What? Their Salaries Aren't Sufficient?

Yes, another cartoon from Ted Rall, this time from his blog post of April 3, 2014.  I've been watching the news on this subject, specifically the federal indictment of Leland Yee and two other state legislators for corruption.  Yee's is the 'sexier' story because he was party to a plan to smuggle arms into the U.S.

The genesis of today’s cartoon is a barroom argument I found myself having at least 20 years ago with a Chicagoan. “The Illinois state legislature,” he stated confidently, “is the most corrupt in the country.” I made cases for my home state of Ohio and my adopted home of New York. Overhearing us, a third man approached, loaded for bear, to make clear that anyone who challenged Harrisburg, home of Pennsylvania’s state house, as the stinkiest cesspool in all of American politics would have to deal with him and his voluminous knowledge of the Keystone State’s seemingly infinite list of dirty deeds.

There was never any doubt that this week’s piece would be about Leland Yee, the pro-gun control state senator accused of attempted arms smuggling. As they say, you can’t make these things up. To think that people still ask me where I get my ideas! ...

...Rather than single out Yee as a bad apple (whom, thanks to the FBI, we can feel happy has been extracted from the newly virtuous political gathering in Sacramento), I depict his corrupt colleagues bemoaning their own lack of ambition and scope compared to Yee’s staggeringly over-the-top perfidy. Given the string of recent scandals out of the state capital, from Roy Ashburn (the gay state senator who voted against gay rights, arrested for DUI) to Michael Duvall (the family values conservative caught bragging about his affairs over an open mic), Yee’s arrest does not likely signal a 99-44/100ths pure state assembly.   [Emphasis added]

What really upsets me is that all three of the most recent busts are three Democrats.  So much for the "but we're the better party" that seems to be the prevailing meme this election cycle.

I picked the wrong decade to quit drinking.

Unsurprising News

(Editorial cartoon by Jack Ohman published 7/16/13 in the Sacramento Bee and featured at McClatchy DC.)

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the speed with which the NRA responded to the outcries over the George Zimmerman acquittal.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The National Rifle Assn. made clear Wednesday that it would not budge, one day after U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. made an impassioned speech at the NAACP convention in Orlando, Fla.,  in which he exhorted the nation to take a hard look at states' various "stand your ground" laws.

Such laws have come under scrutiny since Saturday's acquittal of George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, even though Zimmerman's attorneys in April waived a "stand your ground" immunity hearing.

“The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement to the media. “To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda.”

And so with the NRA marking its post-Zimmerman stance -- which is expected to be echoed by the group's influential surrogates nationwide in the coming days and weeks -- the debate is taking shape, with civil rights groups and public figures across the country marshaling their strength and calling for a repeal.The National Rifle Assn. made clear Wednesday that it would not budge, one day after U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. made an impassioned speech at the NAACP convention in Orlando, Fla.,  in which he exhorted the nation to take a hard look at states' various "stand your ground" laws.

Such laws have come under scrutiny since Saturday's acquittal of George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, even though Zimmerman's attorneys in April waived a "stand your ground" immunity hearing.

“The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement to the media. “To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda.”

And so with the NRA marking its post-Zimmerman stance -- which is expected to be echoed by the group's influential surrogates nationwide in the coming days and weeks -- the debate is taking shape, with civil rights groups and public figures across the country marshaling their strength and calling for a repeal. ...

Central to changing the law is the question of retreat, which is not obligated under "stand your ground" laws, as opposed to some self-defense laws that treat safe retreat as a duty: If you can get away safely, you can't legally kill somebody.
“We must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely.” Otherwise, Holder said, “by allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long and, unfortunately, has victimized too many who are innocent.”   [Emphasis added]

The undermining of public safety is the point I was trying to make in my post on Wednesday.  When two armed combatants are out in public standing their ground, everyone around them are in danger once the bullets fly.  That's something the NRA and gun manufacturers don't seem to care about.  All they want is as many guns as possible in as many hands as possible.

This is a recipe for social disaster.

Too Many People Carrying Guns

David Horsey has a refreshingly sensible analysis of the whole Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman tragedy.  While a bit understated, the column did pull me back into the entire drama after I thought I could leave it alone.

A string of misperceptions has driven the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman tragedy from the very beginning, including the public misperception that perfect justice can be found in a court of law.

The misperception that propelled events from the very start was Zimmerman’s assumption that a black kid in a hoodie did not belong in his neighborhood. If he had known Martin was the guest of a local resident with no other mission than to reach home with the package of Skittles he had just purchased, Zimmerman would not have followed the young man. In fact, if he had simply not held a stereotype in his head that a young African American in a hoodie is very likely a criminal, Martin would be alive today and Zimmerman would not have had his own life turned upside down.

Conversely, if Martin had not looked at Zimmerman and seen a “cracker” – as Martin described Zimmerman in a phone call to a friend when he noticed Zimmerman behind him – he may have reacted with less fear and anger. If he had seen George Zimmerman as he appeared in court – cleanshaven, wearing a nice suit – perhaps nothing more would have happened than a brief, heated conversation. Instead, he saw a burly Latino man with a goatee, a baseball cap and clothes that made him look like a tough guy from the streets. ...

