Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Friday, October 8, 2010

The NRA endorses

We all know that another election season is here. The NRA is always active during the elections. Their influence is powerful and they get a lot in return. No wonder they spend so much money at election time. It pays off. So here, now, are the endorsements for the 2010 elections. Interestingly, the NRA has endorsed many incumbents, whether Republican or Democratic. All that matters is that the people they endorse do the right thing- vote against anything that is perceived as gun banning or taking away rights even when they won't.

I found this article from Mother Jones to be interesting. " He's one of 760 pro-gun, anti-regulations travelers here to learn about everything from how to win a legislative gun debate—"THEY win if you say 'pro gun.' YOU win if you say 'pro rights,'' instructs "The Politically Corrected Glossary" handout (PDF)—to why he should distrust the United Nations, to the legal strategies he can successfully use to carry concealed handguns in public parks, college campuses, and public housing. " The writer of the article attended a gun rights policy conference in California to check it out for herself. And then this" On the "Diversity Among Pro-Gunners" panel, Nikki Stallard—the transgender representative ofPink Pistols, an LGBT-led advocacy group for carrying concealed weapons in public places—announces at the podium:"We have an interest in getting the gay community more pro-gun." If LGBTs become the face of concealed weapons rights, Stallard surmises, media attacks on the pro-gun lobby "will come across as attacking the gay community." Her suggestion is met with roaring cheers." Hmmm. 

So if you say "pro-rights" politicians won't monkey with you. I guess to these folks "pro-rights" means absolutely no regulations at all. That's nonsense. Every other industry and product is regulated to some extent. But not guns- deadly weapons? And then there is this from the PDF file in the quoted section, above, about "politically corrected glossary". Now anti-gun people ( me, I guess, according to most of my commenters) are to be called "anti-gun bigots". If that term is used, "they lose" and "we win". Really. Now I know where the commenters are coming from who have called me a bigot. The term does not compute in this context. It's not working, by the way. Here are some other terms to use if you are "pro-gun":
"To preserve, protect and defend your rights in the critical debate on where power should reside in America, you need effective word choices. Try out some of the ideas in this chart the next time you deal with this subject. " 
Second Amendment           Bill of Rights 
anti gun                             anti-gun bigot 
anti rights                          anti-gun prejudice 
the powerful gun lobby       civil rights organizations

And so now, the "powerful gun lobby" is a "civil rights organization"? Come on. That is one of the most disingenuous things I have ever read. I suppose that is why Glenn Beck held his "Restoring Honor" rally in August on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. Code words work well for these folks. 

And speaking of elections, this upcoming Tea Party rally in Tucson does not want gun carrying folks in the crowd. It might be too dangerous if 7000 or so people are crowded together with guns? And the police might not be able to control these people? What's that all about? "...  a gun ban was recommended to keep control." Oh my- a gun ban? I thought those were fighting words. You can carry your guns every place else but don't bring them to a political rally because they could be too dangerous. Is this common sense or what?


  1. As for the Tucson tea party asking everyone not to carry, reading the article you posted, it looks like it is a response to a polite police request.

    Neither the Police nor event organizer told the attendees they are forbidden to carry, just passed on the request.

    I actually think that is a good thing... Rather than be confrontational, and assert their rights and refuse to comply, they passed on the request to public.

    I'm curious to see what actually happens.

  2. But they did call it a gun ban. Why don't the "gun guys" go ballistic about that? They are willing to put up with a "gun ban" when they attend a Tea Party rally but not when they go anywhere else. It's hypocrisy. I, too, am anxious to see how it goes. Perhaps they are not afraid for their lives when they are in a group with other folks just like themselves? Personally, I think a "gun ban" at large events like this in public places is always a good idea.

  3. I agree it is hypocritical to say you support carry rights, and then attend a rally for an organization that claims to support those rights, and then have a "gun ban".

    "Humphries says the ban is not mandatory" - that alone is a contradiction in terms... How can a ban be optional? (I can't quite tell if that is Hunphrie using the word ban, or the author)

    Agree to Disagree :) on the crowd comment....

    I carry a gun to protect myself and my family, even at large events, usually I choose not to go where they deny me that right...
    In this case, I would adjust my carry (i.e. deep concealment), since the police seem to want to avoid an open carry incident, or if it were a true "gun ban" I would just not go.

    I'm anxious to see how this turns out.

  4. The NRA is in fact a civil rights organization. Or did you miss the Supreme Court decisions that officially cemented the 2nd Amendment as a civil right guaranteed to individuals and incorporated against the states?

  5. That's not what the Supreme Court decision did. It did a lot of things, but I don't think it guaranteed the 2nd Amendment as a civil right. It is now an individual right. I suppose you could say that's a civil right but it's quite different than civil rights for people of color, or homosexuals, or other minority groups- oh unless you think you are a minority group.

  6. Considering that the original plaintiff in Parker (which became Heller) and the plaintiff in McDonald were both BLACK, I'd say that both decisions guaranteed the civil rights of minorities.

    Unless of course you think Sandra Parker & Otis McDonald are not minorities even though they're black.

  7. You all are now engaging in a side show about points not relevant to the post. I'm moving on to something else and suggest you fo the same.