United Kingdom has right to criticize U.S. gun control laws

As far as I can see, gun control is going almost nowhere, at least with the momentum that has been created by the increased gun violence nationwide.  Perhaps we have concentrated too much on mass killings like Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.  Although this kind of carnage is horrific, it still represents but a small amount of the gun deaths that take place daily.  Apparently statistics like ‘there are some 300 million guns in American households’ or ‘88.8 per 100 households’ does not impress the public.  Hard to believe but true.

Or the fact that in a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the United States ranked No. 1, and with 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 population they are much higher than the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the list goes on and on.  Could the fact that most of these countries have measurably stronger gun control laws than the United States have something to do with the results?  ‘Absolutely not’ would be the answer from wacky Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA.

These are figures taken from GunPolicy.org, a non-profit organization reporting on international firearm injury prevention and policy.  If you have any doubts about my numbers I suggest you go to this site and do your own research.  If you come away without the opinion that America’s gun culture is completely out of control, then you are either a gun worshipper, completely apathetic over the issue, or you have a terrible problem with math.  The truth is in the statistics and in every case there is a monumental case for more gun control laws in the U.S.

Harry J. Enten writing in the UK Guardian says, “Americans want gun control, but not badly enough.”  His point one, “Most Americans don't see gun control as the most significant way to prevent mass shootings.”  Once again, mass gun violence, but it is obvious that Enten has zeroed in on where the American focus is.  He quotes, “only 25% of Americans believe that stricter gun control laws and enforcement would be the key to preventing massacres.“  Further, CBS News found, only 21% feel stricter gun control would prevent gun violence by much.

In point two, he laments that the subject of guns just isn’t a high priority for most Americans.  A tragedy when you consider the daily reporting of people shot and killed with guns, others injured, some seriously.  In the latest CBS News poll, only 4% listed guns at the top of their list.  50% chose the economy, jobs or the budget deficit.  It will be interesting in the future to learn what the impact of continued and escalating gun violence will have on the country’s economy and its overall well-being.  If as bad as it looks, then it will be too late.

 

Point three, most in the U.S. doesn’t feel gun control legislation is a priority in 2013, only 46% according to Pew Research.  With all the shootings and mayhem nationwide connected to guns on the street, the American public says, mañana.  Go figure.  And in point four, the public’s obsession with gun violence will eventually dwindle, meaning, if we don’t do this in 2013, we’ll never do it.  And as my headline indicated, the UK can criticize the United States because they have done what we cannot seem to accomplish due to the gun lobby.  Gun laws in the UK:

They have a gun registry

Firearms are restricted

Right to gun ownership not guaranteed by law

Assault weapons are banned

Handguns are banned

Background checks required

Number of guns and amount of ammunition owned is restricted

As a result of the above regulations, below are comparisons between the United States and the United Kingdom in gun violence:

                                                                                                US                   UK

All gun deaths per 100,000 population                                   10.3                 0.25

Gun homicides per 100,000 pop.                                            3.6                   0.04

Handgun homicides per 100,000 pop.                                    2.0                   0.01

Gun suicides per 100,000 pop.                                               6.3                   0.18

I rest my case.

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. 

Congress…and the President now…are losing the American public’s trust

With two-thirds of the public disapproving of the way Congress is handling the federal spending issue and only 26% on their side, you might think the blame lies squarely on the backs of the congressional leaders whose overall ratings are even worse.  Not so.  52% disapprove of the way President Obama has managed the issue but with 43% that do approve.  The latter is a lot better than Congress but David Gergen says right now this country is “leaderless.”  That is frightening when you consider the major issues facing the United States today.

Other than the lately infamous term, “Sequester,” also on the table is gun control legislation, immigration reform and taking the leadership on improving the environment.  This country cannot remain as a world leader without tackling and solving all four of these problems.  The typical Washington charade recently that is supposed to be governing is considered farcical by many throughout the free world.  In another poll, “…Americans are divided over whether Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach.”  That’s not good.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland commented, "It looks like this could turn into a "lose-lose" scenario for both sides, although the Republicans appear to have more to lose than Obama."  But the President’s advantage has been diminishing over the last two months, according to CNN’s Political Editor, Paul Steinhauser.  DavidGergen on CNN was much blunter: “In times past, a president has usually risen to the demands of leadership when a Congress has stubbornly resisted tough choices…”  Gergen added:

“That's what Lyndon Johnson did in persuading key Republicans to help pass the civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965. And that's what Bill Clinton did in working with a Republican House led by Newt Gingrich. People forget how hostile House Republicans were to Clinton -- hell, they impeached him -- but he nonetheless worked with them to pass four straight balanced budgets and an overhaul of welfare.”

Excellent definition of sequester by The Young Turks:
 

It seems to me that it all boils down to the art of negotiation, which I emphasized in a recent post.  Sam Rayburn was a master, as was Lyndon Johnson, both from Texas.  Bill Clinton had this knack and even Barack Obama has exhibited moments of proclivity in bringing the two sides together as he did in passing the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.  Negotiation is defined simply as a “mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement.”   It means that both sides must give a little and take a little.  Is that so hard?

Well, apparently it is, because David Gergen says that both Congress and the White House are neglecting their responsibilities of bringing this country together.  And if there is no real leadership on either side, the USS America is basically sailing without a rudder.  Gergen continues, “One of the foremost duties of Congress is to pass a budget: It has failed for four straight years. Republicans, especially in the House, have continually refused to meet the White House halfway.”  My question is whether House Speaker John Boehner is still in control.

Americans have now become apathetic about the sequester with only 18% of the U.S. who say they understand “very well” what happens when it goes into effect.  I am frankly not sure whether or not enough of those in Congress and the White House honestly know the outcome following today’s deadline.  The fact of the matter is that some feel the President should have more power on deciding where the cuts should be made and Barbara Mikulski, D-MD, and Jim Inhofe, R-OK, are working on a bill right now to address that issue.

Whatever happens today, this Congress, and partially Barack Obama, will have to shoulder the blame for the fact that the greatest nation in the free world could not bring together its two main political factions in an agreement to keep its democratic government functioning normally.  Just the idea of the bickering that has been going on for the last 12 years is enough to turn your stomach.  But the idea of putting ideology before your country is unforgivable.  Enough is enough.

It’s time to dump the Tea Party back in the harbor

Even as a committed progressive, I get an average of two or three emails from the Tea Party on a daily basis with some of the most bizarre headlines I have ever read. Like, America in danger: Stand and Fight, Prevent the Next Holocaust Right Here in America.” The organization is floundering fast and the last gasps are both dramatic and desperate. With supporters like Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann, this leaves no doubt over the mentality of this group. Wikipedia says:

 

The Tea Party “is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.”

The “Party” took off in 2009 supporting several conservative candidates and labeled itself from the beginning as a crowd of conservative fanatics, many of which sported double-digit IQs.  Back in 2011 even Glenn Beck accused the membership of being racist, which was confirmed in several of their rallies.  They have been and still are in the radical camp with the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) on gun rights, with signs like, “Dictators want you disarmed” in a recent demonstration in Monterey, California, for gun rights.

Their opposition to immigration reform is legend.  From Day one the Tea Party movement has  supported hardline policies toward illegal immigrants and for border control.  As far as the group is concerned, we could deport all 11 million+ undocumented.  On Tuesday, Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation said in the Washington Times that Republicans are committing “political suicide” and “paying Democrats for the privilege of killing themselves, re. immigration reform.”  It is this kind of right-wing conservative rhetoric that is bringing the U.S. to its knees.       

 

But time and public opinion have not been on the side of the TPers with a recent conservative Rasmussen poll released in the Huff Post finding that only 30% of the country has a favorable view of the Tea Party.  A compelling 50% view the party unfavorably.  Rasmussen also reports that only 8% of Americans claim to be Tea Party affiliated.  This is clout?  This paltry bunch of bigots can have the sway on Congress it does to push the GOP ideological agenda and get what they want?  It reminds me of the NRA’s hold on Congress, also highly overrated.

Here’s an example of more headlines from the Tea Party rubbish I receive by email:

             Obama Communist Coup Underway: America in Danger

       (Pic of Obama with Swastika on his arm)

 

       Supporting a group to give away shotguns in high crime area

 Sheriff warns of 2nd American Revolution if gun laws are enforced

 Don’t let Obama get away with murder and treason

 We’re rude, crude, impolite, and we wouldn’t have it any other way

 Civil War 2: Why the banking elite want riots in America

 Shock claim: Obama picks Muslim for CIA chief

 Resistance to new gun laws builds in USA

 Foreign agent Piers Morgan talks about repealing 2nd Amendment

The Tea Party took a beating in the Senate in 2012 when many of their supported candidates lost. The House did much better but the writing was on the wall when some key members were defeated and Michelle Bachmann won only with a slim margin. Big questions loom in 2014 for both the Tea Party and the NRA in relation to just how much impact they will have on the elections. The apathy of the American public has been making a dramatic change over the past year or so and with involved voters you get a much more educated class at the polls.

 

But let me leave you with the most hilarious statement made yet in 2013.  This is Michelle Bachmann, the U.S. Representative from Minnesota who barely held on to her seat in 2012: “I was very proud of the fact that I didn’t get anything wrong that I said during the course of the debates," she said, according to Salon. "I didn’t get anything wrong, and that’s a huge arena."  She, of course refers to the 2012 GOP presidential debates.  According to the Huff Post:

“…there is a long list of statements Bachmann made during debates showing she actually got a number of things ‘wrong.’”

Who is it these people appeal to???  Thank God their numbers are diminishing fast.

Gun nuts claim Obama Helter Skelter…the amassing of forces to annihilate White Americans

Although Taylor Marsh is a well-known political analyst, writer and strategist, I still might have discounted someone I never heard of like Stan Solomon whose Talk to Solomon Show recently had conservative blogger Greg W. Howard on his show.  I have also not heard of Howard but being new to the game of critical politics, just figure I may not yet be up to speed.  However, when Larry Pratt’s name came up I not only took notice but became very interested.  As a gun fanatic, Pratt is only topped by Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).



Charles Manson

Then I understood the first entry in Joyce Arnold’s article on the Taylor Marsh Blog.  Arnold quoted from Brian Tashman at Right Way Watch: “Gun Activists Warn Obama is Raising a Private Black Army to Massacre White Americans.”  Pratt was on the Talk to Solomon Show with Howard predicting that, “Obama may begin confiscating guns in order to provoke a violent response to justify further oppression, which host Stan Solomon feared would lead to the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people.  That’s heavy; also completely brainless.

There’s more.  “I believe they will put together a racial force to go against an opposite race resistance, basically a black force to go against a white resistance, and then they will claim anyone resisting the black force they are doing it because they are racist,” commented Solomon and seconded by Howard.  Can you believe this idiot Howard accuses Obama of sowing the seeds of racial hatred when it has been clear from the President’s first inauguration that many in this country dislike, even hate, Barack Obama simply because he is black?

Clip from the Helter Skelter movie:

There is a comparison between Obama’s gun control legislation and the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge where government force was used to quell an illegal uprising, resulting in lives lost.  Each of those episodes was carried out due to a defiance of the law and the people involved decided to fight rather than surrender peacefully.  Arnold asks the question which is no doubt uppermost in the mind of anyone who reads her article:

“I don’t know how many people take this kind of ‘thinking’ seriously, but it’s happening in the context of the ongoing national debates about gun and ammunition controls.”  It is gun hugger scare tactics at their worst…my words.

And then Arnold quotes Evan McMorris-Santoro of Talking Points Memo who exclaims the war over gun control has gone to the “ground;” in other words as the media decide it is yesterday’s news, both sides will depend on grass-roots action to get the job done.  McMorris-Santoro points out that the NRA is already running ads against weak Democrat and Republican moderates in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina and West Virginia.  At the same time we can expect more on gun control through groups like Gabby Giffords new PAC.

Those moderate Democrats, above, are not as afraid this go-around because of the rash of firearm deaths across the country, particularly mass incidents like the Newtown, CT massacre. The Senate is working on a plan re, universal background checks but McMorris-Santoro comments, “there’s the usual GOP House members who oppose most everything that isn’t their idea. Some of them probably think it’s possible ‘Obama is Raising a Private Black Army to Massacre White Americans.’” Shades of Charles Manson and his HelterSkelter.

Hard to understand how anyone could believe the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre

But they do.  These die-hard gun bubbas who strut around with their weapons either at their side or concealed completely from the public, are the real believers who do it because they have to have some way to prove their manhood.  And they would follow the head fanatic, wacky Wayne, to the end of the world if he said so.  It is amazing to me just how easily he can arouse these double-digit IQs to do his bidding and then force them to come back again and again to feed from the same fount spewing this propaganda.  But such is the mentality of these wackos.

Wayne LaPierre is head of the NRA and since assuming this post in 1991 the organization has prospered dramatically in increased membership and donations flowing in.  This is all due to one single factor; LaPierre zeroed in on the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms exclaiming it is an “absolutist” right of the people and the gun control advocates want to take it away.  And then along came a Democratic President, Barack Obama, and the screed switched to “Obama wants to take away your guns.”  Same crusade, just a different target.

Wacky Wayne laPierre



In each national incidence of guns killing innocent Americans, wacky Wayne used the situation to fire up his fellow gun worshippers by saying, as an example, they want to take away assault weapons today but tomorrow they will come for your handguns, then your hunting rifles.  The latest was delivered in a tirade from Salt Lake City during a speech at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo.  He once again picked up on President Obama and other Democrats re. the drive for universal background checks.  This is what he saidon CNN:

"This so-called universal background check that you're hearing about all over the media ... is aimed at one thing: It's aimed at registering your guns.  And when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns."

Actually, this registry of guns is a great idea for everyone but gun owners, and that raises a question within itself.  Why are you afraid to have your gun registered; got something to hide?  And it is absurd to think the feds would use any registry of firearms to confiscate legal guns.  It is the bad guys that they are after and if you gun huggers are a little bit inconvenienced, blame it on your head wacko LaPierre who has suppressed reasonable gun control legislation for years, putting 300 million guns on the streets of America, a record throughout the world.

Mark Kelly with wife Gabby Giffords

Astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of former Arizona U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords, who was seriously injured by Jared Loughner in the Tucson gun massacre, where 6 died, sort of whacked wacky Wayne up-side the head at the recent Senate Judiciary hearings on guns when the gun nut “LaPierre repeatedly voiced the talking point that there’s no need to expand the background check system because criminals don’t cooperate with background checks,” from the Washington Post.  Kelly’s retort was:

“The Tucson shooter was an admitted drug user. He was rejected from the U.S. Army because of his drug use. He was clearly mentally ill. And when he purchased that gun in November, his plan was to assassinate my wife and commit mass murder at that Safeway in Tucson. He was a criminal. Because of his drug use, and because of what he was planning on doing. But because of these gaps in the mental health system, in this case, those 121,000 records, I admit did not include a record on him. But it could have.

“And if it did, he would have failed that background check. He would have likely gone to a gun show, or a private seller, and avoided that background check. But if we close that gun show loophole, if we require private sellers to complete a background check, and we get those 121,000 records and others into the systems, we will prevent gun crime. That is an absolute truth. It would have happened in Tucson. My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks.”

LaPierre’s claims that background checks don’t work is obviously just another of his false statements since 1.5 million guns were prevented from going to those prohibited from having them in 2010.  In the hearing, after gun rights grunts pointed to Chicago’s tough gun laws, yet high volume of gun violence, Sen. Dick Durbin from Illinois commented:

When you take a look at where these guns come from, 25 percent plus are sold in the surrounding towns around the city of Chicago, not in the city. Look over the last 10 or 12 years. Of the 50,000 guns confiscated in crimes, almost one out of 10 crime guns in Chicago came to that city from Mississippi. Why? Because the background checks there, the gun dealers there, are a lot easier than in other places. And they end up selling these guns in volume.

It is easy enough to shoot holes in most claims made by Wayne LaPierre and his NRA minions, but what isn’t easy is having the equal time to advertise the gun control side of the issue.  Organizations like the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence try but have limited budgets.  Just the opposite of the NRA, which is well funded in its advertising campaigns with the support of U.S. gun manufacturers.  The gun nuts are preparing to launch a new onslaught of major propaganda that will cause many more innocent people to be killed by guns.

Will the US Senate fix the Washington mess?

I did a post on Wednesday of last week, “How to fix a broken U.S. Government,” which emphasized the importance of negotiating, a lost art from the days of Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson.  During those periods, an old hand at the job, and Johnson and Rayburn were not only well-entrenched but also well respected, could talk to his or her fellow legislators and somehow come to a reconciliation that was favorable for both side.  This mastery of politics has been gone for, let me see, at least as far back to when George W. Bush became president.

Mitch McConnell

So far the GOP hasn’t recovered from an election they thought they would win, and Sen. McConnell has never retreated from his statement to make Obama a one-term President, which obviously failed.  Joe Palermo said following the 2012 election, “McConnell now promises the next best thing: Continue to abuse the filibuster as no Senate minority in American history has and gum up the works while demanding total capitulation on Obama's part before any bill can escape the clutches of his icy, deadening hand.”  In Washington things never seem to change.



So with McConnell as the Senate Minority Leader, how is it that Ira Shapiro thinks this dysfunctional body can fix Washington?  He says the consensus is already formed and that politics under president Obama’s second term will continue to be polarized.  But he wants a “rejuvenated” Senate to be the nation’s mediator.  Somehow I can’t see Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and Mitch McConnell coming together on any major issues, except maybe gun control.  Reid has refused to back Obama on the assault weapons ban.

Democrats do have control of the Senate and won 25 out of 33 elections in 2012, which Shapiro reads as a reaction to GOP extremism and obstructionism.  The question is whether this trend can continue with momentum leading through the 2014 elections where the incumbent President’s party traditionally loses seats in Congress.  Palermo’s article was over three months ago but now Shapiro says the country is in need of responsible adult leadership, something sorely lacking in both houses of Congress. 

Harry Reid

Shapiro the optimist thinks, “The Senate is the only realistic partner to the president in seeking constructive solutions to the nation's challenges on guns, climate change and immigration.”  I hope he is right because, aside from the economy and jobs, these are the three most important issues facing the United States.  And in continued optimism he believes the majority of the Senate is serious about facing the challenges of the country.  On the other hand we are just four days away from the $1.2 trillion in budget cuts that many say will paralyze the U.S.

Lyndon Johnson, along with Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen and Howard Baker are cited in Shapiro’s article illustrating a quality of leadership lost on today’s Senate.  Although Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell didn’t create the current political barricades in the Senate, it has certainly flourished under their watch.  Will they eventually retire having failed to accomplish the demands facing Congress today, or will they emerge finally as leaders who figure out that it is necessary to negotiate, not constantly call checkmate?  The ball is clearly in their court.