Tag Archives: Gun regulations

Are we tired of 2nd Amendment overkill (and I do mean kill) yet?

24 Saturday Mar 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

I wasn’t able to attend the St. Louis version March for our Lives in which thousands participated in at least 800 cities over the entire country. An estimated 500,000 showed up for the “mother” march in D.C., there were 20 blocks of marching people in New York – you get the idea; the marches were a big deal. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the downtown St. Louis event (there are other local marches as well) drew at least 10,000 participants, including Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. No Roy Blunt though; he seems to be okay with turning our schools into killing grounds as long as he gets those NRA checks.

There have also been a small sprinkling of pro-gun counter-protests as well, at least fifteen according to one accounting. Counter marches weren’t necessarily that impressive though. The one in Phoenix Arizona only managed to attract about two dozen participants while the Phoenix iteration of the March for our Lives brought out 15,000 marchers. Politicians, take note.

What was impressive about the pro-NRA gun-love demonstrators , though, is how tired and stale their rhetoric has become. It has always been dishonest; what I’m talking about is the fact that it seems at this point to be no more than a parody – and a dull-witted parody at that.

In Montana, which, along with the highest gun ownership rates, has the most gun deaths in the U.S.,  a local politician proclaimed apropos of the student-inspired rallies that:

I have a basic right that’s not granted by society — it’s granted by God — to self-defense, […] I don’t see how people in society can make the argument that they have the right to take a right from me because one person did something bad.

I have to admit that the gentleman’s narrative did differ from the same ol’, same ol’  reliance on an unsupported belief in an alll-permissive 2nd Amendment. This old boy infers that the right to carry guns is, by virtue of a gargantuan leap of logic, God-given. But by the same logic, don’t I and millions of other Americans have a right to defend ourselves from the legion of often hair-trigger fools who think they need guns to stay safe? As a student attending the Helena March for our Lives put it, “We don’t want anybody’s constitutional rights taken away, [… ] but we don’t want those rights to infringe on others’ rights to be able to exist safely in public spaces.”

Mr. Montana Pro-gun Pol himself bolsters my argument when he insists that  his rights might be abrogated “because one person did something bad.” Sorry, but the reason we’re considering regulating guns (as in well-regulated militia, per the Constitution) is that thousands of persons did and continue to do “something bad” with their guns, putting thousands more at risk. The catch-phrase favored by him and his is right. People kill people. Far too often people with guns. It’s just so easy to point and pull a trigger. And when that trigger is on a military-style assault gun – whooee – shooter’s going to town! Consider the fact that since the Parkland, Fla. murder of 17 high school students – a period of 37 days – 73 teenagers have been killed by guns.

Well-indoctrinated gun nuts do usually invoke the Constitution to justify their fury at any suggestion that gun ownership might be regulated in any way, and there were numerous quotes to that effects from folks at the counter-protests who were all hot and bothered because, they contended, the pro-gun control marchers were using their 1st Amendment rights to oppose the 2nd Amendment rights that the pro-gun demonstrators believe they have. Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, that codified the idea of a 2nd Amendment right to private ownership of guns, also seems to have green-lighted common sense regulations of the sort that are currently being promulgated by those folks exercising their 1st Amendment rights:

 On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” 

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Won’t somebody educate the 2nd Amendment crazies about the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting it?

One attendee at an Indiana counter protest declared with a straight face that, “as a parent I feel horrible for the kids that were killed [… .] But you don’t say, ‘Hey there’s 200 deaths from drinking and driving and now we take all the cars away from people.’”

Newsflash, Dad. Regulating guns doesn’t require confiscation of legal firearms. Nor is the automotive comparison viable. We do regulate (i.e., license) drivers of cars – I personally lack a license because of a physical impairment that makes me a risky driver. You should be glad that I can’t get that license. But plenty of people continue to own and drive cars. There are also age requirements to buy alcohol. These measures may not always be effective or prevent all drinking and driving accidents, but I – and the individual quoted above – are lots safer than we would be because they exist.

When it comes to guns, we know that states with extended background checks, for instance, have had “35 percent fewer gun deaths per capita than those without the requirement. ” And guess what? There are folks in those states, those upstanding gun owners that the NRA likes to pretend that it represents,  who continue to own guns in spite of the stronger gun laws. Nobody took away their guns.

