[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
The gruesome murder of two TV persons on air is now top news around the media at both sides of the Atlantic. The sad thing is, people have grown so accustomed to hearing that sort of news coming from America that the overwhelming response I'm hearing is, "Meh, no surprise there". It's just that Americans reaching for the gun to sort out their issues has become the standard now.

There are two possible explanations for what happened, and the pattern that it's part of. One is that there's something very perverse in this right to freely and openly bear arms that's at the core of American society - I mean, the very idea of someone being able to carry a loaded gun around schools, hospitals, or as is this case, a live-TV studio, is truly mind-boggling for a non-American.

Read more... )
[identity profile] airiefairie.livejournal.com
The world probably just got its best New Year's present in many decades, it seems...

UN officials hail entry into force of landmark global arms trade treaty

"United Nations officials are welcoming the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), hailing it as a new chapter in collective efforts to bring responsibility, accountability and transparency to the global arms trade."

This is a landmark piece of international legislation, a result of long and hard work by a number of countries, and is aiming to provide the much anticipated change in the way arms industries around the world are regulated. After two decades of preparation, this treaty was finally opened for signing about a year ago, potentially making global arms trade subject to international law. It has now been signed by over 130 states, and ratified by 60 of them, who in turn have adopted its stipulations into their own laws.


The initiative which gave the final push was launched by Amnesty International, which recruited several of the most prominent Nobel Peace Prize laureates lead by former Costa Rican president Oscar Arias. Actually the most decisive breakthrough came in 2006 when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution instructing the Secretary General to explore a future arms trade treaty - curiously, out of 154 votes at the time, 153 were in favour, and the only one against was... wait for it... the USA.

Read more... )
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Some of you might remember something I posted four years ago about right wing thug Mike Vanderboegh and his blog call for loyal patriots to smash the windows of Democratic Party Offices. The result -- surprise surprise! -- was the smashing of windows in several Democratic Party Offices. Mr. Vanderboegh opined that he wasn't promoting "actual violence." “How ambiguous is it if I say break windows? Am I saying kill people, absolutely not,” he said.

As I pointed out, the comments section on his blog didn't exactly jibe with his insistence that, oh mercy no, he wasn't talking about KILLING people. They included:

“Today it was bricks, tomorrow it will be ???? The fuse has been lit.”

Read more )
[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
Every time a shooter pulls a gun nowadays and uses it with lethal force, donations to political organizations dedicated to restricting firearms in some way skyrocket. No one can blame the donors; they see an out-of-control situation and seek a means to staunch the bloodshed.

Here's the kicker, though: after each of these incidents, donations to the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations also spikes. The reason is fairly simple. If the gun restriction crowd gets its way, the lifestyle of the gun rights crowd might well go away, no matter what positive benefit to society the restriction on guns might have. Which leads to the real split, as author Dan Baum puts it:

Data bout the effects of gun-control measures could be compared and contrasted. When it came to whether restrictive gun laws did good or did harm, reasonable people could disagree.

Finding reasonable people was the problem.

(Dan Baum, Gun Guys, Borzoi Books, 2013, p. 205.)


My point here is not to debate the rise or fall in gun-related violence, though, but to note that any rise in violence should be noted with equal focus. Which leads me to last Monday. )
[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/175676/citing-tourism-town-bans-open-carrying-of-guns/

In today's news, people who are anti-gun decided to usurp the constitutional rights of the cargo cult that worships a weapon as an idol while claiming to be Christian-Second Amendment types by claiming that a bunch of people walking around brandishing weapons is bad for tourism.

"Board members and some in the audience argued that the ban violates their Second Amendment rights. Supporters said it doesn't make sense to allow people to openly carry guns as the area also tries to cultivate its image as a tourist destination for families.

"We've had a tough time over the years promoting Lake Ozark as a family area," said Alderman Larry Buschjost, who voted for the ban. "We want you on the Strip with families, everywhere in Lake Ozark with families. We want you to bring your kids down here and let them loose. For the life of me, I don't understand why I would have to carry any type of gun, concealed or otherwise."

