With people turning to gun violence during times of desperation and with the recession increasing incidents of desperation the MSM has been covering incidents of gun violence frequently lately. Of course in the MSM this topic always is an opportunity to discuss gun control. At the same time the Obama administration has been discussing gun control in relation to Mexican drug cartel violence on the border. In the MSM this leads to discussions that assume the return of the Brady Ban. I get the feeling that this is a wag the dog situation. Especially since it seems that reports in the MSM of violence on the boarder are inflated beyond all proportion.
My suspicions are raised even more that the MSM is just getting their gun control rocks off when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says that a renewed assault weapons ban would not be effective in reducing Mexican drug cartel violence.
I had previously remarked about the bill moving through Congress that would give full voting rights to Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.). In those comments I also remarked that it was interesting that John McCain was voting against more equal representation of the nations citizens on what appears to be party lines because the seat is expected to be solidly Democratic. People have tried to throw a red herring into this debate by claiming that only states can be represented in Congress. Which is an interesting academic debate from a legal perspective but in reality is a smoke screen for partisan bickering. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually has a principled stance on the nature of the state when it comes to representation in Congress like they do about gun control or abortion. It's a politicians issue and I seriously doubt that framing the issue in this way will get any traction.
To be sure, the Republicans aren't the only ones with partisanship dirt on their hands. The Democrats brought this up because they wanted the extra seat, and threw in the extra seat for Utah as a token gesture. That seat is likely to be just as solidly Republican but Utah was due that seat in 2000 and would be getting it in 2011 anyway after the next census so really, the Democrats aren't giving the Republicans anything of similar value to what they are attempting to give themselves. Still for me this is a freedom and democratic representation issue.
The real fun came in last week when the Republicans dusted off their old roadblock issue, gun control. This article comes from the same ignorant perspective that most MSM coverage of guns has but covers some interesting angles on the nature of gun politics in the Capitol. It pisses me off that in their effort to be as childish and partisan as possible the Republicans are dragging gun control into the mix. Sure it worked, but bringing an unrelated issue into the debate was crass and only indicates that these Republicans don't take a principled stand on anything. It's all politics.
The thing that pisses me off about this is that there is a legitimate reason for the Republicans to bring this up but they don't see it. They don't see it because they don't care about the Second Amendment. All they care about is political power and what they can get away with.
The real issue is the 5-4 decision in Heller. For gun rights Heller is Roe v. Wade. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep a pistol independent of any militia. That is a reasonably narrow interpretation but D.C. interprets the holding even more narrowly to only mean that individuals may keep a loaded single action pistol in their home. Which would mean a definition of "firearm" that is even more restrictive than the now expired Brady Bill and would mean that it is illegal to transport a firearm in any kind of working order. Lots of people on the abortion issue are eyeballing the Supreme Court and not just because of Justice Ginsburg's recent illness. (may she always be healthy and live to be 100) If D.C. can argue for their narrow interpretation successfully or if the balance of The Court shifts, the triumph of gun rights will have been short lived and the jubilation of gun nuts will turn to rage. Federal preemption of further suit by the fascists in D.C. will preserve the rights of law abiding citizens and help close a chapter of wasteful, ineffective, and unconstitutional legislation.
The NRA recently sent out a political advertisement that purports to be a survey of members political attitudes regarding gun control issues among other things. They say that this will be used to dispel myths about gun owners and to prove that gun owners are a voting block that needs to be catered to by the political elite. They obviously don't respect the intelligence of their own members since gun owners attitudes regarding gun control are not going to vary significantly enough to require a survey by a lobbying entity that they are members of. What is really going on here is the NRA is sending out anti-Obama propaganda to its membership. I filled out the survey and sent it back with a letter that chastises the survey makers for undertaking such an Orwellian propaganda campaign against their own members, and for filling the "survey" with straw men and red herrings. This type of propaganda is more insidious in a private communication like a letter since there is noone there to point out to the reader what is being done.
I am no fan of Obama but the far right wing nature of the politics of the NRA disturbs me. To me, being pro-gun is about freedom verses fascism, not about left verses right. The fact that John Bolton is a prominent member of the NRA and was given a hero's welcome at the national convention would be enough to raise questions about the motives of the NRA but that fact that they gloss over John McCain's anti-gun votes in their American Rifleman interview where he receives the NRA's endorsement leads me to believe that the NRA is more about promoting a Barry Goldwater type of politics rather than looking out for the Second Amendment freedoms of all Americans.
OK so the previous post was a bit of an act of contrition toward the old media that gets so much of a beating in the blogosphere because for some reason I have been feeling a bit guilty about the hard time they are given. Except the beating the old media gets is usually justified. If there was more first person reporting of actual news and less fluff and opinion then there wouldn't be any reason to bitch.
This post is a specific bitch about the way the old media has been treating Obama's world tour this week. Not only has there been more coverage of Obama's speeches and doings than McCain's, news outlets have dedicated their fluff space to speculation about what he will do next and commentary on whether his speech in Germany was historic or epic. The LA Times tries at some apologetics for the unfairness here. The unfairness is one thing but the outright bias is another. This kind of tour has happened several times before. An international policy tour by a presidential candidate that was not a sitting president has happened a few times in the past and McCain himself has done so. But this is OBAMA! So even when a program recognizes that fact, they still go out of their way to book a guest that insists this is a one of a kind event.
Obama needs to be on his guard with the media. Howard Dean was a media darling for his campaign till he started criticising them. Then the two faced serpent turned around and destroyed his political career.
In the mean time the freedom haters in the old media are trying to make an issue out of concealed carry in national parks. Concealed carry will be the battleground of the future in gun control since an outright ban is out of the question now.
The freedom haters in the Washington D.C. municipal government have written up a new law in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. This law is crafted to comply with the narrowest interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling and everyone involved agrees that this law probably does not comply, and there will be years of further litigation. Short of overt corruption and embezzlement, intentionally crafting unconstitutional laws is the most obvious violation of public trust a local government can engage in. These officials are dedicating the taxes of the people of D.C. for years to come in defense of their own belligerence. Their plan is to keep writing unconstitutional legislation that barely complies with the narrowest reading of each loss they suffer, presumably until they stop loosing or those fighting for freedom and our God given rights give up from fatigue.
The law they have written partially complies with the ruling in Heller depending on how much of it you read. The decision says an individual has the right to own a handgun for self defense, so the D.C. freedom haters have decided to allow some kinds of hand guns but not semi-automatics. That is in direct defiance of the part of Heller that says a weapon must be "unusual and dangerous" to be banned. Like most legal phrases that may seem vague but even a cursory glance at past Supreme Court rulings on firearms one will see this language occur and be defined.
The second part of the ruling that the D.C. legislation deliberately flaunts is that the requirement of trigger locks is also unconstitutional because it eliminates the possibility of self defense. You and I understand this as a pragmatic concern. If someone has broken into your home and is threatening you with lethal force you don't have time to find your keys and unlock your gun. D.C. has instead chosen to interpret this as meaning that the Supreme Court objected to the fact that the old D.C. gun ban would have punished someone for unlocking the gun to defend themselves when in immanent danger. So their response is to continue to require gun locks but write an exception where one will not be punished only if there is an immediate lethal threat to the person and only within their home. D.C. Attorney General Peter Nichols said, "We do not want people running around with loaded guns outside." Which shows that in D.C. they are still confusing law abiding citizens with murderous criminals. Its as if everyone is blind to the fact that a thirty year gun ban has done nothing to stop gun violence and that last summer reached a new record in murders for the District.
The extent to which D.C. will register lawfully owned guns is obscene as well. My favorite part of the hubris of these freedom haters is that they have generously decided not to prosecute anyone who was previously in violation of the unconstitutional law, but only if they come forth and register their guns as soon as possible.
After the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that the Second Mendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self defense there was much hand wringing from self righteous freedom haters across the globe. Editorial pages were filled with bias that dragged the national dialog down. The sense of loss was palpable among those who wished to ban guns. Even from news outlets that one would not particularly expect to have such a bias. Clearly they were upset that they have forever lost the possibility of not only banning guns, not only banning handguns, but also requiring trigger locks, and possibly also having to submit to concealed carry programs. All the editorials combined over the four days would be enough to give the impression that banning of handguns was a mainstream position without regard for whether or not it is true. One of the many reasons the MSM continues its fall from relevancy. Normally all this arguing that fear should trump freedom gets me really upset but now that the point is moot, I allowed myself to feel smug.
The worst hand wringing came from FBI director Robert Mueller who took the opportunity to go off topic and claim that universities are hotbeds for terrorist sympathisers. While he still maintained focus on what he was griping about, Mueller also managed to act as a fear monger when he wondered aloud whether guns would be allowed on university campuses. This after Scalia expressly stated in the majority opinion that gun bans on school and government property remained in effect and are reasonable restrictions on a citizens right to self defense.
