From box cutters to assault weapons in gun control

Sanjay Sanghoee is a blogger on politics and the author of two novels.  He has written several posts for the Huff Post on gun control and has heatedly talked about the 2^nd Amendment and its shortcomings and misinterpretations.  He notes that it is time to challenge this part of the Constitution and makes a good case for doing so.  I did the same in a 3-part series back in September of 2011: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3.  And I really like Sanghoee’s take on a “well regulated militia.”

But first, it is Sanghoee’s conclusion that “After three shootings, America needs zero tolerance on guns,” of course referring to Aurora, Colo. the Sikh Temple, and bringing in the most recent incident in Texas.  He says: “If the real purpose of guns, as ratified by the Supreme Court, is defense of one's home, then anything that can be used to fire dozens of rounds a minute, accommodate high-capacity clips of ammunition, or spray bullets, should not be in the hands of civilians. Period.”



Box cutter

Then Sanghoee comments on a recent remark from someone who argued box cutters and airplanes were used to kill people and questioned whether they should be banned.  He answers, “…the primary purpose of box cutters is to open boxes and airplanes are used mainly to transport people over long distances; Guns, on the other hand, have only one purpose, which is to hurt or kill another living being.”  Thus, another ridiculous gun rights analogy is deflated.

Many of the gun control advocates, including myself, agree that most firearms owners are law abiding, but continue to disagree that any of them should have the right to own assault rifles or high capacity magazines.  This concept of wanting this kind of weaponry personifies the statement of Sanghoee: “Guns, on the other hand, have only one purpose, which is to hurt or kill another living being.”  Even Supreme Court Justice Scalia deems them “affrighting.”

Wacky Wayne LaPierre speaking on the 2nd Amendment and Arms Trade Treaty 1 month ago:

In his article on challenging the 2^nd Amendment, Sanjay Sanghoee actually picks apart the decree on gun rights.  There are three things that he finds unclear in the right to bear arms:

1. What comprises "arms";

2. Whether the "free State" in the Amendment has to be protected from its own government or from a foreign aggressor (such as the British at that time), and;

3. Whether the term "well regulated" means well disciplined or with a clear framework of laws.

He goes on to cite the 2008 ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, that established the individual right to own guns outside a militia.  I might add that it does not specify the right to carry them anywhere you want to and not to be able to stockpile an arsenal like James Holmes did in Aurora, Colorado.  It even specifies the possession of firearms “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” 



Assault weapon



The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned an organization as bizarre as the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) or its wacky leader, Wayne LaPierre.  Had they known of either, there would no doubt have been an addendum to the 2nd  Amendment, 2-A, relinquishing such power from potential gun nuts.  As an example of the ludicrous behavior, Sanghoee compares Middle Eastern militants with homegrown American militias training for battle in some wooded compound in the heartland.

    

Sanghoee makes a good point in comparing the fact that the NRA and others hold that it is people that kill, not guns.  But if this is the case, he argues, “…then the reason we have crazy massacres in this country is because Americans are a bunch of homicidal maniacs with no impulse control; and if that part is true, then should we really allow this same crackpot citizenry to carry firearms?”  I ask, shouldn’t we at least keep assault weaponry out of their hands?

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s self-serving move on President Obama’s Deferred Action Plan should alienate all Hispanics

Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona only because she supported and signed the state’s anti-immigration law SB-1070, backed by a bloc of radical conservative racist voters, has re-established the state as the most bigoted in the country.  On the day many young illegal immigrants—only because their parents brought them here illegally—were celebrating the possibility of gaining a reprieve to stay as productive citizens, the wicked witch from the Southwest stepped in to stop it.



The typical Jan Brewer

Brewer, America’s worst governor confirmed by a recent ballot, signed an executive order that attempts to thwart President Obama’s directive extending temporary work permits to more than a million undocumented immigrants.  Obama’s directive grants two-year work authorizations to undocumented youth between 15 and 30 years of age who have lived in the U.S. continuously for at least five years.  Brewer did her dirty deed simultaneously for effect.

Everyone agrees the President made the directive when he did to show Latinos that he supports them, conveniently coming prior to the November election.  But it’s a good thing made necessary by the fact that the GOP Congress defeated his Dream Act, designed to accomplish the same purpose.  But the maniac in Arizona’s governor’s office has made it her purpose in life to circumvent anything Barack Obama does on the issue of immigration, no matter how many are hurt.

The goofy Gov did it specifically for politicizing the situation, and to attempt to show an authority used so many times since she took office that has helped make the state the laughing stock of the nation.  Along with a state legislature primarily Republican and called a gang of “Kooks” by a local columnist, Arizona continues to stand out as one of the poorest—if not the poorest—run state in the nation.  Gun laws alone draw criticism from major countries around the world.

Brewer's equally inept Matt Benson talks to undocumented protesters:

What Brewer has done is put Arizona in the position of having to answer a host of lawsuits that are already being planned.  Evelyn Cruz, an Arizona State U. clinical law professor and dir. of the Immigration Law & Policy Clinic says there will no doubt be a legal challenge since Brewer’s order might conflict with federal statues.  The ACLU is already considering a lawsuit against the state if its Dept. of Motor Vehicles refuses to grant the undocumented driver’s licenses.

In the NBC article, “Cruz noted that the REAL ID Act of 2005, a federal law that modified requirements for state driver’s licenses and ID cards, specifically listed immigrants who have been granted “deferred action” as among groups of people eligible for a license.”  Further, “She said Brewer’s order conflicts with both state and federal law.”  Adding, “The state of Arizona has regularly issued licenses to people lawfully present in the U.S. even though they don’t have lawful status.”

Reported in the Arizona Daily Star, Jeff Rogers, Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party said: "Jan Brewer has once again shown that she is nothing more than George Wallace in a skirt.  What's next? Will she personally stand outside the Motor Vehicle office and block entry to qualified 'DREAMers'?"  Arizona U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva commented: "She's just being herself, hurting our economy and pulling families apart to please a small minority of the population."

Marisa Trevino in Politics in Color makes some excellent points calling Brewer beyond being mean-spirited; she “wreaks of vindictiveness” against Democrats and the Pres.  Trevino thinks it sorta seals the Hispanic vote for the Dems and Obama in November.  But what is laughable to the writer is the fact that barring these folks driver’s licenses to get them to work eliminates taxes they would pay to Arizona from their jobs, many of which are unwanted with low wages.



Undocumenteds making their point

Jeff Biggers in the Huff Post says: “By taking public action against President Obama's policy that will potentially grant work permits to over one million undocumented young people, Brewer has once again put Arizona's name on the map as the epicenter of anti-immigrant racism and hate.”  And he adds:

“Brewer and Arizona's right-wing politicos have their own issues with driver's licenses and following the law; in 1988, Brewer failed sobriety tests after a car accident in Phoenix.  Then a state senator, Brewer received immunity from arrest and prosecution.”

Finally, monkey see, monkey do.  Nebraska’s GOP governor, Dave Heineman, has decided to imitate life in Arizona by deciding to refuse the same state benefits to undocumented immigrants in that state.  How any state leader could follow the lead of the inept Gov. Jan Brewer is beyond me but, then, I suppose that places Heineman in the same category with Brewer.  I don’t know about the people of Nebraska, but I do know many Arizonans are tired of this lunacy.

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.

Some conservative talk radio features and caters to idiots

Almost everyone has heard of the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys and Glenn Becks, but how many of you progressives out there take the time to listen to your local gaggle of conservative talk radio misfits?  I do.  As a matter of fact, I was actually disappointed when Glenn Beck was removed from one of our local stations.  Someone counseled me years ago; as long as you know what the opposition is doing you can plan your strategy to defeat them.  Good advice.

Rush Limbaugh on the air

We are often in the car on the way to and from errands and appointments mid-afternoons and I am hooked on the news.  Unfortunately, the best is available on the local Phoenix station of KTAR-Radio, which is very conservative; what else, this is Arizona?  It was following the ABC newscast one day that I heard the “comedy team” of Mac and Gaydos and since then, have listened off and on to see just how stupid this pair of dropouts can get.  It is truly pathetic.

These two political amateurs try their best to sound “Limbaugh” or “Beck” but the result is a combination of moronic bantering back and forth with trumped up issues that only a conservative simpleton would accept.  Like, arguing that V.P. Joe Biden’s comment that Romney would “”unchain Wall Street” is racist.  Only two baboons—I apologize to all apes—like this couple of bush leaguers, or other like simple minded conservatives, could come up with this kind of reasoning.

And then they compound their brainlessness by having lightweight Meghan McCain, daughter of our illustrious U.S. Senator, John McCain, come on their show and call Biden an “idiot.”  Of course, any thinking American would likely place these three (Mac, Gados and Meghan McCain) in the same category with other lost souls on the far right.  John McCain is a has-been who just doesn’t know when to quit. 

Now, I am fully aware of just how this conservative talk radio thing works.  You say harebrained things that are supposedly funny or entertaining because it is this kind of mindless audience that you are pandering to.  Rush Limbaugh has been doing it for years and the size of his captive audience is chilling if you think about it.  These people are always in the attack mode, but rarely have their facts right or make sense due to the lack of substance in their rants.

Glenn Beck

As in the case of this crackbrained Mac and Gaydos team on KTAR in Phoenix which tied Biden’s “unchained” comment into racism.  It was obviously a result of Republican remarks that Obama should “unshackle” small business and the economy, and they probably knew this but preferred to play the “race card.”  When you have a couple of greenhorn hosts like these two, you simply consider the source and go on.  But it’s different in the case of KTAR.

The station is well known for its conservative talk radio programs in the area, and if anyone in programming is listening to these two clowns, you’d think they would steer them back to something of substance and reality.  Unless the audience is so strong and it supports their daily afternoon gibbering, then I have another explanation.  It is the typical ultra conservative, double-digit IQs that seem to thrive in this state.  Probably led by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party.

Why is the NRA so much like Al Qaeda?

Osama bin Laden and his gang

The answer: Because they both kill innocent Americans.  This idea came from a comment by Jim Waldo in the Duluth, Minnesota Tribune headlined, “Reader's View: NRA outpaces Osama bin Laden in the killing of Americans.”  Jim says: “Even with all the media attention on massacre shootings in Virginia, Arizona, Colorado and, now, Wisconsin, there hasn’t been enough mention of the National Rifle Association or of assault-weapons sales.”  The two are synonymous. 

Jim adds: “The silence from the association {NRA} has been deafening.

This reaction by the leading gun nuts is typical.  During the immediate period following gun bloodbaths, they use the time to fire up the NRA membership with threats that this will cause a wave of new gun control laws taking away their firearms.  That is designed to sell more guns, which is their basic goal since gun manufacturers are the major financial supporters of the NRA.  Not caring about innocent people killed, obvious by their silence other than they are sorry.

In doing the numbers, I came up with a figure of 5,000 Americans that Al Qaeda has killed directly.  Perhaps more have died indirectly, but the 5,000 figure seems to be an agreed upon amount.  Now, let’s look at the other side of the picture which involves the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and its lobbying efforts to make guns available to anyone in the United States that wants them, including the Seung-Hui Chos, Jared Loughners, James Holmes, and Wade Michael Pages.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which is the best source of statistics on gun deaths, there are 31,347 firearm deaths a year which equals 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population.  And that’s every year.  There have been 432 deaths caused by guns in the U.S. just since March of this year when I started my Monthly Shooting Report.  My numbers reflect only what is reported by the media, missing several shootings, but are still astounding.



Wacky Wayne LaPierre



Jim Waldo asks two questions of the NRA that I have been asking for several years.  First, why anyone in the American public, other than law enforcement and the military, needs assault weapons?  Second, Jim would like to know just what the NRA has done to prevent guns getting into the hands of the mentally disturbed.  Like the four individuals mentioned above.  He won’t find out since the NRA is too busy on their next campaign to sell even more guns.

My final comparison is to show similarities between the NRA’s head, Wayne LaPierre, and Osama bin Laden.  Bin Laden had a goal of killing as many Americans as possible, no matter what.  Although LaPierre’s intention is certainly not to kill Americans, his goal of selling as many guns as possible, no matter what, is indirectly responsible for killing thousands of Americans every year.  The intent is different but the results the same.  Americans die from too many guns.

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.                        

Son of Sam serial killer David Berkowitz on gun control

The “Son of Sam” serial killer that murdered six and wounded seven in New York City over a 13-month period between 1976 and 1977 said: “Society has to take the glory out of guns.”  It is the statement of a man that has seemingly turned his life around in prison; he claims to be a born-again Christian.  His comment appears to stem from the recent massacre at the Aurora, Colorado movie by James Holmes who killed 12 and wounded 58.



David Berkowitz today

Berkowitz is now 60-years old and says he has no interest in parole because, if granted, it would only cause more heartbreak for his victims.  If this is a sincere declaration, the man seems to be repentant.  In the eight shootings he committed, he claimed that he was commanded to do so by a neighbor’s dog.  Berkowitz also explains that his killing spree was caused by his “lost,” “tormented,” and “confused” condition.  So how do we take the glory out of guns?

My answer: close down the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  It’s that simple.  This organization has glorified guns and the 2^nd Amendment for years since Wayne LaPierre took over the NRA in 1977.  What do you expect when he and his hired propagandists constantly spew out this garbage that everyone should be able to have a gun and take it anywhere he or she wants to.  Based on their loosening of the nation’s gun laws, we got Holmes, Jared Loughner and Wade Michael Page.

When you glorify the gun, you glorify its potential to kill.  This is completely in tune with the fact that guns do kill when they are in the wrong hands and they get there simply because the NRA makes it so easy for the bad guys to obtain them.  Guns are glorified so more people will buy them, which will result in larger profits for the gun industry, which means larger contributions to the National Rifle Association.  It’s a neat conspiracy that has worked for years, thanks to LaPierre.

In addition to an NRA membership, many of which listen to and respond to everything wacky Wayne says, there are the young kids that think that they are the master of their domain if they are armed with a gun.  It is obvious just how readily available weapons are when looking at the gang warfare going on in Chicago among blacks.  In the month of July, 28 were killed by guns and 181 wounded.  In June 23 died, 113 injured.  This is an American tragedy.

It is pretty pathetic when a serial killer has to point us in the right direction to do something about gun violence in the United States.  I can hear all the gun nuts right now muttering a conglomeration of their absurd and worn out clichés, like “Guns don’t kill, people do.”  The American public has listened to this for years and apparently some have swallowed it.  It’s time to change that and realize that guns, in the abundance they are available in the U.S., really do kill people.