Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
In the weeks since the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the call for more action in controlling military style guns and large capacity magazines has increased, but as of yet, nothing concrete has been done on the national level. In fact, the NRA was recently quoted as suggesting that nothing will be done, once the country gets over the “Connecticut Effect”! “The National Rifle Association will wait until the “Connecticut effect” has subsided to resume its push to weaken the nation’s gun laws, according to a top NRA lobbyist speaking at the NRA’s Wisconsin State Convention this weekend.” Think Progress
I did not realize that anyone ever could “get over” the shameful massacre of 20 small children along with 6 staff members of the school they attended. Is this kind of statement from the NRA just hubris or is it indicative of a disgusting level of ambivalence to the violence wrought upon citizens when semi-automatic guns and large capacity magazines are allowed and allowed in the wrong hands? I know we have discussed the gun control issue many times here, but when I read statements like the one quoted above from a Wisconsin NRA official, my head explodes.
The Think Progress article linked above also discussed further statements made by Wisconsin Lobbyist, Bob Welch, that indicate that he has little or no concern over the violence of that sad day in Newtown, but rather is sad that there has been a delay in the progress of the NRA’s agenda since the Newtown shootings. “Welch went on to bemoan the fact that the public’s focus on Newtown was preventing the NRA from pushing such bills through the legislature, but his remarks soon turned to braggadocio about the NRA’s legislative influence. He relayed an anecdote about how, following the Connecticut shooting, a pro-gun Democrat in the legislature had mentioned his desire to close the gun show loophole. “And I said [to him], ‘no, we’re not going to do that,” Welch boasted. “And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”
WELCH: We have a strong agenda coming up for next year, but of course a lot of that’s going to be delayed as the “Connecticut effect” has to go through the process. […] What’s even more telling is the people who don’t like guns pretty much realize that they can’t do a thing unless they talk to us. After Connecticut I had one of the leading Democrats in the legislature—he was with us most of the time, not all the time—he came to me and said, “Bob, I got all these people in my caucus that really want to ban guns and do all this bad stuff, we gotta give them something. How about we close this gun show loophole? Wouldn’t that be good?” And I said, “no, we’re not going to do that.” And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”
Think Progress
I was glad to read that the NRA’s massive amounts of money donated to politicians may not have as large an impact on the election process that they claim. “The answer is no, because once again, though the NRA may spend a good deal of money in total, it spreads that money to multiple races across the country. In the last four elections, the median NRA House independent expenditure has spent less than $10,000, and the median Senate IE only around $30,000 – numbers too small to have a real impact.
All right, but is the organization spending token amounts on a large group of friendly candidates, but putting its real weight behind a few high-profile races and producing results? Yet again, the answer is no. In the last four elections, the NRA spent over $100,000 on an IE in 22 separate Senate races. The group’s favored candidate won 10 times, and lost 12 times. This mediocre won-lost record, however, tells only part of the story. Let’s take one example, the largest IE the NRA conducted over this period. In 2010, they spent $1.5 million on the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak. Toomey won by 2 points, but could the NRA claim credit? Toomey’s campaign spent just under $17 million, over twice as much as Sestak’s $7.5 million. The NRA was one of a remarkable 62 outside groups that poured a total of over $28 million into the Pennsylvania race. Put another way, in the NRA’s single largest independent expenditure over this period, the group accounted for less than 3 percent of the money spent in the race.” Think Progress Justice
Maybe the NRA is spinning its wheels because the Newtown shootings finally tipped the scales of public opinion in favor of sane and reasonable gun control measures. I, for one, would hope that is the case. In light of the vast amounts of weapons being purchased since the shootings, and the continued violence, I am not so sure. The latest totals that I have seen show that at least 1822 people have died due to gun violence since the Newtown shootings in December of 2012! Reader Supported News
Does the NRA really have a significant influence on the political process? Will the Newtown shootings force Washington to do something about the gun violence in this country? What do you think? What do you think should be done?
MIke,
I believe that Bron was being facetious — I took it that way.
In any event, I think that Bron would characterize you as a man, not a “man”; the only “man” in question would have been Bob Kauten.
Bron,
Thank you for reading my posts.
porkchop:
In any event your debate with mespo was good and instructive since I am not a lawyer.
I read this site a lot, but comment rarely. Lack of facts and legal research sort of annoys me. (I’m a retired federal government attorney.)
I don’t read Latin, unfortunately. I am limited to pretty decent German, some Mandarin Chinese, and a little Danish — maybe not the ideal combination. I used to be able to speak a little modern Greek, though, if that would help.
Porkchop:
these people are pretty decent, you and Otteray Scribe would probably get on really well. He is a progressive who like guns and shoots. I dont know what your philosophy is but most here are pro-civil liberties although the economics tends toward the left side of the spectrum.