So, as it turns out, the same mentality the NRA was for calling weird before it was against it is something that, when it cuts against the profit motive, takes a nosedive. Now, if the cargo cultists can explain why, if guns are so absolutely harmless, people would be afraid to bring kids into a town with a bunch of menchildren openly carrying their gun with them every single place they go, they're welcome to do so. Preferably an explanation that centers on why people with kids should not be afraid, as opposed to the idiotic idea that in the 21st Century small arms are decisive against the sheer firepower of the American military in the even that President Alexander von Doom decided to go Assad in some hypothetical dystopian future. Which is neither relevant to this nor germane to why the aldermen of this city issued the ban.

[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Whoops! Let's see now, it's been just a few days since I posted the op and -- well -- another week, another shooting, this time in Las Vegas.

And here's what I find especially fascinating about it; The husband and wife shooting team who the other day bravely gunned down two lunching police officers and then stormed a Walmart before killing themselves were among those who were complaining about how gosh-darned silly us "gun grabbers" are for objecting to civilians wandering around showing off their guns in public.

Wonkette’s comment is the best: “They think people should not be scared of other people just because they have guns. I mean, what’s gonna happen, are they going to KILL THEM?”

Seriously, I think many of those attempting to normalize civilians openly walking around with guns are guilty of a profoundly nasty form of bad faith. They like the idea of people not instantly calling the cops when they see someone walking down the street with a Bushmaster, but not just because the police might disrupt those casual strolls. They really don’t want the police disrupting what they’d actually like to do with those guns once they walked into a crowded place with them.

A gunfight, after all, is the only “argument” some of these folks can imagine winning.

By the way, looks like I need to amend the title of my original OP.

Another few days, another shooting.
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
From the Seattle Times: Shortly after a gunman stalked SPU’s Otto Miller Hall on Thursday afternoon, fatally shooting one student and wounding two others, Meis made a split-second decision that some now say helped stop further carnage.

As the gunman stopped to reload his weapon in blood-splattered Miller Hall, Meis, 22, a senior engineering student from Renton, saw an opportunity, his roommate said Thursday night.

Meis, who was working at the time as a monitor who sits at a desk in the lobby, near the Hall’s front door, quickly moved in to pepper-spray the gunman, then he tackled him to the ground. Police arriving moments later moved in to handcuff and arrest the suspect, other witnesses said.


So yesterday, we had another shooting, this time in Seattle. Adam Ybarra walked onto the Seattle Pacific University Campus and opened fire with a shotgun. He was prevented, not by a "good guy with a gun," but by being tackled and subdued with pepper spray.

I really don't know how long this insanity is going to be allowed go on in my country. Not only do we have the occasional nutjob like this walking into crowded places and opening fire just for the helluvit, we've not got roving bands of "open carry" gun afficionados trying to promote the notion that only silly "gun-grabbers" object to the sight of civilians walking around brandishing shotguns in coffee shops, fast food joints, etc.

Read more )
[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/smart-gun-dumb-move-nra-article-1.1781400

OK, so let's see here: the professional gun lobbies which claim to favor gun safety, object to a gun which only the owner can use. They object, furthermore, to a hypothetical policy that would if anything enhance gun ownership  and gun safety by preventing more people like the Sandy Hook shooter from stealing someone else's weapons to go shoot up things. Why is this the case? It seems to me to reflect a combination of 1) the inevitable hypocrisy of the so-called free market advocates, who immediately scream oppression and bloody murder when they have to adhere to their own ideals, 2) that the NRA's understanding the Second Amendment differs rather drastically from the original intention of this particular part of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was to fill in the army that the Founding Fathers were too cheap to pay to build, not to serve as a license to insurrection, which is in fact explicitly forbidden under the Constitution.

