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.

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.

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.

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.

Incrementalism

(Political cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen and published at Dry Bones.  Click on image to enlarge and then be kind enough to return.)

OK, I'm trying to claw myself out of the miasma of incredible sadness and depression following the Newtown Massacre.  I'm old,  and I don't have that many years left.  I don't want to spend the rest of my days weeping in bed with the covers pulled over my head.  That's the coward's way out.  It's time to move from sadness to anger, from immobilization to activism.

The ideal response would be to institute widespread changes which would ban all guns save hunting rifles from civilians, but even I know that ain't gonna happen right now.  Just like universal access to healthcare, we're apparently going to have to take an incremental approach.  Of course, that means we're going to have continuing deaths by guns, either in terms of mass killings or in terms of  "murder-suicides" or domestic violence.  People will still die, but perhaps not as many.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has seen the results of gun violence up close and personal, has already indicated she will be introducing a bill in the next Congress which will essentially re-instate the assault weapons ban.

Two days after the shooting deaths of 26 people at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pledged Sunday that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session.

“It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession,” the California senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

Feinstein said the purpose of her proposal, a version of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, is to get “weapons of war off the streets of our cities.”

OK, that's a start, but only a tiny baby-step.  I'd like to see more for this start, as would a lot of my friends.  In a discussion at Eschaton, folks came up with a list of other terms for the first step.  I have added a few to the list, including the following:

1. The banning of internet sales of guns and ammunition.
2. The addition of a stiff federal tax on both guns and ammunition to be set aside for a federal buy-back program on military-type assault weapons and hand guns.
3. The banning of gun shows.
4. The requirement of registration at the time of ammunition purchase with a delay while a background check has been run.
5. The mandatory reporting to the federal government of large sales of ammunition.
6. The requirement that mental health professionals report individuals who should not have access to firearms much as they are required to report in some states individuals who are a threat to themselves or others.

This is, once again, just a start, but one we have to make that start if we are going to move this country, and it is one which might just might save a few lives.

All of this might look like weak tea, but you can be sure that the gun-rights people will begin howling as soon as a decent period of grieving for the deaths of 20 first graders is over.  That means we have to get active.

As soon as the 113th Congress has been sworn in we need to let our senators and our representative in the House know what we expect of them.  We can't expect the current congressional toadies to be interested in the issue in the next ten days.  And, of course, we can hold our president's feet to the fire on the issue after his comments at the Newtown vigil on 12/16/12.

We can also sign  a petition at the White House site.  Yes, it requires registration, but if you're on the internet and reading blogs such as this, the government has already got information on you.

We need to do these things because, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing."

Hurry Up, Please. It's Time. UPDATED

(Editorial cartoon by Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (December 13, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then please return your backside to this post.  Thank you.)

So, another shooting, this time at a shopping mall at the height of the holiday shopping season.  I suppose we should be grateful that the death toll this time is in single digits, but I don't take much comfort in that.  It's another one of those cases of  "it should never have happened."

I do, however, take some comfort that the governor of Colorado is finally willing to speak out against the ease with which people can obtain the kinds of weapon that wreak this kind of madness.  Gov. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, refused any kind of call for a change in gun laws after the Aurora shooting, but apparently he's had a change of heart.

From an AP report published in the Denver Post.

Five months after a movie theater massacre in suburban Denver shocked the nation, Colorado's Gov. John Hickenlooper now says "the time is right" for state lawmakers to consider gun control measures.

The Democratic governor has until now resisted calls to review state gun laws after the shootings in Aurora. Hickenlooper upset some in his party when he said last summer that stricter laws would not have prevented the massacre.

In an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday, Hickenlooper said enough time has passed since the tragedy and that the legislative session in January would be an appropriate time to take up a debate gun control measures.

