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.

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.

What Libby Said

I'm still having a great deal of difficulty processing the whole Newtown Massacre, so I still don't have much to say coherently.  Maybe tomorrow.

Libby Spencer, however, was at her eloquent best, so I recommend you drop by her joint and read what she has to say.  The picture was snagged from that post.

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

Shiny Keys

I guess there are some weekends I should just stay in bed, covers pulled up over my head. This past weekend was one of those in many respects. David Horsey, in his recent cartoon and commentary, gives one of the chief reasons why. Congressidiot Issa (Stooge, CA) is gunning for Attorney General Eric Holder, hoping to nail him with contempt charges for not cooperating with Congress in spilling his guts on the issue of "Fast and Furious" and the nefarious White House plan on taking away our Second Amendment Rights.

The brouhaha over Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and the contempt of Congress charge brought by U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) are providing new evidence that the lunatics are running the Republican asylum.

Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, would have us believe President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege in the dispute -- “an eleventh-hour stunt,” he called it on Fox News -- is part of a White House cover up of something much more sinister. ...

Just what is being covered up is not so apparent, at least to objective observers. But less-than-objective right-wing conspiracy theorists have a ready answer: Operation Fast and Furious was part of an elaborate plot to undermine the 2nd Amendment and take away citizens’ guns.

Yup. That's it. They want my guns and your guns and the late Charlton Heston's guns, and everyone else's guns so they can hand the nation over to Islamic Jihadists.

Here's the problem I have, however. I am damned sick and tired of this White House and the White House before it raising the issue of executive privilege whenever there's been a screw-up. I would feel far more comfortable with an executive branch saying that the plan was flawed, was executed poorly with lousy oversight, and we will be doing some serious review with Congress to make sure it never happens again. Instead, the Obama folks, like the Bush folks before them, are taking the position of "Nanny, nanny boo-boo, certainly sucks to be you."

But wait, there's more. Horsey's column appeared on Friday. Issa got to bloviate on Sunday with the bobbleheads. He backed down a little, but not much.

House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa said Sunday that he has no evidence the White House was involved in what could be a Justice Department "cover up” to contain fallout from the botched “Fast and Furious” operation.

In a series of interviews on the political talk shows, the California Republican repeatedly accused Justice Department officials of lying to Congress about the gun-trafficking sting operation and withholding documents from congressional investigators.

But Issa acknowledged his committee has seen no evidence the White House was involved.

“And I hope that they don’t get involved,” Issa said, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.” “I hope that this stays at Justice, and I hope that Justice cooperates because, ultimately, Justice lied to the American people on Feb. 4, and they didn’t make it right for 10 months.” [Emphasis added]

So, what's going on?

While I admit it's hard to tell when you're dealing with inarticulate illiterates like Darrell Issa, I think Nancy Pelosi just might have it right, even if Horsey somewhat downplays her assessment:

As an answer, House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has her own conspiracy theory. She asserted in her weekly press briefing that the Republicans are gunning for Holder with the clear aim “to undermine the person who is assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country. I’m telling you, this is connected. It is no accident.”

To be honest, I think Pelosi has nailed it in one. Issa and his owners needed some shiny keys as Holder and the DOJ actually filed suit against the Florida voter-list purge ordered by the governor. The contempt citation is the "shiny keys" we are expected to fall for.

Hey! But what do I know. I'm just an old woman sucking on the teat of Social Security. I'll go back to bed now.

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.

That River In Egypt

We're into the third day of hashing over the details of the massacre in Arizona, and things are playing out pretty much the way we thought they would. Plenty of ink and electrons are being spilled by all sides of the complicated debate as to how and why this sort of thing happens. There's plenty of talk, very little of which contains any concrete proposals for minimizing the chances of it happening again. Perhaps it's too early in the process. Everyone is still in shock.

It clearly is not too early, however, for some mostly justified finger pointing:

Democratic members of Congress largely suggested that the shootings might have been sparked by increasingly bitter political rhetoric while Republicans described the suspected shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, as "unstable" and "deranged" without a clear link to politics.

Now, it seems to me that posing this causal argument as "either/or" is not particularly helpful. In fact, it is an oversimplification which moves the discourse away from analysis and towards the assigning of blame without any way to move forward. Yes, the rhetoric from Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Angle has clearly been dangerously over the top. And, yes, Jared Loughner gives every indication of being a profoundly "unstable" and "deranged" young man, the kind of individual vulnerable to such violent rhetoric, regardless of his political leanings.

But there is another element to the scenario: a gun. Loughner, who had been rejected by the Army when he tried to enlist, who had been suspended from Pima Community College for his behavior, who had a history of trying to start fights from at least his high school days, was able to purchase a Glock with extended magazines on November 30, just about 6 weeks before the massacre.

