BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
THIS is the best response to the gun carnage tolerated by America. Thank you Clara Jeffery and Mother Jones. Share this with family, friends, social media, co-workers, local and national media contacts and send to your national representative and senators as well as your state representative / delegate and senator (I did).
“We don’t know his motive yet, but authorities believe he acted alone”…“it was a lone gunman”…“the shooter acted alone…”
No, he didn’t.
A motive will probably be assigned to him. We have studied every mass shooting since 1982. And the “motives” are usually some combination of the following: He struggled with bullying. Or self-loathing and depression. Maybe he had an ax to grind with an authority figure. Maybe he hated a certain group of people.
But whatever we learn about the Uvalde shooter, or any future ones—because there will be more—don’t say they “acted alone,” which is largely media code for “this doesn’t appear to be Islamic terrorism.” No matter the particulars, these “lone” gunmen all have scores of accomplices. Here is a wholly incomplete list of those who bear direct responsibility in this slaughter of 19 children and two teachers, and the brutality visited on those still in the hospital, all the families, and the community and country at large:
The GOP-controlled Texas statehouse, which had already passed a slew of lawsthat rolled back any reasonable gun restrictions—many of which they did immediately after mass shootings, including permitless carry.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a leading recipient of gun lobby money, who now suggests the solution is forcing students and staff to enter and leave through one door. Scholars of military “kill zone” tactics and the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire beg to differ.
Sen. John Cornyn, ever content to draft in behind his slightly more venal compatriot, who is making bleating noises about possible compromises he will vote against in the end.
Rupert Murdoch, for translating the El Paso, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh shooters’ screeds into prime-time programming.
Every damn person who works for Fox News now, and really since at least 2010. Like gun manufacturers, they sell fear and grievance to a mostly white male audience. They profit off of hate. And cable companies are their accomplices.
Every politician—looking at you, Elise Stefanik—fueling “replacement theory” hate to raise money and get more Fox air time.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who won’t bring HR 8—requiring universal background checks—to an immediate vote because, he says, people know where their senators stand, and he hopes to reach a compromise bill that can get 60 votes. Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
The four Democratic senators (Harry Reid doesn’t count) who joined the Republicans to vote against the 2016 Manchin–Toomey compromise bill on background checks. Especially Heidi Heitkamp, who, when asked about her vote on Thursday, told a reporter, “I no longer have to answer your questions.” Nice.
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who will not override the filibuster even to prevent the slaughter of school kids, shoppers, or churchgoers—even for HR 8, which is essentially the bill Manchin championed for years.
Extra points for Manchin telling reporters yesterday that this time compromise talk “feels a little different.” Which he said after Parkland. And Newtown.
Antonin Scalia, for replacing the actual, arcane, mostly insignificant Second Amendment with an entirely invented new one that overrides seemingly everything else in American life.
The high priests of the Beltway “both sides” oracle.
Gun manufacturers and their handmaidens at the NRA, which agreed to the Manchin–Toomey bill back in 2013, but then walked away once it received concessions.
Vladimir Putin, who, together with his spies, helped bolster the NRA because he saw it as a way to sow domestic division.
Trump. Too many reasons to list. Here’s the latest.
Social media companies and streamers that drag their feet about taking down shooters’ videos and rants, and do not invest nearly enough to keep their platforms from fueling the “Columbine effect.”
Everybody pushing lockdown drills and bulletproof backpacks and arming teachers—and other reactive, largely performative measures. Active school shooter drills are shown to deeply traumatize children, and there’s little evidence that they’ve reduced the overall carnage. They certainly don’t prevent school shootings. We should be investing school and community resources in a far more robust and universal “threat assessment” plan to ID troubled individuals, support them, and dissuade them from violent acts.
Every politician and pundit saying more armed cops on campuses is the answer. Uvalde is an utter refutation of the bogus “good guy with a gun” claim, which was only ever about increasing gun sales.
Every politician who declares they are “pro-life” yet are wantonly indifferent to the carnage of their gun policies and positions. They’ll force you to have a child, and then lead that child to slaughter.
Everybody who is tossing their hands up and declaring that nothing will ever change. Yes, the anti-majoritarian Senate and state legislatures are pushing the ideas of an extreme minority onto the rest of us, on this subject and so many others. Yes, there are millions of guns out there already. That only means we have to fight harder, and for longer. But change can come if we are willing to put in the work.
HERE is a great piece debunking the seemingly logical but actually stupid and false arguments against gun control. Share them, and use them when someone trys to use them on you. From HuffPost....
It's been just over eight years since the assault weapons ban
expired, and in that time new gun control bills have been scarce. There
are a variety of reasons for the deafening legislative silence,
including a cowardly lack of political will and a river of gun industry
cash that flows into campaign war chests every day. But it's also
because radical gun fetishists led by the NRA have been supremely
effective with clever marketing and misinformation campaigns intended to
undermine the brutal realities of the American gun culture.
You've probably seen many of their finest agitprop slogans plastered
all over Facebook, Twitter and the right-wing blogosphere these days.
They're artfully designed to be digested by people who desperately want
them to be true -- in this case, kneejerk gun enthusiasts starved for
solid, airtight, easy-to-remember trump cards that are capable of
defeating liberal gun control arguments with swift precision.
Unfortunately for them, the slogans are about as thin as the bumpers
stickers they're printed on. PROPAGANDA: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. REALITY: This is probably the most prevalent, yet
silliest line. No, an inanimate object can't spring to life and kill
anyone. But a gun's intrinsic purpose is to kill, wound and threaten
living beings. It's why they exist. Period. The firearms used at Aurora,
Tucson, Sandy Hook and so many other mass shootings are specifically
categorized as "assault rifles." The intention is, by definition, to assault.
They're aggressive weapons intended to physically attack and do harm.
Otherwise they'd be called "defense weapons" or "protection weapons."
So, no, guns don't kill people, but people with guns and bullets kill lots of people. Around 30,000-plus per year in America. PROPAGANDA: But cars kill a lot of people and no one wants to ban them! REALITY: How do we deal with cars in America, compared with how we deal with guns in America? Cars and drivers are heavily
regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual
inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a
car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust
into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel
test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that
license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove
that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car
while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are
thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us
have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest
you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to
abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment
to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all. So
if gun fetishists are going to keep using this car analogy, then let's
talk about regulating guns and gun owners the same way we regulate cars
and drivers. PROPAGANDA: You can kill someone just as easily with a knife as you can with a gun! REALITY: Outrageously wrong. Ask any average soldier
whether they'd prefer to attack an enemy with knife or with their
rifle. After they laugh in your face, they'll obviously tell you they
prefer their rifle. During the American Civil War, soldiers would rarely
if ever use their bayonets in combat because the experience of stabbing
someone was much more offensively visceral and gruesome than simply
shooting them from a relative distance. Furthermore, how many mass
stabbings (including meat cleavers) have there been in America? Two that we know of.
The number of mass stabbings in world? Eleven. On the other hand, how
many mass shootings have there been in America? Twenty-six since
Columbine and not including any prior massacres. Some gun fetishists
have noted that a mass stabbing occurred in China last week, with 22 victims. However, what they won't tell you, perhaps because they don't know, is that not one of those victims died. PROPAGANDA: It's safer to have a gun in the house, or concealed on your person. REALITY: Nope. Not true. I'll let conservative analyst and former Bush speechwriter David Frum take this one:
In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average,
guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an
assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more
likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a
gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and
intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a
household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and
thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was
concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than
those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or
women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are
murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults,
and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly
strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."
One more... PROPAGANDA: Banning guns won't stop mass shootings because of the outlaws, blah blah blah. REALITY: Once again, totally not true. Australia,
May 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 people and wounded an additional 23.
