Rights...........and Wrongs

I hear a lot from the pro-gun side of politics about their rights. I hear a lot less from them about the rights of others to be free from their intrusion on them with firearms, the ways in which those firearms and how they are used or can be used makes all of us less safe. I get a lot of feedback about any measure that would make firearms more expensive for their owners, like insurance and mandatory safe storage such as gun safes that would make firearms more difficult to steal, or to be misused by kids, ranging from small children playing with them to older kids taking them to school to shoot other students.

It ignores the 3+ murder suicides that takes place in this nation every week - EVERY WEEK - where emotionally distraught or depressed to the point of being judgmentally impaired people not only kill themselves, but kill other people, people who don't want to die, often children or other family members.

There is inadequate valuing of the rights of other people to be safe, to be FREE, of intrusion on our rights by the gun owners. They resist, many of them, all efforts to prevent guns from falling into the hands of prohibited people - like drug users (which should include alcohol abusers who binge drink and/or drive impaired), criminals, minors, illegal immigrants, and possibly the most serious of all, the dangerously mentally ill.

 Too often we have a new class that perhaps should be included with those, although they could properly be classified as a subset of criminals, the political insurrectionist.  Insurrection is illegal, it is treason.

There is a concentration of white supremacist militias in the northwest, where at least some groups had contemplated for a time attempting to annex the northwestern states like Montana, Idaho, Washington, up to five states, depending on what nut group was making grandiose plans, for their own separate and exclusively white nation. This could easily be one of the paramilitary race-based pseudo-Christian militias of that region. Yet these pro-gun fans never seem to notice that their numbers are costing all of us a lot of money with these incidents, on top of the loss of life or risk of loss of life. It is reasonable to do more, to require more, of gun owners to reduce and control these costs; that includes reducing risks by limiting assault-style weapons, and large capacity magazines that allow for this rate and quantity of fire on law enforcement and on victims.

This is fiscal responsibility. This is fiscally conservatively sound.  This is placing the costs and expenses of firearms in our country on the gun owners.

We aren't having to invest in armored vehicles for law abiding non-gun owners.

From NBC.com and wire services by way of MSNBC.com:
 

By NBC News staff and wire reports UPDATED at 3:55 a.m. ET: Authorities searched for a possible second gunman early Monday after at least one shooter wounded one man, then opened fire on a SWAT team and police officers before being found dead during a manhunt in woods north of Seattle. The officers were fired upon Sunday afternoon as they responded to reports of a shooting in a driveway Arlington, Wash. They found a man with a non-life threatening injury. According to The Seattle Times, spokesman Steve Dittoe of Snohomish County Sheriff’s office said SWAT officers arrived within 10 minutes of the shooting and "our armored vehicle was hit several times" by rounds of gunfire. Linda Purtteman, who lives near the home in Arlington said a neighbor told her that people in the area were urged to stay indoors. She told the Times that she heard gunshots, but was unfazed by them. "I have a few neighbors who go shooting a lot out here, so I didn't think anything of it," she said. "We were told to stay away from the windows, but the whole front of my house is a window," Purtteman told the newspaper. Precautionary search for possible second suspect A man later was found dead and a weapon was recovered, Snohomish County Sheriff's spokeswoman Shari Ireton said late Sunday. But nearby residents were told to leave their homes as a precaution as authorities searched for a possible second suspect, Ireton said. Vehicles were found with bullet holes on more than one side, the Times reported. "At this point, we're still assuming there's a second suspect. We are combing through property and buildings just to double-check before we start letting people back to their houses," Ireton told The Associated Press. About 70 people at a Sons of Norway camp at nearby Riley Lake were in lockdown late Sunday, according to King 5, NBC News’ Seattle affiliate. Read KING 5's reporting on the incident "We all just banded together and made sure that we let everybody know what was going on. and told everybody to get out of the pool and the lake and not be out in the open field and everybody's just been kind of waiting to hear updates," camper Berit Kuchs told King 5. There were no reports of other injuries. Arlington is about 50 miles north of Seattle. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Editorial from the WaPo that is on target

