Tuesday, April 24, 2007

No Surrender On Guns

I have to admit that, as I read the coverage and analysis from our corporate media concerning the Blacksburg massacre last week, I was particularly disappointed, though not surprised. This was because of the almost apologetic nature in which our news geniuses referred to the fact that Americans in this country, as noted here, seem to be split on the gun issue, with white men generally opposing gun laws and women and minorities generally supporting them.

Worse to me, though, is the reaction of the Democratic Party because, like it or not people, you are still the party of gun control.

Marie Cocco of the Washington Post writer’s group wrote a column last week about how the Dems basically are running away from the gun control issue because they’ve managed to achieve electoral victory by avoiding it. And of course, making inroads into Virginia in the election of both Jim Webb to the Senate and Tim Kaine to the governor’s house came at the expense of denial on gun control (and, if anything, it may have helped Webb’s rep on this issue when an aide was busted while trying to bring a loaded piece into the Capitol – Webb is truly a great populist Dem who has stood tall, but even though many of his constituents would disagree, I think he has some work to do on the gun issue).

As I look a little further into this, though, I realize (not surprisingly, I’ll admit) that what is really driving this controversy, in addition to the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, is the revenue gun dealers generate from arms sales at gun shows and gun-related promotions.

This takes you to an article describing the reaction when President Clinton tried to prohibit any firearm sale at a gun show without a background check (and of course, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was one of the first people to jump down Clinton’s throat on this).

This takes you to an advertisement for a company advertising concealed-carry training in anticipation of purchasing a CC license for Florida or Utah, enabling the purchaser to carry in 31 states as noted in the ad (and how shameless can these people get when using Hurricane Katrina as a rationale for owning a gun).

On the legislative front, one of the tactics used by the NRA to override state and local laws and enable anyone to carry anywhere in this country is to push for legislation exempting current and former law enforcement officers from these laws in favor of a federal exemption. This was tried in the U.S. House by Duke Cunningham in 1998 (as noted here, with an analysis from Handgun Control on an amendment to the bill and related issues here), and also in the Senate in 2002 by Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy (here – though Leahy is solid on a host of other issues, Vermont is definitely a pro-gun state).

I can’t think of anyone who would oppose assisting law enforcement in a matter like this. However, if you read Ted Kennedy’s dissent to the 2002 legislation, you will realize just how many holes there are in a bill like this that allow for exploitation in favor of the gun interests who won’t be happy until every citizen in this country is armed.

This situation is one that may require some kind of an independent commission, though I will admit that I’m not a big fan of that sort of thing. However, the degree of bipartisanship that will be required to work this out is something that I don’t believe we can currently obtain without it (and I am completely aware, by the way, of what a sad commentary that is on our current state of affairs).

Until we resolve the “concealed carry” issue on a state-by-state basis (only for law enforcement or officials in the criminal justice system as far as I’m concerned), here are other things we can implement in a more immediate timeframe:

- One gun a month (enough arguing about this)
- A nationwide ban on straw purchases
- If gun dealers aren’t going to allow background checks at gun shows, then they should be banned from selling guns at all
- A mandatory three-day waiting period for buying a gun
- A mandatory check in all states against both a federal and state database of gun records before approving a purchase
Because, in addition to reading about Blacksburg, I’m sick and tired of reading stories like the one in today’s Philadelphia Daily News stating that there have been 128 homicides already in the city this year, a 17 percent increase over last year.

Also, did you hear about the three killings/suicides in Houston over the last four days (as noted here)?

Democrats, you are the party of gun control. Start acting like it, or you will no longer be worthy of my support.

Update: Here are the latest polling stats from Rasmussen, and it looks like Tim Kaine is going to try and close off a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't get anywhere near them.

6 comments:

profmarcus said...

gun dealers' revenues are only the tip of the iceberg... besides the issue of gun control, there is the exceedingly larger issue of the weapons and defense industry in the united states... i posted this back last november...

-----

Sales of military weapons by United States contractors to foreign governments doubled in the last year, as countries like Pakistan, Australia and Greece stepped up purchases of armaments and the United States government loosened policies to allow more American weapons to be sold on the world market. A total of $21 billion in arms sales agreements were signed from September 2005 to September 2006, compared with $10.6 billion in the previous year, according to new data compiled by the Pentagon.

-----

is it any wonder that gun control laws are so fiercely resisted by both democrats and republicans alike...? taking serious action on this would be tantamount to letting the camel stick its nose under the tent... i remember when i lived in new mexico, the state liquor lobby vociferously opposed a state-wide ban on drive-through liquor sales... same dynamic...

doomsy said...

Yep - I have no illusions about what we're up against here...thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mr. gun crime stat man, don't forget the country of Switzerland where every citizen is required by law to own a "national defense", and hence self defense, automatic firearm. Or, whatever firearm they want to own. Duh ....... What's the crime rate there? Scared to even tell these blog sheep the truth of near ZERO. Wonder why this literal lack of crime? Ever hear of a school shooting in that country? Or anyone going "postal"? Why do you think that might be? Use your cortex. Jeeeez .....

doomsy said...

Well, that just settles everything, doesn't it, Dr. Mike? I'll just hitch up my lederhosen, pick up few chocolate bars while I'm over there and just make timepieces for the rest of my life, then, with my trusty Glock in plain sight for all to see.

The day that Philadelphia, Houston, or any other big city in this country resembles Switzerland is the day that I'll do La Ronde du Jorat (a Swiss native dance) in the middle of I-95.

Use your own cortex first.

Anonymous said...

Typical of your breed to dodge logic with persiflage. And just how did you know that I love the La Ronde du Jorat (that Swiss native dance)? Would you dance it for me anyway in the middle of I-95 .. preferably at night ...

Your only salient point: Glocks are trusty.

doomsy said...

You want logic? I would say that this is logical...

Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

I obtained this information from an article that can be accessed here (again, not happy with Blogger's link embedding, but this is the best I can do).

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

You see, it's "typical of my breed," if you will, to base my argument in facts and not constitutional misinterpretation.

And I know the article is about data recorded from 1994 - you produce something about this subject more recent and I'll link to it.