Like many pundits, Michael McFaul took a quick break this past week from his usual area of “expertise.” Instead of pontificating 24/7 about the need to funnel massive amounts of uncontrolled arms into Ukraine, he adroitly pivoted to pontificating about the need to more stringently control arms in the US. McFaul, a former Ambassador to Russia who is currently
Thank you for this. I'm a target shooter myself and have passing familiarity with rifle models and differences between civilian and military models, and your arguments that the liberals are blatantly self contradicting is convincing to me. But w.r.t. convincing anyone in the liberal commentariat, I suspect you'd have just as much success presenting your arguments to a lamppost. They are not interested in argument or reason.
"High-powered rifles" Is there any particular reason people think calling a varmit/intermediate cartridge "high-powered" makes them sound smart? Also, while we are on the subject, weren't these the same people who said guerillas with rifles would never make a difference in a modern war right after we left Afghanistan after losing to guerillas with rifles?
Violence, weapons and killing are glorified on TV news by the mainstream media all day, every day. The preferred targets are enemy soldiers but sometimes it's necessary to demoralize enemy civilians (including women and children) by carpet bombing them or destroying infrastructure in the middle of heavily populated cities.
It's important to remember, however, that mass killing is only permitted in specific foreign countries at specific times by specified people who are acting under specific directions given by specific US government sanctioned and credentialed military personnel. Maybe Anderson Cooper or CNN could pass that info along periodically, in between his interviews of warmongers and broadcasts of drone strikes because otherwise a child, or confused or mentally disturbed adult (who else would watch CNN?) might occasionally get the wrong idea that killing complete strangers is ok or maybe just became used to it after watching thousands of hours of war coverage. "Please remember not to kill anyone today, unless it's a Russian soldier and you've been given direct orders to do so. Thanks, and have a nice day".
The media trains Americans to hate people - in the past it was foreigners but more often these days it could be the neighbor or others who vote, speak or think in the wrong way. The result of the training is that it's easy to drum up support for a war or political or social cause or profit, but sometimes the hate is not properly channeled and comes out in unexpected ways. The ruling class and its media are waging more wars on more fronts and so it can be expected that there will be more "friendly fire" (mass shootings) - and they can profit from that too.
"Meanwhile, they evince not even a hint of awareness that the positions could represent contradictory impulses. "
You can't believe a word coming out of the mouth of any politician. When a politician appears to slip up its only because of conflicting talking points that come from different donors and out of different sides of their mouth, without enough time elapsed in between. Short sound bites are preferred for that reason, it gives time for the media to forget what they said the last time.
Mainstream media is no better, the thing appears to be built upon hypocrisy - it promotes and cheers killing in war and yet pretends to oppose the killing of school children, despite earning huge profits and ratings from both. If media execs and owners cheered war and school shootings too, I think it would more accurately reflect their true feelings. There used to be zero school shootings and now they are common and its because of the massive news coverage and attention that each event and each shooter gets. We learn about the shooter, his opinions, his motivations, his feelings, his politics, his identity politics and now his "manifesto". What BULLSHIT. They get their 15 minutes of fame from the media, usually after they're dead, but it's enough motivation for the next one. School shootings are a media driven phenomenon as much as any other kind of phenomenon, and what a surprise - the media earns tons of money from every damn one of them. CNN should put up statues from a portion of the profits.
The arms manufacturers are more principled - they sell weapons for profit and the more the better, whether to ukranians or deranged school shooters they just don't give a flying fuck, and no damn law of any kind will be allowed to stop them. From what I understand, congress and the NRA oppose background checks because it would infringe upon the freedoms of the deranged - it's not money they care about, it's the rights of the mentally ill that are foremost in their decrepit minds /s.
Large parts of the economy (media, politics, war and guns) are dependent upon killing, so expect it to continue - it's partly profit motive and partly corporate welfare. The Ukraine war is a form of economic stimulus, the ruling class couldn't think of any other acceptable way to stimulate the economy. Better education or healthcare or food (baby formula) would only serve to raise expectations, better to destroy $50 billion than to waste it on shit, am I right?!
Mr McFaul's policy is quite consistent. He is the authority, he will decide if/when you need "assault" weapons. In the case of the US, he has decreed they are NOT needed, until he decides they are. It's fluid dynamics. In the Ukraine, he has decided that yes, AR15s are acceptable, until he decrees they are not. Now do you get it? He is a rare breed of elite who decrees if/what/when/where/why to the rabble.
I'm nostalgic for the days when Michael Moore didn't have TDS.
Anyway, as a liberal, I can solve the disconnect quite easily. A certain kind of leftist or Democrat (but not liberal) has convinced him/herself Ukraine's "democratic" trustworthy government is fighting for its life against the untrustworthy "undemocratic" government of Putin's Russia. But in our country, our government is both "democratic" and "trustworthy" and its only adversaries are outside the country, which the military can defend with its guns, or "domestic terrorists" inside this country, which our police and intelligence agencies, if given enough power, can protect us all from and the circulation of guns here actually endangers both the populace and the trustworthy, definitely democratic government.