Subsequently, Australia passed a very strict gun control law that
included a buy-back program that managed to recover 600,000 assault
rifles and other arms -- 20 percent of all the known firearms in
Australia. There were no more private sales of firearms, there were
stringent registration laws, and, as with other nations, you had to
prove to authorities that you had a specific reason for purchasing a
firearm. And no, according to Slate, self-defense wasn't a valid excuse. What happened after that?
Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end
in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed
out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and
2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides.
The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a
close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile,
home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm
ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning
statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been
11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in
Australia since.
I think that's enough for now. If you spot any more of these slogans
and arguments, drop me a note via Facebook, Twitter or in the comments
below and we'll work together to debunk this specious clap-trap once and
for all. Doing so will help to unravel the deeply entrenched gun
culture in America, and this must be an ongoing commitment, running
concurrently with any and all legislation that comes as a result of
these horrifying gun massacres. Cross-posted at The Daily Banter. Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast. Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast. BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Nicole Naum.
THERE is a nationwide push for stricter gun control laws concerning military assault style weapons and high capacity ammo clips in the wake of the mass murders of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Sen Dianne Feinstein D CA is bold and well spoken in her proposal to reinstate the ban on assault style weapons, planning to introduce the law her office wrote in 1994 (and expired in 2004) in the Senate and Pres Obama has expressed support for this legislation. Sen Warner D VA showed just what is wrong with so many politicians in expressing his opinion on gun control. He mouthed all the politically correct expressions of sorrow about the deaths of children and teachers in Newtown and then reverted to being a political coward, spewing meaningless, non-committal, wait to see how public opinion shakes out comments. His performance on The PBS NewsHour disgusted me, he showed he is spineless and has been morally corrupted by his years of kow-towing to the nra. I am ashamed he is one of Virginia's Senators on Capital Hill. Here are Sen Feinstein's and Sen Warner's interviews from The PBS NewsHour, judge for yourself who is the real leader....
GWEN IFILL: In the wake of the shootings, the
debate in Washington turned immediately to how and whether new limits
on gun ownership can, and should, be enacted.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has pledged to revive a
law banning assault weapons. She is chairwoman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. And she joins us now.
Welcome, Senator. SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-Calif.: Thank you very much. GWEN IFILL: With half of the members getting an A
rating from the National Rifle Association, do you have any sense that
things will be different now for the assault weapons ban than it has
been in the past? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I have every sense that it's an uphill road. It was in the past when we did it in the past.
I wrote that bill. My office wrote that bill. It went through. It
wasn't amended. It went through the Senate, the House. It was signed by
the president. And it was the law for 10 years.
I think what is unique about this is, it's really just one class of
gun, the assault weapon. The assault weapon is developed for military
purposes, to kill in close combat.
And it doesn't belong in the streets of our cities. And it doesn't
belong where it can be picked up easily by a grievance killer, who can
walk into a workplace, a mall, a theater, and now an elementary school
and kill large numbers. GWEN IFILL: Explain to our viewers how what you are planning to introduce would have changed what happened in Newtown, Conn. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, over time, that weapon would be much less available.
What we're trying to do is ban the sale, the manufacture, the
transfer, the importation of assault weapons. And it gets quite
technical. And I won't go into that right now.
Grandfathered weapons that people already have, subject those weapons
either to licensing or to a trigger lock, and spell out those
grandfathered weapons, which would be over 900 in the bill, so nobody
can say, oh, we took our -- their hunting weapon away.
Then I would be able to say, here's your hunting weapon. It's specifically exempted in the bill. GWEN IFILL: So, we're talking about a prospective law, not one... DIANNE FEINSTEIN: That's right. That's right. GWEN IFILL: ... gun people already own? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: It would ban approximately 100 weapons by actual name and then weapons by physical characteristics. GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about the politics of all of this.
Today, we saw three pro-gun-rights Democratic senators, Sen. Reid,
Sen. Manchin, Sen. Warner, all say that what happened in
NewtownConnecticut has changed everything. Do you have a sense that
there's a shift under way? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh, yes. I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back, to be very honest with you, Gwen.
