From Economist:
"Missouri police storm house, shoot dogs, find small amount of hash in pipe
MY KIDS' pet hamster died last night, so I had about half an hour of crying, explanations, and a funeral in the front yard to deal with.
Fortunately, though, I didn't have to explain why half a dozen police in scary black body armour had charged in the front door shouting and shot the family pets...
At some level, I think it goes beyond even the "war on drugs". I think there's a generalised problem of militarisation in society, leading an increasing number of Americans, both in and out of uniform, to hunt around for things to shoot so they can claim to have been protecting someone. The absurdity becomes exceptionally clear when police claim to have protected children by invading their home and shooting their pets, but it's really a broader issue."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/05/war_drugs
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Could There Be a Stronger Argument For Gun Control?
TW: Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson "hunting" in Nebraska...what has the world come to...those two trying to hunt has to mess up the cosmos somehow. Some folks really should not be allowed to dress up and use a gun that way.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Violent Crime Is Down!!
TW: Why? No one really knows, it is a classic multi-variate phenomemon with so many causes and effects that pinning down the actual cause becomes nearly impossible. I recall reading years ago that most crime correlates tightly to the number of males turning 18. Cannot recall a better explanation although many have tried. So I chalk this up to good news without clear explanation.
From Economist:
"...The most recent report from the FBI is that during 2008 violent crime dropped 2.5% compared with 2007. Individual cities have also put out their statistics for the first half of 2009: most of America’s ten largest cities have posted drops in violent crime compared with the same period last year. That includes New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, San Diego and Phoenix, where people have been volubly worried about the spectre of “spillover violence” from Mexico.
This has caused some cognitive dissonance. Houston, for example, has a mayoral election coming up, and the contenders are banging on about crime...However, crime in Houston is at its lowest level in almost 40 years. The city recently applied for federal funds through a programme called Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which would have given them money to hire more police. But Houston’s request was rejected—partly, says the current mayor, Bill White, because crime is relatively low. In effect, Houston is being punished for good behaviour.
This has caused some cognitive dissonance. Houston, for example, has a mayoral election coming up, and the contenders are banging on about crime...However, crime in Houston is at its lowest level in almost 40 years. The city recently applied for federal funds through a programme called Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which would have given them money to hire more police. But Houston’s request was rejected—partly, says the current mayor, Bill White, because crime is relatively low. In effect, Houston is being punished for good behaviour.
Public opinion reflects the trend. For more than 15 years Steve Klineberg, a sociologist at Rice University, has quizzed Houstonians on their thoughts, fears, and feelings. He says concerns about crime usually correspond fairly well to the actual crime rates, and such is the case this year. The number of people who are very worried about crime is down, the number who are not worried is up, and for the most part people are far more preoccupied with the economy.
...Nonetheless, the 2009 numbers are clearly part of an ongoing story: after the dramatic drops of the 1990s, major crime has stayed relatively low in America’s biggest cities and has even declined a bit further here and there. Many criminologists attribute the fall to more sophisticated policing, in terms of both technology and management...His Los Angeles stint was also successful—violent crime dropped by about half while he was at the helm. Angelenos, like New Yorkers, have praised his focus on detailed surveillance data and neighbourhood policing.
...Nonetheless, the 2009 numbers are clearly part of an ongoing story: after the dramatic drops of the 1990s, major crime has stayed relatively low in America’s biggest cities and has even declined a bit further here and there. Many criminologists attribute the fall to more sophisticated policing, in terms of both technology and management...His Los Angeles stint was also successful—violent crime dropped by about half while he was at the helm. Angelenos, like New Yorkers, have praised his focus on detailed surveillance data and neighbourhood policing.
The declining rates of 2009 may help people shake off the idea that crime rises during economic downturns. Most criminologists dispute this notion, but it is still widely held and in some cases encouraged...The political potency of crime will not change. Elections have been won for years with vows to be tough on crime..."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
We All Know Where This Is Headed
TW: The fact that a person may technically be within their rights to carry automatic weapons to POTUS rallies only speaks to the insanity of our gun laws. That elected officials basically endorse citizens to bring such weapons to POTUS and other political rallies speaks to how ideological extremism grips certain elements of our society. This is all a slippery slope. That law enforcement is distracted watching these idiots is merely the tip of the iceberg. That folks believe white, pissed off, insecure folks will be the only ones ultimately to arm themselves in these situations is another.
Birthers...health care astroturfed lies...gun fetishists...then what.
A sane government would enact laws to preclude gun-toting near at least its POTUS but not ours. If there is a compelling reason why any private citizen needs to be toting near our POTUS please feel free to inform us.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Hypocrisy In Action: State Rights
TW: The Republicans are big advocates of states rights. They do not want states for example to have recognize gay marriages from other states. But when it comes to guns, their philosophy weakens. The Thune (named after its sponsor SD Repub. Sen. Pretty Boy Thune) Amendment would have permitted lowest common denominator law to dominate gun control. If your state had lax gun concealment laws those residents could travel the country under their home state regs as opposed to the regs prevalent in the actual state in which the gun concealer was present.
