Pistol Packin' Fallin

[Teatownclown]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=504&articleid=20110319_16_A1_OKLAHO803659

Fallin supports concept of open carry....

The real is indistinguishable from the surreal.


and there's this!
N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — More than two months after the Tucson shootings, the
administration is calling together both the gun lobby and gun safety
groups to find common ground. But President Obama has no plans to take
the lead in proposing further gun control legislation, aides say, and
the nation's major gun rights group is snubbing the invitation.

On Tuesday, officials at the Justice Department will meet with gun
control advocates in the first of what will be a series of meetings
over the next two weeks with people on different sides of the issue,
including law enforcement, retailers and manufacturers, to seek
agreement on possible legislative or administrative actions.

The effort follows Mr. Obama's call, in a column on Sunday in a Tucson
newspaper, to put aside "stale policy debates" and begin "a new
discussion" on ways to better enforce and strengthen existing laws to
keep mentally unstable, violent and criminal people from getting guns.

But the National Rifle Association, for decades the most formidable
force against proposals to limit gun sales or ownership, is refusing to
join the discussion — possibly dooming it from the start, given the
lobby's clout with both parties in Congress. Administration officials
had indicated they expected that the group would be represented at a
meeting, perhaps on Friday.

"Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that
have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the
United States?" said Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of
the National Rifle Association.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html

Intelligent people discuss the issues.....

[heironymouspasparagus]

The issue has been discussed to distraction.  It is much like the Palestine/Israel "discussion" - there can never be a discussion when one side refuses to concede the right to exist of the other.  Like the Brady Bunch who refuse to concede the right of the people - remember the US Constitution? - to keep and bear arms. 

So how can there be a discussion??

[Teatownclown]

The law on open carry varies considerably. Seems like a good precis here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States


I'm more of a first amendment aficionado myself so I'm thinking we need to start carrying big sex toys strapped to our hips, preferably in holsters made to look like labia (or the orifice of your
choice... getting to choose your orifice for symbolic speech is pretty much what it's all about) . 

[Conan71]

The letter the leadership of the NRA sent President Obama was pathetic.  It's nothing more than a chance for Cox and LaPierre to try and show NRA members what big shots they are by smacking down the President.  Letters like this do nothing to help with bi-partisan solutions and help further the mistaken image of NRA members being neanderthals.  I'm not happy with the tone of it a bit and there's a groundswell of fellow ORA members who are trying to get our message up to LaPierre and Cox. 

Oh, and open carry sucks.  There's an all out lobbying effort to get this stopped.


March 14, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:
We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star.  However, to focus a national dialogue on guns – and not criminals or mental health issues – misses the point entirely.  Americans are not afraid of gun ownership.  To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.  The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.

We agree with your assertion that "Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing" in light of the shooting in Tucson .  In truth, the professional corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lightning speed to exploit the tragedy.  These included the Violence Policy Center ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly"), the Brady Campaign ("Gabrielle Giffords Shooting 'Inevitable'") and Mayors Against Illegal Guns-MAIG ("Bloomberg, Mayors Outline Steps to Help Prevent Another Tucson Shooting").   Your article contains talking points nearly identical to the ones circulated by MAIG for weeks in pursuit of its longstanding gun control agenda.  In contrast, it was the National Rifle Association that avoided "playing politics with other people's pain" with our consistent response that only thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families were appropriate in the immediate aftermath.

We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.  Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners.  In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.  In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington , D.C. 's and Chicago's handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.  Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely.  More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date.  Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.

The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people – not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets.  To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. Attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms.  By prosecuting these criminals in federal court – rather than state court – strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, your Administration is currently under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law.  We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE's "Fast and Furious" operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected – and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms "walk" across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels.  One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue.  Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws – and undermined the firearm industry's concerted efforts to deter straw purchases through the "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" program.  We hope you agree with our belief that this burgeoning scandal merits a full and independent investigation.
There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future.  One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage of their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior.  If media outlets won't show a fan running onto the field during a baseball game because they don't want to encourage that behavior by others – surely they can listen to law enforcement experts and refuse to air the photographs, video messages, or Facebook postings of madmen and murderers.

Another step is to encourage people to report red flags when they see them.  In the case of Tucson , a man clearly bent on violence was not reported to the proper authorities by those who had good reason to believe he had serious mental problems.  That's not a deficiency in our gun laws, it's a deficiency in our mental health system – and should be treated as such.

In closing, we agree that gun owners in America are highly responsible. This is in large part due to the NRA's 140 years of dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership, an effort on which we take a back seat to no one.  We welcome any serious discussion on policies that focus on prosecuting criminals and fixing deficiencies in the mental health system.  Any proposals to the contrary are not a legitimate approach to the issue.

Sincerely,
Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association   Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan,
What bi-partisan solution?  Get everyone to agree that guns are bad and should be taken away from law abiding owners??

That IS precisely what the "bi-partisan discussion" is all about.  One side wants to outlaw guns and the other says no.  And neither is ever gonna agree with the other. 

We have 10's of thousands of gun laws in this country.  Too many of which are NOT enforced.  (As in the local case of Mark Allen Eaton - you remember my diatribe on him.  Plead guilty to felony assault and the judge and DA and defense get all cozy and say, no, we don't believe that, you must be mistaken, so we will wait 10 years to see if you actually kill someone next time...)  And no, I don't blame the defense attorney for any of that mess.  He did a great job and if, God forbid, I should ever need that type of help, he is on the top of my list to call.

[Conan71]

Conan,
What bi-partisan solution?  Get everyone to agree that guns are bad and should be taken away from law abiding owners??

That IS precisely what the "bi-partisan discussion" is all about.  One side wants to outlaw guns and the other says no.  And neither is ever gonna agree with the other.  

We have 10's of thousands of gun laws in this country.  Too many of which are NOT enforced.  (As in the local case of Mark Allen Eaton - you remember my diatribe on him.  Plead guilty to felony assault and the judge and DA and defense get all cozy and say, no, we don't believe that, you must be mistaken, so we will wait 10 years to see if you actually kill someone next time...)  And no, I don't blame the defense attorney for any of that mess.  He did a great job and if, God forbid, I should ever need that type of help, he is on the top of my list to call.

Actually not.  I'm hardly an Obama spooner or apologist, but I've never heard him say anything along the lines of guns being banned nor that he doesn't appreciate our 2nd Amendment right.  The President started out saying we needed to address the mental health system and reporting to prevent people like the creep in Arizona from getting a weapon and ammo.  The NRA started up with their stock: "They're coming for our guns!  Oh Gawd! Renew your NRA memberships now so we can protect you."

The 2nd Amendment is as here to stay as Rowe V. Wade.  It's simply not going anywhere no matter what lobbyists, SIG's, political candidates, and the fear mongers who can profit off it want you to believe.

And so it goes.  NRA needs to come to the table and help identify how a better reporting system can be put together to keep the gun control folks happy.  NRA would put on a much better face by at least sitting down at the table and seeking to come up with workable solutions which make everyone happy.  Their approach was 100% adversarial.  You simply cannot advance knowledge and understanding when one party won't even come to the table.

I think the NRA and other advocacy groups have distorted facts and spread fear to increase the membership and fund raising rolls.  Remember, NRA IS a business first and foremost. 

[Teatownclown]

Heir....Gus , seems like there are some planting these stories with the intent of side tracking the open carry issue....
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20110321_16_A10_Patien18915&rss_lnk=1

Are there some here who got their guns under the radar???

[heironymouspasparagus]

He talked about it repeatedly and voted with the ant-gunners repeatedly in Illinois.  No, he has not said a word since the election.  I am very pleasantly surprised.  But he also still supports the crap going on in Chicago and Illinois.

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

And lest you be worried about the above source, check the references/footnotes.  All from other locations.

So, by your own reasoning, we should be able to sit down this weekend - maybe at Top That pizza - and discuss your conversion away from the extreme right positions currently held.  We can start out with something easy like that rather than jumping right in to gun control.  It will be good to have you approach all topics from a reasonable, moderate position.  Like taxes - if enough people who think like you become more reasonable, then we can start to do something effective to help the debt situation in this country.

[custosnox]

He talked about it repeatedly and voted with the ant-gunners repeatedly in Illinois.  No, he has not said a word since the election.  I am very pleasantly surprised.  But he also still supports the crap going on in Chicago and Illinois.

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

And lest you be worried about the above source, check the references/footnotes.  All from other locations.

So, by your own reasoning, we should be able to sit down this weekend - maybe at Top That pizza - and discuss your conversion away from the extreme right positions currently held.  We can start out with something easy like that rather than jumping right in to gun control.  It will be good to have you approach all topics from a reasonable, moderate position.  Like taxes - if enough people who think like you become more reasonable, then we can start to do something effective to help the debt situation in this country.

I personally believe in gun control.  I like to make sure I hit where I'm aiming.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Was listening to NPR this morning about Chicago crime.  With only the mildest touch of 'gun control' sentiment - which I can live with - I like NPR a lot.  Anyway they were talking about all the different murders and shootings of kids in the area.  90% of the shooting/killings occur in less than 10% of the city.  They were highlighting a group (informal) that resist the gangs and one kid in particular who was shot (survived) because he wouldn't join.

With all the talk about education we have had here, I'm wondering if there might be a way for "spot" application or concentration of effort in areas like that?  Surely in the last 50 years of flawed social experimentation, there should be some good ideas.  We can keep the government functionaries out of it - just take the money - and give it to me and I will go find good places to put it.  (My wildly optimistic, Polyanna moment.)

Ok, back to normal cynical self....

[Conan71]

He talked about it repeatedly and voted with the ant-gunners repeatedly in Illinois.  No, he has not said a word since the election.  I am very pleasantly surprised.  But he also still supports the crap going on in Chicago and Illinois.

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

And lest you be worried about the above source, check the references/footnotes.  All from other locations.

So, by your own reasoning, we should be able to sit down this weekend - maybe at Top That pizza - and discuss your conversion away from the extreme right positions currently held.  We can start out with something easy like that rather than jumping right in to gun control.  It will be good to have you approach all topics from a reasonable, moderate position.  Like taxes - if enough people who think like you become more reasonable, then we can start to do something effective to help the debt situation in this country.

I'm pretty moderate on most issues.  Sure I've got deeply-held beliefs, but I realize true progress only comes with compromise.  I don't and never really have approached things from the extreme right.  I'm considered socially liberal simply because there are certain moral and spiritual issues I don't think the government has business poking their nose in like abortion or gay marriage.

Back to the matter at hand, I totally disagree with gun control.  I have no problem with gun user control so long as it doesn't greatly impede the ability of sane people with lawful intentions to conveniently acquire arms and ammunition.  At some point, we have to realize there are perils to living in a free society and part of dealign with that is affording the right to those who want to assume responsibility for protecting themselves to be able to do so as they see fit.

I don't agree whole-heartedly with the argument that HPPA laws must be observed at all cost so that rules out mental health facilities reporting known nut jobs to a national database.  Yes, we've got a right to privacy, but gun laws specifically prohibit the mentally and criminally insane from owning weapons legally for good reason.  We have to decide whose rights are more sacred, those who might be targeted by someone who is insane?  Or can we safely assume that someone who cannot legally get a firearm who really wants one will get one into their hands?

All we can do then when the smile hits the fan again, as it will, is to be able to say the shooter didn't obtain the gun as a failure of our ownership screening. 

What other solutions are there really with millions upon millions of guns out there? 

That's what NRA needs to be asking instead of telling the POTUS to kiss their donkey.

[Teatownclown]

When I was a kid, I opened a switch blade with a red pearl handle and the salesman started to tell me how to close it. I said he had already explained that to me at the last two shows and the knife kept being there with a $35 price tag on it and would he take $20? He turned around and said "Dad, will you sell the Godfather for
$20?" And dad said yes. As I gave him the money he said "You can have this in your home or in your collection but its illegal to carry."

It was a real stiletto, a skinny stabbing blade 3 3/4" long, and very strong spring so it popped open fast. We're talking here about open carry of fire arms. Surely the law concerning switch blades disappeared with
the late lamented Sal Mineo. Didn't it? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Don't know.  Haven't had a switch blade since my first trip to Mexico when I was 14.

Compromise is pretty much all gone in today's public discourse.  The NRA is very much a product of the times.  I have watched them morph since the '60s into a pretty shrill organization.  Reacting to increasing shrillness from the other side.  We just can't seem to get straight.  Looking at history, don't think this is really much different from the deep dark past.


Moral issues - me too.  I feel the government is putting its presence places it doesn't belong and neglecting places where it does belong. 

We will always have opportunities for people to get guns outside of any method or technique that might try to stop it.  Look at Chicago and Washington DC.  Classic cases.  And that would extend nationally if the laws were, too.  (I have heard estimates of 190 million guns in the hands of law abiding citizens in this country.  Owned by over 80 million of us.  Just about 2.5 for each owner.)

[Teatownclown]

Ah ha! So, did you declare this weapon upon re entering the country? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

What weapon?