Today the Supreme Court Ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individuals right to own and possess a firearm. Few people were suprised by this decision. Either in its ultimate result or in its scope. Scalia, who wrote the position for the majority, has previously written opinions for the court in gun control cases that are fundamentally similar to this result. The Court has said in the past that the right enshrined in the second amendment is an individual right but it is not a right without restriction. This can be seen in past cases regarding the federal ban on fully automatic rifles such as in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).
The cases and statutes throughout the United States have created a general guideline that seems to indicate an individual may own as many guns as they wish for recreation, sporting, or self defense, but may not own military equipment, and may be restricted in time and place of usage and transport within reason. The definition of what is military equipment changes frequently as can be seen by the recent expiration of the Brady Bill which forbid removable magazines of a capacity over ten rounds among other things. This most recent ruling not only ensures the individual's right to own and possess firearms, it also sets a line that may not be crossed in restricting type of gun and how it may be possessed and transported. This is because the D.C. gun ban that is overturned forbid ownership of a handgun. The court has clearly declared that this type of restriction violates the Constitution. The law also required registration of other firearms and that those registered firearms be locked when in the home. It is already well settled law that when transpiorting a gun one must have it locked and the ammunition must be locked in a seperate container, but today's Supreme Court ruling seems to indicate that a local law may not require that one keep ones guns locked in ones own home.
The ruling also seems to indicate that legislation requiring registration of firearms also goes to far. Many may not understand why this would be objectionable. After all, you have to register your car. The principle difference there is that there is no constitutionaly protected right to own and operate a vehicle. This is more than just a trite observation. Though a car may seem more essential to one's daily life, Congress may decide one day that cars are too dangerous and too polluting to allow in private ownership and ban them. However possession of a weapon is a right granted to us by our creator, like freedom of speech, and is protected by the Bill of Rights. The second reason to object to registration of firearms is a bit more paranoid. Firearm registration just gives the government a list of what law abiding citizens have guns ans what they have in their arsenal. The fear of armed government agents going door to door with a list and confescating the firearms of law abiding citizens in a time of emergency, when they are more likely to need them, is less paranoid when you remember that it happened and happened recently. When Bush suspended posse comitatus after hurricans Katrina and the national guard confiscated guns from people who were just trying to defend themselves from looters and murders who were roaming the streets after the disaster.
Despite the apparent clarity, the actual bounds of the Supreme Court's decision will be heavily litigated and fought over. The lawsuits have already started. As this article indicates these lawsuits by the NRA were already in the works before the decision came down.
I wish to preface what I am about to say by clarifying my position on Tasers and also preface that with this disclaimer, that the other contributers to this blog may not necessairly share my views.
I think the Tazer is a good and useful technology. I think it is a wonderful substitute for a gun or pepper spray for self defense, depending on your preference. If you feel threatened but don't want to kill anyone or are intimidated by a gun, then a less-lethal taser can give you a comprible amount of self defense in its ability to incapacitate. The Taser also has advantages over pepper spray because it is relatively contained and the effect is limited to the individual hit with the wires. With pepper spray you release a cloud of fine particles that can shift with the wind, cover your clothes, and should never be discharged indoors. I have accidentally pepper sprayed myself and being just as incapacitated as the person you are attempting to flee from is a ticket to disaster town. A taser is a weapon but is not a firearm and that legal distinction makes it far more practical as a person's self defense device since you can use them in more states and carry them across more state boundaries without fear of breaking the law. They are still subject to certain restrictions though.
My problem is not with the Taser devices. My problem is with the cops and thugs that use them as a weapon for torture.
Ohio is one of the few U.S. states where a judge may overrule the county coronor as to the cause of death on a death certificate. When the Summit county medical examiner ruled that three suspects had been murdered by police and that Tasers were partly responsible for the heart failure, Taser International sent is lawyers to Ohio to get a judge to change the record. yesterday they were successful.
I am not the least bit suprised that Taser International would use every means at their disposal to protect the reputation of their flagship product. Given the nature of how the devices tend to be used, I think they would appear to be better corporate citizens if they denounced misuse of their product by pointing out these are the actions of bad people and that their device does not have discretion as to who it electrocutes.