To be clear many Dems are also beholden to the NRA fetishists and but for two Repubs- Lugar and Voinovich- the measure would have passed or at least forced a couple of more Dems to step out against it.
From Washington Monthly:
"...the Thune amendment on carrying concealed firearms across state lines needed 60 votes... Despite strong NRA backing, the measure came up just short.
'In a narrow defeat for gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, today the United States Senate voted against a proposal that would have allowed certain gun owners to bring concealed weapons across state lines.
The Senate's 58 to 39 vote fell just short of the 60 votes needed to tack on the contentious amendment to a massive defense policy bill.... The amendment would have let people with concealed weapons permits carry their guns into other states as long as they followed that state's laws about where concealed weapons are permissible.'
The AP report noted, "The vote reversed recent trends where Republicans and gun rights Democrats from rural states joined to push pro-gun rights issues and block gun control legislation." That's true; the NRA hasn't lost many of these votes, and by all indications, the group and its allies were fairly optimistic about today's outcome.
Looking over the roll call, this was hardly a party-line vote. The 58 senators in the majority included 20 Democrats. What's more, two Republicans -- Dick Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio -- broke ranks and voted with most Democrats.
The Hill added that while this was a rare setback for the NRA, the vote was also a big win for mayors: "One less-noticed aspect of Wednesday's vote: The influence of a little-known coalition of U.S. mayors who worked hard against the amendment. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, lobbied senators far more intensely than other recent gun votes in the Senate....' "
To be clear many Dems are also beholden to the NRA fetishists and but for two Repubs- Lugar and Voinovich- the measure would have passed or at least forced a couple of more Dems to step out against it.
From Washington Monthly:
"...the Thune amendment on carrying concealed firearms across state lines needed 60 votes... Despite strong NRA backing, the measure came up just short.
'In a narrow defeat for gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, today the United States Senate voted against a proposal that would have allowed certain gun owners to bring concealed weapons across state lines.
The Senate's 58 to 39 vote fell just short of the 60 votes needed to tack on the contentious amendment to a massive defense policy bill.... The amendment would have let people with concealed weapons permits carry their guns into other states as long as they followed that state's laws about where concealed weapons are permissible.'
The AP report noted, "The vote reversed recent trends where Republicans and gun rights Democrats from rural states joined to push pro-gun rights issues and block gun control legislation." That's true; the NRA hasn't lost many of these votes, and by all indications, the group and its allies were fairly optimistic about today's outcome.
Looking over the roll call, this was hardly a party-line vote. The 58 senators in the majority included 20 Democrats. What's more, two Republicans -- Dick Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio -- broke ranks and voted with most Democrats.
The Hill added that while this was a rare setback for the NRA, the vote was also a big win for mayors: "One less-noticed aspect of Wednesday's vote: The influence of a little-known coalition of U.S. mayors who worked hard against the amendment. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, lobbied senators far more intensely than other recent gun votes in the Senate....' "
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Paranoia Will Destroia....
TW: I still don't get it. And if the day comes when having a damn gun is relevant to getting a gallon of milk then whether you have a damn gun will be the least of your worries.
ps I do like the idea of taxing ammo sales more though...
From Economist:
“American gun-owners don’t trust this administration,” he says.
American gun sales surged after Mr Obama was elected president....Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which serve as a gauge of actual sales, reported 1,255,980 checks in April 2009: a sixth monthly increase, and a 30.3% increase from the 940,961 reported last April.
...Meanwhile, classes on gun rules in Phoenix are booked solid for months, ammunition is sold out, and gunmakers and dealers alike are scrambling to keep up with demand.
Sun Devil Manufacturing in Mesa, for example, which makes semi-automatic rifles for $1,000 or so less than its competitors, is running three production shifts a day. Guns Etc, a shop in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler, is selling 50-70 handguns a week, compared with 30 before the election, and sales of AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles have nearly doubled. On a Friday afternoon the store is packed with men, retired and young, buying revolvers, semi-automatics and shotguns. Young mums browse the daintier pistols.
Are they all panicking? They don’t think so. Mr Obama has said he favours a ban on assault weapons, of the sort Bill Clinton brought in in 1994 (it has now lapsed). Gun-owners also feel Mr Obama is soft on crime, and fear that the recession will bring social and economic collapse. Ron Sega says his customers worry about thugs looting grocery stores for milk and mothers being robbed. “People want to be ready and armed, should things go south.”
