Category Archives: GUN CONTROL

My Favorite speech and words of MLK

The speech, I believe finally got him assassinated.. (we can’t have a black man speaking out against our wars!)…”Speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. against the “triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.”

Please listen on Youtube  on the link below..

Martin Luther King, “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam”

Advertisements

Hypocrisy of Gun Control in a Land Where War and Violence Are Alluring

Hypocrisy of Gun Control in a Land Where War and Violence Are Alluring.

 

Violence is ubiquitous in American life, and it is quite natural that it should pervade American fantasies and popular culture. – See more at: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/22/hypocrisy-of-gun-control-in-a-land-where-war-and-violence-are-sexy/#sthash.R2bC1U6d.dpuf

Did Reagan support an assault-weapons ban or any Gun control bill?

 

DID RONALD REAGAN SUPPORT LIMITS ON GUNS OR ‘GUN CONTROL’…

FROM ‘POLIIFACT’, an independent, non partisan fact checking site.

In a 1991 New York Times op-ed titled “Why I’m For the Brady Bill,” Reagan detailed his support of a seven-day waiting period for gun buyers. “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics,” Reagan said in the op-ed. “… If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.”

“Reagan supported the Brady Bill. That was after he had left office, but he did support it,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. “His views are a little complicated because he also signed legislation easing the (1968) Gun Control Act, so you can take Reagan either way.”

he said more about the bill here.
“Reagan said the following: It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill — on a nationwide scale — can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

Critics claim that “waiting period” legislation in the states that have it doesn’t work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don’t. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.

Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.

This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” ( in, ‘Why I am for the Brady bill’… http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html)

So, yes, Reagan, the ‘small government’ icon of the conservative movement in this country, did support the Brady bill.. which has since been dropped, in that it wasn’t renewed by Congress.

 

What a difference a day makes,…… commentary on August 15, 2014…

About the last few days’ events in Ferguson, Missouri.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES.  August 15, 2014

‘Militarization’ in any form does not solve local politics or issues.10360630_10152657104124559_823355773157314976_n

I will stand by that statement whether we talk about recent events in Ferguson, MO following the police shooting of unarmed teen Mike Brown, which caused 5 days and counting of continuous protests, mostly non violent, or the recent Cliven Bundy ranch ‘Militia’ Showing, which had private citizens surrounding and pointing live ammo firearms at Government employees confronting Mr Bundy with back taxes… All of these incidences Overreactions of one sort of another.

In my humble, estimation, Violence opposing violence, solves nothing. Martin Luther King said of Nonviolent resistance: “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love… Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.

As we have seen in the past few days and in the words of various leaders, including the President both the People having a right to protest for ‘redress of grievances’ do NOT have the right to do violence or destruction, but neither do the Police have a right to overreact, throwing innocent bystanders and reporters, just doing their jobs in jail. “”There is never an excuse for violence against the police or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. … There is also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protesters in jail.” (August 14, 2014)

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-riots-obama-briefed-on-violence-in-st-louis-suburb-106082.html#ixzz3ATBlXgkd )

The violence in separate acts leading up to and after the Bundy Ranch Affair of this year, present another view of overt violence in this nation, and  the threat of such.
David C. Williams (“Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendent”)  says of the Militia groups and others, (who, let’s be honest , live in a different America than I do), regarding ‘outgroups’ and others, “To disagree with the militia, … is to be outside the VOLK (my caps) .

I am only an observer as anyone else who blogs, sees and comments, in any social media, I am not a professional sociologist, philosopher, only a citizen trying to educate myself and learn from our People’s mistakes.

The MYTHS SURROUNDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Part II

Part II
The MYTHS SURROUNDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

“I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve of it…” Benjamin Franklin ‘s speech at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention.

‘The Second Amendment: a biography’ by Michael Waldman intends the Founders intent has been misunderstood, says, “At this moment, there is a widely accepted misconception about the history of the amendment and its purpose within American society. When the founding fathers implemented Second Amendment the main idea behind it was to provide citizens with a way to oppose possible tyrannical government. However, today it is widely believed that the Second Amendment is there to provide you with a way to protect yourself from other individuals. The debate is also present over whether the Second Amendment provides for collective or individual rights.  “..
David C. Williams said in his intro, the following, “The American constitutional tradition offers an answer to that question.(what constitutes a revolution, and how is it different from a Rebellion?)..…that answer can be reduced to two claims, which together constitute the thesis of this book.

First, the BODY OF THE PEOPLE (his emphasis) and revolution are terms that are rich in historical meaning. The Body of the People refers not to Unaffiliated individuals but to the People as a WHOLE, assembled in a universal militia and united by a ‘common culture’ concerning the proper use of political violence. This universal body has the RIGHT to make a Revolution, defined as a political uprising made by the People ‘as a whole’ for the good of whole.”  (Not just disconnected, and disparate ‘militia’ or’patriot’ groups, or Libertarians, Statists or other Outgroups with no support by the body of the people).
He later refers to ‘unaffiliated’ examples, such as Timothy McVeigh, and supporting, groups and such ‘Militia’ today, which are self promoting, and NOT called upon by any ‘state’, thus not consistent with the wording of the Second Amendment’s, ‘Militia’.

He then states, “Second,  Congress, as the  …representative of the Body of the People, has the right to maintain forces to ‘suppress’ rebellions (e.g. Washington against the Whiskey rebellion), defined as  political uprisings made by the ‘faction’ for the selfish good of that ‘faction’. In common…George Washington made a revolution as a leader of a free and united people; Timothy McVeigh committed an act of rebellion by murdering fellow Americans.” (end quote)

A reasonable understanding of the problem with today’s Militia minded groups and a failure to understand some pretty straightforward facts about the intent of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and specifically the Second amendment… Below I quote from PoliticsUSA online article, as just one example of this.