No matter what Zimmerman’s motivations may have been, no matter his feelings about black people, no matter that a police dispatcher told him not to get involved, despite any of that, the prosecution failed to undermine Zimmerman’s story that, in the thick of the confrontation, it was he who felt threatened. Even though Zimmerman’s attorneys did not base their defense on Florida's “stand your ground” law, the judge’s instructions to the jury had to take that into account. Like it or not, Florida law gave him the right to pull a gun and shoot.   [Emphasis added]

It is that last statement that concerns me right now.  Thanks to the NRA and ALEC, too many people are walking around believing that they can carry a weapon and use it whenever they feel "threatened."  This places all of the rest of us in jeopardy, as this article makes clear:

When the Legislature passed Wisconsin's concealed carry law nearly two years ago, the main argument for it was that good guys needed to carry guns to stop the bad guys.

So what to make of a road-rage incident where two concealed carry permit holders engage in a wild west-style shootout as they sped down a Milwaukee freeway? There has to be a bad guy, right?

Eric Adamany, 27, was charged with first-degree reckless endangerment in the June 26 incident, during which he allegedly emptied a magazine at a fleeing motorist. No one was hurt.

But Adamany says the other guy, 27-year-old Roy Scott, shot first. ...

...in another recent case, concealed carry permit holder Phillip Green, 40, was charged with first-degree reckless homicide after killing Ernest Banks after the two men, who were bar hopping together last May, got into a fight.   [Emphasis added]

Extreme examples?  Not really.  And both are significant for the dangers posed to those who happen to be in the vicinity, whether drivers who have to avoid bullets and careening cars or people in a nearby building when an errant shot pierces a window or a wall.

I just don't believe the old saw "an armed society is a civil society."  It seems to me we are discovering that an armed society is a dangerous one.

Aftermath

(Editorial cartoon by Glenn McCoy and featured 7/11/13 at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge.)

Yes, McCoy's cartoon is a snide comment on the "liberal press" and its coverage of the Zimmerman trial.  The trial is over, however, and the acquittal verdict is in.  The conservative spokespeople have now had their chance to gloat and bloviate.  Everyone on all sides has an opinion on the verdict and what it means for race relations and gun laws in this country.

One of the more interesting and thoughtful pieces to come out is found in an op-ed written by Robin Abcarian for the Los Angeles Times.  In her column, she talks about the attempt by his brother to rehabilitate George Zimmerman now that he has been declared innocent.

The rehabilitation of George Zimmerman has begun.

Robert Zimmerman Jr., George Zimmerman’s older brother, has launched a one-man PR effort, showing up all over CNN, on NPR, even finding time for Breitbart, to extol his brother’s essential goodness and the wisdom of the Seminole County jury that exonerated him of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the death of Trayvon Martin.

At first glance, Zimmerman is an impressive family spokesman.

Calmly, articulately and sometimes sternly, Robert has defended his little brother in a way only a loved one can do. ...

And yet, he also appears to be sensitive to racial injustice. “I will say that Sanford had a history in its police department of having issues with race and equal application and equal access to justice in that community,” he told NPR’s Rachel Martin on Sunday. “I know that has nothing to do with George, but I can see where there were concerns, initially, that something may be afoot in Sanford. Unfortunately, the pegging of George as a white man was essential to get that narrative traction and get that ball rolling.” (The Zimmermans’ father is white; their mother is Peruvian.)

But Zimmerman is disingenuous when he criticizes people for injecting race into the story. In fact, he has done as much as anyone to racialize the case.

In numerous interviews, Zimmerman has subtly injected racial stereotypes into the case, echoing defense attorney Mark O’Mara’s line that Martin was not, as the prosecution portrayed him, a teenager armed with nothing more than Skittles, but an angry, dangerous young man armed with his fists, and a sidewalk.   [Emphasis added]

My only kvetch with Abcarian's analysis is that she failed to point out that "white" refers to race;  "Peruvian" refers to ethnicity.  That aside, however, it's clear that the big brother realizes that George Zimmerman is now walking around with a large target on his back.  I suspect George is aware of that as well.  Perhaps that is a punishment no one considered, at least no one who has had to walk around as a target the way young Black men have to.

In that regard,  I would urge you to click on this link to see just what that punishment entails.

And that is punishment indeed.

Two Stories

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich ahd published 7/4/13 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.)

I admit to being a little baffled by this Luckovich cartoon, which doesn't happen often when dealing with the gentleman I consider one of the premier cartoonists in this country.  He seems to be suggesting that the people of this country are being shallow by turning off the news in the Middle East in favor of the news in Florida.

I agree that the average American is deplorably, perhaps even willfully, ignorant when it comes to world affairs, especially when it concerns the Middle East.  I also agree that the average American is more apt to want to follow a "sensationalist" story like trial of George Zimmerman on murder charges for the killing of Trayvon Martin.  Still, both stories are important.

The Zimmerman case would never have entered the consciousness of Americans outside of Florida if there hadn't been a lot of noise by the Martin family.  Once the story got picked up, we had to look at a number of issues:  racism, the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, the two kinds of justice when it came to local police departments everywhere, not just Florida.  And I think looking at those issues through the lens of the trial proceedings is important.

Sure, many Americans haven't gotten that message yet, but they never will without the coverage which this trial and cases like can bring.

In other words, lighten up, Mike!

Just A Little Misdirection Play

(Political cartoon by Matt Bors and published at Daily Kos.  Click on image to enlarge.  If you need an even larger image click on link and get the embiggened version there.)