Now Gov. Hickenlooper is not exactly the wild-eyed radical bent on wresting 2nd Amendment rights from all right-thinking citizens.  In fact, he's one of those "go along to get along" Dems we've been blessed with.  In other words, he's a DINO.

From the same AP report not reproduced in the initial Denver Post report:

Hickenlooper said the issues that merit discussion include "things like, do we all need assault weapons?" which he said are "designed for warfare" and "designed to pierce bulletproof vests and body armor." ...

Hickenlooper has long prided himself on being a moderate who tries to forge compromises between Republicans and Democrats. But the upcoming session could pose challenges to Hickenlooper with Democrats controlling both chambers of the Legislature, unlike the previous two years of split legislative control. Now legislation that Republicans heavily oppose can actually get to Hickenlooper's desk, forcing him to take difficult stances.   [Emphasis added]

Rubber, meet road.

UPDATE :

A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left 27 people dead, including 18 children, an official said.

Kyrie Eleison

We Lost (This Round)

(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.)

I don't always agree with Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times; in fact, I suspect I disagree with him about 60% of the time. I'll tell you what, though: I may disagree with him but I always read what he has to say because I respect him. He doesn't pull theories out of his netherparts to make a point. He presents his evidence fairly and sends me back to examine my own position. In other words, he keeps me honest.

I don't completely agree with his latest column, but he raises some important points. His thesis is that the NRA has effectively squelched any meaningful discussion of gun control after the Aurora tragedy and has done so with patient and effective work over decades. We differ only in the assignment of reasons as to why this happened.

McManus begins his column by pointing out that the NRA didn't always rule the roost. After the assassinations of President Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King, Congress had no problem is passing gun control legislation. But that was then. Things have changed since then, and he traces what those changes involve.

This week, days after a gunman with an assault rifle killed 12 moviegoers in a Colorado theater, neither Romney nor President Obama raised the now-radical notion of reviving the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Even the ban's principal author, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), admitted that it was a lost cause for now.

Feinstein blamed the National Rifle Assn. and other gun rights groups for blocking new laws. "They pour a lot of money [into election campaigns], and some people lost office after they voted for the legislation before," she said.

OK, that's the first reason, and I agree with that. The NRA has been assiduously pouring money into their drive to buy Congress and has been quite successful (as Kevin Siers points out).

McManus goes further, however, and suggests that the mood of the public (the electorate) has changed since the 1970s for other reasons as well.

The public doesn't agree with the NRA that gun laws should be eased further — only 11% hold that view, according to Gallup. But on the core issue — the right to gun ownership with only minimal government oversight — the NRA has won the debate.

Social scientists have differing opinions about why public opinion has shifted so remarkably, but one likely explanation is that crime is down. ...

Another probable reason for the shift is a precipitous drop in citizens' confidence in the federal government. In 2011, Gallup found that only 43% of Americans said they trusted the federal government to handle domestic problems, the lowest ever recorded; 49% said they considered the federal government "an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens," the highest ever recorded. When people are that suspicious of federal power, they're wary of federal gun laws too.

Political polarization is also a factor. Gone are the days when the two parties could find middle ground on gun control. ... [Emphasis added]

Polls seem to indicate that Americans recognize that there really is no reason for private citizens to have an assault weapon. It's not really a hunting weapon (unless one is a really crazed deer-hunter), and it's ineffectiveness for self-defense was demonstrated in the Aurora shooting: the damned thing jammed, which is the principal complaint by troops stuck with the military version of the rifle. It is unlikely that the drop in violent crimes was caused by the presence of those weapons in the general population.

Still, it's hard to dismiss the suspicions of the general public when it comes "self-defense." Since 9/11 I've been harping on the government usurpation of my civil liberties via the Patriot Acts (in its various iterations) and the executive orders bypassing Congress completely when it comes to "Homeland Security." That said, however, I also know that my 9 mm Sigsauer wouldn't be any match for the firepower of the Los Angeles Country Sheriff's Department or the FBI or the local National Guard if the feds decided I was nuisance enough to nail.

However, I still say that allowing those of us who for various reasons have lost a grip on rationality to stockpile those weapons is more dangerous than the government under even the most Orwellian of scenarios. We have other, and in many respects better weapons, to use. We can simply refuse to cooperate. Enough of us doing so could leave a mark.

In the meantime, McManus' conclusion does in fact ring true:

That absence of debate is the best evidence that the NRA has won the argument, at least for now. Obama represents a party whose voters are, on this issue, dissenters from the American majority. Most Democrats, especially urban Democrats, say they still want tougher gun laws, such as a renewed assault weapons ban that would outlaw the 100-round magazine that James Holmes allegedly used to kill the moviegoers in Colorado. But Obama wants to carry independent voters too, and he can read the polls.

For that President Obama should be ashamed. And so should we all.

Epic Fail, Again

(Editorial cartoon by Joel Pett / Lexington Herald-Leader (July 23, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image and then please return.)

I've held off posting on the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was that I was both sickened and saddened by yet another senseless tragedy which could have been and should have been avoided. I was also outraged, outraged that this could happen again even though I know it now happens with great regularity in this gun-mad country.

How is it that someone can buy thousands of rounds of ammunition over the internet, can buy full body armor over the internet, and can buy three guns (including an assault rifle) all within the span of a couple of months? Was no one paying attention? Didn't anyone, especially the government, see this as, well, curious and worth looking into?

Yet we are told by those who claim to be serious people that this is not the time to talk openly about gun control. Is there no better time than this? Or is there simply no time at all for such a serious discussion because it might infringe on the rights and feelings of those who think having a lot of guns out in the general population with no controls at all is a good thing?

I suggest that those serious people go read what a very wise woman had to say about the issues raised by this tragedy.

Hecate nailed it in all sorts of ways, even as Joel Pett did. Now it's time for some serious discussion and some serious action.

Lift The Rock ...

...and see what skitters out.

We're finally seeing some MSM reporting on ALEC and its effect on governance in this country. Finally. And it's amazing what a little sunshine can do.

First, from McClatchy DC:

At least 30 bills have been introduced in the Missouri statehouse in recent years that are nearly identical to legislation originally written by a conservative organization whose membership includes some of the country’s largest corporations.

A study released Monday by the liberal group Progress Missouri purported to detail how the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has “exerted extraordinary and secretive influence in the Missouri legislature and other states.”

Nearly 50 current and former legislators in the Show-Me State have ties to ALEC, including House Speaker Steven Tilley, House Majority Leader Tim Jones and Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer. ...

To encourage attendance at their conferences, where the work drafting model legislation is done, ALEC offers “scholarships” to members to pay for transportation, hotel and meals. In addition to working groups that actually craft the organization’s model legislation, lawmakers are treated to corporate-sponsored events, such as golf tournaments and evening receptions. [Emphasis added]

So, for a paltry $50, state legislators get invited for an all-expenses paid trip to, say, New Orleans for a weekend of legislative training, golf, and booze. They go home with the bills proposed already written for them. All they have to do is introduce them. Voter suppression bills, anti-environmental regulation bills, anti-union bills, guns-for-everybody-all-the-time bills: all tied up in a neat package for them. No additional effort required.

And then the Trayvon Martin case hit the national consciousness, along with the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, a law which has been replicated in many other states. Suddenly people started paying attention.

From an editorial in the New York Times:

A year ago, few people outside the world of state legislatures had heard of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a four-decade-old organization run by right-wing activists and financed by business leaders. The group writes prototypes of state laws to promote corporate and conservative interests and spreads them from one state capital to another.

That was before Trayvon Martin was shot. Here's what happened after:

That was apparently the last straw for several prominent corporations that had been financial supporters of ALEC. In recent weeks, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Intuit, Mars, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have stopped supporting the group, responding to pressure from activists and consumers who have formed a grass-roots counterweight to corporate treasuries. That pressure is likely to continue as long as state lawmakers are more responsive to the needs of big donors than the public interest. ...

