Arizona Republican Senate candidate Jeff Flake: The Constitution isn’t sacred

It sounds like blasphemy coming from a Republican, especially one who is solidly entrenched in the Tea Party.  All we have heard from these far-right fruitcakes in the last couple of years is just how enshrined this document was and is meant to be.  Especially when it comes to gun rights and the 2^nd amendment.  Although he hasn’t even won his primary yet, and it’s doubtful he could beat his Democratic opponent if he does, Jeff Flake is already attempting to manage his reelection.

Senate candidate Flake says he favors ending the direct election of U.S. Senators, and wants to repeal the Constitution’s 17^th Amendment.



Jeff Flake...precisely



Flake now represents Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives from the 6^th Congressional District and is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyl, another “flake.”  There is talk of his opponent in the primary, businessman Wil Cardon, giving up his primary fight; at the end of July Flake led Cardon by 22 points in the polls.  Assuming Flake wins the primary, he appears to be looking ahead to solidify a second term with the Arizona legislature behind him.

As a resident of the great state of Arizona, I cannot imagine putting a decision like naming a U.S. Senator in the hands of these legislative kooks.  I wish I could take credit for coining the term but Laurie Roberts, columnist for the Arizona Republic, gets the kudos for her series started recently called “DeKook the Capitol,” of course, referring to the Arizona Legislature, especially Republicans.  Over the last 3 years, this bunch, along with a completely incompetent Gov. Jan Brewer, has made the state a complete laughingstock.

Agreed, the 17^th Amendment was not given to us by the Founding Fathers like the 2^nd Amendment was; but it was passed by the Congress and on May 13, 1912 was submitted to the states for ratification and was adopted on May 31, 1913.  Tell me.  Is there a difference in the sacred value of a document created in 1787 with one conceived in 1912?  I think not.  Now if you are talking a U.S. Congress of the last few years, then, I would strongly question its ability to devise anything sensible and worthwhile.

Here’s what Jeff Flake is all about, according to the Payson, Arizona Roundup:

Flake advocated additional deep cuts in taxes and spending and the wholesale repeal of federal regulations. He said he opposed any restrictions on guns, ammunition or magazines, despite a string of recent shootings. He also said he favored eliminating both the federal Department of Energy and the Department of Education.

As is Mitt Romney, Flake is solidly behind GOP V.P. contender, Paul Ryan’s radical budget plan, covered in my Monday, August 13, post.  Democratic strategist, Donna Brazile, says that by selecting Ryan as his running mate, Romney has thrown, “…seniors under the bus and undermined their health security by ending Medicare as we know it.  It would increase health care cost for seniors, including those on fixed income, by thousands of dollars a year.”

Now I don’t want to turn this into a referendum for the repeal of the 2^nd Amendment, but if the 17^th Amendment is fair game, then so is the 2^nd Amendment.  Therefore, when an ultra-conservative like Jeff Flake, a solid Tea Party patriot, comes right out and says we should repeal part of the U.S. Constitution, it gives us gun control advocates the right to stand up and say, by the way we have something else to propose that needs the public’s attention.

Like the number of deaths per year due to firearm homicides according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC): 11,493.  That’s 3.7 per 100,000 population.  Like the fact that since I have been publishing a Monthly Shooting Report starting this past March, 432 have died from firearm homicides in 1,077 shootings.  And this only represents what is reported by the media which is very conservative. 

There can be no argument today against the fact that something has to be done about this and now.  And the 2^nd Amendment may or may not be the answer.  But the Tucson, Aurora and Wisconsin massacres do rigidly point toward stronger firearms regulation.  Jeff Flake has opened a can of worms in the sanctity of a Constitution that many have claimed cannot and must not be tampered with.  The question is whether this is more important than American lives.                        

Satire on gun violence…Is that possible?

SATIRE



Wacky Wayne



How many dead kids does it take for the top gun lobby to re-think their position on gun control?  A National Rifle Assn. (NRA) spokesperson said, “oh around 1,000.”  And it would have to be a school setting to make us really stand up and take notice.  The NRA’s CEO, Wayne LaPierre, said they’d like to see them face down in the school auditorium or maybe the football field.  Of course, standing by while they are carried out in body bags would certainly help, he added.

I wish I had written this and what is yet to come but I am only republishing it, with some embellishment, from The Onion, which provides a wake up call for the American public that our kids, and adults, are being slaughtered at an alarming rate around the U.S. simply because there are too many guns on the street.  And while innocent people are experiencing a bloodbath, as you will soon see below, the NRA continues to push for looser gun laws.

I need to stop the comedy parade right here for a moment and call your attention to the best website out there that records kid shootings and deaths by guns, Kid Shootings.  Please take the time to scan this blog for information on kids being butchered by firearms, and if this doesn’t make you want to contact your representatives in Washington to do something about this dilemma, then nothing will. 

On a monthly basis, this blog publishes a report on nationwide shootings, shooting deaths and those wounded by firearms.  As a matter of fact, this past weekend is an example of the firearm massacre that is spreading throughout the country from Baltimore to Anchorage.

In just one weekend, from June 15 to June 17, there were 24 shootings, 15 killed and 52 wounded.  And there may be more that just haven’t been announced yet.  Chicago continues its bloodshed with the most action; 9 shootings, 7 dead and 35 wounded.

Back to LaPierre, he reasoned that 800 dead kids might not even raise the hackles of gun worshippers; it would have to be a ton of kids getting their heads blown off.  “We’d also require that at least 30 different types of weapons would have to be used for any serious consideration of what was intended by the Founding Fathers in the 2^nd Amendment.”  Talking about large high schools of around 4,000 students, 1,000 dead ones “aren’t even a drop in the bucket.”

LaPierre said that if you hypothetically had a situation where 999 kids die, and number 1,000 was the shooter taking his own life, “I hope you don’t expect me to take that seriously.”  Further, “To me, that seems more like an isolated incident that shouldn't really impact everyone's rights, you know?"  Then he comments that after all he has seen, a low count like 350 to 470 dead kids would have no impact. 

Although we are dealing with satire here, this fanatic has been leading the gun bubbas for over 21 years.

Another short halt in The Onion’s satiric genius to comment on one of the best sites on the gun issue in the country, Common Gunsense which simply advocates sensible gun legislation.  This particular link is to a recent story titled, “Gun Fools,” which seemed supremely appropriate when talking about Wayne LaPierre and the NRA.  I urge you to read other stories if you want an excellent slant on gun issues.

The satire piece concludes with LaPierre once again dawdling over numbers with his new take that, “"One thousand dead kids would have very little impact on us.”  But he followed that with, “Now if 50,000 kids died in a school shooting that might be a different story. Something around 50,000 to 80,000 dead kids. You know what, forget that. Maybe something closer to 250,000. Yeah, 250,000 dead kids."

Thanks Wayne.  At least we have a firm number to “shoot” for now.  And although a massacre like that would be too horrific to imagine, when you look at the daily shootings, killings, and number wounded, it’s entirely possible that a much bigger event is in the works and will be carried out if we don’t enact more gun control.

2nd Amendment repeal not likely. I’ll settle for an amendment to the Amendment

The 2^nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It rings in our ears because the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has shoved it down our throats for years.  To this conglomeration of thugs it means that anyone can own a gun, take it anywhere they want, with little or absolutely no training.  The best example of a NRA state is Arizona with the loosest gun laws in the country.

It is followed, or maybe even equaled by, Florida, where the now infamous Stand Your Ground law made its debut, and is now probably responsible for the death of black, unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman’s gun, an inexpensive 9 mm semiautomatic known as the Kel-Tec 9 mm PF-9.  As a neighborhood watch captain Zimmerman wasn’t even supposed to be carrying a weapon and the 911 dispatcher told him to let police handle the situation.

Studies have proven that these gun worshippers sometimes try to replicate law enforcement in a situation such as this with results that are tragic, which this one was.  It didn’t have to happen; if only Zimmerman had stayed in his car.  And there would probably have been no altercation at all if there wasn’t a concealed carry law in Florida.  A total of 49 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either with or without a permit.

There are three unrestricted states: Alaska, Arizona and Vermont.  An Unrestricted jurisdiction is one in which no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun.  In Arizona the concealed carrier can even skip a background check by making the purchase at a gun show where NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, proved it was as easy as…just asking.  But Arizona takes it one step further.  You don’t have to have firearms training.

