In our country's history, our most successful presidents demonstrated that the best way to honor and secure our principles was to back them with the force of law.
When L.B.J. wanted to pay homage to John F. Kennedy and to secure the right of African-Americans to "flourish", he did it with the force of law.
When Bill Clinton wanted to honor Jim Brady and reduce the numbers of those victimized by gun violence, he did it by pushing for the passage of the Brady Law.
Just last June, when Barack Obama said the "time had come to put politics aside and fix America's broken immigration system," he meant to fix it with a new law.
So how can President Obama tell us in his State of the Union speech tonight that "the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that all deserve the chance to be fulfilled," without talking about the gun violence that destroyed those dreams?
It wasn't the lack of innovation, education, or investment, too many regulations or too much debt that ended Christina's life and her dreams -- it was a clearly dangerous man who had way too easy access to a gun with a high-capacity ammunition magazine -- good only for killing many people quickly. We need the president to push for laws to reduce the gun violence that shattered Tucson, and Christina's family, and that shatters the lives of more than 100,000 Americans every year.
President Obama tonight failed to 'challenge old assumptions' on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence -- which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson. He failed to recognize the power of our laws to set us on a course to reduce gun violence. We are disappointed, but we're also determined to continue our efforts to help make our nation safer by pushing to strengthen our gun laws.
We need the president's support now for changes in our laws to ban large capacity ammunition magazines, to tighten restrictions on who can legally purchase a gun, and to require effective background checks before these guns can be purchased.
We're calling on all Americans to contact the president and their members of Congress; tell them to stand up to the gun lobby and pass the common sense laws that will help keep us safer.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on The Brady Campaign site.)
Mark Penn: State of the Union: Did Obama Win His Future?
Mitchell Bard: Paul Ryan's Fiction-Filled SOTU Response: Will America Buy It?
Charles Howard: Heeding God's Call to End Gun Violence
Rev. Chuck Currie: God Not Guns: Tucson Argues For Gun Limits to Reduce Violence
"If only I would just believe everything coming from the NRA and the gun lobby, I ( and others) would stop trying to confiscate guns. Because sure as I am writing, that is what I want to do. In fact, as part of the new normal, I think I will organize a posse and we will set out across the country to take away guns from law abiding citizens."
-Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign Board Member
http://www.commongunsense.com/
There is no other way to interpret Paul's stance on the matter.
"it was a clearly dangerous man who had way too easy access to a gun with a high-capacity ammunition magazine -- good only for killing many people quickly."
If that's the only thing they are good for, then millions of them must be broken. I personally use mine for putting holes in paper quickly. Hundreds of thousands of other people do the same. And we will not be deprived of something based on the actions of a single nut.
An interesting poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145526/Gallup-Review-Public-Opinion-Context-Tucson-Shootings.aspx
Yet even more interesting. Let's see who actually clicks them.
Barack: Michelle, this "President of the US" gig isn't all its cracked up to be. I don't want to resign or do something to get impeached, but how do I ensure I don't have to go through this beyond the next couple of years?
Michelle: Well, baby, let the voters make that decision for you.
Barack: How?
Michelle: Just start talking favorably about gun control, and how millions of law-abiding Americans have to have new restrictive laws put on them because of the acts of a few crazy folk. We could start looking into good school districts in Chicago to move into, and I could start surfing the internet for that tonight!
Barack: Of course! Trotting out my personal anti-gun views as I've expressed in the past is a no-brainer. I just have been so busy lately, I didn't think of this right away. Thanks, Michelle! Could you make the U-Haul reservations in the morning? It's never too soon to get the arrangements started!
Michelle: No problem, hon! I can't say I really was thrilled with being in DC any longer than I have to, anyway! How I ended up with the "War on Hot Dogs" as my mission as first-lady has irritated me from day one.
that the only reason to carry a gun in New York City is to "kill
somebody". http://www.nysun.com/article/25477 In keeping with the
mayor's pronouncement, he announced that he was giving up his armed
bodyguards, who, until now, have protected his person and family 24/7.
"I know it will seem foolhardy to many," replied the mayor, "but most
ordinary New Yorkers cannot get a permit to keep a handgun in their
homes, let alone to carry one with them when they venture outside.
