More on: Second Amendment Rights
April 17, 2013
Today the US Senate sent us a clear and plain reminder that our society lacks critical thinking skills, and that few are really engaged in civil discourse.
What troubles me most – as a dues paying member of the NRA – is that Wayne LaPierre – who apparently found a convenient way to avoid military service when his number was called – is busy manufacturing incendiary stories about ‘big brother’ and attacks on ‘Second Amendment Rights’.
Wayne is playing into a base of folks who didn’t do so well in school and may not really understand or appreciate what our forefathers were thinking back in 1791 when they proposed the Second Amendment.
If Wayne would just take the time to read the Second Amendment, he would likely learn that our Second Amendment – when it was adopted in 1791 – preceded the invention of: the electric light; the automobile; the internet; and the modern firearm.
That’s right. In 1791, the right to ‘keep and bear arms’ referred to single shot, black powder firearms.
If the NRA spokespeople and their posse want to preserve the rights granted under the Second Amendment, then I say: “Single shot, black powder!”
Rhetoric and debate: Over!
Second Amendment Rights
April 10, 2013
I found this in my SPAM folder today:
=============================================
Please find an important message from Senator Mitch McConnell below:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for joining me in defending our right to bear arms. Right now, President Obama’s allies in the anti-gun lobby are doing everything in their power to take away our Second Amendment rights.
The right to protect our family and ourselves from whatever threats we may encounter is precious, and we must defend it from Washington liberals.
They want to prevent law-abiding Americans from possessing a firearm while making it easier for criminals to use one against us.
As the Republican Leader in the Senate, I am working with fellow conservatives to fight back on the left’s attacks but I need your help to do so. If you believe that our Second Amendment rights are worth fighting for, will you please donate $5 to our cause?
The Second Amendment ended the “gun debate,” and it’s time for Democrats to understand that. Make no mistake about it; the far-left are using their allies in the Senate, the media, and White House to work to limit your ability to own a firearm.
Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters have been called “stupid” by Piers Morgan, and “heartless mother*****” by Jim Carrey. This vitriol from the left must be combated.
For Freedom,
Mitch McConnell
=================================================
Vitriol? How about Incendiary? The blatant lies about “… taking away Second Amendment rights” really need to stop. I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone messing with Second Amendment rights.
I’m an NRA member; I enjoy target shooting. But, until December 14, 2012, I didn’t know what an AR-15 rifle was. I assumed a rifle which looked like that was a military weapon. I was amazed to learn that this AR-15 was readily available in sporting goods stores, and had become popular among some residents in the Northeast, even across the U.S.
Curious, so I signed into YouTube, typed AR-15 into the search box, and it returned 7.6 Million hits!
I clicked onto a few of the video links, and it opened up a whole new world for me!
Can you imagine a young person who likes to play violent video games – say, Resident Evil 4 – clicking onto this YouTube video?
This is hunting? Home protection? Target shooting?
Second Amendment rights?
Let’s be honest with each other if we ever expect to have a reasonable and rational resolution to this debate…..
Drones, Drama & Filibuster: Oh My!
March 6, 2013
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on a CNN appearance in mid-February that support for President Barack Obama’s drone program was “very scary and worrisome” and he feared it could open a “Pandora’s box” about government’s power.
Today’s decision by Sen. Paul — who was elected in 2010 with support from the Tea Party – to orchestrate a genuine filibuster focused on the potential for the Obama administration to use drones to attack an American on U.S. soil is not a shock.
Scanning various news sources today, I almost concluded that Barack Obama invented the drone, and that he has been the unilateral champion of its use. Paul went so far to say that, “Obama will be the executioner-in-chief if he sees fit.”
What seems to be missing from the news reports is that the first U.S. use of an unmanned Predator drone in a targeted killing took place over eleven years ago (February 2002) in Afghanistan, near the city of Khost. In that case, CIA sources revealed at the time that the intended target was Osama bin Laden. Journalists on the ground in Afghanistan learned from local Afghans that the dead men were unarmed civilians gathering scrap metal.