Josh Sugarmann

Josh Sugarmann is the founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center an organization that is attempting to reduce gun violence in the United States.  He cites an incident where Meleanie Hain insisted on taking her loaded Glock pistol to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game in Lebanon, Pa.  This didn’t sit well with the crowd so they complained.  After the game her permit was revoked but reinstated by the court.  She became an open-carry hero.

The judge even urged her not to carry her gun to the soccer games, but Hain decided she knew best because she was afraid of murderers and terrorists.  Even others who might have concealed weapons to harm her like the young soccer players or other fans.  Do you believe this idiot?  She is more brain-washed than the NRA’s graying granny Marion Hammer. 

Sugarman says: “At least 402 victims have been killed in 32 states since May 2007 in non-self-defense incidents involving private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.”

Sugarman continues, “In October 2009, Hain was gunned down in her home by her husband who, after firing six shots into her with his handgun (hers was in a backpack hanging off a door), went upstairs and ended his own life with a shotgun blast.  Meleanie Hain believed that a handgun—on her hip or in her home—guaranteed her personal safety.”  It didn’t.  Not only was she wrong about the security of a concealed weapon, her actions left her children without parents.

Constance Johnson, a Democratic State Senator in Oklahoma, thinks “Open Carry Is an Invitation to Chaos.”  She makes some good points like, are the armed gun owners trustworthy?; Open carry sounds good but is it realistic in today’s society?; reiterates that law enforcement is against these laws; the 2^nd Amendment in its inception was truly for protection during lawlessness but has evolved into nothing but a crutch for the NRA.

So is the U.S. Congress softening its stance on gun control?  On TownHall Brian Darling points out one bill among several designed to restore and preserve 2nd Amendment rights that have stalled in the House and Senate.  Among the bills ready for action is S.2205, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, that would bar the Administration from signing onto the Arms Trade Treaty.  The head of Gun Owners of America wants action if Congress expects their votes in Nov.

I know there are reasonable-minded gun owners out there; I have talked to them through comments on this blog.  There are also the gun nuts who are capable only of doing what the NRA tells them to.  It is the former group that must consider revising the 2^nd Amendment.  Things like mandatory background checks and adequate training for gun owners.  Closing the gun show loophole and eliminating open/concealed carry except for law enforcement and unusual needs.

This NRA bullshit of no compromise of any kind is getting old and probably beginning to open the eyes of many non-gun owners out there that are starting to believe that just maybe gun control is a good idea.  You can only push your point so far and when the negatives in your issue—like multiple shooting deaths on a daily basis now—begin to be obvious, the momentum is bound to shift.  I think we are on the verge of this happening today.

Are militia fanatics a real threat to America?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That’s the 2nd Amendment, and although it is in grave need of updating, is nevertheless a part of the Constitution.  And the Supreme Court now says that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  The question arises over just how far private militias can go in enforcement.

About half the states maintain laws regulating private militias.  Wyoming forbids them entirely.  In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws that apply to all of society.  In other words, many states and the federal government believe that these militias are not necessary for the control of law and order and discourage their formation.  Unfortunately, this doesn’t dampen the enthusiasm of these self-proclaimed gun-totin fanatics.



Schaeffer Cox



In Alaska three of these wingnuts are on trial for compiling a huge arsenal of weapons and plotting the murder of government officials.  Isn’t Alaska where another gun freak by the name of Sarah Palin comes from?  The leader is Schaeffer Cox and his two henchmen on trial with him are Coleman Barney and Lonnie Vernon. 

Their organization, Alaska Peacemakers Militia, was preparing to “…take up arms against the government, and ‘be sufficiently armed and equipped to sustain a take-over of the ‘government’ or become a new government in the event of a ‘government collapse.’”

In the process they would kill two government officials for every one militia member killed, or as they expressed it, “241” (2 for 1).  In the trial there’s the typical defense of ensnarement using an informant.  The three were portrayed as devout Christians only trying to defend their family and themselves.  And they have supporters such as Norm Olson, founder of the Michigan Militia, who finds nothing wrong with what the gang of three is doing.

