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, January 11, 2013

Twisted NRA logic and connections

The NRA's twisted logic and connections after the Newtown shooting are largely seen as nuts. All we have to do is follow the money trail and we know what is behind the NRA's proposals. Efforts to arm and train teachers can only result in a new market for guns. If the ludicrous idea to arm teachers went anywhere, teachers would go out and buy guns. And, if they are to actually have them in the classroom, they will have to be trained of course. So off they go to the gun permit training classes. Unless of course, you live in Virginia, where you can get a permit with just a one hour on-line training class with no requirements to handle a gun or know anything about a gun. Oh yes, and you can get a Virginia permit easily even if you live in another state. Or in Arizona where not even a permit is required to carry a loaded gun in public. Same in VermontAlaska and Wyoming. So that would mean that teachers can carry these weapons with nary a moment of training in how to use a lethal weapon. Raise your hand if you think that's a good idea. Gun deaths in these states? You can check out this report from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence for much more information about gun laws in the states and why they actually matter.

I think we can safely say that it is not a good idea to arm teachers. The public doesn't want it. Parent and teacher organizations have come out against it. I referenced that in a previous post. So then, what about the idea from the NRA that private companies could provide the security? Why not? When Wayne LaPierre's CEO picked former Congressman Asa Hutchinson to shepherd his ideas about arming teachers through the media, he knew what he was doing. Hutchinson has ties to some private security companies.
But there's something the LaPierre didn't mention: Hutchinson sits on the board of directors of Pinkerton Government Services, a subsidiary of one of the nation's largest private security contractors, Securitas. And if the NRA's—and Hutchinson's—proposals are enacted into law, Securitas, a firm Hutchinson once lobbied for in Washington, could stand to score big.
Hutchinson's private security connections were first reported by Sally Jo Sorensen of the progressive blog Bluestem Prairie. As Sorensen noted, Securitas paid Hutchinson and the firm he worked for, Venable LLC, $200,000 for lobbying services in 2006. (Hutchinson also lobbied on behalf of Point Blank Body Armor in 2007 and 2008.)
Over the last three weeks, Hutchinson has made an evolving case for LaPierre's agenda in a series of interviews and op-eds. After first suggesting that it might be possible to staff schools with armed volunteers, he offered a pricier proposal in an op-ed for the Arkansas Democrat–Gazette on Friday: "A part of this solution will be the increased presence of trained, armed and professional security officers in schools."
Schools shouldn't accept just anyone to keep watch, Hutchinson argued. "[N]ot every school can afford the costs, and not all armed officers are equally trained," he explained. "That is why it is so critical to create an effective federal, state and local sharing of costs, and, most importantly, to assure a high standard of training and certification. The training of armed personnel to protect our children should not be less than those who are trained to protect our airlines or even the president."
Hutchinson did not disclose his connections to the private security industry, but told Mother Jones his role with Pinkerton was in a regulatory advisory role. "I am not aware that PGS provides any school security services," he said in an email. "I have no connection to Securitas as I am a proxy board member under Department of Defense guidelines to assure that there is no foreign influence or control over PGS. There are some very specific legislative and regulatory requirements in reference to my work as a proxy board member."
Hmmmm. The hypocrisy is stunning. But if you don't like this idea, then, how about the absolutely nutty decision by the country's craziest Sheriff, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. He has ordered armed posse members to patrol the perimiter of schools in his county:
After the NRA defiantly announced, in the shadows of the Sandy Hook massacre, that the only way to stop more mass murders is to arm school personnel, two Arizona "solutions" immediately hit the front pages. Attorney General Tom Horne made the mistake of upstaging Arpaio—I bet he got a call. A few days after the NRA "press conference," Horne announced his program to arm school principals. He was pretty proud of his solution, calling it "an original Tom Horne idea," because his proposal would arm administrators, not teachers. Horne thinks arming teachers might cause too much confusion. Apparently, principals are better shots. I didn't know firearms training was taught at principal school.  
Not to be out-crazied, and certainly not to surrender the media spotlight, the day after Horne's announcement Sheriff Arpaio stepped before the cameras and blustered (he knows no other way) that he'll send his "posse" to schools to protect our children. Since then, he's been all over the local news peddling his idea, as well as appearing on national programs like Piers Morgan. What other county sheriff regularly gets national TV time? What other county sheriff can you even name?
Arpaio's volunteer posse is nothing new, it's been around a long time. The program began years ago during the busy holiday shopping season, as a way to supplement the minimum-wage security guards who patrol shopping mall parking lots in golf carts. In this case, the malls welcomed the posse members, who drive cop-like cars and wear cop-like uniforms, because they help keep the malls' security costs down during the peak holiday period.
Now that Arpaio's posse program has started at nearly 60 schools, on the other hand, everyone is still a little confused about what's going on. Because, as usual, Arpaio didn't ask the schools if they wanted extra security, nor did he coordinate the program with other agencies like, oh, the local police. He just barreled ahead like a flaccid old bull in a china shop, his usual MO. Even the schools that welcomed the extra security don't know WTF is going on. 
As the article wonders- what could possibly go wrong? From another article, here are the "qualifications" of these posse members:
"And then there was Jacob Cutler. According to a Flagstaff police report, Cutler threw his girlfriend to the ground and choked her while trying to sexually assault her in 2008. When she didn’t cooperate, he allegedly threatened to call police and said they would side with him, because he “has a badge.” He was a member of Arpaio’s posse at the time." (...) 
Kevin Ray Campos was arrested in 2007 outside a Scottsdale club for disorderly conduct. According to the police report, he spit on several bouncers and then hurled profanities at a Scottsdale police officer. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, according to court records, and was hired as a posse member a year later
Never mind. These are the folks that the NRA is offering up to protect our children from the "bad guys" with guns. These are the "good guys with guns" that we should trust to take care of school security. Good grief. But that is the twisted logic of the NRA and it's leaders and lobbyists. The decision of the NRA to let Wayne LaPierre have a press event with no questions asked where he suggested that the solution to gun violence is more guns was a mistake. Since that time, many NRA members have gone public with their distaste and disenchantment with the organization. Public polling is not going their way.
PPP's newest national poll finds that the NRA's image has declined over the last three weeks following Wayne LaPierre's controversial press conference the week before Christmas. 
The NRA now has a negative favorability rating, with 42% of voters seeing it positively while 45% have an unfavorable view. That represents a 10 point net decline in the NRA's favorability from the week before the press conference when a national poll we did found it at 48/41. Its image has taken a hit with both Democrats (from 29/59 to 22/67) and Republicans (71/19 to 66/18). 
The NRA's focus on putting more guns in schools is likely what's driving the decline in the organization's image. Only 41% of voters support the organization's proposal to put armed police officers in schools across the country, with 50% opposed. Democrats (35/57) and independents (38/51) both oppose the push and even among Republicans only a narrow majority (52/39) supports it. 
“The more the NRA talks the less popular it becomes,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Americans don’t think the solution to tragedies like Newtown is to put more guns in schools.” 
Stephen Colbert, as always, was right "on target" when he took apart the NRA's logic on a recent show. Watch it below.