Of course, expecting anyone in Congress to consider the issue of easily obtainable firearms clearly not designed for hunting at this time in our history is like expecting to see a transaction tax imposed on Wall Street speculators. The GOP was swept to a majority in the House by the Tea Partiers who want less government control, not more, especially when it comes to their sanctified Second Amendment rights. The NRA continues to be one of the strongest forces in government, both in terms of lobbying and campaign contributions. Few, if any, congress critters want to step into that kind of battle.

So, even though some things beyond increasing Secret Service forces for our elected officials could be done, they won't be done, nor even considered. And we will have to face another horrific drama played out before our eyes, if not sooner by another deranged copycat gunman determined to finish what Mr. Loughner started, certainly later as our economy falters and the rhetoric escalates and another unstable, deranged soul strikes out.

Real Americans

File this one under creepy news.

It seems a Minnesota state legislator was briefly detained by police for carrying a concealed weapon after parking his truck in a Planned Parenthood lot. The lot's security guard spotted the weapon when the man emerged from his vehicle. The solon assured the police that, while he understood the guard's concern, it was all a misunderstanding.

Hackbarth, R-Cedar, is in his eighth term representing District 48A. He represents Elk River, Oak Grove and East Bethel and is considered a strong advocate of conservation issues and an opponent of abortion rights.

He said Tuesday that he is not familiar with the Highland Park area and didn't know he was at Planned Parenthood when he pulled into the empty lot so that he could look for a woman he had met online.

But wait, it gets creepier.

Hackbarth said he had coffee with the woman on Nov. 15, and asked her to dinner the next night but she told him she couldn't because of a commitment she had with a female friend in Highland Park. Hackbarth said he felt that she might have been seeing a man instead, so he parked his car and walked around the block looking for her car. (The security guard spotted Hackbarth's gun when he got out of his car and put on a winter coat.) ...

"I was not a jealous boyfriend," said Hackbarth, who is in the process of divorcing his wife of 25 years. "I was just trying to check up on her. It's totally a misunderstanding."

That explanation apparently satisfied the police officers called to the scene. They sent him on his way, but only after confiscating his weapon. It turns out that Mr. Hackbarth has a licence to carry a concealed weapon, so no charges were filed and the gun was returned to the legislator the next day.

No harm, no foul.

I have a suspicion that Mr. Hackbarth won't get that second date.

Going Ballistic

It's not one of my fantasies that someday I will need to use a gun. I suspect I am in a minority, as it seems so many of the populace here in flyover country have run out and gotten weapons. Now it seems the freeing of hostage Richard Phillips off the coast of Somalia has given rise to yet more dreams of shooting those bad guys. Underlying those claims, that we should arm ourselves to be safe, is the argument that our government should not prohibit us all from buying all the weapons we want.

The power to wipe out another life seems to bring out a demon in souls of those under pressure. For that reason above all it would appear that wisdom would dictate limiting access to guns. When we have a time of obvious stress, and results are already in - guns have provided a hideous and repugnant recourse to violence for desperate people - courageous leaders should be coming forth calling for tough controls on sales of weapons. Sadly, its power to shoot down those courageous enough to stand up to them has been a penultimate defense for the NRA.

In a chat on eschaton this morning, Molly Ivors gave the ultimate rejoinder to opposing gun controls;

(me;) Greta on WashJournal telling Eleanor Holmes Norton that taking guns away is taking their rights.

Tell that to the Binghamton immigrant community.
Molly Ivors

The violence of others can't be countered by easy access to guns, the gun nuts' defense against gun controls. Making all of us armed only enables those who lose it and want to take their own frustrations out on the unoffending around them.

Americans have been killing each other for a long time - thousands upon thousands of men, women and children lying in the cold, cold ground from decades of homicidal violence, the bulk of it inflicted with guns. There are street killings here, bedroom killings there - single victims scattered across the daily news. (I saw my first victim 33 years ago this month, a woman shot to death by her estranged husband as she walked across a parking lot.) And then there are the mass killings, a squall of them this spring, with 57 dead within the last month or so, in a handful of incidents from California to New York.

I hear hardly anyone, anywhere expressing much more than a shrug about it.

This is what Scott Simon of National Public Radio wrote on Twitter the day a gunman in Binghamton, N.Y., fired 98 shots in less than a minute, killing 13 people at an immigration center: "Story like NY shootings is soft spot of jrnlsm. We can & should cover hell out of it. But in the end, what does it mean? What is there to say?"

