Nardyne Jefferies stood up straight yesterday, unflinching in the bright mid-day sun, and looked at the crowd of journalists, politicians, and activists. "They didn't just kill my child. They killed my child's dreams, and they killed my dreams... They killed generations."
Just a few weeks ago, Jefferies lost her only child, Brishell, in a barrage of AK-47 bullets as the teen stood among friends in Southeast D.C. mourning the recent gun death of a peer. The ironies don't end there. Jefferies had been home-schooling her 16-year-old because she wanted to protect her from the reckless street violence that ultimately took that bright student's life, and the lives of four other youths in a gangland-style assault that surviving family members call a massacre.
Want another irony? Jefferies and nearly a dozen others who lost loved ones to gun violence were standing on the steps of D.C.'s City Hall with D.C. City Council members and the mayor to protest yet another bill that bears the heartless insignia of the NRA. Sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the proposed legislation would gut D.C.'s laws -- written to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision -- that still try to make it harder for dangerous people to get guns. At the same moment, just two miles away, the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Senate was holding a hearing on closing the loophole that makes it easy for suspected terrorists to legally buy guns.
How much more ridiculous can Washington get? Closing the "terror gap" is the right thing to do. According to the latest General Accounting Office report, this breach in federal law allowed people on our government's Terrorist Watch List to buy guns and explosives 1,119 times over the past six years. Such legislation is long overdue. But another irony is that just closing the terrorist loophole wouldn't stop someone, such as a sympathizer of Osama bin Laden, from going to a gun show in almost any American community and buying a gun or assault-style weapon from a private seller. As of today, private sellers aren't required to conduct a Brady background check.
Consider the words of Sen. McCain, a lead sponsor of an amendment in 2004 to close this offensive legislative gap: "We need this amendment because our second amendment rights do not extend to criminals who violate our laws and terrorists who hate this country... We also need this amendment because my law-abiding constituents who attend gun shows in Arizona should not have to rub shoulders with the scum of the Earth who use this loophole to evade background checks to buy firearms to peddle to God knows who." This must be the richest of all ironies, and it sickens me.
Every day mothers like Jefferies, and fathers like D.C. resident Kenny Barnes, who arranged the news conference, suffer mentally and emotionally because, in many cases, as Jefferies pointed out, they don't just lose children. They lose their children's dreams and they lose chances to become grandparents and great-grandparents. They lose, and we lose, generations to gun violence because our elected representatives refuse to pass commonsense laws that won't cost a dime.
It was good to see Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the committee, speak so eloquently about closing the "terror gap." Several other senators attended the hearing and spoke persuasively as well. It is my hope that they close the "terror gap" and fast. But if Washington doesn't also close the gun show loophole and start passing other laws that could reduce the bloodshed and heartache witnessed by ordinary Americans every day (to the tune of 30,000 lives lost and 80,000 people injured each year) then the "terrorists" who attack our neighborhoods -- not just those who target Times Square -- will continue to win.
Even Paul Helmke knows that DC had the toughest gun laws in the nation, and DC also was the murder capital for many years. So clearly "passing laws" has no effect on "reducing the bloodshed" -- why is this so hard for the social engineers to understand?
If Washington DC's gun laws weren't strict enough for them, that really is revealing.
Their goal has always been a total ban on all firearms.
Now the anti-gun side exploits inner city gang violence to push for new more oppressive gun laws that they know would not have even affected the individuals that committed the violence they exploit. In fact, with anti-gun laws that target inexpensive firearms and out right bans, the anti-gun side continues to insure that poor inner city minorities are unable to legally defend themselves against criminals in their neighborhoods.
That wouldn't make sense if the anti-gunners' goal really was to 'reduce violence through reasonable gun laws that ensure that the right people have firearms.'
More gun laws that make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns doesn't restrict ownership of firearms for those that break the law to obtain them and illegally carry them, it only impacts those that wish to legally own and carry firearms. It actually helps to insures that the wrong people have guns. And, keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens that don't commit crime but would/could use these firearms to defend themselves, while not keeping criminals from illegally obtaining and illegally carrying firearms doesn't 'reduce violence', it makes it easier for criminals to commit violence by insuring their victims are defenseless.
