Justin's Political Corner

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 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

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

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

Piers Morgan Tonight host Piers Morgan clearly has not had enough, nor can he get enough of, conservative commentator Dana Loesch. Maybe that will change after the latest episode of the Piers and Dana Show™, in which Loesch triumphantly declared that Morgan “admitted” the “truth” that he is in favor of completely disarming American citizens. In the umpteenth pointless cable news segment devoted to absurd gun nut talking points, though, Loesch appears to have “admitted” that she, in turn, is in favor of unlimited numbers of children being killed with guns.

The “sizzle” in this clip is the steady stream of absurdities that come out of Dana Loesch’s mouth, but the steak is Van Jones‘ absolute nailing of the point I’ve been trying to make about these cable news gun-nut “debates,” a point that Piers Morgan would do well to heed. 

Dana Loesch would probably object to being called a “gun nut,” and point to the term as evidence that liberals are dismissive of those who disagree with them, but she earned the label in a previousPMT segment when she argued that Americans have the right to bear arms equivalent to those of our global enemies. That’s what makes you a gun nut, not a valid concern for the right of self-protection.

Loesch burnished that credential repeatedly in this segment, blithely arguing, for example, that “Anything can be qualified as an assault weapon. If you stab someone with a spoon, it can be qualified as an assault weapon.”

This is a reference to the popular gun-nut talking point that assault weapons classifications are mysterious, arbitrary distinctions based solely on the weapons’ appearance, when, in fact, there arespecific functional criteria involved. The “confusing” variations arise only out of legislators’ attempts to make assault weapons bans less restrictive, a generosity that has obviously outlived its usefulness.

Loesch also casually dismisses the utility of high-capacity magazines by asking “Do you realize how easy it is to reload? Piers, you can take a speed loader and reload a revolver, 150 rounds. That means he had to reload four times.”

Then, there’s the exchange that Dana Loesch is so proud of, in which she gets the answer she wanted. “What’s the difference between 30 rounds and what’s the difference between seven rounds?” she asks.

“The difference between 30 and seven is 23,” Morgan replies. “So it could save 23 lives if there was a federal ban on these magazines.”

From this, Loesch concludes “Seven lives lost are OK with you, then? Seven lives lost are OK?”

“You know what, Dana, seven is better than 30, yes,” Morgan replies.

“I’m just trying to establish where you draw the line,” Loesch smartly retorts. “Where do you draw the line at preventing the deaths of children, Piers?”

“I would love to draw the line, Dana, at zero gun deaths in America,” Morgan says.

“So you do believe in disarmament, then,” Dana concludes.

Like a pro wrestling announcer who isn’t in on the con, Morgan is hurt and miffed by this screwdriver to the neck, but he completely misses the implications of Loesch’s “logic trap.” Under her construction, that “seven lives lost are OK,” Loesch’s opposition to any limit on magazine size amounts to an endorsement of unlimited lives lost.

The reason it never occurs to Morgan to turn the tables on Loesch is that his mission is not the same as hers. As Van Jones pointed out, it is the job of gun nuts like Dana Loesch to say anything, anything at all, to prevent a meaningful conversation about gun violence, in hopes that public urgency toward the issue will wane, and the status quo will prevail. I don’t presume to know what Dana Loesch thinks, but I’m fairly certain she doesn’t really believe that Americans should have the right to possess chemical warheads. She’s not stupid or insane, she can’t possibly believe that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have turned out the same if the shooter had been forced to reload 30 times. These are just things that she says to derail the debate.

Most liberals would watch this clip and conclude that Dana Loesch is the villain. The unkindest way to interpret her actions is that she’s cynically trying to exploit this issue to gain fame and exposure for herself, and the kindest is that she sees herself as a bulwark against tyranny, willing to protect the rights she thinks she has, by any means necessary. Evil or misguided, though, Dana Loesch isn’t the problem, Piers Morgan is. He’s the one who keeps booking her on his show, knowing that the result will be pointless arguments like this one.