” Gun-fanatics (his term) and rebellion-minded conservatives cannot comprehend that the U.S. government is not a foreign power, or that the Declaration of Independence was American colonists’ official separation notice from Great Britain.  (Sheriff David A.) Clarke and revolution-minded NRA traitors (his term) also fail to acknowledge is there have been no attempts whatsoever to disarm people; law-abiding or otherwise. In fact, there have been no new gun safety measures* in America since 1994′s Assault Weapons Ban passed by a Republican Congress during the Clinton Administration. Clarke knew he was inciting NRA anti-government gun-zealots to rebellion against the government that the NRA has advertised for five years while a Black man has been in the Oval Office.”  Link: “Another Right Wing Sheriff Threatens America With Armed Rebellion”in PoliticsUsa, (The latest sheriff to threaten America with armed rebellion is Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr who addressed the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting last week and…http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/30/wing-sheriff-threatens-america-armed-rebellion.html)
Williams divides his treatise into ‘groups’ , their viewpoints and their failure as misinterpreted ‘myths’ about the Second Amendment”.

Williams, perhaps, differently than some, naming them, ‘Anti revolutionists’ (statists to some), ‘Libertarians and Populists’, ‘The Militia movement’ and members of more recent, ‘outgroups’ (Jews, African-Americans, etc.).

…these outgroup myths are myths of DisUnity rather than Unity. They presume that Some Americans will kill others, and the only question is , who will fit onto each category”(1)

He equates the Problem (and I mostly agree with him), is that…”..with all the myths in this part is not just that they do not square with the Framer’s visioin. The deeper problem is that they offer a false hope that we can tame violence by arming the RIGHT people (my emphasis) against the WRONG people.”… He supposes such an end an ultimate ‘collapse’.  And he, as I, would, wish to “…create a political culture that binds us together.”  He abhors, as do I, by emphasizing, Hostility, “…they encourage distrust and anger as ‘constitutionally’ sanctioned attitudes.”
An example from the Militia viewpoint is, (Williams), that the 27 words in the 2nd amendment, “… is absolute. Unequivocal, inalienable right of the ‘people’ to be armed, needs no interpretation.”
But he then quotes  (James ) Madison, “Do not separate text from historical background. ..you will have perverted and subverted the constitution, which can only end in distorted, bastardized from of illegitimate government”  He thus says, of the ‘Militia’ movement (as with all the groups herein) that their, “..Theory of the Second Amendment is thus an exaggeration of themes present in more mainstream populism”.(p. 218)

Nocera also says, “In time, of course, the militia idea died out, replaced by a professionalized armed service. Most gun regulation took place at the state and city level. The judiciary mostly stayed out of the way. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld the nation’s  first national gun law, the National Firearms Act, which put onerous limits on sawed-off shotguns and machine guns ” precisely because the guns had no reasonable relation to a well-regulated militia.”

Then, what IS the correct historical and present intent of the 2nd Amendment…  I will go into that more in the next section. A short preview is in Williams’ words, “In every case, these stories fruitlessly pit one segment of the population against another in hopes that if the right people have the guns all will be well”. (p. 261)

(* this before several state initiatives after the Sandy Hook mass killings in CT.)
“. – (1)(David C. Williamson MYTHIC MEANINGS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. P 101)

ts

THE MYTHS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND 2ND AMENDMENT.. PART 1

The MTHS SURROUNDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
Part I
by Robert J Dorn
Joe Nocera in his May 2014 OpEd in the New York Times states…
“He is after something else. He wants to understand how it came to be that the Second Amendment, long assumed to mean one thing, has come to mean something else entirely. To put it another way: Why are we, as a society, willing to put up with mass shootings as the price we must pay for the right to carry a gun?…Sadly, that is what we have now, as we saw over the weekend. Elliot Rodger’s individual right to bear arms trumped the public good. Eight people were shot as a result.”
Today there is hardly a more controversial discussion in American life than Gun rights, Gun Safety with the ever increasing, almost weekly mass shootings, in schools or public places. The NRA and the Gun Lobby their supporters flame up , it seems at the mention of any further or increased gun safety legislation, though it has already passed in many states, including most of those surrounding Connecticutt and the 2012 Newtown school shootings (and many more). On the other hand, it’s just as volatile a discussion from those groups and individuals attempting to push any new legislation and who demonize (correctly or not) the Corporate and money behind the NRA and other Pro Gun lobbyists, Militia groups and others.
What I have discovered in reading certain scholarly books on this topic in the past few months, is that NO ONE has or owns the rights to the Only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or any of the Bill of rights… Courts, including the Supreme, have gone back n forth, changed viewpoints, and the tide in the past conservative Era have changed it once again.
Fact: there have always been gun safety or gun restrictions throughout our nation’s history, regardless of the short line called the 2nd Amendment..
While most of us regular Americans would consider upon reflection, the First Amendment the most important, regarding freedom OF and freedom FROM religion, freedom of speech, reads as such: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion ….etc.. etc…’ (recently negated by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme court case).
Many throw their whole bag of oats into the Second Amendment, even claiming, it’s some ‘Natural’, or ‘God given’ right…(not according to the writers of the Bill of Rights). There have been and still persist various Theoretical viewpoints regarding the phrasing and meaning of the Second Amendment. Two recent books, both best sellers, going into deep analysis and historical ‘exegesis’, if you will (to use a Theological term)…. These folk are now and have traditionally been categorized as “Originalist’ readers of the Constitution (about 5 of the current Supreme Justices are so)..verses those who are of more inclined to a ‘living’ Constitution, noting the Amendments and the need and possibility of such. But the arguments and understandings go deeper.

(More to come)