Sometimes reading the newspaper is fun.  Rarely, but sometimes.  This article in the Los Angeles Times made me chuckle.

The White House plans to announce Tuesday that it has improved gun safety in the country by chipping away at 21 of 23 items on an executive to-do list issued in January.
But the progress report will also highlight steps that Congress has not taken, as some of the most significant measures ordered by President Obama will have little effect if lawmakers don’t act to give funding or approval.

Administration officials say there has been progress on several actions taken by Obama under executive authority, including directives to end the freeze on gun violence research and to reduce barriers that keep states from submitting records to the national background system.

They acknowledged, though, that the end to the 17-year ban on research will make little difference until Congress restores funding for the work. In addition, a more thorough database of mental health and criminal history records is valuable only if gun sellers check that database before selling firearms.

“The administration has more work to do,” said one White House official, who talked to reporters Monday on the condition of anonymity, “but Congress must also do its job.”

Getting lawmakers on board for gun proposals has proved to be no easy task. The Senate in April failed to muster the 60 votes needed to pass a measure that, among other things, would have expanded the requirement on sellers to run background checks before selling guns at gun shows and over the Internet.   [Emphasis added]

Getting lawmakers on board is of course difficult:  most of those senators voting no (and I'm talking about both sides of the aisle) are in the pockets of the NRA and the gun manufacturers.  Open Secrets has a handy chart listing them.  And there is no way any such legislation would get past this House, not as it's presently constituted.  The White House has to know that.

So why the decision to release such a report?

Well, gun control of some sort is very popular with most Americans.  The White House has discovered that being spied on by its own government is not so popular, not at all.  So, it was necessary to change the subject, which is exactly what Mr. Obama did.   And it was a pivot that would have done all one-on-one basketball players proud.

Because, of course, we are all morons and can't see what he is doing.

By the way, if you haven't signed this White House petition, please consider doing so.  Let's show the White House that we weren't suckered by the shiny keys.

That Special Gift

(Click on image to enlarge and then hustle on back.)

I've held off on commenting on the story of the 5-year-old who shot and killed his baby sister with his very own bb gun for several reasons.  First of all, I knew that I would be waking up my libertoonian nephew who is no doubt going to give me gas on the story.  But second of all, I held off because I have some conflicting views (sorta kinda) on the whole issue.

David Horsey, however, has crystallized my thinking (sorta kinda) to some extent.

This week, a 5-year-old Kentucky boy was playing with the mini-rifle he had gotten as a gift and ended up shooting and killing his 2-year-old sister. Apparently, even kindergartners have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

For many people, it was a revelation that there are companies that manufacture guns specifically for children. The boy in question had a Crickett rifle, a smaller version of an adult weapon designed specifically for little trigger fingers. The guns come in a variety of happy colors, including pink and even swirls.

Some people think giving guns that shoot real bullets to kids is a rather insane idea, but not folks in the gun culture, where it is perfectly normal. A state legislator in Kentucky, Rep. Robert R. Damron, insisted that the kiddie rifle was not the problem.   [Emphasis added]

Now, as to my first concern:  there are a lot of hunters among my family back in Wisconsin.  They hunt deer, duck, quail, whatever the season calls for.  And they eat what they kill.  Because it's a generational thing, the kids do get guns before they're 18, but I'd like to think that the kids are also given a great deal of gun safety training, perhaps even by the NRA.  I have no problem with that.  So John?  You can relax a little.

My second concern, however,  is the fact that kids as young as 5 are being targeted with size and design and color (making it look like a toy), and that at least this gun was accessible to the 5-year-old at a time when he wasn't being monitored.  What is up with that?

In California, all guns (even bb guns) must by law be locked in a gun safe or have a trigger lock in place.  It's hard for me to imagine why this kind of law isn't on the books everywhere.  Obviously it isn't.  The combination of the two concerns was deadly in this case.  The child thinks guns, all guns, are toys to be played with and so guns, all guns, can be played with.  That 9mm in the drawer next to the bed to shoot intruders is just as much a plaything as the baby bb gun is. 

And that is just wrong.  Tragically so.

Why We Can't Have Nice Things

(Editorial cartoon by Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (April 26, 2013)and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then be good enough to return.)

The NRA held its annual convention this weekend, and the speakers all pretty much fell into the wackaloon category.  You know:  Wayne LaPierre, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, those kinds of folks.  Here's how the Los Angeles Times lead off its coverage of the freak show:

Vowing that “we will never surrender,” the leader of the National Rifle Assn. claimed victory over recently defeated gun control legislation and denounced “political and media” elites for vilifying gun owners and supporting laws that would limit their rights rather than stop criminals.

“We will never give up or compromise our constitutional freedom — not one single inch,” NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre told hundreds of supporters at the group’s annual meeting here. “This is our time to stand and fight, now and in the next election.”   [Emphasis added]

It's a long article, one well worth reading in its entirety and I urge you to do so.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.  You see, there's more going on here than just the NRA organization.   The clown show has a very serious and very arrogant group behind it, as Judge's cartoon suggests.  From Open Secrets:

The latest lobbying reports show that despite decades of dominance on the issue of gun rights, the National Rifle Association was shoved aside by a newcomer -- and it wasn't a new gun control advocacy group.

The National Association for Gun Rights, a "no-compromise" gun rights group with close ties to Ron and Rand Paul, spent more than $1.8 million in the first quarter of 2013 -- almost $1 million more than the $830,000 spent by the NRA. It's the first time the group has lobbied at the federal level.