I see two odd clashes in the public statements of Taser International. They loudly proclaim their support for law enforcement. Cases like the one above lead to the assumption that this support of law enforcement goes beyond providing a useful tool to suport a necessary public institution, and actually extends to blind support of the individuals that wear the badge. Admititadly that is a bit of a strech. But it is hard to see this case as anything other than an interference with justice.
The second clash of policy with reality I see within Taser International is what I percieve as a sympathy for the arguments of the anti-gun lobby. It is commendable that Taser International takes every step possible to insure the safety of each of their devices. The instruction manuals are concise and effective, the models for civilian use are locked with a security code so only the person who purchased them can activate the device, they even sell a camera that attaches to the device that starts recording as soon as the safety is switched to the fire position so that there is video evidence that it was necessary to fire. It is admirable that Taser Interantional has chosen to go the extra mile in providing for the safe and proper operation of their products. This intersects with reality because the company and its devices cannot control when they are used. just like a firearms company cannot control when their guns will be used or who will get their hands on them. Once an object is sold it is beyond the control of the manufacturer. So the problem here is that while Taser International is not responsible for misuse of their devices by wicked cops or juvinile thugs, they inject themselves into these instances, insisting that their inanimate device that is beyond their control is incapable of being misused. My main point here is that the Tazer is a good and useful less-lethal alternative for self defense and law enforcement but Taser International needs a more mature and consistant public relations policy.
Not satisfied in violating one amendment to the constitution, the police of Washington DC have started a door to door campaign asking, "Got any guns?" Aparently this has been happeing in Boston for some time now. My favorite part is how suprised they are to experience resistance.
There are two issues going before the Supreme Court in the news today. The hearing challenging the Washington D.C. gun ban and a challenge to broadcast indecency regulation by Fox. Both of these cases have to do with the relationship of individual to one's government. And, in both of these cases freedom is being defended by right wing maniacs. The same maniacs who have been decidedly anti-freedom under the Bush administration.
It's difficult to defend freedom of speech when its offensive, and it's difficult to defend the right to have and use a lethal weapon without resorting to a slippery slope argument that evokes an opressive totalatarian 1984 regime.
Many of the Founding Fathers were philosophically libertarian. This philosophy describes the American way the individual relates to one's government. Power is vested in the government by the citizens and the purpose of the government is to preserve the rights of its citizens. This is the only way sovereignty can be legitimate. Under this philosophy, the rights delineated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not granted by the document but ensured by it. Every human has these rights, it is the purpose of government to ensure the freedom to use these rights.
Freedom can be a scary thing. Its hard to trust strangers not to abuse their freedoms and infringe upon ours, but that is the freedom that each of us gives up to live within civilization. As long as no one infringes on your rights, you do not have the right to be offended.
The national debate over guns is often depicted as having one side that declares, possessing guns is an individual human right, and another side that declares that guns kill people. I do not see these as counterpoints to one another. Saying that a gun kills is like saying water is wet. A gun is a tool for killing and a pistol is a tool for killing other humans. The point is so obvious that it overlooks a fundamental difference in ideology that stems from the Western fear of death. We believe that death is bad and killing is wrong as if they are intrinsic universal truths. In an urban life, separated from the terrifying freedom of nature, and surrounded by a comforting layer of concrete and glass it is easy to believe, "my life does not cause death," but that is not true. It seems to me that this is the same kind of foolishness that leads to veganism. Though, as much as I believe it to be foolish, it is each person's right to choose when it is acceptable to kill. And in a society where our killing is done for us by others, it is difficult to stop. I can only accept that by being alive that my life necessarily causes death, one day I will die, and something will eat my body.
All this wheel of life shit is too philosophical for the debate at hand. The point is that sometimes, killing is necessary. Sometimes it is necessary to kill another human being. For instance, in self defense when that human is trying to rape you, kill you, or severely injure you it is acceptable to use lethal force to protect yourself. Libertarian philosophy supports this conclusion and our laws regulate its effect by apportioning guilt. If you accept these two points, that there are acceptable times to kill and one of those times is to protect your person, the only remaining debate is one of tool choice and the question of banning guns becomes one of reasonable regulation. Should weapon choice be limited, and in what way?
