Mikeb302000

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Chris Matthews on Guns at Political Events

In this one, Ron Reagan made the point very clearly that the Secret Service officers might be busy watching one of these protesters when they should be watching something else. Don't you think that's a serious concern? (h/t The Gun Guys)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

David Sirota on Guns at Public Political Events

Creators.com has published an article by David Sirota on the recent events of people carrying guns at the political rallies.

Those of us living in the Rocky Mountains are steeped in America's famous gun culture - and we therefore know well the binary debates surrounding the Second Amendment. Firearm enthusiasts - the vast majority of whom use weapons responsibly - believe the Constitution protects their right to bear arms. Gun control advocates counter that the Constitution doesn't give anyone the inalienable right to wield automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in seconds.

This is the stultified freedom-versus-safety quarrel that seemed to forever define gun politics - that is, until anti-government activists started bringing firearms to public political meetings.

Sirota goes on to describe what we've all seen over the last days. He mentioned the New Hampshire man who wore a sidearm and carried a sign reading, "It is time to water the tree of liberty," and of course he described the man in Phoenix carrying an AR-15. The conclusion, I found very interesting.

These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. The weapons-brandishing displays are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Yes, the gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm.

What do you think about that? I must admit, the "bullying" idea often comes to my mind. It's fascinating to consider that people who are motivated by paranoia, fear and insecurity conceal those characteristics and become intimidators themselves.

His conclusion is what a lot of people have concluded but have been reluctant to say. Everyone knows "firearm-free zones" is another way of saying "banned."

One option is willful ignorance: We can pretend the ferment is unimportant, continue allowing the intimidation and ultimately usher in a dark future where "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Better, though, is simply making public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums. That way forward honors our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is "war without bloodshed" - and without the threat of bloodshed.

What's your opinion? Do you think there's an element of "bullying" in the open carry of firearms? What about the "threat of bloodshed," do firearms inherently carry that? I think they do. Aren't partial bans and other local restrictions allowed under the DC vs Heller decision?

Please leave a comment.

Cop Fired for Sexy Gun Photo

(picture credit AP)

The Daily News reports on an incident that cost one deputy his job and three others a suspension.

An embarrassed Sheriff Gary Painter fired one Midland County deputy and suspended three others without pay after a scantily dressed waitress holding a rifle posed for photographs on the hood of a patrol vehicle.

Round Rock officers were dispatched to the restaurant after someone reported the waitress with the weapon, which had been given to her by one of the deputies who had been attending a training session near Austin.

The incident occurred last week in the parking lot of a Twin Peaks restaurant, which promotes its "fun, friendly and sometimes flirty atmosphere!"

The deputies told Painter that they had about three to five beers each.

A fifth deputy who remained inside the eatery got a letter of reprimand.

Now, I'm the last one to want to give the cops a break. I believe they should be held to a higher standard. But losing your job over a stupid stunt like this, to me seems ridiculous. What is wrong with these people? Every day in the news there are reports of cops abusing their power, even shooting people in the back, and for the most part they get away with it. But in this case one guy is fired and three suspended without pay. Does anyone else think something's wrong with that?

They admitted drinking "about three to five beers." That means they probably drank more than that, who tells the truth to that question in that situation? Then they started playing around with the gun and the waitress. Very stupid, very irresponsible, but is it criminal enough to get fired over?

On the other hand, maybe this is exactly the way we can weed out the least qualified cops. If a guy demonstrates such poor judgment as this in a fairly innocuous situation, perhaps he's a risk when things get dangerous. What's your opinion?

Salt Lake City Policeman Justified

Newsday.com reports on the decision to exonerate Officer Louis Jones of all wrongdoing in the shooting death of Christopher Joseph Tucker on August 6th.

The low-speed chase ended on I-80 near the Great Salt Lake. When officers tried to take Tucker into custody, he reportedly rammed a patrol car and then pointed the car at officers who were on foot. Officer Louis Jones opened fire, fatally striking Tucker in the neck and torso.

Additional details about the incident are found in this article from The Salt Lake Tribune.

Salt Lake County sheriff's Lt. Don Hutson said UHP joined the chase to stop Joey Tucker as the man drove on State Road 202. Joey Tucker continued driving erratically at about 30 mph and got onto Interstate 80, where police used a pit maneuver, forcing Tucker's vehicle to turn sideways and stop against a highway barrier.

Hutson said Joey Tucker tried to resume driving, moving the truck forward and backward. As the Salt Lake City police officer walked toward Tucker, he observed Tucker fiddling with the steering column, Hutson said.

"[Tucker] looked like he was going to put the vehicle toward the officer and that is when the shots were fired," Hutson said.