I can almost understand Mr. Simon's shrug. After the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and again after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, many of us believed the country would turn against guns - assault-style weapons and handguns in particular. But all these years later, we now recognize 280 million as the estimated number of firearms among the 300-plus million inhabitants of the United States. What is there to say? That is a mountain of guns, and it's growing.

Some say it's because President Barack Obama wants to renew the expired federal ban against military-style assault weapons - the gunman who killed three police officers in Pittsburgh last weekend said as much - so people are stocking up.

But there's more to it. There's a pessimism and cynicism about the kind of society we've become and the uncertain future we face, and that was evident before Mr. Obama took office.

People are stressed about the economy and worried that recovery might be a long way off, and that there may be shortages of food and gasoline, or an increase in crime as the jobless become desperate. So they've purchased guns and ammo, just in case the apocalypse comes before Mr. Obama's economic stimulus package takes effect.

Here's another reason why gun sales are on the rise: Americans are convinced that politicians aren't going to do anything about gun violence. Sixty-five members of his own party in the House of Representatives have urged the president not to resurrect the assault weapons ban that expired under George W. Bush. (One bright spot this year for gun control was in Maryland; the General Assembly authorized the confiscation of firearms from suspected domestic abusers.)

Most of us are also convinced that there are too many angry, ill and violent people in our midst, and that they have easy access to guns. Absent leadership that would promulgate greater control of guns, we fear mass killings will continue. So, the thinking goes, maybe it's best to be prepared - have a gun handy, just in case the madman comes to your office or your kid's school.

It's an epidemic of resignation, and it helps the National Rifle Association.

Great. Uncontrolled violence militates for more uncontrolled violence. I admit, I watched in horror as far back as the '60's, as great public servants like Sen. Joe Tydings and Sen. Al Gore were taken down by NRA dedication to the cause of arming the violent. And I admit I cannot understand a set of values that will sacrifice great public service for recidivist suspicions of our neighbors.

Under examination right now: the lawlessness of gun shows, where guns can be sold to criminals direct; and running guns to the Mexican drug wars. This kind of activity can in no way be claimed to be a benefit to our society. It's a disgrace that we can't bring the power of laws to our service in this criminal campaign against lawful society.

Maybe it would be a good time to go join your local NRA and start a move toward rational behavior. If we wait for leaders strong enough to counter these militia addicts, we may not see any rational controls in our time.

Gun controls will reduce violence by removing an easy way out to everyone who goes ballistic and lashes out irrationally. Fighting gun controls enables the criminally inclined, as well as the criminal elements. It's as simple as that.

Who's Your Daddy?

Look, I know we're coming off a full moon, but some lunacy just can't be explained away that easily. From an editorial in today's NY Times:

As the Army’s suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq war, there’s small wonder practically everyone in Congress wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is, except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill in fear that the government’s record-keeping on troubled vets might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns. ...

The House has unanimously approved a measure mandating the screening of all veterans for suicide risk, but Senator Coburn worries that veterans’ medical data might be appropriated by other agencies to deny that all-encompassing right to wield arms on the domestic front. [Emphasis added]

Only those whose tin foil hats need to be loosened more than a tad could make the kind of illogical leap implied in Sen. Coburn's stated concerns. It is somewhat troubling to think that one of our senators suffers from that kind of paranoia.

What is more troubling, however, is that it is possible that the good senator from Oklahoma does not really believe that the bill in question is intended to deprive veterans of their Second Amendment rights, that he instead is simply doing the bidding of one of his major campaign donors, the NRA.

Either/or, Senator Coburn's stance is outrageous, not to mention callous and stupid.

Moron.

A Fitting Farewell

Senator George F. Allen, who lost his seat in the last election, has decided to promote one last bill. From today's NY Times:

As a last little gift to America, Senator George Allen, who was narrowly defeated by James Webb this month, has introduced what may be his final piece of legislation: a bill that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks.

...Senator Allen’s bill is, of course, being cheered by the gun lobby, which sees it not as an assault on public safety but as a way of nationalizing the armed paranoia that the National Rifle Association and its cohorts stand for. [Emphasis added]

While it is doubtful that the bill has a chance in the final weeks of this lame duck session, the fact that Sen. Allen even introduced it is very interesting (not to mention laughable). Did he draw the short straw when it came to the GOP offering a bone to the gun lobby, thereby ensuring continuing campaign contributions for 2008? Was it his way to show his middle finger to those who elected his opponent? Or, and more likely, was this simply a way to show his bona fides as a conservative for his next campaign?

Whatever the reason, the bill stinks. If citizens want to feel safer in national parks, there are other, better ways to accomplish this, like increasing the funding for the parks so that they can be adequately staffed and policed. Like churches and schools, the parks are not the place for an armed citizenry, Second Amendment misinterpretations aside.

Heckuva job, Macaca.