Your thoughts about Steve's essay

[Todash]

I guess some of my points came across not exactly as I intended. I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done. I'm also not saying that mental issues only belong to the lonely. I just believe that the cornerstone of the issue lies in the lack of responsibility. It needs to be nurtured by parents, by state, by society. The message should be clear - you are responsible for your actions. You killed someone intentionally - your life is forfeit. You left a loaded gun lying around and someone get killed - you are directly responsible. You ran over someone with a car and you are at fault - you are going to jail for a long time. Notice, I am not bringing up the economic crimes. I feel that this society now devalued the human life to the point that the threat of the punishment is almost remote. We talk more about taxes than about human lives. If this point of view is right wing, so be it. I don't care. I'm tired of knee jerk reactions on both sides and was unpleasantly surprised that the essay that started with promising touch on human psyche evolved into standard left-wing more gun control. More gun control will pacify some masses but will ultimately not achieve anything and just mask the issue.

I understand what you're saying. I do. But you know, sometimes social change has to be legislated before it really sticks. Consider the Civil Rights Act. I wasn't alive when it was passed, but some of my older siblings were. And it wasn't like everyone just nodded their heads and said, "oh, yes, right, we don't act badly toward non-white people; we should put that into law." No. It was controversial.

There are people reading my words right now who remember "whites only" signs. Imagine how shocked you would be to see one of those today. Yes, the change from that mentality was started with a social movement, but by no means did all of society agree by the time it was signed into law. Implementation was, in some places, painful. And certainly there is still plenty of hidden racism out there, discreetly tucked away, to be deployed only when someone can get away with it. But it's so much better than it was.

On a somewhat related note, please let's not glorify "the good old days" to such an extent that we pretend that only now at this point in history do people have to be made to value human life. People are people, and people have killed other people since the beginning of time. While I admire any effort to make us less wretched than we are at our worst (and I really do), the media has gotten so very immediate that our perception of reality is skewed (emotional appeals being more convincing than statistics). The good old days were really only good if you were male, wealthy, and white.

[nazartp]

And that sums up the situation with a big fat bang on the nail head.

You have a very good point about gun owners taking more responsibility with their firearms.

My grandfather was a Lt. Colonel in WWII, and during wartime was issued a sidearm along with bullets. Because of military orders, it had to remain with my grandfather at all times, so it was kept in my grandparents' house when it wasn't on his person while he was on duty. My mother has told me that she and my uncle were the world's snoopiest kids; they knew where everything was hidden in their homes. It wouldn't have mattered if either one was psychologically disturbed - they weren't and still aren't, for the record - because they never once came across my grandfather's gun.

So why are the so-called "responsible" gun owners screwing up and allowing access to their firearms by their kids, disturbed or not? Why is it acceptable to not maintain a safe that is openable only with either a combination or dynamite? This is not the same scenario as introducing a kid to wine at home under adult supervision by watering down the alcohol; bullets aren't dilutable.

Yep. I own several firearms. Mostly bolt-action rifles and a pair of shotguns. My son and I go to the shooting range probably twice a month. I trust him more with firearms safety than I trust myself - he's really a good kid. Nevertheless, the safe is always locked and the only key is with me.

But that only scratches the surface. We became irresponsible in everything, in all facets of our lives. We wait for the government to solve our issues for us. Not going to happen until we, the people, take responsibility for our actions. Mass shootings is just a symptom. With innocent kids being the collateral damage. Truly sad.

[hossenpepper]

I guess some of my points came across not exactly as I intended. I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done. I'm also not saying that mental issues only belong to the lonely. I just believe that the cornerstone of the issue lies in the lack of responsibility. It needs to be nurtured by parents, by state, by society. The message should be clear - you are responsible for your actions. You killed someone intentionally - your life is forfeit. You left a loaded gun lying around and someone get killed - you are directly responsible. You ran over someone with a car and you are at fault - you are going to jail for a long time. Notice, I am not bringing up the economic crimes. I feel that this society now devalued the human life to the point that the threat of the punishment is almost remote. We talk more about taxes than about human lives. If this point of view is right wing, so be it. I don't care. I'm tired of knee jerk reactions on both sides and was unpleasantly surprised that the essay that started with promising touch on human psyche evolved into standard left-wing more gun control. More gun control will pacify some masses but will ultimately not achieve anything and just mask the issue.

I suppose my actual point didn't come across too well either. It wasn't to paint you as right wing or anything, but merely to say you are touching on the junction point where the debate turns into conservative vs liberal instead of an issue that needs some sort of attention. Only by both sides, but in reality the extremists, admitting that their logic is flawed and compromise of the two views is required, will this ever get anywhere.

[GNTLGNT]

My grandfather was a Lt. Colonel in WWII,

...mine too!...

[Walter Oobleck]

Stephen King has his head up his ass. I saw his essay “Guns” advertised here at the official Stephen King on-line presence, saw that the proceeds would be going to a “charity to benefit victims of gun violence.” A fan--I’ve read all of his stories repeatedly and have enjoyed them all, great stories--so I made my purchase at Amazon where I believe the same sale’s pitch was there--the proceeds to go to a charity. If that pitch was there, is has since been changed. But the result is, fool me once, shame on you.

I’m not going to bother looking into whether or not the Brady Center actually qualifies as a “charity” but I think that destination for the proceeds should have been up-front. Sure, Stephen King can say what he wants, can do with his money what he wants, but the manner in which the essay was announced is deceptive. Would I have purchased the essay had I known the destination of the proceeds? I don’t know. But that option was denied to me as I did not know where the money would go--I thought, nice touch, this is going to a charity--until I learned otherwise.

So I read the essay, several times. And I’ve concluded that Stephen King has his head up his ass, that he is a bigot.

Consider his words regarding those who might not read the essay, “those of a red persuasion have already moved on (possibly to the comforting scripture of the Rev. Rush Limbaugh).” I’ve underlined those words, words that betray his bigotry. Consider “Rev.” Rush Limbaugh is neither a reverend nor a pastor nor a shepherd of a flock. King’s use of the expression indicates an intolerance of religion, a thinly-veiled hatred of Christianity. Consider “comforting scripture,” part and parcel of that same intolerance of religion that is the fashion. Christians, it seems, are fair game in our world.

Thomas Williams has a great line in The Hair of Harold Roux: nothing can stop a lie whose fashion has come.

Today, it is fashionable to marginalize those who hold religion a part of their daily lives. For King to characterize Limbaugh with religious metaphor betrays King bigotry. Note that he did not use the word mullah…the Mullah Rush Limbaugh…he used the abbreviated reverend. That this is acceptable discourse is evidence-enough that religious folk are a targeted group--”clinging to their guns and religion” as that ****head in the White House phrased it before he was elected

It is bizarre that many find a reasonable, a rational argument in King’s essay, bizarre and yet understandable--he is, after all, a best-selling writer. And yet it is unfortunate that so many have minimized King’s bigotry. They should heed his words in this essay, “but that doesn’t mean we excuse them, or give them blueprints to express their hate and fear.” We applaud our so-called diversity, but anyone worth their salt knows and has experienced the opposite. That King gets a free-pass on his lack of “diversity” is a rather sad and unfortunate state of affairs.


King writes, “by 1938, when Hitler was riding high, those laws were pretty much the same as American gun laws today.” This is true, but that does not make the gun laws we have now right. Aaron Zelman of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership got a copy of the entire text of the 1938 Nazi gun laws, translated them, and reprinted them side by side with our “Gun Control Act” of 1968. Senator Dodd and our Congress in 1968 used Nazi laws, even down to that insidious and constitutionally irrelevant concept of requiring guns to have a “legitimate sporting purpose.”

It is incredible that some take comfort from some of the same ideas prevalent in Nazi Germany, while simultaneously denigrating those who do not think as they do as “crazy”…”neocons”…and a host of other appellations that do nothing more than marginalize the other. I’ve seen Lanza’s mother characterized as a “gun nut” here on the board. This from a long-time member. I don’t even have to look at the posts to know what the response, what kind of response there will come to the various posters who are brave enough…or foolish enough…to post here. Doesn’t it get a bit tiring to demonize all those who disagree with you?