Then-CIA Director Donald Rumsfeld explained: “A decision was made to fire the Hellfire missile. It was fired.” – This information was primarily sourced from an article John Sifton wrote which appeared in a February 2012 edition of The Nation.
A Reuters story which ran in the NY Daily News on March 3, 2013 tells us:
“Tens of thousands of domestic drones already are in use nationwide, with more to come. They hover over Hollywood film sets and professional sports events. They track wildfires in Colorado, survey Kansas farm crops and vineyards in California. They inspect miles of industrial pipeline and monitor wildlife, river temperatures and volcanic activity. They also locate marijuana fields, reconstruct crime scenes and spot illegal immigrants breaching U.S. borders.
Increase of use in drones by law enforcement, movie studios, environmental organizations and the news media, comes as the U.S. government prepares to issue commercial drone permits in 2015. Many of those already flying do so without the proper permits. Currently, just 327 FAA-issued permits are active.”
Prior to his decision to filibuster today, Sen. Paul had publicly pushed the Commander in Chief to declare his position on the use of drones. On February 21, Sen. Paul had said, “The question which I and many others have asked is not whether the administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction.”
In a March 4 letter to Sen. Paul, Attorney General Eric Holder said that such domestic use of drones is “entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.” Holder also said he couldn’t rule it out under an “extraordinary circumstance.”
Paul’s assertion that the administration has failed to provide sufficient assurances on the issue of drone usage is not universally supported among Republican legislators.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mi), chairman of the House intelligence committee said, “Any suggestion that the United States would use drone strikes against U.S. citizens in the United States is irresponsible. Suggesting that such a thing is being contemplated provokes needless fear and detracts attention from the real threats facing the country.”
Certainly, as this saga unfolds new information will emerge, meanwhile, it seems to be ‘much ado about nothing’.
Sequestration Solution
February 24, 2013
Given Speaker John Boehner’s recent attacks on the executive office regarding federal budget cuts he believes are appropriate and necessary to bring Federal spending under control, I thought I would take a look at the most recent Federal budget to see what all of the commotion is about.
It probably shouldn’t be a surprise that trying to read and/or understand the Federal budget is an almost impossible task.
I was able to find some detail that shows the budget for “Salaries and Expenses of the House of Representatives” is $1.25 Billon. Plus an additional $574 Million for “Members’ representational allowances, including Members “clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail.” Plus, hundreds of millions of additional dollars to fund: various committees; salaries and expenses of ‘officers and employees’; allowances and expenses; joint items; and more.
Although determining the full cost allocated to support the expenses of having an elected House of Representatives seems to be almost impossible, it was also not clear what effect – if any – sequestration might have on the members of Congress and their staffs.
We’ve certainly heard dire predictions of negative consequences regarding loss of services due to cuts to the FAA; Homeland Security; and Department of Defense.
If funding to support the bureaucracy of our elected officials in the House of Representatives and the Senate were interrupted and all of the elected officials and employees of the legislative branch were furloughed for a week, 2 weeks, even a month — would there be any negative consequences to our society?
If we need to incur some immediate spending curtailments, I say, let’s furlough the legislative branch! Let’s send Speaker Boehner home to Ohio for a month with no salary, no benefits and no staff. When he comes back in April, maybe he will be ready to talk Turkey!
Wizard of Oz & Sequestration
February 23, 2013
For the first 210 +/- years of our 2-party Democracy, we were blessed to have elected officials who were statesmen and who seemed to place the public good before their own personal agendas.
Since the birth of Americans for Tax Reform under the leadership of Grover Norquist – and subsequently the rise of ‘Tea Party’ backed candidates — we’ve witnessed a series of national dramas which seem to accomplish nothing, but waste scarce resources and divert our elected leaders from doing the job we elected them to do.
The only honest and sustainable way to reduce taxes is to re-engineer and reform government, and that requires a great deal of analysis, planning and making tough decisions.
It seems that some of our elected officials just don’t want to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work; then make the tough decisions which are supported by careful analysis and research.
We just can’t let a farmer from rural Ohio continue to hold our country hostage because of some wealthy campaign contributor(s) he is beholden to.
That’s not a Democracy: it is a ‘Wizard of Oz’ Dictatorship.
And that’s wrong, terribly wrong.
http://www.dccc.org/page/s/sequester-ja?source=fb_auto_share_sequester_ja
Many of the ‘fact checkers’ who examined President Obama’s remarks in his State of the Union address took exception to his notion that a $1 investment in quality early childhood education can return $7 in future benefits.
They cited some recent studies which have shown that the big vocabulary and social development gains for at-risk students in pre-kindergarten programs often disappear by the time these same students reach third grade. Unfortunately, one of the most recent studies (2012 HHS Head Start Impact Study) offered plenty of statistical data, but no explanation or hypothesis to address this counter-intuitive information.
In the U.S. we have 2 parallel childhood education systems: one for pre-K children which is federally funded and delivered through private, not-for-profit providers; the other for K-12 children which is funded by local and state sources and delivered through K-12 public school districts.
The funding streams are disconnected and the two systems are not required to talk with each other. It often turns out that children do not retain all of the benefits of a quality early childhood education program when the alignment and vertical integration issues between these 2 systems are ignored.
There is clear evidence which tells us that in those school districts where quality early childhood education (Head Start, etc.) is closely aligned and integrated with the K-12 structure, the performance drop-off is greatly reduced and/or eliminated.
A recently released report from Center for American Progress – http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/02/07/52071/investing-in-our-children/ – touches on this and makes some recommendations that might help improve the connection between the systems.
I personally love the idea of tying federal match funding to a robust Quality Rating Improvement System!
A recent pilot program – STEPS – took place in the South Bronx over 3 years, beginning in 2009.
The STEPS project was inspired by the questions surrounding the large number of students from low-income areas in NYC who continue to struggle in elementary school, particularly concerned with the students equipped with the solid initial advantages of Head Start who clearly were losing those advantages by the time they reached third grade.
One key finding of the project came from K-3 public school teachers who indicated that, prior to STEPS, they had received almost no assistance, training or tools to develop the skill set needed to understand and address the social-emotional issues that can undermine both individual student and overall classroom progress.
These teachers – several with over 20 years experience teaching in elementary classrooms – stated that – like child development – the field of social-emotional awareness is almost never covered in teacher training programs; and is almost never raised once teachers begin working.
Here is a comment from one second grade teacher who participated in the STEPS pilot:
“Nothing disrupts a class as much as a child having a melt-down. Nothing discourages the other children as much. And nothing makes a teacher more upset. Ask any teacher. But I have to tell you, I’ve been teaching for 24 years and never, not once – not in my own graduate school education, not in any professional development course, not in my supervision at school – did anyone ever give me the understanding, or the language, or the strategies to help me deal with kids’ social-emotional problems, before STEPS came along. It’s like no one wants to acknowledge that these things happen. It’s like it’s something we are all ashamed of. So until now, I’ve coped on my own.”
So basic and so powerful, yet it took until 2012 for someone to uncover this magic ingredient!
This and other related projects should be telling us that quality early intervention is important, and until we start to look carefully at our childhood education system from birth to 18+, we really won’t be creating sustainable and positive models which can improve outcomes for our future workforce.
Strategic investments in R&D programs like STEPS have tremendous potential in the area of human capital formation, and our future ability as a nation to be economically competitive, both domestically and globally, is closely correlated to the investments in strategic systemic change projects we make today.
The Second Amendment
January 23, 2013
It is true: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of our U.S. Bill of Rights.
Historians tell us that our Second Amendment was adopted in December 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The text of the Second Amendment is very simple: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It is so simple that it has caused 200+ years of discussion, debate and diatribe.
It is widely accepted that our Second Amendment was informed by the English Bill of Rights (1689).
Each seems to illuminate and continue an existing right at the time they were adopted.
The English Bill of Rights is slightly more expansive and specific than our Second Amendment.
One phrase from England jumps out as they describe a definition of “Arms”: “…That the Subjects …may have Arms for their Defence (sic) suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”
Our friends from across the pond may have been prescient.