The corporations abandoning ALEC aren’t explicitly citing the Stand Your Ground statutes as the reason for their decision. But many joined the group for narrower reasons, like fighting taxes on soda or snacks, and clearly have little interest in voter ID requirements or the N.R.A.’s vision of a society where anyone can fire a concealed weapon at the slightest hint of a threat. [Emphasis added]

And ALEC has noticed. From The Nation (via Susie Madrak):

Pressured by watchdog groups, civil rights organizations and a growing national movement for accountable lawmaking, the American Legislative Exchange Council announced Tuesday that it was disbanding the task force that has been responsible for advancing controversial Voter ID and “Stand Your Ground” laws.

ALEC, the shadowy corporate-funded proponent of so-called “model legislation” for passage by pliant state legislatures, announced that it would disband its “Public Safety and Elections” task force. The task force has been the prime vehicle for proposing and advancing what critics describe as voter-suppression and anti-democratic initiatives—not just restrictive Voter ID laws but also plans to limit the ability of citizens to petition for referendums and constitutional changes that favor workers and communities. The task force has also been the source of so-called “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” laws that limit the ability of police and prosecutors to pursue inquiries into shootings of unarmed individuals such as Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

The decision to disband the task force appears to get ALEC out of the business of promoting Voter ID and “Stand Your Ground” laws. That’s a dramatic turn of events, with significant implications for state-based struggles over voting rights an elections, as well as criminal justice policy. But it does not mean that ALEC will stop promoting one-size-fits-all “model legislation” at the state level. [Emphasis added]

While seeing the scurrying by major corporations and even ALEC itself away from the voter suppression law and "Stand Your Ground Laws" is heartening, the caveat at the end of the above quoted material is important. ALEC will continue facilitating the secret meetings between corporations and state legislators, even if the more flammable subjects are off the table. Unless the media and citizens continue to raise hell over this blatant attempt to run state governments in a mode contrary to the interests of citizens, things will go along as usual.

Like I said, a little sunshine can cure all sorts of evils. That's why a truly free press is important.

Bam!

David Horsey has a timely column up on the "Stand Your Ground" laws that keep popping up all over the country. The NRA certainly has had its way of late (the last twenty years), but has that organization and its adherents finally reached it's limit? Probably not.

To stifle any incipient sense of security, gun-rights advocates have been busy inventing new laws to solve problems that do not exist. The now-controversial "stand your ground" law in Florida is a fine example of this. Before the legislation was passed, nobody had gotten into serious trouble for using a gun to rightfully defend himself in the Sunshine State. Nevertheless, with the urging of the NRA, the Florida Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a law guaranteeing citizens the right to start shooting instead of running if they feel threatened.

Since the law took effect, the number of Florida gun owners killing someone and successfully claiming justifiable homicide has tripled. This means either that a lot of people had been running away before or that quite a few people are now exploiting the law to bump somebody off and then claim self-defense.

Either/or, it's a chilling scenario, one that will become increasingly frosty, especially come August in Tampa when the Republican National Convention comes to town. Convention organizers have already issued rules on what cannot be carried in the area outside the convention hall (where the Secret Service has the final say). Everything from scissors to umbrellas with metal tips are banned. What isn't banned, however, are guns, something a New York Times editorial notes.

Tampa officials wanted to ban handguns outside the convention hall (the Secret Service has undisputed power to ban weapons inside the hall) but came up against the state law, which imposes $100,000 fines on local governments that try to meet such obvious public-safety needs. This lethal parody of gun control should be repealed, like the notorious Stand Your Ground law. But voters cannot expect common sense from the Republican-controlled Legislature, which is on a leash held by the gun lobby. ...