King’s essay is intellectually dishonest and is in no way a comprehensive approach to the idea of victim disarmament--the purpose of the essay--let’s be clear. “Guys, gals, now hear this: No one wants to take away your hunting rifles…” King writes. Honestly, this kind of condescension should have been left out of the essay. There exists shelves of scholarly research on the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. King patronizes honest gun owners with his words about “hunting rifles”. If this essay was designed to generate “discourse” then it has failed.

It is ironic that members here wring their hands over the fabled single-post member…said members receiving all manner of charming sobriquets…being told “don’t let the door hit you” if they say they have had enough. Discourse? Where, pray tell, will this discourse happen? Around the various campfires, intruders beware?

King writes, “semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell yeehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use--their only other use--is to kill people.” This is what passes for acceptable discourse in our world today, marginalizing 80 million gun owners with words like this. But hey! It worked for the Nazis before and during World War II!

In Nazi Justiz: Law of the Holocaust, Richard Lawrence Miller outlined the 5-step process of genocide.

1. Identification/registration of targeted group as public menace.
2. Ostracism of the targeted persons
3. Confiscation of property of targeted persons
4. Geographical concentration of targeted persons
5. Annihilation of targeted persons.

Stephen King has identified the targeted group with his essay “Guns,”--gun owners. Judging by the posts here at the board, we are well on our way to ostracizing honest gun owners. Judging by recent editorials, we can expect to see more targeting and ostracizing. Are you comfortable with that?

Honestly, it is disheartening to read reviews of this essay, those who believe King has made a dispassionate argument for victim disarmament--you call it gun control--a catchy phrase, disheartening to know that I am among the targeted group, the public menace, me, an honest gun owner whose semi-automatics are seriously defective as I’ve yet to take mine to the range to yell yeehaw and get all horny in the process. If you are able to somehow minimize his words, there’s a phrase King uses in his essay that applies: feck you, Jack.

Let’s change the wording to something a little less palatable and see how it reads:

“Fried chicken & watermelon has only two purposes. One is so owners can take it home to the ghetto once in awhile, yell fried chicken & watermelon!, and get all horny at their greasy fingers and the sugary pulp of the melon. The other use--the only other use--is to clog your arteries.” Imagine the outrage.

Or substitute “mullah” for the earlier example of the abbreviated reverend. Imagine the band wagon. Why is it okay to marginalize the religious? Honest gun owners? For his essay has done just that!

Stephen King has his head up his ass, though, and those who don’t “feel a qualm of regret at throwing a blanket over the truth is an ******* with no conscience.” His words. And they apply.

[atomicinchworm]

Oh please. I'm going to call you on your BS, Walter.

He used the abbreviation of Rev. sarcastically. People who listen to Rush tend to take his word as gospel. Not in that they believe god is sending him that message, but in that they take his words at face value without any further research. My mom does this, I know a lot of Rush supporters who do this. They HAVE to, because he spews nothing but lies and hatred and filth. Also, Rush Limbaugh's supporters do tend to be Red State Christians. The metaphor makes sense (mullah would not have).

The biggest problem with your example is that A ) fried chicken and watermelon have a purpose; they are sustenance. B ) It is really disgustingly racist while failing to make a coherent point and C ) The only purpose of assault rifles outside of the military, which killing people, is to watch it shred targets. Which is what he said. His wording was just a little bit more purple than that. Guess what else fried chicken and watermelon do? Not kill anyone but the person that is eating them.

King also mentioned that he owned hand guns and still supported people owning hunting rifles. He is marginalizing HIMSELF if he is marginalizing at all. That doesn't make much sense does it?

You went looking to be offended, and you were. Congratulations.

[Sepia and Dust]

Because the atmosphere in the US is exactly like that of Nazi Germany. You know who else called Stephen King an *******? That's right--HITLER!

Seriously, though, you keep bringing up Nazis in your post. That's dumb.

[Walter Oobleck]

Oh please. I'm going to call you on your BS, Walter.