It is actually a pretty interesting site and mespo would probably welcome someone who enjoys the classices, if you can write and read latin, he will be putty in your hands.
Bron,
Personally, I prefer IPA’s to wine; one of my daughters works for a distillery, though, so I am able to obtain a discount on whiskey. My current dog is a Tibetan mastiff. My doctor says I should eat more vegetables; my vegetarian daughter agrees. These days I read a lot of plays . . . Sophocles, Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Gerhart Hauptman . . ., although a couple months ago, I finished both volumes of Democracy in America (a bit hard to chew, like a dry, broiled pork chop, in fact, and not at all kind in its assessment of Americans). I do know how to tie a bow tie.
I don’t know if I am manly enough to meet the tough standards here, though.
great site for all you gun “nuts” out there. and also progressives as they only let you have 3 rounds. 🙂
http://deti.mil.by/templates/swf/Pistol/index.swf
porkchop:
also a note of thanks for saving me the time of responding to BTK.
I always do so enjoy those manhood jabs. Most of the time they come from “men” wearing bow ties. No, not all men who wear bow ties are “men” but “men” do seem to prefer white wine, spinach souffle, miniature poodles and L M Alcott.
Granted there are some very fine whites out there, I can think of a couple which I have roundly enjoyed, and spinach is one of my favorite vegetables but I draw the line at miniature poodles [a standard poodle is a fine animal] and Little Women as a good read.
“No, not all men who wear bow ties are “men” but “men” do seem to prefer white wine, spinach souffle, miniature poodles and L M Alcott.”
Bron,
Stereotype much. I prefer white wine; hate bowties, love spinach and would never read Alcott. As for Miniature poodles I love them, but then I love Lhasa Apsos, Yorkies and Shitzus too. Has a Lhasa Apso in the 70’s bravest dog I ever had pound for pound, except for the pit bull I raised from a puppy in my teens. Most people I’ve known have considered me a “manly man”, but then I do love Broadway Musicals, Judy Garland and I cry at movies.
Jason,
I owe you a reply for your very thoughtful comment and I will get to it. I can’t do so now because I have to cook dinner for my wife, probably quiche.
Too dry if barbecued or broiled. Try pan-fried or baked.
But again, people sometimes disagree with me.
porkchop:
Advice taken, I will also add an apple.
Are you better pan fried, placed on the bbq with some mesquite or broiled?
Oh, no! Do I now have to fear being eaten? Bob Kauten will have a field day!
Seriously, I would suggest sauerkraut, but people sometimes disagree with me.
pork chop:
I have always wondered what goes better with you: pineapple, BBQ sauce or gravy.
And I’m the one whining. The funny thing about denying you were wrong in the face of obvious proof to the contrary is that it makes you look far worse than merely being wrong.
Your insults are going in the “Jerkstore” direction (Seinfeld reference). And what the hell, I’ll throw it out there again, what need is there to ban a legal product that is rarely used to kill anyone?
mespo,
Jason was right. You ARE adorable.
Bob Kauten:
“I know that my concept of a decent society scares you. Pretty much everything does.”
There you go with the long-distance psychoanalysis again. Care to answer any of the questions I asked?
Jason:
“You said machine guns were illegal, stop, no qualification. ”
***********************
Sorry, Jason I didn’t commit everything I know to one blog post. I thought I could use some practical shorthand but when one deals with an absolutist such as yourself, one should know better.
In any event, I’m happy to know you can fit everything you know in a few paragraphs.
Mike Spindell-
“Why is it “necessary” to have concealed carry in Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, bars, restaurants and movie theaters. Laws permitting this have sprung up all over the nation back by the NRA.”
The point behind concealed carry is that you can’t know when you might need to defend yourself, and crimes have been committed in such locales. The laws that I’ve seen don’t force these places to allow carry, they give them the option of allowing it. Just so we’re clear, I’m against forcing any private establishment to allow carry and the vast majority of those who advocate for concealed carry agree. There is nothing about a church or movie theater that makes concealed carry less logical. If you are against the whole concept in the first place, that’s fine, we can agree to disagree.
“What is so offensive about background checks and licensing of weapons?”
I’ve never said that background checks are offensive and support them. Licensing opens all kinds of doors I don’t want to walk down.
“Why is it imperative for someone to be able to purchase a projectile weapon within minutes and if so why?”
It might be imperative due to a threat. It usually isn’t of course, but then the burden is on you to show that such delays have any benefit.
“Since I do support people having the right to bear arms and have done so here for years, I must say their are a few things about proponents that disturb me. I have read the NRA’s magazine and find it bordering on the insane in its views.”
I’m an infrequent poster here so I don’t expect you to remember, but I’ve said many times that I detest the NRA. They are doing at least as much harm to the “cause” as good. They are fear mongering idiots.
