This guy isn't even running until 2015. How excited can people be about contributing now? So to add to the excitement, just come out and shoot a machine gun and take a conceal and carry class. What better way to ramp up gun sales? The NRA is very involved at election time. This one isn't even subtle. I just don't get why shooting a machine gun or taking a conceal carry class should have any bearing on elections. It shouldn't actually and the fact that it does says everything about our American gun culture.
Here's another politician ( Mayor of a city) who has clearly chosen the wrong thing to do regarding guns, all because he doesn't have the courage to say no to a big business venture in his home town in Georgia. Mixing guns and alcohol has been proven to be a bad idea. Never mind, a large new gun range wants to combine a shooting and drinking venue in its' new business venture. From the article:
First of all, people shouldn't be allowed to bring their guns into places that serve alcohol, period. Secondly then, why would anyone sanction that and add to the appeal? In Powder Springs, Ga, money has trumped public safety. The irony here is that if someone orders a drink at the bar/restaurant and is carrying a gun, that's perfectly O.K. But that same person won't be allowed to re-enter the firing range. Why is that? For the safety of the folks inside the firing range? What about the safety of the folks in the bar? Sure, a permit holder is not supposed to be drinking and carrying but bartenders don't ask people if they have a gun tucked away before serving them a beer. Er uh, in this case, will everyone who is served a drink at this bar be carrying? That should be interesting. How about an ounce of prevention? I am betting that this Mayor knows better than this but he is under the influence of the gun culture. People under the influence of power and money don't do the right thing for the safety of their citizens. And being under the influence of alcohol while carrying a gun has proven to be deadly. At the end of this article, the Mayor says this:A gun shop in Powder Springs, Ga., has received permission from local officials to open a firing range that serves alcohol, WSB Atlanta reports.“Georgia law allows persons with gun permits to bring their weapon into a restaurant that serves alcohol. We are taking it even a step further,” Kristina Brown, co-owner of the Governor’s Club gun shop, told WSB.Speaking to city council members Monday, Powder Springs Mayor Pat Vaughn said he shared residents’ concerns about mixing firearms and booze, but nevertheless supported the council’s decision to approve the liquor license, West Cobb Patch reports. “I think they have some pretty good safety measures in place,” Vaughn said.One of those safety measures prohibits customers who order a drink from re-entering the firing range, which will be separated from the club's cocktail lounge, Brown tells WSB.
Really, Mayor? So drinking is part of our society. Guns are part of our society. We know the dangers of too much drinking. We know the dangers of too many guns in too many public places. Those things are unfortunate. And it's truly unfortunate that the Mayor convinced the City Council to combine these two activities in a business venture and make some money by encouraging people to engage in risky behavior. Raise your hand if you think this politician sold his soul to make a deal with gun rights extremists and folks with money. Money trumps public safety. He will have to live with this decision. Let's hope nothing goes wrong. Lives could be at stake. As I said, you just can't make these things up. Dr. Garen Wintermute of University of California, Davis, has some recent research about guns and alcohol:“We have a $3.5 million investment here,” Bert Brown told the Powder Springs city council, according to Patch.“Unfortunely [drinking] is part of our society,” he added, “and this is hard even coming from my mouth, but there’s a certain amount of concern that we would not be successful with this type of product if we did not have the ability [to serve alcohol].”
Perhaps Mayor Brown should reconsider before it's too late. If anything should be discussed around the gun issue by politicians, it should be about the fact that we have too many gun deaths and senseless shootings in America. Once Georgia passed a law allowing guns in places that serve alcohol, they had to find another way to ramp up gun sales and encourage people to carry their guns in these places. What's next? This is the ubiquitous slippery slope. Our elected officials should be pressed to talk about the issue of gun deaths and injuries and be asked what they intend to do about an important national health and safety problem that is being largely ignored. Instead they are thinking about the power and influence of the gun lobby and what it can do for them. That is truly unfortunate.This article from Huffington Post talks about the differences between the two political parties regarding gun policy. From the article:Here's the problem: These two broad categories of behavior are often related. Of the 395,366 firearms-related deaths reported in the United States between 1997 -- when this data were actually collected -- and 2009 -- the latest date for which the tally of firearms-related deaths is available -- about one-third are thought to have involved alcohol. In 2007, 34.5% of suicide and homicide victims in the United States had alcohol in their systems at the time of death, and 60% of those were considered acutely intoxicated.A very large body of research tells us that people who abuse alcohol or drugs are at far higher risk of committing acts of violence and self-harm. Although laws in some states bar the sale of guns to those with alcohol abuse problems, they're often drafted in terms that aren't very specific, and therefore aren't very effective -- forbidding the sale of firearms, for instance, to "habitual drunkards."