Norm Olson

The next question is just how many of these lunatic groups are currently loose in the U.S.?  According to a special report, there are some 411 with the largest group the Michigan Militia with over 10,000 members spread out over almost all of the state’s 88 counties.  Now that’s scary for local residents when you consider the Michigan Militia agrees with the tactics of Schaeffer Cox and his Alaska Peacemakers Militia.  Cox also has a group called the 2^nd Amend. Task Force.          

In 2010 Cox was accused of choking his wife and in the weeks following was arrested during a police interview with the residents of a home where he attempted to force his way in with a knife and a .380-caliber semiautomatic weapon.  During his pretrial hearing Cox “denied the legitimacy of the Alaska state court system.”  His statement was: “I am a sovereign, a man of peace, but capable of war.”  These people are completely off the spool.

Crackpot Schaeffer supporter:

In more twisted antics, Cox tried to serve papers on a Judge for being a criminal by serving the state, then told a state trooper that his (Cox) militia “troopers” being “outmanned, outgunned and we could probably have you all dead in one night.”  He took on the sovereignty position again claiming that according to the Constitution, he was now required to resist all means against him in order not to be a supporter of the government.  This is so far in right field it is chilling.

NRA militia

Last but certainly not least, where does the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) stand on militias like the above.  Brady Campaign V.P. Dennis Henigan says, “The militias' view that the Second Amendment protects our other rights, by ensuring the potential for armed insurrection against the government, is indistinguishable from the long-held constitutional ideology of the National Rifle Association.”

Henigan quoted an NRA official as saying, "the Second Amendment . . . is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government."  Not to be outdone, the NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre exclaimed to last year's Conservative Political Action Conference that our rights as Americans mean little unless we are ready to defend them against the government by force of arms.  This is even beyond terrifying.

The NRA’s imaginary world of guns for self-defense

The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has repeatedly cited the 2^nd Amendment and the need for firearm protection in self-defense issues.  It’s even gone so far as to push its “Stand your Ground” law that allows the cowboys to shoot first and ask questions later.  A recent post I did on these points out the fallacy in the legislation with the result that even more will die unnecessarily from stupid laws like this if the NRA isn’t stopped dead in its tracks.



NRA weapons training



Wayne LaPierre, the wacky head of the NRA, had nothing more to say about the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman than deriding the American media for “sensational reporting from Florida.”  This bunch of thugs has no remorse for a black teenager who just wanted to be left alone.  Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, and a doctor confirmed that he had a broken nose, bloodied, and had bruises. You can see his police booking video, below:

Dennis Henigan, Vice President of the Brady Campaign, comments on the surveys the NRA uses to prove the “good guys” need their firearms for protection but calls our attention to the ambiguity of their findings.  The Harvard School of Public Health conducted two telephone surveys asking about the self-defense of guns.  This was submitted to a panel for their opinions of the legality of claimed self-defense use.



Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan



It found that, “…over half were rated as probably illegal by a majority of the judges.”  Further that, “…over two thirds of the self-defense gun incidents were reported by only six respondents, with three respondents claiming fifty, twenty and fifteen self-defense uses of guns each within the previous five years.”  These gun bubbas are so proud of their weapons that they feel obligated to pump up the figures.  But it is an indication of the credibility of what the NRA uses.

Additional analysis of the survey showed that the respondent’s response was suspicious in that it sounded like it might have been aggressive rather than defensive.  And research by the University of Pennsylvania provided the fact that gun-toters were 4 to 5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those without a gun.  Data from the FBI find that less than 3 percent of annual gun homicides are justifiable self-defense killings.

And in another Huff Post article by Jess Coleman, “How the NRA hijacked America,” he reminds us of all the mass school shootings from Columbine to Oikos University.  He laments that both Congress and the NRA have kept silent.  The White House did react after the Tucson shooting that injured former U.S. representative Gabby Giffords, but then also fell silent.  Americans live their everyday lives in potential fear while lawmakers, including Obama, do nothing.

Coleman reiterates that due to the NRA’s efforts, the United States is home to almost 300 million privately owned guns.  That is close to one for each individual in this country, although we know that many NRA households are more than adequately stocked.  He continues over how the NRA ramrodded the “gun show loophole, which currently makes it possible for criminals and fugitives to purchase guns without a background check.” 

