Tag Archives: gun control

national news, political news

President speaks eloquently at memorial

memorial

President Barack Obama delivered a touching tribute today to slain Dallas police officers.

The president, along with Vice President Joe Biden and former President George W. Bush, was among the dignitaries lined up on the stage paying tribute to the men who were gunned down by the shooter this past Thursday.

He spoke of their dedication to duty, of their families’ bravery and of the officers’ devotion to protecting the very people who were protesting activities of their fellow brothers and sisters in uniform.

But then he veered briefly into a realm where I wish he hadn’t gone.

He talked about the ease of buying a Glock pistol.

Sigh …

I have noted in a couple of earlier blog posts that a memorial service paying tribute to the five brave police officers was not the place to politicize a message. I guess the president didn’t read my blog, let alone take my advice.

Did it diminish his tribute to the men who died in the line of duty?

Not to my ears — although I am absolutely certain more critical observers will say quite the opposite.

I get that Barack Obama has done this kind of speech-making too many times already during his presidency. I believe in the sincerity of his expression of grief over the victims of this kind of violence.

I also am glad he went to Dallas to hug the victims’ families, and to offer support for the beleaguered and grief-stricken city.

The healing of the city’s wounds, though, is just beginning.

Let it continue to restore a great American city’s sense of self.

national news, Uncategorized

Filibuster provides a rare Senate ‘victory’

Chris Murphy was incensed at his U.S. Senate colleagues.

Four years after his Connecticut constituents suffered the unspeakable grief from the Newtown school massacre, Congress hadn’t done anything to curb gun violence.

So, the Democratic lawmaker took the Senate floor the other day and began filibustering.

He was spurred to talk and talk and talk by the latest mass slaughter, of 49 individuals in Orlando, Fla., this past weekend.

I want to applaud Sen. Murphy for something he achieved from his 15-hour gabfest. He persuaded the Senate Republicans who run the place to hold votes on at least a couple of key bills that proponents say will help curb gun violence.

Hey, it’s a big deal. As big a deal is that it came about by a senator persuading his colleagues to schedule these votes by talking the issue to death.

Filibusters are unique to the Senate. The House doesn’t allow it.

A filibuster allows senators to talk about whatever they want. They can use the procedure to stall legislation. Some prominent lawmakers have used the filibuster to obtain legendary status. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond holds the record for non-stop Senate blabbing. My former senator, the late Wayne Morse of Oregon, was another well-known blowhard who knew how to use the filibuster to maximum advantage.

Sometimes senators’ use of the filibuster backfires. Ted Cruz of Texas sought to filibuster the Affordable Care Act to death in 2013. He failed.

Murphy, though, managed to get a vote on one of the knottiest issues of our time: gun control.

I am not sure where it will go. There are some interesting compromises to what Murphy favors, dealing with disallowing suspected terrorists from obtaining a firearm.

I won’t comment further here on the merits of what Murphy desires.

However, I applaud the senator for talking long enough to get the Senate leadership to at least put this issue to a vote.

national news

A little self-awareness, please, Sen. Cruz

I cannot let this pass without comment.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the filibuster led by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut a “distraction.” He said it’s a “game.” He labeled it “political gamesmanship,” which he said the public considers to be “ridiculous.”

Wow, dude.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/16/cruz_senate_filibuster_a_distraction_political_gamesmanship.html

Filibusters by their very nature are meant to “distract” senators.

I believe I’ll now point to Sen. Cruz’s own game of “political gamesmanship” when he led a faux filibuster three years ago to defund the Affordable Care Act. The effect was to temporarily shut down the federal government as Cruz read passages from Dr. Seuss on the floor of the Senate.

He didn’t succeed in defunding the ACA, but he did succeed in making a fool of himself.

Of all the 98 remaining senators who could have spoken out against Sen. Murphy’s filibuster that he used to force a vote on gun legislation, why did it have to be Ted Cruz, the unofficial king of “political gamesmanship”?

 

national news, political news

Rewrite the 2nd Amendment? Just try it

3 Comments

The Orlando, Fla., massacre has ignited yet again — for the zillionth time — the debate over whether to enact tighter controls on the purchase of guns such as the weapon used by the monster who mowed down those innocent victims.

I don’t intend to enter that debate here. I do, though, want to introduce you to an idea that’s being kicked around: rewriting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I’ve long believed that of all the first 10 amendments, those that guarantee our civil liberties, the Second is the most horribly written of them.

It seems to contain two distinct references that appear to be at odds with each other.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are clear on that? Now? Forever?

