Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Crossroads of the West - The Biggest Travelling Gun Show in America

Salon reports

Crossroads of the West bills itself as the biggest traveling gun show in America, a bastion for constitutional rights where freedom lovers can exchange weapons, ammunition and ideas. The 35-year-old company promotes events in four states – Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah – and last year’s shows drew more than 407,000 customers at up to $16 bucks a pop. Last weekend, Crossroads occupied the Arizona State Fairgrounds in Phoenix, and although these expos swing through the area regularly, the parking lot filled up fast.

What makes gun shows such a tricky market for regulators is that often there is very little on the surface to distinguish federal licensed dealers from the private sellers who can sell weapons without a background check. This “Gun Show Loophole” has been a favorite legislative target of gun-control advocates for a decade now, and it’s one of the key provisions in the democratic platform that has so many gun rights advocates riled up. 

Here at Crossroads, private sellers often have tables stocked with an equally dizzying array of firearms – many new in the box – and the only difference is that their weapons are labeled with handwritten garage sale-style price tags, and that instead of fancy canvas signs they often just post a sheet that reads: PRIVATE SELLER/NO PAPER. With enough cash and a flash of your Arizona ID, you can walk away with as many untraceable firearms as you like.

Customers who put a premium on privacy deliberately seek out these private sellers, and critics don’t like customers who put a premium on privacy, namely convicted felons, drug abusers, the mentally ill, or other “prohibited possessors.” Last year, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an advocacy group co-chaired by New York’s Michael Bloomberg, released videos of an undercover sting at a Crossroads show here in Phoenix where investigators were able to buy on several occasions even after baiting vendors with statements like “I probably wouldn’t pass a background check.”
The self-centered nature of the gun-rights folks never ceases to amaze me. It's so obvious that some harm is being done by these private sellers, the only question is how much.  And, without interfering with the lives and rights of lawful gun owners the "private sale loophole" could be eliminated. Yet, they won't hear of it.

Why is that? Could these folks really be that self-absorbed and unconcerned about the preventable gun violence that takes place as a result of this easy access to guns?

They say criminals will always get guns.  But, they don't KNOW that, it's just a guess.  And there's evidence to the contrary. Where there are fewer guns, there are fewer murders, not just murders with guns, but fewer murders, period.

One explanation I can come up with is that the adamant voices which rail against any and all gun control initiatives are just the fringe minority of gun owners at large.  There have been surveys that indicate that even gun owners and  NRA members agree with the background check problem.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


Unrestricted Rights

via The Salem News
Let me be explicit: an “unrestricted right to gun ownership” is not a right. In fact, any “unrestricted right” is not a right. For rights to be genuine, for rights to be effective, for rights to be humane, for rights to be rights, they must be placed into social and political contexts — and that means regulation.

This view of rights emphasizes that they are one of the most important ways that we as a society have sought to honor and protect human dignity — in fact, the protection of human dignity is precisely what rights are for. A high view of dignity will pair rights with responsibilities, individual freedoms with the obligation to ensure that freedoms of others will be respected. If we believe that human dignity requires the right to bear arms, that same foundation of human dignity requires regulations to ensure that this right is appropriately related to all the other rights and responsibilities we bear. Our debate should not be whether regulation, but only which regulation.
Even Justice Scalia, who is no friend to gun control, said in the Heller decision that reasonable restrictions are acceptable. This makes the Second Amendment argument about non-infringement meaningless. 

What we're left with is a discussion about how much restriction is acceptable. Even my ideas about proper gun control, which have never come close to being implemented even in the most restrictive places, would allow for the preservation of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  The difference would be that gun owners would be more qualified and more responsible.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Is The US is a Christian Nation?

Borrowed from WTF is it Now?

Vote Republican

Borrowed from WTF is it Now?

Jon Stewart on Obama's Use of Executive Privilege

Cenk on the Gay Republicans

Guns and Spinal Cord Injuries

We've often mentioned that the damage of gun violence is not only counted in deaths. But still we tend to underestimate the extent of the suffering and expense involved in serious injuries.

One way the gun-rights crowd attempts to side step this discussion is to say if we were really concerned about people and their suffering we'd be talking about cars or falls or swimming pools, which account for far more damage than guns.  This is an obvious attempt at obfuscation.  What we are talking about is gun violence, preventable gun violence for the most part.

Among the 100,000 people who are injured or killed by guns each year there are many thousands who suffer the kinds of injuries they never recover from.

This is the reality.  No amount of downplaying or trickery can diminish the seriousness of the toll gun violence takes on our society.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.