Why is my life, and that of my family, more precious than that of a
regular person?" said the mayor. "As of tomorrow, my security team
will only use methods approved for ordinary citizens to defend me and
my loved ones" insisted Mayor Bloomberg. "That means no Glocks or
pepper spray or electronic stun guns or Tasers" the mayor said.
"We'll rely solely on un-armed self defense techniques" he insisted. Sarah
Brady of Handgun Control hailed the mayor's move as "Breathtaking",
she called it a "heroic and principled stand." Wayne LaPierre of the
N.R.A. was quoted as saying, "Well, it's his safety at stake, he can
do as he pleases." It is too soon to tell if other high flying
celebrities in music, show business, motion pictures and
the entertainment industry, who often tout gun control while being
protected by armed bodyguards will follow mayor Bloomberg's lead.
T.I.C.
I don't understand why pepper-spray should be illegal to carry though... that just seems crazy. It's like NYC really hates the idea of resisting crime and self-defense.
Let's start with cars. Let's make them go 15 miles per hour and weigh less than 100 pounds, in case a crazy person get ahold of one and runs it into a night club, injuring dozens. We'll call them bicycles, it'll be great.
Then, let's work on kitchen knives. Plastic knives work almost as well and can hardly be used to stab anyone, so let's make those the only legal kind, in case someone goes crazy. Certainly no one needs a well-sliced tomato as much as they need not to be stabbed.
Some people have strong arms and legs that can be used to injure others, so let's cripple them or require them to wear padded gloves, just in case they happen to be crazy.
The problem with trying to engineer a society for the lowest common denominator, ie, marginally functional, psychotic criminal, is that we all have to live in whatever results. I don't want to live in that. I'll take my chances with a society where we behave as adults and remove the occasional crazy person.
Why, then, have rates of crime decreased consistently since 1993 in spite of increased rates of firearm ownership?
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1719257620070418
also, if you feel so sure, are you willing to permantely post a sign in your yard, on your apartment door - whater, that says "this is a gun free zone"?
This person was intent on attempting to kill this particular congresswoman - do you really think that had a law been in place this person wouldn't have found a way to carry out his demented plan?
Come on folks, more laws wouldn't have changed things much.
It wasn't "gun violence" that destroyed Christina's dreams. It was a man named Jarred Loughner. Paul and his companions keep talking about gun violence as if it's a ominpresent being with a physical form, akin to the devil. But no matter how much they avoid the real issue, the fact of the matter is that "gun violence" is not a person nor an evil diety. It's action taken by humans against other humans and there is no way around it.
As for his claim that "high capcity" mags are only good for murder, he hasn't explained why the police use them. Is it because they are mass murderers who want to kill large numbers of people quickley?
The fact that it's members are armed citizens isn't a threat, the point is that they are legally armed citizens who vote and take part in the political process. So the notion that congress bows to the NRA is false. The only "bow to the NRA" because they want the votes of the lawful armed citizens that it is composed of.
The problem isn't extended magazines - that's a false argument and anyone who has spent even a moment at a shooting range knows that people can quickly change magazines in seconds (or less), not minutes. Nor is the problem concealed carry laws, muzzle breaks, or pistol grips on rifles or shotguns. The problem is that we don't have a system to give help to those who are most likely to abuse weapons and others. Change that and you'll avoid many future problems. Ignore it and burn time and energy on magazines, and you'll enter into a divisive argument that likely yields no benefit.
In this case, it didn't even need to go that far. The school expelled Loughner because they found him dangerous. Is it not then obvious that the school did not want him on school property where he might pose a threat to other students? Indeed, requiring him to obtain a mental exam to return is a good indication of this. All Universities employ psychologists. They could have also done an examination before expelling him.
Solution. It would have taken all 5 minutes in front of a judge for the school to acquire a restraining order baring Loughner from purchasing a firearm and/or being a threat to the school and others. If he were dangerous, that action was warranted. Were I a parent of a student attending that University, I would have expected this action. Yet this aspect is totally ignored.
I think you are wrong.
springsm wrote: "because so many have ba st dized the second amendment to fit their own little world. "
Such as Paul Helmke.
springsm wrote: "And don't forget Obama signed the Credit Card Bill with Coburn's little addition of carrying loaded weapons on a person in National Pks"
And do not forget that the current Congress is even more staunchly pro gun than the last Congress.