|
What the Gunners Want I & II by Steve Jonas |
|
|
|
February 3, 2012
What the Gunners Want: What's in Rick Perry's Pocket, Unlimited.
Remember way back when the leading candidate for the GOTP (read Grand Old/Tea Party, they are inseparable) nomination for President was Gov. (Rev.) Rick Perry of Texas. Among many other things, the preacher (1) is also a "carrier." In Tex-lingo (actually in southern/southwestern lingo generally) "carrier" means that the person is carrying, or might be carrying, a concealed weapon (usually loaded). The governor has stated (boasted) that he "carries" a .380 Ruger pistol (2) decorated with the etching of a coyote to commemorate the little member of that species that the governor shot last year while out on a morning jog. The gun is described on its website as "one of the best concealed carry firearms for anyone needing a small-frame semi-automatic pistol that can easily fit in a pocket, purse, briefcase, etc." The governor's has a laser sight (you know, the one you see in the movies that puts a dot of red light on its targets) and is loaded with hollow-point bullets (designed to do maximum damage to human flesh, if it encounters some).
The governor is a strong supporter of "Second Amendment rights," the version that distorts the literal meaning of the Amendment to mean the unlimited individual "right to bear arms" without any controls whatsoever. (This could in theory lead to the private ownership of tanks (3), but no one ever seems to want to engage the NRA on that one.) That's an interesting argument when one examines the plain language of the Amendment (3): "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." Along with Justice Scalia, you might be surprised to know, I happen to be a big fan of strict constructionism when interpreting the Constitution. (Of course Scalia honors that commitment only in the breach, but that's another story.) The Amendment is somewhat ambiguous to be sure. But in reading its plain language, it is quite obvious that it can mean only one of two things. One, it provides a right to the people, in the protection of the free state, to form well-regulated militias. Or two, it provides to individuals the right to bear arms, in a well-regulated system for the protection of the free state.
At any rate, and Scalia's court goes along with this, Governor Perry is a big "2nd Amendment guy," meaning in his terms you can "carry" just about any firearm you want to, any way you want to. It is interesting and most informative to examine what this actually means. One way to do so is to look at the current list of "gun rights legal actions" being supported by an organization called the "Second Amendment Foundation."
According to Wikipedia, "The Second Amendment Foundation or SAF is an educational- and legal-defense organization which describes its mission as "promoting a better understanding about our constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, SAF carries on many educational- and legal-action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun-control debate.' " To understand what the SAF is actually about, one can take a look at the legal actions that SAF is currently supporting (according to a list of them sent by mail in September, 2011).
It wants there to be broad license to carry assault rifles (California).
It wants very strict limits on what can be limited in states and localities that have gun permit laws (e.g., New York City, New Jersey, San Diego).
It wants there to be no limitation on sales of guns in any one state to out-of-state residents (Virginia).
It wants there to be no limitations on the ownership of guns by legal alien residents (Massachusetts).
It wants no limits on gun ownership for persons convicted of non-domestic violence (Georgia).
It wants no limits of any kind on gun shows being held at county fairgrounds (Alameda Count, CA).
It wants gun ranges open to the public to be allowed just about anywhere (Illinois).
In gun permit states it wants there to be no "good cause" standard to be applied to the review of applicants for such permits (New York).
In gun permit states, it wants there to be no limitations on the types of handguns an applicant may be permitted to carry (California).
And so on, and so forth. Just "no limits," folks, know what I mean?
If you think things are bad now (about 35,000 handgun-related deaths per year on the US), just think how bad they might be under a President who "carries." (Funnily enough, if he were to become President, now unlikely in the upcoming election for obvious reasons, the Secret Service probably would not permit him to carry. Much too unsafe for the President of the United States to be walking around with a loaded handgun, don't you think?)
There is very little "outcome of gun ownership and use" research going on in the US now, especially federally-funded research. The latter has been virtually shut down by the NRA, through its Republican and Democratic allies in Congress. As to where the NRA derives its support, they aren't telling. Polls show that about half of the NRA membership thinks that there should be some regulation of gun ownership, especially handguns. However, neither of the other major NRA funders, the gun industry and the gun dealers, agrees. One must wonder, then, if the NRA's primary interest is not the right to bear arms, but the right to sell them, of any type, to anyone and everyone.
