In a strongly worded Op-Ed, Chris Christie had his largish be-hind handed to him in a firestorm of splendidly worded jabs by New Jersey Star Ledger contributor and Connecticut Governor, Dannel Malloy, this weekend.
As you can imagine after Sandy Hook, Gov. Malloy is a tad frustrated with governors of neighboring Northeastern states who won't raise a finger to help save innocent children's and teacher's and law enforcement's and regular citizens' (not protected by Secret Service) lives in order to placate the Gun Fondlers and the NRA Gods who fund and ferociously frenzy them.
Then Christie had the unmitigated gall, and the egregious Jersey Cajones, to snub the Sandy Hook families that wanted but moments of his time.
Despite President Obama and other folk with brains, there has been no progress on gun reform since the Second Amendment, gun-fondling fanatics landed on the wrong side of history - and morality - following that horrific shooting tragedy in Connecticut and the dozens more we have survived.
Here's a taste, link above.
Gov. Christie and other governors across the country have to make tough choices on behalf of their constituents every day. It’s far easier to blame the complexities of gun violence on mental illness, but true leadership requires approaching all sources of the problem, regardless of their convenience, popularity, or personal political aspirations.
A week and a half ago, Gov. Christie missed an opportunity to make meaningful, common-sense change that had the potential to limit the lethality of shooting incidents.
He's got the right of it there, governors across the United States truly do have a role in common sense gun reform … and Christie has gone out of his way to oppose it. Malloy summarized:
And what’s worse, he showed a callous lack of respect to the families who have bravely devoted their lives to ensure other parents won’t endure the same unimaginable heartbreak they live with each day.
Those families deserve better. The people of New Jersey deserve better as well.
Joe Schmoe Scarborough had to interject this morning and insist that even soooo … Friend of The Show Chris Christie's stock is going up and he, harrumph hubris harrumph, will be back ahead of the pack in six months. [Ridonculous.]
Oh, Joe. Morning Mika jumped in to defend, natch. They lerves them some Christie.
Props to Governor Malloy and any American who has the courage to take on the gun fondlers. Let's hope they keep up the stellar work.
I guess the police in Rosemount Minnesota haven't heard of the Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This unconstitutional action in Minnesota cannot be tolerated. This is hereby a formal invitation to all armed NRA and Militia members to fall in line and help defend the actions of 61-year-old Gary Drake. If you think Cliven Bundy in Nevada needed your help, you were right. And now the newest call is up to the land of lakes.
In case you missed it, here's some of the details of Drake's arrest, from the Raw Story:
A Minnesota man was arrested last week after pulling a shotgun on a neighbor who was teaching his 7-year-old daughter to ride a bike.
“If you don’t like my advice, get off my street,” Drake told the man, who reminded his neighbor he didn't own the street.
This apparently angered Drake even more, and police said he went inside to retrieve a Remington 870 shotgun. He came back with the weapon and threatened to kill the father, but Drake’s wife came outside, pulled the gun away from him, and physically dragged her husband back inside.
Now what's hard to understand here? This guy Drake was just protecting his street -- and isn't that the job of any state militia guardsman? How much clearer can you make it? The neighborhood father and his daughter were infringing on the armed man's rights to peace and quiet as he deems fit.
Drake admitted to police that he had a confrontation with the father, saying he didn’t like how the man treated the girl during the bike-riding lesson.
He admitted to drinking during the day but denied the alcohol had influenced his behavior.
I mean really, so the armed man had a few drinks before pulling his rifle....that's his right. It doesn't mean he's under the influence because he felt justified in arming himself to deal with a father teaching bike riding to his daughter. That's dangerous stuff. He might have even launched the girl at him where he'd be so fearful of his life that he's have to shoot her right off the two-wheeler.
“Maybe next time I should have shot him,” Drake said, according to the arrest complaint.
Drake’s wife turned over his shotgun and a rifle, and he was charged with second-degree assault and terroristic [sic] threatening.
Don't know about you, but I find this blatant infringement on Drake's Constitutional rights to be totally unwarranted and the police in Minnesota need to be stopped. Are you with me? Grab your guns and rifles. We've got our rights to protect.