The audience laughs at the nonsense as well they should. But we should do more than laugh. We should act to make sure these ludicrous ideas don't continue to sway our elected leaders as they have for far too long. They have been swayed by extremists like this CEO of a weapons and tactical training company who threatened to kill people if President Obama gets his way about passing new gun laws.  You just can't make this stuff up. If it wasn't so scary and serious, maybe we could laugh. From the article (with language not mine, but his):
The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.
In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month.
After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.
“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”
“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”
The CEO concluded: “I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”
Raise your hand if you agree with this man. If others like this man are serious, we are going to have some potential problems in our country and they might make what we've had so far look pale by comparison. Jon Stewart pointed out the raging nonsense of some in the gun rights community, including conspiracy nut Alex Jones when he virtually attacked Piers Morgan on a live T.V. appearance. Check that out below and more.

In a different segment, Stewart took on the NRA and the ideas proposed by the organization in response to the Newtown school shooting.

The media is finally paying close attention to the NRA and have been calling out their true agenda. I can't even begin to highlight all that has been written since the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. But this one from Charles Blow of the New York Times was one of the more recent.
First, let’s fix some of the terminology: stop calling groups like the National Rifle Association a “gun rights” group. These are anti-regulation, pro-proliferation groups. They prey on public fears — of the “bad guys with guns,” of a Second Amendment rollback, of an ever imminent apocalypse — while helping gun makers line their pockets.
(Sturm, Ruger & Company’s stock has gone up more than 500 percent since President Obama was first elected, and Smith & Wesson’s stock is up more than 200 percent.)
And the gun makers return the favor. According to a 2011 report by the Violence Policy Center, a group advocating stronger gun regulations:
“Since 2005, corporations — gun related and other — have contributed between $19.8 million and $52.6 million to the NRA as detailed in its Ring of Freedom corporate giving program.”
The report continued:
“The vast majority of funds — 74 percent — contributed to the NRA from ‘corporate partners’ are members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products. Contributions to the NRA from the firearms industry since 2005 total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.”
Groups like the N.R.A. aren’t as much about rights as wrongs. The money being churned is soaked in blood and marked by madness.
Second, more reasonable people of good conscience and good faith, including responsible gun owners, need to talk openly, honestly and forcefully about the need for additional, reasonable regulations.
There is power in speaking up. We know the face of unfettered gun proliferation. Now it’s time to see more faces of regulation and restraint.
This being the case, how can the NRA sit at the table of discussion with any real intent to stop shootings when the organization's ties to the gun industry benefit from shootings and the sale of weapons after each mass shooting? How can it be that an industry that makes weapons designed to kill people and particularly assault rifles designed to be used by the military to kill as many people as possible benefit from the death of 20 small children? It's beyond belief really and beyond what is acceptable and within the bounds of common sense and common decency.

And last, of course, we simply must talk about the NRA's response to meeting with Vice President Biden's task force formed to recommend policy and other solutions to our national gun violence problem. Many groups have been invited to participate in the discussion and offer ideas. One would think that, given that 20 very young children were gunned down less than a month ago in the nation's most horrific mass shooting, the NRA would want to be involved in the national discussion about how to prevent more shootings. Instead, here is their response to the meeting:
"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," the NRA said in a statement following the 95-minute meeting on White House grounds. "While claiming that no policy proposals would be 'prejudged,' this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans."
More lies. The NRA is misrepresenting the majority of its' members who want reasonable gun laws. If the leaders of the organization can look the families of shooting victims in the eye and explain to them why universal background checks on all gun sales is a bad idea, let's hear it. If they can look Gabrielle Giffords in the eye and tell her why a ban on high capacity magazines is a bad idea, let them speak up. Let's hear why the NRA's leadership is against what the majority of the pubic, and even their own members want. They whine that gun owners are blamed for the Newtown shooting. A specious argument at best. No. Most gun owners are reasonable people who understand that rhetoric coming from Wayne LaPierre and others who lead the organization is adding to the fear and paranoia and not in the least bit genuine or helpful. We are done with their bullying behaviors and their intransigence. We are better than this and we must demand a plan that is reasonable. The canard of the Second Amendment argument is folly. Enough. Let's get to work in the name of the victims and do what the country understands is right and must be done. If we can't do this as a country after the massacre of 20 little children then we can't do anything that is worth doing.