...At a restaurant in Chandler, waitresses worry that combining weapons with alcohol, even with restrictions, seems foolhardy. But its sponsor is confident that the bill will pass. Momentum is with him. More shooting ranges are due to open soon in Arizona and elsewhere, to cater to more families who wish to be armed, trained and ready for anything."
ps I do like the idea of taxing ammo sales more though...
From Economist:
“American gun-owners don’t trust this administration,” he says.
American gun sales surged after Mr Obama was elected president....Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which serve as a gauge of actual sales, reported 1,255,980 checks in April 2009: a sixth monthly increase, and a 30.3% increase from the 940,961 reported last April.
...Meanwhile, classes on gun rules in Phoenix are booked solid for months, ammunition is sold out, and gunmakers and dealers alike are scrambling to keep up with demand.
Sun Devil Manufacturing in Mesa, for example, which makes semi-automatic rifles for $1,000 or so less than its competitors, is running three production shifts a day. Guns Etc, a shop in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler, is selling 50-70 handguns a week, compared with 30 before the election, and sales of AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles have nearly doubled. On a Friday afternoon the store is packed with men, retired and young, buying revolvers, semi-automatics and shotguns. Young mums browse the daintier pistols.
Are they all panicking? They don’t think so. Mr Obama has said he favours a ban on assault weapons, of the sort Bill Clinton brought in in 1994 (it has now lapsed). Gun-owners also feel Mr Obama is soft on crime, and fear that the recession will bring social and economic collapse. Ron Sega says his customers worry about thugs looting grocery stores for milk and mothers being robbed. “People want to be ready and armed, should things go south.”
...At a restaurant in Chandler, waitresses worry that combining weapons with alcohol, even with restrictions, seems foolhardy. But its sponsor is confident that the bill will pass. Momentum is with him. More shooting ranges are due to open soon in Arizona and elsewhere, to cater to more families who wish to be armed, trained and ready for anything."
Sunday, June 7, 2009
God, Guns And Country- Literally
TW: We have a diverse country. A truly great thing. But I really do not get certain things. And of course if this article was from a far away country with maybe a different religion we would probably find this a bit daft or worse.
From ABC News:
"A pastor in Kentucky is redefining the tradition of wearing your Sunday best to services by encouraging his congregation to strap on holsters and bring their weapons to church.
Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church in Louisville, Ky., says that he organized an "Open Carry Celebration" to promote responsible gun ownership.
"As a Christian pastor I believe that without a deep-seeded belief in God and firearms that this country would not be here," Pagano told ABCNews.com. "I'm not ashamed of that fact. I'm proud of it."
The celebration scheduled for Sunday, June 27, will feature YouTube videos promoting gun safety and will ask congregants to join in singing patriotic songs, according to Pagano.
A $1 raffle to win a free handgun will also be part of the festivities."
From ABC News:
"A pastor in Kentucky is redefining the tradition of wearing your Sunday best to services by encouraging his congregation to strap on holsters and bring their weapons to church.
Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church in Louisville, Ky., says that he organized an "Open Carry Celebration" to promote responsible gun ownership.
"As a Christian pastor I believe that without a deep-seeded belief in God and firearms that this country would not be here," Pagano told ABCNews.com. "I'm not ashamed of that fact. I'm proud of it."
The celebration scheduled for Sunday, June 27, will feature YouTube videos promoting gun safety and will ask congregants to join in singing patriotic songs, according to Pagano.
A $1 raffle to win a free handgun will also be part of the festivities."
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Holding My Nose But Plowing Ahead
From Economist:
"...'To the frustration and discouragement of many Democrats, House and Senate lawmakers and aides say it now appears likely that President Obama will this week sign into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons...A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate still typically come down on the side of gun control. But the fact that they have been outmaneuvered by Republicans on gun issues is rooted in the fact that recently swollen Democratic ranks include senators and House members who represent Western states and more rural areas where gun ownership is popular and deemed sacrosanct.'
This holds an important lesson for people who pronounce on exceptionalism: the fact that more people wear "D"s on their backs does not necessarily signal a change in fundamental values. It also holds important lessons for Republican reformers: sometimes you have to compromise on one of your core issues (as gun rights surely were to urban liberals not too long ago) if you are to have any chance of winning national power."
TW: Have posted on gun control previously and this angle in particular(see key word tab). When I see Obama signing this kind of legislation part of me wants to puke but then I enjoy having 60 Dem senators and I also enjoy the Republican stridency likely meaning the Dems may have 62 or 63 after the 2010 election. That folks feel like they need to pack a gun while in our national parks befuddles me but if that is the price to paid for electoral supremacy I am willing to pay it.
"...'To the frustration and discouragement of many Democrats, House and Senate lawmakers and aides say it now appears likely that President Obama will this week sign into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons...A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate still typically come down on the side of gun control. But the fact that they have been outmaneuvered by Republicans on gun issues is rooted in the fact that recently swollen Democratic ranks include senators and House members who represent Western states and more rural areas where gun ownership is popular and deemed sacrosanct.'