When it comes to shelling out for lobbyists, the NRA has regularly outspent all other groups that count guns as their primary issue. But even though the NRA spent more in the first quarter of this year than in the final quarter of 2012, it was swamped by the NAGR, which regards the NRA as too soft on gun rights.    [Emphasis added]

This is another article you should read all of.  NAGR included more information than it needed to in its report, signalling that the payees should pay attention, close attention.  And who are the recipients of the money from the NRA and NAGR?  Open Secrets will help you find that info as well:  folks across the political spectrum have nibbled the lettuce.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

All In All, A Lousy Week

(Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

This has been a very trying week for a lot of us.  The Boston Bombing, the ricin mailings, and now the failure of the Senate to pass even a minimal gun control bill.  David Horsey was obviously not amused by the last item.

The nation has just gone through two years of unusually awful slaughter that began with the near-fatal shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, continued on with the terrible attack at a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and climaxed with the mass murder of first-graders in Newtown, Conn. Yet, even after all of that and even with the support of an overwhelming majority of voters, it is clear that Congress will do nothing of significance to address the ongoing bloodbath that hits a different town every few months.

The National Rifle Assn., which in the 1990s actually supported a background check scheme, went all out to defeat the idea this time. Over the last decade, the NRA has become more radical on the issue of gun control, and most Republican elected officials have drifted to the extreme side with them. Just four GOP senators voted for the background check plan. ...

Once again, the win went to the bellowing paranoids on the right who see any proposal to deal with gun violence as a covert attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens. Most Americans disagree with them, but that matters little to our cowardly Congress.    [Emphasis added]

Yes, yes ... I am aware that the Republicans control the House, but even their constituents were on board with closing the loopholes in registration.  We weren't going to eliminate military style automatic weapons or large ammunition delivery systems, just require the same registration on line and at shows that we have for purchasing a gun at a dealer.  I don't think even my Libertarian nephew would object to this.

But that was too much for Wayne LaPierre and the gun manufacturers lobby and the spineless Senate caved.  What the people want doesn't matter.  Only our corporate overlords and their campaign dollars matter.  Only the wackiest of the wackaloons count.

And that is shameful.

Here We Go Again

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (March 26, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then c'mon back.)

So, the United Nations passed an arms sale treaty, one that will try to keep weaponry out of the hands of the wrong people:  terrorists, insurgents, and members of organized crime.  This is going to get interesting because the US is one of the major arms exporters in the world.

The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the world body's first treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade Tuesday, a goal sought for over a decade to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 154 to 3 with 23 abstentions. As the numbers appeared on the electronic board, loud cheers filled the assembly chamber.

A group of treaty supporters sought the vote after Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked the measure's adoption by consensus at the end of a two-week negotiating conference Thursday. The three countries voted no Tuesday, while Russia and China, both major arms exporters, abstained. ...

The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.

It covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers,  small arms and light weapons. A phrase stating that this list was “at a minimum” was dropped, according to diplomats, at the insistence of the United States. Supporters complained that this limited the treaty's scope. ...

Ammunition was a key issue in negotiations, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the U.S. and others opposed such tough restrictions.   [Emphasis added]

Here's the fun part:  now the treaty must be ratified by the various countries, the US included.  The usual suspects have already made it clear that the US should have no part of the treaty.

In the U.S., the National Rifle Assn. has opposed the arms trade treaty and urged lawmakers not to ratify it. A Heritage Foundation fellow argued it was “a no-win game for the United States” because only “law-abiding states” would follow it.

Obviously the NRA, and its backers (gun manufacturers) can't use the Second Amendment argument, so instead it's decided to use the Wayne LaPierre argument:  "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  Nothing will stop a bad terrorist like a good attack helicopter, or armed drone, or large-caliber artillery system.  Or something.

And, since the NRA essentially owns the US Senate, ratification is hardly possible.

Crazy world, this.

Uncivil War

Earlier this week, David Horsey took a look at the CPAC conference and noted the rather dramatic split in the Republican Party.  The basest base wants to maintain the purity of a party for the rich and white, while the rest of the party would like to start winning elections.

A new report commissioned by the Republican National Committee reads like an anti-GOP critique from the “lame stream media.” It describes the party as too rigidly ideological, too in thrall to greedy corporations, too disconnected from nonwhite and young voters, and in desperate need of new ideas. ...

Since the Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh wing of the party was clearly not represented on the committee, it may not be surprising that conservative purists sustained the biggest hit in the report. Still, the fact that the five took suggestions from 50,000 rank-and-file party members gives the report some weight. And the authors would have been fools if they had ignored information gathered from focus groups that indicates a great many Americans perceive Republicans as a bunch of narrow-minded, out-of-touch, homophobic, stuffy old white men who are interested only in the welfare of rich people. ...

CPAC actually provided a vivid example of the fevered, insular mindset that the RNC committee sees as a huge problem for the party. “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself," the committee’s report says. "We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.”