I don't see how Americans can want, you know, a situation where a
20-year-old gets a gun from his mother, kills his mother, goes into a
school, shoots his way through the glass, goes in and puts three to 11
bullets in 6-year-olds, 20 of them.
Now, if you just do an average of six bullets -- five bullets, that's
100 bullets. So it's the big clip, drum or strip that is also banned
from sale, manufacture, importation, transfer. So it's the clip that
enables you to have the firepower.
And I gather this particular Bushmaster, you can actually sort of
dial down the ease with which you pull the trigger and its frequency. So
you can just pump those bullets out in a very few seconds. GWEN IFILL: Do you -- have you gotten any sense of a change of heart among the Republican members of the Senate? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I haven't had a chance to talk to Republicans. I certainly will be doing that.
I have really kind of been busy just fielding calls, which is
unusual, some 20 calls to my house yesterday at home and calls today
from members of the House and others that want to help with this. GWEN IFILL: You called the White House today to talk to the president. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Yes. GWEN IFILL: Has that conversation happened? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: No. No. GWEN IFILL: And do you believe he support you on this? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I haven't gotten a call back. But I
will be persistent. I'm trying now to call his chief of staff to say,
please, may I speak with the president briefly. GWEN IFILL: You -- gun control activists have said that they believe that the president's first term was a failure.
And people who are gun rights activists have said that the president
wants to legislate the Second Amendment out of existence. Which is true?
Or is neither true? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Oh, neither is true.
I think the president now has an open mind. At least, I hope he has. I
think the fact that I have authored something before which became the
law hopefully will have some credibility with him.
And we're very happy to sit down with his staff, which is what I want
to offer, to go over the specifics of the legislation, options, and get
his views. I would like to do that sooner, rather than later, because
we're working with others.
I want to work with members in this body, members in the other body,
and try to see that, by the beginning of the year, we have got something
where there is some very good support. GWEN IFILL: What do you say to people who support
the right to own arms that this is the camel's nose under the tent, and,
the next thing, you will be after concealed-carry weapons, you will be
after other kinds of gun rights? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, that's just not true.
It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years. And I just think, candidly, that dog doesn't hunt. GWEN IFILL: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you want to go after those other laws? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Because that's not what I have done in the past. And it's not what I'm doing right now. GWEN IFILL: How much do -- as we have this debate
now, how much are we focusing on guns, and how much are we focusing or
should we be focusing on the things that drive people to use guns in
these horrific ways? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I think you concentrate on
both. You concentrate on mental illness and what we can do. You
concentrate on safety in schools and those kinds of things.
But small children have a basic right to go to a school and feel
safe. And these guns, because they kill large numbers of people very
quickly, they aren't used for hunting, they aren't hunting weapons. You
don't need them for defense. They are military-style weapons. And they
don't belong in the streets of our cities or our towns. GWEN IFILL: And, finally, Sen. Feinstein, we have
been here before. The president, as he said last night, has spoken at
four different memorial services for shooting victims since he's been
president.
And each time, there's been discussion that this is the moment --
especially after a congresswoman was shot, this is the moment when
everything will change. Why is this the moment? DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, this is the moment because I think people have had it. They have had it in fear.
You know, look at Aurora. That man came in with a 100-round clip --
excuse me, drum. If that drum hadn't jammed, he would have killed many
more people. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at Jonestown. Look at --
Jonesboro, rather. Look at Columbine. Look at what's been happening.
It's got to stop.
Our schools have to be safe places. These guns are the guns that the
grievance killer, the gangs, that people who want to do real damage look
for and find very easy to obtain in our society. And we need to change
that. And that's what I'm trying to do. GWEN IFILL: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, thank you so much. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Gwen. GWEN IFILL: An administration official told the
NewsHour today that the president began talking with White House staff,
the vice president and some members of the Cabinet about ways the
country can respond to the tragedy in Newtown. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/feinstein_12-17.html
Gun Rights Supporter Sen. Mark Warner Says Tighter Firearms Laws Needed
JUDY WOODRUFF: We turn to the aftermath of
the shooting in Connecticut, as the community continues to mourn its
losses in Connecticut, resume some routine, and consider its own role in
a national conversation on what steps should now be taken.