Postscript: After I wrote an earlier version of this Commentary, the cover headline on the Long Island, NY newspaper, Newsday, for Sept. 23, 2011, read: "Cop Warned 5 Months Before the Killings: Take His Guns Away." The article referred to a man who had walked into a pharmacy, murdered a pharmacist and three customers who just happened to be there, and swept the shelves of prescription drugs he was addicted to. He did have a gun permit. The police officer referenced had warned the Nassau County's Pistol Bureau that the man's permit should be revoked, for cause. As of Sept. 29, 2011, it was unclear whether the Bureau had made an investigation or if so, what its conclusion(s) were. However, one can only guess as to what the position of the Second Amendment Foundation would have been had they indeed done an investigation and indeed suspended the permit "for cause."
Part II
Part I of this series (1) was entitled "What the Gunners Want: What's In Rick Perry's Pocket, Unlimited.” I simply sought to present to readers what one of the leading "pro-gun rights" organizations, the Second Amendment Foundation (2), to which I happen to belong, is putting forward as its program, at least as seen through the lens of the court cases that it is pursuing around the country. According to Wikipedia, "The Second Amendment Foundation or SAF is an educational- and legal-defense organization which describes its mission as "promoting a better understanding about our constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, SAF carries on many educational- and legal-action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun-control debate.' "
Now, among other things I did point out that a literal reading of the Second Amendment, "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,” means one of two things. Either it provides a right to the people, in the protection of the free state, to form well-regulated militias, or it provides to individuals the right to bear arms, in a well-regulated system, for the protection of the free state. However, the present Supreme Court, "strict constructionist" as it is, doesn't agree with that interpretation, so gun-ownership is wide open. Of course, even when one disagrees with Supreme Court rulings, one must go along with the present law of the land (except of course when it comes to such things as religious belief and abortion rights where according to some murder is excusable, but that is another matter). I also pointed out that the NRA position on firearms ownership means that one has a right to own any of them, up to an including a tank, or at least the gun part of a tank. But the principal focus of the column was on the SAF and what it is fighting for in court cases around the land.
Well, somehow I hit a sensitive nerve on the part of a couple of readers. One said in part (3): " The 2nd Amendment does not mean one can own tanks and hand grenades. That is just inflammatory propaganda." Gee, Mr. Erickson, if the 2nd Amendment means what the NRA says it means, why not? If it does not mean that, and that tank ownership can be limited, regulated, or even banned, why would not that rule apply to any other type of firearm? One answer could be that "Tanks (or bazookas or rocket-propelled grenade launchers) did not exist at the time the 2nd Amendment, and thus they would not be covered by it.” Well neither did assault rifles or pistols that can carry cartridges holding 15 hollow-point bullets exist at that time. Further according to that reasoning the President would not be Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, for it is not mentioned in the Constitution.
So if you can't regulate one kind of weapon that didn't exist way back then, you cannot regulate another either. The NRA is very clear on this question. Its position is that there is a "fundamental, individual, right to own guns" (4). And a gun is a gun, is it not? Of course there is the problem of the tank part of the tank. The question of a driver's license requirement might come up as well the matter of liability for potential damage to the public roads. But I'm sure that the NRA could come up with an answer for that dilemma.
Another reader wrote (5): " It is obvious that Mr. Jonas is neither a student of history, or a criminologist. . . . There are many thousands of restrictive gun laws on the books. Of those, not even one can be shown to have reduced violent crime or homicide. . . . . But if you want to live in a world free of crime and violence, you will want law abiding citizens to be able to buy, keep, and carry firearms." Ah yes, let's start off with the old reliable ad hominem attack. Then let's follow it up with a misrepresentation of facts. There are not "thousands of restrictive gun laws on the books." The NRA has seen to that very well. And anyway, if there were, how could the US possibly be as awash in guns as it presently is.
As to the effectiveness of gun limitations on a state-by-state basis, as I pointed out in the column, how can we know what is really going on since the NRA has been able to squash virtually all gun-violence-related research, at least that which might be Federally-funded in any way. However, the comparisons of both gun violence and crime rates with those of other countries that have strict gun-control laws are instructive (6). On the other hand, let's say all that data is wrong or mis-interpreted, as some do (7), and that the more gun ownership the less crime. Would that not be an argument for mandatory gun ownership by everyone (well, with certain groups like criminals, terrorists, potential criminals and potential terrorists excluded)? And then there could be an argument for mandatory training in the use of firearms, let's say starting in grade school. But we would have to think about that carefully, because that might lead to mandatory owner licensing and weapon registration (something I have advocated for donkey's years) and we couldn't have that now, could we?