Lee Harvey Oswald

Because there was a period in the past where the NRA was more cooperative, Coleman asks what happened?  He answers this through Jill Lepore’s book, “Battleground America,” and the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was able to buy his rifle through a magazine and have it delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.  This prompted the Gun Control Act and scared the hell out of the NRA.  From then on it was to the trenches led by the 2^nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court has agreed with the right to bear arms but seems to be guarded as to whether that means just in one’s home, or outside that domain.  But it was Chief Justice Warren Burger who said, this interpretation is "one of the greatest pieces of fraud ... by special interests groups I have ever seen in my lifetime."  We’ve all heard the arguments over what James Madison referred to in the creating of a militia for protection.  We haven’t defined just what he meant.

More calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment

There is another debate going on re. whether to repeal the 2^nd Amendment with a pro/con between Steve Zorbaugh and Elizabeth Roberts, both Pennsylvanians, and both very eloquent.  However, Roberts places much of her reasoning against repeal in her interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended in their amendment plus a general distrust in the American government.  Zorbaugh shoots all this NRA malarkey down and makes a very strong case in favor.

But Zorbaugh starts with an interesting statement that I had to research further.  He said: “There are 788,258 words in a standard King James Bible. The word ‘gun’ isn't one of them.”  That would indicate a direct connection between religion and guns, and I found that there is.  At least in the minds of the gun worshippers.  There is a lawyer by the name of Herb Titus who is part of the Gun Owners of America who draws this parallel between the 2^nd Amendment and religion.

The article in the second site, above, exclaims that “…the Tea Party movement emerges out of the confluence of different strands of the far right, including Christian Reconstructionism.”  We all know that TPers are staunch gun rights supporters and gun toters.  Further, “The militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism both contend that our current civil government, most especially the federal government, is illegitimate.” At the very least, scary.

Cass Sunstein, Constitutional Lawyer and U.S. Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on repealing 2nd Amendment:

Larry Pratt, Exec. Dir. of GOA said: “we’re not really talking about a right but an obligation, as creatures of God, to protect the life that was given them.”  Now we don’t just go back to biblical days where there is a fantasized association between gun and religion, but according to Pratt it came right from the mouth of God.  More on this in a later post.  It is beyond me where these maniacs come up with this crap but of course the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) comes to mind.

Zorbaugh refutes Roberts’ Founding Fathers drivel in one compact, precise statement: “The justification for gun ownership that existed in 1787 no longer exists today.”  But he follows up with a multitude of other refutations that should make a brainwashed NRA membership think.  But it won’t.  He does acknowledge the need then to have protection against the King of England and against unfriendly Native American tribes that we confiscated our land from. 

But that was over two-hundred years ago.  Things have changed.  The only thing outside one’s God worshipped today is guns, not thrones.

Zorbaugh proclaims: “After 225 years, the Second Amendment has clearly outlived its original purpose.”  He is looking for a new Constitutional Amendment that will value the community’s right to being safe over the demands of the gun bubbas that want to carry their weapons anywhere they want to at anytime they want to.  And the only way this can be accomplished is with stronger gun control. 

One good reason for more control is Philip Cook’s statement that the cost our society pays each year to guarantee gun ownership exceeds $100 billion and is growing annually at an alarming rate.”  This comes from Cook’s book, “Gun Violence: The Real Costs.”

There is one solution affirms the pro-repeal author.  Require gun owners to carry insurance on their weapons just like they are required to do on their automobiles, for potential death and injuries.  This would at least mandate registration which we all know would send the NRA into its next aberration.  It would be worth the try just to see Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s CEO and Exec, Vice President, come off the spool…again.

NRA member’s “Obama assassination joke” shows the insanity of this organization

Pres. Lincoln's assassination

At the recent NRA meeting in St. Louis, a reporter had the luxury of witnessing first-hand just what a bunch of morons make up at least a portion of the membership of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  Alexander Zaitchik, writing for Media Maters for America, was on an airport shuttle bus when this idiot, who is an attorney by the way, dropped the bomb:

“What do Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama have in common?"  The answer, "Nothing. Yet."



