Justin's Political Corner

CHICAGO — Gov. Pat Quinn said Illinois lawmakers have a chance to make history on two fronts this month by approving a plan to fix the state’s decades-old pension crisis and legalizing same-sex marriage.

Conservative talk show host Dana Loesch called a St. Louis-area mother an “idiot” for attending an anti-gun violence rally in late March in downtown St. Louis. Three weeks later, the Riverfront Times reports Nikki Moungo, a 42-year-old mother of three, said Loesch lacks “compassion or sympathy” for victims of gun violence. Moungo was part of a Moms Against Guns rally that Loesch found disturbing. Now, the two are locked in a war of words over the controversial issue.

* Moungo called Loesch “extremely superficial” in her interview with the media outlet posted Tuesday. The mother has been helping her neighbor cope with the death of Matthew Pellegrini, a shooting victim murdered in St. Louis in 2012.

* Moungo called out Loesch’s assertion she is a “limo liberal” by saying, “You don’t have to wait for gun violence to affect you to get involved.”

* Loesch responded to Moungo’s interview with a blog post of her own. The conservative activist said, “I’ve actually had threats against myself and my family… . I’ve even had people show up at my house. People who’ve never been in the firsthand position of ever having to defend themselves should stop lecturing those who HAVE been in such position. Thanks for completely proving my point.”

* Among other observations, Loesch made fun of Moungo’s Frontenac sunglasses and designer clothes in addition to the fact that many of the women who attended the downtown St. Louis rally were from the suburbs. Moungo co-owns a construction business with her husband and has three boys ages 21, 19 and 9, according to the Riverfront Times piece.

* The war of words expanded to Twitter. Loesch posted, “In reality, [Moungo] is thin skinned because she obsessed over it for a week. My critique was right and it stung. Now move on.”

* Moungo replied when she said Loesch had “no clue” about her life circumstances in suburban St. Louis. She also told the conservative blogger, “Don’t mock those who mourn, try being civilized.”

* The online fracas started with Loesch’s commentary on the anti-gun rally posted to RedState.com March 30. The blogger started by calling attendees “well-heeled progressive women from the nice, safe part of Missouri… .”

* One of the speakers at the rally suggested the United States cede its sovereignty to the United Nations in terms of better gun control. A journalist asked Mayor Francis Slay if he agreed with Dr. Robert Flood’s statement, but he refused to answer the question.

* Moungo is not the only St. Louis resident infuriated by Loesch. Local chef Dale Beauchamp called upon Loesch’s supporters to “use your easily purchased firearm on yourself.” Twitchy.com reports Beauchamp apologized for making his comments and the restaurant for which he works, Little Country Gentleman, distanced itself from the chef’s remarks in a string of tweets made Thursday.

* Loesch is a St. Louis native who contributes to many national news media outlets on a regular basis. She is married with two children.

Fuck people like Dana Loesch!

h/t: Yahoo! News

The Missouri Senate voted to eliminate all funding for the state’s driver’s license bureau on Monday due to concerns about its keeping records of concealed-carry holders. The Raw Story reports that the chairman of the appropriations committee, Kurt Schaefer (R), admitted that the cut was made to send a message to Governor Jay Nixon (D) and his administration, and said, “They will not be able to issue any drivers’ licenses.”

The state of Missouri is reportedly only state to have its driver’s license bureau also be the agency that issues concealed carry permits. According to The Raw Story article, the state gave that power to the bureau ten years ago for the purpose of allowing law enforcement to be able to identify people who carried concealed weapons. However, Missouri lawmakers have gotten more concerned about the possibility that these records would be shared with the federal government, leading ultimately to confiscations of guns from law-abiding citizens.

Gun-confiscation paranoia has been around for quite awhile in our society. Much of this is due to the widespread slippery slope argument that the NRA makes, and that lawmakers, particularly Republican lawmakers, parrot, when it comes to universal background checks or other records tracking gun ownership and purchase, or any tiny bit of regulation regarding firearms.

Probably one of the most pertinent facts that people who trumpet the slippery slope argument regarding background checks and other recordkeeping ignore is that a national gun registry is illegal. Furthermore, the bi-partisan background check amendment thatfailed in the Senate last week, despite widespread support in the populace, made creating a federal gun registry an actual crime.