Yet, while the RNC is saying it is time to open the doors to new people and new ideas, the lineup of CPAC speakers was composed almost entirely of insular ideologues, gay-bashers, gun fetishists, religious fundamentalists, birth control foes and devotees of wacky conspiracy theories. CPAC stars such as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Allen West, Donald Trump and the National Rifle Assn.'s Wayne LaPierre do not represent a new direction for the GOP; they represent exactly what the Republican National Committee is warning against.    [Emphasis added]

One wag at Eschaton suggested that CPAC stood for "Crazy People Acting Crazy," and I think that summarizes it nicely.  Recent polls show that a majority of Americans want better background checks for gun purchases, have no problems with gay marriage, and are in favor of immigration reform even if it provides a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants already here.  That the Republican Party wants to tap into those majorities for votes makes perfect sense. But Palin and Rush are not about to give up, at least not yet.

If the RNC report is ignored and the Tea Party activists continue to hold a knife against the throat of the rest of the party, the GOP may find itself shut out all over the country the way it was shut out in California in 2012. 

And wouldn't that be a shame.

Curious Numbers

(Click on image to enlarge and then boogie on back.)

Why, yes.  It is David Horsey Week at Cab Drollery, primarily because once again the man is on fire.  This cartoon and column has to do with an interesting poll which dealt with gun ownership.

According to the General Social Survey, a project of the independent research organization NORC, the number of U.S. households with guns dropped from 50% in 1973 to 34% in 2012. This decline has shown up everywhere, including the historically gun-toting regions of the South and West.

According to researchers, just 23% of people in urban areas have guns, compared with 56% of country folk. Even that rural percentage is down from 70% in the 1970s. The number of hunters is dropping fast. Only 10% of women own firearms. Most young people are shunning guns -- just 23% of those under 30 have guns now, compared with 47% four decades ago. Latinos are a growing segment of the population, but their gun ownership numbers are small.

Democrats and independents have disarmed in droves. The number of Democrats with guns is half what it was when the first survey was taken in 1973. The only two demographic groups that have kept their fingers on the trigger are the elderly, holding steady at 43%, and Republicans, up slightly at 51%.

What may at first seem odd is how these numbers contrast with the many recent stories about gun shops selling out their inventory as people react to the push for tighter regulation of firearms. Who is buying all those assault rifles and handguns? Apparently, there are no statistics that can give us a definite answer, but I have a pretty good guess. ...

If the pollsters are correct, there are a whole lot of people in this country who live in an alternate reality woven from the exaggerations and outright lies of Internet fabulists, talk radio screamers and NRA propagandists. These people tend to be old, male and Republican -- the same folks who have not given up on guns.

So, the answer to the riddle seems fairly obvious: While more and more Americans are finding guns unnecessary for sport or protection, the most paranoid among us are building personal arsenals and driving gun sales through the roof.    [Emphasis added]

A warning:  I tend to be a little skeptical of poll results these days.  Too often there is a bias and that bias shows up in the selection of people polled and in the way questions are phrased.  That said, if the survey David is talking about is even minimally fair, those are some pretty astounding numbers.

I have family members who hunt, and I doubt they've turned in their deer rifles or duck-hunting shotguns.  I also know some liberals who collect guns and see nothing wrong with owning what I would call "assault rifles."  I doubt, however, that they've gone out to WalMart or gone on line to order large magazines, thousands of rounds of ammunition, or a few more military style automatic weapons.  If I'm wrong, my nephew will set me straight in comments.

That said, the danger is not so much from the hunters or the collectors, but from those who would steal those weapons, or those who would use them out of paranoia.  For those reasons, Horsey's comments and the findings of the poll he cites are grounds for some hope at the very least.

Things That Make You Go, "Meh"

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (July 27, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then please come back.)

 Doyle McManus is a whole lot more upbeat than I am when it comes to congressional efforts at gun control.  His Saturday column salutes the quiet efforts of a bipartisan group of congress critters to shape a passable reform.  I guess he figures something is better than nothing.

Are they getting anything done on Capitol Hill? Yes, and you'll probably be surprised to hear where progress is being made: gun control.

In both the Senate and the House, bipartisan teams of legislators have taken meaningful steps toward passing new laws in the wake of the December massacre in Newtown, Conn.

The measures inching ahead aren't the high-profile proposals that have attracted the most attention. There's little hope that the current Congress will pass a ban on all assault weapons, and not much more that it will pass a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 30 rounds.

But there is a good chance that Congress will do two things: strengthen the system of background checks on gun buyers and toughen the penalties for illegal gun trafficking. In practical terms, those measures are probably more important than an assault-weapons ban, which wouldn't affect the millions of military-style guns already in circulation.   [Emphasis added]

 Oh, please.

There are ways around the problems, like buy-back programs (no questions asked) and enforcement programs, all sorts of possible work-arounds.  The problem is that our national politicians are owned by the NRA lock, stock, and barrell (as it were).

I'm tired of having to settle, of having to accept incrementalism, of having to just be patient.  Too many people are still dying, many from the same weapons which are useful only as collector's items until they're stolen or misappropriated by the deranged, drunk, or angry.

I'm too old for this.

What A Surprise

[Note:  I'm having some financial problems right now.  I know my timing is atrocious, given all the fund raisers lately, but if you can spare a little more, please donate to my "cat food for me and Home Boy" fund.  Thank you.]

(Editorial cartoon by Jack Ohman / Sacramento Bee (January 30, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge.)

This headline caused me to blink:  "Wal-Mart limits ammunition sales as demand soars."  Naturally I read the article, and I was soon disabused of any misconception that Wal-Mart was showing some good citizenship.