Here's the coverage if you'd like to know more:
Richard Martinez was on "The Last Word" discussing the Second Amendment -ing of his son Christopher in the Isla Vista massacre. He ended with a comment about how gun zealots will come after him once they decide his grieving period is over:
"My son's dead, and there is NOTHING that you can do to me that's worse than that."
The Second Amendment is becoming a religion to gun fetishists. This is not healthy on so many levels, starting with, you know, living human beings being slaughtered. Here are a few links to the Los Angeles Times that you should read in full.
Let's start with Steve Lopez's column that examines how mass killings should affect us deeply, but instead, it appears that, disturbingly, we are becoming desensitized or increasingly uncivil. His post is titled "Ignoring the Insanity of Gun Violence":
Sensational gun violence... always gets us wringing our hands about gun control for a few days or maybe a few weeks, but that's about it. The focus is often on the mental health of the killers in those high-profile cases, and certainly there's room for vast improvement in identifying and treating illness and preventing violence.
But firearm violence is an everyday reality, and the truest expression of insanity is the argument that greater access to more guns can make anyone safer. No developed nation comes close to either the number of guns per capita in the U.S. or our rate of firearm deaths, and yet the NRA and its congressional stooges stay the course, money in their pockets and blood on their hands. [...]
[E]ither [the staggering statistics on gun violence] have lost their shock value or we have lost our civility. [...]
[I]t's worth noting that the states with the lowest gun control grades have the highest rates of gun death, while the states with the highest gun control grades have the lowest death rates.
In the video above, Ari Melber gave Richard Martinez well-deserved time to express himself, as-- especially in the second half of the video-- he shifted from beautiful memories of a wonderful son to his frustration with the status quo and revelations of how he, himself, failed to take action until his own son was murdered.
Lopez ended his column with an earlier quote from Martinez: "Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris' right to live? When will this insanity stop? When will enough people say, stop this madness, we don't have to live like this? Too many have died. We should say to ourselves — not one more."
Yesterday I linked to an op-ed in the L.A. Times in my post, "Joe the Plumber": "Your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights." Here's the link: California needs a Gun Violence Restraining Order. Today the Times is reporting that the "gun violence restraining order" concept has now prompted a proposal for a new firearms bill:
If notified by a subject's family or friends that someone could harm himself or others, law enforcement officers would be able to petition a judge to grant a restraining order that could prohibit possession or purchase of a gun. [...]
The family of Elliot Rodger, the shooter, had raised concerns with law enforcement about his mental state, and Santa Barbara County sheriff's deputies visited Rodger at his apartment in April but took no action against him.
Of course, ignoring countless mass shootings over the past few decades, Sam Paredes, executive director of the Gun Owners of California, called the proposal a "knee-jerk reaction." Apparently, in his mind, "knee-jerk" means that lawmakers haven't had years upon years to carefully consider needless deaths caused by easy access to deadly weapons. Isn't that just like a gun fondler who reveres the Second Amendment the way GOP Senate nominee Ben Sasse reveres his religion over established law?
Finally, there was this letter to the editor, because despite how often we feel ignored, our voices do matter:
It has indeed been sadly demonstrated that no alarms were sounded about Elliot Rodger prior to his gun rampage in Isla Vista this past weekend despite some warnings. There have been, however, countless red flags raised about the dangers of having the access Rodger had to guns. ("In Isla Vista, red flags came too late," May 25)
I blame not only those who misread and misinterpret the U.S. Constitution, which they also unreasonably cite as holy writ on a par with scripture. I also blame the politicians who pontificate about the horrors of innocent people being killed by these weapons while continuing to accept money from the National Rifle Assn.
I am weary of this repeated scenario, and I await the next front-page article on another mass murder committed by someone with easy access to guns designed not for "protection," but primarily to kill people.
"Joe the Plumber" (Sam Wurzelbacher, the not-plumber), wrote the following in response to the grieving parents of the kids slaughtered in Santa Barbara by a gun-toting, knife-wielding murderer who took his own life:
By Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher
I’m not talking here about the three tragic murders Rodger committed by stabbing before his driving and shooting spree; I speak now only to the families of the gunshot victims in Santa Barbara:
It’s a tragedy.