Meaningful hard data is difficult to come by since through studies have been done by either side of the issue and anecdotal evidence can be pointed to by either side. In my recent posts on this blog I have referenced some stories from the past year that tend to support the conclusion that gun regulation either does not work or is counterproductive. One story noted a significant decline in violent crime in Detroit, every year for the last ten years since the passing of Michigan's concealed carry law. In the tragic massacre at Virginia Tech, the killer had been declared to be a danger to himself or others. Existing gun control laws prohibited him from purchasing a gun but he was able to anyhow, either because of bureaucratic bungling by law enforcement or through the negligence of the shop owner. Even more recently a gun toting maniac shot up a convent and was stopped from killing more people by an armed member of the congregation that had the lawful right to carry and had been a police officer.
One last point about the Second Amendment. The founding fathers were radical revolutionaries who had just overthrown their government through a violent war. They knew this was only possible by having armed citizens who could be loosely organized into militia when there was a need for extra military force. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Such an audacious quote brings me to the topic of freedom of speech. You are not really using your freedom of speech unless someone is trying to take it away from you. The gurantee of this freedom exists not to protect mundane and polite speech, but offensive, shocking, profane, and challenging speech. This is why freedom of speech means you do not have the right to be offended.
Speech is impossible to regulate. Profane language is derived from emotion and is meant to convey that emotional content. The power is only marginally in the words but it really stems from the emotional content they are meant to convey and the power we invest in them. You might as well attempt to regulate anger and criminalize rage.
Even if one could make a list of say, seven words, that must never be spoken and if that regulation can actually have an effect on stamping out those words. Other words will be granted offensive power by being filled with the same emotional content and social stigma making the old words meaningless and silly. Language is fluid and meaning changes in relatively quick time even in regular words. "Humbug" used to be a profoundly profane word and is hardly used today.
Further, such regulation is inherently self-defeating. Labeling certain words as taboo only encourages their use for the purpose of shocking others. Thusly, restricting a words use as profane, only enshrines its profanity, and further empowers it to do harm.
I am certain that this was the goal of the performers who used these offensive words and caused Fox to be fined by the FCC. It seems ironic to me that Fox, the network that curtailed political speech and freedom of the press through social pressure and jingoism in the frantic run-up to the Iraq war where the MSM failed its duty to the entire world, is the one who is fighting for a small victory for free speech. Then again, if anyone is going to go to court over profanity, its going to be the network that brought you "Who wants to marry a millionaire?"
According to the FBI violent cirime in Cleveland, and the US as a whole is down. However, Cleveland compensated for that by having an increase in murder this year. Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson has decided that the way to react to this is to crack down on drug dealers with guns. Its a reasonable reaction where stories like this, and this are an almost daily occorence. With each new national finincial crisis hitting Cleveland like its the red-headed-step-child of the nation the average Clevelander's life choices are limited to becoming a crackhead, becoming a crack dealer, or leaving the city and burning your bridges behind you because you don't want to be drawn back into this. If I didn't have to go into Cleveland every day I would be interisted in seeing how this would play out. Now my interest is akin to the Iraqi citizen forced to wonder how the surge will affect his life. The city council and the Mayor both agree that there will be a backlash from the city's criminal element as a result of this program.
>Which leads me to wonder how this will affect Ohio's concealed carry. We referred earlier to an article from Detroit where it was found in the same statistics submitted to the FBI that after six years of having concealed carry Detroit has seen a decline in violent crime every year. Showing that putting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime rather than increasing it like certain people fear. Ohio's concealed carry is entering its fourth year and this report from the Ohio AG seems to show that the market is reaching saturation for these permits. I have a couple of objections to these permits. First, they still seem like an unconstitutional regulation of a natural right granted to us by our creator and thus, not to be interfered with by men or governments. However, I must admit this is a nice and neet situation to put guns in the hands of decent, average citizens and ensure they are not criminals. The background check shows one is not a criminal, and the licence shows police this person is not dangerous even though they are in possession of a weapon. My second objection is that the licencing requirement amounts to a undue burden of cost and time comittment that prevents otherwise eligible citizens from getting the proper training and licence. This is analogous to the REAL ID act and local statutes that prevent voting if one does not have a government ID, which disenfranchises the poor and old. It is analogous because being armed is a right, not a privilege like the Ohio attorny general states. Again, I have to admit I don't see an easy alternative. Training and background checks are still necessary for the government to know it can trust you to roam the streets with a gun, and its also a good idea for a number of other obvious practical and legal reasons. Also, its not up to the government to subsidise the exercise of its citizens rights. In alot of cases its a good idea to support them with infrastructure, tax benefits, and with legal recognition. Again, contradicting myself, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason why the government should not conduct the training itself. Sure there are issues of cost but I don't know thats enough. For practical reasons it would be the best situation since the law in Ohio has changed in the past and one has to be careful that the private trainer one goes to will actually provide the minimum required by statute. That all being said, my larger point is one of enforcement and similar to one I have made in the past with regard to tasers. The police have difficulty differintiating between people who pose a clear and immidiate threat and persons going about their daily business but it is the police we have to rely on during this crack down on guns. Inevitibly people who were doing nothing wrong will be swept up and have their rights violated in this latest attempt to keep Cleveland from being a cruel joke of a city.