A month after a massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, demand for ammunition is so high that Wal-Mart is limiting sales to keep supply stable.

As of last week, customers nationwide will only be able to purchase three boxes a day from the mega-retailer because “supply is limited,” said spokeswoman Ashley Hardie.

She declined to speculate on the reasons behind the surge in interest, but said the company is “monitoring supply issues daily and working with suppliers to ship ammunition to stores.”

“We’re taking care of as many customers as possible,” Hardie said.   [Emphasis added]

Gotta keep those blue-light special shoppers happy, even if it does mean multiple trips to the store.  Who knows?  Maybe shoppers will pick up a few things besides bullets with each visit.

The business of America is business.

I knew that.

Paranoia Strikes Deep

[Note:  I'm having some financial problems right now.  I know my timing is atrocious, given all the fund raisers lately, but if you can spare a little more, please donate to my "cat food for me and Home Boy" fund.  Thank you.]

The news has shifted from immigration to gun control the past couple of days.  I'm about as optimistic on this issue as I am on the various immigration proposals.  David Horsey seems to agree with me.

Gun owners truly have nothing to worry about. There are no federal commandos coming to break down their doors and take away their guns.

Sure, there is an outside chance that a universal gun registration system will be approved by Congress, but anything more, including -- and especially -- an assault weapons ban, will be scuttled by the House Republican caucus, if not by Democrats trying to win reelection in gun-friendly red states.

And yet, given the rhetoric of the National Rifle Assn. lobbyists and the noisy agitators in the conservative media complex, one would think that President Obama is planning the modern equivalent of the British march on Lexington to confiscate patriot firearms. ...

But, paranoid rants aside, the logical conclusion of the hyper conservatives' argument ends in a strange place. If the patriots of 1776 could match the redcoats with muskets and cannon, doesn’t the absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment suggest that today’s "patriots" should be able to stand against a modern army? Doesn't it mean that citizens have a right to keep and bear, not just AR-15s, but rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets and attack helicopters?   [Emphasis added]

Please, David.  Let's not give the NRA new talking points for their crazier supporters.

The distressing part is that it's not just the conservative House that will block any meaningful gun control laws (which would ban private ownership of semi-automatic military-style weapons and large ammunition clips, as well as end the gun show exception to background checks).  Democrats in both houses of Congress have also come to enjoy the largess of the NRA and gun manufacturers.  It is unlikely that many will be willing to bite the hand that has fed them so well.

Meanwhile, death by guns in the hands of private citizens is a daily occurrence.  That doesn't seem to bother our elected representatives in Washington.

Bringin' It, Part 2

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers, published by the Charlotte Observer 1/17/13 and featured by McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

This is pretty much an update from my post yesterday on the President's gun control proposal.  At that time I noted that he was fairly strong in his presentation, but I wondered whether he would hold to his position once the gun nut yahoos and the NRA got to their bought-and-paid-for members of Congress.  It appears that Obama is going to do more than sit back and watch on this issue.

From the Los Angeles Times:

A somber President Obama, launching a public campaign Wednesday for a package of gun-control measures that is likely to face very tough opposition in Congress, signaled that he was prepared to go over the heads of lawmakers to push for his proposals.

In an effort to capitalize on emotions from last month’s massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, Obama couched his initiative in the context of protecting children from needless violence, and White House aides placed four children onstage with him to dramatize his plea.

“This will be difficult,” Obama said. “There will be pundits and politicians and special-interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear, or higher ratings, or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform.” ...

“I will put everything I’ve got into this,” Obama said, but added, “This will not happen unless the American people demand it.”

In a sign of just how difficult it will be to force legislative action, Obama called on the public to demand that Congress bring the proposals up for a vote, and put pressure lawmakers who oppose his plan.  [Emphasis added] 

Apparently President Obama was serious about his plan to get the public involved.  I received an email from the White House signed by Joe Biden urging me to go here and sign on in support of the president's proposals.  I suspect I got the email because I signed the petition at the White House web site which garnered over 200,000 signatures in just a few days proposing our gun laws be tightened.  Dutifully, I clicked on the link and discovered a recap of the presidents proposals.

If this effort to reduce gun violence is to succeed, it’s going to require all of us coming together and calling for a safer country. Sign on to show your support for the President’s plan to protect our kids and communities, then share this page with others.

The sign in portion only really requires the signer's email address and zip code.  The zip code will come in handy for identifying the signer's congress critters and the email for further updates.  I think this is a canny idea and I'm pleased to see the strategy.  Apparently President Obama is serious about getting reasonable (if limited) legislation passed.

I did leave a comment, essentially noting that while I considered the proposals were merely a start, at least it was a start.  I suggest you make the trip over to the site and leave at least your email and zip code.  As I've noted many times, unless we-the-people make it clear to our elected officials that we're the ones who vote, who ultimately own the chairs they've plunked their backsides into, we won't get the government we deserve.

Do it.  Make a cranky old lady happy.

Bringin' It

(Editorial cartoon by David Horsey and published 1/16/13 in the Los Angeles Times.  If you click on the link you'll get not only an enlarged image but also Horsey's commentary.)

I do find that Obama 2.0 is a bit more acceptable than the initial version.  I'm hearing less of the "Why can't we all just get along" and more of the "It's time to get it done.  My way."  He's pressuring Congress and he's demanding they walk and chew gum at the same time on contentious issues:  debt ceiling, immigration, and, today, gun control.

President Obama on Wednesday unveiled a broad array of executive actions and legislative proposals to curb gun violence, including a new push to ban assault weapons, impose a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines, and expand background checks for gun purchasers.

At a White House event, the president began to outline 23 separate actions he can take unilaterally, including authorizing research on gun violence and nominating a full-time director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The president will call on Congress to swiftly pass a series of proposals that would, among other things, go beyond closing the gun show loophole that exempts some sellers from running criminal background checks, and enact stiffer penalties for gun traffickers. ...

All told, aides said in advance of the president's remarks, Obama's package addresses four key goals: keeping guns out of the wrong hands, keeping “weapons of war” off the streets, making schools safer, and improving mental health services.

(The 23 executive orders are summarized here.)

As he showed us in the health care bill, Mr. Obama is an incrementalist.  At least this time around he's delivering the message with some teeth showing.  His proposals are not exactly what is needed, but it's enough of a start that the NRA and the gun worshipers are going nuts in response.  A couple of congress critters have already muttered the word "Impeachment."  I doubt that move will get much support, but getting any kind of gun control bill passed in the House is going to be difficult.

It will be interesting to see how much pressure the White House is willing to exert to get his proposals passed.  I think we're going to have to be the ones to do the pressuring, but a little back-up would be nice.

Lead Poisoning

I must admit that I'm surprised the discussion on gun control continues.  I had expected two, maybe three weeks of coverage after the Connecticut Massacre and then our notoriously short attention spans would be attracted to the latest issue, like the debt ceiling.  Yes, there are lots of electrons and ink being spilled on the tussle between Obama and the GOP, but gun control issues continue to be discussed.

I suspect a large part of the reason for the continued attention is that the NRA and its merry band of crazies just won't shut up on it.  David Horsey also noticed that.

Supporters of gun rights make a fair point when they insist that guns are not the sole cause of the problem. They are very likely right that the ultra-violence in movies and video games inspires already troubled young minds to re-create bloody fantasies in real life. And they are right that something must be done to stop those warped-minded individuals who pull the triggers before they can do their evil deeds.

But the gun rights folks seem incapable of acknowledging that guns are part of the problem too. There are mentally deranged people and violent entertainment and video games in every developed country, but only in this one is there such frequent carnage. The one factor that is different is that, in the United States, there are as many guns as there are people.

This would suggest that it is at least worth considering measures that would make it more difficult for the wrong people to get hold of weapons. Yet, when better background checks or tighter regulation of private gun sales are proposed, too many gun enthusiasts immediately start screaming about confiscation. They insist that any step toward better regulation of firearms is an unthinkable slide toward a Stalinist world of gulags, government tyranny and defenseless citizens. ...

In recent days, a tenured communications professor at Florida Atlantic University, James Tracy, wrote several blog posts that suggested the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown may well have been a staged event with actors hired by the Obama administration and orchestrated to provide a pretext for pushing gun control.

Now, that is about the most crazy and obscene allegation that has ever oozed from the right-wing blogosphere. But when the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported about the professor's theory, quite a few readers called and emailed the newspaper to defend and applaud Tracy’s ideas.

This explains why laws that would keep guns out of the hands of crazy people are opposed by many firearms fans. So many of them seem to be totally nuts.   [Emphasis added]

Well, that and the fact that the NRA in conjunction with their buddies who sell guns and ammo want NO restriction on guns.  Zero.  Nada.  No matter what they say when called to task for what some of the clearly deranged mouth off.

Swept along by the tide of outrage and sorrow after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, Congress passed a law to try to prevent future tragedies by keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

The measure, signed by President George W. Bush, promised to strengthen the 14-year-old National Instant Criminal Background Check System by establishing incentives and penalties to prod states to submit records of people legally barred under federal law from buying guns — including those who had been committed to mental institutions.

But today, that promise remains unfulfilled. More than half the states haven't provided mental health records to the federal database that gun dealers use to check on buyers. And the gap in dealing with the mentally ill is just one of myriad problems that have hampered background checks. ...

The background check system, which became effective in 1998, was part of a 1993 law that prohibited people from possessing guns if they were convicted of a felony, addicted to drugs, committed domestic violence or were involuntarily sent to a mental institution.

Gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Assn., have fought expansion of those checks. Though the NRA says it supports making sure the names of "violent schizophrenics" are in the database, the group also made it tougher for states to comply — by successfully lobbying for a provision in the 2007 law that requires an appeals process so the mentally ill can seek to have their gun rights restored. States must set that up before they can receive federal grants to help collect records.  [Emphasis added]

If the NRA will balk at denying guns to the mentally ill, they will surely balk at measures which limit the size of ammunition magazines, the bulk sales of ammunition over the internet, the banning of civilian purchases of military style semi-automatic weapons, even though most Americans think all of those ideas are pretty sound, if only a minimalist start.

So, will we get at least something out of Congress on the issue?  Sadly, it's pretty hard to tell.  In fact, it might be pretty damned difficult.  Mike Luckovich shows us why.

(Mike's cartoon was published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on January 11, 2013.  Click on image to enlarge and then add your congress critters' office numbers to speed dial.)

Up Next, Number 113

(Editorial cartoon by Glenn McCoy / Belleville News-Democrat (January 2, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC.)