“It is an ultra-Right Wing publication and if taken alone as representing
2nd Amendment proponents actually makes feel distasteful about supporting them. Beyond that Mr. LaPierre does the NRA no credit in representing your interests and in fact he comes off as someone with a mental disturbance.'”
I agree. I’ve never carried water for the NRA here or anywhere else.
“Finally, why don’t you find this offensive?
“The National Rifle Association will wait until the “Connecticut effect” has subsided to resume its push to weaken the nation’s gun laws, according to a top NRA lobbyist speaking at the NRA’s Wisconsin State Convention this weekend.””
Your entire response relies upon false assumption after false assumption. I do find that offensive.
“Yet truthfully, rather than feeling empathy for these innocent victims, many have dragged up conspiracy theories and vilified those parents who in their grief search for answers and amelioration.”
I spent that afternoon hugging my two year old son and trying not to throw up. Literally. I can’t comprehend that level of pain.
“Clearly banning such weaponry, given the 300 million weapons already in private hands, is no solution. However, licensing, background checks and making sales less automatic may have some effect and make people feel easier.”
Background checks are fine, but I don’t think there’s much utility in the other things you suggest. And to be frank, I’m not concerned about making people “feel” easy or safe. When we legislate based on irrational fears, we get garbage like PATRIOT and SOPA and just about every other post 9/11 rape of the Bill of Rights.
“The other part of the defense of the 2nd Amendment I find peculiar and very hard to relate to, is what seems to be the fear that motivates many to feel they must be armed. My career was spent working in some of the “worst” neighborhoods in the country, both day and night, predominantly alone and on the streets. I never carried a weapon, not even a pocket knife and some of this time was spent during the dread “crack epidemic” in NYC in the 80′s. While I’m not a particularly brave man, I am quite street smart and alert. I cannot think of any time that I was ever afraid, or when people’s actions and demeanor, alerted me to any danger.”
Mike, I go unarmed frequently, sometimes due to the location, sometimes due to inconvenience. I don’t feel naked or unsafe. I didn’t even own a gun until I was over 40, and I didn’t get my permit and start carrying because I was terrified of an imminent threat, real or imagined. But I also don’t feel paranoid about car accidents when I buckle my seat belt. It’s a last resort in the event of a rare occurrence, that’s all. You can’t lump every gun owner into the Ted Nugent category.
And don’t you think it’s presumptuous of you to say that because you didn’t feel unsafe that everyone should feel the same? I don’t want everyone to carry, I want those who meet the qualifications and want to carry to carry. I don’t presume to know what’s best for everyone.
“This was because the “danger” of these places was an overrated issue raised by the media. The crime rate has fallen consistently in the last 20 years but above are comments from people who believe their weapons will save them from death at the hands of chimeric “savage hordes”. In my opinion those who believe that and whose opinions are modeled by the NRA do no service to your cause.'”
I agree with every word of that paragraph.
I know that my concept of a decent society scares you. Pretty much everything does.
Bob Kauten,
Where do you live? Who are all of these delusional, paranoid people? How do you know? Have you spoken to them? What is the difference between a firearm “designed for mass murder” and some other firearm? Is there some kind of bright line test?
Murder (and other crime) rates have been declining for a couple of decades, so who has been severely abusing the right to own firearms, and where has this been happening? And by the way, “right” shouldn’t be in scare quotes, because, it is in fact and in law a real right, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller.
Psychoanalyzing a tens of millions of firearms owners at one time — that’s quite a feat of intellect there. I kind of wonder about the problem with perceived manhood deficiencies for the millions of female firearms owners, though. I think you are projecting, not that I am a trained psychoanalyst.
How do you know that the “acrobats” haven’t already demonstrated that they can change magazines under stress. We have a lot of combat veterans out there.
Your concept of a decent society scares me.
Keep your eye on the ball. There are too many firearms designed for mass murder, among a delusional, paranoid population. Rooms full of people are being slaughtered.
The “right” to own firearms has been severely abused for several decades. The result is that restrictions must be applied. These things are not toys, to be used to substitute for perceived manhood deficiencies.
No matter how quickly one can change magazines, having learned by long practice, it’s still easier to mow down a room full of people, if you use a high-capacity magazine. Particularly in the heat of the moment. These acrobats that show off how fast they can change magazines, are not in a stress situation. In a stress situation, they’d be fumbling and dropping magazines.
No one needs to know anything much about firearms, the military, or the law, to understand this. Don’t feign incomprehension.
We have a problem of too many weapons designed for mass murder available for use to any “law-abiding-citizen” who happens to be having a bad day. Gun manufacturers, and their mouthpiece, the NRA, already have more than enough blood money.
There are many things we can do to alleviate this problem. Making it more difficult to obtain these weapons is a small first step.
Every small step toward a decent society is blocked by the NRA, and selfish “gun enthusiasts.”