January 30, 2013: There Are No Drive-by Stabbings, Cold Dead Fingers, My Wife….

“When it comes to questions concerning gun control, let us bear in mind that there is no such thing as a drive-by stabbing”                                                ----from the ‘Quotations of Chairman Joe”

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the N.R.A. sat, with blood-stained hands, before a Senate committee and testified with a straight face that this country needs no further regulations concerning the sale and handling of firearms.   This is the same Wayne LaPierre who stood before the nation in the wake of the Newtown school massacre and said that the “only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun”.  It is clear that the leadership of the NRA will not budge an inch in their efforts to obstruct any attempt at reasonable reforms.

 

Despite that recent polls show that over 90 percent of the country and over 80 percent of NRA Members favor the creation of universal background checks, an act that would move to check the present situation in which gun sales by private individuals and others can circumvent such checks through private sales and gun shows.  There exists similar support for other forms of regulation such as banning high magazine clips, military-style ammunition, and putting limits on the amount of guns and ammunition that can be purchased at one time.  The NRA in its recent checkered history has even opposed the introduction of technology on weaponry that would make it less likely that a stolen gun would be used in a crime.  We have the technology to put devices on these weapons that recognize fingerprints and prevent the gun from functioning unless it recognized the owner.  The NRA has moved to block such regulation.  If such devices were put in place, the slaughter at Newton may well not have happened.

The old gun-nut bumper sticker says it all.  Not the one that read “When Guns are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Guns.”  No the one that read “They will get my gun only by prying it from my cold dead fingers”  The mantra that all attempts at gun legislation and control, citing a construction of the second amendment as an absolute prohibition of any such attempt to control firearms, will meet with fierce and determined resistance. 

There are many good proposals now put forward to try to reign in on this madness.  To the usual proposals regarding universal background checks, increased mental health spending and screening, banning of high capacity magazines, cop-killer bullets, etc., I would add the following.

First let us close absolutely the possible ‘holes’ around background checks.  Let us pass legislation that would require a license for a firearm, any firearm, to be renewed annually.

Second, let us provide for liability for the owner of any firearm for its use, no matter who uses it.

Third, the sale of any firearm could only be transacted through a duly licensed dealer.  Thus all private sales would have to be conducted through a licensed third party.  This insures that the sale and ownership of the weapon can be tracked.  Violations of these provisions would be severe, a hundred thousand dollar fine to be in possession of an unlicensed weapon.  

Fourth, we need to return to the wisdom of our forefathers and ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons entirely.  Again to be found in possession of such a weapon would incur a severe penalty, say one hundred thousand dollars, payment of which can be extended over a long period of time, but cannot be bankrupted and would be subject to court oversight.  The owners of such weapons, the survivalists, the conspiracy nuts, the militiamen, would forthright face a choice: keep the weapon and risk the financial liability and penalties, or voluntarily—without compensation—give up the weapons. Such an act would do much to voluntarily flush the system of the most dangerous weaponry on the streets of America. 

Finally, I suggest that we return to our father’s wisdom and require that in order to own a handgun, a weapon with no other purpose that to kill another human being; a citizen would be required to demonstrate to the local authority (it used to be the sheriff’s department) a need for such a weapon.  This is how our ancestor’s handled this issue.  Until recently this is how we historically dealt with handguns.  Now the state has to demonstrate that the would-be gun owner is unqualified, or a clear and present danger. 

Such reforms will no doubt cut the number of gun sales in America, but would concentrate such transactions into the hands of qualified gun dealers so as to mitigate against the diminution of their business.  

There is little here that is new.  There is little here that our ancestors, in their wisdom, have put in place at one time or another in our collective history.  Whether we can get such reforms, or make any progress worth the name toward national sanity when it comes to guns remains to be seen.

I’m reminded of another bumper-sticker I’ve seen, usually on the back of a rusted out old pick-up truck: “My Wife Yes, My Dog Maybe, My Gun—NEVER!”

January 29, 2013: The NRA is a Terrorist Organization, Clear and Present Danger, None Dare Call it Treason

 "The N.R.A is a terrorist organization"
                                   ----from the "Quotations of Chairman Joe"
                                                                                                                                              

“No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.”

