting that would surely follow.
I know that particular concern doesn't mean much to most conservatives...but perhaps this will. If some right-wing nut-job attempts to assassinate (or, God forbid, succeeds in the attempt) Obama, after the riots, the murders, and the looting that would take place across the nation, you will see a large number - and perhaps a majority - of moderate Republicans switching sides...for they will have seen the far right for what it really is.
If anything happens to Obama, Dave, you will see a greatly diminished Republican party. It truly is in the Republicans' best interests to do their utmost to tone down the rhetoric and protect the guy.
3 - Baronius
Glenn, you keep mentioning the death threats. This seems to be a variation of the race-baiting that the Obama camp did during the campaign. Of course it's something that the Secret Service has to take seriously, and there isn't a decent human being who wants to see anything happen to Obama. But compare what the average conservative says today with what the average liberal has been saying about Bush.
Dave, I forget, did you say that you live in Hartford CT?
4 - Another Dave
"If anything happens to Obama, Dave, you will see a greatly diminished Republican party."
I'm afraid I don't agree with your reasoning that an assasination attempt will cause Republicans to switch sides in huge numbers "for they will have seen the far right for waht it really is." This presumes that the "far right" is supporting or promoting assasination. That is quite a leap.
5 - Dave Nalle
Bryan, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone selling guns outside the show, which is why I mentioned it in the article. Now, it is possible to get a table at the show to sell your own guns, and under current law private sales of guns at a gun show are not regulated, but I think that in this instance the show was oversold and there was no room for these folks to get a table.
Bryan, there's a pretty big difference between the far right and the Republican party, and that ought to be abundantly clear to anyone who looks into it at all. Most of those on the far right hate the GOP as much as or more than they hate the Democrats. They see Bush as the essence of evil and the frontman for global conspiracies which they feel are trying to enslave everyone.
Racist extremists are yet another group which is as likely to be politically in step with the Democrats as the Republicans on issues other than race, but generally they don't have a party allegiance to any mainstream party. Most racist extremists are anarchists or socialists philosophically.
The assumption that these groups are somehow associated with the Republicans is a common smear from the left which has no basis in truth. Almost none of our most notorious domestic terrorists would ever have identified themselves as Republicans. Quotes from many of them are available. Some like Eric Rudolph even had websites. One of the first things you find in their public statements is their condemnations of the Republican party.
Dave
6 - Dave Nalle
The most credible threats against Obama so far have come from people in the Aryan Brotherhood, who are very far outside the mainstream. They hate the GOP a lot, mainly because they are convinced it's a jewish conspiracy. You can read up on this at resist.com if you've got the stomach for it.
Dave
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
A 'big difference between the far right and the Republican party'?
I could partially agree with you in the same sense that the far left eco- and animal-freaks don't speak for the Democrats.
But do the ones below oppose the Republicans?
Michael Savage: "We need to get our troops out of Iraq and put them on the streets of America to protect us from the scourge of illegal immigrants who are running rampant across America, killing our police for sport, raping, murdering like a scythe across America while the liberal psychos are telling us they come here to work."
Chris Baker (talk-show host who supported Fred Thompson and Ron Paul): "I don't think homeless people should vote. Frankly. In fact, I have to be very honest. I'm not that excited about women voting, to be honest."
Michael Savage: "This country today is far beyond the excesses of the Weimar Republic that led to Adolf Hitler. God forbid that should ever happen here. But the German people, who were not all Nazis prior to Hitler's arrival on the scene, were shocked by the degenerates of Berlin. They were sickened by the perverts, sickened by the artistes, they were sickened by the leather fetishists, they were sickened by the degeneracy, and they couldn't handle it." (IOW, homos and fetishists CAUSED WWII)
Quinn and Rose (supported Bush and then McCain): "Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us."
Bill Cunningham (a regular guest on Hannity and Colmes: "[I]magine at the age of 1 or 2 seeing your father for the last time. See, his father was a typical black father who, right after the birth, left the baby. That's what black fathers do. They simply leave."
Michael Savage: "The Democrat [sic] Party is the minority party. ... Obama is a minority, a half minority at least. The membership is made up largely of minority blocs, the Hispanic caucus and the gay caucus -- caucuses that are all against the white person." Savage also claimed: "Now, the white women generally are not as hard-nosed about things as the white male, and so many white women don't even understand that they're being duped, and they vote for a Democrat, not knowing that they're digging their own grave."
Michael Savage: ""I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."
So the above don't represent the Republicans in ANY way? If not, then why do so many Republicans LISTEN to them?
Ah, I forGOT! It's not news or helpful information...it's ENTERTAINMENT! Such good, honest, trustworthy people they are, every one....
you can find all of these quotes and much more at http://mediamatters.org/items/200811130002?f=h_top
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Some more brilliance by CONSERVATIVE talk-show host Michael Savage:
"I'm as good an expert as any. I have found in my life that most of the Ph.D. experts on children are either gay or crazy and were never married. Or if they were married, they either tried to kill their wife or were in rehab for a few years, and then came out and went into psychotherapy to find out why they killed, or attempted to kill. And then they washed it all away, and suddenly they're experts on childrearing."
"Why in the world did [Obama] take time off from the campaign to visit the grandmother who then suddenly and suspiciously died virtually the night before the election?"
"And I'm sick of [the homosexual community's] terror tactics, and I'm sick of them attacking Mormon women. And I want to know where my government is to protect people from these gangs."
Yeah, such good, kind, LOVING people, these Republican-SUPPORTING conservatives.
9 - Ruvy
Glenn,
I see you like the little wienie (Michael Wiener [Savage]) as much as I do.
But that ignores the real issues that Dave raises in his article - the fact that in the States, folks are nervous enough to believe that the government will take their arms away.
In the final analysis, as little as I like the American attitude towards weapons (toys that go bang), these weapons are all that may stand between dictatorship and less dictatorship. That "less dictatorship" may well be what Americasn will call "freedom" in the near future.
We'll see.
10 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, Michael Savage explicitly states over and over on his show that he's not a member of the Republican party and I believe that the last time he was registered with a party he was a Democrat.
He fits in that same model of socially conservative kind of totalitarian ex-Democrat as Bill O'Reilly and Joe Lieberman. These guys are left-wing populists gone bad, and when they go bad they go a little crazy.
As for the others you mention, yes some of the religious right have radio shows. And yes, they infest the Republican party. I can line them up one for one with equally crazy marxist or green fanatics on the other side with equally crazy beliefs.
Dave
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy -
Look at the other industrialized democracies. Look at SWITZERLAND, for Pete's sake! Every one of them - including Switzerland - has gun control regulations MORE restrictive than America's (speaking of America as a whole, not this or that city or state). If I remember correctly (and I'm sure you'll correct me), Israel's laws are more restrictive than our own...even though your general population is under a much greater threat of invasion than our own.
The gun nuts believe that gun control is a sure way to tyranny...but if that is the case, then:
(1) Can you show me a single modern industrialized democracy that has become a tyranny due to gun control? You might claim 'Nazi Germany'...but their situation had far more to do with hyperinflation and religious extremism than with the Weimar Republic's gun control laws.
(2) Can you name even one safe, modern country anywhere in the world right now that has no restrictions on gun ownership? Even one?
(3) What countries currently have no enforced restrictions on gun ownership? (referring to the whole of the country, not just certain sections or provinces of that country)
I understand your concerns, Ruvy...but I suspect modern history doesn't agree with your views.
Remember - I'm against total gun bans and always will be. But it's just like my argument for Social Democracy - "Goldilocks Freedom". Too much is as bad as too little. The same goes with gun control - too much is as bad as too little.
12 - Dr Dreadful
I think that all that can constructively be said on this subject has been said.
I would only observe that the terms 'panic' and 'gun show' seem to me to be uneasy bedfellows...
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Does one have to be a registered Republican to fit your definition of one that supports the Republican party?
Michael Savage endorsed McCain, and (even though he often ranted against him) said "George W. Bush may be remembered as the greatest American president" in response to the gun control fight.
He may not be a registered Republican, but can you imagine him supporting any Democrats? Where does his influence lie - among Democrats...or among Republicans?
So like it or not, Dave, due to his influence among Republicans I can and do lump him in with the rest of the Republicans.
