Posts tagged "Gun Safety"

h/t: Jeremy W. Peters at The New York Times

mediamattersforamerica:

image

1. America is becoming too dangerous for children to play outside.

2. Americans are buying guns because of “reckless government actions” and because the “entire fabric of society” is in “jeopardy.”

3. The national media is one of America’s “greatest threats.”

4. “Knockout game” and “haters” are just two reasons we need unlimited rifles, shotguns, and pistols (Bonus part: “waves of chemicals” could collapse society at any moment).

5. There is a “bare-knuckled street fight” with the opposition to the NRA. But the NRA “will not go quietly into the night.” (Bonus: this is from the movie Independence Day).

Watch the full speech here. 

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

apolloreport:

The NRA’s successful recall of Democratic Colorado State Senate President John Morse doesn’t intimidate me one bit.

I don’t support repealing the Second Amendment or disarming law-abiding citizens of this great country. I support responsible legislation…

View Post

I’m a member of the National Rifle Association and a former Army officer with assignments in the military police, artillery, and operations research and intelligence at the Pentagon.

I’m also Ted Nugent’s older brother.

Ted and I recently attended the NRA convention in Houston, where he delivered the gathering’s final speech and continued his ardent defense of the Second Amendment. Ted and I have hunted together for decades, and we legally own a large number of guns. We both understand that guns constitute deadly force, so safety is foremost in our minds. It’s part of responsible gun ownership.

And I agree with Ted that our constitutional right to bear arms should not be undermined. I want all those who are qualified to purchase a gun to be able to do so. But — and here is where I part ways with my brother — not everyone is qualified to own a gun, so expanded background checks should be a legislative priority.

I believe strongly that expanding and improving mandatory background checks will keep a lot of people who aren’t entitled to Second Amendment rights from having easy access to guns. As of today, a convicted felon can find a gun show or a private seller and buy a firearm without a background check. That loophole should be closed. Every gun transaction must include a thorough background check. Why would responsible gun owners want to protect people who threaten not only our safety but our gun rights?

The NRA has it wrong: Irresponsible gun owners are bad for everyone. If you shouldn’t have access to a gun, then there should be no way for you to access a gun! Can anyone argue with that?

Consider the mentally ill, one of the biggest threats to firearm safety. How do we preserve their rights to health privacy while keeping firearms out of their hands? It’s a huge concern, given the role mental illness has played in recent gun-violence tragedies. While some states have made progress, it’s far from universal.

But convicted felons, people with restraining orders against them and those with a history of mental illness can still find ways to purchase weapons. No one should stand for this.

The tragedy in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, and the gun violence that claims on average eight children per day in the United States, require us to think differently about what the Second Amendment really means.

Enhanced background checks need not threaten the Second Amendment. Why are the NRA and the elected representatives who support it so slow to realize this? Or do they fear a slippery slope toward greater restrictions on gun rights? If they don’t want to burden a flawed system, they should be part of fixing it.

Reducing gun violence and protecting the Second Amendment is not an either-or idea. I challenge the NRA’s leadership to partner with groups such as Evolve, which I recently joined, that seek to protect gun rights while creating a culture of responsibility, safe gun use and prudent access to firearms.

Can we imagine an NRA capable of taking that on? Or are we doomed to the uncompromising philosophy driving everything the organization does? I want to be proud of being a member of a proactive NRA.

I attended this month’s NRA convention to better understand what the organization is thinking and advocating. Speakers such as Glenn Beck and my brother are extremely articulate and connect with that audience, while Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, excels at creating a strident stand-and-fight mentality that does not speak for the majority of gun owners. Ted and I have talked about these matters over the years, but more often lately. I concede that he is right on some points: In some instances, cities and states with less-strict gun laws have less violent crime. But that does not argue for arming America. Ted is someone who speaks in extremes to make his points. It reflects who he is, and it works for him and his audience.

h/t: Washington Post

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 violenceMoungo 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

(via Think Progress: Tennessee GOP Lawmaker Campfield Mocks Gun Regulations, Warns Of ‘Assault Pressure Cooker’)

Tennessee State Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) took to his personal blog Sunday to mock U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), suggesting that she and other reformers should now be focusing on a ban on pressure cookers. And when criticized for his insensitivity to the Boston Marathon victims, Campfield doubled-down on the claims, crying “double standard.”

Campfield’s original post featured a photo of a pressure cooker, similar to that used by the Boston Marathon bombers, and the title “assault pressure cooker.” Campfield captioned the post, “Here comes Feinstein again.”

In a Monday followup, titled “Inappropriate? Me? Never.” Campfield wrote:

Really? If my post was inappropriate talking about “crock pot control” then where is the outrage from the left when they push for gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting? Im sorry if I exposed your double standard…. Well, not really.