Finally, the  most stupid stance taken by the pro-gun crowd? Over and over they either called the gun-control marchers leftists, socialists, communists, or naive folks manipulated by leftists, socialists or communists.* Big Whoop. First, it’s not true;  polls  suggest that even a fair number of Republicans believe guns should be better regulated and there was Republican support for the March for our Lives. Those tired political labels are losing their power to scare anyone born later than 1960. Armed right-wing militias are lots scarier to many of us.

To borrow a slogan from a sign photographed at one of gun control rallies today, “Guns don’t kill people …. er, yes, they do.”

*ADDENDUM (3/25/18, 2:48): In addition the NRA is claiming the high schoolers are puppets of “Hollywood elites” and “gun-hating millionaires” – which is rich coming from an organization that, along with the  the Kochs and the rest of the dark money cabal, now owns most GOP politicians who are, once again, toeing the NRA line.

 

Roy Blunt and the NRA: Married on the way to the bank

15 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

According to The New York Times Roy Blunt is one of the top ten “career”recipients of NRA largess in the congress. His take: $4,551,146. That’s right. Our boy got himself over four million of those NRA dollars. And I don’t think anyone would disagree that he’s done himself proud when it comes to earning his fee.

All of which prompts one to ask what he has to say about the latest mass shooting event at a school, a spree that took 17 lives and wounded at least 12 other children. The Sedalia Democrat offers the following quote:

In an interview, Blunt said that “I don’t think we have enough information yet to know that a change in any law would have impacted what happened in Florida.” But, referring to reports that the FBI had been warned by threats that the killer had made on social media, Blunt added: “Whether it is bizarre anti-social behavior or terrorist activity, when people see something they should say something.”You have got a guy parading around in a gas mask with weapons making threats and putting that on social media; that needs to be reported,” Blunt, R-Mo., said. “And the people that is [sic] reported to need to respond to that report.”

Blunt echoed the president in his imputation that the correct way to protect against mass school shootings would be for the “normal” folks to report aberrant behavior on the part of troubled individuals. Happened here, didn’t work, not going to work, just stigmatizes folks with emotional problems.

In the past Blunt has resorted overtly to the tack taken by Donald Trump today which is that it is mental illness that kills people, not guns – in spite of the fact that those suffering mental illness have been shown to more often suffer violence than they are to commit violent acts,  that when they do act out violently, they themselves have frequently been previously victimized, and they are more likely to do so within institutional settings rather than in public.

All of this is just a way to frame the simple-minded NRA bumper sticker that says in one variant or another that “people kill people, not guns.” If Kim Jong-un, who may or may not be mentally unstable, doesn’t realize that he’s dealing with a possible mental case in the White House, push comes to shove, and hundreds of folks, possibly in the U.S. as well as North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are killed, will Republicans excuse the holocaust with a similar slogan: Crazy people kill people, not bombs? Funny that. Or not.

Of course, the real thrust of Blunt’s response was that he just doesn’t have enough facts to say anything substantive. While I know he’s unlikely to read this screed, I’d sill like to supply him with a few hard and fast facts:

  1. A disturbed young man, who, incidentally, had been reported and investigated by the authorities, was able to legally buy a military-grade weapon.
  2. President Trump, in his haste to destroy any remnants of Obama-style common-sense regulation, stopped a rule that would have made it more difficult for the mentally-ill to buy firearms.
  3. Republicans like Blunt have consistently refused to vote for legislation that regulated civilian acquisition of military-grade weapons in spite of the fact that they seem to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
  4. A conservative analysis by The Washington Post tells us that “more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.”
  5. In the first 45 days of this year there have been six school shootings that have injured students.
  6. States are skint. They aren’t willing or able to pay to supply the school security officers that schools are requesting. Florida schools, scene of the most recent shooting, are among those that have experienced growing enrollments but have received less money to pay for necessities like increased security for which they have requested funding.
  7. A spate of studies report that states – and developed countries – with more guns have more homicide deaths and suicides. States and countries with better regulated gun ownership have fewer.

There are lots more facts like these. And I’m willing to bet that Blunt knows a few of them already. He just doesn’t care.

Nor, as Blunt’s GOP pals like to claim, do these facts suggest that gun ownership should be illegal; nobody’s 2nd amendment rights should be violated. But we have to be clear that the Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, authored by conservative, gun-loving Judge Antonin Scalia, specifies that that the right to own firearms is subject to regulation, specifically in the case of “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.”

So what’s keeping the pot boiling for a dangerously out of control NRA, an organization that wants to persuade us that even talking dirty about guns is not only a violation of a poorly understood 2nd amendment, but an invitation to “jack-booted government thugs” to steal our liberties? Look no further than Senator Roy Blunt and an NRA-whipped GOP.

But hey! Four million dollars is one heckava payout. And Blunt wasn’t even number one on the list.

Ann Wagner hopes we won’t notice that gun violence involves guns

02 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In the wake of one of the largest mass shooting body counts in U.S. history, I expect lots of the NRA’s pet GOPers will be lying low if Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-2) response is any indication. She opened her email constituent newsletter today with a brief nod in the direction of the massive overnight slaughter of concert goers in Las Vegas. In the process, she scored a rightwing trifecta. She addressed gun violence without mentioning guns, shifted the attention to “first responders,” rather than victims, and managed to get the flag into the mix. She hit all the major pander points and avoided the real issue, all in just three casual sentences:

As the tragedy in Las Vegas continues to unfold, my prayers are with the victims and families impacted by this senseless act of violence. Were it not for the swift and heroic actions of first responders and everyday Americans, this horrific moment could have been even worse. Here at the Capitol, flags are at half-staff in memory of the victims of this tragedy.

It’s probably wise, though, that Wagner keep her profile low when assault weapons such as the automatic or semi-automtic weapon that officials tell us were used in the Las Vegas masacre are involved. A ban on the sale of such weapons expired in 2004, ten years after its adoption in 1994, after having survived numerous constitutional challenges. Since then, there have been several efforts to renew the ban, all of which have been deep-sixed by the NRA via its GOP congressional proxies – including Ann Wagner.

I don’t know about you, but expressions of condolence and dismay about “senseless acts of violence” from sanctimonious hypocrites like Wagner, one of the very people who helped put instruments of violence in the hands of terrorists and the mentally ill make me want to spit.

Speaking of wanting to spit, Wagner’s circumspection mirrors that of White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Saunders who brushed off questions about what we can do to stem gun violence by indicating that “it would be premature for us to discuss policy when we don’t fully know all of the facts or what took place last night.”

What’s that? We don’t know what took place last night? Somebody tell Huckabee Sanders that automatic or semi-automatic guns were used to kill over 50 people and wound over 500 more. If now is not the time to discuss policy, when will it be time? How big does the kill have to be?

While you’re at it, tell Ann Wagner that refusing to use the word “gun” or assault weapon” won’t alter the facts. If she really has concern for those first responders she praises, she’d be willing to do something about the proliferation of automatic weapons that put them in special jeopardy. I have already accepted the fact that it may be too much to ask that she show concern for the rest of us.

Nor does it help to resort, as Huckabee Sanders did, to tired and long-discredited NRA pivots that are commonly used to distract our attention from the pertinent topic. She actually had the effrontery to suggest that we know that regulating guns is ineffective because Chicago has strict gun laws and still has violent crime – while ignoring the gun-flush jurisdictions that surround and supply guns to the city, the so-called iron pipeline that enables the violence endemic to many impoverished U.S. cities.

Things we actually do know about the issue at hand right now: Guns enable violence like nothing else. Reasonable regulation of guns does not necessarily impinge on 2nd amendment rights. Gun regulations need to be national in scope if they are to be effective (no more iron-pipelines). Assault weapons have no place in civilian life; they are for killing, not hunting, or casual self-protection. Some people, suspected terrorists, the mental unstable, felons, should not be able to buy guns at all.

Lawmakers are accessories to crime if they refuse to acknowledge these facts and do what is necessary to keep us safe because they’re afraid to alienate extremist gun nuts or they love the handouts they get from the NRA . Everyone of them has blood on their hands.

Lowering the flag to half mast is a nice gesture of respect, but it doesn’t address the needs of Americans who have been put at risk by pandering politicians like Ann Wagner