Ray Suarez begins our coverage with this report.
RAY SUAREZ: A hearse arrived this
morning at Saint Rose of Lima Catholic Church in Newtown carrying the
body of 6-year-old James Mattioli, one of the slain first graders from
Sandy HookElementary School.
Hours later, a church bell tolled as mourners greeted another small white casket at the funeral for Jessica Rekos, also 6.
Meanwhile, students from other local schools returned to class, in
buses adorned with ribbons bearing Sandy Hook's colors. Police were on
hand, as were counselors. JOHN SOLLAZZO, Connecticut Police Officer: Making
the kids safe and happy, that's all we're here for, is to make sure that
they are safe and happy. RAY SUAREZ: Sandy Hook itself remains closed. Plans
call for its students to be sent to a now vacant school in nearby
Monroe, but it was unclear when.
Back in Washington, a string of Democratic members of Congress took to the House floor, calling for new gun legislation. REP. JANICE HAHN, D-Calif.: We need to pass bold, necessary, overdue gun control legislation. If we do not, this will happen again. REP. GERRY CONNOLLY, D-Va.: Twenty innocents and
their six teachers. More tears. More burials. But will we heed its
meaning? Will we break the gun lobby's spell? RAY SUAREZ: Outside the Capitol, the head of the
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said Sandy Hook has altered the
political equation on guns. DAN GROSS, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
They say Friday's horrific mass shooting at Sandy HookElementary School
changed everything. And it has. It is a tipping point. RAY SUAREZ: And White House spokesman Jay Carney announced President Obama will back a push for new legislation. JAY CARNEY, White House: He is actively supportive
of, for example, Senator Feinstein's stated intent to revive a piece of
legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban. He supports
and would support legislation that addresses the problem of the
so-called gun show loophole. RAY SUAREZ: Late today, the National Rifle
Association offered its first statement on the killings, saying it was
shocked, saddened and heartbroken. The group called a Friday news
conference and promised meaningful contributions to prevent any future
massacres. GWEN IFILL: We interviewed Sen. Dianne Feinstein
last night about her push to renew the assault weapons ban. Now we hear
another perspective.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner is a Democrat who received an A-rating from the National Rifle Association.
Sen. Warner, welcome.
We heard that yesterday after the shootings in Newtown, you said that this was a game-changer. What do you mean by that? SEN. MARK WARNER D-Va.: Well, Gwen, I'm a strong
Second Amendment rights supporter. I own firearms. On my farm, I have
actually got shooting range.
But Friday afternoon, my daughters, who had all come home from
college, said, dad, you know, how did this happen? And what are you
going to do about it?
And just as a father, the horror of what happened in Connecticut
coming on the heels of tragedies at Virginia Tech years before, the
tragedy in Colorado, and it seems like about every six or nine months,
one of these incidents happening in America, makes me say, you know,
enough is enough. There's got to be a rational way to sort through this.
I'm not saying I have got a perfect piece of legislation. I don't
think there is a single perfect piece of legislation. But in a country
where we have got 30,000 gun deaths a year, there's got to be a way that
we can do a bit more. And I hope that responsible gun owners around
America will join in this conversation as well.
I think we have got to recognize that it is about rational,
appropriate gun rules, but also about mental health issues. And my hope
is our country takes a deep breath and doesn't just simply get exercised
by this for a few moments and then push this horrible tragedy back into
the background and forget about it. GWEN IFILL: Assuming that there is not one single
solution here, let's talk about what you mean when you say rational gun
control. Sen. Feinstein says an assault weapons ban would be rational.
Would you agree with that? MARK WARNER: I think that, from the evidence I have
seen, that a lot of the challenge comes around the speed by which you
can shoot, in effect, these multiple magazines in terms of how rapidly
they can be discharged.