That's a pretty shabby justification for shooting the guy, in my opinion. I realize there may be more to it, but based on the description of Sheriff Hutson, I find it hard to believe Officer Louis Jones was cleared.

What's your opinion? Are there too many of these police shootings? Do you think this could be an example of what the pro-gun guys often say, that civilian concealed carry permit holders are better trained than your average policeman? Is that what accounts for these shootings, a lack of training?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Friday, August 21, 2009

The Paterson NJ Curfew

The Newark Conservative Examiner has published an article by Joe Luppino-Esposito which contains an interesting take on the controversial initiative proposed in Paterson.

Most officials in New Jersey, including Governor Jon Corzine, do not seem to recognize the concept that people commit crimes. Corzine, a beliver in the overused, but still comedic, maxim "Guns kill people," instituted a one-gun-a-month law which he and the state Democrats insist will reduce crime.

Senate President Richard Codey claimed that "This is not about penalizing law abiding gun owners... It's about stemming the flow of illegal guns on our streets, keeping them out of the hands of gang members and drug dealers, and protecting innocent children and families.'' How Codey and others make that ludicrous leap is a mystery.

The city of Paterson, on the other hand, has recognized that perhaps it may actually be people who are out on the street that commit the crimes and rather than objects that do not fire on their own. Paterson's consideration of a curfew on all residents, not just juveniles, has found its way into national and international news, and for good reason.

Mr. Luppino-Esposito makes very strong statements, a bit on the sarcastic side. He says the governor believes in the "still comedic maxim "guns kill people."" And he says Senator Codey makes a "ludicrous leap" when he says the intent of the New Jersey gun control laws is to stem "the flow of illegal guns on our streets, keeping them out of the hands of gang members and drug dealers, and protecting innocent children and families."

I don't agree with those characterizations of the governor and senator, but I am fascinated by Luppino-Esposito's view of the proposed Paterson curfew. Do you agree that this drastic and controversial proposal in Patterson is a confirmation that "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

The proposal would certainly be challenged as a civil rights violation, and it would probably lose. But it is important to realize what Paterson officials are saying by even entertaining such an extreme proposition. The city, the third largest in New Jersey, may finally be willing to confront its problem with crime without blaming outside forces. Instituting such a massive control over the streets would be a clear assertion of power over the thugs that have come to power and put people in fear for their lives.

"Without blaming outside forces," I suppose is a reference to the false but frequent refrain of the pro-gun crowd as they try to denigrate the gun control argument. Gun control folks don't blame the gun, they don't think an inanimate object has power of its own, and they certainly don't think all crime would disappear with the disappearance of all guns.

Joe Luppino-Esposito is praising the city of Paterson for finally suggesting a solution that focuses on the person not the gun. But doesn't it bring up another famous question? If criminals are already willing to break laws like possessing guns illegally and committing murder with them, are they expected to comply with the curfew law?

No, they won't, and that's the problem.

What's your opinion? Please tell us.

Concealed Carry Increasing in VA

The Greene County Record reports that applications for concealed carry permits have doubled in recent months.

The number of county residents applying for permits that will allow them to carry concealed weapons doubled between January and July of this year, compared to the same time last year.

In the first six months of 2008, 101 people applied for such permits through Greene’s courts. In the first six months of this year, 200 made application.

That's quite a jump. What do you think accounts for it? Isn't open carry already permitted in Virginia? Why would people also need the concealed carry permission?

Folks applying gave the usual reasons.

“I’ve heard a lot of people say it’s because they’re afraid President Obama is going to take their right to carry weapons away,“ says Circuit Court Clerk Marie Durrer.

Others don’t mention Obama; they just say they’re concerned about crime, and protecting themselves against it.

“I travel alone with my children, a lot,“ says Susan Rankin of Stanardsville. “If I’m driving, I don’t want a gun on the seat beside me where my children can see it. I would rather have it locked in the glove box.“

It's certainly a fascinating business. Whatever fear-based rationale the individual applicant may have, whether it's the quite reasonable "wanting to protect the family from crime" or the completely unreasonable "Obama's going to take the guns away," one thing is for sure. The gun manufacturers and the gun dealers are laughing all the way to the bank.

What's your opinion? Do you think the Brady statement makes sense?

Doug Pennington, assistant director of communications for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says: “The problem with allowing the public to carry concealed is that “you don’t know if someone has the judgment to only draw a weapon in self-defense.“

I'm in complete agreement with that. We've already got far too many people with guns who are inadequately trained and who don't have the proper temperament to successfully manage a lethal weapon. Less is what we need, not more.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.