Hardly.

Gun-control advocates glom onto the first part, the reference to the well-regulated militia; gun-owner advocates cling to the second part that refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The founders inserted a couple of commas in the middle of the text that seem — to my eyes, at least — to add to the confusion.

Mac McCann, a blogger for the Dallas Morning News, has posited the notion that the Second Amendment needs to be modernized. Will it happen? Sure, it’ll happen about the time both sides of the gun violence divide come together, lock arms and sing in perfect harmony.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/maybe-the-only-solution-is-to-rewrite-the-second-amendment.html/

McCann writes: “I hold the Constitution in the highest regard, and I’m naturally skeptical of government power. But I’m moved by Obama’s words: ‘to actively do nothing is a decision, as well’ — and clearly not a good decision.

“We need a text that reflects the will of the American people in today’s world — which, of course, is far different from the world the Constitution was written in.”

Of course, any effort to amend an amendment is going to be interpreted as repealing the original text. We’ve had discussion in the past about amending the First Amendment, too. Free-speech/freedom-of-religion/free-press purists such as myself, quite naturally, have opposed such a thing on its face. That puts us in a bind when discussions come up regarding the Second Amendment, which is held in equally high regard by purists interested in gun-related issues.

This notion of modernizing the Second Amendment, though, is a discussion worth having.

If only we can have it intelligently and without the demonization that is guaranteed to erupt.

Your thoughts? Talk to me.

 

national news, political news

Law-abiding gun owners can relax; your guns are safe

gun over american flag

I’m trying to wrap my mind around this notion.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.” It doesn’t say so explicitly, but my strong hunch is that the men who wrote that amendment intended for it to apply to law-abiding Americans.

Now we hear the president of the United States suggesting that we need to tighten laws in an effort to ensure greater gun safety.

He said clearly and unequivocally: We aren’t going to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens who have guns for the right reasons . . . to hunt or to shoot at targets.

The target — if you’ll pardon the intentional pun — are the criminals who are able to purchase guns through loopholes in current state and federal law.

Thus, President Obama has acted.

Measures outlined.

I’m certain I heard him say he believes in the Second Amendment. He noted that it’s written “on paper.” It’s on the record. His support of the amendment will stand forever.

He noted quite correctly that we register our cars. Why can’t we register our guns? he asked. If the law-abiding folks want to own guns, they are able to do so. No problem. No issue here.

Obama said he wants those who sell guns to go through extended background checks. He wants to hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He wants Congress to authorize more money for mental health care.

Does any of that suggest that the president is going to dispatch storm troopers across the land to take away the guns of those who own them, who use them properly, who want to defend themselves against those who would do them harm?

I do not believe that will happen.

Ever.

 

national news, political news

Executive action on guns draws expected fire

1 Comment

gun over american flag

President Obama is considering some executive action he hopes will require gun dealers to go through increased background checks.

Does it mean that “law-abiding Americans” will be denied their right to “keep and bear arms” as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Obama says “no.” Republican presidential candidates say “yes.”

Who do you believe? I guess that depends on your political party, your philosophical persuasion, your own bias.

Me? I’m willing to let the president give it a try.

I am going to take the usual — and expected — criticism from readers of this blog who believe as GOP contender Chris Christie said that Obama is acting like a “dictator.”

I disagree with that characterization. The president has a team of constitutional lawyers surrounding him who’ll likely advise him that he’s acting totally within the law in issuing the orders to require the checks.

Congress won’t do it. Heck, Congress wouldn’t even approve legislation that would have restricted people placed on no-fly lists from owning firearms. Does the president expect Congress to follow his lead on his effort to curb gun violence? Not a chance.

So he’ll do what he needs to do on his own.

Do I feel threatened? Are the feds going to knock on my door and take my guns away from me? No and no.

However, the president’s apparent move toward executive action has prompted the apoplectic response from the GOP presidential field.

But what the heck. That’s politics.

 

national news, political news

He’s a poster boy for various causes

suspect

Robert Lewis Dear’s picture has been plastered all over the media of late with good reason.

He’s about to become a poster boy for a number of key debate points in our modern political environment.

Dear is accused of killing three people and injuring several others in that Friday shooting rampage at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo. He’s going to court Monday to be arraigned.

Usually, someone accused of a high-profile crime gets to see his face related to one, maybe two, issues at once. Not so with this guy, Dear.

For instance.

