Adoption Agencies Can't Ask

The Parent Dish site published an article on a new law in Florida which would prevent adoption agencies from asking prospective adoptive parents about their gun ownership.

The adoption bill resulted from a mixup at the Children's Home Society in Central Florida, according to the newspaper. The nonprofit adoption agency, under the Department of Children and Families (DCF), was using an old form that asked about prospective parents' gun ownership. When the NRA brought it up to lawmakers, the DCF ordered all adoption agencies to avoid asking questions about firearms.

Marion Hammer, the NRA's Florida lobbyist, says that the adoption issue illustrates that government groups like adoption agencies could keep a list of firearm owners, which is prohibited in Florida. Hammer urged the gun list prohibition law to be written years ago, as well as a ban on law-enforcement agencies from keeping a list of gun purchases at pawn shops.

Hammer tells the newspaper her next step toward gun ownership freedom may be to stop pediatricians from asking children about guns in their home. She says some think this could end up in the child's file, which could end up in the hands of the health insurance company, who could pass it over to a homeowner insurance company, who could then deny the family coverage because they own a firearm.

If guns are so right and good and acceptable and not-to-be-feared, then why all the secrecy? Ostensibly, the gun rights folks insist on secrecy because of the danger of creating a database of gun owners. This must be avoided because a database could be used in a door-to-door confiscation of guns. Taken to its logical conclusion, this thinking is laughably paranoid.

The real reason for all the secrecy, I would guess, has more to do with the fact that they realize, but would be quite loathe to admit, that guns are not as good and acceptable and not-to-be-feared as they pretend.

What's your opinion? Is it right to prohibit adoption agencies from asking about gun ownership? Is it right to prohibit pediatricians from asking their patients? If guns are so good, wouldn't it be just as likely that the inquiring person would consider gun ownership a plus? Wouldn't the adoption agency and the pediatrician understand the best way to protect the children is if the parents are armed?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Canada Warns Ann Coulter

Think Progress reports on the reminder sent to Ann Coulter by a Canadian University where she is scheduled to speak.

Far-right pundit Ann Coulter will be in Canada this week for “a trio of speaking engagements,” including one at the University of Ottawa. In advance of her visit, a senior official at the school sent Coulter a letter warning her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” in her remarks and telling her to review the country’s hate speech and defamation laws. From the letter:

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

In the past, Coulter has bashed Canada, saying, “They’d better hope the United States doesn’t roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.” In response to the letter, Coulter writes, “I was hoping for a fruit basket, not a threat to prosecute.”

It's interesting how this touches on our frequent discussions of the responsibility these right-wing celebrities have for their words. It's fascinating that in Canada, not only do they not have an antiquated and nonsensical 2nd Amendment to interfere with their common sense laws, they seem to have a better understanding of the ideas contained in the 1st.

What's your opinion? What do you think the danger is in trying to define violations of the "free speech" aspects of the 1st Amendment? Is it always the slippery slope - if they outlaw this today what will happen tomorrow?

Do you think the University spokesman was out of line issuing that warning instead of offering a fruit basket?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

True Romance

This movie should have won about 10 oscars, including a 5-way tie for Best Supporting Actor. Even the parts they cut are fantastic.

The Tanner Gun Show Back in the News

The Denverpost.com reports on an "accidental" shooting which took place in one of the most famous gun shows in the world.

Adams County sheriff's deputies responded to the Tanner Gun Show at the Denver Merchandise Mart at Interstate 25 and East 58th Avenue about 2 p.m. after a man was shot in the upper torso.

Investigators interviewed "numerous witnesses," the gun's vendor and the "person holding the gun at the time of the discharge," Sgt. Candi Baker with the Adams County Sheriff's Office said.

"They were just looking at a gun," Baker said.

Russ Huntley, who was at the gun show Saturday, told 9News he had heard someone had been shot in the shoulder and "there was blood all over the floor."