Of course, a real liberal, a libertarian, or a conservative can see the immediate flaw in that argument. We're making an awful lot of assumptions about how trustworthy and democratic both the Ukrainian and the US governments are. So this liberal is fully in favor of arming the US populace. Hand out cannons as far as I'm concerned.
After the events of the last few years I have will NEVER support any “gun control” of any sort. We are on our own and must be ready to defend ourselves.
Good points. FYI, the number of "mass shootings" in the US involving AR-15s and AR-15 clones are few and far between. There have been exactly TWO school shootings with AR-15s since Sandy Hook and Uvalde is only the second involving elementary students. There have been four mass school shootings since and including Sandy Hook. You mention Charles Whitman. Whitman was found to have an astrocytoma brain tumor when he was autopsied. Although the report of the shooting discounted it as a factor, I'd like to mention that my late son had the EXACT SAME tumor. He liked guns and had a M-1 carbine. He called me up one night and said he was going to come to Texas and kill me with it because he blamed me for the issues he was having - headaches, etc. He had an MRI shortly afterwards and the tumor was discovered. Unfortunately, it was inoperable. He also had a major heart condition - reversed arteries. He died in his sleep one night a year or so later.
I must confess that other than for resistance of government, I don't know why anyone would want an AR-15. I qualified with and carried an M-16 for years. I'd much rather have a Winchester Model 70.
The left's ability to compartmentalize is impressive. The velocity with which they went from "YOUR BODY MY CHOICE" (vaccines) to "MY BODY MY CHOICE" (abortion) made my head spin.
I am an AR15 owner, and enjoy this rifle at the range . As on Q, the Democrats are screaming about ARs again, but really, we all know they don’t give a flying fuck about the “children”..... they want these rifles.
The logical fallacies presented here are so characteristic of the dystopian consciousness we endure daily it would be great to continue to develop parallel lines of thought. There is a shape to this rabbit hole. It requires thinking upside down and backwards to anything presented by these illogical psychotic “liberals”. Ask what their actual goals are and we will easily identify them. Far easier now than it was two years ago.
I don’t too much care about any arguments for gun control. “Shall not be infringed” is quite clear. And yes, Joe Biden, you COULD buy a cannon back in the times of the founding fathers.
Shall not be infringed. If you don’t like that there are at least 150 other countries you can move to and not be around civilians with guns.
Thank you for this. I'm a target shooter myself and have passing familiarity with rifle models and differences between civilian and military models, and your arguments that the liberals are blatantly self contradicting is convincing to me. But w.r.t. convincing anyone in the liberal commentariat, I suspect you'd have just as much success presenting your arguments to a lamppost. They are not interested in argument or reason.
"High-powered rifles" Is there any particular reason people think calling a varmit/intermediate cartridge "high-powered" makes them sound smart? Also, while we are on the subject, weren't these the same people who said guerillas with rifles would never make a difference in a modern war right after we left Afghanistan after losing to guerillas with rifles?
Violence, weapons and killing are glorified on TV news by the mainstream media all day, every day. The preferred targets are enemy soldiers but sometimes it's necessary to demoralize enemy civilians (including women and children) by carpet bombing them or destroying infrastructure in the middle of heavily populated cities.
It's important to remember, however, that mass killing is only permitted in specific foreign countries at specific times by specified people who are acting under specific directions given by specific US government sanctioned and credentialed military personnel. Maybe Anderson Cooper or CNN could pass that info along periodically, in between his interviews of warmongers and broadcasts of drone strikes because otherwise a child, or confused or mentally disturbed adult (who else would watch CNN?) might occasionally get the wrong idea that killing complete strangers is ok or maybe just became used to it after watching thousands of hours of war coverage. "Please remember not to kill anyone today, unless it's a Russian soldier and you've been given direct orders to do so. Thanks, and have a nice day".
The media trains Americans to hate people - in the past it was foreigners but more often these days it could be the neighbor or others who vote, speak or think in the wrong way. The result of the training is that it's easy to drum up support for a war or political or social cause or profit, but sometimes the hate is not properly channeled and comes out in unexpected ways. The ruling class and its media are waging more wars on more fronts and so it can be expected that there will be more "friendly fire" (mass shootings) - and they can profit from that too.
"Meanwhile, they evince not even a hint of awareness that the positions could represent contradictory impulses. "
You can't believe a word coming out of the mouth of any politician. When a politician appears to slip up its only because of conflicting talking points that come from different donors and out of different sides of their mouth, without enough time elapsed in between. Short sound bites are preferred for that reason, it gives time for the media to forget what they said the last time.