  • He’s being discussed in the context of Planned Parenthood and women’s abortion rights. He told the cops “no more baby parts,” leaving authorities and the media to speculate that the shooting rampage was politically motivated. Is he a longtime anti-abortion activist?
  • Dear has been called a “domestic terrorist” who could become the face of non-Muslim, Anglo Americans who are just as prone to commit acts of terror as those evil foreigners seeking to sneak into the United States.
  • He carried a rifle into the Planned Parenthood building, which brings to mind the issue of gun control. Some will ask, “How did this guy obtain a gun so easily?” Ah, yes, the gun control debate will flare up once again.
  • And, finally, he might become the face of mental health treatment and the need to be on the lookout for those who are capable of committing such horrible crimes?

Wow! That’s four of them — four issues that, taken separately, all provide enough grist for friends to become foes in a heartbeat.

And to think that one man could be at the center of it all.

 

national news

What harm do background checks bring?

3 Comments

gun-control

I am a law-abiding, taxpaying, loyal American patriot, who once wore my country’s uniform and went to war to protect it.

I also own a couple of rifles. They’re hidden away. I don’t take them out very often.

But as the nation today ponders the impact of the latest mass shooting by a maniac, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., I am compelled to ponder: What would happen if I went to a gun store to purchase a firearm and was forced to wait a few days while the government performed a background check?

President Obama has called yet again for more stringent laws that might help prevent future maniacs from getting their hands on a gun.

Gun-rights groups — chiefly the National Rifle Association — will argue against any such action, contending it would violate the Second Amendment guarantee that Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Suppose we had mandatory background checks.

I’d go into the gun store. I’d select my weapon of choice. I would pay for the firearm. But I couldn’t take it home. Why? The business owner would submit my name to, say, the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for that mandatory federal background check.

I would wait a number of days. Let’s say it’s a week.

The check comes back. I’m clean. I can then pick up my firearm, take it home … and perhaps store it along with the two rifles I already own.

Have my Second Amendment rights been “infringed”? Have I been denied the right to “keep and bear arms”? Is the government going to disarm me?

No to all three things.

Why on God’s Earth can’t we enact a law that might prevent someone else from committing the kind of dastardly act that took place today in Roseburg?

 

national news

How did this guy purchase a gun … legally?

1 Comment

Someone will have to explain this one to me.

John Houser was known to behave erratically. He had a rap sheet as long as his arm, maybe both arms.

And yet he was able to purchase a handgun — legally, it turns out — in Alabama.

He then took the gun into a movie theater in Lafayette, La., cases the crowd watching the film and then opens fire.

Houser killed two people and injured several more — before killing himself with the gun he used to commit the horrible crime.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/us/louisiana-theater-shooter/

How in the name of all that is holy did this guy purchase a gun legally?

We hear, of course, that existing gun laws are sufficient. Obviously, and quite tragically, John Houser has demonstrated that they are woefully insufficient.

Let me think: A background check might have determined this guy was unfit to own a handgun. A three- to five-day delay in the purchase to give local authorities time to check him out might have worked. He could have been denied permission to buy the gun.

Would that have prevented him from obtaining a firearm illegally, from stealing it from someone? Probably not.

But he bought the thing legally.

I’m ready for the explanation — and the justification — for why this is OK?

national news, political news, State news

Get rid of gun free zones? Really?

Back in 1995, when the Texas Legislature was debating whether to allow Texans to carry concealed handguns, the publisher for whom I worked posed an interesting question to our state senator.

“Why don’t you just allow folks to carry guns on their hips and walk around the State Capitol?” he asked the late Teel Bivins, a Republican and an avid proponent of gun-owners rights.

I cannot recall Bivins’s response. Perhaps he thought it was a rhetorical question.

But it comes to mind now as I read this essay about gun free zones in the wake of the Chattanooga murders of four Marines and a sailor.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/gun-control-us-capitol-120310.html?hp=t2_r#.VapPCbnbKt8

Why not allow guns into the U.S. Capitol?

Joel Zeitz, the author of the essay, noted that Donald Trump sounded like a mainstream Republican when he said we need to “get rid of gun free zones.” According to Trump, the men who died at the hands of the shooter didn’t have a chance because they were in a zone where gun are prohibited, which of course didn’t stop the shooter from sneaking a gun into the place.

The U.S. Capitol has seen gun violence erupt. People have gotten past security systems with weapons. They have harmed individuals and damaged the structure.

Would guns inside the Capitol stopped the incidents? I have trouble believing they would have worked.

Texas’ concealed handgun carry law, by the way, hasn’t been the disaster some of us thought it would be when the Legislature enacted it two decades ago.

However, this argument that more guns makes us a safer society has yet to be proven — at least to me.