                                ---Senator Robert F. Kennedy April 5, 1968

Senator Kennedy made those remarks at the Cleveland City Club in Cleveland, Ohio on the day following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King.  The cities were then exploding in riot as the nation reeled in violent reaction.  Kennedy himself, no innocent on questions of state-sponsored violence, was nevertheless stunned by the events late in his life to have travelled a significant distance along the path of self-introspection and had begun to question the assumptions upon which violence and threats of violence were then based.  Only weeks away from his own death, he serves as a poignant reminder of the costs of violence and the tolerance of it by this society.  

It does indeed go on and on and on in this country of ours.  Last year we lost over 13,000 of our fellow citizens to gun violence; over 1300 since that day last month when a clearly mentally disturbed young man opened fire in an elementary school killing 20 young children and half a dozen teachers and adults.  The public outcry in the wake of this bloodbath has finally, it seems, moved the question of gun control up to the front burner.

The Obama administration, never eager to wander into the political swamp that gun-control entails has heretofore stood mute as it witnessed and helped the nation morn the bloodbath at Virginia Tech, the temple killings, and the shooting at a Colorado movie theatre.  The Administration even stood mute when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded and several of party including a judge and little girl were killed at a “meet your Congresswoman” event—a town meeting, the administration presided over the national shock and grief and quietly decided not to tackle the N.R.A. 

Often referred to as the most powerful lobby in a city where the lobbies are indeed powerful, at least since Al Gore lost Tennessee and West Virginia to ‘Ol Two-Cows back at the turn of the millennium, the reach and influence of the N.R.A has been inflated to such proportions as to resemble the dimensions of the much hallowed 100 foot Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man; a leviathan terrorizing the community as it ambles down the streets of America with chaos and destruction trailing in its wake.  Dubya’s payoff to the fealty of the N.R.A. to the Rescumlican cause was to let the laws passed during the Clinton Administration expire and open the way for the widespread sale of military-style assault weapons throughout the country with predictably certain consequences.  Following the trail blazed by the likes of Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and other tin hats, the NRA has steadfastly resisted every effort to bring reasonable action to bear in the name of public safety.  They have resisted the ban of assault weapons, hollow point bullets, armor piercing bullets, bullets that can pierce vests and other equipment for protection of police.  They have resisted the creation of a national registry, the screening of purchases by the emotionally disturbed.  They have even acted through their shills in Congress, as a reaction to alleged federal “crimes” at Waco and Ruby Ridge to the appointment of a new head of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm Agency.   So effective  have been the efforts of the NRA that  as of this writing, the ATF, which oversees what passes for firearms control in this country, has not had an agency head for the last six years.

One has only to witness the rant of one Alex Jones on national television a couple of weeks ago.  In their mind the real reason that we need to bear arms is to have weapons with which to “secure our freedom”.  In the minds of these whacko’s this means freedom from our enemy—which, since the days of “Ronald of the Late, Late Show” means, increasingly, our own government.  In the minds of these scholars, the militia referred to in the second amendment is organized not in defense but in opposition their own government.  Accordingly as the President, however tardily and reluctantly he takes up the issue of gun control, is roundly compared to King George if not Hitler and Stalin. 

Let’s make no mistake about it.  The idiot wrong and the gun-nuts aligned with them (Ted Nugent leaps to mind) espouse a world view rife with ignorance, paranoia, fear and loathing combined with the means of wreaking havoc upon the innocent at any time, and threatening periodically (the Oklahoma Bombings come to mind) to turn on the very government whose fundamental charge is to protect us from “all enemies foreign and domestic”

Query:  If the purpose of the militia is no longer to come to the defense of the state but to challenge it, and perhaps oppose it, does this militia thereby pass from being an “arm” of the state (as in to “bear arms” for the state), to bear arms against the state?  Does not such a militia thereby become an enemy of the state by definition?  Does it not follow that those who enable the formation and arming of such militias thereby creating a “clear and present” danger to the state.  Are not these open acts attempts to intimidate if not threatening to the state?  Are not these acts covert if not overt treason?   The N.R.A is a facilitator and an enabler of this threat.  It is, at base, a terrorist organization.   Let us hope that the Sta-Puft man can be as easily dispensed with.  Let us hope that the NRA proves to be a paper tiger, a bag of hot air, and a giant marshmallow man.  The recent lack of success in the last election cycle is encouraging.  Let us hope and pray that this be the case.