This holds an important lesson for people who pronounce on exceptionalism: the fact that more people wear "D"s on their backs does not necessarily signal a change in fundamental values. It also holds important lessons for Republican reformers: sometimes you have to compromise on one of your core issues (as gun rights surely were to urban liberals not too long ago) if you are to have any chance of winning national power."
TW: Have posted on gun control previously and this angle in particular(see key word tab). When I see Obama signing this kind of legislation part of me wants to puke but then I enjoy having 60 Dem senators and I also enjoy the Republican stridency likely meaning the Dems may have 62 or 63 after the 2010 election. That folks feel like they need to pack a gun while in our national parks befuddles me but if that is the price to paid for electoral supremacy I am willing to pay it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Bullets In Action
TW: Just because Dems and by association myself, focus on other issues does not mean they go away.
Shut Up Already
TW: Charlie Cook makes a simple but instructive point. Sometimes as a party you are on the wrong side of the majority on a particular issue with little chance of moving the majority. The Democrats perceived this relative to gun control. Rather than hypocritically changing positions which would be intellectually dishonest and therefore not credible, Dems merely stopped talking about the topic. Now that Dems are in power anti-gun control efforts should slow down or cease but just stopping the Republican efforts to arm everyone to the teeth is progress.
Cook suggests the Republicans would do well to mimic this approach relative to hot-button social issues about which the base Republicans may be passionate but the majority of Americans are not despite the base Republicans hopes and dreams. The ideologues faced with these choices choose to fall on their electoral swords, the pragmatists win and nudge the policy in their preferred directions.
From Charlie Cook:
"...It's easier to say that Republicans need to change than it is to say what they should change. But maybe Republicans should take a page from the Democratic playbook.
It would be unprincipled, intellectually bankrupt and pointless for the Republican Party to move from the right to the left on issues or overall positioning. But, on some issues, maybe they would be best off being silent.
When Democrats lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994, polling for organized labor showed that the top issue for union members voting Republican for Congress was guns, something that had nothing to do with unions.
In 2000, when Al Gore lost West Virginia, Gore's state manager later said that the top three reasons for Gore's defeat there were guns, guns and guns. Guns probably played a factor in not only Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee but in every state that even touched Tennessee.
It was the presidential loss in 2000, on top of the congressional losses in 1994, that convinced the Democratic Party to simply shut up on guns. As much as many Democratic elected officials wanted to legislate the issue, they realized that they couldn't get re-elected if they kept offending so many union members, white males and rural and small-town voters on the gun issue.
Gun-control advocates had plenty of other reasons to support Democrats, so remaining silent on the issue didn't hurt the party that much. Rather, it enabled it to have a conversation with voters who otherwise would not listen as long as guns were on the table.
Republicans need to think about this in terms of their emphasis on certain social and cultural issues. The GOP has turned away a large number of highly educated, economically upscale voters who would be a natural fit for the party were it not for these divisive subjects.
Republicans have created problems for themselves in the libertarian-leaning Mountain West as well because of their stance on these issues. When westerners say they want government out of their lives, they mean out of the whole house, including the bedroom. Generationally, Republicans are killing themselves with voters who are now under 35, who see the party as narrow and intolerant. As Will Rogers used to say, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/offtotheraces.php
Cook suggests the Republicans would do well to mimic this approach relative to hot-button social issues about which the base Republicans may be passionate but the majority of Americans are not despite the base Republicans hopes and dreams. The ideologues faced with these choices choose to fall on their electoral swords, the pragmatists win and nudge the policy in their preferred directions.
From Charlie Cook:
"...It's easier to say that Republicans need to change than it is to say what they should change. But maybe Republicans should take a page from the Democratic playbook.
It would be unprincipled, intellectually bankrupt and pointless for the Republican Party to move from the right to the left on issues or overall positioning. But, on some issues, maybe they would be best off being silent.
When Democrats lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994, polling for organized labor showed that the top issue for union members voting Republican for Congress was guns, something that had nothing to do with unions.
In 2000, when Al Gore lost West Virginia, Gore's state manager later said that the top three reasons for Gore's defeat there were guns, guns and guns. Guns probably played a factor in not only Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee but in every state that even touched Tennessee.
It was the presidential loss in 2000, on top of the congressional losses in 1994, that convinced the Democratic Party to simply shut up on guns. As much as many Democratic elected officials wanted to legislate the issue, they realized that they couldn't get re-elected if they kept offending so many union members, white males and rural and small-town voters on the gun issue.
Gun-control advocates had plenty of other reasons to support Democrats, so remaining silent on the issue didn't hurt the party that much. Rather, it enabled it to have a conversation with voters who otherwise would not listen as long as guns were on the table.
Republicans need to think about this in terms of their emphasis on certain social and cultural issues. The GOP has turned away a large number of highly educated, economically upscale voters who would be a natural fit for the party were it not for these divisive subjects.
Republicans have created problems for themselves in the libertarian-leaning Mountain West as well because of their stance on these issues. When westerners say they want government out of their lives, they mean out of the whole house, including the bedroom. Generationally, Republicans are killing themselves with voters who are now under 35, who see the party as narrow and intolerant. As Will Rogers used to say, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/offtotheraces.php
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Gun Control Does Not Have Majority Support
TW: The Obama administration is apparently putting gun control on the backburner. They are doing so in the face of stark political reality. There is clearly a segment of swing voters who are willing to vote for Democrats as long as they guard their perceived precious gun rights. I fear this calculation is accurateI never have and likely never will understand the following:
"I can tell you, that assault-weapons ban is just an excuse to take away a sportsman's shotguns"
-- Dan Boren (Democratic congressman Oklahoma)
I can only speak for myself but I strongly support gun control but really could give a rat's ass if Dan Boren or anyone else wants to go shoot animals (excluding humans or my cats) or targets or the one in a million other person armed with evil intent of some sort. I just do not understand why we need automatic weapons, concealed weapons etc. in quantities sufficient to support a nation ten times our size with plenty leftover to arm other nations. The ideology embedded in Boren's comment leads to horribly narrow-minded policy detrimental to our nation and other nations' interests.
All that said Obama is right and for him to go down that path right now would be counter-productive. There are holes in democracy which permit things like vast farm subsidies, sugar tariffs, Cuban embargoes and this. So Congrats NRA!! You win (for now) but I still despise it.
From Newsweek:
"...In the past, national political leaders might have raised troubling questions about how such an unstable character could obtain easy access to high-powered weapons. They might have been even more motivated given that Poplawski's cop-killing spree was part of a near epidemic of mass homicides that have left 58 people dead over the past month. Or given that Mexico's insanely violent drug cartels are arming themselves with high-powered assault weapons purchased at U.S. gun stores and later smuggled south of the border. Yet many past champions of stricter gun-control measures are silent. These include top Obama White House officials who have squelched any talk within the administration about pushing further gun-control measures."It's weird," says Peter Hamm, the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "When you see people like [Attorney General] Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, 'What's up?'
Running for president in last year's Democratic primaries, Barack Obama promised to restore a federal ban on certain semiautomatic assault guns—a position that's still on the White House Web site. The ban was originally passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 and lapsed five years ago. In recent years the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has also lifted virtually all restrictions on imports of foreign-made assault weapons, permitting a flood of cheap Romanian, Bulgarian and other Eastern European AK-47s to enter the country, according to gun-control groups. "There's been an absolute deluge of these weapons," says Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center.
But Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned the issue
...The new Democratic squishiness on guns is all about politics. Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are determined to protect the seats of "blue dogs" from rural districts who are essential to preserving the party's majority in the House. "The Democratic Party understands this is a losing issue … It's a dead loser," says Democratic Rep. Dan Boren, of Muskogee, Okla. "Its one of the reasons they lost the Congress in 1994 and Al Gore was not elected president in 2000....
...The NRA loves blue dogs like Boren. The organization feels that it's stronger in Congress than it has been in at least two decades. Emboldened by a Supreme Court decision last year that affirmed Second Amendment rights, the lobby has pushed a series of congressional measures that are diluting gun restrictions. With virtually no public notice, the Senate recently passed an amendment to the budget bill that would reverse a post-9/11 policy and allow passengers to bring guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains. (In passing the amendment by an overwhelming margin, the Senate ignored pleas by Amtrak officials that the measure could endanger safety.) "
http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589">http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589
"I can tell you, that assault-weapons ban is just an excuse to take away a sportsman's shotguns"
-- Dan Boren (Democratic congressman Oklahoma)
I can only speak for myself but I strongly support gun control but really could give a rat's ass if Dan Boren or anyone else wants to go shoot animals (excluding humans or my cats) or targets or the one in a million other person armed with evil intent of some sort. I just do not understand why we need automatic weapons, concealed weapons etc. in quantities sufficient to support a nation ten times our size with plenty leftover to arm other nations. The ideology embedded in Boren's comment leads to horribly narrow-minded policy detrimental to our nation and other nations' interests.
All that said Obama is right and for him to go down that path right now would be counter-productive. There are holes in democracy which permit things like vast farm subsidies, sugar tariffs, Cuban embargoes and this. So Congrats NRA!! You win (for now) but I still despise it.
From Newsweek:
"...In the past, national political leaders might have raised troubling questions about how such an unstable character could obtain easy access to high-powered weapons. They might have been even more motivated given that Poplawski's cop-killing spree was part of a near epidemic of mass homicides that have left 58 people dead over the past month. Or given that Mexico's insanely violent drug cartels are arming themselves with high-powered assault weapons purchased at U.S. gun stores and later smuggled south of the border. Yet many past champions of stricter gun-control measures are silent. These include top Obama White House officials who have squelched any talk within the administration about pushing further gun-control measures."It's weird," says Peter Hamm, the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "When you see people like [Attorney General] Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, 'What's up?'
Running for president in last year's Democratic primaries, Barack Obama promised to restore a federal ban on certain semiautomatic assault guns—a position that's still on the White House Web site. The ban was originally passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 and lapsed five years ago. In recent years the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has also lifted virtually all restrictions on imports of foreign-made assault weapons, permitting a flood of cheap Romanian, Bulgarian and other Eastern European AK-47s to enter the country, according to gun-control groups. "There's been an absolute deluge of these weapons," says Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center.
But Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned the issue
...The new Democratic squishiness on guns is all about politics. Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are determined to protect the seats of "blue dogs" from rural districts who are essential to preserving the party's majority in the House. "The Democratic Party understands this is a losing issue … It's a dead loser," says Democratic Rep. Dan Boren, of Muskogee, Okla. "Its one of the reasons they lost the Congress in 1994 and Al Gore was not elected president in 2000....
...The NRA loves blue dogs like Boren. The organization feels that it's stronger in Congress than it has been in at least two decades. Emboldened by a Supreme Court decision last year that affirmed Second Amendment rights, the lobby has pushed a series of congressional measures that are diluting gun restrictions. With virtually no public notice, the Senate recently passed an amendment to the budget bill that would reverse a post-9/11 policy and allow passengers to bring guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains. (In passing the amendment by an overwhelming margin, the Senate ignored pleas by Amtrak officials that the measure could endanger safety.) "
http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589">http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Yep We Need Guns In the Classroom
TW: Sometimes I see things and really wonder how f'ed some of my fellow Americans are. I think we should do an experiment, give everyone an AK-47 to carry around for a year and then lets count up how many humans killed and maimed each other. I know the guns are inanimate and all so it is not their fault, the more the merrier. Perhaps we should have another trial where suburban homes are equipped with Humvees armored up and sporting .50 cal mounted machine guns, then do a similar count.
From Google news:
"...bills in the Texas Legislature that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to take their weapons to school.
...Supporters say the bills would protect the rights of those licensed to carry concealed weapons and help prevent a massacre on the scale of what happened at Virginia Tech and another shooting last year at Northern Illinois University, where five were killed and 18 wounded.
Texas issued 73,090 licenses in fiscal year 2008. The state requires applicants to pass a training course, pass a criminal background check and be at least 21 years old. Texas campuses are gun-free zones.
"These are individuals who are already licensed and allowed to carry weapons. What marks the imaginary line of college campuses?" said Katie Kasprzak, a recent Texas State University graduate and spokeswoman for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that claims more than 37,000 members.
If gunfire erupted on campus, "Would you rather sit and just take shot for shot or would you rather have a chance to fight back?" asked Kasprzak, who has a concealed weapons license.
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, sponsor of the Senate bill, said students, faculty and staff are "sitting ducks" if someone starts blasting.
"I have no desire to wake up one morning and read in the newspaper, or hear on the radio, or watch on television a news report that 32 Texas college students were gunned down like sitting ducks by some deranged gunman," Wentworth said.
Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.
According to the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, similar bills have been filed in 18 states since 2008 and all have failed, although lawmakers in a few states are trying again.
Texas is one of seven states currently considering legislation.
"We hope Texas will serve as a leader and have a domino effect," Kasprzak said.
Of the 150 House members, 70 have signed on in support of Drivers' bill. In the Senate, 12 of 31 senators signed in support of Wentworth's bill.
The idea has met stiff opposition at the University of Texas, which has its own history of shooting violence. Charles Whitman's 1966 rifle attack from the top of the university tower killed 16 people and wounded dozens more. It was the worst campus shooting until the Virginia Tech bloodbath.
The UT student government, the graduate student assembly and the faculty advisory council have all passed resolutions against the campus guns bills.
"It's a recipe for disaster," said Brian Malte, state legislation and politics director for the Brady Campaign.
Woods has helped lead the charge against the bills and filed the student government resolution opposing them.
Woods, who wore a maroon "Virginia Tech Class of 2007" T-shirt during an interview, said he hasn't heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus.
He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.
"Everything happens too quickly," Woods said. "You either play dead or you are dead."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqADC-O0diH8SD6cFG8jsoGeJbewD977QL6G0
From Google news:
"...bills in the Texas Legislature that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to take their weapons to school.
...Supporters say the bills would protect the rights of those licensed to carry concealed weapons and help prevent a massacre on the scale of what happened at Virginia Tech and another shooting last year at Northern Illinois University, where five were killed and 18 wounded.
Texas issued 73,090 licenses in fiscal year 2008. The state requires applicants to pass a training course, pass a criminal background check and be at least 21 years old. Texas campuses are gun-free zones.
"These are individuals who are already licensed and allowed to carry weapons. What marks the imaginary line of college campuses?" said Katie Kasprzak, a recent Texas State University graduate and spokeswoman for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that claims more than 37,000 members.
If gunfire erupted on campus, "Would you rather sit and just take shot for shot or would you rather have a chance to fight back?" asked Kasprzak, who has a concealed weapons license.
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, sponsor of the Senate bill, said students, faculty and staff are "sitting ducks" if someone starts blasting.
"I have no desire to wake up one morning and read in the newspaper, or hear on the radio, or watch on television a news report that 32 Texas college students were gunned down like sitting ducks by some deranged gunman," Wentworth said.
Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.
According to the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, similar bills have been filed in 18 states since 2008 and all have failed, although lawmakers in a few states are trying again.
Texas is one of seven states currently considering legislation.
"We hope Texas will serve as a leader and have a domino effect," Kasprzak said.
Of the 150 House members, 70 have signed on in support of Drivers' bill. In the Senate, 12 of 31 senators signed in support of Wentworth's bill.
The idea has met stiff opposition at the University of Texas, which has its own history of shooting violence. Charles Whitman's 1966 rifle attack from the top of the university tower killed 16 people and wounded dozens more. It was the worst campus shooting until the Virginia Tech bloodbath.
The UT student government, the graduate student assembly and the faculty advisory council have all passed resolutions against the campus guns bills.
"It's a recipe for disaster," said Brian Malte, state legislation and politics director for the Brady Campaign.
Woods has helped lead the charge against the bills and filed the student government resolution opposing them.
Woods, who wore a maroon "Virginia Tech Class of 2007" T-shirt during an interview, said he hasn't heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus.
He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.
"Everything happens too quickly," Woods said. "You either play dead or you are dead."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqADC-O0diH8SD6cFG8jsoGeJbewD977QL6G0
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The U.S.: Armorer For the Cartels
TW: We tend to get pretty uptight when a story about say an insurgent in Iraq is found with Iranian sourced weaponry. Unfortunately we are developing a quite effective export trade of our own- arming drug cartels in Mexico. Due to the proliferation of all sorts of guns and the relative ease by which they can be purchased we have developed a thriving trade with the cartels south of the border. We use their drugs and arm them to fight with each other over the spoils, makes one proud to be an American.
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.
...The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks coming into the country.
What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers - more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their homes - makes policing them a tall order. The ATF now has about 200 agents assigned to the task.
Smugglers routinely enlist Americans with clean criminal records to buy two or three rifles at a time, often from different shops, then transport them across the border in cars and trucks, hiding them in door panels or under the hood, law enforcement officials here said. Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.
...ATF officials estimate that 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico came from dealers north of the border"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/america/border.php
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.
...The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks coming into the country.
What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers - more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their homes - makes policing them a tall order. The ATF now has about 200 agents assigned to the task.
Smugglers routinely enlist Americans with clean criminal records to buy two or three rifles at a time, often from different shops, then transport them across the border in cars and trucks, hiding them in door panels or under the hood, law enforcement officials here said. Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.
...ATF officials estimate that 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico came from dealers north of the border"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/america/border.php
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Who Has the Bigger Winky?
TW: The Republicans are conducting an extremely tedious search for a new chairman of their party (the Dems just had Obama pick Tim Kaine VA Governor and future star of the party). The campaigning for the RNC chair is enlightening in terms of how pathetic the Republican Party's current leadership is. The discussion amongst other topics focused on who owns the most guns, give me a frigging break. That reeks of the ridiculous primary debate in 2007 when the Republican candidates were asked to raise a hand if they believed in evolution and only a couple did. Are these guys really the best they have? And btw is having an unabashed ideologue like Grover Norquist really the face they want to present?
From Hotline:
"The six men vying to lead the Republican Party out of the era of a botched war tried today to outgun each other, quite literally, during a 90-minute debate sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform.
When moderator Grover Norquist asked how many firearms the candidates own, the current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, who despite presiding over his party’s 2008 electoral trouncing is reapplying for his job, noted proudly that he claims four handguns and two rifles.
Rival Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said that he has “too many to count.”
Former OH Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was willing to count. Seven, he said, adding: “And I’m good.”
MI GOP chairman Saul Anuzis said he has two guns, but in case the RNC’s 168 committee members, who will vote this month for the next party chairman, wanted to verify his stash, Anuzis said, perhaps only half jokingly, that he is not allowed to carry them in Washington.
