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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Doing the NRA's bidding

It turns out that even the Republican ( mostly Republicans who are bringing dangerous bills forward) legislators who support gun bills know they are wrong. In Iowa, a Republican legislator admits that the bill to allow Iowans so carry guns in public is a bad idea. To hear Representative Kaufman say on a hot mike that he didn't realize was on: " "the crazy, give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill" , is admitting that he knows this bill is wrong. So why is he doing it? This goes to my posts that point out that the majority is with my side but Congress and legislators propose and pass bills anyway because they are afraid of the influence of the country's largest most powerful and well funded lobby organization. 


Who else is doing the NRA's bidding against their better judgement? Lately it seems as if many of our state legislators have traded in their common sense for the privilege of carrying water for the nation's most powerful and wealthy lobbying organization in the country. And when that very same organization refuses to participate in any kind of reasonable public debate, including an invitation to the White House, we can see the reason why some are afraid to challenge them. Here, in the word of Wayne La Pierre, Executive V.P. of the NRA, is why we can't get anything done towards reasonable gun laws in our country:" “Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” saidWayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of theNational Rifle Association." Why, indeed? Here's my question- Why should we listen to anyone in the NRA when they are this unreasonable and this unwilling to engage in reasonable discourse? Lives are lost every day to bullets. All anyone wants is to reduce the carnage and there are ways to do that without affecting the rights of law abiding gun owners. But if the NRA gives in and has a conversation, what happens to the organization? What happens to those millions of members the NRA claims to have? What happens to all the money coming in to the organization? What will happen to their uber power and influence? Maybe the NRA won't be able to get state legislators and Congress to carry it's water any more. That would be a welcome change and it would lead to common sense at long last.

25 comments:

  1. “Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?”

    Indeed. My civil rights are not negotiable. Not a single one. Not now, not ever.

    Or perhaps you'd like to sit down and negotiate away your right to publish this blog . . . . ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Why should we listen to anyone in the NRA when they are this unreasonable and this unwilling to engage in reasonable discourse?"

    Because as Mr. LaPierre said there is no reason to sit down with people who wish to curtail the second amendment. You say you want compromise or reasoned discourse, what I'm hearing is "Let's talk about what we can chip away today?"

    No, thank you. A civil right is a civil right. I would no sooner expect the NRA to compromise over that than I would the ACLU compromise over a free speech issue.

    You state that people die every day of bullets... yes, they do. People die of a whole host of issues. Instead of trying to do something about bullets, why don't you start doing something about the people who are firing the bullets? Our prisons are revolving doors for violent criminals, and with govt. micromanagement it gets harder and harder to raise decent children anymore.

    You continue to state that your proposals will not affect our second amendment rights. But the problem is you view the second amendment as a privelage rather than a right. You laud UK restrictions that ban handguns and semi automatics and force citizens to practically beg their govt to buy a single shot rifle.

    And that isn't infringement?

    You state you wish to ban semi autos, but that won't infringe on our rights? Your organization is actively working against concealed carry in my state, but that doesn't infringe on our rights?

    The only thing you can put forth are more restrictions; you will never ever be satisfied. You stated in a previous post that there is no gun proposal out there of which you do not approve. Here's my question: Just when exactly will our rights be infringed upon?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Such nonsensical thinking is exactly why I wrote this post. You have just confirmed it all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mrs Peterson.

    How is this nonsense. This is a plain and simple issue

    The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed". That is starkly clear. For years American Citizens have suffered unending attacks against their innate Rights. Finally, they have had enough. A line has been drawn and we are standing up for ourselves.

    You call our point of view nonsense. We call your point of view unconstitutional and a threat to our Civil Rights.

    Most of these new restrictions being proposed have been proven to not work, and only encumber law abiding citizens.

    Criminals by definition do not obey laws. Passing a thousand more laws will not stop criminals from breaking the law. There is only one way to stop violent criminals, and that is to break the cycle which creates them. Once violent criminals begin to live a life of crime, the only way to stop them is incarceration.

    Passing laws to make guns harder to get or banning them will do nothing. Northern Ireland has had a gun ban for going on 100 years. That never seemed to hinder the IRA and the others from getting their weapons.

    We have been banning pot and other drugs for awful long time. We have failed to put a dent in the illegal drug supply in the sixty or more years we have been fighting that war.

    This "nonsense" as you call it is the only rational response. True logic and rational thought will show that chasing a myth and feelings is the real nonsense.

    It is not just the NRA who have decided these laws are silly and erroneous. The American people said the same thing in the last elections

    ReplyDelete
  5. "But if the NRA gives in and has a conversation, what happens to the organization? "

    Then I won't ever join. If the NRA keeps up it's reformed act for another twenty or twenty five years I'll consider joining and perhaps even donating generously.

    If the NRA compromises now, people will quit. No compromises, no bargains, no backroom deals. Or else the NRA loses it's power and money.

    As the NYTimes said:

    "But the National Rifle Association49, for decades the most formidable force against proposals to limit gun sales or ownership, is refusing to join the discussion — possibly dooming it from the start, given the lobby’s clout with both parties in Congress. "

    HAHA!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "To hear Representative Kaufman say on a hot mike that he didn't realize was on: " "the crazy, give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill" , is admitting that he knows this bill is wrong"

    Context is important, Joan. After all, you've said yourself that you were organizing a posse to come take our guns.

    Helland was complaining about getting the Alaska Bill, and Kaufmann was commiserating.

    Helland. "I’m the dirty hatchet man for the caucus. Something nobody wants to do. Some dirty, nasty job. I’m the one who gets dropped in you know why, ’cause I’m expendable."

    See, politicians would like to only be associated with giving puppies to orphans, but every now and then they have to back a controversial bill. The "Alaska Bill" is controversial, and they both know it.

    That's the nature of being a politician. You try to align yourself with as many people as possible. Polarizing subjects like guns and abortion are useful for getting support, but you run the risk of alienating the non-supporters. So when forced to back something controversial, they complain and crack jokes.

    And even if he doesn't agree with the bill, he's there to represent his constituents and his party. I'm sure that a democrat has at some point backed a bill concerning abortion or welfare that he or she didn't agree with. That's politics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You missed the point, anon. This did him no good and hurt your cause.

    ReplyDelete
  8. japete said...

    You missed the point, anon. This did him no good and hurt your cause.
    March 15, 2011 12:55 PM

    Oh, I'm not saying it was good for his career, because now he's the guy backing a controversial bill who cracked a joke about it, so those opposed don't like him and proponents don't like him.

    I'm just not going to lose any sleep over it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Such nonsensical thinking is exactly why I wrote this post. You have just confirmed it all."

    And you have just confirmed that there is no such thing as infringement of the second amendment in your eyes. Why won't you answer the question? I try to answer yours in a thoughtful and honest manner.

    I have a feeling that you would be very angry if we restricted other parts of the bill of rights as we do the second amendment. But you simply don't like guns, so that makes it ok.

    I don't like those Westboro idiots protesting at funerals, but I recognize the fact that restrictions on our bill of rights are a very dangerous proposition when it comes to our liberties.

    Perhaps you thought I was being rhetorical, so let me ask again: At what point would you say "Yes, your rights are being infringed."?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alcade- please don't keep answering that question. It is a trick question designed to 'get me" so I will not be answering it. It is impossible to answer anyway which is why you asked it. I don't know why you want an answer to such an esoteric question.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?”

    Wayne makes an excellent point. Why should the NRA sit down at a table full of vultures looking to gut the 2nd Amendment? The Brady campaign, one of the invited parties, thinks New Jersey has great gun laws. In fact, they rank them as #2 in the nation. This despite the fact that in New Jersey a man (Brian Aitken) was temporarily imprisoned and permanently lost his rights simply because he dared to have unloaded, disassembled guns in his trunk in compliance with New Jersey's idiotic laws.

    So Wayne said it right: Why should any gun owner sit down at the table with a group of people who aren't looking to reduce violence, but looking for new and innovative ways to throw them in jail and strip away their rights?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I don't know why you want an answer to such an esoteric question."

    You keep saying you want to find a middle ground. We're trying to figure out just where that middle is.

    So far, it looks like your "middle ground" is always more gun control, no matter how much we already have.

    How much is enough?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Didn't the President talk in his op-ed about allowing people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks like it was acceptable, if not a good thing?

    "And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges."

    http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

    Sounds like the President is closer to my side than yours Japete. Or at least a sitting Democratic President is scared of being thought anti-gun by us lunatic fringe gun types. Maybe gunnies are not the tiny fringe you claim?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Then you should like his proposals. He was showing the NRA and all of it's "members" that he has not tried to ban guns as you guys said he would and he will. Far from it, he has signed legislation, much to my dismay, that allows guns in our national parks. That should be of some comfort to you that his intentions are not evil.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't know why Mr. LaPierre won't meet with the President of the United States. Unlike gunnies (as self-described by Anonymous), I am unable to read people's minds and motivations. I don't accept his expressed reason ("Why should I or the NRA sit down...etc"). He could try to show that he is the President's match when it comes to debating this issue, but he declines. So, he just appears to be...chickenshit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "That should be of some comfort to you that his intentions are not evil."

    It comforts me that he is an intelligent and shrewd politician who knows his chances of reelection are slim given his radical agenda in the early years of his administration.

    Nevertheless, he has also nominated two supreme court justices which are anti gun. One of which, Sotomayor, lied during her confirmation hearings stating she considered the Heller case "settled law," then when confronted with an identical lawsuit directed at another city, suddenly the second amendment doesn't really mean what it says.

    The state department has also stopped importation of surplus M1 Garands and M1 Carbines due to imaginary fears that they will be used in crime. This is despite the fact that these weapons could easily be bought legally here in the US. Try as I might, I can't seem to remember any gangbangers using a heavy, wood-stocked, antique rifle to gain street cred out in the 'hood.

    I have also been surprised by some of Obama's comments regarding gun control in this country; especially his comments after a Mexican reporter asked why he didn't just veto the second amendment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVgJrZf8UU8).

    I do not, however, believe Obama would be quite so... accomodating... if he were given a second term and didn't have to worry about reelection. Would you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I support the NRA and the NRA-ILA for one simple reason, "All people have the inalienable right to defend themselves."

    I'm not arrogant enough to dilute that sentence by adding conditions and exceptions because I don't believe that everybody is like me, nor does everybody need to be like me. I recognize that different people have different needs and that I must respect that diversity.

    I recognize that there are limits to that diversity, but your statements on this post about "may issue", putting the sheriff in a position of power over the people, not understanding why we carry, and so on clearly show that we aren't even close to discussing those limits yet, because we still can't agree on the inalienable right to self defense. MAIG, Brady, and VPC support your statements, so for this simple reason, I see no reason why the NRA should meet with those organizations. They will never come to agreement as long as there are people in those organizations that share your views.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Then you should like his proposals. He was showing the NRA and all of it's "members" that he has not tried to ban guns as you guys said he would and he will. Far from it, he has signed legislation, much to my dismay, that allows guns in our national parks. That should be of some comfort to you that his intentions are not evil."

    You're right that his presidency hasn't been bad for gun rights, but we did and still do have cause for alarm. He made it clear in the time before his presidency how he felt about the topic, and he's surrounded with like-minded people.

    Personally, I think he has more important things to deal with, and doesn't want to risk anything on such a politically toxic subject. But I guess we're all paranoid for taking him at his word then?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No Alacade- as you can imagine- I disagree whole heartedly with your statements above. It is you guys who are so afraid that President Obama will be re-elected that you can't possibly meet with him knowing that you might have to compromise or even have a discussion thereby making your own side look the worse for it. If you think it looks better to avoid the meeting, you are wrong. Your other statements are just so hyberbolic as to be almost ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Please excuse my ignorance, but I thought the NRA turned down a meeting with the President AND representatives of Brady, MAIG, or VPC. My understanding is that the NRA was not asked to meet with the President ALONE. If that were the case, I agree that the NRA and the President should meet. However, putting Brady, MAIG, VPC, NRA, and the President all in one room is a waste of time and I'm sure the President has easier things to do with that time, like maybe solve the Mideast crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Migo- the idea is to get all parties together in one room. Isn't that what this is all about? What good does it do to meet with each group separately?

    ReplyDelete
  22. What La Pierre said was a complete mischaracterization of what the president was doing. The folks invited to that meeting were basically well meaning folks who sincerely want to find solutions to gun violence. It makes perfect sense that the NRA refused to come, they're not interested in that, and naturally the adolescent bully La Pierre took the opportunity to spout embarrassingly silly nonsense that his listeners should laugh at instead of support.

    It's all based on the misconception that because we have a right to life and to defend that life we have the right to own a gun. This is the non-sensical leap that gun rights activists insist makes sense but it doesn't. When they repeat the third part, gun ownership, and call it a natural human right, the silliness is revealed.

    Old Wayne knows this, he's a con man who makes a couple million a year. It's the other saps who, desparate for a safety-in-numbers type of security, actually believe him and rally around.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "The folks invited to that meeting were basically well meaning folks who sincerely want to find solutions to gun violence."

    Sincere? Nonsense.

    They are interested only in "solutions" that result in fewer armed civilians, regardless of whether they reduce or increase gun violence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. MikeB wrote: "When they repeat the third part, gun ownership, and call it a natural human right, the silliness is revealed."

    Until they invent something that has an even greater equalizing factor than guns do, then yes, firearms will be an inherent human right based on defense of self and family and self determination against tyranny.

    If you know of another way that a 100 lb. woman can equalize an average man in a forceful confrontation, I'd love to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Alcade, A gun is neither the only way nor the best way to do that equalizing thing you keep talking about. Which is why I question your rationale. I suspect you just like guns and since they are so difficult to justify given all the violence associated with them, you use things like The Constitution, The Bible, and best of all, fundamental human rights.

    ReplyDelete