In the meantime it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.

January 28, 2013: A Well Regulated Militia, It Hasn’t Always Been This way, Awash in Weaponry

“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.

         -- --The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

So reads the Second Amendment, part of the so-called “Bill of Rights” to the Constitution of the United States.  The precise meaning and what in heaven’s name the founders were thinking when they passed this provision has been a subject of debate since the founding of the republic

.

Americans are bat-shit crazy about their guns. So much do they value their guns that we protest not when the State requires that we register our children to be ground up like hamburger in the maw of war, but we will passionately resist any attempt to register our beloved phallic symbol.   No nation on earth is so heavily armed.  There are more than 300 million guns about in these here United States. There are more gun stores in America than there are supermarkets and McDonalds restaurants combined.  America’s biggest retailer of firearms is none other than Wal-Mart.  If sales continue unabated we will soon have more guns in this country than people.  The result has been the predictable bloodbath.  More American’s die each year from firearms than were killed during the worst years in Vietnam.  More Americans lose their lives to gun accidence and violence than are killed each year by auto accidents.  Among some populations and age groups guns are the leading cause of death and injury
. 

It hasn’t always been this way.   We have had eras in this country when the madness that springs from the lack of regulation has brought about public revulsion.  Such was the case during the mob violence during Prohibition in which the streets were killing fields as Tommy guns reigned supreme in places like Chicago, and the countryside was terrorized by automatic weapons in the hands of people like Baby-Face Nelson, John Dillinger, and Bonny and Clyde.  At some point the public had enough, and the state legislatures and the congress passed additional laws removing these weapons from the streets of America. 
 

It was settled law.  Automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons were banned.  It was simply illegal to own them, as it was illegal to own a sawed-off shotgun.  These are not hunting weapons.  They are “street-sweepers” –military-style weapons meant to kill people.  Our ancestors understood that no good can come from having such weapons in the hands of the “people”.  The courts, ruled that the purpose of the Second Amendment centers on a well regulated  militia.  That is, in order to provide for a well regulated militia, it is necessary for the people to keep and bear arms.
 

The courts have never taken this too far, some would argue that the courts have never gone far enough.  But the Supreme Court, in its collective wisdom, did rule that the “Militia” clause was controlling.  The Court ruled that the so-called “right to bear arms” was meant in the context of maintaining a militia and that the state, through its inherent police powers, had a legitimate interest to regulate.  Note here too that this is one of the places in the Constitution where the word “Regulate” appears, and here the right to bear arms is in the context of the explicit charge to create and maintain a “well regulated militia”.

This was the established understanding until the idiot wrong agitated through the NRA (National Rifle Association, or National Reactionary Association, or Not Really American take your pick). and got men appointed to the Supreme Court that,  ignoring all previous legal precedent, ruled during the Renquist era that the right to bear arms meant that everyone had a right to keep and bear arms personally.  

The amendment is undoubtedly vague. What is meant by “keep and bear arms” is not further clarified.  What is meant by “keep”? In your home?  On your person?  Or in an armory?  Which arms?  Muskets and black powder pistols?  Rifles? Machine guns?  Mortars?  Anti-tank weapons?  Surface to air missiles?  Nuclear weapons?   Clearly some lines have to be drawn.

And what about ammunition?  Again, black powder?  Full metal jacket? Rocket propelled grenades?  Hollow point cop-killer bullets? Armor piercing bullets?  Hollow point bullets?  Where do we draw the line?

Even Justice Scalia, who otherwise fails to understand stare decisis, has recently mumbled on national television that some limits exist and are legitimate.  But the barn door has been opened and the country is awash with weaponry that has no other function than to commit murder and mass murder as the country reels from one tragedy to another, from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Newtown.