It was not, as the NRA and various right-wing news sources reported, a statement regarding how the White House intended to make such policies effective, nor how they were planning on moving towards a federal “gun-grab.”

You can read the memo itself here. [PDF]

The main problem with the slippery slope argument, for any issue, is that it assumes one specified action will follow a previous action, and another specified action will follow after that, and so on. It completely ignores the possibility that there are other actions that could occur, that things could easily stop far short of the fateful endpoint, or that nothing further will occur after the initial action is taken. Firearms regulations don’t necessarily lead to disarmament and tyranny; there are many nations with various types of firearms regulationsthat are far more stringent than ours that are still peaceful and democratic. In other words, it’s an extremely narrow viewpoint to take on an extremely complex issue that requires a much broader view.

h/t: Rika Christensen at AddictingInfo.org

For much of its more than 140-year history, the National Rifle Association promoted gun ownership, shooting, and hunting as good, clean, constitutionally-protected fun. That changed in the past four decades as the NRA transformed into a hardline group closely allied with the gun industry and the conservative establishment whose only solution to gun violence is ever more guns. Watch the shift unfold in this collection of ads promoting the organization from the early 20th century to the present.

1920: “Rifle shooting is a mighty fine sport.” This Remington ad in Boys Life declared that the NRA was “a United States Government organization.” It wasn’t, but that gives you a sense of just how tight the gun group and the government once were—before the NRA entered its current state of perpetual freak-out about the feds coming for Americans’ guns. 

1970: “Hunters Beware!” Sounding more like the contemporary NRA, this ad warned about “powerful forces—possibly well-intentioned but ill-informed—working eagerly yet relentlessly to curb and eventually abolish the hunting rights, privileges and freedoms you enjoy today.” Bonus: A guest appearance by future pro football Hall of Famer Chris Hanburger.

1982: “I’m the NRA” This famous campaign, launched in 1982, was intended to demonstrate the NRA’s broad appeal. Ads included kids (such as eight-year-old BB-gun enthusiast Bryan Hardin), women, African Americans, cops, and clergy. A more recent version of the campaign has featured NRA celebrity board members Tom Selleck and Karl Malone.

Late 1980s: “Why can’t a policeman be there when you need him?” Fears about violent crime fueled these ads promoting concealed-carry laws. The notion that gun laws are ineffective because criminals break them remains a core NRA argument, as does the idea that armed citizens routinelyfend off attackers.

1995: Bill Clinton is “daffy.” With the number of hunters on the decline, you’d think the NRA would embrace high-profile recreational shooters. Yet in this poster sold to its members, the NRA unintentionally distanced itself from its longtime stance that hunting was central to gun rights, declaring that “Mr. Clinton, the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.”

1997: “Gun rights are lost on our kids.” Heston promised to lead a $100 million, “three-year crusade…to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place as America’s First Freedom.” For the kids, of course.

2013: “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” All the anti-government paranoia, fear-mongering, and liberal-baiting of the past few decades culminated in this video, produced in the wake of the Newtown massacre. By opposing putting armed guards in every school in America, Obama proved himself to be “just another elitist hypocrite” whose kids are protected by the Secret Service.

H/T: Mother Jones

On Thursday, the senate will take-up a comprehensive gun bill that seeks to expand the background check system, enhance penalties for gun trafficking, and invest in school safety. The action will represent the first Congressional debate about firearm safety since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

The vote to proceed to the measure will come just one day after Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) announced a bipartisan agreement to require background checks for gun sales at gun shows and online websites. Under their amendment, sales of firearms in these venues will be treated in the same way as gun purchases at federally licensed gun shops: individuals will have to undergo background checks that will be recorded with a federal licensed dealer. “All personal transfers are not touched whatsoever,” Manchin said.

h/t: Think Progress

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) likely has the votes on gun control legislation to clear its first procedural hurdle — a victory for the gun control community, though one that hardly guarantees the bill’s passage.

The majority leader announced on Tuesday evening he would submit for a vote the bill to expand background checks, implement a federal trafficking statute and enhance school safety measures. That would set up a Senate vote on Thursday. To help push matters along, President Barack Obama was spending Tuesday calling senators to lobby them on the gun measures, a White House official confirmed. The official did not reveal which senators would be receiving calls.