Campfield has a long history of questionable comments and actions. Earlier this month, he proposed cutting welfare benefits for kids with poor grades and attacked an eight-year-old critic as a “prop.” Last January, he falsely claimed that HIV/AIDS came from the LGBT community, citing a 1988 advice column from a Christian apologetics website. He also authored Tennessee’s odious “Don’t Say Gay” bill, compared homosexuality to “shooting heroin,”threatened to reduce funding for the University of Tennessee over their sex education week programming, and was a plaintiff in a 2009 “birther” lawsuit demanding President Obama’s birth certificate.

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

(via Think Progress: As Senate Prepares To Take Up Background Checks, NRA Warns Of Outright Gun Confiscation)

As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider a package of gun violence prevention proposals next week, the National Rifle Association has moved into full campaign mode, fighting against reforms backed by 91 percent of the American public. The group’s lobbying arm sent members an “Emergency Action Alert” Wednesday, attempting to scare gun owners into thinking closing background check loopholes would turn them into criminals.

The message warns:

Next week, your Senators are scheduled to vote on a so-called “universal background check” bill being pushed by lifelong anti-gun zealot, Senator Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s bill would MAKE YOU A CRIMINAL if you simply transfer a firearm to an aunt, uncle, cousin or lifelong friend without the federal government’s approval.

The NRA’s slippery-slope fear-mongering continues: “This isn’t about making Americans safer…it’s about leading law-abiding gun owners down the road to gun registration – and ultimately, GUN CONFISCATION – just like we watched happen in England and Australia.” The email then asks readers to call their Senators — and send the NRA money.

The group supported universal background checks as recently as 1999 — and 74 percent of its membership supports the idea now. Even former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), head of the NRA’s school security task force, has endorsed the idea of expanding background checks.

Federal law prohibits the creation of a national gun registry and the Supreme Court has made clear that “gun confiscation” would be unconstitutional.

Right-wing blogs took President Obama’s comments about gun violence prevention out of context to claim that he complained about being constrained by the Constitution. The full text of his comments, however, shows that he was praising the genius of the document rather than lamenting that the Second Amendment prevents him from confiscating guns.

On April 3, President Obama gave a speech in Colorado to raise support for strengthening gun laws following the passage of new gun violence prevention measures in the state. During his speech, Obama attempted to put gun owners’ possible concerns over these measures to rest:

One last thing I’m going to mention is that during this conversation — I hope you don’t mind me quoting you, Joe. Joe Garcia, I thought, also made an important point, and that is that the opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed and nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government. 

You hear some of these quotes: “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.”  “We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.” 

Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. (Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.

And so, surely, we can have a debate that’s not based on the notion somehow that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of Aurora or Newtown or Columbine have grieved. We’ve got to get past some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion.  And it’s important for all of us when we hear that kind of talk to say, hold on a second. If there are any folks who are out there right now who are gun owners, and you’ve been hearing that somehow somebody is taking away your guns, get the facts. We’re not proposing a gun registration system, we’re proposing background checks for criminals.  (Applause.)

Don’t just listen to what some advocates or folks who have an interest in this thing are saying. Look at the actual legislation. That’s what happened here in Colorado.  And hopefully, if we know the facts and we’re listening to each other, then we can actually move forward. 

But the full transcript of Obama’s speech shows that he never expressed a desire to confiscate Americans’ firearms or lamented that the Second Amendment prevents him from doing so. In fact, he was approvingly citing the Constitution’s protection of individual rights while telling people to be informed about the new gun legislation instead of succumbing to gun proponents’ claims that guns will be taken away, and he reminded voters that they could hold the government accountable at the ballot box if they felt their rights were threatened.

h/t: MMFA

(via Huckabee Suggests Gun Violence Prevention Efforts Could Be A Step Towards A Nazi-Style Dictatorship | Blog | Media Matters for America)

Fox News host Mike Huckabee warned on his radio show that the government could be planning to confiscate firearms in order to launch a dictatorship after a caller compared conditions in the United States today to those in Nazi Germany.

On the April 3 edition of The Mike Huckabee Show, Huckabee defended a caller’s claim about firearm confiscation in Nazi Germany as “the truth.” He added, “In every society and culture where dictators take over, one of the things they have to do is get control of the military and the police and ultimately all of the citizens and make sure the citizens are disarmed and can’t fight in the streets. Gosh I hope it doesn’t come to that.”

According to Huckabee, if the government were to confiscate privately owned firearms, ”there’s not a whole lot we can do about it other than just plan to die in the course of resistance.”

The Senate legislative package to reduce gun violence does not involve the confiscation of firearms, instead it calls for expanding background checks, adding missing records to the current background check system, cracking down on gun trafficking, and improving school security.

Huckabee’s acceptance of the caller’s view of what happened in Nazi Germany as “the truth” is also ahistorical. As Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald noted in a January 11 article, “the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus.” In fact, Hitler loosened gun laws for his political allies while banning firearms for the people he wished to oppress, which is an indictment of fascistic policies — not gun violence prevention laws.