Political leaders mindful of public safety should be able to solve Tampa’s gun control problem. But there’s scant few of them in the statehouse. The scene developing in Tampa is a national embarrassment that spotlights how timorous American politicians are before the gun lobby.

A recipe for disaster? Probably. But as Atrios pointed out, "Republicans have been desperate to create gun heaven, and now they have it. What's the problem? "

Heh, indeedy.

It's Complicated

David Horsey's recent cartoon and column pretty well captures a significant strand in the Trayvon Martin tragedy: that of the racism African Americans, especially young men, still endure.

Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old kid walking back to his father's house after buying a package of Skittles at a convenience store. George Zimmerman was an overzealous block watch volunteer carrying a gun. Zimmerman may have been carrying something else around with him: an attitude about black kids and where they belonged. ...

Zimmerman considered Martin a suspicious character -- at least that's what he was telling the 911 dispatcher he had on the line. He also told the dispatcher that "these ... always get away," according to a recording of the call that has been released. Then he took off running after Martin and uttered to the dispatcher a word that some listeners heard to be a racial epithet.

Martin, of course, was African American and, even though this gated neighborhood in Sanford, Fla., happened to be where his dad lived, in Zimmerman's eyes, he did not belong there.

Yes, even after electing a Black man President of the United States, our society still is wracked by racism. And, yes, it is hard to imagine this scenario playing out as it did without that racism being part of the equation. When an alleged journalist can go on national television and suggest that a young Black man wearing a hoodie is just asking to be a target, we may feign outrage at the blatant racism of the statement, but we also need to admit that the statement is sadly true.

And so, once again, our nation is revisiting one of the most painful aspects of our culture. We were due, and it is a subject that needs to be acknowledged and openly discussed. All sides need to be part of the conversation, and all sides need to listen closely to what is being said and what is not being said if we are to move beyond this morass, however glacially, into a more open society where the content of one's character really is more important than the color of one's skin or the shape of one's eyes.

But, as I suggested at the top, racism is only one part of the story. The other significant part is the Florida law which allowed George Zimmerman to walk around his neighborhood playing cop with a gun strapped to his thigh. The law enabled the racism to move beyond crude epithets to a deadly outcome, something which opponents of the law warned would happen. Now, even proponents of the law are beginning to realize that maybe that law just isn't working out as it should.

Opinions about so-called "stand your ground" legislation — at the center of the Trayvon Martin killing in Sanford, Fla. — are as vastly different as the cases in which it has been invoked since Florida in 2005 became the first state to adopt such a statute. But now, even defenders of "stand your ground" laws say they may need tweaking to clarify the stew of interpretations that critics say are letting people like George Zimmerman, who shot the unarmed 17-year-old, get away with murder. ...

Few dispute the right of people to defend themselves inside their homes. The problem comes when both parties have a right to be where an assault has occurred, as in the Martin case, said Jacksonville, Fla., defense attorney Eric Friday, who lobbied for "stand your ground." "You fall back on who was the aggressor," he said.

That forces prosecutors "to prove the person is not reasonable" when someone opens fire, said Sam Hoover, an attorney at the Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco, which opposes the laws. "It makes it hard in cases, including the Trayvon Martin case, to arrest the individual who killed him." [Emphasis added]

As I pointed out in an earlier post on this story, anyone with two functioning brain cells could have predicted that the law would bring forth a tragedy like this one. Tweaking it by giving the local constabulary the power to arrest the last man standing isn't going to change anything. Yes, at least George Zimmerman would not be walking around a free man while he awaited trial on the issues, but Trayvon Martin would still be dead. That's as warped a view of justice as I can imagine.

Contrary to the opinion of the all-sanctified holy NRA, the Second Amendment is not about the right to walk around town wearing a gun to shoot anyone who looks threatening, hoodie or not. It's time that organization and its bought-and-paid-for politicians are brought to heel. It's time to repeal this type of law and others like it. It is enabling legislation of the worst kind.