Chip Saltsman, who managed Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, offered up a list so long it was hard to track the pistol persuasion.
And GOPAC head Michael Steele, a one-term lieutenant governor of blue state MD, was the only man on the panel to say that he hasn’t a single firearm.
What’s wrong with all this gun talk? It is the Grand Old Party these guys are seeking to lead, and the Second Amendment is, no surprise, a cherished Republican value. But it wasn’t just the testosterone-charged arms race that smacked of stale GOP politics during the debate held at the National Press Club in front of a packed house. At a time when change seems to be the order of the day for voters, the men seeking the party’s top job were trading in the rhetoric of old.
Abortion rights? The GOP six said they’re opposed. School choice? They’re for it. Praise of Ronald Reagan was plentiful, and to the person, each panelist cited him as their favorite Republican president.
“Ok, everybody got that right,” Norquist said.
The RNC’s 168 members have a tough choice to make this month in determining who of the six men seeking to lead the party is most deserving, and it’s clear in talking to activists that it’s anyone’s guess still who will emerge the victor. Why? Because not one of the candidates appears to have all of the critical attributes – true tech savvy, proven grassroots experience, inspirational messaging – needed to lift the party out of the doldrums.
They missed opportunities today to show that they learned tangible lessons from Barack Obama’s resounding victory over John McCain. With the Republicans facing a problematic technology deficit, a new and growing group of young GOP leaders is working to push that problem to the fore through a grassroots coalition called ‘Rebuild the Party.’ Several questions today focused on that challenge. But the answers didn’t necessarily provide a thoughtful game plan.
Duncan said he doesn’t Twitter but added curiously that the party’s site allows people to Twitter for him. Blackwell and Anuzis jousted over who has more Facebook members. When Anuzis said he has 3,000 friends, Blackwell held up four fingers -- like rabbit ears -- over the Michigan chairman’s head, reminding audience members that he has “four thousand.” As in, Blackwell has 1,000 more friends than Anuzis.
Hey, guys, Obama has 3.6 million Facebook friends..."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/01/counting_guns_b.html
From Hotline:
"The six men vying to lead the Republican Party out of the era of a botched war tried today to outgun each other, quite literally, during a 90-minute debate sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform.
When moderator Grover Norquist asked how many firearms the candidates own, the current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, who despite presiding over his party’s 2008 electoral trouncing is reapplying for his job, noted proudly that he claims four handguns and two rifles.
Rival Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said that he has “too many to count.”
Former OH Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was willing to count. Seven, he said, adding: “And I’m good.”
MI GOP chairman Saul Anuzis said he has two guns, but in case the RNC’s 168 committee members, who will vote this month for the next party chairman, wanted to verify his stash, Anuzis said, perhaps only half jokingly, that he is not allowed to carry them in Washington.
Chip Saltsman, who managed Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, offered up a list so long it was hard to track the pistol persuasion.
And GOPAC head Michael Steele, a one-term lieutenant governor of blue state MD, was the only man on the panel to say that he hasn’t a single firearm.
What’s wrong with all this gun talk? It is the Grand Old Party these guys are seeking to lead, and the Second Amendment is, no surprise, a cherished Republican value. But it wasn’t just the testosterone-charged arms race that smacked of stale GOP politics during the debate held at the National Press Club in front of a packed house. At a time when change seems to be the order of the day for voters, the men seeking the party’s top job were trading in the rhetoric of old.
Abortion rights? The GOP six said they’re opposed. School choice? They’re for it. Praise of Ronald Reagan was plentiful, and to the person, each panelist cited him as their favorite Republican president.
“Ok, everybody got that right,” Norquist said.
The RNC’s 168 members have a tough choice to make this month in determining who of the six men seeking to lead the party is most deserving, and it’s clear in talking to activists that it’s anyone’s guess still who will emerge the victor. Why? Because not one of the candidates appears to have all of the critical attributes – true tech savvy, proven grassroots experience, inspirational messaging – needed to lift the party out of the doldrums.
They missed opportunities today to show that they learned tangible lessons from Barack Obama’s resounding victory over John McCain. With the Republicans facing a problematic technology deficit, a new and growing group of young GOP leaders is working to push that problem to the fore through a grassroots coalition called ‘Rebuild the Party.’ Several questions today focused on that challenge. But the answers didn’t necessarily provide a thoughtful game plan.
Duncan said he doesn’t Twitter but added curiously that the party’s site allows people to Twitter for him. Blackwell and Anuzis jousted over who has more Facebook members. When Anuzis said he has 3,000 friends, Blackwell held up four fingers -- like rabbit ears -- over the Michigan chairman’s head, reminding audience members that he has “four thousand.” As in, Blackwell has 1,000 more friends than Anuzis.
Hey, guys, Obama has 3.6 million Facebook friends..."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/01/counting_guns_b.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)