However, it is unlikely they knew back in the 17th Century that the category of Arms would expand in the future to include: Gatling Guns; Machine Guns; Nuclear Arms; Howitzers; Bazookas; Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft guns; Sawed-off shotguns; Military Assault Weapons; and Semi-Automatic Hand Guns.
It would seem that in their effort to be brief and succinct, our U.S. Fore Fathers may have sold us short.
Now, let the Walrus be first to acknowledge: We do have rules and laws in the U.S. which generally prohibit ownership of some of these categories by people for home defense, target shooting and hunting.– including Nuclear Arms, Howitzers and Bazookas.
In 2013, those of us who feel the need to keep and bear arms are currently limited by some regulations on the types of arms which we are able to own, possess and use.
New York State recently passed some regulations which limit possession, ownership and use of certain semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
The hue and cry from the margin is huge. What has been categorized as “passionate opposition” to defining which weapons and accessories are inappropriate appears to be emotionally informed.
In a January 16, 2013 poll by Sienna College, banning assault weapons and magazine clips of more than seven bullets in NYS was supported by a margin of 73% to 26%.
Did NYS Governor Cuomo and the NYS Legislature violate the purpose and intent of our Second Amendment?
More on: Gun Control
January 14, 2013
I’m a New York State resident, and I’ve been following the recent activities of our legislators in Albany.
I applaud the bi-partisan work of the members of our New York State Assembly; the members of our New York State Senate; and NYD Governor Andrew Cuomo, to act swiftly and deliberately to negotiate and pass comprehensive gun control legislation in January 2013.
Assault weapons have no place in civilian hands in a civilized society. High capacity magazines are a necessary evil for law-enforcement and military purposes; they have no place in any civilian application.
No different than ownership and/or operation of a motor vehicle; possession, ownership and/or operation of a firearm should be predicated by background and identity checks; testing; registration and licensing; plus proof of liability insurance.
The frequently heard argument that the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is an emotionally charged and incomplete line of reasoning.
There is nothing stated or implied in the Second Amendment which tells us possession, ownership and or use of firearms should be unfettered and outside the purview of laws and regulations carefully designed to protect the interests of the greater public good.
It is unfortunate that the immediate reaction to any talk of ‘gun control’ emanates from (often overzealous) Second Amendment advocates.
The basis of our Second Amendment — which was adopted in 1791 — likely had very clear and relevant context to the 18th century, and to the events which preceded the Revolutionary War.
Now, more than 2 centuries later, it would seem to be helpful to have a rational, detached and thoughtful public discourse to include all facets of a 21st century centric debate on firearms and what makes the most sense for the majority of our fellow citizens today.
I have not met or communicated with any balanced and rational individuals who want to deprive any responsible American adult of their right to own and use firearms.
Nor, have I met or communicated with any balanced and rational individuals who want to deprive any responsible American adult of their right to own and operate motor vehicles.
It seems that through careful analysis and regulation, we have been relatively successful keeping unqualified and/or irresponsible individuals from operating motor vehicles.
I wonder: Why would any responsible and/or qualified American adult believe that we couldn’t accomplish the same outcomes with firearms?
Most gun crimes in New York City and the lower Hudson Valley involve weapons illegally brought into our state. Do we want to continue the illegal trafficking of guns into New York?
History tells us that — in 1791 — gang violence, assault weapons and drug trafficking had not yet been invented. Multi-shot hand guns did not appear until the early 19th century, and did not become commercially viable until 1856 when Smith and Wesson produced the first cartridge revolver.
Laws and regulations developed and designed around the technology, society and economy of the 18th century no doubt have some validity for our current society, yet may need to be carefully examined to see how and where some ‘tweaks’ might make them more relevant for today.
Thank you to Governor Cuomo and our New York State Legislators for taking some bold first steps to bring our state gun laws into compliance with the Information Age. There is more to be done, but you have accomplished some solid reform in January 2013.
Bravo!
Some Thoughts on Gun Control
January 5, 2013
It seems to be time for honest and productive discussion about firearms in New York State and across the U.S.
Although I do not currently own a firearm, I have in the past, and may do so in the future.
