To those who stoked the baseless gun fears for their own ends....
A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and "lying in wait" opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.
Police Chief Nate Harper said the motive for the shooting isn't clear, but friends said the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.
Later: (PPG) "He was also convinced that the government wanted to take away his guns and his freedom."
posted by mikevotes at
4:43 PM
17 Comments:
It's still a bit early to jump to conclusions, but the wingnut sites are hailing this guy as a hero and using the incident to fire up even more paranoia.
I will go out on a limb here and predict that within two weeks we will start seeing Republican politicians making public hand-wringing statements to the effect that this phenomenon is inevitable, though unfortunate.
The wingnuts want us to live in fear, because fear makes simplistic solutions seem reasonable. If a few mentally unstable people have to go out in a hail of bullets to make us more afraid, I would venture that they consider that to be a necessary price to pay.
Ironically, as these incidents provoke calls for more stringent gun control legislation, the wingnuts will simply point to this a 'proof' that were correct to be paranoid all along.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 6:02 PM
I don't watch the wingnut sites, but they're hailing this guy as a hero?
Is it a Koresh/Ruby Ridge thing where big government intruded (on him beating his wife?)
By
mikevotes, at 10:15 PM
Wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with an AK-47, a long rifle and a pistol, Poplawski fired about 100 rounds during the standoff,
By
mikevotes, at 6:36 AM
They've backed away from "hero" status. Now he was a poor guy who was backed into a corner by Obama's policies:
"Obama’s fault
Absolutely right. This needs to be repeated often and loudly;
"Obama caused this man to kill these people, not the guns." "
Others disown him completely, and cast suspicion on his friends' remarks.
I have also seen a startling number of references to "Molon labe", which is a motto from the militias ("Over my dead body", rough translation). Most people wouldn't "get" this reference, but the crazy wingnuts do. This is what first gave me the impression of "hero" status.
It seems the wingnuts don't know how to respond to this collectively. The Right had better be damn careful how they spin this.
While Beck, Bachmann, etc never explicitly issued orders to kill police officers, they certainly made it appear that such a thing would be unfortunate but understandable. They were just trying to "rile up the libs" (wink, wink).
By
Todd Dugdale , at 10:10 AM
So, Guns don't kill people, A ginned up fantasy of what Obama could do kills people.
And, I hesitated to tie this one back to that earlier militia post because I saw nothing to indicate that he was tied in with any of them. But, it is part of the broader sentiment being built out there. This guy's clearly one nut, but that sentiment is out there and being fanned.
(And I doubt the Beck/Bachmann's will ever be challenged about this kinda stuff unless we find manifestos in the crazy's footlocker.
This is the kinda thing media doesn't ask because it's not polite and they're worried about the outraged backlash.)
By
mikevotes, at 10:38 AM
I think that there is some responsibility here (not legal, of course, but ethical) by those who feed the fears of on-the-edge people with rants that are really motivated by politics or, even worse, the profit motive (listen to my talk show and my pay goes up). Remember how the gun stores were being bought out of their stock as soon as the election results were in? That isn't due to individuals coming to the same conclusion: That is the result of an orchestrated incendiary program.
MC
By
Anonymous, at 11:26 AM
If the Right turns on this guy and denounces him (in a sincere and credible manner), it can deter further nuts from following in his footsteps. These nuts comfort themselves with the belief that they will be remembered as brave and patriotic heroes by "Real America".
Remove any potential for glory, and you reduce the numbers of nuts willing to live out their "Alamo" fantasies. It won't matter that they are condemned in the "liberal media"; it has to be their "own kind" dumping on them, and harshly.
You're right about the media, too. They won't dig any deeper than they already have.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:26 AM
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think he was wrong?
Oh, and seriously? You are darstically oversetimating the degree to which the 2A crowd listens to any politician. How they react to this is of little consequence.
Also, to Anon - yes, actually, it is the result of individuals coming to the same conclusion, and it hasn't stopped or even slowed yet.
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 12:50 PM
Anon, That's kinda what I was getting at.
\...
Todd, It's tough because there isn't a clean "right" to act.
...
OMR, show me legislation. Show me some tangible statement of intent from Obama after the campaign. Show me where they're going to go house to house and seize all the guns.
Even in a worst case (from gun right's perspective) scenario) they're not going to round up all the guns and take them away, That's insane. In a worst case they stop all sales, and it's not like guns wear out. How many assault rifles are out there even with the over a decade ban.
This is fearmongering designed to strike at some bizarre self-identity/powerlessness fear in one segment of the population.
As for politicians. It's not so much that they're dictating to people as creating an opening in the dialogue for crazyassed stuff like this to flourish.
When topline figures validate irrational statements like fascism or arm up to fight the government, it creates a space where the real crazies can find validation for their behaviour. It's about public responsibility.