It turns out that Mr. Yeager, above, who threatened to kill people if any new gun laws were passed, got himself into a fix. His conceal carry gun permit was revoked by the state of Tennessee. From the article:
A Middle Tennessee firearms trainer who made an ominous comment about killing people in a YouTube video that gained national attention this week has had his handgun carry permit suspended Friday by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security.
James Yeager, 42, had his permit suspended based on a "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public," the department said in a statement.
Col. Tracy Trott of the Tennessee Department of Safety said it didn't take him long to reach a decision after viewing the comments on the Internet.
"I watched it twice to make sure I was hearing what I thought I heard," Trott said.
"It sounded like it was a veiled threat against the whole public. I believed him. He had a conviction in his voice, and the way he looked into the camera, I believe he's capable of a violent act," Trott said. 
Yeager told Channel 4 News he is aware of the suspension, and his attorney will handle his statements going forward.
The department said Yeager has the right to seek a review of the decision.
Yeager posted a new video Friday night in which he appears with his attorney and apologizes for his prior comments.
"In another video I said some pretty volatile stuff, which I apologize for. I do not - in any way - advocate overthrowing the United States government. Nor do I condone violent actions toward any elected officials," Yeager said.
Yup. Thank you Tennessee Department of Safety. This guy means business. Just listen to his ridiculous and paranoid words in the video. He is spouting the NRA's drivel and fear mongering and worse. The thing is, people like this have guns and lots of them. They are insurrectionists ready to commit treason. Now that the country may actually pass some reasonable gun reforms, these guys are dissembling. Really, dear readers, don't believe a word he is saying. No one is going to come and confiscate his guns. No one is taking away any God given rights. No one is setting the Constitution on fire. People like this are the problem in this country. They are a fringe group but our leaders have let themselves be bullied by them for many years. In a way, you can almost see why. When guys like this send letters to leaders or make phone calls, you pay attention. Threats like the ones made by this guy can turn into action. This is exactly why the NRA is now in trouble. The majority simply do not believe in any of this and find it reprehensible and dangerous. Mr. Yeager is just adding fuel to the fire of public disapproval of the far right gun extremists who the NRA is now supporting. If they keep this up, there will be little support for any of their views. The NRA's leadership needs to reassess the current atmosphere. We are all reassessing the crazy gun culture that leads people like Mr. Yeager to behave the way he does. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, everything has changed.


  1. Interestingly, looking at the interview on current tv, on viewpoiont, there appears to be a difference of opinion by the pro-gun groups about what was proposed. The NRA spin is not getting a lot of support as a factual representation of the content of the meeting, which has been described as more conversation than lecture, and reasonable.

    The NRA is out of step with pretty much everyone but the most extreme paranoiacs.

  2. "Jon Stewart pointed out the raging nonsense of some in the gun rights community, including conspiracy nut Alex Jones when he virtually attacked Piers Morgan on a live T.V. appearance."

    Using John Stewart and Piers Morgan as spokespeople might not be the best choice. Stewart tends to push the envelope of public discourse, and then when he goes too far, falls back on the "I'm a comedian" defense.

    And faulting Mr. Jones for his behavior on Piers Morgan fails to take into account some of Morgan's previous discourteous behavior. I've started wondering if Mr. Morgan's show is more like professional wrestling. Deciding beforehand if he's going to go off on someone. He certainly doesnt seem to do it consistently. He gets worked up and calls people names on one show, and on another with a similar guest is suprisingly civil.

    1. Jon Stewart has it just right. He is a great spokesperson, If I were you, I wouldn't come down on the side of Alex Jones. He is crazy and others are acting just like him and making incendiary remarks that are dangerous and frightening. Rush Limbaugh for just one. Ted Nugent for another. Insurrectionist theories are supported by a sliver of Americans. I hope you are not one of them, Mark. The far right is coming unglued and it is not a pretty picture. They deserve every satirical remark made about them. They are bullies and boorish.

    2. I tend t prefer calmer discourse. However, progun people dont hold a monopoly on boorish behavor. Mr. Morgan has resorted to name calling on the air. His behavior even resulted in over 100,000 people signing a petition to deport him.
      Surprisingly enough, he has acted well with similar guests such as Ted Nugent, and our former Governor Jesse Ventura.

    3. Come on Mark. Do you mean to tell me that Piers Morgan is worse than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Not. And Ted Nugent? Not. All Morgan had to do with Alex Jones, Ventura and Nugent is to sit back and let them make asses of themselves. It wasn't hard. The gun nuts are becoming unhinged and their behavior is more boorish than ever. But maybe you missed the main point of my blog.

    4. I think I got the main point. That you disagree with the NRA's suggestion as to one possible solution to help prevent mass shootings in schools. And then some in the gun control lobby make comments such as suggesting that confiscation is a possibility, and maybe its time to get rid of the second amendment to go away, and then they seem suprised when those who disagree with them act a bit frustrated.
      I've read comments from the reasonable gun law side that were a little out there too. Both sides use perjorative terms for the other side. Sort of like the military does in war. It helps dehumanise the other side.
      You tell me you've experienced it on other blogs, and I've experienced it also, even on this one. Once you move from debate to name calling, sharing of information goes down pretty quickly.