I occasionally enjoy shooting at targets and at clay birds. I know I don’t need an assault weapon, high capacity magazines or semi-automatic handguns to enjoy the sport of shooting. In fact, these seem to be the weapons of choice for the military and law enforcement, and unfortunately, for criminals and ‘gang bangers’, not for any hunters or sport shooters I’ve talked with recently.
I was recently in a conversation with some Alaskans who regularly hunt for meat.
Their reaction to using a handgun for hunting? “You’d have to be crazy or really stupid.”
Semi-automatic long guns with high-capacity magazines? “If you can’t hit the target with a couple of shots, you have no business being out in the field with a gun.”
Gun control doesn’t have to mean no guns. I’m not suggesting we take guns away from those who wish to own them and use them responsibly.
There just seem to be way too many gaps and loopholes in our current controls on acquiring and owning weapons, accessories and ammunition.
Gun show loopholes make no sense at all. Selling ammunition online seems to be a very controversial issue worthy of serious examination.
When we allow special interest groups to use emotional arguments which have dubious merit to enrage and inflame their ‘base’, we end up with non-productive and potentially destructive dialogue.
Driving an automobile is considered an American right, yet there are a number of steps required before a driver license is issued to an individual, along with regular oversight and renewal requirements. We require proof of insurance before we allow a motor vehicle to be registered. Why should firearms be any different?
It makes sense to me that possession and/or ownership of a weapon – particularly in densely populated urban areas – ought to come with a license requirement that includes mandatory background checks; psychological and medical evaluations; character references; and some sort of proof of insurance. Training and testing should be mandatory, and a license renewal process ought to be defined which ensures periodic re-evaluation of key variables.
If we want to preserve the right to responsible American citizens to own, possess and use firearms, a critical issue seems to be creating an environment which closes out the proliferation of possession and/or ownership by criminals and those others who don’t meet mutually acceptable criteria.
It would seem that if gun owners and non-gun owners could come together and agree on regulations that protect the right for responsible adults to own firearms while keeping them out of the hands of criminals and those who may be mentally unstable, we would end up with a much better, stronger and responsible outcome than we have today.
Owners of Handguns in New York State
January 5, 2013
On December 14, 2012, one individual — who apparently obtained by force several semi-automatic firearms from a family member — shot and killed 26 innocent victims at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT.
The firearms included one rifle – the controversial .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 — which by several definitions has been categorized as an assault weapon.
The other semi-automatic weapons were hand guns – one was a 10 mm Glock which can accommodate a 15 round magazine. The other was a Sig Sauer 9 mm, which can accommodate a maximum capacity of 20 bullets.
Following this tragic event, a nearby regional newspaper – The Journal News — filed a freedom of information act (FOIA) request with Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in NYS seeking the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in these counties.
By New York State law, the name and address of individual permit holders licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver – is public record.
Owners of ‘long guns’ — rifles or shotguns which can be purchased without a permit — are not subject to public record disclosure.
I just listened to a radio interview with NYS Senator Gregory Ball on the controversial ‘outing’ of the names and addresses of hand gun permit holders by The Journal News.
In the interview, Senator Ball was adamant in his opposition to releasing information (which is required under NYS law) based on his personal values and opinions.
Senator Ball has held elected office in New York State since 2007. Several times, he has taken an oath of office to “…support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York…”
The Journal News published names and addresses of hand gun permit holders from public record information obtained from Rockland and Westchester counties, which is both legal and appropriate in New York State.
Officials in Putnam County have refused to release the gun permit information to The Journal News.
Senator Ball has joined with other elected and appointed public officials in Putnam County to oppose the FOIA request from The Journal News.
This FOIA request seems to follow the laws of the State of New York; thus is fully in compliance with the Constitution of the State of New York.
It is my belief that NYS Senator Gregory Ball has violated his oath of office and thus should be sanctioned and removed from public office and further subject to any civil or criminal penalties which are available and appropriate for elected officials in New York State who flagrantly and blatantly violate their oath of office.
It is time for honest and productive discussion about firearms in New York State and across the U.S.
walrus51 