He used the abbreviation of Rev. sarcastically. People who listen to Rush tend to take his word as gospel. Not in that they believe god is sending him that message, but in that they take his words at face value without any further research. My mom does this, I know a lot of Rush supporters who do this. They HAVE to, because he spews nothing but lies and hatred and filth. Also, Rush Limbaugh's supporters do tend to be Red State Christians. The metaphor makes sense (mullah would not have).

The biggest problem with your example is that A ) fried chicken and watermelon have a purpose; they are sustenance. B ) It is really disgustingly racist while failing to make a coherent point and C ) The only purpose of assault rifles outside of the military, which killing people, is to watch it shred targets. Which is what he said. His wording was just a little bit more purple than that. Guess what else fried chicken and watermelon do? Not kill anyone but the person that is eating them.

King also mentioned that he owned hand guns and still supported people owning hunting rifles. He is marginalizing HIMSELF if he is marginalizing at all. That doesn't make much sense does it?

You went looking to be offended, and you were. Congratulations.

You don't get it, do you? Perhaps King's words from On Writing apply...wherein he writes about the bit of satire...was it called The Village Vomit? A boy who once wiped his ass with poison ivy probably doesn't belong in a smart people's club. I haven't trucked much with satire since then.

The bigotry is there, whether you choose to see it or not. And no, I did not go "looking to be offended." Read the second sentence of my first post again--I have read everything fiction/non-fiction the man has written. I, too, was ready to minimize this from a man who writing I've come to admire. So you are mistaken in your belief that I went "looking to be offended." There was a time when any number of people were fair game to the "comics". That doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean that people were not offended.

I stand behind my first post.

[kingricefan]

The only thing I liked about your post is the avatar.

Stephen King has his head up his ass. I saw his essay “Guns” advertised here at the official Stephen King on-line presence, saw that the proceeds would be going to a “charity to benefit victims of gun violence.” A fan--I’ve read all of his stories repeatedly and have enjoyed them all, great stories--so I made my purchase at Amazon where I believe the same sale’s pitch was there--the proceeds to go to a charity. If that pitch was there, is has since been changed. But the result is, fool me once, shame on you.

I’m not going to bother looking into whether or not the Brady Center actually qualifies as a “charity” but I think that destination for the proceeds should have been up-front. Sure, Stephen King can say what he wants, can do with his money what he wants, but the manner in which the essay was announced is deceptive. Would I have purchased the essay had I known the destination of the proceeds? I don’t know. But that option was denied to me as I did not know where the money would go--I thought, nice touch, this is going to a charity--until I learned otherwise.

So I read the essay, several times. And I’ve concluded that Stephen King has his head up his ass, that he is a bigot.

Consider his words regarding those who might not read the essay, “those of a red persuasion have already moved on (possibly to the comforting scripture of the Rev. Rush Limbaugh).” I’ve underlined those words, words that betray his bigotry. Consider “Rev.” Rush Limbaugh is neither a reverend nor a pastor nor a shepherd of a flock. King’s use of the expression indicates an intolerance of religion, a thinly-veiled hatred of Christianity. Consider “comforting scripture,” part and parcel of that same intolerance of religion that is the fashion. Christians, it seems, are fair game in our world.

Thomas Williams has a great line in The Hair of Harold Roux: nothing can stop a lie whose fashion has come.

Today, it is fashionable to marginalize those who hold religion a part of their daily lives. For King to characterize Limbaugh with religious metaphor betrays King bigotry. Note that he did not use the word mullah…the Mullah Rush Limbaugh…he used the abbreviated reverend. That this is acceptable discourse is evidence-enough that religious folk are a targeted group--”clinging to their guns and religion” as that ****head in the White House phrased it before he was elected

It is bizarre that many find a reasonable, a rational argument in King’s essay, bizarre and yet understandable--he is, after all, a best-selling writer. And yet it is unfortunate that so many have minimized King’s bigotry. They should heed his words in this essay, “but that doesn’t mean we excuse them, or give them blueprints to express their hate and fear.” We applaud our so-called diversity, but anyone worth their salt knows and has experienced the opposite. That King gets a free-pass on his lack of “diversity” is a rather sad and unfortunate state of affairs.