Now, there's a whole series of different negotiations about what
qualifies as an assault weapon and what doesn't. I think there will be
time for that kind of conversation.
We have got to find a way to sort through to where there is an
ability for law-abiding citizens still to possess firearms -- nobody is
going to take away your shotgun -- but to make sure that these kinds of
weapons that in many cases were developed for our military and have
become extraordinarily, lethally effective killing machines for our
military are now in the hands of people that are just not appropriate. GWEN IFILL: The governor of your home state of
Virginia has said that he thinks that maybe you should consider arming
teachers in classrooms. The governor of Michigan, who is another
Republican, said today -- decided to veto a conceal carry law in
Michigan.
Which of these is the right approach? MARK WARNER: Well, quite honestly, I'm not sure either of those are the right approach.
I don't -- I think what we need is to be able to have a conversation,
and be able to have a debate about this. But I'm not sure the notion
that, as I have heard some members of Congress say, that if each teacher
had been armed that somehow this would have prevented a tragedy.
I believe that we need to look at mental health issues. I think we
need a reexamination of some of our gun restrictions. And my hope is, is
that this doesn't break down on kind of a red shirt/blue shirt,
Democrat/Republican kind of issue. GWEN IFILL: You mentioned the NRA. Let me ask you about that.
They put out a statement today, after having not said much about
this, saying that they -- the National Rifle Association of America is
made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and that they
are planning a news conference to talk about that, but they are
prepared to make what they describe as meaningful contributions to help
make sure this never happens again.
What would you like to hear the NRA -- you're a member of the NRA.
You're supported by the NRA. What would you like to hear them say as --
contribute as a meaningful contribution? MARK WARNER: What are the instruments here that are
being used? Are there guns that were developed by the military as
technology has advanced and has allowed our soldiers to become better,
more effective in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should all of those weapons be
able to be slightly modified and then sold on a commercial market?
What kind of -- how much restraint does it put on a lawful target
shooter if they want to have to change out a clip after every 10 shells
or -- 10 or 15 shells? I'm not sure what the right number should be
here.
But I think the NRA ought to have a voice in this conversation as
well. I think they can go ahead again, reassure that nobody is going to
be out trying to say we need to take away your shotgun or take away the
kind of components that are part of American culture in terms of the
right to hunt, the right to enjoy the outdoors with firearms.
But I do think that simply saying that the status quo is acceptable
and bemoaning another tragedy six or nine months from now, without any
real close examination of seeing what laws and rules and regulations
need to be changed, would be a real mistake and wouldn't do -- wouldn't
be the appropriate honoring the legacy of those poor kids that lives
were taken.
And, quite honestly, I have to give my three daughters a better
answer than I gave them on Friday night. I have got to be able to say,
you know, I was part of trying to at least get some level of solution,
so this kind of tragedy doesn't happen again. GWEN IFILL: Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, thank you so much for joining us. MARK WARNER: Thank you, Gwen. JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow night, we will talk with Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/warner_12-18.html
PLEASE watch the video and then contact your Representative by clicking the link below or the header of this post...And check out H.R. 308 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act in this post, click the link to see if your Rep is a co-sponsor of this legislation in Congress. LET"S level the playing field and remove all restrictions on people carrying guns in all government office buildings so the politicians who are too cowardly to enact reasonable gun control face the same risk as the rest of us. And I want to know, can a person keep their gun when visiting the offices of the NRA or do they have to be checked at the door? From the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence......
Dear Friend,
We believe that Brady background checks should be required on all gun sales. It just makes sense. Right now there is a loophole in the Brady Law that allows people to buy guns at gun shows without going through a Brady criminal background check.
Take a moment to watch the powerful video. Victims and survivors of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and Brady staff came together to make this video to call on Congress to close the gun show loophole.
But we can't do it alone. If you haven't already, click here to send an email to urge your U.S. Representative to cosponsor legislation to close the gun show loophole.
If you have signed it, thank you! You can continue to take action today. You can help by simply: Forwarding this email to 5 friends Signing up to give $5 a month
With more and more people taking these simple actions, just think about the impact we will have.
