MORE ON 2ND AMENDMENT LOOPHOLE

David Kopel of the Washington Post said "The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to own and carry firearms, including handguns. The 2nd Amendment actually says, "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." The District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 ruling, "...protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." A bit off the subject but the Justices said nothing about cowboys walking around on the streets with their guns. Something tells me that, until we find something more direct--that is to really gut the 2nd Amendment--we concentrate on passing universal background checks and getting rid of concealed carry, except for extenuating circumstances.

More to come.

IS THERE A 2ND AMENDMENT LOOPHOLE?

Dictionary.com defines loophole as, "a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc. The gun show loophole is a perfect example in the world of weapons rights. What we are dealing with for the 2nd Amendment is the fact that the National Rifle Assn., led by wacky Wayne LaPierre, holds it so absolute that there can be no change. Just some slight modification like making universal background checks mandatory. No, says wacky Wayne, it takes away the rights of gun owners, which kind of indicates to me some of his NRA members couldn't pass background checks.

In fact, 74% of NRA members support background checks so that would indicate that wacky Wayne LaPierre doesn't represent his membership, rather a gun industry vehemently against it. Yes, and 89% of the American public supports background checks so why can't we get it done? Because the NRA's gun lobby fills the pockets of Congress, thus, their complete hands off the issue. Okay, we can't get Washington to do anything, and many states like Arizona and Florida give guns to just a warm body, so we have to find the loophole in the 2nd Amendment. Someone with a good enough legal mind to bring this outdated legislation forward to the 21st Century.

Gun nuts will think I'm crazy and actually that's a compliment coming from them, but I am perfectly serious about this venture. Hopefully it will encourage others out there to take up the crusade, write about it, and with enough networking get a forum to revise or appeal the Constitutional Amendment that is being used by wacky Wayne LaPierre to allow the slaughter of school children and other innocent people. To start the ball rolling I am opening a debate that has been going on for several years comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st Amendment. The premise is that, if the 1st can be interpreted with certain parts being changed to fit the situation, why can't it also be done with the 2nd?

As an example, in the First, we have freedom of speech but can't commit libel or slander, same for perjury, or download child pornography. In other words there are corrective mechanisms, even to Amendments to the Constitution. I urge you to read an article by Barry Lyga that takes this very approach into consideration.

This my first post on this subject with more to come.

TIME TO REPEAL OR AMEND 2ND AMENDMENT

The NRA's 2nd Amendment

That headline is guaranteed to get the attention of gun nuts all over the world. In the past comments have been so vicious and often life-threatening that I decided this go around with my blog not to allow them. But I know what you will say so consider yourself said but not really heard. I am not alone on this; much better minds than I have come to the same conclusion. Bill Maher said the NRA stands for "Nuts, Racists and Assholes," Very appropriate considering some past comments mentioned above. The blog,  Gun Control Now speaks to the constant argument by gun rights radicals that the 2nd makes gun control illegal. It says "The 2^nd amendment was predicated upon the maintenance of state militias—something that has become irrelevant in the face of our federal armed services—and is not something that should have allowed individuals to claim the right to own weapons."

Further, Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger—a Republican—talking about the 2nd Amendment said...

“…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

From another point of view Jerry Large of the Seattle Times says...

“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was ever intended to support the kind of gun craziness we contend with today, but since it’s always used to ward off any common-sense gun reforms, maybe we ought to just fix the Constitution and be done with it.”

But he admits this kind of talk just makes some Americans "...embrace their guns even more tightly..."

TEA PARTY SITE PROVES IT'S TIME TO TAKE THEIR GUNS

I try my best not to call attention to a Tea Party site, if not based on the lack of accuracy, it is because of the numerous grammatical mistakes, but this one takes the cake. New York has put out a counter-terrorism bulletin because of the radical 2nd Amendment gang that is apparently saying they will do anything to keep the feds or NY state law enforcement from taking their weapons. These are the very people they should require to turn in all their firearms. The picture included with the TP post says it all; it's an assault rifle featured as if every American family needs one of these. Well, they don't, and it is this bunch of gun nuts that should be relieved of all their guns. The Tea Party obviously supports rebellion and I'm beginning to think that includes violence.

DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE PAVING WAY FOR GUN CONTROL-NRA CRINGES

Wacky Wayne LaPierre in his glory

Let's just look at what this club for gun loving misfits is for and against. The National Rifle Assn. is against universal background checks, lawsuits against the firearm industry, micro stamping and any tampering with the 2nd Amendment. They are for assault rifles, large capacity magazines, concealed and open carry anywhere and Stand Your Ground Law. There's more but these are the ones covered in a recent release from their Institute for Legislative Action. They rail over former NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg putting up $50 million to fight gun control along with George Soros's group divvying up $40 million. Wacky Wayne LaPierre's NRA addicts spent $40 million in 2008, $10 million of that to defeat President Obama. On the Colorado recall alone they spent $350,000. We know the NRA is against anything that would restrict their beloved guns. But what this bunch of gun nuts is finding out is that there are many of us out there that place saving the lives of innocent individuals over their stupid gun rights.

IT'S TIME TO AMEND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

The title above guarantees that I get the attention of gun owners and their renegade bunch of gun nuts. My congressman, Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican, says that new gun laws that would interfere with the rights of these gun huggers would be unconstitutional. Like background checks that could have prevented most of the recent mass shooting. Yes, I know, it would also have to include a mental health database, something that Gosar and his GOP buddies are holding up. So, if changing the 2nd Amendment won't work, let's amend it to an interpretation that the Founding Fathers really meant. You know what it says, "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."

A one-sided Court

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book, Six Amendments: How and Why we Should Change the Constitution. He was, by the way, was against the District of Columbia v. Heller outcome. He says for one thing that Heller didn't preclude the barring of assault weapons. That's a start but his revision of the 2nd is even better: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed." Amen. That will get many of the guns off the street.

WRITING CONGRESS A WASTE OF TIME

On the recommendation of Josh Horwitz, Exec. Dir. of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence I wrote to my congressman, Paul Gosar, a Republican, to let him know I favor reasonable gun control. He let me know that the 2nd Amendment was something he revered and compared it with the right to trial by jury. It's the same old sanctimonious bullshit that's been coming out of most Republicans for years. Gosar is firmly supported by the Tea Party, which should tell you something about the man right there. But my reasoning for not wasting your time writing these eight balls is that they never answer you. I stated simply to Gosar that I couldn't see how anyone could oppose background checks to purchase a gun. I also asked him to fight for a federal database of the mentally ill to support those background checks. He didn't mention either in his five paragraph reply, only canned crap that had probably been dictated by wacky Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).

So, Arizonans, don't vote for Paul Gosar in November. Vote for Democrat Mickel Weisser.

Concealed carry firearms not protected by 2nd Amendment…says Denver federal appeals court

What is more important right now?  Whether we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, make universal background checks the law, eliminate straw purchases, concentrate on improving investigations into and sharing of mental health data, create a registry of firearms or other gun control legislation being proposed, there is an even more pressing problem to be reckoned with.  It is what do we do with about 8 million cowboys and cowgirls walking around American streets with either a concealed weapon or one in a holster at their side?

I did a post in 2011 that questioned whether or not these people should be allowed to openly take their weapons all around town, even the whole country, if the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has its way.  In Arizona, with the country’s loosest gun laws, they can even take a gun into a bar, and the state might soon be arming teachers in schools.  Right now I am fine with having a firearm at home for protection but that is where it should stay.  Many of these carriers have no real weapons training and I don’t want them protecting me anyway.  Leave the gun at home.

When I wrote the earlier post, the U.S. House had OKed a bill to allow concealed guns to cross state lines.  That means someone from Arizona, where all you basically need to buy a gun is a warm body, this person could carry his or her weapon into states like California, New York and Illinois where they have much tougher gun laws.  Thankfully this legislative idiocy has been tabled for the time being but always in the back of the minds of the gun nuts.  But there is other news for changing the concealed carry laws in the future that might involve the Supreme Court.

Although one year old, The Young Turks attack concealed carry laws:

Forbes did a recent piece with concern over the fact that new verdicts from Federal Appeals courts could be harmful to the gun industry.  “In Denver, the court decided that concealed-carry firearms aren’t protected by the Second Amendment,” the magazine reported.  In opposition, “…in Chicago, the court reached a different decision. It declined to reconsider a ruling that found that state’s ban on concealed carry unconstitutional.”  And in a New York federal appeals court, the fact that concealed carry applicants must prove “proper cause” to carry was upheld.

Two out of three sounds like momentum for gun control advocates and although this issue isn’t on the White House’s agenda, there are many who feel reevaluating this right, along with state laws re. self-defense use of guns when challenged is ripe for the picking.  The question that is never asked in polls on gun violence is: “Do you favor banning concealed weapons for anyone but law enforcement and authorized users?”  As an example, in a reaction to teachers carrying guns, the New Yorker found the idea “confounding.” 

Concealed carry weapons including small, compact pistols and revolvers produce big money for gun manufacturers.  And women have become a prime market for these firearms in one of the industry’s fastest growing segments.  Some even come with pink grips.  So companies like Sturm, Ruger and Smith & Wesson aren’t likely to give in to curtailment of the concealed carry laws without a fight, no doubt led by wacky Wayne LaPierre and his NRA gun worshippers.  Of course those cowboys and cowgirls will certainly have their say in the matter.

Forbes predicts these contradictory appeal decisions (above) would make it more likely that the Supreme Court would have to settle the matter.  Two earlier SCOTUS cases come to mind immediately.  In 2008 the “District of Columbia v. Heller, upheld many 19th century prohibitions on concealed weapons, but also acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects a right to own guns.”  Then in 2010, “McDonald v. Chicago, established that state and local laws should also recognize the right to own firearms.”  But the Supremes also put a fly in the ointment.

McDonald v. Chicago stated that there is a right for gun owners to have a weapon in their home for protection, which leaves open the premise that the high Court just might place restraints on the concealed carry law.  It is possible that eventually concealed carry permits may be available in all states.  To give you an idea of the popularity, the 8 million concealed carriers are almost twice the NRA membership which is 4.5 million.  It would be interesting to know what percent of these faux vigilantes are trained.  Regardless, I want them all off the streets. 

The 2nd Amendment is ripe for new interpretation…again

Alan Singer is a social studies educator at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York and the editor of Social Science Docket (a joint publication of the New York and New Jersey Councils for Social Studies).  Apparently he has done his homework on the 2^nd Amendment in research for an article in the Huff Post titled, “Does the U.S. Constitution Prevent Gun Control?”  The answer to this question is a resounding “Yes” if asked of the gun nuts and their head fanatic Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).

Wacky Wayne says the 2^nd Amendment is sacred and an absolutist part of the Constitution that cannot be touched by gun control advocates.  Having been proven wrong on this several times already, this lunatic continues to rant and rave about gun owner rights in spite of the killings by firearms happening on a daily basis.  This sick ideology of rights over life itself is beginning to turn off a newly savvy American public.  LaPierre has used fear to make his point for years in the American Congress, NRA membership and the general population. 

 

 

President Obama has proposed new gun control regulations that range from universal background checks to banning assault rifles.  New York State passed their own law placing an immediate ban on semi-automatic rifles and pistols, shotguns, and other firearms with military-style features, requiring universal background checks prior to the sale of all guns and ammunition, making it easier for officials to confiscate firearms from the mentally ill, and increases penalties for gun-related crimes.  Singer ponders whether the law will survive.

In a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled that in the 2008 decision on District of Columbia v. Heller that the 2^nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.  The key here is “in the home” which doesn’t rule out but definitely leaves the door open to curbing the carrying of concealed weapons.  Yes, this is a separate issue but it does illustrate a potential crack in the 2^nd Amendment that proves non-absolutism. 

Wayne LaPierre has accused the President of “undermining 2^nd Amendment constitutional principles.”  Alan Singer counters with just how the apparently divine Amendment—at least to the gun nuts—could be in trouble.  He cites the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court which leans to a “textualist” interpretation of the Constitution.  Textualism is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

A formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature {or forefathers/my words} in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law. 

Singer says, “In general I find most ‘textualist’ arguments forwarded by the Supreme Court's right-wing activists to be self-justifying contorted attempts to discover constitutional support for positions they already hold.”  An interesting observation when you consider Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative, has said that stricter gun laws could be possible under the 2^nd Amendment.  This probably sent head NRA gun nut, Wayne LaPierre, gyrating into outer space but aroused the passions of all gun control advocates.

And it is here where Singer analyzes the Constitution in relation to the right of the people in connection with individual rights.  He says, “An examination of the Constitution shows a very clear and precise distinction between the term ‘people’ and ‘person’ or "persons.’"  Further, that America functions as a whole, not individually by states nor individual persons.  True, individuals do elect our lawmakers both local, statewide and nationally, but these same individuals acting separately can legally be limited. 

In the view of a textualist, “the right of the ‘people’ is a general statement of principle not a specific or individual right.”  Singer draws support from the Fourth amendment in its collective right of the people to be secure in their homes, papers, effects, etc., the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.  However, with probable cause, identifying the place to be searched, the persons (individual), things can be searched and seized with the proper warrant.  It just proves that there is no absolutist finality in this or the 2^nd Amendment.

In conclusion, singer quotes the 2^nd: "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 is clearly referring to the collective “people,” in other words the country has a right to defend itself, he claims.  He does add, “there is no specific prohibition on limiting the access of individual ‘persons’ to dangerous weapons.”  Even so, this interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment “provides an opportunity for even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices to support significant new gun restrictions approved by elected officials in local, state, and federal governments.  We can only hope for the best.        

 

Did God order the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre?

If not, at least “former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a religious conservative, suggested that because we are keeping God out of schools, the Deity chose not to stop the slaughter of these young innocents.”  Does that mean God wanted it to happen, since He did nothing to stop it?  Does it really mean that God took it upon Himself as the deity of the Christian faith to pave the way for Adam Lanza to slaughter 20 little children ages 6 and 7?  Does it mean that there is no hope in prayer and common sense to stop this in the future? 

Fundamentally, are we to believe that there is some connection between the violence in the world and a God that takes retribution for the misgivings of the human race?

Lawrence M. Krauss is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and he has a book, "A Universe from Nothing," that was published in January.  Krauss once debated Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the self-proclaimed spiritual guide to Michael Jackson.  Boteach doesn’t believe in evolution and on television was found, “…offering admonition to those who, with very good reason, may question a God who could willingly allow the slaughter of children.”  But in fact is this a good time to question your faith and deities? Krauss asks on CNN.

He wonders why it is that everyone expects, and the media promulgates, such a narrow version on grieving for the 20 children who God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to call home in a gun slaughter by a maniac.  I ask, is this just another step in the process of evolution in a country that worships guns more than human life and is escalating in this mode of violence much faster than any other developed nation?  It does not make any sense to Krauss that an intelligent God could just “rationally” act in such a way and still be worth praying to.  I agree.

And the author addresses one of my favorite issues.  Why do we need more than common humanity to bring ourselves together, whether it is helping another in a time of need or grieving, as in Sandy Hook and all the other needless gun murders that go on daily in America?  Contrary to some religious beliefs that the ability to love and forgive cannot be expressed fully without Christian faith, Krauss says, aside from being nonsense, “We can feel real connections, whether we are parents, or neighbors of families, or simply caring men and women.    

Wikipedia defines humanity as “a set of strengths focused on ‘tending and befriending others.’ The three strengths associated with humanity are love, kindness, and social intelligence. Humanity differs from justice in that there is a level of altruism towards individuals included in humanity more so than the fairness found in justice.”  Confucius defined humanity, or jen, as a “love of people” stating “if you want to make a stand, help others make a stand.”  And in no way am I trying to oversimplify the grief of the parents of Sandy Hook and other gun murders.

But it is clearly unfair to limit the grieving process to even Christians, Jews and Muslims.  There are those who do not believe in God, and many these days who are questioning their faith when another of their children, other relatives, friends, or just the man and woman on the street are gunned down by a maniac.  Is it not reasonable to expect this kind of reaction and not make it impossible for these folks to mourn in their own way?  Just as there is no absolutist answer to the 2^nd Amendment, there is also no absolutist approach to believing in a God.

Calif. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is right, NRA is venal…and more

Lee Fang recently in The Nation asked: “Does the NRA represent gun manufacturers or gunowners?”  He doesn’t answer the question specifically but does point out, “Is the NRA working for casual gun-owners, many of whom, according to polling, support tougher restrictions on gun ownership— or is the NRA serving the gunmaker lobby— which is purely interested in policies that will promote greater gun sales and more profits?”  The answer should be blatantly obvious to any rational human being who has followed the unswerving radicalism of Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).

 

Wacky Wayne laPierre

Wacky Wayne and his 2^nd Amendment rights absolutism has become ad nauseum but what is absolute is the fact that LaPierre’s zany antics are clearly in favor of promoting gun manufacturer profits, along with his near-million dollar annual salary, and not what a majority of gun owners want.  And it is pretty clear that the NRA now has financial ties to the $12 billion a year gun industry based on their donations to the NRA since 2005 of almost $39 million. 

 

As an example, Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the AR-15 military-style rifle used by Adam Lanza in his bloody assault on Sandy Hook has donated between $25,000 and $49,000 to the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).

 

In the Huff Post, Josh Sugarman, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said, “I think it’s much easier for policymakers to defend the NRA when they’re perceived as efforts on behalf of gun owners. That equation changes dramatically when they’re seen as defending the gun industry.”  So we have a triple threat going here.  1.) The possibility the NRA’s recent shenanigans will turn off Congress.  2.) The possibility the same will turn off some NRA members.  3.) And finally it will turn off the America public.  All in all it adds up to real trouble for Wayne LaPierre and his minion gun nuts.

 

This long-standing ability of the NRA to bulldoze congressional leaders is already on the wane as evidenced by the last election.  During the presidential and congressional elections, the NRA spent $17.4 million, while President Obama was reelected and the organization failed to win six out of seven Senate races.  Nowhere was the heat on to defeat Obama like its pursuit by the NRA’s head Wayne LaPierre, except maybe with Sen. Minority leader Mitch McConnell four years ago.  When the President took office, McConnell said the main goal of the GOP was to see that Barack Obama was not reelected.

 

So what does all this have to do with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (left picture) calling the NRA “venal?”  First, the definition of venal is: “Willing to sell one’s influence, especially in return for a bribe; open to bribery; mercenary.”  Further, the explanation of “mercenary” is: “Working or acting merely for money or other reward.”  Wayne LaPierre has taken an organization that has a record of supporting reasonable gun control laws and turned it into a façade that gives a new meaning to corruption and unscrupulous lobbying.  And it is time that the NRA should be investigated based on its non-profit status.

 

In 2012 GOP pollster Frank Luntz conducted a survey for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and found that 74% of NRA members support mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.  Wacky Wayne LaPierre and his NRA gun nuts have been adamantly against this and any new gun law, no matter how reasonable.  In 2004 the NRA fought successfully for Congress not to renew the assault weapons ban, the kind of weapons used in many of the recent mass gun massacres.  It was Dianne Feinstein that pushed through this law originally passed in 1994 under Bill Clinton’s administration. 

 

The NRA is constantly instilling fear into its members telling them that President Obama is going to take away their guns.  Many of them gullible enough to buy this crap run right out and buy more guns.  And that makes the NRA and gun manufacturers both happy and wealthy, but simply leaves these members with less in their bank account.  If this kind of momentum is allowed to continue, it will be necessary to eventually pass a law on how many guns are allowed in one household.  By now the absurdity of this whole issue should be obvious, even to the gun nuts.

Arizona now selling guns on the street…and other stupid stuff

It’s my state and I love it but Arizona does have the largest gang of nincompoops in the country running the state government, and that’s all the way from the Governor down to the Republican legislature.  Jan Brewer, the finger waggin’ Gov. who has been in office since 2003 still does not have a clue about what she is doing.  I have to admit she has lucked into some good decisions—one was the sales tax measure to help Arizona’s economy—but stupid moves like denying qualified illegal immigrants driver licenses is more indicative of her style of bungling government.

Jan Brewer

She is supported by the biggest bunch of incompetent Republican state legislators ever assembled in one state, a clique of gun loving cowboys and cowgirls that have succeeded in passing the loosest gun control measures in the country and which have made Arizona a laughing stock.  The latest example is the reaction to a voluntary gun buyback program organized by Tucson’s vice mayor, Steve Kozachik, at the time a Republican.  When the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) had been successful in quelling any gun control since Jared Loughner’s Tucson gun massacre, Kozachik jumped into action.

In the two weeks leading up to the gun buyback, Kozachik received threats and was referred to as “Hitler,” just because he wanted to take back firearms from people who no longer felt comfortable with them in their house.  Sounds simple enough, and they were given in return a $50 gift card.  As an example of the program’s success, $10,000 in gift cards was distributed during the event.  Kozachik was a Republican at the time but switched parties one week after the buyback.  His contention is that there are some in the GOP who want to do right but the party is still being led by the GOP far right.

During Kozachik’s gun buyback program success, the NRA couldn’t stand the heat so in defiance of Kozachik, a group of gun nuts set up a “cash for guns” firearms flea market close by and right on the boundary of the police department where the buyback was taking place.  Kozachik comments, “In Arizona, it is legal for a person to walk up to another on a street corner, hand him cash for a firearm and simply walk off with it, with no need for a background check into his psychological or criminal history.”  And that’s exactly what this brazen bunch of gun worshippers did.

In talking further about his change from Republican to Democrat, Kozachik said, “It is that rigid ideology that is driving the party into irrelevancy.”

But Arizona’s gun culture could also mean that when the Obama/Biden gun control laws start going on the books, it could be the hardest hit of all the states.  A state law has already been proposed in Arizona saying it does not have to comply with any federal laws it chooses not to.  That’s my state, but I still love it. Charles Heller, co-founder of the Tucson-based Arizona Citizens Defense League, another gang of radical gun nuts, resurrected the now cliché 2^nd Amendment argument making a bizarre comment:

“The idea of the Second Amendment was so we could shoot the cops and the soldiers ... who are trying to overthrow the U.S. Constitution.”  It’s like these people are on another planet.    

 

Dennis Wagner, in the ArizonaRepublic, says, “The National Rifle Association does not maintain a ranking list for states, but its website shows Arizona conforming to nearly every NRA barometer for Second Amendment support.”  Arizona also gets an “F” in firearms safety regulation by The California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Out of 50 states, Arizona came in 49th behind only South Dakota,” said Lindsay Nichols, an attorney who worked on the report card. “It has some of the weakest gun laws in the country.”

The Brady Campaign gives Arizona a “0” score, last along with Utah and Alaska, for firearms safety provisions.

One can only try and imagine what goes through the minds of such a group of nitwit state legislators who pass these laws and the bonehead Governor who signs them into law.  The term double-digit IQs comes to mind.

Joe Biden talks with gun rights advocates...NRA gives typical hackneyed reaction

President Obama has now focused on getting new gun control regulations into law and has named Vice President Joe Biden to lead the cause.  Obama wants universal background checks, strengthen mental health checks, increase penalties for carrying guns near a school or giving them to minors and reinstate the assault weapons ban.  He also is in favor of a national database to track the sale of weapons.  Regulations that any sane American would favor.

Joe Biden has so far met with gun control advocates, gun rights advocates and select entertainment groups.  AG Eric Holder has also met with some gun retailers like Bass Pro Shops, Cabela’s, Gander Mountain and Wal Mart.  You can see a full list here.  Biden stated, "There has got to be some common ground, to not solve every problem, but diminish the probability.  That's what this is all about. There are no conclusions I have reached."

After the meeting, the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), made its typically dumb statements:

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.  While claiming that no policy proposals would be 'prejudged,' this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners—honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans."

"We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen."

Vice President Joe Biden chairs group on gun violence:

On January 10, the NRA’s wacky Wayne LaPierre said the organization will use “real Americans” to prove their point, as if the country is solidly behind his gang of gun nuts.  This is where the Atlantic article exposes an NRA that does not have the backing of the American public, not even the 146 million gun owners.  NRA membership is 4.2 million which works out to only 2.9% of gun owners.  Even when membership costs only $25.00 to join with added perks.   

As far as all Americans are concerned, according to two surveys measuring households with guns, the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center says there are 32%; Gallup says 47%.  Based on these figures, the NRA doesn’t even represent a majority of Americans.  But somehow in the past this radical group of gun worshippers had convinced non-gun owners to support its cause.  That support has now crumbled with the reality of gun violence.

The Vice President will have a plan to curb gun violence in the hands of the President by tomorrow, and is now encouraging Obama to consider executive order.  The President has nothing to lose in his second administration, and could go down in history as having saved the United States from a firearms disaster.  With the help of the new, and very strong, voice in gun control, Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, Obama should have all the fire power he needs.

The one thing in this issue that the gun rights bunch is right about, although it is obvious they dwell on this subject just so it will divert attention from gun control, is strengthening the mental health system to identify anyone who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.  States are lax, the govs are lax, and those reporting are lax in providing and disseminating the information that could have saved the lives of 20 little children and 6 educators in Newtown, CT.

Mental health is a part of Joe Biden’s plan and the President is solidly behind fixing the problem.  Altogether, there is enough of a force with good and reasonable ideas to solve the overall problem of America’s out of control gun violence.  But it will take new and stricter gun laws to accomplish this goal and Wayne LaPierre and his NRA will just have to get used to it.

Gun owners do not have a consummate right to own their weapons

In an opinion piece in the NY Times, Andrew Rosenthal said: “Even if you believe the Second Amendment grants each American an individual right to own a gun, which remains a matter of some debate, it does not follow logically, legally or constitutionally that this right is absolute. No right granted by the Constitution is totally exempt from limitations.”  The key word is absolute and refutes this claim by wacky Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).

Rosenthal continues by citing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2008 comment that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment.”  Rosenthal likens this thinking to the fact that it is also unreasonable to allow the purchase of semiautomatic rifles with 100-round magazines without even a background check.  Like at some gun shows by unlicensed dealers (the gun show loophole).

The carnage of this loophole is horrendous as evidenced by the recent mass shootings; see yesterday’s post.  Up to 40 percent of all private gun purchases at gun shows occur with no background check whatsoever, another absurd right the NRA protects like owning an assault rifle.  Bob Costas opened the media door to dialogue on this issue when he said emphatically that he believes we need more “comprehensive and more sensible gun control legislation.”  

But another gun rights activist wacko, David Kopel, said, following the murder-suicide by NFL player Jovan Belcher, that “there is no link between firearm availability and homicide.”  The conservative media followed suit with more false claims until Piers Morgan on CNN corrected this drivel with Harvard research stating, "states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide."

Morgan confronted Kopel that the United Kingdom has strong gun laws and a fraction of the gun homicides in the U.S.  Britain has 35 to 45 gun murders a year: America has 11 to 12 thousand.  Kopel wasn’t convinced.  The CNN host then cited Japan with the toughest gun control laws in the world and the fact that they have only 2 to 10 gun murders a year.  Harvard’s David Hemenway found firearm homicides in the U.S. 19.5 times higher than other high-income nations.

Kopel said Scotland was the most violent country in the world.  If this was supposed to relate to gun violence, the fact is that in 2009, there were two gun murders in Scotland, placing its rate at 0.04 per 100,000 people. In 2010, there were 11,078 gun homicides in the United States. Our per capita rate of 3.59 per 100,000 is nearly 90 times higher than Scotland's rate.  The numbers are stark yet the gun nuts continue to be completely clueless.

In an article in the New Yorker in early 2912, Jill Lepore says, “The modern gun debate began with a shooting. In 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald bought a bolt-action rifle—an Italian military-surplus weapon—for nineteen dollars and ninety-five cents by ordering it from an ad that he found in American Rifleman.”  Both junk mail and gun violence at their worst.  Legislation was introduced and passed to restrict mail-order sales of shotguns and rifles, agreeable then to the NRA.

That, of course, was before wacky Wayne LaPierre took over the NRA, after which it was downhill for gun control.  Until now.  LaPierre and his goons are on the run and it looks like there is no let up by the gun control advocates to push through new regulations on the ownership and use of guns.  The fiscal cliff issue has garnered the attention of the White House and Congress for now but that won’t last forever and then gun control will return to the forefront.

Empire State Building shooting ruins mass shooting silence

The Onion was celebrating a week without any major massacres by firearms when it had to back off as it was announced that there had just been a mass shooting at New York City’s Empire State Building right in the middle of Manhattan.  You probably wouldn’t classify this as the typical massacre like Aurora, Colo. or the Wisconsin Sikh temple because the gunman only shot and killed one person.  The nine wounded were from police fire.

Assisting victim in Empire State Bldg shooting

Now I am no expert at criminology, but does this incident appear to have been prompted by a police force—one of the finest in the world—that has become influenced with the possibility that every public shooting is potentially a massacre?  These are well trained officers yet they wounded nine bystanders in the melee.  Has the huge availability of guns in this country pushed police departments in America to the edge, resulting in this kind of outcome?

To give you an idea of the actual anticipation of the possibility of more imminent gun violence, federal authorities commented that a lot can happen in 24 hours, saying: ““so let’s not get too excited yet.”  And they were right.  Yet another person armed with a gun holding a grudge killed an innocent person.  Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was down the street talking to the celebrating crowd and when told what had happened said:

“You know what, forget it. There was another one about 20 blocks from here. So, party’s over. Sorry.”

It is a sorry state of affairs when we can’t go one week without a shooting that ends up killing innocent victims and wounding several others.  But it is blatantly clear why this can happen and it all centers around the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and its head, Wayne LaPierre.  This organization, commandeered by this wacko in the late 1970s, who devised his evil concept that 2^nd Amendment rights are more important than human life, deserves the majority of the blame for all the killings.

Vivid tape of Empire State Bldg. chaos with victim:

The shooter, Jeffrey Johnson, used a .45-caliber semiautomatic and was armed with extra ammunition in his briefcase.  Johnson was killed by police but not until he caused nine innocent people to be shot.  In BuzzFeed.com “Criminologist James Alan Fox has written that, according to FBI data, mass shootings have fluctuated since 1980 with no sustained upward or downward trend.”  But his data stops with the year 2010 with no crime data available for 2012.

As regular readers know, I have been compiling nationwide figures on shootings since this past March, including deaths and woundings, broken down by the city in which they occurred.  The numbers are starkly unbelievable and should shock the apathetic American public that has been shunning gun control.  Since March 2012 there have been 432 deaths from 1,056 shootings; woundings were added to the report in June and in only 2 months there have been 628.

Keep in mind that these figures represent only those reported by the media and, thus, considered somewhat conservative.

To extend the data above by James Alan Fox that stopped in 2010 re. mass shootings, there were 28 that occurred since Columbine in 1999 through 2011, including the shooting and severe wounding of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Arizona in Jan. 2011 where 6 were killed and 18 others wounded.  Most notable from the 28, the massacre at Virginia Tech where 32 were killed, 15 wounded.  Then Fort Hood, Texas with 13 dead and 42 wounded.

But that was just the warm up.  2012 exploded during the summer with 17 wounded with an assault weapon at a Tuscaloosa, Ala. bar.  Then the mass shooting at the Aurora, Colo. theatre killing 12 and injuring 58.  Next it was the Sikh Temple in Wis. where 6 were killed and 4 wounded.  Which brings us up to the incident at New York’s empire State building.  Fox comments that this trend is likely to continue with around 300 million guns in the hands of Americans.

Also from BuzzFeed.com, Philip J. Cook, crime scholar and Ludwig's coauthor on Gun Violence, “believes adversarial political rhetoric is a possible contributing factor. He criticizes the NRA for ‘promoting the idea that Obama's goal is to take away guns and they have to fight to prevent that from happening,’ an idea he says has stirred up fringe gun enthusiasts and led to record-breaking rises in gun purchases and concealed-weapon applications in many states.”

NY Mayor Bloomberg with his group

Just moments before the Empire State building shooting, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg on WOR’s John Gambling Show said, “I don’t know what it takes, John.  Somebody asked me what would shock Congress. Well, they had a Congresswoman shot…. And that didn’t seem to do anything,” the mayor said. “The Founding Fathers I don’t think ever envisioned AK-47’s in the hands of people."  The congress is clueless and Obama afraid of the NRA.
Mayor Bloomberg has been asking for new gun regulations for years and in a CBS NY article they are spelled out:

·       Require background checks for every gun sold — 40 percent of all guns are sold without background checks

·       Stronger enforcement of straw sales, where someone buys a gun for someone not eligible to own one

·       A requirement that states enter criminal and mental health records into the federal background check system

I would add to this the banning of all assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

When will this country wake up?  Following all other developed countries in gun control and leading that group plus many third-world countries in deaths from shootings should confound the simplest-minded person.  We are not a nation of dummies, although some congressional leaders and states like Arizona would challenge that notion.  We have a chance to do what’s right with the escalation of gun violence.  The question is…are we smart enough to do it?

Gun owners get religion when in the pew…and other gun rights nausea

Yet another poll was taken after the recent Aurora, Colo. and Sikh temple shootings focusing on the attitudes of religious groups.  Released on August 15, and taken by the Public Religion Research Institute conducted in partnership with Religion News Service, there was hands-down agreement: no guns in church.  76% said no to concealed weapons there compared to only 20% who wanted them.  So what happens to the fanatical gun nuts when they go to pray?



One determined gun bubba

In my mind, this is the epitome of hypocrisy since it is the goal of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), and its members, to make guns available to anyone who wants them, and make it legal for them to take them anywhere they want to.  Not once have I heard from NRA head, Wayne LaPierre, that he wants an open carry policy on firearms, except, of course, when you go to church.  That would mean capitulation, something the NRA has absolutely no appetite for.

In the religious study 54% of these households own one or more guns, compared to the fact that 76% of church-goers who want no weapons in their church.  But this is not so in evangelical congregations; only 35% are in favor of gun control, compared to 52% of all Americans.  Overall, less than one-third of U.S. households own a gun, a figure that has been regularly dropping over the years.

On the other hand, 62% of Catholics and 60% of those unaffiliated believe in gun control.  The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest, thinks he knows why Catholics lean toward gun control, the most obvious reason being that many of them live in urban areas where a lot of the gun violence takes place.  He also surmises that in Catholics, “…there might be a slightly greater appreciation for the notion of the common good, which is enshrined in Catholic social teaching, in addition to individual rights.”

Idiot pastor encourages members to bring guns to church:

The urban concept reappears when looking at Black Protestants who definitely favor more gun control by 71%.  White mainline Protestants drop to only 42% for more gun control, possibly due to the fact that 54% of this group lives in a household with a gun.  But those households without a gun prefer more gun restrictions.  According to the Economic Times, part of the problem for these fanatical gun owners is the mythology that surrounds the issue.

And that, in turn, is supported in the “madness” of the trumpeted legal foundation of the 2^nd Amendment, says Bennett Voyles in the ET.

Eliot Spitzer, former New York attorney general and governor, says in a recent Miami Herald article, the government can limit guns immediately.  He adds that New York mayor Michael Bloomberg could do the same.  And he explains clearly how it could be done.  Use the government’s power in the marketplace.  As the largest purchaser of guns, the feds can say to gun manufacturers that they would not:

“…buy any weapons or ammunition from companies that do not agree to pull semi-automatics from their stock and refuse to produce magazines with more than 10 rounds other than for sale to the government.

To begin with, that would show gun companies that the feds are in control of the firearms market, not the National Rifle Assn, (NRA).  Secondly, it would prove that the NRA does not have the power over gun rights that they claim to have and might curb some of the financial support weapons manufacturers provide the organization.  Left with only its members’ dues to exist on, the NRA would soon be out of business or at least left ineffective.

Would John Wayne carry his gun to church?

Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat, doesn’t think Congress or the White House will do anything about gun violence before November.  In an article, “Everyone looks at the United States as uncivilized,” Markell takes credit for standing up to the NRA and then beating them at their own game passing gun regulations in Delaware.  He agrees with other studies that say the gun lobby’s influence over Congress is exaggerated.

But let’s return to the title of the article Markell appears in, the part about everyone looking at the U.S. as uncivilized.  “Everyone,” of course, means the rest of the world, and the overall opinion is that America loves its guns over human life.  As an example, the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has slaughtered thousands; UN estimates number between 17,000 and 20,000.  If you have followed media coverage, you know that the world is calling Assad uncivilized.

I did a post last week, “Why is the NRA so much like Al Qaeda?” which points out the comparison between Osama bin Laden and the NRA’s head, Wayne LaPierre.  Bin Laden wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, no matter what.  LaPierre wants to sell as many guns as possible, no matter what, which is indirectly responsible for 31,347 firearm deaths a year equaling 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population. 

The similarities are frightening which further confirms why America is being called uncivilized by much of the world.