At least eight Republican senators said that they would support bringing the measures to the Senate floor for amendment and debate. A number of others said they had not ruled out voting to clear that first procedural hurdle.

Should those numbers hold, Reid will have the 60 votes needed to move forward on gun policy reform. Two members of his own caucus said they were noncommittal on the first procedural vote, but their defections (should they happen) would be insufficient to sustain a filibuster.

The procedural victory would give gun control advocates much-needed time to alter the language of the bill. Reid announced that negotiations over the bill were still ongoing between the two parties. But it won’t resolve the bill’s fate: Reid will have to secure 60 votes once more to end the debate and amendment period. And none of the Republican senators who said they’d support the first procedural vote would go as far as to say they’d sign off on the second.

In the high-stakes debate over gun policy, however, procedural victories are nothing to scoff at, especially with 14 Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threatening a filibuster of all measures.

Among the GOP congressmen set to buck their own leadership on the vote is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who called a filibuster “incomprehensible.” McCain was joined by Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who told CBS’ “This Morning” that the legislation “deserves an vote up or down.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has negotiated background check legislation, has said he would not support an initial filibuster. “Absolutely,” his spokesman John Hart replied, when asked if that position still stood. “Eschewing this debate is a ‘stupid party’ strategy.”

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) announced on Wednesday that he won’t back a filibuster, stating that “the discussion needs to be had” on gun legislation.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said it was her “hope” that the Senate “can have a fully open debate, and if that occurs, I will certainly vote to proceed to the bill.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) offered similar conditions for his support on the first cloture vote.

“As long as we get amendments, no, I want to proceed to the bill,” he said, when asked about a filibuster. “I think we should be allowed to amend it. I’m not afraid of this debate, I welcome this debate.”

Even if Graham were to vote to sustain a filibuster, Reid could still have enough Republican support to overcome it. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) would be a likely “yes” on both the cloture vote and final passage of the bill, having been supportive of background check legislation in the past. His office, however, did not immediately return a request for comment.

Other Republicans left the door open to backing the first cloture vote on gun legislation. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was noncommittal when asked by reporters on Tuesday. Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) both said they would look at the legislation before deciding whether to support a filibuster. But each said they would filibuster a measure that infringes on Second Amendment rights.

H/T: Huffington Post

National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent made several inflammatory remarks about the Obama administration during an interview on NRA News, including doubling down on his previous claim that he will be “dead or in jail” if the president was reelected.

During an April 8 interview on NRA News, Nugent also accused the Obama administration of engaging in “jack-booted thuggery” and complained that not enough was done to stop the reelection of Obama, asking, “When I kick the door down in the enemy’s camp, would you help me shoot somebody?” Nugent clarified that his reference to shooting people was “a metaphor” and that he’s “not recommending shooting anybody.”

Nugent told a gathered crowd at the NRA’s annual meeting in April 2012 that, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. Why are you laughing? Do you think that’s funny? That’s not funny at all. I’m serious as a heart attack.” He concluded his remarks with a call for the audience to “ride into that battlefield and chop [Democrats] heads off in November.”

Nugent, who is also a columnist for birther website WND, brought up those past comments after NRA News host Cam Edwards falsely claimed that proposed background check legislation would make it so “any time somebody went to your ranch and you loaned them a gun to do some hunting or to do some plinking that would be a five year felony.” According to Nugent, those who laughed at him for saying that “if this America-hater, if this freedom-hater, if this enemy of America becomes the president again I’ll either be dead or in jail” were ignoring the threat of “draconian felonies”:

EDWARDS: You look at what is going on now with the U.S. Senate. They still don’t have the votes for the so-called universal background check bill and that’s a very good thing because this bill is awful. I mean we might as well call this the Ban Ted Nugent Act of 2013. Do you realize, Ted, that under the language right now, any time somebody went to your ranch and you loaned them a gun to do some hunting or to do some plinking that would be a five year felony?

NUGENT: Sure. Well that’s why. I mean come on. And I know that the moderates, by the way if you are a moderate we’d like to thank you for standing up for nothing. If you’re a moderate I suppose you would have been playing poker while Davy Crockett was on the wall of the Alamo. It’s time to take a side.