Fomenting people to arm themselves and "resist the government" is irresponsible. Some ethical responsibility attaches. Kinda like a lesser version of inciting to riot.
By
mikevotes, at 5:22 PM
If the cops come to your house for a domestic disturbance and they find out there are guns on the premises, they will pretty much always seize them. Charges or no charges, good luck getting them back. With charges, gone forever.
Also, am hearing rumors he was dishonorably discharged from the marines; if so I believe his posession was illegal.
As far as the 'take all guns' meme is concerned, this characterization of the gun control issue as either "take them all" or "nothing to worry about" is quite possibly the most extravagantly successful case of framing I have ever seen.
It has completely overshadowed the real concerns regarding administration policy to the point of killing constructive discussion.
Also, you might look into the differences between the '94 AWB and the more recent attempts. Note the addition of the phrase 'or posession' in section 2-a-1.
When it comes down to it, this guy was clearly bug@#@$ crazy anyways.
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 6:22 PM
More background information on Poplawski is coming out.
Sounds like a white supremacist.
OMR:
Holder floating the idea of a temporary ban on the sale of assault weapons is not a "gun grab". It's not taking away anyone's gun. We've banned the "Tommy gun" since the 1930's, through Republican and Democratic Administrations, and we've managed to get along pretty well.
Beck and Bachmann didn't want anyone to get to shot. They just wanted the country to believe that someone could get shot if they didn't get their way.
That is a form of extortion, though it cannot be proved in court.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 6:34 PM
"If the cops come to your house for a domestic disturbance and they find out there are guns on the premises, they will pretty much always seize them.
He was saying that Obama was going to take his guns away well before he took a swing at his own mother because she was kicking him out of her house.
"Also, am hearing rumors he was dishonorably discharged from the marines; if so I believe his possession was illegal.
I don't think that makes possession illegal, but I don't think it's outrageous that someone who shouldn't legally have a gun isn't actually allowed to have one.
Or are you asserting that everyone should be allowed to have a gun (convicted felons, the mentally ill, etc.)?
All I see you doing is putting forth legitimate reasons why he shouldn't have a gun, and using that to somehow justify his fear of having the guns (that he shouldn't have in the first place) taken away.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 6:51 PM
Todd - Understand, I am not justifying anything. As more and more information comes out about the guy, it is becoming pretty clear he is a straight up nutjob.
However, it is still incorrect to say that his fear of someone taking away his guns was irrational. In the context of his actions, he was entirely correct.
A quibble - 'tommy guns' were 'banned' in 1986. Existing NFA guns are heavily regulated.
(It is worth pointing out that I do not imply, and I am not good at predicting what people will 'read into' the things I say. What I say is what I mean, and should not be extended further.)
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 7:04 PM
OMR, First off, you can call my argument specious or sophistry or whatever, but again, show me something, anything outside campaign statements that shows that Obama plans to do anything, anything about guns. Legislation, defined statements, anything.
You may say I'm playing logic games, but you're making up a fantasy out of whole cloth.
(Also, just as a personal, I'm always mixed on gun control. I have friends who are gun nuts who I would trust to responsibly handle machine guns, RPG's, really anything. They love it as a hobby/passion, and that's just fine with me.
But then there's also the substantial gun crime, mostly inner city, and crazy folks like this guy who really shouldn't have guns. Find me a policy that hits both, and I'm all in.)
As for your second thread, I'm not sure I understand. His fear of having his guns taken was reasonable therefore...?
....
Todd, I hadn't seen that, although apparently, the argument was with his mother over his dog peeing in the house. She called the police to force him to leave/move out.
By
mikevotes, at 10:27 PM
Mikevotes - It is not your argument, it is a framing maneuver during the campaign that has succeeded almost beyond belief. Now anyone who has concerns about gun control is a paranoid who thinks Obama 'wants to take away their guns'. It was a brillian polital stroke that convinced a lot of moderates, who do not realize that the 2A crowd knows exactly what his positions are, and what they are not.
Obama's position on gun control is here. Scroll down to "Crime and Law Enforcement", last bullet point.
I do not know if he still is looking to ban concealed carry, he has not said anything lately that I know of. He certainly was, and was quite emphatic about it.
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 11:18 PM
Of course, this crazy @#$% isn't helping anything....
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 11:20 PM
Thanks for the rational response to my semi irrational comment. Sometimes I just go off when I think I'm being cast into a position I don't hold.
Anyway. Today is the next day, so as usual, I'm going to abandon this thread. (I generally only watch the threads for about a day. It's too much of a pain to scroll down and check all the posts for new comments for longer than a day or two. Just letting you know so you don't think I'm quitting angry or whatever.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home