Gun Control

I have been bringing up the deafening silence on the campaign trail about the increased gun violence in our country. Obama addressed the problem this weekend by showing how close to home it hit for him:

At a town hall last night, Obama revealed that one of his top volunteers in Iowa was gunned down in the Omaha Mall shooting several months ago.

John McDonald, 65, was a precinct captain for Obama in Council Bluffs, Iowa (just across the border from Omaha). McDonald was Christmas shopping with his wife when he was gunned down.

Obama then offered some solutions, and they are solutions I also believe in:

Obama added that when shootings like these are "occurring every three months," it was indicative of a larger problem. He called for "common sense" gun laws including: stronger background checks to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns, said the COPS program, closing the gun show loophole and using new technology to better trace guns used in drug crimes.

He was quick to say that he believed in the 2nd Amendment, but he said the right had to be used responsibly. He compared restrictions on gun ownership to how one curbs free speech, saying yelling "Fire!" in a crowded town hall like this one violated that right.

I have never been one to say "get rid of all the guns". It would be impossible to do and cause many problems. I believe Americans do have the right to own guns. The problem lies in how easily they can get them. The shooters at Virginia Tech last year and Chicago a few weeks ago both bought their guns from the same place - the internet. Guns shouldn't be as easy to come by as collectibles on EBay. We need stronger background checks and to close the loopholes in the laws.

I can't say how glad I am that a candidate finally addressed this problem. Now if we can get them to address the growing problem of police brutality then America might be a little bit better.

Five women killed in what is being described as a store robbery in Illinois. As our economy continues to tank I am sure we can plan on seeing more of these crimes. It's just a simple fact - when people are down and out they will turn to extreme measures. What can be more down and out then losing your home?

When they talk about warantless wiretapping, Republicans are quick to say that the constitution should take a back seat to security. Well if we follow that login and apply it to the following news headlines this week, perhaps other rights should take a back seat:

Columbus mall shooting injures man in leg

Shooting occurred in two Christian places in US

9 Dead in Nebraska Mall Shooting

So let's take the Republican logic on our freedom of privacy and apply it to the second amendment. Perhaps it is time that we suspend it in the name of safety. Of course the Republicans and NRA will quickly denounce such a move, but we can easily call what is happening in our country terrorism.

When children draw posters that talk about the assassination of George Bush, they are questioned by the Secret Service. When someone makes a movie fictionalizing George Bush getting assassinated, that movie is blocked from this country. So then how can a rock star like Ted Nugent get on stage and make threats against two Democratic presidential candidates, who are already under Secret Service protection?

I think Nugent should be hauled in by the Secret Service and questioned about this behavior. The problem with this little display is that there could be that one person in the audience he is provoking to take thought to action.

I also think the NRA should come out and denounce what Nugent did and tell him they have no room for members like that. If someone does take Nugent's stunt to action then there will be another entire debate on gun control. Does the NRA want to have their position compromised by the ramblings of an idiot like Nugent?

If Nugent is scheduled to appear in your town, I recommend taking action to get his show canceled. Upcoming tour dates can be seen here. Also if there are any corporate sponsors of his concerts, they should also be contacted and asked if they support the promotion of assassination of our political figures. His actions are appalling and must be met with consequence.

UPDATE:

It seems the people who visit Power Line enjoy watching threats made against our presidential candidates. Maybe someone should ask Bill O'Reilly if he will go off on their hate filled rhetoric.

Also - Rolling Stone has picked up on the story.

Perhaps this is an example of how well the current system actually works:

A Virginia district court found Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho to be "mentally ill" and an imminent danger to others," according to a 2005 temporary detention order obtained by ABC News.

Virginia Tech police say Cho was taken to a nearby psychiatric hospital for evaluation in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.

So a court found Cho "mentally ill" and an imminent danger to other's, yet less than a year and a half later the same state allowed him to own a gun? Don't write a book critical of Bush or you won't be able to fly, but become a danger to other citizens and you can own a gun!

This new revelation has just really put the gun control argument into a new light. The laws need to change and need changed NOW! We have perfect reason fresh in our memory to make the changes and can not afford another tragedy like this. We always talk about change when something happens, but no change ever occurs. Any politician (Republican or Democrat) who refuses to address this situation and spark life into the debate on Capital Hill does not deserve support in 2008.

And all other drugs for that matter.

With the debate over gun control front and center again, we are constantly hearing that we can not ban guns because so many would be here illegally. Well isn't that the same thing that happens with drugs? Why are we wasting billions of dollars fighting a loss cause?

After you answer those questions then answer this one - how many people die from pot as compared to guns?

My blood boiled yesterday as I started reading right-wing blogs immediately jump on the "give everyone guns" mentality following the shooting at Virginia Tech. Details will still emerging on the deadliest mass shooting in our country's history, yet the wingnuts figured they had a political card to play here. Michelle Malkin had a post immediately following the breaking news, which linked to another post and said this:

Just imagine if students were armed. We no longer need to imag[in]e what will happen when they are not armed.

Ok - I'll play along. Let me imagine that. If we had students armed, there is a chance so many would not have died on April 16, 2007 on Virginia Tech, but how many would die on other days? How may boyfriends would get pissed at their girlfriends, or find them cheating and decide to use that "justice maker" they have under their coat?

Let's look at that another way. The descriptions show the gunman barging into classes and opening fire. If students had guns, chances are they wouldn't have time to react. Who says they even know how to shoot the damn thing or a good aim? Instead we could see a higher fatality rate yesterday. Another question remains unanswered - did the shooter use all his ammo? Did he take his life when he had only 1 bullet left to do so? If the students had guns, that could have given the shooter much more ammo to continue his rampage and we might be looking at a higher number of fatalities today.

As typical for the right, history teaches nothing. Sure there were no mass shootings like this back in the 1800's, but there was a lot more killings. Why? Everyone had guns. They were very easy to come by and people needed them just to hunt so they could eat.

Shortly after the news of this tragedy, White House spokesperson, Dana Perino, also took to the podium. At that time she offered the President's deepest sympathy's, but also this little line:

The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed