Wednesday, August 28, 2013
In January 2014, TALON Ordnance is expected to open, bringing jobs to Mississippi. What does TALON do? They manufacture guns, among them assault rifles for "enthusiasts, law enforcement and the military."
On the same day as the announcement, many in the Jackson community remained saddened and horrified by the as-yet-unsolved shooting of two bright young men, Jason Murphy and A.J. Barber. The death of these young men should have brought the demonstrations that surrounded the recently—and erroneously concluded—George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin verdict. Instead, Murphy's and Barber's friends and family held a moving vigil, where most of the outcry came from the community most directly affected by the tragic end of two more young men who could have been our future doctors, teachers or stylists.
While we should laud more jobs for Mississippians, we should not applaud the making of more guns, especially in our own backyard. Since the December 2012 tragedy in Newtown, Conn., our country has supposedly tried to have a more rational conversation about guns. Inevitably, we've perpetuated an "us versus them" dichotomy instead. From the gun lobby we hear, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!" From the gun-control lobby, the cry is, "Why do you need an assault rifle to go hunting? You're going to blow your prey apart!"
The inevitable shouting match continues into race and class: black and brown kids killing each other, or white folks defending themselves from an unseen enemy. Left out of the conversations are human beings—children mostly. Black kids are killing each other in Jackson—just like white kids kill in another community—because we are more divided by race and class in this country than any time since integration.
We have to dig deeper and get to the core question of who do we want to be as a society. How do we include everyone regardless of where and to whom they happened to be born?
When Trayvon Martin died, we should have all grieved for parents losing their son. Instead, his death turned into a debacle of the ongoing and, mostly, unchanging conversations on race, class and now guns. We have moved no closer over the last year to real conversations and actions on any of these issues. We welcome a gun manufacturer with open arms, and our state leaders pass an open-carry law—while also allowing more armed personnel on school campuses instead of funding more counselors and social workers. Without honest conversation, we will continue to suffer from what we have always struggled with in Mississippi: profits over people. The rich will get away with murder without ever having to pull the trigger. They just make the guns and let "others" do the shooting.
Mississippi, we can be better than this. We don't need another gun in our streets. We also don't want to take away anyone's Second Amendment rights—though I don't think our Founding Fathers were thinking about semi-automatic assault rifles when they wrote this often-misinterpreted law. We are seeing too much of our future wasted as our leaders fear-monger rather than make sound policy decisions. Until those who profit off the backs and lives of our young men—especially our young black men—until they come to the table willing to see people instead of money, we will get nowhere.
As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, please reach out to our leaders in business, politics, education, health care, athletics and more, and tell them how you envision Mississippi. I hope it's a Mississippi where everyone can vote if they are eligible, where everyone can receive a high quality education and access to health care, and where no one has to fear being shot in the back of the head with a gun that was manufactured down the road.
Jed Oppenheim is a citizen of Jackson. Please come join him tonight, Aug. 28, 2013, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on the south steps of the Mississippi State Capitol to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. As part the Day of Dignity, we will define what is happening in our communities, demand our dignities and determine the future of the Southern Freedom Movement in 21st-century Mississippi.
Comments
bubbat 10 years, 8 months ago
Ah, the no such thing as a semi automatic assault weapon, assault weapons are full autos.
donnaladd 10 years, 8 months ago
Not true, Bubba. Congress and even gun makers refer to semi-autos as "assault weapons." What do you think the "assault weapons ban" was about??
bubbat 10 years, 8 months ago
Donna- very true our military classifies an assault weapon as full auto, I've never seen any gun maker refer to a semi auto as an assault weapon. As for Congress well they don't know their butts from a hole in the ground ,can't expect them to get anything right.
bubbat 10 years, 8 months ago
Did a quick check of the top selling AR makers, none refer to their semi auto rifles as assault weapons, Colt, Rock RIver, Remington, Bushmaster, S&W all refer to them as modern sporting rifles, tactical, or just rifles.
bill_jackson 10 years, 8 months ago
Personally, I have never heard of a manufacturer refer to a semi auto as an"assault weapon". But then again if I want to refer to a stock VW Beetle as an armored personell carrier, that's exactly what it is because any assigned description is valid if someone says so...
js1976 10 years, 8 months ago
"....and where no one has to fear being shot in the back of the head with a gun that was manufactured down the road."
It's very hypocritical to speak of "fear mongering" when this is how you choose to end this opinion piece. Is a rifle manufactured in the US more frightening than one made overseas? I would imagine that these products will carry a pretty hefty pricetag, so I doubt they will overwelm our streets.
robbier 10 years, 8 months ago
In 2010, Mississippi had 120 gun murders (1)
In 2011, Mississippi had 149 alcohol impaired driving fatalities (2)
Mississippi, we can be better than this. We don't need another car in the streets.
Or maybe, just maybe, we realize that law abiding citizens are just fine responsibly owning firearms and responsibly driving cars.
Sources: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...
2) http://www.centurycouncil.org/state-f...">http://www.centurycouncil.org/state-f...
bill_jackson 10 years, 7 months ago
The author could have saved himself much time and effort if he had simply written "Guns are bad, mmmkay?".
tstauffer 10 years, 7 months ago
Did a quick check of the top selling AR makers, none refer to their semi auto rifles as assault weapons, Colt, Rock RIver, Remington, Bushmaster, S&W all refer to them as modern sporting rifles, tactical, or just rifles.
@bubbat So your argument is that because the manufacturers don't refer to them as assault weapons they are therefore not referred to assault weapons. The term has been legally defined. Deal. All this wrangling over the terms trying to "undefine" them is just some sort of right-wing political correctness.
And all of you people making guns=cars references... I assume you're cool with government-issued licensing, testing and insurance requirements for gun owners? Gun registration? Annual inspections? Government mandated safety testing? Government mandated safety features?
Because if you ARE, then it's a metaphor that starts making sense!
bill_jackson 10 years, 7 months ago
Actually, the term was well defined before some notable policians and activists decided to redefine it to include semi autos because it sounds scary. That much is clear.
bubbat 10 years, 7 months ago
Todd- No Donna was the one saying the manufacturers used assault weapons to describe their rifles I was just proving her wrong, again. Just because Congress passed a bill with using the term assault weapon for a semi auto rifle incorrectly doesn't make it the legal definition or correct. The only ones who have ever used the term assault weapons are the misinformed fear mongering press and anti- gun politician. Also the military, the people that actually use and developed assault weapons define them as a weapons capable of semi and auto fire, no rifles are available to the general public that have that capability.
js1976 10 years, 7 months ago
"All this wrangling over the terms trying to "undefine" them is just some sort of right-wing political correctness."
The right is rarely accused of being politically correct.
donnaladd 10 years, 7 months ago
The right is continually working toward being politically correct! It's just a different kind. Don't be foolish.
And Bubba, you silly bou, you're arguing that you "proved" me wrong with this:
"Did a quick check of the top selling AR makers,"
I assume you mean a quick Bubba-Google. Bubba, I may have been wrong in the past, as have we all, but you have never proved it.
bill_jackson 10 years, 7 months ago
Perhaps could point to a few examples then.
bubbat 10 years, 7 months ago
Ok Donna show us a manufacture that list their rifles as assault weapons?
tstauffer 10 years, 7 months ago
Bubba... LOL... I love it. You're right... gun manufacturers don't call assault weapons "assault weapons."
Why? Obviously both gun nuts and the gun manufacturers themselves don't like the term "assault weapon" because that's what people keep wanting to BAN.
So they call them other things. Like "Military and Police" -- even though anyone can buy one. The Smith & Wesson M&P15 'Sport' is a 30-rounder starter AR.
Take, for instance... the Bushmaster ACR -- Adaptive Combat Rifle. ("BUT BUT BUT that doesn't have the word ASSAULT in it... just COMBAT.")
http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/ac...">http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/ac...
It is, of course, available in semi-auto versions available for "home defense." They're giving one away on freaking Twitter and Facebook.
(They also have a product safety notice up because their ACR sometimes accidentally shoots too many bullets when you pull the trigger. Oops. Their bad. http://www.bushmaster.com/pdf/ACR-">http://www.bushmaster.com/pdf/ACR- Web-Notification.pdf)
Why do they call it a "combat rifle" instead of an "assault weapon"? Same reason cigarette manufacturers don't call their products "cancer sticks."
Instead, Bushmaster calls it a "combat rifle," overprices it and tells you that you can "Get Your Man Card Back." Apparently they use the same agency as Axe deodorant and 10-Calorie Dr. Pepper.
Who hasn't gotten the memo? How about Heckler Koch?
The "sport rifle" USC -- "Derived from the Heckler und Koch submachinegun UMP - the civilian utility carbine USC." -- derived from their submachine gun? Yikes!
Or their "sport rifle SL8" -- "The technology of the G36, the Assault Rifle of the Federal German Armed Forces, makes the SL8 very user-friendly and minimizes maintenance requirements..." -- uses assault rifle technology? Whoa!
Whoops... getting pretty close to "sport rifle" = "assault SOMETHING" in there, aren't we?
The truth is, as much as gun nuts like to hand wave about this, there is a definition of an assault weapon that can be agreed upon -- pistol grip rifle, semi-automatic, designed for detachable higher-capacity magazines. Ban those -- or, require training, registration, licensing and insurance, just like with cars -- and you'd pretty much have your weapons ban figured out.
justjess 10 years, 7 months ago
@tstauffer
"Bubba...LOL. I love it. You are right...gun manufactures don't call assault weapons "assult weapons".
This on going argument re assault weapons - not being "assault weapons" can be explained by using a few line from the Shakespearian play - Romeo and Juliet__
Juliet gives a strong argument explaining to Romeo that the names of things do not matter; what matters is what the things are (do).
Simply put: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" or to use the frequently misquoted version - "A Rose by any other name is still a Rose".
An assault weapon by any other name is still an assault weapon and can still be used to KILL: swift, fast and in a hurry! This is not fear mongering - This is a fact!
Just saying.
tstauffer 10 years, 7 months ago
Interesting article here details how different states treat the definition of "assault weapon" (and some of the difficulties in doing so) along with the origins of the term "assault weapon"... which came from the gun manufacturers!
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-wor...">http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-wor...
And I do have to say I was a little surprised to see Gun Digest go off the reservation in 2008 and publish the "Gun Digest Buyer's Guide to Assault Weapons."
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0896896803/r...">http://www.amazon.com/dp/0896896803/r...
I doubt they did it to exclusively undermine Bubba's argument, but it certainly doesn't hurt.
donnaladd 10 years, 7 months ago
Ha, funny. I hadn't seen this whole continuing thread until now; been wacky busy otherwise. I don't think I need to add anything to Todd's posts.
Have a great day, Bubba et al.
bubbat 10 years, 7 months ago
@Todd- SInce, you're so supportive of restricting the 2nd amendment with a firearms bans or training, registration, licensing and insurance. I guess you would be fine with the restrictionof the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment by requiring training, registration, licensing and insurance , and penalties for not reporting publishing the truth for journalist and reporters and even some outright bans on freedom of the press too. I know could go along with that. :)
donnaladd 10 years, 7 months ago
And the image, just for emphasis:
https://jacksonfreepress.media.client...">Although the term "assault weapons" has fallen out of favor with gun enthusiasts recently, it originated from gun manufacturers. by Donna Ladd
bubbat 10 years, 7 months ago
ah a gun magazine isn't a gun manufacturer.
donnaladd 10 years, 7 months ago
Um, that is true, Bubba. They market for gun manufacturers, though. It's the cover that's fun to come back at you on after your cursory Bubba-Google to, supposedly, prove me wrong. And I also assumed that anyone interested in this absurd tangent about semantics might have also read the links Todd posted above about the origin of the phrase "assault weapon."
If all you've got in a gun debate is a bunch of whining about what dangerous weapons must and must not be called, then you might be an example of the unarmed combatant who picks a battle of wits he has no chance of winning.
Work hard, Bubba, in this sandbox.
There really is more to discuss if you were serious about it. Instead, you inspire research to prove that you really have no clue about the use or origin of words like "assault weapons." Did you really just contribute to a healthy dialogue about either the Constitution or public safety?
bubbat 10 years, 7 months ago
Donna- The origin of the world assault weapon has no bearing on the discussion, the words being applied wrongly does. Todd's list of feature of what makes an assault weapon is wrong too, shoot most of my hunting, target and shotguns have one or two of those features, and that's the problem it classifies them as assault weapons when they aren't.
And you're right, I don't not chance of winning a discussion about guns with ya'll, not because I'm unarmed in a battle of wits, but because ya'll just want to spread more falsehoods and continue with the fear mongering. Really not worth it, to even try anymore.
bthennington1 10 years, 7 months ago
I for one am proud to see this company coming to Mississippi. I do not see what all of the fuss is regarding guns being built in Mississippi? This makes zero sense. First off, the guns are being manufactured for law enforcement, military, and gun enthusiasts, which translates into high quality weaponry, at more than likely a high price. The folks that all the liberal quacks are worried about can either (1) not afford this type of weaponry, or (2) if they can they will be able to purchase the gun regardless of where it is manufactured. Being unsupportive of a manufacturer because he manufactures guns is beyond unreasonable on every level. Businesses that choose to move to Mississippi should be supported.
donnaladd 10 years, 7 months ago
"Liberal quacks"? So much for being taken seriously?! Just because someone disagrees with you about guns or anything else doesn't mean they are a "quack." It just means they disagree.
But you raise an important issue about the responsibility of gun manufacturers that we should discuss more. I'm on a deadline now, though. Will return. Others feel free in the meantime--even the, er, "quacks" among you. ;-)
bthennington1 10 years, 7 months ago
Excuse my ignorant comment about "liberal quacks" I should certainly refrain from targeting one political group. The topic of guns brings out "quacks" from both sides of the political spectrum. Moving on.
I have ZERO problem with guns being manufactured in Mississippi, because (1) the state needs the jobs (2) the industry attracts other industry of the same kind $$$, and (3) people will buy guns regardless of where they are manufactured and if they are going to buy them I would rather MS benefit from the money . On a more political note: I also have ZERO problem with having to register for a gun, receive a background check, or perform some other measure to certify myself as a law abiding citizen respectful of the law. Do I believe that these "checks" will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Absolutely not! But it may prohibit a few and that is OK for me. But if the state/federal government decides to make purchasing a handgun more difficult for law abiding citizens, then the sentence for possessing a firearm illegally should be extremely harsh, with a hefty fine to cover the cost of said background checks, registration, etc. But thats just my opinion, some may find it a bit "quack." ;)
tstauffer 10 years, 7 months ago
I guess you would be fine with the restriction of the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment by requiring training, registration, licensing and insurance , and penalties for not reporting publishing the truth for journalist and reporters and even some outright bans on freedom of the press too. I know could go along with that. :)
*BubbaT: Yes, I would, as long as the First Amendment mentions a "well-regulated militia."
Let me know what you find.
bubbat 10 years, 7 months ago
Todd- We'll just get congress to rename wrongly, all newspapers, news radios stations and TV news channels. Assault Papers, Assault Radios and Assault TV that would be easier than changing the Constitution to add "well regulated Militia to the 1st" It worked about rifles for the ignorant masses in the country ought to work again them again.
tstauffer 10 years, 7 months ago
@BubbaT: Interesting. Very interesting.
I have to admit that I didn't see the "rename them 'Assault Papers'" strategy coming.
Genius.
OK... the proverbial shot you've fired over my proverbial bow has been HEARD.
I say GO AHEAD... call your congressman and get that renaming campaign ramped up... if you MUST.
But know THIS -- you and all of your freedom-hating friends in the battle to wrongly classified the press as ASSAULT press -- We'll fight it.
We'll fight it for as long as it takes.
We'll fight in the hills, in the valleys, in the halls of Montezuma.
The shores of Tripoli.
We'll fight in Congress... we'll fight in ale houses across this great land... we'll fight in the pages of our own sacred Freedom Papers.
We'll fight.
We'll fight until the battle is won...
...or tyranny reigns.
Because you, Mr. T, must know that I won't give you my First Amendment rights without a fight.
You can't take them from me while I still breathe free air.
You'll have to pry my MacBook from my cold, dead hands.
{Exeunt}
donnaladd 10 years, 7 months ago
Todd Stauffer, you make my day.
bubbat 10 years, 7 months ago
Todd- That's a good one, LOL
justjess 10 years, 7 months ago
What kind of gun was the gentleman in Washington shooting with on yesterday? Was it an "assult weapon" a "simi-automatic" an "automatic".
Was there any kind of "background ckeck" that could have kept the gentleman from buying his weapon that he used, along with others he took to take the lives of 13 people and other wounded?
js1976 10 years, 7 months ago
Jess, I have read that he had a shotgun and two handguns. That was on CNN, but the initial investigation is ongoing so that might change. In regards to background checks, his record should have prevented him from having access to a secured facility, but he could have purchased his weapons prior to these offenses. Who knows.
I will always defend our right to bear arms, but I wouldn't have any issues registering my weapons. As long as a registration process doesn't prevent qualifed citizens from owning firearms I'm all for it. My defintion of "qualified" would be those without prior convictions or history of mental illness.
justjess 10 years, 7 months ago
@js1976 "I'm all for it. My definition of "qualified"would be those without prior convictions or history of mental illness."
A report on MSNBC this morning gave a history of signs and symptoms consistent with schizophrenia (hallucinatory and delusional experiences). Too bad that family, friend and the mental health professionals could not get this man treated before he acted on the voices.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID