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

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Boys will be boys.....

Really. Some days you wonder what kind of people make up the heart and soul of America. This is one of them. I wrote about the Texas permit to carry instructor who ran radio ads saying he would not give lessons on carrying guns to Muslims or Obama supporters. Now he is under investigation for his remarks. I guess in Texas, anything goes:
Tina Hoffman, a real estate broker, described Mr. Keller as a local character who enjoyed stirring up controversy. “I thought it was kind of harsh,” she said. “But that’s just Crockett. You got to know Crockett. I don’t think that’s the flavor of our county. This is a very prayerful community.”
Questions need to be asked. Does this man get away with his remarks because he is "just Crockett"? What does being a "prayerful community" have to do with anything? Is it O.K. to get away with racist and inappropriate public remarks just because you go to church and pray?

And do the Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee continue to get away with their witch hunt concerning the ATF's  "Fast and Furious" program? Should we let Senator Grassley get away with his distracting statements about the program that deflect the need for real change? Is this the ubiquitous "boys will be boys" argument? Can the gun lobby continue to use their flawed argument that stopping the Mexican drug cartel from getting their guns in the U.S. will naturally lead to gun confiscation of American gun owners? Can Rep. Darrell Issa continue to get away with his line of thinking that preventing the Mexican drug cartel from getting assault rifles will allow Americans to own and bear their arms in case of needing them for use against their own tyrannical government? ( scroll to the end of this link for Issa's recent words) Should we just let Congressmen be Congressmen?

I think it's time for a new look at the distraction of the NRA's extreme statements and how it affects gun policy in the U.S. You just can't make things up as you go along to justify your point of view if it is not based on facts and reality. There is no doubt that American guns are contributing to the deaths of innocent Mexican citizens. What do we do? Distract and distort the facts. From the New York Times editorial linked above:
Mr. Breuer said in the past five years, 94,000 weapons have been recovered in Mexico and 64,000 were traced to American sources. “We need more tools,” he said. To which Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, predictably responded, “The answer isn’t to clamp down on law abiding-citizens or gun dealers.” There is no problem with law-abiding citizens. It’s Congress’s failure to ban sales of assault weapons that is feeding the drug wars. 
Congress has failed to keep American citizens safe because of their inability or timidity in challenging the gun lobby. But now Congress is also failing to keep Mexican citizens safe from our guns sold all over the country. And it's not just innocent Mexican citizens who are suffering because of the NRA's tactics. Americans all over this country are dying. This editorial from a Cleveland Plain Dealer writer puts the blame right where it belongs.
It also tells us that those of our elected officials who've allowed NRA self-preservation to take precedence over public safety considerations are complicit in criminal acts of violence that target children.
Legitimate, federally licensed dealers who record purchases, do background checks and provide the ATF with the information it needs to trace guns concur with Cleveland police that private sellers should be brought under the same mandates as licensed dealers.
Until that happens, it's time to expose the NRA for what it really is: a front for illegal gun sales.
Where is common sense? Letting boys be boys and the NRA be the NRA is just not working.

6 comments:

  1. You've heard this before, but without a Class III firearms license, no one can legally buy an assault rifle. Assault rifles must have the capability of fully automatic fire. Semiautomatic isn't enough. There is no such category as "assault weapon." That term is just a translation of sturmgewehr, Hitler's nickname for the MP-44.

    While we're at it, I am glad that Congress hasn't taken away my rights for the purpose of protecting Mexico. Mexico has permitted an open border through which drugs and illegal immigrants may pass. They have permitted a corrupt political system. They have disarmed their good citizens, while allowing gangs to have whatever weapons they want. When Mexicans take responsibility for their own country, the problem will go away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. " The term assault weapon is a United States political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Primary pistol grip
    Forward grip
    Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
    Barrel shroud
    The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers."

    ReplyDelete
  3. And the State of Indiana once tried to define pi as 3.2, but that had about as much merit as the Assault Weapons Ban's definition. Just because ill informed and reactionary legislators say it doesn't make it so. Besides which, the Assault Weapons Ban is gone and unlikely to come back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Primary pistol grip
    Forward grip
    Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
    Barrel shroud"

    And how do any of those following items make a rifle more dangerous? The assault weapon ban should properly be called the "scary looking weapons ban." For bonus points identify the "shoulder thingie that goes up."

    Why is my SKS which has all of those but doesn't have a detachable magazine and is therefore not a scary looking weapon less dangerous?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who needs more than 10 rounds? These ARE scary looking weapons. They were and are weapons of war. They are not needed for every day use by citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since when does need enter into the debate on rights? Do I need a copy of the Qur'an or Das Kapital? Do I need to be able to post comments on-line? And before you tell me that books don't kill, think about how many books have inspired wars.

    The real question ought to be about behavior, not about devices. Punish evil acts, but don't take away devices that can be used in neutral ways.

    ReplyDelete