That’s why I said almost a year ago, Cam, and people recoiled in horror. And I know it caught a lot of my friends off guard, when I said if this America-hater, if this freedom-hater, if this enemy of America becomes the president again I’ll either be dead or in jail. And remember when I was on the stage with you and some people chuckled?

EDWARDS: Yup.

NUGENT: So we find humor in a disastrous statement from a guy who is on the frontlines, who has been in the frontlines of the war against gun ownership for at least forty-plus years. So it’s funny that I might be dead or in jail. And that is so indicative of how callous and disconnected some are, because you are talking about arbitrary, punitive, capricious draconian felonies. 

Edwards’ characterization of the proposal to expand background checks is incorrect. While the legislation would require a criminal background check on almost all gun sales, there would be exemptions to the requirement, including gifts between family members and firearms loaned for lawful hunting or target shooting purposes.

Furthermore, the legislation would allow an individual to temporarily transfer a firearm to another individual without a check so long as the firearm does not leave the transferor’s “home or curtilage.”

Nugent used the NRA News interview as an opportunity to make more inflammatory statements about the Obama administration.

Warning of government firearm confiscation, Nugent suggested that the federal government was engaged in “jack-booted thuggery,” a term used in the infamous 1995 comparison by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre between federal law enforcement agents and Nazi stormtroopers:

A lot of people, Cam, I’m afraid, listen to the outrageous examples, the freedom-stomping and jack-booted thuggery. And they wince a bit and they furrow their brow and they shake their heads. But then they still don’t do anything.

Nugent also blamed the reelection of President Obama, who he refers to as the “Chicago gangster, ACORN rip-off scam-artist-in-chief,” on the alleged silence of Obama’s critics. He went on to ask, “When I kick the door down in the enemy’s camp, would you help me shoot somebody?”

H/T: MMFA

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D) tore into the National Rifle Association during an appearance on CNN’s State Of The Union on Sunday. The NRA this week introduced its legislative response to the massacre in Malloy’s home state. Its plan focuses on arming school staff.

Malloy specifically called out NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre for his absolute opposition to commonsense gun regulations, including the new gun law just enacted by Connecticut. After watching a clip of LaPierre mocking Connecticut’s new law, Malloy shot back, “Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus. They get the most attention”:

MALLOY: That’s what he’s paid to do. But the reality is is that the gun that was used to kill 26 people on December 14th was legally purchased in the state of Connecticut even though we had an Assault Weapons Ban. But there were loopholes in it that you could drive a truck through. This guy is so out of whack, it’s unbelievable. 92% of the american people want universal background checks. I can’t get on a plane as the Governor of the state of Connecticut without somebody running a background check on me. Why should you be able to buy a gun? Or buy armor-piercing munitions? It doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t make any sense. Thus my reference to the circus.[…]

Bring it back to reality. Why are they against universal background checks when 92% of the American public is in favor of them? If they can’t answer that question — and they can’t, Candy — What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible even if they’re deranged, even if they’re mentally ill, evening if they have a criminal background, they don’t care. They want to sell guns.

h/t: Think Progress Justice

PFAW’s recent Right Wing Watch in Focus report on opposition to more effective regulation of guns noted that promoting conspiracy theories is a primary strategy used by extremists to block common sense policies.  New evidence comes in the form of a recent email from Sen. Rand Paul raising money for the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that is so far out there it thinks the National Rifle Association has gone soft.

Rand Paul’s letter uses inflammatory rhetoric to push the conspiracy theory that registration of guns and requiring background checks for gun purposes – which is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners – is just a prelude to “confiscation” by the “gun-grabbers.”

And make no mistake, the gun-grabbers’ TRUE motives behind gun registration is always the same — outright gun CONFISCATION, and to do that they must first register every gun and gun owner.

Another letter Paul signed for the group argues that President Obama is working to empower United Nations bureaucrats to confiscate Americans’ guns:

I don’t know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick.

An earlier alert from the National Association for Gun Rights was labeled: “Obama declares war.”

Why is Rand Paul raising money for these guys?

h/t: RWW