Gun wacko Wayne LaPierre



According to Zaitchik, the quote came from a professional Second Amendment extremist named Stephen Burke, who is a buddy of Wayne LaPierre, Exec. V.P. and CEO of the NRA.  In his day job “Burke specializes in getting guns into the hands of ex-cons whose licenses have been revoked or downgraded for criminal activity.”  A shining example of the NRA’s mission to put guns in the hands of everyone, no matter their background, allowing them to carry them anywhere.

What is chilling about this group of gun worshippers is the fact that most of the shuttle bus erupted in laughter, except for the “soft-spoken” father from Long Island who was going to the convention with his teenage daughter; he just looked out the window, “embarrassed.”  Yes, there are NRA members who believe in moderation and don’t wish to participate in the lunacy of these double-digit red necks.  They are apparently few, however.  Pathetic!

Zaitchik cautioned, though, that parents who want to shield their children from this kind of low class humor should keep them away from NRA conventions.  He added, “The group's leadership has in recent years expertly cultivated a very profitable hatred and paranoia among its membership.”  We all know that the use of hate and fear-mongering has a distinct appeal to conservatives.  And it keeps the NRA coffers full from the dull-witted among its members.



NRA 2012 convention



At the convention, NRA members and their leaders described President Obama as an “enemy of freedom,” with the same old tired phrase that he wants to take away all their guns.  This bunch of deadbeats will be after the President in November, but it’s not clear if his GOP rival, probably Mitt Romney, will be their saving grace.  Romney has vacillated on his support of gun control since he was the Massachusetts Gov., and wasn’t a surefire at the NRA convention.

But did you know that the NRA was almost bankrupt in the mid-1990s?  Considering the donations of only two gun manufacturers at this year’s convention, Ruger and MidWayUSA, who gave up $8 million, that’s hard to understand.   And in 2007, one of its former lobbyists, Richard Feldman, “…described the organization as a "cynical, mercenary political cult."  Zaitchik is more conciliatory of the group today, but I say it hasn’t changed.  Nada.

 The NRA’s official battle cry for November is “All In.”  Zaitchik says it works when you consider the group’s extreme, even “insane” interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment.  The organization has gone on the offense in recent years which is plainly obvious in the states of Arizona and Florida.  Arizona has the loosest gun laws in the country allowing guns in bars by owners who had no background checks.  And Florida passed the original “Stand Your Ground” law.

The NRA has as its steadfast partner the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in passing its absurd gun laws.  ALEC is a pro-business, anti-consumer group composed of U.S. corporations and state legislators that pass legislation designed for the profits of American companies while leaving consumers to fend for themselves.  In many cases the legislation is passed by states verbatim of what ALEC proposes. 

"Shoot-em-up Charlie" cartoon of the NRA and ALEC

But currently the NRA is focused on a federal bill to allow gun owners to carry nationwide, according to their state’s laws.  As an example, under this proposed law, a gun totin’ cowboy from Arizona with no background check, nor any training in firearms whatever, could carry his or her handgun to any U.S. state, no matter what the state’s gun laws say.  It’s another of the NRA’s licenses to kill. 

Thirty years ago there were discussions of a national handgun ban.  Today we’re talking about universal right to carry, brags the NRA’s Chris Cox.  Will this conglomeration of misfits still be bragging when some of their own are killed by the guns they want everywhere?

Here’s why guns in the hands of the inexperienced is dangerous

It is a well known fact that many gun owners have little or no weapons training because a number of states do not require it. 



It's never too late



“In 28 states you can now openly carry a loaded gun in public with no permitting, screening or training.  Four states now require no permitting, screening or training to carry a concealed firearm in public.  And even in "Shall Issue" states that require one to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public, several have no training requirement.”

The above statement came from Ladd Everitt, who should know.  He compiles this data for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in his role as their Director of Communications.  He used Arizona as a prime example exclaiming, “Law enforcement {in Arizona} would have no idea what the background of a gun carrier is until he opens fire (unless that individual voluntarily obtained a permit to carry a firearm into certain sensitive public spaces.”

One of the primary reasons used by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and its members for carrying their guns anywhere they choose is for self-protection or to help out a fellow citizen.  Second, they think the 2^nd Amend. gives them this right.  First of all, I don’t want the help of some yahoo playing Wyatt Earp because there is a good chance he or she might shoot me, not my aggressor.  Next, the 2^nd Amend. does not cover the carrying of concealed weapons.