So the Republicans and gun rights extremists who love to quote our founders and adhere to the strict wording of the Constitution no matter how much things have changed since it was written, want to preserve a false life style. They are saying that guns have been used for self defense of the country and individuals since the beginnings of our country and that that is what the founders intended when the Second Amendment was written. Then they hide behind this false view of the amendment to stop any reasonable restrictions on guns and gun owners even when the founders had those restrictions in mind when the second amendment was written. They believe that the second amendment means they should be able to defend themselves against government tyranny while practicing the same themselves by their actions. More on this from the article:What makes this political divide interesting is the manner the political parties are touting the Second Amendment. The Republicans see their interpretation of arms bearing as "antedat[ing] the Constitution and... confirmed by the Second Amendment." In other words, Republicans view the Second Amendment and their entire platform as restoring the Founding Fathers' values.Meanwhile, the Democrats platform asserts progressive American values that they believe are in line with the issues and problems we face today. This includes addressing the problem of gun violence, with Democrats hoping to strengthen background checks, close purchasing loopholes, and devise "commonsense improvements" that protect the community at large.Seeing that Republicans are claiming to be restoring our past and Democrats are touting progression, one would assume the Republicans' laissez-faire approach to guns syncs with eighteenth century legal understanding. Not true. In fact, it is the opposite.To members of the founding generation, the entire purpose of government was to advance the public good through a well-regulated society. According to William Blackstone, a highly influential 18th century jurist, the "public good" was "nothing more essentially interested in the protection of every individual's private rights, as modeled by municipal law." This required combining and uniting the "individual, with the general interest," which is "most effectually done, in a democratic republic" through laws enacted by the people's representatives.Part of this "public good" included preventing breaches of the peace and public injury with arms. As early as the Norman Conquest, restrictions on the carrying and using of arms began appearing in the legal discourse. And as early as 1328, the Statute of Northampton made it unlawful to not only bring a force affray, but even prohibited the act of going armed "by night or day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the King's Justices, or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere."
Given these ideas, there is a clear choice in this election. Should we elect politicians who believe that, against all odds and all evidence to the contrary, more guns in the hands of more people in more public places make us safer? Should we elect politicians who support the idea that gun owners should form their own militia groups and own their own arsenals in case they need to fight against terrorism or tyranny? Do we elect politicians who espouse a view of our country that embraces their own interpretation of the second amendment to include preparation for war against the government, as Iowa Representative Steve King recently did?:In 1705 Michael Dalton also wrote that the Statute of Northampton prohibited the "wear[ing] or carry[ing] any Guns, Dags or Pistols charged" in the public concourse. Preparatory self-defense was not an excuse. As Dalton noted, "persons... so armed or weaponed for their defence upon any private quarrel" were not immune because they could seek the assistance of constable to have "the Peace against the other persons" enforced.What makes the Statute of Northampton of such importance to the historic gun rights-gun control debate is it remained part of the common law despite the adoption of the Second Amendment and contemporaneous state "bear arms" provisions. A contingent of legal scholars, backed by gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation, dismiss this influence by contending the Statute of Northampton included a specific intent or mens rea requirement. In other words, they argue the statute must be interpreted as an assault with a deadly weapon equivalent.This interpretation is intellectually suspect for a myriad of reasons; primarily because numerous legal commentators stated it was the act of carrying "Armour or Weapons, not usually worn, [that] may strike a Fear into others unarmed." This included the very influential Blackstone, who wrote the "offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace by terrifying the good people of the land."Still, even if we ignore the historical evidence and demote the Statute of Northampton to a mere prohibition against carrying "dangerous or unusual weapons" among the public