Mainstream media is no better, the thing appears to be built upon hypocrisy - it promotes and cheers killing in war and yet pretends to oppose the killing of school children, despite earning huge profits and ratings from both. If media execs and owners cheered war and school shootings too, I think it would more accurately reflect their true feelings. There used to be zero school shootings and now they are common and its because of the massive news coverage and attention that each event and each shooter gets. We learn about the shooter, his opinions, his motivations, his feelings, his politics, his identity politics and now his "manifesto". What BULLSHIT. They get their 15 minutes of fame from the media, usually after they're dead, but it's enough motivation for the next one. School shootings are a media driven phenomenon as much as any other kind of phenomenon, and what a surprise - the media earns tons of money from every damn one of them. CNN should put up statues from a portion of the profits.
The arms manufacturers are more principled - they sell weapons for profit and the more the better, whether to ukranians or deranged school shooters they just don't give a flying fuck, and no damn law of any kind will be allowed to stop them. From what I understand, congress and the NRA oppose background checks because it would infringe upon the freedoms of the deranged - it's not money they care about, it's the rights of the mentally ill that are foremost in their decrepit minds /s.
Large parts of the economy (media, politics, war and guns) are dependent upon killing, so expect it to continue - it's partly profit motive and partly corporate welfare. The Ukraine war is a form of economic stimulus, the ruling class couldn't think of any other acceptable way to stimulate the economy. Better education or healthcare or food (baby formula) would only serve to raise expectations, better to destroy $50 billion than to waste it on shit, am I right?!
What a fucked up country.
Mr McFaul's policy is quite consistent. He is the authority, he will decide if/when you need "assault" weapons. In the case of the US, he has decreed they are NOT needed, until he decides they are. It's fluid dynamics. In the Ukraine, he has decided that yes, AR15s are acceptable, until he decrees they are not. Now do you get it? He is a rare breed of elite who decrees if/what/when/where/why to the rabble.
I'm nostalgic for the days when Michael Moore didn't have TDS.
Anyway, as a liberal, I can solve the disconnect quite easily. A certain kind of leftist or Democrat (but not liberal) has convinced him/herself Ukraine's "democratic" trustworthy government is fighting for its life against the untrustworthy "undemocratic" government of Putin's Russia. But in our country, our government is both "democratic" and "trustworthy" and its only adversaries are outside the country, which the military can defend with its guns, or "domestic terrorists" inside this country, which our police and intelligence agencies, if given enough power, can protect us all from and the circulation of guns here actually endangers both the populace and the trustworthy, definitely democratic government.
Of course, a real liberal, a libertarian, or a conservative can see the immediate flaw in that argument. We're making an awful lot of assumptions about how trustworthy and democratic both the Ukrainian and the US governments are. So this liberal is fully in favor of arming the US populace. Hand out cannons as far as I'm concerned.
But thank you for another great article.
After the events of the last few years I have will NEVER support any “gun control” of any sort. We are on our own and must be ready to defend ourselves.
Of course democrats know their donors make these rifles. That’s how they got them to donate one.
Good points. FYI, the number of "mass shootings" in the US involving AR-15s and AR-15 clones are few and far between. There have been exactly TWO school shootings with AR-15s since Sandy Hook and Uvalde is only the second involving elementary students. There have been four mass school shootings since and including Sandy Hook. You mention Charles Whitman. Whitman was found to have an astrocytoma brain tumor when he was autopsied. Although the report of the shooting discounted it as a factor, I'd like to mention that my late son had the EXACT SAME tumor. He liked guns and had a M-1 carbine. He called me up one night and said he was going to come to Texas and kill me with it because he blamed me for the issues he was having - headaches, etc. He had an MRI shortly afterwards and the tumor was discovered. Unfortunately, it was inoperable. He also had a major heart condition - reversed arteries. He died in his sleep one night a year or so later.
I must confess that other than for resistance of government, I don't know why anyone would want an AR-15. I qualified with and carried an M-16 for years. I'd much rather have a Winchester Model 70.
The left's ability to compartmentalize is impressive. The velocity with which they went from "YOUR BODY MY CHOICE" (vaccines) to "MY BODY MY CHOICE" (abortion) made my head spin.
Thanks Michael, always enjoy your articles
I am an AR15 owner, and enjoy this rifle at the range . As on Q, the Democrats are screaming about ARs again, but really, we all know they don’t give a flying fuck about the “children”..... they want these rifles.
Note to Democrats....... you’ll never take mine.
What a great parallel. The liberal commentariat is dishonest, that’s been clear for a while and this is another good example.
The logical fallacies presented here are so characteristic of the dystopian consciousness we endure daily it would be great to continue to develop parallel lines of thought. There is a shape to this rabbit hole. It requires thinking upside down and backwards to anything presented by these illogical psychotic “liberals”. Ask what their actual goals are and we will easily identify them. Far easier now than it was two years ago.
Thanks for raising this issue. Caitlin Johnstone said something similar:
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/has-america-tried-bombing-its-mass?r=1zlqu&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Digital networking monopolies are fully integrated arm of military-intelligence complex
I don’t too much care about any arguments for gun control. “Shall not be infringed” is quite clear. And yes, Joe Biden, you COULD buy a cannon back in the times of the founding fathers.
Shall not be infringed. If you don’t like that there are at least 150 other countries you can move to and not be around civilians with guns.