But the real danger of these gun worshipping cowboys on the loose is found in the statements from and training of law enforcement officers.  In an article, “Police know better than to stand their ground,” in The Daily Beast, the irony is drawn: “while police departments now encourage off-duty police officers to avoid carrying firearms or confrontations, the so-called stand-your-ground laws effectively encourage civilians to do so.”



Concealed weapons are everywhere



Law enforcement has come out in force and almost 100 percent unanimous against gun laws like “stand your ground.”  But lawmakers never listen because they are playing to a constituency that loves its guns, and apparently hasn’t the slightest notion of what damage these firearms can do in the hands of the bad guys and the inexperienced.  Law enforcement even admits that law officers off-duty can misread a tense situation.

As an example of the difference in outcomes of a police force still allowing their officers to carry their weapons off-duty, The Baltimore Police Department last year had “three highly questionable shootings by officers in bars.”  By contrast both New York and Los Angeles have the policy for not carrying when not working and off-duty shootings are rare among their combined 45,000 cops.  Police departments suggest they simply walk away from most altercations.

Weapons training in law enforcement:

The Daily Beast says, “With police officers being warned away from involvement in all but the most unavoidable life-and-death confrontations, the last thing the nation needs is their replacement by unaccountable, self-deputized citizen surrogates.”  It becomes even more important when you take into consideration that minorities have been the targets of these so-called “watchmen.”        

 

Further, “In the Martin case, the evidence so far suggests that Zimmerman had convinced himself that the teenager was one of the dangerous “assholes who always get away,” as he put it to the 911 dispatcher (who encouraged him to remain in his vehicle and let the police investigate).”  George Zimmerman did not comply and this led to his shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin.

Also from The Daily Beast, “The ‘nation under siege’ rhetoric favored by advocates of widespread weapon carrying resonates with the worst possible self-appointed “community defenders”: the mentally unstable and those deeply rattled by America’s cultural and demographic changes.”  One needs to add here, all the “rhetoric” suggested above spews from the muzzle of the NRA.  Pathetic!

And if you didn’t catch the moral of this story, it is that even with the training that is available to private gun owners, and meager it is at times, you could never achieve the preparedness that law enforcement officers have.

Romney view(s) on gun control illustrate his flip-flop style in tackling serious issues

Mitt Romney on gun control

In 1994 running against Ted Kennedy for Massachusetts’ Senate seat, Mitt Romney said, “I don’t line up with the NRA” on gun control.  By 2008 he had completely reversed himself stating that if he became President, he would support the 2^nd Amendment and vigorously defend the rights of Americans to defend their homes.  This was also at odds with the fact that early in his political career he was supportive of many gun control laws, particularly the Brady Act.

Today the GOP candidate is opposed to any further gun control legislation.  He called Trayvon Martin’s shooting “a tragedy” and said there should be a “thorough investigation.”  To my knowledge he didn’t mention the “stand your ground” law, nor did he comment on whether it was good or bad legislation.  It would seem to me the perfect opportunity for President Obama to come out in full force to repeal all these laws and challenge Romney to his positio

Mitt Romney on gun control 4 years ago:

In his 1994 Senate bid, Romney defied the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) by saying that he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.”  But in considering a run for the presidency in 2006, he signed up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.  He even praised the group for “doing good things” and confirmed “supporting the right to bear arms.”  When asked in 2007 if he was still in favor of the Brady Bill he was vague and referenced his term as Governor.

Romney said that he signed the assault weapons ban as Massachusetts’ governor exclaiming that it was a “weapon of such lethality” and poses grave risk to law enforcement.  This didn’t get him any accolades from the NRA but then that may well be put aside when he addresses the gun lobbying group at its annual meeting Friday the 13^th in St. Louis, MO. 

This after the recent Trayvon Martin shooting and the earlier massacre in Tucson, AZ, injuring former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and killing six.  This when the nation is still reeling from mass school shootings and a potential hate crime that left 3 dead and two injured in Tulsa, OK.  I am running a documented count of shootings across the U.S. which I started in March and will publish monthly.

