Dennis Henigan on the Calderon Speech

The Brady Blog contained a wonderful post by Dennis Henigan. As if in response to the pro-gun reaction to the Mexican president's speech, Henigan makes a case for the gun control side.

Unlike many of our own political leaders, President Calderon understands that the American people have as much at stake on this issue as the Mexican people. He told Congress: “Today, these weapons are aimed by the criminals not only at rival gangs but also at Mexican civilians and authorities. And with all due respect, if you do not regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way, nothing guarantees that criminals here in the United States with access to the same power of weapons will not decide to challenge the American authorities and civilians.”

The Mexican President was being diplomatic. Criminals with assault weapons challenging American police and civilians represent not a future prospect, but today’s continuing and tragic reality. As Congress listened to Calderon’s words, two Arkansas police officers lay fatally wounded. What more justification for action does Congress need?

What do you think? Are there probably some handguns going south of the border too? I guess the gun dealers and manufacturers are making out like bandits, eh? And, of course, the NRA and gun owners at large have their own stake in the game. But, it's bad news and something should be done.

And then there is President Obama. He should be profoundly embarrassed that it took the President of another country to call on Congress to take action on guns, while he and his Administration cower in fear of the gun lobby. If our President ever summons the courage to ask Congress to do the right thing on guns, he need look no further than the words of President Calderon: “I admire the American Constitution, and I understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee good American citizens the ability to defend themselves and their Nation. But believe me, many of these guns are not going to honest American hands.”

President Calderon understands that it does no damage to the Second Amendment to protect police officers from assault weapons. Thank you, Mr. President, for speaking for our people, as well as your own.

Are you listening, President Obama?

It is still a bit of a mystery to me that Obama has failed so badly in this. I'm hoping Sarah Palin was right at the NRA Convention and that we'll see the results in Obama's second term.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Canadian Gun Dealer Arrested

Seattlepi reports.

Federal agents said Thursday they have arrested a Canadian gun dealer who kept a stash of sniper rifles and ammunition at a Washington storage unit near the U.S. northern border.

Oliver King - who also uses his given name, Hamid Malekpour - was arrested Wednesday in Ferndale, which is about 10 miles south of the Canadian border. He made an initial appearance Thursday at U.S. District Court in Seattle on charges of making false statements to a government agency and being an alien in possession of firearms.

"Being and alien in possession of firearms?" Now that's a law I'll bet FatWhiteMan can get behind. What do you think?

Glenn Beck Meets Tony Soprano

The No-Fly List

FishyJay sent us the link for this fascinating story about the no-fly list.

The United States has issued a written apology to a jet-setting billionaire businessman with close ties to former President Bill Clinton whose name was added to the no-fly list in the wake of the attempted Christmas day bombing of an American passenger plane.

Gilbert Chagoury, 64, a Nigerian citizen of Lebanese descent, was pulled off a private jet Jan. 15 at Teterboro airport in New Jersey and detained for more than four hours after federal agents discovered his name was on the then-recently updated no-fly list.

It seems there was a tenuous connection between a Nigerian banker of Chagoury's acquaintance and the Christmas day bomber. Part of the government's explanation was this:

"Please understand that in order to detect those international travelers involved in illicit activities, we must, at times, unfortunately inconvenience law-abiding travelers," the DHS official wrote to Chagoury in April.

What's your opinion? Doesn't that make sense? Of course it does, but it brings up a disquieting concern.

If it was difficult for a politically-connected billionaire to restore his privileges to fly into the United States, what about ordinary people entangled in the enhanced screening for the no-fly list?

What do you think? Is it worth it that some people will be inconvenienced in order for the government to do its job of searching out terrorists? Aren't the stakes too high to allow everyone free movement unless they've already been convicted of terror related crimes? Don't you think it's possible to ensure this terror-list policy is not abused, short of eliminating the whole thing?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Tennessee Veto

Trigger-Happy Cops in Fort Worth

The Star-Telegram reports on what they suggest may have been a case of suicide-by-cop. I don't think so.

Contrary to what an agitated Jose Vieira told a 911 dispatcher -- "I do have a gun" -- investigators did not find a weapon after the 21-year-old man was fatally shot by a Fort Worth police officer Monday morning, officials said Wednesday.

Police released more information about the confrontation on a residential Richland Hills street, saying that Vieira shouted, "I do want to hurt somebody!" just seconds before grabbing something that appeared to officers to be a gun from inside the SUV he was driving.

They learned later that Vieira was holding a cellphone and music CDs, said Lt. Paul Henderson, a police spokesman.

"In their minds, he had a black and silver gun," Henderson said. "We may never know if Mr. Vieira intentionally wanted the officers to think that he had a gun, but his actions and his behavior are certainly consistent with cases of suicide by cop."

In my opinion, part of the problem is that cops know they will usually get the benefit of the doubt in such cases. They don't have to be as careful as they could be, they don't have to take chances. That leads to too many unnecessary police shootings.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Conflict Resolution the Pennsylvania Way

Public Opinion reports on a Pennsylvania gun owner who got himself in a little trouble.

A 54-year-old Bedford County man allegedly pointed a loaded gun at a 36-year-old woman, then fired a round into a nearby field Sunday afternoon.

Pennsylvania State Police, McConnellsburg, said Barry Duke Bunker, 54, of Six Mile Run, showed up at the woman's home on Waterfall Road in Taylor Township and demanded that his 18-year-old daughter leave with him. He reportedly became upset when the woman refused to notify his daughter.

The woman and other witnesses told police that Bunker then got a gun from his vehicle and loaded it before confronting her.

No one was injured. Bunker is charged with aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, and reckless endangerment.

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I'm all for weeding out these kinds of gun owners, the ones who can't deal with conflict and resort to the gun. But, what is it with these new "terrorist" laws? Isn't it ridiculous to charge a guy like this with anything with the word "terror" in it?

Of course the story brings up one of my favorite themes. How many gun owners are like this, percentage-wise? What's your opinion about that? Is it so low that we don't need to worry about it? Or is it something to be concerned with?

Please leave a comment.