If someone can come up with a valid reason to oppose new technology like this, or why a government mandate on firearms suited to being used only by their actual owners is a bad thing, I'd be interested in hearing it. Blaming it on various conspiracy theories and simply copy-pasting to someone else's ideas or Youtube videos do not qualify as 'valid reasons' because I say they don't for the purposes of this discussion.
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Remember George Zimmerman, the guy who -- locked in a life-or-death battle with a crazed skittles-armed Trayvon Martin -- had no choice but to shoot that black teenager dead? (We know this, of course, because George Zimmerman lived to tell us about it and the only person who could truly dispute it, Trayvon Martin, did not.)

Well, once again, his oh-so-reluctant use of violence has been called into question, this time by a “crazy” girlfriend, and once again, Zimmerman is there to set things straight. See, he was meekly gathering his things to leave after she’d thrown him out when she suddenly went “crazy again” and began smashing and throwing things. (Probably some hormone thing, cuz, he claims, she’s pregnant.) Faced with an insane girlfriend who'd just called the cops on him, he naturally had no choice but to lock her out of her house, barricade himself inside, and make his own call to 911 to set the record straight. Unfortunately, the audio of his call has been removed from the web, but here's a partial transcript:

Dispatcher: Okay, what’s going on there?

George Zimmerman: My (inaudible) girlfriend has, uh, for lack of a better word, ‘gone crazy again…’

Dispatcher: .... Okay, where is she now?

Zimmerman: Outside. With the police.

Dispatcher: Okay, the police is already there, and so why are you calling? What happened?

Zimmerman: I just want everyone to know the truth. ..I just wanted to leave. She told me that it was better… She’s pregnant with our child and she told me it was better if coparented and she raise the child on her own. That’s fine. I said, “Are you sure that’s what you want to do?” and she said “yes.” As soon as I started packing up my stuff to leave, she just completely changed.

Dispatcher: When you say she changed, what did she do?

Zimmerman: At first she was letting me pack my stuff so that I could go, you know, we could go our own ways amicably. When she changed she just started smashing stuff, taking the stuff that belonged to me and throwing it outside, throwing it out of her room, throwing it all over the house. She broke a glass table because she threw something on it, I don’t know whether it was mine or hers, whatever it was. She got mad that I that I guess I told her that I would be willing to leave…


Unlike Martin, his girlfriend is actually around to give her side of it, which can be heard in the 911 call she made that summoned those police Zimmerman mentions:

He’s in my house breaking all my stuff because I asked him to leave. He has his frigging gun, breaking all of my stuff right now….(to Zimmerman) I’m doing this again? You just broke my table, you just broke my sunglasses and you put your gun in my friggin’ face and told me to get the fuck out. So this is not your house….

911 Operator: Where’s his weapon at?

He just put it down… are you kidding me? He just pushed me out of my house and locked me out… He knows how to do this, he knows how to play this scene.


By the way – his girlfriend is apparently not pregnant. That’s just something Zimmerman said.

But of course, if the worst had happened, if that shotgun had gone off in her face and killed her, we’d all have to believe Zimmerman’s account of her suddenly going nuts and becoming violent.

Just like we all had to believe him about Trayvon Martin.

Right?
[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
This might come across as a brutal, stupid mess, but personal events of the last few days have gotten my gears turning in a few ways. It was posed to me some time ago that I don't share much about who I am or what I do, and while much of that is because I don't think emotion really belongs in these sorts of arguments, and other parts due to some stalkerish tendencies that many in the political communities I engage in have chosen to pursue that I've had to clean up, negotiating with terrorists and such is what it is, and I'm still sharing this story because I think it's some good context and raises some interesting topics that we've touched upon over the last few months. Regardless of how I feel about families of other members of these communities to be off-limits, the story of mine is relevant to where I'm coming from, but if you're not interested, feel free to scroll on guilt-free.

Some background: my wife and I have been caregivers for my Alzheimer's-ravaged mother for two years this weekend. We moved back home, took on a bunch of the responsibilities to take the load off my father, and so on. We placed her in a short term psychiatric care ward this week based on her condition. Long and short, though, Alzheimer's is a terrible disease and having babies around doesn't really make it easier, even when one is able to be a full-time caregiver.

Needless to say, society does not appreciate the sacrifices of caregivers at all. For as much as we preach about having to be all in it together and such, the experience of caregiving is a very lonely one, and one that few really get to understand. It's one thing to have an old person in your house who you need to cook for and clean while they're still generally with it. It's another to have that person actively hate you for it when it's your own parent, even though the part of that person who was actually your parent disappeared ages before. Laws like this in China are devastating because they misunderstand that balance between caregiver and caregiving, and almost encourage bad ideas and actions toward those who need the most help. We're lucky to be involved in a program that is designed more to intervene in regards to caregiver burnout than anything else - something none of the health reforms, which seem singularly focused on extending life, seem to understand.

In a sense, I have no choice but to do this for my mother, because that's how she raised me. She would be angry if she knew I was doing so, but you can't teach compassion and service to your children and then expect them to abandon it when you yourself need it. My sacrifice is no different than the one my grandmother made for my grandfather, that countless others who might read this might have made, and that a countless number of people that we'll never know make daily. My experience is different only in the sense that I'm very politically active and generally open about a process that's too often kept in the shadows for no good reason. The stigma of mental illness and such.

Anyway, some really strange thoughts in context to the current debates in general:

1) A lot has been said about mental health, especially in the context of the gun debate. Among the people who were in the emergency area with my mother was a guy who had assaulted a family member. It's interesting to consider, especially since, when we think about "the mentally ill should not have guns," pretty much everyone in the debate is in agreement that the folks like my mother, like Assault Guy, shouldn't have weapons. We already have legal prescriptions in place for them, however - things like medical proxies, powers of attorney, and such. You're not going to get everyone, especially when you have the mentally ill who are also alone or homeless or lack the support system. No system will. But it has really opened my eyes a bit more to the problems with such proposals. For example, there are many reasons to institutionalize someone for a short time - should that invalidate their rights entirely? Any number of minor mental health issues have violence as a symptom/extreme result - should we remove the rights of all depressed individuals as they may get violent? I understood that the proposal about gun rights and mental health were simple to start, but I didn't realize how much so until this week.

2) My mother's situation insurance-wise is complicated for a few reasons. Some of the complexities is because she worked in local government her whole life, but there's a contrast to be made with her insurance condition and how the governmental incentives regarding insurance works. My mother was diagnosed at age 52 - exceptionally young for Alzheimer's. Shortly after this, my wife and I looked into long-term insurance. Needless to say, it's not even available at a young age, and rarely is it available (in Massachusetts a year ago, at least) before you're 50. As a public employee, there's no Medicare available. Standard insurance doesn't cover long-term care. Quite the gap. Why? Medicare! Since Medicare exists, the market for older insurance has dried up. But Medicare, like many European socialized models and like the Canadian universal model, does not cover long-term care. Medicaid fills in that gap for many, but since it's need-based, it often kicks in after you've liquidated the assets of the infirm, assuming they last that long.

I'm a proponent of removing the employer/insurance relationship because of what it does to costs and the incentives it creates. Medicare has created a situation where far too many people are lost in the shuffle thanks to the single payer health care, leaving the costs to other people and removing a valuable market both for the insurer and those who need to be insured. Why won't governments worldwide fund it? It's very expensive (and arguably a good reason as to why they're able to keep the costs so low, which I hadn't considered until this week). Why would private insurance handle it better? It's very unlikely you'd need it, and very likely you'd want it. I don't want to do to my kid what we're going through, that's for sure.

3) The liability craziness is really out of hand. Part of the program my mother is part of involves visiting nurses, but the rules on what they can and cannot do appear to be ultimately arbitrary. Why? Fear of lawsuits combined with regulatory craziness. It's a visiting nurse who will not touch a fallen patient because of the risk. There's something really twisted about that. Makes me want to turn them loose even more.


4) If anything, we really need to be able to embrace the fact that people make a lot of sacrifices for the ones they love, and I've learned very quickly that I'm not alone in wanting less "help" from outside influences and more ability to be able to do what I can. As a matter of "social stigma," we don't talk about depression enough, about how depression impacts our relationship with ourselves and others, and how caregiver burnout can impact all those things. We don't want to talk about our caregiving lives because we, instinctually, don't want to burden others. We'd probably be better off as a society and a world if we were more open about them, and maybe it's time to start that on my own. Too often, the help we need is not financial or institutional in nature, but just that sort of mental kudos that you're doing what you can. Talking with others about this has really opened up a lot of discussion with others who are going through similar issues who never talk about it for those reasons. That might be part of why the laws and regulations haven't caught up to actual need, and too often reflect the theoretical based on the questionably statistical. It's how people like my mother fall into those gaps.
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
Let me first warn you, this is going to be more of a vaguely coherent, perhaps at times overly judgmental rant rather than anything thoughtful, for which I'm asking in advance for your forgiveness... but what I recently saw on US TV in the wake of a recent tragedy has made me want to blurt it out anyway.

Yes, I'm talking of the Aaron Alexis shooting and all that. And, although my focus is not on the event itself but on something else, I can't help but say a few words on that one as well.

So, a guy with a long and well documented record of mental disorders (hearing voices in his head, etc), and with an even more extensive record of gun-related incidents (shot at some guy's tires, etc), is STILL allowed to get his paws on a gun without a problem, and not only that, but also to enter a secured military facility, and start merrily shooting at folks? Huh?

You guys are soooo fucked. And this, coming from an actual Mozambican-South African. You get the picture, I think.

Even to a damned Third-World furrinner like myself, hearing of such occurrences in the Land of the Brave and the Free has gained such a customary character that sometimes I ask myself which is the norm and which is the deviation now. In a country of 300+ million and possibly as many interpretations of the freedom to own and bear arms, these tragedies have become part of every-day life to such an extent that I'm beginning to suspect the public's tolerance to them has reached the stratosphere and these are no longer more shocking or thought-provoking than some attention whore's bare-ass tongue-sticking shenanigans at some dumb music awards show.

But that's not what shocks me.

I warned you. This will cause ear wax to ooze from your ears. )
[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
I don't feel like thinking too hard today, so instead I'll make and defend a simple observation: Today's conservative politicians rely overly-much on visceral topics instead of intellectual arguments in order to attract the undying support of those who hold those emotional trip wires tautly. In other words, modern conservative activists and many of the elected representatives that respond to them have developed a vocabulary of dog-whistle scare tactics to simultaneously frighten their base and thus shore up support by promising to, if elected, curb the scary and icky.

Ooga booga! Scary ahead! )
[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
http://freeadam.net/2013/05/24/adam-kokesh-march-50-state-capitols/

So that idiot who wanted to bring around 10,000 armed people to the Capital to provide a demonstration of willingness to 'defend' rights by provoking a firefight in the event that this demonstration without a permit had gone off now revealed his true colors.He's called for an army of secessionists to menace the United States. Except that this is the 21st Century. No army can menace a government that can spy on its enemies from space. No army can succeed in such an endeavor here, and if such idiocy must be unleashed, it is only justifiable if it can win its war that it sets for itself to fight. In the 21st Century no such thing like this is possible.

The people who agitate most loudly for the Second Amendment as a license to commit treason neglect that the Constitution empowers the Feds to use all due force in the event of a domestic insurrection. Of course I expect that there'll be a lot of comments to this arguing that his call for an army of treason to march on state capitals really isn't a call for that, that never say what it really is. That's predictable. So would be the prospect that once again, like that damn fool earlier in the Obama Administration that threatened to 'do something' if Obama didn't resign and Ted Nugent, who predicted he'd be dead by now that nothing at all happens. But this is why people can be and are skeptical of the so-called Second Amendment crowd. Because the right to keep and bear firearms is no guarantee against a tyranny these days, and any pretense it is will end up with a lot of dead people and a war already lost. And it's even more interesting how the people who damn Communists, Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as the Taliban, also turn around during these kind of discussions and argue that they should emulate the folly of the people they hold as terrorists and the antithesis of freedom and of all that is best in humanity.
[identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

Gunshot

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. - Barry Goldwater

I had been searching for this for, what seems like, years. When gun debates come up, there is always a reference to self defense. I have Googled, Yahoo!ed and Binged and have never been able to see what a clear cut gun defense looked like until I ran across this story in the Washington Post.

I have always given gun rights advocates the benefit of the doubt and thought that the main stream media was unfairly shying away from gun defense cases because of some code of honor, political leanings or liability reasons. When I read this article, I was astonished at some of the things I discovered from it, such as:


  1. This was not a personal assault on the street, but a home invasion that required the victim to retrieve a gun from a safe and hide with her children in an area of this house that she hoped would be out of harm's way. There was no concealed carry involved.

  2. The victim has remained very private about the experience. No talk shows, no interviews, no publicity at all. The only statements made were from the police reports.

  3. All of the boasting has come from outside sources such as the NRA, Fox News and talking head radio shows.

  4. It has become apparent that crime will probably be mitigated and reduced in that neighborhood. Not because everybody is packing firearms, but because crime mitigation procedures such as Neighborhood Watches, a larger police force and security measures are being implemented.

  5. The biggest resulting braggadocio in the neighborhood has been the Walton County Sheriff, Joe Chapman, who was reduced to name calling in court calling the perpetrator a “dirt bag”.

  6. The perpetrator was shot 5 times in the chest and face with a .38 caliber handgun and still was able to escape in his car until he crashed a few blocks later. He survived, was convicted and sent to prison.

  7. The perpetrator was a resident of the community where he committed the crime.

  8. The perpetrator’s wife now possesses a gun to protect herself in what has become an arms race.

A news item like this would be in the best interest of the news media, the gun lobby and the NRA to promote this kind of account. Yet, things like this never seem to make it into any kind of press. Instead, mass shooting tragedies are arrogantly passed off as acceptable losses and any attempts to reduce gun violence are written off as bothersome irritation. It has become dangerously obvious that concern for the security of gun activists' armaments far exceeds their concern for the security of the society in which they live.

The picture that was painted by this incident didn’t follow the Hollywood script types of stories that gun activists like to paint. It is becoming more apparent that the scenarios that gun activists portray are, at best, anecdotal and incredibly rare and the reality invokes images of trauma rather than heroism.

This narrative goes contrary to concealed carry rationalizations. This is a clear cut case of domain protection, and not personal assault. This story reinforces my belief that aside from military or law enforcement professionals, those who arm themselves in public, and mentally and emotionally prepare themselves to take a life suffer from paranoid delusional fantasies. I think it’s worth noting that in the cases of military or law enforcement, their carry is not concealed.

My observations are further supported by the exceedingly zealous views of rabid gun activists who believe that the solution to every conflict is to shoot their way out of it. I am convinced that ordinary citizens that insist on concealed carry for protection are directly parallel to 40 year old male virgins that carry condoms. They will probably never use them, but they entertain a fantasy that their moment can come at any time.

It would seem that the NRA would be better served by representing the vast majority of gun owners who enjoy ownership for hunting, target shooting and domain protection. Instead, they feast on the fringe implementation of paranoid fantasies to justify their cause. The American Civil War is over. It's time we quit treating our nation like a war zone.

[identity profile] farmerz-agent.livejournal.com


The Wiki-Weapons project by Defense Distributed, which has for months been striving toward its goal of creating a fully functional 3D-printed gun, has succeeded in the first tests of a firearm created using only a 3D printer.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/wiki-weapons-fires-first-100-3d-printed-handgun/


Sure it's no AR-15 but it didn't take an AR-15 to cause a massacre, it took 4 hand guns. That's just 96 hours of printing with these new 3D printers....

Some facts I found interesting.

* The price of these printers is $8,000

* Firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF.

* Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 makes manufacture or possession of firearms capable of passing through a metal detector without detection.



“Anarchists have a 'bad name' in the media, not because they can point to one indiscriminate massacre by anarchists--there have been none--but because the one thing holders of power fear is that they personally should be held responsible for their own actions”
― Stuart Christie


I don't know what to think of this. This is a game changer?

I wonder how this will change the insurance industry.... #needtoleavetheoffice.
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Adam Kokesh: We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.


So Adam Kokesh has a GREAT idea! A thousand men marching on Washington DC on July 4th, carrying loaded weapons.

Kokesh says that his intent is "to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated [and] cower in submission to tyranny," which is pretty rich coming from someone whose response to legislation he dislikes is to wave a loaded gun at the legislators. It's especially interesting, if not especially reassuring, to read his comments about the marchers' commitment to non-violence.

Read more )
[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com


Yeah yeah...La Pierre is a shill for the gun industry, etc....

But pro restrictionists interpreting his statement about the protection of gun rights in such a juvenile way by saying 'the government isn't trying to take your guns' in order to fit any argument is absurd... anybody with any sort of understanding of politics and history already knows that rights are slowly taken from citizens over time by very subtle steps

The NRA's argument that each compromise of any rights is another baby step in the ongoing erosion of personal rights is a valid one.

Note to you pro restrictionists:

The reality of this bill was that it did nothing new nor would it have prevented tragedy.It had an internet sales and gun show background check requirement.However, internet sales already require shipment to a FFL dealer, which must already do a check. And to sell guns at a gun show, you already must have a local license to do business, and a FFL, so buyers must face a strict  background check there as well.Ergo it is already impossible to avoid a background check unless purchasing from an individual face to face.

Do you want to require individuals to conduct extensive background checks on Uncle Willy who wants to buy your shotgun? Like an AK-47, that is a bit of 'overkill'.

Then there was the 'mental background' evaluation. Who gets to define who is incompetent to be denied rights? Your shrink? My therapist? "Ask your doctor?" A government board?

Unfortunately, this bill was completely useless, wasted taxpayer dollars, and (worst of all) was simply a political ploy to work you guys up into a anti GOP frenzy for the mid terms... and you restrictionists are falling for it

 Democrats wanted to get a vote on a bill that was sure to fail so they could point the finger at the GOP and demonize them in the upcoming elections

the GOP wanted a bill that was absurd so that they would have political cover to vote against it, and the Dems delivered it intentionally

Folks, this is one of the rare political examples where both parties want the same thing: to fail so they can screw us over and manipulate us in the upcoming elections.

If POTUS wanted legislation, he could unify the background check system nationally and incorporate medical records into the database. This tactic was supported by 90% of gun owners and even the NRA. The result; a much stronger and perhaps more effective process. If POTUS actually wanted an effective system, this would be a no-brainer.

Yet, he didn't take that route. The question begs: "why?"

My opinion: Both parties are screwing us out of effective gun legislation by treating it as yet another wedge to manipulate a few votes. Manipulation of voter's emotions is what keeps us divided and them in business.

Do you agree?
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
"Ma'am, I think I saw a strange armed man coming through the schoolyard."
"You know what to do, my little ones. Shoot'em! Shoot'em now, kids!"
"Aw hell yeah!!!"

US schools weigh bulletproof uniforms: 'It's no different than a seatbelt in a car'
As gun control legislation grinds to halt in Washington, parents and teachers are taking matters into their own hands


"...Lined with ballistic material that can stop a 9mm bullet travelling at 400 metres per second, the backpack is only one of a clutch of new products making their way into US schools in the wake of Newtown school massacre. As gun control legislation grinds to halt in Washington, a growing number of parents and teachers are taking matters into their own hands.

...The Denver company that supplied Jaliyah's rucksack, Elite Sterling Security, has sold over 300 in the last two months and received inquiries from some 2,000 families across the US. It is also in discussion with more than a dozen schools in Colorado about equipping them with ballistic safety vests, a scaled-down version of military uniforms designed to hang in classroom cupboards for children to wear in an emergency.
"

You saw that coming, didn't you. )
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Remember that guy who allegedly threatened a state senator in California? The email that he supposedly sent has been released. Some of the early impressions that I had deserve correction. For one thing, the email is not concerned with legislation banning a gun part. The threat refers to the banning of AR-15 rifles (the civilian counterpart of the military M-16). The threat had nothing to do with the explosives that the suspect had at his house. It was restricted to the use of a sniper rifle to kill the senator.

The release of the email was not accompanied by any information on how the authorities tied the email to the suspect. For all we know the connection could be a ruse to shake up Basham into cooperating with the authorities on other matters. It is also possible that Basham really did send the email but that the connection was obtained without the proper search authorization. For example, it could have been the result of NSA surveillance of domestic internet traffic. If so the authorities might use the threat of trial to extract a plea agreement from Basham. (It goes without saying that a plea agreement would relieve Basham of the prospect of serving a few years as a biker babe at the state's expense.)

Some of the blogosphere comments on the case are interesting. One individual claimed that Basham is psychotic because he supposedly claimed to be someone he was not. By that standard anyone who claims that someone is psychotic must be psychotic since they are professing to be qualified to make such an evaluation. Even a trained psychologist would refrain from judgement in such a situation since they have neither experience with the individual nor do they have proof that the email was actually sent by the suspect.

If it turns out that the state has a valid case against Basham, do you see him as a serious threat to the senator? What kind of plea agreement do you expect to result? Do you foresee Basham as being permanently denied the right to arm bears?

Links: Basham's hometown newspaper on the release of the email. A blog article on the story. Previous posting on Talk Politics.
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Over lunch the other day a Japanese woman opined that the Newtown Massacre makes life in the U.S. less appealing. Although she did not say so openly, I suspect she wanted to bring me back to Japan. She wondered why I would not prefer to live there given the circumstances. I responded by saying that children are gunned down regularly in the U.S., but less fuss is made over them (probably owing to the social status of their parents).

The knee-jerk reactions to that tragic event have manifested as many a proposal for tighter regulations on fire arms as if that could mitigate such an atrocity. (I am reminded of the mad mothers who take their despair out on Demon Rum.) Here in California a state senator, Leland Yee, has proposed legislation to ban a gun component that helps a shooter to reload more quickly. Cynics may take this for a lame effort to pander to gun prohibition advocates without significantly prohibiting guns. Only a slippery-slope gun fanatic would get lathered up over such a ban.

Everett Basham is just such an individual. He is a gun enthusiast from Silicon Valley who allegedly threatened Senator Yee with death in a pathetic attempt to kill the legislation. Mr. Basham has been described by a former business associate as an individual who is disturbed by government power. The police found explosives at Mr. Basham's residence indicating that his alleged threat was not hollow and that his disturbance may result in a lifetime addiction to brain-damaging pharmceutical devices.

Mr. Basham is a poster child for non-leadership. If he had half of the talent of someone like Ramzi Yousef, he would have organized a cell of like-minded fanatics. The exposives would have been stored in a rental locker under a fake name. He would not have been traced to the threatening email message. His ineptitude may be interpreted by psychologists as a secret desire to be caught and prosecuted by the government he so hates.

The case of Mr. Basham reminded me of the militia movement. During my own stint working in the rat-race of Silicon one of my colleagues mentioned his own involvement in the militia movement after encountering them at a gun show. When I mentioned that the militia movement was founded by white supremacists he was taken aback. He could detect no aspect of racism in the people he knew. Had he been of an ethnic persuasion other than northern European he may not have been so unobservant.

What do you think will become of Mr. Basham? Do you expect him to survive his run-in with the Law, or do you see him stewing in a cocktail of torturous drugs? Will the slippery-slope crowd hold him up as a martyr for their cause?

Links: Video news story. Henry Lee and Ellen Huet on Basham's profile. Don Thompson on Basham's arrest. Background on Ramzi Yousef.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
26 2728293031 

Summary