While campaigning, Romney tells potential voters that we have all the gun control laws we need and about a month ago let the world know he owns two shotguns.  Not a handgun, mind you, just two shotguns and he actually doesn’t even own them.  In an interview with the Boston Globe he bragged of being a hunter and having a gun of his own.  He was corrected by the interviewer who said isn’t that your son’s gun?  Romney responded, “Um, well, yes, but so what?

The man is an enigma unto himself, making it repeatedly clear that he is swayed by the issue at hand and will switch in whatever direction necessary that will benefit his candidacy.  By the way, this isn’t Romney’s first appearance before the NRA.  He addressed them in 2008 and 2009 and sent a video message for the 2011 annual meeting.  Since charges against Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, have been made, will this come up at the NRA’s meeting?

And finally, the dreaded link with Barack Obama in his views on gun control.  Yes, says former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney does share many of President Obama’s views on guns.  He also included the issues of health care and energy policy in this forum.  Santorum sums up Romney’s apparent nomination by saying, the party shouldn’t nominate a moderate with this little contrast with the President.  But it sure looks like they will.

“Stand your ground” gun laws have to go



Fla legislators love the NRA



Two good questions arise in a Wall Street Journal article that seem to challenge the “stand your ground laws in those states where it has been passed.  “For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn't have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the "justifiable" category, if a new law broadens that category?”  Tough questions and without more study will no doubt remain unanswered.

Up until the killing of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, the primary battle between gun control advocates and those for more gun rights has been to just let anyone who wants to own a weapon of their choice take it anywhere they wanted to.  So far, the gun worshippers have gotten their way.  Now it would seem that the NRA-backed gun bubbas would like to add an amendment: “If I kill someone, let me call it self defense.”

The alleged justifiable homicides almost doubled between 2000 and 2010, but distinguishing these events are some interesting factors.  Around 60 percent were strangers.  Firearms were used in 80 percent of the cases compared to 65 percent in non-justifiable cases.  The average age of victims in justifiable versus non-justifiable are about the same. 

Re. the race issue, in 75 percent of each type the victim and the killer were the same race.  On the other side, in these quasi justifiable cases, when the races are different, the victim is more often black.

So far there is only one common denominator in all the chaos of these laws and statistics and that is the fact that there is a proliferation of guns in the hands of literally anyone who wants them and these gun nuts are able to walk around with their firearms just about anywhere.  And that is not right.  George Zimmerman’s judgment was proven inadequate to own a handgun when he defied law enforcement by following Trayvon Martin, resulting in the black teen’s death.



Where the 2nd Amend. was designed for



In my opinion, the 2^nd Amendment was meant by its drafters to protect individuals in their homes.  Conversely, as a militia then, or for today’s law enforcement and military, the purpose was to arm them for anywhere they were needed to protect the citizenry.  Protection of the homestead was the definition of the “Castle Doctrine” for several years until the gun-crazy gang decided they wanted to play Wyatt Earp.  Retreat was the law before this “stand your ground” crap.

Fla. legislator on his "stand your ground" law

According to the WSJ, one of the reasons reports of the U.S. homicide rate is in decline is the fact that it is voluntary for states to report the data, and police agencies across the country aren’t consistent in their reporting.  I did a post earlier this week, “48 dead from 49 shootings across U. S. in March alone,” where the title speaks for itself.  Actually, there was a slight increase in homicides from 2000-2010, but slight decline when adjusted for population.



GOP delivers for the NRA



Now when you look at justified killings over the same period, justifiable rose by 85 percent.  And most of these occurred after 2005 when Florida and 16 other states passed their first “stand your ground law.”  Coincidence?  The NRA would argue yes.  Sane individuals would see the figures as representing a law that all of a sudden provided these gun addicts a legal excuse to blast away.  And they would have probably continued to get away with it if not for George Zimmerman.

I am not suggesting that gun owners use the “stand your ground” law for a reason to either shoot or actually kill someone.  These people have been so brain-washed by the National Rifle Assn. that they are convinced they must push for the right to display their weapons before the world, fighting for literally any way to do this, and to stand firm against any move to control the violence caused by all these loose weapons on the street.  Pathetic!