Gun Control In An Election Year
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-24/gun-control-election-year
In the wake of the Colorado shootings, national debate over gun control is in the spotlight, but most politicians are remaining silent. Diane and her guests discuss the absence of political debate over gun control in an election year.
Guests
Ladd Everitt
Director of Communications at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Robert Spitzer
Chair of the political science department at the State University of New York in Cortland, and author of "The Politics of Gun Control."
John Velleco
director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America.
Juliette Leftwich
legal director, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Here is where the rubber meets the road. The place where the corruption of politicians,and Citizens United bump heads. Right wing extremism and the cash they have,will always sway public opinion sooner or later. All these corporate corrupter`s merge forces when one is under attack. It forces a lone politician willing to stand up for Americans,and against the powerful NRA,now becoming the target,with the resources and cash to defeat them.They will be crushed. Nobody can deny the fear politicians have.
Strange how it's assumed that when public opinion is against liberal big government causes that some how opinions and elections have been bought or some how influenced by corrupt forces. But when public opinion favors a liberal cause or election the "truth" and "enlightened thinking" prevailed. When it comes to lies, deception and blood thirsty political opportunism, nine out of ten times it comes from democrats and the liberal main stream media. Liberal agenda driven shows like this one are typical of what can be expected from main stream media outlets, thinking for yourself is not and option, they will do the thinking for you, truth and facts are irrelevant to the permanently ignorant main stream media consumer.
If a Muslim terrorist were at our door we`d expect government,big or small,to respond and keep us safe. When crime gets out of control we expect government,big or small,to keep us safe. Now America is under siege by the NRA and their well armed haters attacking us. And YES, I demand the government,big or small,to do their DARN jobs and keep us safe from the GUN NUTS !
An oath of office includes,from enemies,foreign and DOMESTIC !
Why is it a "Liberal Agenda" goal to stop mass murders? If so I plead guilty.
Arguments that Don't Square: The Incongruent Case for Gun Right and Voter ID Laws. My thoughts here:
http://yourthoughtshere.wordpress.com/
I want to see the You Tube video of the NRA gun nut,standing up against "BIG GOVERNMENT", with his assault weapon,against the U.S. Military and their drones. That is the "STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES" argument the right wing loonies make.
Patsy Nomore wrote:
I want to see the You Tube video of the NRA gun nut,standing up against "BIG GOVERNMENT", with his assault weapon,against the U.S. Military and their drones. That is the "STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES" argument the right wing loonies make.
translation: You don't agree with me so your a nut, but I am always right. And I think the only Laws that should be enforced are the ones I like. Also who cares about the constitution it is only the document that made way for and guides the greatest country in the history of the earth. So to recapitulate, if we disagree you're a nut, and I should be personally consulted before any laws are enforced.
It's an interesting choice for the D.R. show to have a picture of happy pro gun rights demonstrators on the eve of a horrendous gun crime. I would hate to think there was a nefarious reason to pick this picture of joyous freedom loving Americans receiving good news that their Constitutional rights have been upheld on June 26, 2008.
During the early years of the AIDS crisis, one doctor was so disgusted at the way health authorities were not taking it seriously that he finally stood up at a conference and asked: "Just give us a number. How many people must die before you'll even discuss this properly? Tell us so we can stop wasting your time and ours until that number is reached."
I've decided to apply that same principle to the gun crisis. I won't bother debating the NRA (etc.) who regard any restrictions on gun ownership (even, horrors!, a waiting period) as violation of the half of the Second Amendment they worship (since they disregard the rest). I won't bother pointing out that even the Supreme Court says reasonable gun regulations are constitutional. No, just give me a number. How many people must die, a hundred, a thousand, a million, before we can have a serious discussion? Until then, we can all stop wasting our time!
To partisan politics (writing on
July 23, 2012 - 1:28 pm ):
Yes, it's as strange as the way in which when public opinion is against Republi-Con ideology, it must be because people are idiots or have been brainwashed. Or, when a very conservative Justice (who was once regarded as a hero by the right-wing) dares to "step out of line" and strike down SB1070, or uphold "Obamacare", it's not because he's following precedent and the Constitution, but because he's "sold out".
And it's also strange how Republi-Cons can accuse a President of lying merely because he couldn't keep all his promises (in part, due to their opposition), but can embrace as a man of integrity someone who can't even remember if he resigned before 2001, or "retroactively".
In short, dear boy, I can't hear you for your own hypocrisy, mindless partisanship, and blind ideology.
To mnemecek (writing on
July 23, 2012 - 3:22 pm):
While I wouldn't have put the way she did, Patsy's point isn't 'You don't agree with me so you're a nut.' It's that even someone "armed to the teeth" as this Colorado lunatic was would stand little chance against the full might of the U.S. military - if they were willing to serve a 'power mad tyrant' like Republi-Cons try to paint the President.
Put simply, one nuclear equipped drone missile can ruin your whole day! Anyone who seriously thinks an assault rifle will defend against that must have a few screws loose. (An ABM might work, but I don't think it's legal for private citizens to own them.)
By the way, even the Supreme Court has stated that reasonable gun regulations are constitutional. So, despite NRA propaganda, the Constitution does not allow every Tom, Dick or Mary to own any and all weapons they wish, bought wherever and whenever they wish. So before you start pontificating about enforcing the Law, you might try educating yourself about it!
partisan politics on July 23, 2012 @ 5:53 pm wrote: “It's an interesting choice for the D.R. show to have a picture of happy pro gun rights demonstrators on the eve of a horrendous gun crime.”
I’m sure this is simply a typo on your part, rather than a product of your paranoia and your own capacity to deem truth and facts irrelevant, but I have to point out that neither the date the photo was taken (2008), nor the date the Diane Rehm show used it (today) is “on the eve of a horrendous gun crime”.
Unless you know something the rest of us don’t. In which case you should be dialing 911 to report the incipient crime, or maybe we should be calling the Police about you!
;-)
partisan politics,
You mentioned the broadcast is "on the eve of a horrendous gun crime".
Are you forecasting another tragedy for today/tonight?
And I don't understand the connections you suggest between "big government" and a potential liberal gun grab and the right to bear arms. I can truthfully say a trained individual can kill minus an arsenal of weapons. e.g.there is no Constitutional ban or right regarding martial arts.....most of which were developed to allow unarmed people to fight those with weapons.
Since the crazy "Joker" had months to prepare, it is fortunate that he "only" was able to harm those in one theatre. Al Qaeda would have preferred to take down the entire city block.
Me too, Patsy!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
By the way, even the Supreme Court has stated that reasonable gun regulations are constitutional. So, despite NRA propaganda, the Constitution does not allow every Tom, Dick or Mary to own any and all weapons they wish, bought wherever and whenever they wish. So before you start pontificating about enforcing the Law, you might try educating yourself about it!
I have no problems with waiting periods or with restricting gun ownership for the the mentally unstable or felons. Nor did I say anything to imply that, so before you start pontificating you might try learning to read.
I just did a quick but of research so if the numbers are off by a little I ask you to consider that. It turns out there are roughly 17,000 gun related deaths a year(on average over the past 10 years) although I saw stated averages as high as 30,000 and as low as 15,000. I also saw that the average number of vehicle deaths in the same period are over 40,000. So when are we going to outlaw vehicles, they have no specific protection in the constitution and more deaths are attributed to them. Tobacco related deaths 443000 no constitutional protections, Alcohol deaths 75000 a year no constitutional protections, 10000 knife related deaths, obesity related deaths 400,000 no constitutional protections. So lets deal with the non constitutionally protected issues then you can talk about the protected.
Lets project the insane NRA plan. Instead of scanning for weapons at airports and taking guns away,we pass out guns to all. Would you get on that plane?
How about using their theory elsewhere? If more women were pregnant,there would be less abortions?
How about,if more people were using illegal drugs,we would stop drug use?
30,000 annual gun deaths.300,000 gun injuries..That`s nuts.
I would like to ask all those who shout about upholding their gun rights - what about my right to be free of people around me who pack heat who may feel like they need to shoot me if I look at them the wrong way.
The Constitution speaks of a militia, not individuals. The Supremes erred once again. No one has a right to an assault weapon, a weapon of war. Period.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The use of a comma in the second amendment is called an introductory element. This discribes the reasoning for the following statement. Not a limitation on the statement. So it means basically:
Because A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, we shall not infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
If it were intended to mean what the anti-gun groups would have you believe it would have been written:
Congress will pass no laws that infringe on the rights of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms.
I edited this portion out after the initial post as I realized I was being unnecessarily argumentative. My apologies to those that might have been offended.
LauraH wrote:"The Constitution speaks of a militia, not individuals'
Wrong, the "militia" are the people.
Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Politicians remain silent this close to an election because to speak for or against gun control would be political suicide.
I agree. Not one of our politicians (other than Bloomberg who is mayor of NYC) has the courage to speak out about our insane gun laws (or lack thereof).
Common sense. That's all. Just plain common sense. Why would someone want an assault rifle? You can't hunt with it, unless you want ready made hamburger. Target practice? hardly. It's a tool to kill...many, fast, and quick. Should just anyone have them? Obviously, no. Should huge amounts of ammo be available for sale on the internet? obviously, no. Should anyone be able to buy a weapon without a background check as they are at gun shows? Obviously, no. When something like this happens, the call out is that "they" are going to take away our guns. It is viewed as all or nothing at all, and as we know, that is simply not the case in any issue. Common sense must be applied to reach a fair resolution. But, in an election year, it ain't gonna happen.
Dawn Castle wrote: "Common sense. That's all. Just plain common sense. Why would someone want an assault rifle? You can't hunt with it, unless you want ready made hamburger. Target practice? hardly"
The level of ignorance about firearms is almost breathtaking. An "assault rifle" is a regular semi auto rifle with cosmetic differences, it's not a machine gun either. It uses an intermediate round, something between a hand gun cartridge and a rifle cartridge. So it is a smaller bullet than a regular dear hunting rifle in .308. And yes you can hunt with it and target practice with it and thousands do. It does not reduce game to hamburger any more than a hunting rifle. You people need to educate yourselves because you don't have a clue about guns or the Constitution. How is a discussion about "common sense" possible with people that don't know what their talking about. You probably don't realize that what this is about is a total ban on every type of firearm imaginable. "Assault rifles" are only a ruse to gain political traction to ban everything. Handguns are by far the choice of criminals not assault rifles.
Money, and it's best friend, power, will ultimately decide this controversy. One way or the other. My guess is that firearms will continue to be available for the forseeable future. There are many people who are preparing for the outbreak of civil war, sometime in the future. And while many would pooh-pooh even the idea of civil war in this country, the fact is that it has happened and was very bloody. In fact, I believe the 1861-1865 conflict so damaged the fabric of this country that it has never fully recovered, and never will. Oh, we have been able to get together in past crises, but I'm very much convinced that we have reached a crucial point in our history which could break us. We seemingly can no longer work together. We have put competitiveness ahead of co-operation. We are still in business, but unless we find common ground on ALL of our problems, our days are definitely numbered.
The majority of the American public supports access to guns, the US Supreme Court in the Heller decisions redefined what the Second Amendment means to codify that access. Even if one were to pass draconian gun laws there are more guns than people out there...the horses left the barn long ago.
Instead of focus on the guns and the things we probably can't change, lets focus on what we can do....change the debate. Lets focus on the victims of gun violence. Every year, almost 10,000 people are gunned down in this country, many thousands more are maimed or wounded (even the last sitting Vice President). That isn't even taking into account the families, friends and co-workers that are directly impacted by gun violence. What we should do is honor these people, they are the cost of our freedom to purchase, own, carry and use guns. They are the bill in blood, pain and suffering that is paid every day. We are talking about the equivalent of three 9/11s a year, yet we as a society have decided that is a bill we should pay.
Lets honor these fallen who gave the last full measure of their person to defend our rights. We honor the military who volunteer to defend our rights and freedoms. Why not honor those who are drafted by poor choices or even just fate such as going to see a movie only to become another name, body, pool of blood sacrificed for our freedom. Maybe if the debate was not about the guns but the bill for that freedom, then maybe we could have a real discussion. Even if it goes nowhere, it makes us take note of the cost we are willing to pay for something we think we need.
Richard
To "Partisan Politics"--Earlier you posted: "You people need to educate yourselves because you don't have a clue about guns or the Constitution." You had some relevant points to make, so why go on the attack? STUDY the entire 2nd Amendment, come back and debate.
Once upon a time, the NRA was about gun safety. Now, people like Wayne LaPierre are so far away from the founders' meaning in the 2nd Amendment that it's pathetic. You are smart enough to know the true intent of the 2nd; stop trying to convince others that you don't really understand its full meaning.
In the lead-in to your show, you mentioned that the AR-15 that was used in the Aurora tragedy would have been banned under the so-called "assault weapons" ban. That is not correct.
The ban defined assault weapons based on a number of cosmetic features. During the ban, the AR-15 was modified by removing these features to make it legal, without altering any of its functional or operating characteristics.
Also, while magazines with a capacity of more than 20 cartridges were banned, only the manufacture of new such magazines was banned. Existing magazines could be kept and existing stocks of such magazines could continue to be sold.
Therefore, an extension of this assault weapons ban would have had no impact on this horrific crime.
Don't you love how the gun advocate called one of the weapons "a rifle"... like it was one of those 22s you shot as a kid!
The NRA and many gun owners are cowards...killing should be up close and personal from an object like knife or scissors...the gore induced should be hands on...not 30 feet away like at a carnival. The GOP & NRA cowards all of them
Americans should realize that you are biggest arms dealer in the world . Not only are guns from the U.S. killing many many people in Mexico and many of these illegal weapons are making their way to Canada where the killing continues. The argument that guns equals freedom is ludicrous. Giving individuals the power over life and death is not freedom for those who choose not carry guns. Most of the western world has figured out that weapons in the hands of anybody and everybody is not a safer society.