BUT, if the goal of the anti-gunners is really to use/exploit any violence they can point to as an excuse to justify banning the ownership of something they simply don't like, then you have your answer.
Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be guffawing at the hilarity of that "logic"?
that the gun addicts are busily defending terrorists being allowed to buy guns,
of the contrast between John McCain then and John McCain now,
and that the gun totemists would like Mr. Helmke to stop using examples of gun violence that describes the emotions of those who have lost loved ones to machine guns
(and here comes the hair splitting about the supposedly correct term for a murderous weapon that has no place in anyone's hands except those of the military or the police).
And as usual, the gun, uh, enthusiasts enthusiastically line up to defend the indefensible.
Who, specifically, has issued a defense of permitting convicted terrorists to purchase firearms.
Your insistence upon misrepresenting factual data demonstrates only that you are dishonest and, as such, that your claims are not credible. Such behaviour is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates, such as yourself, are dishonest and irrational.
And yet not a single one of those 1,119 guns has been used in an act of terrorism! Doesn't that prove the list is innaccurate and should not be used to deny anyone's constitutional rights without due process of law? It would for people capable of logic, which certainly leaves out Paul
"Just a few weeks ago, Jefferies lost her only child, Brishell, in a barrage of AK-47 bullets as the teen stood among friends in Southeast D.C. mourning the recent gun death of a peer."
But wait! How can that be? No one can legally carry a gun in public in Washington D. C. Are you saying someone did it even though it's against the law? Wow, who would have thought street criminals would do that? I was under the impression they only broke laws on everything except gun laws. That's what Paul wants us to believe.
While you are also correct, no one should be denied their rights without Due Process. But here's the sticky Due Process problem with that LIST.
In order to go through Due Process you have to have been alleged to have done a crime. You don't even know your name is on any "list" so you cannot possibly know you are alleged to be a criminal. The only way to find out is if you go to buy a firearm or buy a plane ticket ... that's a BIG PROBLEM.
Then to add to that big problem ... is ... if you find out you are on the LIST - the only way to get off the LIST is to go to court to "PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT" (Violation of 4th & 5th Amendment). In this country you are Innocent until PROVEN guilty ... but that LIST says you ARE GUILTY of a crime withOUT Due Process ...
Therefore, the LIST is a violation of Due Process & a violation of the 4th & 5th Amendment.
So, the problem is a) that there is a LIST somewhere violating your Constitutional rights and b) the government should be compelled to contact any and all persons on their "LIST" so that the person can "Prove they are
I would also like to know what other rights you would like to deprive based solely on suspicion without due process with your comments about the "terror gap". Or you could explain to me how Senator Kennedy was a terrorist who should have been prevented from buying a gun.
The most recent episode of the show Deadliest Warriors pitted the Jesse James gang against the Capone crime gang. The first weapon comparison was between Jesse James' dual six shooters and Capone's fully automatic Tommy Gun. The 'experts' gave the edge to Capone, citing the firepower of the Tommy Gun, but also acknowledged that accuracy was far more superior for someone wielding the dual single action revolvers. They also pitted a fragmentation grenade for Capone's side against a Winchester lever action rifle for James' side. The 'experts' gave the edge here to the Winchester rifle, due to its precision and accuracy over the destructive capabilities of the grenade.
Then it came time to run the computer simulation (1000 times). The victor turned out to be Jesse James. The computer simulation demonstrated the experts opinion of the level action rifle being better than the grenade, but it also demonstrated that the accuracy of dual six shooters was far more successful than the Tommy Gun.
Point blank, the accuracy of 19th century firearm technology was deemed more successful in head to head combat than Al Capone's arsenal of machine guns and destructive devices.
Let me repeat. These were gang members that wouldn't be able to just walk into a gun store and legally buy a firearm that obtained a type of weapon that isn't even close to being legalized in DC. Pro-gun laws allowing law abiding citizens to buy and even carry firearms wouldn't have had any effect on this situation. Yet, it's a tragedy that makes a great soap box for your side, right Paul?
It's America's rich fantasy life that makes solving both resistance to taxes on millionaires and to restrictions on gun sales so damn difficult.
What makes you think I'm not going to be a millionire one day and would like to keep it, and the government won't one day want to take my guns. I think that is exactly what you have in mind, is it not?
Are you saying her child was killed by a cop?
Paul, comments?