If there are any regular readers of this blog they may have occasion for confusion. We frequently assert positions in different blog articles that are contradictory. As an answer to that confusion, I direct your attention to the list of contributors to this blog. There are a few of us and we don't all hold precicesly the same viewpoint and that leads to different coverage.
For example, my collegue has a good point about the sponsorship of womens tazer parties could easily be construed as mysoganism.
Personally I wholeheartedly support this kind of thing as long as this is the kind of thing that happens organicly and is not some crass attempt to profit off of fearmongering.
You may also be confused to read that I am not against tazers. After all they are simply tools and have no moral value apart from how they are used. When a cop zaps the fuck out of a guy having a diabetic seisure, that is evil. When a law abiding person tazers a violent criminal, that would be a good use of the weapon. Under these circumstances the average person would be more likely to use a tazer in the way Taser International describes their purpose; they save lives by giving people an alternative to using lethal force. The average person is just walking around out there minding their own business, while the cops are roaming the streets looking for trouble.
This argument holds true for firearms as well. Take a gander at this article from Detroit of all places, describing the effect of increasing access to firearms to law abiding citizens over the last six years. Big suprise? Gun crime went down.
Though this may piss off Chuck Norris I must out Mike Huckabee as a religious extremist.
He talks like a politician and mitigates his insane position of radicalism to get applause. Hucabee believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible. He believes that it provides a perfect instruction on morality, history, spirituality, and science. He has also said that he believes that school children should be instructed in Creationism. Huckabee's position of a literal interpretation of the Bible has a broader implication for his potential as president. He has said that he would not keep his extremist religious beliefs seperate from his policy decisions. The televalgalist he worked for also echos this sentiment. For an example of how this kind of thing might play out, look to his prior position on AIDS. In the past he has advocated seperating those with AIDS from the population and later justified his position by claiming his ignorance about how it was spread was a widespread ignorance in 1992. Except at the time religious conservatives of his stripe were promoting this particular brand of ignorance for political reasons, based primairly on hatered of homosexuals. He has since tempered his position to one that sells better on a national stage. Perhaps Huckabee will only insist on a literal following of Leviticus as US law. Get ready to stop shaving and start stoning to death your smart ass kids.
At least hes sane enough to oppose gun control.
A person of any other religious persuasion would be a fringe candidate if they held these same kinds of views. But in America we almost require our politicians to be religious wackos. I blame Karl Rove. wikipedia-Mike_Huckabee
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html This is exactly the kind of story that gun rights advocates have been wanting for so long. Someone with a right to carry permit stopped a mad gunman from causing a bloodbath in a church. This is exactly the kind of thing that will be pointed to in any debate about gun control when someone mentiones the Virginia Tech massacre.
I acknowledge that it is bad taste to capitalise on the suffering of others for political gain. I only wish I were eloquent enough to be sensitive while talking about the grisly events of the day. I think this event raises some serious issues that need to be discussed, but people died. And it dishoners the memories of the dead to wave this tragedy as a banner.
Also, my first reaction to hearing this hero speak on the air today was actually one of revulsion. Hearing Assam say that God was on her side made my stomach turn and I shouted, "But God wasn't on the side of those who died?" In retrospect I was probably being too harsh due to my inherant discust for outward religious posturing.
I want to extend my sympathies to this brave woman and the bereved families. As well as my sincerest wish that the courage she showed today stays with her. Shooting someone, even when justified, can't be an easy thing to deal with.
With the speeches from Bush and Romney, the shit from Iran, and more interisting things going on, news of the shooting in Nebraska is being buried at the bottom of the ticker. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-06-mall_N.htm The only people who care are the Gun Control community. It should be noted that the weapon USA Today reports the shooter using was already illegal.
If tazers save lives like the law enforcement community argues, where were the tazers here? Why didn't a tazer save anyone?