    5. Where did you see that anyone on the gun control side want to confiscate guns and get rid of the second amendment. That is a lie and you seem to believe. More's the pity, Mark. There are very few comments on the side of reasonable gun control that come close to matching the gun rights extremists. I have experienced those so I know very well what they say. We've been over this before. Try as you might, you just can't defend what is being said on your side of this discussion. It should be embarrassing to you and reprehensible to any person with integrity but I guess not. I am not going back and forth with you any more about this, Mark. If I were you, I wouldn't defend what is being said by your side of this discussion. Where have you experienced it on this blog? Stop now, Mark before you say some things that make you look bad.

  3. Where did you see that anyone on the gun control side want to confiscate guns and get rid of the second amendment.

    Gov Cuomo of New York: "Confiscation could be an option."
    Where did you see that anyone on the gun control side want to confiscate guns and get rid of the second amendment.

    Numerous sources calling for repeal of 2A:

    I got pages of google hits on a quick search for "repeal second amendment."

    I also wrote a local mayor where we have lived, who is a member of MAIG. He stated that he feels that civilians should not be permitted to have any long gun which holds more than three rounds (including bolt actions, lever action 30-30 deer rifles, etc), any gun with a detachable magazine, or any weapon capable of puncturing a police officer's soft vest (which means basically any rifle, including 30-30 deer rifles), and that such weapons should be banned with no grandfathering. Turn 'em all in!

    So I take it you disagree with Gov Cuomo and all of those journalists calling for repeal of the 2A?

    1. I do not believe there will be a repeal of the second amendment. That is simply not going to happen given the political atmosphere in America. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, people have been offering many opinions. There are opinions that have been offered out of sheer frustration with our current culture of mass shootings and too many shootings. I wonder if you gun guys can understand that the NRA has resisted all attempts to stop the spread of gun violence? For the general public and many in the political arena, watching mass shooting after mass shooting and the massacre of little children is too much. So when the NRA continues to resist even the most reasonable measures, throwing out the second amendment as a road block leads to this total polarization. There are people of many views concerning the issue. The extremes of the NRA have said some very radical things which are highlighted in this post. Do you agree with them, Chris? Since you want to know if I agree with all opinions offered on my side, the same must be asked of you and people like you who read my blog and disagree with me. Or is there a middle ground where we can agree? That is what this is about and that is where the discussion needs to be. Since you are the guys with the guns and some on your side have been making some pretty ugly threats to use them, I think we deserve to know if you and others like you intend to use those guns during what should be a reasonable discussion.

    2. "Since you are the guys with the guns..."

      I'm pretty sure that Gov Cuomo has a few "guys with guns" working for him. When elected officials in high positions start talking about forcible confiscation of private property, likely enforcing such confiscation with armed men who have badges, that raises the ante.

      What honestly concerns me most is the potential showdown between "guys with guns" and badges.

      Wyoming and Texas are considering legislation that would make enforcement of any gun control laws a state felony. That would require a State Trooper (guy with gun) to arrest an ATF agent or Federal Marshal (guy with gun). I can see a lot of ways that could go poorly, with disastrous results for many people in the end.

      At this polarizing point in the debate, I see state by state solutions as the most viable. Let the states try different policies, see which are effective, and let people tackle the issue as they see fit for their locality. As Pres Obama has said, what works in Chicago is not going to fly in places like Wyoming. Leaving the matter up to the states creates a safety valve so that people who feel strongly about the issue on either side can live in a community which they largely are comfortable with the state of regulation.

    3. I'm glad that you see the potential danger of such a showdown. But if you truly believe that Gov. Cuomo will come after people's guns with his own armed "guys" then you should just chill out and think this through. It's not going to happen. People offer opinions.