When I hear the phrase dripping sugary lies from right wing pundit and pols lips, using the ugly euphemism of 'common sense solutions' and patriotic sounding gibberish, I cringe. The garbage and gibberish promoted on the right under pseudo reasoning is and faux patriotism contributes to the problem.  Our gun policy is emotional, not rational.  The pro-gun position is predicated not on reality, but on a myth or fantasy premise that the gun owner will do something terribly clever, and heroic.  The reality is that far too often the opposite is true.  But the emotion-based fantasy has a death grip on every gun regulation conversation; it prevents rational discussion, and solidly obstructs change.  It is a position which denies the reality of the failures of our violent gun culture.  The reality is the gun culture is exploited by the gun manufacturers.

from the WaPo by way of the STrib, by E. J. Dionne:

It's time to take on the gun lobby
Article by: E.J. DIONNE , Washington Post

Updated: July 20, 2012 - 3:42 PM

It's harder to get a license to drive a car than it is to own a gun.

For al the dysfunction in our political system, a healthy pattern usually takes hold when a terrible tragedy seizes the nation's attention.

Normally, we engage in a searching conversation over what rational steps can be taken by individuals, communities and various levels of government to make the recurrence of a comparable tragedy less likely. Sometimes we act, sometimes we don't, but at least we explore sensible solutions.
Unless the tragedy involves guns. Then our whole public reasoning process goes haywire. Anyone who dares to say that an event such as the massacre at a Colorado movie theater early Friday morning demands that we rethink our approach to the regulation of firearms is accused of "exploiting" the deaths of innocent people.
This is part of the gun lobby's rote response, and the rest of us allow it to work every time. Their goal is to block any conversation about how our nation's gun laws, the most permissive in the industrialized world, increase the likelihood of mass killings of this sort.
First, the gun lobby goes straight to the exploitation argument -- which is, of course, a big lie. You can see this because we never allow an assertion of this kind to stop conversation on other issues.
Nobody who points to the inadequacy of our flood-control policies or mistakes by the Army Corps of Engineers is accused of "exploiting" the victims of a deluge.
Nobody who criticizes a botched response by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to a natural disaster is accused of "exploiting" the victims of a hurricane or a tornado. Nobody who lays part of the blame for an accident on insufficient regulation of, say, the airlines or coal mining is accused of "exploiting" the accident's victims.
No, it's only where a gun massacre is concerned that an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe. God forbid that we question even a single tenet of the theology of firearms.
The lobby then goes to its backup moves. The problem, it insists, lies in the failure to enforce existing laws -- conveniently ignoring that the NRA's whole purpose is to weaken the gun statutes we already have.
The worshipers of weapons also lay heavy stress on the psychological disabilities of the killer in a particular incident to create a sense of futility and resignation. Crazy people, they say, will do crazy things, and there is nothing we can do about this.
Never mind that more rational laws would help keep guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental illness. Never mind that it's harder to get a license to drive a car than it is to own a gun.
Never mind that even a Supreme Court ruling that gave an expansive reading of the Second Amendment nonetheless acknowledged the right of the people through their legislatures and Congress to enact sensible gun regulations.
Oh, yes, and then there is their trump card: We'd all be safer, says the gun lobby, if every last one of us owned a gun.
Why is there so little pushback against assertions that are so transparently designed to prevent rather than promote dialogue? The answer lies in a profound timidity on the part of politicians in both parties. The Republicans are allied with the gun lobby and the Democrats are intimidated.
Sure, there are some dissenters. Many of the nation's mayors, led by Mike Bloomberg of New York and Tom Menino of Boston, have tried to organize a push for carefully tailored laws aimed at keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But they are the exceptions. President Obama has done little to challenge the NRA, and yet it attacks him anyway.
There are many reasons for this politics of timidity, not the least being a United States Senate that vastly overrepresents rural voters relative to suburban and urban voters. (The Electoral College overrepresents rural voters, too.)
Add to this a Republican Party that will bow low before any anti-government argument that comes along, and a Democratic Party petrified of losing more rural support -- and without any confidence that advocates of tougher gun laws will cast ballots on the basis of this issue.
So let's ask ourselves: Aren't we all in danger of being complicit in throwing up our hands and allowing the gun lobby to write our gun laws? Awful things happen, we mourn them, and then we shrug. And that's why they keep happening.