The Tanner Gun Show bills itself as the state's largest gun show, with 700 tables displaying guns, knives, ammunition, reloading equipment, military surplus, and hunting and fishing gear. The show, which drew complaints in 1999 when three guns bought there were used by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris in the Columbine High School shooting, has run in some form since 1964.

Zorro keeps asking me why I feel reporting these incidents as "accidents" favors the pro-gun side. Well, when we say "the gun accidentally went off," or the guy was "just looking at it when it went off," or "he was holding it at the time of the discharge," I say you're using words which minimize the responsibility of the shooter.

I especially object to this because the same gun rights activists who use wording like this are the first to accuse gun control folks of fearing inanimate objects and giving too much power to "just another tool."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "the man who was looking at the weapon, obviously had his finger on the trigger and negligently fired the gun?" Or, how about, "although the stupidity of the gun seller in handing a loaded gun to the customer is unbelievable, the customer who shot himself failed to treat the gun as loaded - Rule number 1."

Of course we'll hear the old infrequency rationale. That's why these things make the news, after all.

It's not the first time there's been a shooting at or around the show.

In March 2008, a 64-year-old Littleton man accidentally shot himself in the stomach with .38-caliber handgun in the mart's parking lot.

The show's website says it is illegal to have loaded guns inside the show. Security personnel disable most guns, looping zip ties through gun chambers.

There's that word again, "accidentally." "Stupidly and negligently" would be more accurate, don't you think? This means that two incidents are known to the writer, but do you think there might have been others? Do you think there might have been any number of them which resulted in minor injuries or no injuries at all? I would say yes, indeed. Do you think this is just part of the deal? Is this the price we have to pay for freedom?

What about those security guard who "disable most guns?" Do you believe that nonsense? The show's website says so, but in reality do you think the self-respecting gun owners would allow such a thing? I really can't picture it.

And finally, lest we forget why this gun show is one of the most famous in the world, this is where the Columbine shooters got their weapons. Shame on the people who run this thing. Shame on the private sellers who profit from the sick business of selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. And most of all shame on all of you who support that pernicious laxity in the gun laws of America. Shame on you.

The John Patrick Bedell Lesson

The Washington Post published another editorial about the gun control situation in America in light of the recent Pentagon shooting. The article points out two areas which need improvement.

First, it is absurd for police departments to put guns back into circulation. The possibility of making a little bit of money from the sale of illegal weapons or swapping them for guns more suitable for law enforcement is not worth the cost in lives and safety. Police departments should put a halt to this practice; legally confiscated guns should be destroyed after they are no longer needed as evidence -- a measure endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Second, there are steps the Obama administration could take immediately to reduce the danger to law enforcement officers and other law-abiding citizens. Legislation is needed to close the gun-show loophole to require background checks for all purchasers.

As I mentioned before, I think they've got it backwards. The second priority should take precedence. If that were corrected, it wouldn't matter so much what the police did with their confiscated guns. The problem is the impossibility of tracing the entire history of a gun which turns up at a murder scene.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

No Death Penalty for Retarded Man

OregonLive.com reports on the decision to drop the death penalty in this fascinating case.

SALEM — One of two Oregon State Penitentiary inmates charged with aggravated murder in the killing of another inmate no longer faces the death penalty after experts found that he is mentally retarded.

The inmate, James Demetri Davenport, pleaded guilty Friday and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The 32-year-old Davenport already is serving a life sentence for a previous murder.

Prosecutors said they dropped plans to seek the death penalty against Davenport after his mental disability was confirmed by separate evaluations performed by experts hired by defense lawyers and the prosecution.

But prosecutors said they still plan to seek the death penalty for Davenport’s co-defendant, Isacc Creed Agee, in the February 2008 beating death of 36-year-old Antonio Barrantes-Vasquez.

Do you think this decision is tantamount to going soft on criminals? Should people capable of killing others get a pass because of low intelligence? Does this defeat one of the main benefits of the death penalty, that of ensuring that offenders don't repeat their offenses?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Stephen Colbert and Fr. Jim Martin

It's hard to decide which one's the better comedian.

Glenn Beck Attacks Social Justice - James Martin

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care reform