I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:
As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.
Well, there is that weird thing about my right not to get shot trumping your right to abuse the right to own a murder weapon. Some of us kinda cherish the right to live and breathe without intimidation by gun fondlers. As someone in Nicole Sandler's chat room noted today while I was on air with her:
"We can move protestors to free speech zone. But, we can't remove those who show up with guns?"
And as another chatter observed, "The Plumber's crack is in his head." I think he's onto something. More from Joe the Cracked:
We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it – even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said “Obama Voter” but I’m waiting for it to be official.
But let's not politicize it, right "Joe"? Crossing lines is apparently his real profession.
Which brings me to today's Cliff Notes, a shortened version of a post by my dear friend Cliff Schecter, who has given me permission to share. The title of his article is How the Gun Nuts Try to Excuse Away the Santa Barbara Slaughter—and Why They’re All Wrong. Apparently it got the Breitbartians so angry that they're going after him, so you know it must be good:
[T]he firearms fetishists have been up to their usual tricks trying to excuse away yet another gun massacre in America.
They have their talking points at the ready for these, and they immediately got started: If we ban guns, they warned, then we have to ban knives and cars, because he used those to kill and injure people, too. California has liberal gun laws, and this proves they don’t work, they insisted. There is nothing we can do to stop gun violence, they recited; guns don't kill people, people do.
As usual, the gun nuts are wrong, and not one of these stands up to the slightest scrutiny. [...]
[T]he fact that the shooter possessed only 10-bullet magazines and no assault weapon—or what he could legally buy—clearly did help. As terrible as this was, it could have been much worse if the gun fetishists had their way, and any manner of weapon or magazine was for sale.
Additionally, and I know this is a tough concept to understand, but we have these territories separated only by an imaginary boundary known as states. They border one another. People can drive across them at will, as they often do from Arizona—where gun laws are among the most lenient in the U.S.—to California. It is also quite easy to drive from California to Nevada, which also has lax gun laws.
This might be why when John Patrick Bedell, another angry and troubled man with a hatred for his own government, decided to try to assassinate public servants at the Pentagon, he went next door to Nevada to get his guns no questions asked, once he couldn’t pass a background check in California. Wow, that was hard! [...]
And for those of you about to point out that cities like Chicago have both strict gun laws and horrifying gun violence, well, you might want to do some reading about how many of those guns came from Indiana, which has much less strict gun laws, or other parts of Illinois, where laws don’t come close to matching those in the city of Chicago. Use The Google, my friends. It's free.
But, if like foaming NRA mouthpiece Wayne LaPierre, you still are a believer in the almighty assault weapon and like your guns plentiful and unregulated, I have a fantastic vacation destination for you! It’s called Iraq. Every household with a male in it is allowed to have an assault weapon, no questions asked.[...]
However, If you do truly fear that “the government is going to use any information to come get my guns,” then I have a real three-letter organization, not part of the government, that you may want to fear. It’s called the NRA, and they’re collecting your private information as we speak. Good luck convincing the money-grubbing charlatans among their leadership not to sell what has been called a “massive secret database” of member information to any advertiser looking to make a buck. [...]
I know, your mind is spinning right now. Don’t bother. You are wrong on this one, as you are on everything else. Your reaction to shootings is to think first of your guns, which is shameful. The rest of us prioritize our children’s lives first. As my friend, the brilliant host of The Zero Hour--the #1 most downloaded podcast when it debuted earlier this month—RJ Eskow says, we’re not anti-gun. We’re pro-kindergartner.
I urge you to read his entire piece at the Daily Beast, here.
And while you're at it, check out this proposal (please read the entire thing) from an L.A. Times op-ed by Renée Binder, a professor of psychiatry and director of the psychiatry and law program at UC San Francisco. She is president-elect of the American Psychiatric Assn. It's titled, California needs a Gun Violence Restraining Order:
A Gun Violence Restraining Order would allow a judge to temporarily stop an individual from buying or possessing a firearm. The judge would examine the situation and consider all the factors suggesting that the individual was a risk to himself and others. If granted by the judge, the restraining order would have to be reassessed after a short period to restore the individual's firearm rights if he or she is no longer at serious risk of harming himself, herself or others.
Tragedy befell the city of Hearne, Texas, recently. A 93-year-old woman was gunned down by Officer Stephen Stern of the Hearne Police. And now the people of the small town want this cop's badge. They want him fired and the Mayor is leading the charge.
According to DailyMail:
'There's no justification. Any police officer would know not to kill a 93-year-old fragile woman when they could have backed off,' said William Foster, 64, a retired professor in Hearne. 'She was no threat to him.'
'That lady should be living today. She should not have died like she did,' Embra [another mourner] said.
Damn, when you hear it that way, it sure sounds like the cop used awful judgement. If that was all there was to the story, perhaps we'd agree. But it's best we hear all the details before we pass judgement.
It seems this all happened after Officer Stephen Stem responded to a 911 call about a disturbance involving a woman and a gun. When Stem arrived on scene, the 93-year-old woman was wildly brandishing her gun and refused to put it down. She aimed at the officer and he fired.
Now comes the public outrage. But is it because of this woman's age, or because the officer could have possibly found another way to diffuse the situation? The officer was responding to the 911 call. It came in because of a reported dangerous disturbance and a gun. Officer Stern fired three times, hitting the woman twice and grazing her with the third shot. Was this the right course of action? Did he use justifiable force? Well consider this. If this woman had fired, that bullet would have left the gun with the same lethal velocity.
Then what if the senior-aged woman had fired first and the cop was dead, would there be such a public outcry? Would the neighbors and friends of the late Pearlie Golden be lamenting the loss of this cop because he didn't shoot Ms. Golden when he had the chance? I doubt it. It seems the victim in this case isn't the 93-year-old woman. And it's not the cop either. It's the system that lets people loose with guns.
Yes, this is a plea, a call to sanity. It's a shout out for gun control. This result is what carrying and brandishing a gun can get you into. This woman should still be alive, all things considered. But she's not. And the reason why? Not because the cop shot her. It's because she was waving a gun. If she didn't have a gun, I very much doubt she would have been hurt, let alone killed. And there would be no reason for this story.
Ordinarily you'd think that the second amendment (right to bear arms) zealots would be pushing for guns to be sold. Arm everybody, everywhere, anytime. That's an NRA-type thinking. You just can't have enough guns.
So what's making hundreds of gun owners in Maryland send death threats to a gun store owner who wants to sell new guns? And what's got the NRA up in arms over prohibiting the sale of certain weapons? It's something referred to as "smart guns."
Who'd ever think of guns being described as smart? They're killing devices. But here's what's causing the bruhaha.
First, here's a look into the technology:
Now, here's a little factual coverage of the latest NRA and gun zealotry activities of late as reported by the Washington Post:
A Rockville gun store owner who said he would sell the nation’s first smart gun — even after a California gun store removed the weapon from its shelves to placate angry gun-rights activists — backed down late Thursday night after enduring a day of protests and death threats.
Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, a store known for its custom assault rifles, had said earlier this week that offering the Armatix iP1 handgun was a “really tough decision” after what happened to the Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles. Oak Tree was lambasted by gun owners and National Rifle Association members who fear the new technology will be mandated and will encroach on Second Amendment rights.
The way I read it is gun zealots don't want certain guns sold because with knowledge of this technology being readily available, the second amendment nuts might be forced to retro-fit their guns or the weapons will become illegal. But California and Maryland are just the beginning. Gun safety is a major concern for the NRA. Fear of common sense legislation is their biggest enemy. If only the registered owner of a gun could use it, think of how the black market on guns, or kids picking up their parents gun and killing a sibling or pulling of a Sandy Hook or Columbine might be curtailed. The NRA wouldn't want that now, would they?
The Political Carnival T-Shirt
Modeled by @suzannegypsy
Donate to The Political Carnival
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below:
Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.
Donate to The Political Carnival