That doesn’t mean Dana Loesch has no responsibility in this, it just means viewers should have a clear understanding of what that responsibility is. Dana Loesch is a human being, and her responsibility is to act like one. Humanity requires a certain level of empathy, which is not to be confused with sympathy. Loesch views the gun debate through the lens of her own experiences, which do not include having her own child killed by a mass-murdering lunatic. If Dana Loesch’s child had been killed by the 13th shot from a 33-round magazine, during a killing spree that ended when the shooter had to reload, it’s entirely possible that she would still oppose limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, or seven rounds. I hope that question is never answered, but I suspect that if she were somehow able to take the full measure of these tragedies, she might not snicker contemptuously through a discussion like this.

h/t: Tommy Christopher at Mediaite

Three of St. Louis’ leading teabagger pro-2nd Amendment fetishists— Dana Loesch, Chris Loesch, and Jim Hoft— used today’s gun safety rally in Downtown St. Louis City at Kiener Plaza to smear Mayor Francis Slay and promoted baseless United Nations-related conspiracy theories, such as falsely accusing speaker Dr. Robert Flood of “ceding United States sovereignty to the United Nations.”

Earlier today a bunch of well-heeled progressive women from the nice, safe part of Missouri rolled into crime-ridden St. Louis city to condescend to city residents and hold signs proclaiming “Moms Demand Action! For Gun Sense In America!” Because what mom doesn’t demand action for things, gun sense especially? These moms aren’t like those pro-Second Amendment moms, who apparently do not demand gun sense, whatever that’s supposed to mean. 

St. Louis City Mayor Francis Slay stood onstage behind speaker Dr. Robert Flood, who remarked how the United States should cede sovereignty to the United Nations because they can deal better with gun crime. You know, the United Nations that has has as members of its security council top-rated countries like Rwanda and Pakistan who are famous for citizens’ safety. 

I was a bit surprised by this; as Democrats go, Slay is perceived as a moderate. He’s never glommed onto the incendiary rhetoric his party has used or insulted the tea party. While his office did give some preferential treatment to the Occupy movement, he also cracked down on them shortly thereafter and threw them out of the park in which they were squatting. Mass arrests occurred and the Occupiers responded by defacing a city employee’s house and landmarks around the city. Personally, I’ve always had a friendly relationship with members of Slay’s staff which again, is why I am surprised that he attended this rally. It was anything but a non-partisan rally. Slay’s people are always careful to keep him from very polarizing events but in this case, they failed.  

Other failures of this rally: only around 150 people from around the area attended. Also, after hearing about class warfare and “one percenters” for a year, I found it hysterical to see that the rally seemed to only attract the most well-heeled limousine liberals. ” I wouldn’t expect these women to understand the realities of city life or the need for us city residents to protect ourselves. 

As a city resident, I find it absurd that our @mayorslay is conflating this 2A issue. Everyone is against illegal use. So what then?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Also find it a riot that the police chief was reportedly there when he once told me that to be armed is to be protected.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

2.1m incidents of firearms used in self defense annually. 10% by women. This STL city mom wants grabbers to stay out of her rights. #fgs
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

I live in the city. I sure don’t need some prog, bussed-in county women try to speak over those of us here who live with this daily.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

She smeared the protestors as “bussed-in from the County progressives.” I bet you if the protestors being bussed in supported Dana’s viewpoint, she would cheer it. 

Does @mayorslay agree with the other anti-2A speaker who demanded we turn US sovereignty over to the UN?thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/mayor-…
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Watch @stacyontheright ask @mayorslay if he agreed with the call to cede US sovereignty to UN at anti-2A rally today thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/mayor-…
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

As Dems go, @mayorslay has been regarded as a moderate, which is why I’m a bit shocked that he attended the far-left designed rally.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

The anti-2A rally was about everything BUT illegal guns. That’s a front. Same exact people were silent over Fast & Furious.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

So we had the mayor, police chief, and other city leaders participating in a rally where speakers called for US to cede sovereignty to UN.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Kind of a big deal that @mayorslay was standing on stage w/a speaker who demanded the US cede sovereignty to the UN. thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/shocki…
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Look at STL City mayor and leadership lined up behind speaker as he demands for the US to cede sovereignty to the UN. stltoday.com/news/multimedi…
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Love these suburban liberals who ride into a city where we live to tell OUR mayor to erode our 2A rights. Please. stltoday.com/news/multimedi…
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Your 2nd Amendment rights are NOT being eroded by these new gun safety proposals, Dana!