Gun Nuts on the Right: A Difference of Degree, Not of Kind

When I saw this on 60 Minutes on Sunday, May 15 2011, it struck me in the context of the ongoing push in the MN Legislature that these 'Sovereign Citizen' crazies reflected something in common with the right pushing for the new law expanding  when it is ok to shoot someone if they frighten you.

Because the right is inherently more frightened that someone will need shooting, need killing with a gun than everyone else is.  They see more occasions, more pretexts, where gun violence is appropriate, not less, and seek to institutionalize that rationale, despite Minnesota being one of the most peaceful, least violent states.

If this is true, that we are not a state prone to violence, then there is, by definition far less not more reason for expanding when it is acceptable to shoot someone else.  But if you think like the people profiled in this video, then there is always some danger that justifies or requires shooting, isn't there?  Including shooting people a majroity of your fellow citizens elected?  Because the right seems to have a preponderance of those who believe incorrectly that our 2nd Amendment rights are for shooting the people in our government...

The Non Sequitur Cartoon from February 4th, 2011

There is humor in taking "bear arming" too literally, even if the word play is a little trite.  Because sometimes, we just need a little humor for perspective on serious issues. Because, if we're not going to participate in the NCIS data base to keep convicted felons, drug users, illegal immigrants, and dangerously crazy people - why should we prohibit bears either?

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a Penigma Public Service Announcement

For those who keep trying to insist that I am anti-2nd Amendment, let me emphasize this is in opposition to ILLEGAL guns.  It mirrors very closely what I have written on Penigma previously.  The poll (link provided below) was a joint effort by Republican and Democratic polling organizations working cooperatively.



logo from the mayors against illegal guns website
please visit this site if you have any interest in the Arizona shooting



One of the biggest and most dangerous myths in American politics has just been busted.

After the tragedy in Tucson, we’ve heard the same old argument from Washington and the media that Americans are “hopelessly divided” on the issue of guns. But when you get outside the echo chamber and talk to ordinary people, the consensus on guns is clear.

That’s what Mayors Against Illegal Guns did with our recent poll1, conducted jointly by a Democratic and a Republican firm. The data shows that the general public and gun owners agree that we have to take common sense steps to prevent future gun crime.
Check out the polling results below and help spread the facts by forwarding this email to your friends and family.

The truth is, Americans overwhelmingly believe that we can respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while doing more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Banning Big Clips Is Supported by Robert A. Levy, Famous Libertarian Gun Rights Attorney

Robert A. Levy, of the Cato Institute, co-counsel for the landmark SCOTUS decision in the District of Columbia v Heller case on behalf of 2nd Amendment Rights, came out in support of the proposals by Democratic legislators to limit the gun clips which hold the large number of bullets used by the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords a week ago.  Levy said:

“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines,” Levy said in an interview with NBC. “Justice (Antonin) Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”

“It may stop a few of these looney tunes,” Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a “close call," he said that a restriction of “10 to 15 rounds makes sense.”

Doing Nothing, Simply Because We Can

There was a news story in the local paper a couple of days ago about "straw" gun buyers. In the story, police authorities note that perhaps 90% of gun crimes are committed with guns coming from straw buyers. The gun dealer in the article didn't appear to voice any objection to the laws requiring him to ensure that if he notes a gun will not be used by the buyer but instead by another party, that he not sell such a gun. He also noted that he hands any prospective buyer a federal registration form, something I believe came as an outgrowth of the Bradey law and used to document and confirm the identify of the buyer.

The OTHER Charlie Wilson's 'War', Part II - Update, His Guilty Plea, and Second Amendment 'Remedies'

"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
– Lucius Annaeus Seneca, aka Seneca the Younger
stoic philosopher, dramatist, statesman, and humorist
c. 4BC - 65AD.