concourse, it is within the legislature's purview to decide which weapons are in fact "dangerous" and should be regulated, limited or prohibited. Just pause to consider this historical fact: an average eighteenth century rifleman could discharge two rounds per minute, giving a company of thirty riflemen the power of 60 rounds of ammunition per minute. Today, a number of firearms easily exceed this. It cannot be logical for eighteenth century law to prohibit the carrying of a charged single shot pistol, but for the Republican platform to assert an "antedated" constitutional right to publicly carry a firearm that carries six, 12, 15 or more shots today. This is not even taking into account 21st century demographic changes, especially the vast population shift from the countryside to urban areas.The point here is not that public gun prohibitions are the definitive answer to solving or ending gun violence. There may be some truth to the argument that more guns in the hands of properly trained, law-abiding citizens deter crime. Instead, the point is that public gun regulations to preserve order and prevent public injury are part of our Anglo-American tradition, and it is a subject that has always been regulated by the legislatures in the interest of the common good. It is for this reason that the Republican's laissez-faire interpretation of the Second Amendment is worrisome. Not only does it seemingly foreclose an open and honest discussion on the dangers of gun violence, but it implies an armed society facilitates law and order, not government order. And if this is the Republican platform on guns, the Founding Fathers are shaking their heads at the Republicans and nodding in support of the Democrats push for "an honest, open national conversation about firearms."
If we fail to do what job, Congressman King? What is meant by that statement? Is that a dog whistle to those who believe in the tyranny of the far right gun extremists who espouse insurrectionism? ( also see link above from Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) Or should we elect politicians who believe that in order to deal with the gun violence in our communities, we surely need to have an open discussion about the causes and the solutions? I know how I will vote. What will you do? Common sense says that, as a country, we need to do what's right and best for our neighbors and ourselves and, by extension, our country. We should not be taken to the lowest common denominator on this issue. When the lives of fellow Americans are at risk every day, we have a problem and we need to raise the issue up and deal with it at the highest level of honest discourse. Politicians should stop being afraid to even mention the word guns in political discourse. They are failing their constituents who elect them to protect their communities and keep them safe and secure from violence of all kinds. Public safety should be at the top of the list of topics for discussion, not at the bottom. Honest politicians should not be promoting their own elections by luring people to fund raisers where attendees are encouraged to carry guns in public and shoot machine guns. Weapons of war should not be idolized by ordinary citizens. Weapons of war should not be touted by elected leaders. We are better than this.Congressman King said we need to exercise our Second Amendment rights in order to help protect them. “Raise our children with gun safety and bring them out to the range, get them comfortable with guns and make sure they understand both the danger and the responsibility with it.”“And they understand the danger of a country that could be taken over by tyranny one day if we fail to do our job.” King said this, as well, about the responsibility of protecting Second Amendment rights.During his speech to the crowd, Congressman King described how he gave an interview on a radio show while his sons sighted in a new rifle. During that interview King said you could hear the report of the rifle. “The report of that rifle echoes through three generations of our family, and more if my grandchildren are raised in the same fashion I was, my grandmother was, our children were.” King said the sound of that rifle has echoed over a century in his family.
Apparently this machine gun thing is quite popular among NRA bought and paid for politicians. Here is an article about a machine gun fund raiser in Ohio:
That goes without saying. So much for reasonable discussion about public health and safety.Ohio State Rep. Ron Maag wants to show voters he’s a straight shooter.The two-term Republican, who is running for re-election, hosted a “machine gun social” today at the Lake Bailee Gun Club in Hamilton, Ohio.“Lots of full auto guns you can pay to shoot,” said an advertisement for the event, which was posted on Maag’s website.The 66-year-old tweeted a picture of a bald eagle that flew above the range today.“Great day at the Machine Gun Social. Come join us,” said another tweet.Neither he or his opponent, Mike Kassalen, support increasing gun control laws, according to their websites.