      The states are already deciding on their own laws. It isn't working. We need federal laws so that people can't purchase guns with no background checks in a state neighboring states like NY that require them. That is what will make us ALL safer from people who shouldn't have guns. What are you so afraid of if federal laws are passed? What's your problem with requiring background checks on all sales? Can you pass a background check? Do you think it's a good idea for a felon or adjudicated mentally ill person to buy a gun legally with no background check? For that is what we now have. How would you change things federally to stop this practice?

  4. Dear readers- we must consider the claims made by those who would start shooting at elected leaders and others if ANY reasonable gun violence prevention measure is taken. Consider this then- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/opinion/revolutionary-language.html?hp

    " A collection of conservative groups have declared Jan. 19, during the weekend celebrating President Obama’s inauguration and Martin Luther King’s Birthday, as Gun Appreciation Day.

    In a press release, the event chairman, Larry Ward, said, “The Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people.”

    Using the word “dictates” is a subtle, but intentional, effort to frame the president as dangerous.

    Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News analyst, said in a video posted Thursday on the network’s GretaWire blog: “Here’s the dirty little secret about the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment was not written in order to protect your right to shoot deer, it was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government. How about chewing on that one.”

    He went even further in a piece in The Washington Times, saying that the Second Amendment “protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

    Who are Napolitano’s tyrants here? Is this government takeover theoretical, imminent, in progress or a fait accompli?

    Ward went so far as to say on CNN: “I believe that Gun Appreciation Day honors the legacy of Dr. King.” He continued: “The truth is, I think Martin Luther King would agree with me if he were alive today that if African-Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from Day 1 of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history. And I believe wholeheartedly that it’s essential to liberty.”

    Set aside, if you can, what would most likely be King’s horror at the association, and look at that language. Pay particular attention to the suggestion that guns are an essential guard against slavery’s resurgence in this country. And who would be the slaves and who the enslavers?

    As the Southern Poverty Law Center said in a Spring 2012 report, the number of so-called patriot groups surged after Barack Obama was first elected president.

    “The swelling of the Patriot movement since that time has been astounding,” the report said. “From 149 groups in 2008, the number of Patriot organizations skyrocketed to 512 in 2009, shot up again in 2010 to 824, and then, last year, jumped to 1,274.”"

    These must be the "guys with the guns" who Wayne LaPierre says "make the rules" This is truly frightening and totally hysterical rhetoric. It does not belong in a discussion about how to save lives and how to keep more little children from being shot in massacres.

  5. I think dictates would be exactly what Biden said Obama would do with an executive order. He has shown that if he can not pass something through congress he will just EO it into law.

    1. Relax Anthony. Nothing done by Executive Order is going to take away your guns or your rights. You guys need to chill out and agree that something has to be done. I hope you will get that. There are fixes to some of our laws that could be made by executive order that won't affect you one little bit unless you are a felon or out buying an arm load of guns every week. I just don't understand the strong resistance to reasonable gun laws that will prevent our little children from being shot or at the least, as VP Biden said, make it less probable. This is about doing the right thing for our country and it has nothing to do with the second amendment. The President wants this to be done in as fair a way as possible while respecting the rights of gun owners, the second amendment and the right of all of us to be free from gun violence in our communities. You can be a part of the solution if you so choose.

  6. Please explain how any of the proposed laws or executive orders would have stopped any of the spree killings that are being used as the reasons for their implementtation, because I do not see that there is any evidence they could or would do so.

    1. You guys always say that as a way to deflect from the fact that we have laws full of loopholes that allow people who shouldn't have guns to get them anyway. If a specific law doesn't apply to each case doesn't mean it won't apply to another. Doing nothing is not an answer. We let the AWB lapse. This gun, with multiple rounds of ammunition, would have been banned. Because the law was not renewed, more of these guns are now available for common use. They shouldn't be. Period. Do you think no laws should be passed? Do you think anyone should be able to buy guns? Do you think dangerously mentally ill people should be able to buy guns? How about domestic abuser? How about felons? If you do, then passing no laws is just what you want. The public doesn't agree with you. We are going to pass laws to stop senseless shootings. They will not prevent all of them but they will prevent the probability of their happening again and again and again.

  7. Hello, I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wish you best of luck for all your best efforts..

    Smo Usa