14 - Ruvy
I'm not making a stack of pro-gun arguments here, Glenn. I'm simply pointing out the basic fact that the only thing that keeps America from becoming more of a dictatorship than it is is a well armed population. Goons who want to put down what liberties remain to you have to stake their own lives on the line at present - even if they are well armed.
This is not as true here, where the goons are far better armed than the average citizen, and where active efforts are under way to disarm certain portions of the Jewish population in preparation for expulsion from their homes.
Therefore our efforts to protect our liberties have to be far stronger than yours are - at the moment.
15 - Baronius
Sure, Glenn, I'm sure it'll be a fair argument once we concede to you the right to define all the terms. Like your contention that anyone who disagrees with you is equivalent to a right-wing assassin. You're leaving us with plenty of wiggle room there, right?
16 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, the US has substantial and relatively rational rules restricting gun ownership. We have a background check when you buy a gun. We bar various classes of people from owning guns. We have outright bans or special limitations on many classes and types of guns and gun related items.
For an example of a relatively modern and civilized society with virtually no gun laws at all, consider Britain in 1900 where the only gun law was the requirement to pay a small tax if you wanted to carry a gun openly in public. There was virtually no gun crime by modern standards. Plenty of other crime, but very little gun crime.
That's just one of many bits of evidence which all reinforce the fact that guns aren't the problem in societies which have them. Other factors explain high crime rates.
Dave
17 - jamminsue
Dave - sorry this is off-topic, but why can't I send you an email?
18 - Dave Nalle
I don't know, Sue. What happens when you do? Try the contact form at republicofdave.com
Dave
19 - Clavos
Look at the other industrialized democracies. Look at SWITZERLAND, for Pete's sake! Every one of them - including Switzerland - has gun control regulations MORE restrictive than America's = "Everybody does it."
Can you name even one safe, modern country anywhere in the world right now that has no restrictions on gun ownership? Even one?
No. Including the usa.
20 - Jordan Richardson
I thought this article was going to be about Dave flexing his muscles. I cannot help but hide my disappointment. At the same time, do you own any sleeveless shirts, Dave?
21 - Dave Nalle
Jordan, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but most of the time I wear t-shirts or something similar. Your play on the title was unexpected, though. I'd been expecting people to pick up on the play on the name of the popular band Panic at the Disco.
Dave
22 - Jordan Richardson
I would have gone there, but I'm not a tween. :)
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
I think you'll find that culturally/racially/religiously homogeneous societies like the Britain of 1900 and Japan even now have far less crime. Yes, they did have their minorities...but these were (and in Japan, are) far smaller than what Europe, America, and much of Asia have. Britain and Japan were also aided by the fact that they are islands.
That said, let me address the following:
(1) We have a background check when you buy a gun.
Except for at gun shows, if I remember correctly.
(2) We bar various classes of people from owning guns.
Which is good.
(3) We have outright bans or special limitations on many classes and types of guns and gun related items.
This depends on the location, does it not?
In retrospect the Washington D.C. gun ban was silly and led to a great deal of crime - BUT there is no GOOD reason why each firearm can't be registered. This is not part of some evil plot to take away all the guns, but to make it easier to track down gun-runners and other criminals.
There is also no GOOD reason why each prospective firearm owner shouldn't have to be required to receive training in the class of firearm he or she intends to buy. Not only will this make them safer when they use it for fun...but maybe safer when the time comes that they need it for self-protection.
These aren't a path to tyranny - these are common sense, and opposed only by those who listen to the fear-mongerers who dominate the conservative media, especially on radio.
Dave, we've got many wackos on the left who want a total gun ban...and you've got many wackos on the right who want totally unrestricted freedom of gun ownership (including automatic weapons). The wisest path - as with most other things - is somewhere down the middle.
24 - Baronius
Ooh, I'm so hip. I got the Panic at the Disco reference and the "gun show" reference from The Office.
25 - Jordan Richardson
we've got many wackos on the left who want a total gun ban...and you've got many wackos on the right who want totally unrestricted freedom of gun ownership (including automatic weapons). The wisest path - as with most other things - is somewhere down the middle.
Exactly. A total unrestricted gun ban on freedom!