"An armed society is a polite society. "
– Robert A. Heinlein
Dean of American Science Fiction Writers
1907 - 1988

"This country was founded by religious nuts with guns."
– P.J. O'Rourke
Cato Institute fellow, political satirist, journalist
b. 1947

On Thursday, June 10th, 2010, Charles Alan Wilson pled guilty to threatening the life of Washington Senator Patty Murray in federal court.

Wilson, who legally owned multiple firearms, and who had a carry permit for his weapons, had made repeated death threats to Murray, and had appeared at Tea Party protests of Murray over her vote in favor of the recent health care reform legislation. Wilson operated under many of the same instances of factual misinformation that have typified those Tea Party protests. He will be sentenced in October of this year.

And like recent GOP Senate Primary winner and Tea Party supported candidate Sharron Angle in Nevada, Wilson appears to have believed in what Angle coyly refers to as 'Second Amendment remedies', the justification for shooting politicians who vote in ways with which he disagreed.

Angle believes that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms, exists to keep the federal government in check. Angle is tap dancing around actually calling for armed insurrection against our legitimately elected government, a government properly held to conformity with that very U. S. Constitution by the Supreme Court.

In a January interview with a conservative talk show host, Lars Larson, Angle stated, "Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

Apparently, if Angle doesn't win her election contest against Harry Reid, she is willing to go for her guns. In other words, this woman insist on getting her way, and if she doesn't get it legitimately, she will go after it violently.

My conservative friends - and a few less conservative commenters here as well - took issue with my linking threats of violence to the Tea Party movement and other voices on the right. And yet, it is exactly this kind of language we see from Angle that persuaded an ordinary law abiding citizen like Charlie Wilson, not previously politically active, who legally owned weapons, when he threatened Senator Patty Murray and another Senator from Washington.

Angle told conservative talk show host Bill Manders in January of this year, "I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope that the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems."

And in May, Angle told the Reno newspaper, the Gazette-Journal, that "it's almost an imperative that conservatives win. The nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That's why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

Gee, Sharron, what WILL be that next step? Because an absolute core value of our country, our government, our way of life is that sometimes your political side wins, and sometimes you lose. When you lose, you lump it, you reorganize, you attempt to persuade an electoral majority; you do NOT reach for your guns.

To advocate resorting to arms if you lose, that is profoundly UN-American, and we are hearing it from the right more and more all the time. If you believe in going for the bullet box if you lose, Sharron Angle, resign now. You already do not believe in our Constitution, you have no business running for office; for you to take any oath of office, even to serve as lowly dog catcher, would be a travesty.

But the right is not responsible, not even a little, when someone believes that crap - someone like Charlie Wilson? Think again.

Now in a Scripps news article, Angle spokesperson, Jerry Stacy, says Angle is not "advocating for a revolution. We should all be worried, but again, she's not advocating or suggesting a revolution."

Then.....WHY should we be worried? Why does Angle work so very hard to emphasize armed and angry unsuccessful voters? Why does she leave it to a spokesperson to walk back her statements, but makes those same statements herself over and over, without clarifying for herself that she doesn't mean people should arm?

Angle is trying to have it both ways, and backs down from her statements any time she gets flak for them ----- and then makes them all over again, to her core supporters.

"Her rhetoric that if she doesn't win at the ballot box people should go to the bullet box undermines the Democratic process.", Harry Reid's spokesman, Jon Summers said, in response to Angle.

According to the Gazette-Journal, Angle PREFERS (my emphasis) to fight at the ballot box. Maybe her spokesperson should explain to candidate Angle that the ballot box IS the ONLY way she is allowed to fight. And if she thinks otherwise, I'm sure the federal government can find her and the other candidates who think as she does a nice cozy cell in the same block as the one that Charlie Wilson will find himself in shortly before election time next fall.

I cannot help but wonder if Ms. Angle believes that only her supporters are armed or know how to use a weapon? If she considers that the other political viewpoint is as well, perhaps she will consider the implications of her statements more carefully in future. Harry Reid just helped get the funding for the largest shooting sport recreational area in the entire country - possibly in the world, and opened it with some shooting practice of his own. So, lets not even go there.