No, I've not posted a Glenn McCoy cartoon to make fun of it.  He may be a conservative, but I think his cartoon captures the essence of the last few days nicely.  Neither side should be pleased by the lazy, shoddy legislating going on in Washington.  The best they could manage was to repair a u-joint fixture leak with plumber's putty and a shrug.  It also helped that his rendering of what I'm sure he intended as a "pink Cadillac" looks more like a "pink Mercedes," but that's an aesthetic opinion.

The 112th Congress finally is over, but not until it kicked the can on all sorts of issues to the next Congress.  The deal made might have made Wall Street happy (and judging from yesterday's numbers, it made Wall Street very happy), but the rest of us are pretty much disgusted.  I don't imagine that bad taste will improve over the next two years, but I would love to be wrong.  Just the first six months of the new Congress are going to be daunting.  Here's what it looks like the 113th Congress will be facing the first several months of its session.

First 60-90 Days:

Thanks to the fiscal cliff deal, the "deficit" cuts are front and center.  The Republicans want cuts, deep cuts, because ... well, because deficits.  Deficits don't matter when the GOP runs the government, but you can bet they do when the Democrats have the White House and one chamber of Congress.  The GOP wants cuts, deep cuts, to government spending, but only that spending which benefits the 99% of us.  That means Social Security (chained CPI) and Medicare/Medicaid (raising age for eligibility, lowering funds for the destitute seeking medical treatment) are on the line.  So is funding for education, the EPA, Department of Transportation, and (of course) PBS.  The Defense Department budget can't be touched because, well, defense.  And certain parts of the Department of Homeland Security can't be touched because, well, terror.

What our president and our Democrats will do is hard to tell, but so far, the "conceder-in-chief" and the DLC Dems seem willing to sell us out on all sorts of issues.

Of course, there's also the issue of the debt ceiling, about which I spoke yesterday.  The Republicans have already indicated that will be their point of attack, their wedge.  It didn't work out so well the last time they used it, but that won't stop them from trying it again.  And again.

Hurricane Sandy relief also will be a major issue early in the session, primarily because House Speaker Boehner refused to put it up for a vote before the 112th Congress left town.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and NY Congressman Peter King (both Republicans) raised enough holy hell over this that Boehner has promised to bring the bill up for a vote immediately.  Of course, come this afternoon, Boehner may no longer be the House Speaker, so it's hard to tell whether that $60 billion request will be considered.

Next 60-90 Days:

The next set of issues will have to be heard, although not necessarily disposed of in deference to the above.  As I noted earlier in the week, our congress critters are not long on multitasking skills.  Still, the Democrats do have a couple of pressing issues which they need to at least introduce. 

The whole "fiscal cliff" meme has clogged the national discourse, pushing a couple of issues out of sight of the voters.  One important issue which has disappeared from view is that of gun control.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein has promised to submit a bill which at least reinstates the prior assault weapons ban in mid-January.  Some of my liberal friends worry that the issue has faded from the national consciousness because of all the hot coverage of economic issues.  My gut feeling is that by mid-March we will have had at least one more mass shooting incident to rev up national consciousness.  That would fit with our recent history.  And isn't that a shame.

The other issue which the White House will hopefully do some serious leaning on is that of immigration reform.  Various immigration groups have begun to lean on the White House, especially since those groups turned out their people (now a serious demographic in this country) in 2012.  The White House has responded by easing up on some of its enforcement policies, and, most recently, has tried to find a way to return deported family members to the US so that their presence is legal.  That's a start, but it still leaves the future of ten million undocumented people in the country in limbo.  This needs to be addressed.

That's only the first six months of what the 113th Congress faces, but, assuming it can be more productive than the 112th Congress (which wouldn't be all that difficult if our congress critters were held to the same productivity rules as the rest of us), that's the bare minimum of what we should expect over the next two years.

I have to admit that while all of this plays out, I am going to spend at least part of my time reveling in the fact that pitchers and catchers will report for Spring Training in less than two months.  I have my limits.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/31/178687/mcclatchy-cartoons-for-the-week.html#storylink=cpy

Rocket Launchers?

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/28/12 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

Last Monday I posted on the successful gun buy-back by authorities in San Diego.  In that post I mentioned that the City of Los Angeles had bumped its gun buy-back from Mothers Day to 12/26/12.  Well, the results are in.  The Los Angeles event also was an astounding success.

A one-day gun buyback event in Los Angeles on Wednesday gathered 2,037 firearms, including 75 assault weapons and two rocket launchers, officials said. The total was nearly 400 more weapons than were collected in a similar buyback earlier this year. ...

Hundreds lined up in cars to get Ralphs gift cards in exchange for different types of guns. Villaraigosa said the LAPD collected 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The weapons will be melted down.  [Emphasis added]

The deal is that the police department takes the weapons with no questions asked.  That means, unfortunately, that we won't know how those two rocket launchers were obtained by civilians or whether they had any rockets for the weaponry.  At least the weapons were turned in.

The event was such an overwhelming success that the LAPD ran out of the gift cards donated by Ralphs (a chain of grocery stores owned by Kroger).  The City Controller had to do some quick scrambling to get private donations for more.  Some of the people turning in the weapons, however, declined the gift cards and the wait involved in getting them over to the two sites.  They told the police they were just glad to get the weapons out of their homes.

I consider this all a powerful message, one that I hope that next Congress will take notice of.  I also hope that other cities will set up such events, with or without help from the federal government.