As to how to regard the NRA on all this, I will leave that to another commentator on my column, an NRA member himself, using language I did not (8): " I can quite agree that the "leadership' of the organization are primarily shills for the firearms industry, fundraisers for fascist causes, and Wayne LaPierre is, in my opinion, a mentally unbalanced propagandist. His recent statement that the Obama administration not having done anything to restrict firearm ownership is proof that they are going to take away our guns is demonstration enough of that assertion."
But really, folks, the primary focus of my previous column on the subject of guns was to simply put out there what the Second Amendment Foundation is fighting for, in the courts, all around the country. And that makes me "anti-gun?" My-oh-my. If that makes me "anti-gun," doesn't that tell us something about the 2nd Amendment Foundation, its supporters, and the positions that they take?
|
|
|
North Carolina Youths Needed for Leadership Program in Iraq |
|
|
|
NORTH CAROLINA NEEDED FOR YOUTH LEADERSHIP PROGRAM WITH IRAQ
February 2, 2012
Raleigh, North Carolina – This summer, from July 25 - August 19, 100 Iraqi
teens and adult participants will visit the United States under the auspices of the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The International Affairs Council (IAC) is host and administrator of the program in North Carolina and is working in partnership with the U.S. Department of State and World Learning on program planning and recruitment.
Two - four teenagers from the Triangle area have the opportunity to participate with Iraqi youth in the youth leadership program and join them throughout many city stops in the U.S. All expenses will be paid under the conditions of the grant.
In order to participate, Triangle area youth must be American citizens with
leadership skills and an interest in international affairs. Youth candidates must be between the ages of 16 and 18 years and will be selected based on interest in community service and ability to relate to people of other cultures.
An information flyer with application instructions is available on the IAC web site at www.iacnc.org and the IAC Facebook page: International Affairs Council. For more information and to ask questions, please call 919.838.9191.
The application deadline for the Iraqi Youth Leadership Exchange Program is
February 29, 2012.
About the International Affairs Council
The International Affairs Council (IAC) connects people, ideas and culture for the good of North Carolina communities and communities abroad. The council annually hosts a number of professional and youth exchange programs, culture events, speaker events, and educational programs. For more information, please visit www.iacnc.org
|
|
|
Reluctant Prophet by Uri Avnery |
|
|
|
February 3, 2012
Uri Avnery received the Leibowitz Prize for his lifetime achievement in peace. His remarks follow.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Three Little Words: Newt, South Carolina, and Beyond by Steve Jonas |
|
|
|
February 1, 2012
South Carolina. The first state to pass an Ordinance of Secession, on December 20, 1860. Lincoln had been elected President. He would not be inaugurated until March 4, 1861. He had frequently declared during his campaign that he had no intention of attempting to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states in which it then presently existed, for it was Constitutional, in them. He made it clear that he not an abolitionist in any sense of the term. He was, however, opposed to the unlimited expansion of slavery into the Western Territories. That was enough for South Carolina. On April 12, 1861, the shots that began the First Civil War were fired at the Federal Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.
South Carolina, where off and on the Confederate battle flag has flown above the State Capitol since 1962, when it was put there by the state legislature as part of their organized resistance to the growing civil rights movement.
South Carolina, whose junior senator, Jim DeMint, said, during the dragged-out debate on President Obama's health care reform initiative, that the GOP would "break him" over it. In the South, the term "break him" has a special meaning. It was what the slave masters would do, physically, to slaves who resisted the lash in any way, up to and including attempting flee. It was commonly used to punish the periodic attempts at slave revolt. The term meant literally taking the slave in question and breaking him or her, sometimes into pieces, more often breaking their will to resist in any way, through the use of physical and mental punishment.
