An Update On Efforts To Prevent Gun Violence
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-07/update-efforts-prevent-gun-violence
The White House and Democratic lawmakers have vowed to introduce gun control legislation. A month after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a panel joins Diane to discuss prospective new actions and whether the momentum for change is slipping.
Guests
Robert Spitzer
distinguished service professor and chairman of the political science department at the State University of New York, Cortland, and author of four books on gun policy, including "The Politics of Gun Control."
Jackie Kucinich
reporter for USA Today.
Carolyn McCarthy
Democratic Congresswoman from New York.
Thomas Menino
mayor of Boston and co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Dan Kois
a senior editor at Slate and contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The primary driver of proposed anti second amendment laws is Diane Feinstein, a hypocrite who feels she is entitled to personally arm herself with concealed carry against threats but the general public is not. When people realize this latest gun grab includes semi automatic pistols, the most popular choice for self defense weapons, so yes momentum will indeed slip. The democrats, led by Obama and Feinstein, are going for a unconstitutional federal government power grab in a short as possible period of time, to seize and eliminate as much of the intent of the second amendment away from the citizens of this country as they can. The deliberate speed of this legislation is to prevent the general public from learning the true scope and intent of the legislation, a major step forward in eliminating all private gun ownership. The political left in this country believes it is "civilized" for the law abiding to run and hide in the face of danger, a false sense of security based on the wanted and desired ever expanding role of government. This second amendment attack is representative of a planned and orchestrated cultural shift, self reliance or government dependence. The founders clearly laid out a foundation of self reliance in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Does anyone really think Obama and the self serving democrats in congress have better ideas for this country than the founding fathers? All one needs to look at is decades of failed ideas and the state of our finances to cover impossible to maintain unconstitutional social programs.
"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."
There is nothing in the second amendment about hunting or "sporting purposes", certainly nothing on the societal moral decay that caused the Sandy Hook massacre in the first place either. What needs to be focused on is the breakdown of the family, and the glorified imagery of death and destruction our youth are addicted too. Until then the carnage will not subside.
"According to FBI crime statistics, more people were killed with hammers, knives, clubs and fists than with rifles between 2005 and 2011"
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
RICHARD HENRY LEE "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
ELBRIDGE GERRY "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
GEORGE WASHINGTON "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." "A free people ought not only to be armed..."
THOMAS JEFFERSON "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Topic : No Right Is Absolute, Except Gun Carrying Rights?
The Aurora mass murder was in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech stops when you shout, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Yet does the NRA says you can't carry an AK-47 (loaded or unloaded) into a crowded theater? Shouting ,”Fire” in a crowded theater can cause a dangerous stampede, but standing with bullet proof armor with a loaded AK-47 won't cause a dangerous stampede? Further, would promoters of easy access limit access to M-60 machine guns or TOW missiles? Are all rights absolute? No.
After Newton, almost all Republicans were mum on the mass murder of children in Newtown. One notable exception was Congressman Murphy, a psychologist who clearly articulated on CS-Span Journal the dangers of the toxic elixirs (my term) of (1) drugs/alcohol and guns, (2) unstable and agitated mental health state and guns and (3) the combination of all three. Yet, drugs and alcohol are rampant, those in an agitated mental health state are in the tens of thousands, not to mention those millions not in that state but still severely depressed and psychotic. Yet, promoters want easy access and circulation of those assault weapon guns and large clips, that, by any standard, are very clearly weapons of mass destruction.
Virginia has gaping loopholes that allow gun shows to be the center for gun circulation. It limits background checks, despite laws passed after the Virginia Tech mass murder? And some people in Virginia and elsewhere want guns on college campuses? Ever been on a college campus during finals; better yet, at counseling centers on the campuses during finals. Want to allow nervous, agitated students, especially those with behavioral issues carry guns on campus? Toxic mix? Common sense? Responsible? Shootouts at finals?
Why should parents bow to NRA demands that it's a constitutional right to carry weapons of mass destruction in and near areas (theaters and schools) crowded with their children?
Open Season:
http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/w1795.jpg
When I was growing up in the early 1960's, the NRA was known as an organization interested in and promoting gun safety. We were taught to have respect for guns and the damage they can do. Maybe it had to do with our fathers who had often served in the military and been taught to use guns as weapons, and who had, or knew people who had, used those guns in war. They taught us that guns are not toys.
Today the NRA seems to be just the marketing lobby for the gun industry. Its only purpose is to sell more guns. Any discussion that might lead to slowing the selling of guns is criticized. The NRA reminds me of the tobacco industry before the evidence that smoking caused cancer became so overwhelming that they couldn't deny it anymore.
@Dan D: Get emotional much?
You're a perfect example of why some gun owners scare me. I know a few sportsman who are perfectly reasonable about guns. But most, as you have shown, are really, really extreme. You have an entitlement mentality, and your guns are your religion. I know many people that do nothing but sleep, eat and breathe GUNS. They stockpile guns and ammo and have these fantasies of being Dirty Harry, or waiting for the world to end so that "be ready". One of my relatives stockpiles guns for the "big war", the war between the blacks and whites. Seriously, I'm shocked at how many of my fellow Southerns talk about that.
Take for example the New York newspaper that printed the FOI of gun owners. How did they respond? By threatening violence, because that's why most gun owners do. They bully their politics by brandishing their guns. They're all "tough guys".
Gun owners are fine with taking away other's rights, but if you mention guns, watch out!
Whew! The site is finally online again.
I’ll start by making the point that the assault weapons ban is obviously a foolish idea. First of all, because either you can’t define what an “assault weapon” is, or if you do, gun manufacturers can just slightly redesign their best-selling semi-automatic rifle to create something equally lethal, but no longer covered by the ban. Thus, even people who think that we’d all be safer if these weapons were illegal should admit that it won’t do any good—especially if there’s a delay before the law goes into effect and then all weapons purchased before that time are grandfathered in.
But anyway, remember that we had an assault weapons ban in this country once, and right in the heart of that period, there was one of those horrific shootings that stands quite large in our history. I’m talking about Columbine. The assault weapons ban clearly didn’t do anything to stop that. I know there are arguments against that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the more argumentative commenter here brought them up. But, in the end, none of those arguments can deny the fact that the assault weapons ban didn't do anything to stop Columbine.
Whew! The site is finally online again.
I’ll start by making the point that the assault weapons ban is obviously a foolish idea. First of all, because either you can’t define what an “assault weapon” is, or if you do, gun manufacturers can just slightly redesign their best-selling semi-automatic rifle to create something equally lethal, but no longer covered by the ban. Thus, even people who think that we’d all be safer if these weapons were illegal should admit that it won’t do any good—especially if there’s a delay before the law goes into effect and then all weapons purchased before that time are grandfathered in.
But anyway, remember that we had an assault weapons ban in this country once, and right in the heart of that period, there was one of those horrific shootings that stands quite large in our history. I’m talking about Columbine. The assault weapons ban clearly didn’t do anything to stop that. I know there are arguments against that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the more argumentative commenter here brought them up. But, in the end, none of those arguments can deny the fact that the assault weapons ban didn't do anything to stop Columbine.
TedPax wrote: @Dan D: Get emotional much?
Emotional!
Far from it, rational in every sense of the word.
The panel on this show has obviously been assembled to push an agenda.
The speakers keep referring to surveys that say gun owners support more common sense gun laws. I am a gun owner, and none of my gun owning friends have ever heard of these surveys, because no one I know is in favor of more laws. The problem with more laws is that the only people who will abide by them are the law-abiding citizens. Does anyone really, truly think that criminals will surrender their guns?
(as Emailed to Diane) As a gun owner and one who frequents “gun” forums, I can assure you that ANY of the proposed gun-control bills will make instant criminals of tens of millions of normally law-abiding gun owners because they will NOT give up their guns. The US is the great nation it is because of the freedoms the Constitution affords us—gun ownership by citizens helps keep the government “in check”, as designed by the Founding Fathers.
There is no such thing as “sensible” gun control including “assault” weapons and magazine bans… Citizens just won’t have it as evidenced by record gun, ammo and magazine sales.
PS:
I’ve enjoyed many of your shows, but this current program “guns”, is bordering on anti-gun propaganda. I’m sure you know the definition of propaganda and ALL of the guests so far have been propagandists! They are clearly twisting facts to suit their message…
Believe me, I have also contacted the NRA and urged them to come on shows such as yours when invited. A Life-Member, I do not always agree with their views or actions but I still stand behind them.
BTW, Gunowners of America has an articulate spokesman in Larry Pratt. Perhaps he should have been invited on?
Thanks for taking my views into account.
This letter to the editor occurred in today's Tampa Day Times.
It insinuates that this whole matter is just a click away from much more realistic matters continuously ignored.
19 days of gun deaths in America | Jan. 3
Problems go beyond just numbers
Not to diminish the tragedy of the numbers graphically displayed on Thursday's opinion page, but in those same 19 days about 1,795 people died in the United States in vehicle crashes, 514 involving drunken drivers. Some 5,590 people died from alcohol abuse, and 10,150 died as a result of medical errors. There were 60,800 children murdered in the United States in 19 days from abortion. Yet there is no outrage. Some 874 people died in nonfirearm violence. (No. 1 weapon? Baseball bat). Solution? Ban cars. Require all cars to not allow drunken driving. Where is the outrage against doctors and hospitals? Where is the cry to outlaw bats?
Ridiculous comparisons to the 393 who died from gun violence in 19 days? Maybe, but the point is thousands of people die each day yet we don't think twice about it nor do we rally to outlaw the instrument that caused those deaths — except guns, the "demon rum" of today.
Politicians couldn't even wait a few hours to mourn the loss of children in Sandy Hook before they turned a tragedy into the latest vote-seeking soapbox. Yet the courts and legislatures turn their backs on the mental health system that turns away those in need of real help, telling parents they are on their own. Then there is the graphic violence in video games and music that our children immerse themselves in.
The current rash of tragedies is much more complex then banning a certain type or all firearms. Blame the NRA and "gun nuts"? No. How about us all taking a hard look at our own responsibility and how we are making the world a better place.
Joel Mathews, Tampa
Why do so many Americans feel the need to own modern sporting rifles with large magazines? The atmosphere of paranoia that gives rise to that desire seems toxic.
Richard Hofstadter identified "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" almost 40 years ago (http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/). The style continues in our politics today, which suggests it appeals to a large portion of Americans in some fundamental way.
Since Australians overwhelmingly supported greater gun control in the wake of the Tasmanian massacre, but Americans apparently (and in my opinion, sadly) do not, does this suggest that Americans feel fundamentally less secure and more paranoid than, say, Australians or Europeans? Is Americans' paranoia warranted because of eroding civil liberties or greater crime in America, or is it something else?
I hope future guests can address this, Diane.
If you are going to count the number of deaths from guns, this will include justifiable homicides, that is cases of self defense. I am a lawyer and one of my clients saved her life by shooting her estranged husband. Incidentally, the press lost interest in that case, when I told them to stop calling it a murder and there would be no arrest or charges, or trial.
It is an inconvenient truth, but self defense is the first law of nature, a right you have that is higher than any right in the Constitution.
Here's the gist of an email I sent to Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) last week, about "gun control:"
In addition to all the other controls we ought to impose, I propose we tax ammunition. $5.00 tax per bullet. For legitimate (prove it) sportsman and hunters (target, skeet, deer, and so on), $3.00 bullet.
Want to buy an empty clip? $500.00 surcharge for rifle clips; $300.00 surcharge for pistol clips. Plus the per bullet tax.
All taxes and surcharges ought to be mandated to be spent on enforcement of background check laws and gun safety education.
Simple, eh? It's not going to stop the occasional nut job, but it's going to make things very difficult for those NRA nuts.
Yours truly,
Mark Gottsegen
Chagrin Falls OH
"Simple, eh? It's not going to stop the occasional nut job, but it's going to make things very difficult for those NRA nuts."
Yeah boy something has got to be done about those "nuts" that believe in the Constitution.
This is a complex issue and any discussion about it requires more than vague references to the Constitution, the Second Amendment, tracking the number of gun-related deaths, etc.
The Constitution guarantees free speech, and yet most of us agree that there are legitimate reasons for speech to be regulated. The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a theater. If one wants to argue that the Constitution guarantees the right to own firearms, that's fine, but just as for speech, there are legitimate reasons for regulations. Perhaps even the NRA would agree that we don't want just anybody carrying around fully automatic machine guns? Reasonable people can make reasonable rules.
One line that gets crossed, in my opinion, is when a caller to Diane's program, such as Chad, starts talking about the need to own assault weapons in order to protect ourselves against an oppressive government. I feel sorry for Chad and others like him for what must be a painful degree of fear and cynicism. Chad, votes are more effective than guns for keeping our nation a free republic. Have you considered joining a local political group in your community to discuss issues and (peaceful) solutions?
The NRA began as an organization providing information on gun safety and education. Their priority was lawful and safe ownership
It is now a puppet of the gun industry, with only one priority, PROFITS.
What a shame.
mike dell wrote: "It is now a puppet of the gun industry, with only one priority, PROFITS."
How do you explain the over 4,000,000 private dues paying members? Their mission has not changed, only the demonizing has changed into a full bore attack because of their effectiveness on preserving the INTENT of the second amendment. You sir are being intellectually manipulated, probably because you want to be.
Dan D. on January 5, 2013 @ 10:57 am wrote: " ‘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.’ There is nothing in the second amendment about hunting or ‘sporting purposes’. . . . ”
Funny you should mention that, because I see nothing in the Amendment about self-defense, resistance to tyranny, or any of the other nonsense the NRA and its fellow travelers like to spew.
With all due respect to the conservatives on the Supreme Court, especially Justice Scalia (and his hypocritical claim to be following the Constitution as it was written) the only thing the Second Amendment talks about is a “well regulated militia”, whose existence is “necessary to the security of a free State”. (That’s “State”, as in one of the 50 States.)
I see no warrant for the hyperbolic claim of “gun rights” the right-wing blabbers about. The militia was “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”. (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15) That’s the “original intent” written expressly into the document, and into the Second Amendment. That’s how “the security of a free State” was to be preserved: by using the militia (in the first instance) to suppress insurrections.
So, pray tell me, how do we get from there to an unlimited “right” for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to arm themselves to the teeth, in the name of "opposing tyranny" (i.e.: being able to launch an armed insurrection), even if it means easy access for lunatics to weapons of mass destruction! (Twenty children dead seems pretty massive to me.) Even the appalling D.C. v. Heller decision supports reasonable gun regulations - which is all sane people want.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "Funny you should mention that, because I see nothing in the Amendment about self-defense, resistance to tyranny, or any of the other nonsense the NRA and its fellow travelers like to spew."
It's implied intent is obvious, that is why it has been giving fits to the left for decades.
You used to use "militia" as an argument for government formed armies, you have evolved in your misinterpretation. Pray tell, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
The Supreme Court has been operating outside it's obligation of ruling on laws based on the intent of the Constitution for well over a hundred years, their decisions are worthless in upholding intent. What Scalia personally thinks about guns and gun laws does not reflect the intent of the Constitution. We are on our own out here.
Stop pretending, you want all guns banned. Stop dancing on the graves of dead children and just be honest. That murdering psycho could have accomplished the same with revolvers and or gasoline bombs.
Kris, would you mind letting the rest of us in on THE intent of the Second Amendment? Given how much constitutional scholars and historians have been discussing and debating this very point, I'd be very interested in your "expert" opinion. It would also be helpful if you would indicate which book(s) you've read on this matter.
"It's implied intent is obvious, that is why it has been giving fits to the left for decades."
Great! If it's obvious, you should have no trouble explaining THE intent. I can't wait! And I'm equally excited for you to tell me which leaders on the "left" are having "fits." Give me a couple of examples of prominant leaders who are trying to do crazy things to gun control. For the sake of pure entertainment, I hope it's crazier than the NRA suggesting that every school in America should have armed security.
I always laugh when people use phrases like "You, sir . . . " You, sir, are a funny guy, even if you don't want to be. :-)
"That’s “State”, as in one of the 50 States."
Right. So the intent of the militia is to have 50 little armies. Brilliant!
"I see no warrant for the hyperbolic claim of “gun rights” the right-wing blabbers about. The militia was “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”. (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15) That’s the “original intent” written expressly into the document, and into the Second Amendment. That’s how “the security of a free State” was to be preserved: by using the militia (in the first instance) to suppress insurrections."
Unfortunately, the errors in your reasoning come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. And in introducing the text of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15, you prove categorically that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is simply ... well ... wrong.
In order to successfully link Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15 in the way that you do ("That’s the “original intent” written expressly into the document, and into the Second Amendment") you would have to explain why the Second Amendment, which in your view ensures that the government is armed, potentially against its own people, sits smack in the middle of nine other provisions designed to protect the people FROM their government. That's what you don't get. That is the PURPOSE of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution - not to reinforce the well-elucidated provisions of the document itself. Here's a little write up on this from the archives.gov website on the document to enlighten you:
Part deux:
"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights."
"I see no warrant for the hyperbolic claim of “gun rights” the right-wing blabbers about."
Then you should read more carefully. It's right there in the text of the Amendment. If your meaning were intended, the Second Amendment would say something like, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people should keep their arms at the ready". The meaning of the 2nd amendment AS WRITTEN is better interpreted "because it will be necessary to maintain a militia to ensure the security of a free society, its citizens should be empowered to be armed as well; "the RIGHT (not the "duty" or the "necessity") of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED". Get it?
"The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED. Get it?"
I'm a little slow, Francis, and I'm hoping you can help me "get it." When you boil it down to that one statement, and capitalize the words RIGHT and INFRINGED, do you mean to say that there should be absolutely no regulation or restriction on the kinds of weapons that people can have, or on where they have them? And beyond that is the question of under what circumstances these weapons can be used. As I said, I'm a little slow, but even my dull mind understands that it doesn't do much good to have an arsenal of shock and awe weapons if the darn government prohibits us from carrying them around or using them.
Thanks in advance!
Samcot wrote: Great! If it's obvious, you should have no trouble explaining THE intent. I can't wait!
All the founding fathers quotes above cannot sink into your skull, why would a bunch more accomplish anymore? You are a fool of your own making.
These are for my pleasure!
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
Yeah, Kris, but they actually MEANT something else! LOL!!!
"do you mean to say that there should be absolutely no regulation or restriction on the kinds of weapons that people can have, or on where they have them? And beyond that is the question of under what circumstances these weapons can be used. "
That is a separate question from the one I addressed. That question was on the purpose of the Second Amendment, but your recond of raising the strawman remains intact.
So I did not "mean to say" anything that you suggest. Should there be reasonable restrictions on what gun owners may possess. Maybe.
The point is, when you tread around the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, you'd better tread carefully. It would be unreasonable to think that there shouldn't be some exceptional restrictions on speech, for example, and the example of "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" is often used. But the slope begins to get slippery when "public safety" becomes "hate speech" becomes "political correctness".
The same principle applies to the Second Amendment. You can discuss what weapons are and are not appropriate for the private citizen to own. But you have to do that in the context of a proper interpretation of the purpose of the amendment and there are at least two things it is clear that the amendment is not:
1) a way to protect hunters so they can have guns to hunt their squirrels, their rabbits, and varments.
2) a way to keep a standing army (see previous post).
Both suggestions are an insult to the intent of the amendment and little more than a way to grease the slope.
Nice move, Kris. You say that the Founders' intent is "obvious," and then you refuse to tell us what that intent was, even though constitutional scholars and historians aren't entirely clear. You've just demonstrated your lack of credibility.
Your credibility sinks lower with your remark about firearms being the people's "liberty teeth." Wow, that is one of the corniest pseudo-patriotic statements I've heard! Be a patriot! Shoot and kill the government! That's what Thomas Jefferson wants us to do!
The key word in the Jefferson quote, Kris, is "tyranny." I hope you understand that we are nowhere near a tyranny in the US. I hope even more that you don't own any firearms, but I think I'm hoping for too much. Fearful people like you think of guns as security blankets. Do you sleep with a pistol under your pillow, in case the Boogeyman comes out of the closet (or the G-Men break down your door)?