Lady in that last photo? She comes from a cushy neighborhood. She doesn’t need to think about her safety. Rape is a high stat in mine. I do.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Yes, please stand there in your Frontenac sunglasses and designer chapeau and tell us city folk how we need to disarm ourselves. Idiot.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Every woman I’ve seen in the captions at the anti-gun St. Louis rally? Not a single one lives in St. Louis city. A bunch of limo liberals.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

All these wealthy liberal women from well-to-do suburban neighborhoods came to the city where we live to stand against our 2A rights.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Same people who preached class warfare for a year show up to an anti-gun rally in the city donning designer duds. Hilarious.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

So yes, I am absolutely REVELING in ridiculing it right now.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

You are a deranged douchebag, Dana!

The only time those women are in the city? Cards/Rams/hockey game and maybe when they were younger for Mardi Gras. Period.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

WRONGO, Dana! That’s a blatant generalization. 

And then with all this, our mayor on stage with some far-left whacko who demands that the US cede sovereignty to the UN. STELLAR RALLY.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

I love my city. Born and raised. Long time booster. Fam lived in Hyde Park during the war. They came up from the farms to work in factories.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

All why I get obscenely indignant towards polices that would irreparably damage it.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 30, 2013

Her husband, Chris, also took to Twitter and piled on to the distortions:

Far more stabbing deaths, deaths by hammer etc… Where is your push? You do know they include suicides? @andy_borenzweig @deacondarrell
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 31, 2013

He repeated the “more people killed by hammers” lie.

I’m consistent, I wish we could protect a women, born & unborn. You would see them all defenseless. #Consistency @andy_borenzweig
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 31, 2013

He also an anti-choice zealot, just like his wife Dana.

The #NRA defended the rights of blacks in the South to arm themselves from the Democrats who wanted them defenseless. @andy_borenzweig
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 31, 2013

Look at the UK or Australia violent crime & rape skyrocketing after gun bans. A gun is a woman’s equalizer in an attack. @andy_borenzweig
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 31, 2013

Hey derpy derpson any semi-auto can do that with more power. Most deaths are from handguns in “gun-free” cities. #TruthAche @andy_borenzweig
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 31, 2013

I want to know why #proglodytes disregard the deaths of black youth & babies. The unholy fruits of eugenics = “gun-control” & abortion.
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 30, 2013

The #proglodytes would have us believe that murder is only bad when it isn’t in gun-control cities & happens in more than 1 or 2 at a time.
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 30, 2013

Not necessarily related to today’s gun safety event, but this tweet by him is so off the charts stupid that I have decided to call it our here:

When Obamacare is fully implemented how long do you think it will take before things like extreme sports are outlawed for medical costs?
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 30, 2013

Dr. Robert Flood, director of pediatric emergency at SLU, gave the keynote speech at the end of the rally. The good doctor urged supporters to call congress and turn your rights and sovereignty over to United Nations by supporting the Child Rights Act.

What a bust… Only 150 turn out for StL gun grabbing rally twitter.com/gatewaypundit/…
— Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) March 30, 2013

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

Guess who’s smearing gun safety supporters again? If you said the shithead Dana Loesch, then you’d be correct. She smeared Jim Carrey (a celebrity that she used to admire) for simply releasing a song that bashes Charlton Heston and NRA entitled “Cold Dead Hand.” 

TPM:

Jim Carrey has become the latest Hollywood star to wade into the gun control debate. The actor teamed up with Funny or Die to release a song Monday, titled “Cold Dead Hand,” that goes after gun rights advocates, specifically former NRA chief Charlton Heston, who died in 2008. 

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)