And so Newt Gingrich came to South Carolina, behind in his race with Mitt Romney. What does he do then but utter three little words, now very well known to come from his mouth because they do so often: "food stamp President." Now Newt is from the neighboring state of Georgia. One does not often think about that because for reasons unknown he doesn't speak with the classic Georgia accent. But he is from the South and it does take a lot of conscious work for white Southerners of his age to lose their racial prejudices. Newt may or may not be personally prejudiced. That is not the question and in fact it is really immaterial. What is material is that he plays the race card openly and makes no bones about it.
The food stamp program is of course a national one that was created many years ago by Congress. Although the proportion of non-white persons on it is probably higher than the proportion of white persons on it just because of the socio-economic inequalities in our country, it happens that there are considerably more whites receiving food stamps than non-whites. Further, the reasons that the food-stamp program has expanded in recent years has nothing to do with President Obama personally but with the fact that increasing numbers of persons, unfortunately, qualify for it because of the shape the economy is in for lower-paid workers.
It should be noted that it is not only the recipients that benefit from the program. The food industry, growers, transporters, wholesalers, and retailers, benefit from it because they are able to sell food that they would otherwise not be able to sell. Of course, in classic GOP fashion, where politics and policy comes down to sloganeering, not programs aimed at solving problems, Gingrich, the "great thinker of the Republican Party" (sic) offers no alternatives to it, apparently thereby, being willing to let people starve. But none of this makes any difference to Gingrich or to his listeners. "Food stamp President" is just a great code phrase for him. This is especially so since for obvious reasons he cannot use the code words developed just a few years ago by one of his biggest fans, Sean Hannity (and his clones), to totally falsely cast the blame for the housing-bust/financial-disaster on African-Americans: "Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac."
It remains to be seen how far Gingrich will go, and will be able to go, with this one. Because of his very public prejudices, he is already trouble in Florida where a significant proportion of Republicans happen to be Hispanic (primarily Cuban immigrants and their off-spring). Following up on his "English-only" demands (which Romney shares, by the way), he has referred to Spanish as a "ghetto language." I'm sure that Cervantes would be interested to hear that one.
Of course Gingrich is an equal opportunity hater. As I have noted previously (1), in 1985 he addressed the issue of AIDS, saying: "AIDS is a real crisis. It is worth paying attention to, to study. . . . . [For] AIDS will do more to direct America back to the cost of violating traditional values, and to make America aware of the danger of certain behavior than anything we've seen. For us [Republicans], it's a great rallying cry." And there is his Islamophobia, which he has carried to very interesting, contradictory lengths: "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren] are my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
And so, this is what the GOP primary campaign in Florida is about, on one side at least. Gingrich does attract a lot of votes with his positions (and it ain't just rhetoric, folks). It remains to be seen if A) he can actually win the nomination with them, and B) if he fails and Romney does win it, just how much further will the latter, he of slogans, not of programs, find himself being pulled to the Right than he already is (2, 3). It all comes down to this: will the GOP of 2012 be the Party of Hate or will it be the Party of Slogans?
Post-script, Feb. 1, 2012: Well Newt did lose, big, in Florida. Except that he won big in the Florida Panhandle, which is the most “Southern” part of Florida in the Old-Jim-Crow and flying- the-Confederate-battle-flag sense. And so, he has pledged to continue his battle with Romney. It is very difficult to understand just why Newt is staying in, given that, as is well-known, A) he has virtually no chance of winning the delegates battle for the nomination, B) the GOP establishment, along with some VERY big money (4), is almost totally aligned against him, and C) in the process, he is in the process of tearing the GOP apart. But what they call “Super Tuesday” is coming up on March 6, 2012. And most of the states in which primaries will be held on that day were in the Confederacy that South Carolina led into the First Civil War, in nature much like the aforementioned Florida Panhandle.
So guess which message has a really good chance of working in them. You got it! Newt’s not Mitt’s (as reactionary as he really is). Newt will be politically done after this one. But his speaking fees for far-right, racist audiences will sky-rocket, along with his book sales in similar venues. That and an apparently limitless ego are apparently enough to drive him onwards, even at the expense of the party for which he professes to be a member.
References:
1. Ask Newt Gingrich, http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13203.
2. Mitt's Army of God, http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13064.
3. The Imperative of the Republicans' Rightward Imperative, http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13269
4. “Romney Gains Strong Backing in Rich Patrons,” The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2012, p. 1.
|
|
|