Our politicians will hear thousands and thousands of us stand up and say, "Enough is enough!" Sincerely,
Brian Malte, State Legislation and Politics Director
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Victims, advocates and survivors urge you to take action to close the gun show loophole.
You can also mail a check to: Brady Campaign · 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 · Washington, DC 20005
The Brady Campaign, along with its sister organization, the Brady Center, is the nation's largest, non-partisan grassroots organization leading the fight to protect you, your family and your community from gun violence.
H.R. 308:
Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
112th Congress
2011-2012
Primary Source
See H.R. 308 on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Apr 7, 2011 6:12AM]
Last Action:
Feb 7, 2011: House Committee on the Judiciary: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Related:
See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
OPPOSED by the nra and so has very little chance of becoming law because the American public is too stupid to demand it and our government is to cowardly to pass a law banning high capacity gun magazines. Click the link on the video to tell President Obama to support and pass the law to ban assault clips. Keep that in mind when we have our next mass murder in a school or shopping plaza or mall or theater or wherever.....
WASHINGTON -- One of the nation’s most powerful gun-control advocacy groups is out with a new ad, and a symbolic new spokeswoman, in an effort to persuade Congress to outlaw magazines that allow up to 32 shots without reloading.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence put out the new spot on Tuesday morning calling directly on President Barack Obama to take a stand against high-capacity magazines -- the clip used by Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Tucson.
In conjunction with the ad’s release, the group is deploying a powerful new congressional liaison. Kelly O'Brien, fiancee of Gabe Zimmerman, the Giffords' staffer killed by Loughner, will be on the Hill Tuesday to endorse legislation sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) banning high-capacity magazines.
O’Brien’s entrance into the debate over gun control legislation carries the same type of emotional undertones that accompanied the founding of the Brady Campaign itself. Once titled Handgun Control Inc., the group evolved into its current incarnation and namesake after James Brady, a top aide to President Ronald Reagan who was permanently disabled during an assassination attempt on Reagan.
O’Brien isn’t the only deliberately heart-tugging symbol of the new Brady campaign. The ad includes the silhouette of a young girl on a gunman’s printable, target practice sheet -- riddled, after 32 shots, with bullet holes in the heart and head.
“A magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 shots in 16 seconds is good for only one thing: killing a lot of people fast; and that’s something we can live without. Assault clips: they make everyone a target,” the script reads.
And yet, for all the chilling imagery and sentimental lobbying power, the Brady Campaign still faces a heavy lift. The Obama administration has convened a series of gun-policy meetings at the Justice Department to cover what, exactly, can be done to tighten current law and ensure that unstable purchasers don't get their hands on firearms. High-capacity magazines, sources tell The Huffington Post, have not come up during the talks.
Forwarding this email to 5 friends![Brian Malte [signature]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tREptX7Y7TD4podJODm1lw4mLXuXg4AtJMg95zb86v8CxUo7O_LVjY5xrb8KN95j0oG3448uX4bFeXTsnwvCZRsycE3vP_AzGcowFH6qQ-qoH58H61HYzQ6Q5Ikl_kc84zXcs=s0-d)
Sincerely,![Brian Malte [photo]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vkRpXnNkti2lpeULPN0gjjuGpknfop5IqO_ZBRX_8k-5yhVxgXN2gF0_xwXNiXX9ajXqdDC1DgNe6OKr_yoq9FfvFuxj0_iN4WjK0JRFSRvgPSmMWg_DlY9TmZwdAJG7FrszY=s0-d)
![Take Action to Close The Gun Show Loophole [video]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sZPlFXU30zJaAFLxERrDDvRcqYTfaQokQ9rXRPlcgLVn3Qf79ydFkYr9uYOeiCFKa2-wRtu8fVSW_PZA8G0myvHbkkdeBpksqfVJtHVsk5yn2pk4GEQ2INBgDN63BW2y3jtl-tqZWdLmvd-ylk83HceSE=s0-d)