King writes, “by 1938, when Hitler was riding high, those laws were pretty much the same as American gun laws today.” This is true, but that does not make the gun laws we have now right. Aaron Zelman of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership got a copy of the entire text of the 1938 Nazi gun laws, translated them, and reprinted them side by side with our “Gun Control Act” of 1968. Senator Dodd and our Congress in 1968 used Nazi laws, even down to that insidious and constitutionally irrelevant concept of requiring guns to have a “legitimate sporting purpose.”

It is incredible that some take comfort from some of the same ideas prevalent in Nazi Germany, while simultaneously denigrating those who do not think as they do as “crazy”…”neocons”…and a host of other appellations that do nothing more than marginalize the other. I’ve seen Lanza’s mother characterized as a “gun nut” here on the board. This from a long-time member. I don’t even have to look at the posts to know what the response, what kind of response there will come to the various posters who are brave enough…or foolish enough…to post here. Doesn’t it get a bit tiring to demonize all those who disagree with you?

King’s essay is intellectually dishonest and is in no way a comprehensive approach to the idea of victim disarmament--the purpose of the essay--let’s be clear. “Guys, gals, now hear this: No one wants to take away your hunting rifles…” King writes. Honestly, this kind of condescension should have been left out of the essay. There exists shelves of scholarly research on the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. King patronizes honest gun owners with his words about “hunting rifles”. If this essay was designed to generate “discourse” then it has failed.

It is ironic that members here wring their hands over the fabled single-post member…said members receiving all manner of charming sobriquets…being told “don’t let the door hit you” if they say they have had enough. Discourse? Where, pray tell, will this discourse happen? Around the various campfires, intruders beware?

King writes, “semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell yeehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use--their only other use--is to kill people.” This is what passes for acceptable discourse in our world today, marginalizing 80 million gun owners with words like this. But hey! It worked for the Nazis before and during World War II!

In Nazi Justiz: Law of the Holocaust, Richard Lawrence Miller outlined the 5-step process of genocide.

1. Identification/registration of targeted group as public menace.
2. Ostracism of the targeted persons
3. Confiscation of property of targeted persons
4. Geographical concentration of targeted persons
5. Annihilation of targeted persons.

Stephen King has identified the targeted group with his essay “Guns,”--gun owners. Judging by the posts here at the board, we are well on our way to ostracizing honest gun owners. Judging by recent editorials, we can expect to see more targeting and ostracizing. Are you comfortable with that?

Honestly, it is disheartening to read reviews of this essay, those who believe King has made a dispassionate argument for victim disarmament--you call it gun control--a catchy phrase, disheartening to know that I am among the targeted group, the public menace, me, an honest gun owner whose semi-automatics are seriously defective as I’ve yet to take mine to the range to yell yeehaw and get all horny in the process. If you are able to somehow minimize his words, there’s a phrase King uses in his essay that applies: feck you, Jack.

Let’s change the wording to something a little less palatable and see how it reads:

“Fried chicken & watermelon has only two purposes. One is so owners can take it home to the ghetto once in awhile, yell fried chicken & watermelon!, and get all horny at their greasy fingers and the sugary pulp of the melon. The other use--the only other use--is to clog your arteries.” Imagine the outrage.

Or substitute “mullah” for the earlier example of the abbreviated reverend. Imagine the band wagon. Why is it okay to marginalize the religious? Honest gun owners? For his essay has done just that!

Stephen King has his head up his ass, though, and those who don’t “feel a qualm of regret at throwing a blanket over the truth is an ******* with no conscience.” His words. And they apply.

[Todash]

Hold up. I just read this. You came in here, posted this, and then expect sympathy because you feel MARGINALIZED? No. You don't get to walk in somewhere, call your host an ******* Nazi, and then pull the sympathy card.

I could make several points, but I will say only this: King's reference to Limbaugh as a reverend is not a slam on religion. It is a slam on Limbaugh and his followers, who frankly (assuming they self-identify as Christians, as I expect most of them do) are engaging in some heavy duty idolatry as well as hypocrisy, which they deserve to be called out on. They suck at the teat of that hate-pushing gasbag with a fervency that can only be described as worship while they are pretending to model the behavior of Jesus.