.
As probably most of you know, the most famous quote associated with puffed-up, has-been, anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist, the snide quip with which he will always be equated, is “I don’t want to destroy the government; I just want to shrink it down to the size where I can drag it up to my bathtub and drown it.” Translating, only half-jokingly, as “Of COURSE I and my companions want to destroy the US government.”
‘Tis the season now, however, by the looks of it, where a few folks – folks who have long thought themselves powerful enough to hold our government at bay, to issue it orders, to bring all its business to a halt – are starting to be revealed as mere paper tigers.
First, of course, there’s Grover himself, the “stubble-faced dickwad of fiscal doom,” who for decades has held every Republican politician in what they at least pretend is a death-grip with his famed no-tax pledge (which they prioritize over their oath to the Constitution.)
Perhaps it was the beginning of the end for Grover when Obama and the Democrats won this last election handily on the specific promise of raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. That fact just had to take some of the fear out of Grover’s threat to publicize some Republicans’ willingness to consider doing such a popular thing.
And the beginnings of unprecedented trash talk from his former minions has driven him to increasingly erratic behavior. After months – years – of decreeing that a vote for any partial extension of the Bush tax cuts for folks under a certain income level would count as a de facto vote for increasing rates on the wealthy and hence a betrayal of the sacred Grover oath, he inexplicably gave the green light last week to Speaker Boehner’s doomed “Plan B” which did exactly that.
Nobody understands exactly how he justified this sudden about-face in his simple well-known philosophy. But it didn’t matter because, most remarkably, NOBODY PAID ANY ATTENTION TO THE ONCE-FEARSOME GROVER.
Norquist and LaPierre. Sometimes familiarity can not possibly breed anything but contempt.
And then last Friday marked the Emperor-Has-No-Clothes moment of another regressive political force of equally exaggerated omnipotence – the gun manufacturers’ lobby group known as the NRA. For a week, the grieving nation had been expectantly awaiting the constructive solutions promised by this group in response to our apocalyptically skyrocketing plague of mindless gun violence.
And then what the whole nation beheld, representing the all-powerful NRA as its longtime leader and spokesman, was an obviously psychotic freak who blamed everything in America EXCEPT for guns, and made it clear that his group would continue to stand in the way of any new restrictions on Americans’ weapons of mass destruction. Stuck in the 90’s like some cranky hermit, Wayne LaPierre obsessed on Mortal Kombat and Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers, and insisted the only solution to gun violence in America is MORE GUNS.
I believe Mr. LaPierre did his cause more harm with his eccentric performance than any of US could have done on purpose. The reaction of the generally conservative New York tabloids to the spectacle is instructive, entertaining, and I think typical of your average American’s:
LaPierre’s rant has been ably demolished by all sane commentators. His suggestion of putting an armed guard in every American school – which does sound like a not bad idea to most people at first blush – is utterly impossible and unserious, with its price tag in the billions. Beyond that, he made it crystal clear that the NRA will continue to stand in the way of any reform that makes it just a little harder for psychos to slaughter us.
But it was good for the whole country to see that clearly.
America’s diverse population witnesses the unanticipated deliquescence of yet another previously unassailable behemoth.
Billionaire gun-control advocate Mayor Bloomberg and Matt “Blogging doesn’t pay the bills” Cunningham. How do you think Cunningham’s uncompromisingly literal view of the Second Amendment might change if the Mayor expressed an interest in his “wordsmithing” abilities? An interesting question.
Back here in the OC, Matt “Jubal” Cunningham seems to have anointed himself the local Jeremiah against any and all gun control. Other right-wingers may scoff at his sincerity, but we’ll give the mercenary scrivener the benefit of the doubt. In our post last week about the letter from the nation’s Mayors asking Congress for quick action in the wake of the Sandy Hook Massacre, Matt stood steadfast against any new or stronger bans on armaments or ammunition; but, giving into our Ryan Cantor’s insistent demands as to whether the nation needs more or less gun control, he finally allowed as to how he “doesn’t think guns should be sold to crazy people.”
Well, if Cunningham really doesn’t think guns should be sold to crazy people, a sentiment with which probably 90% of Americans would agree, then I’d think he has to agree with at least the second and third of the Mayors’ demands, to “strengthen the national background check system and eliminate loopholes in it, and to strengthen the penalties for straw purchases of guns.”
Because, how else are we supposed to stop crazy people from getting guns? How will Cunningham wordsmith his way out of this one?
UPDATE 3:45 p.m. 12/29 by GAD: Just to make things more interesting, let’s address a couple of examples. I ask in this comment: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/12/grover-norquist-and-wayne-lapierre-drown-in-small-bathtub/comment-page-1/#comment-342827 should Stanley Fiala or I be allowed to own guns? Whats your opinion?
Lately I feel like I am living in some kind of weird alternate universe where the inmates in the asylum are becoming the talking heads on television. The Republican party has become a joke. I have never been a Republican but I used to think they were just people with a different philosophy than mine. Now I realize that they are no longer relevant or capable of any sensible service to the nation. Thank you for starting with two of the craziest , Norquist and LaPierre. Your blog is refreshing after reading the crap going on in Congress.
From Slate.com “When gun nuts make laws, nuts have guns.
Gun shows are large, public events that for many decades have been held in convention centers and banquet halls, attended by gun enthusiasts, hunters, target shooters, law enforcement and military personnel, and their families. Under federal law, firearm dealers—persons engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit on a regular basis—are required to conduct background checks on anyone to whom they sell any firearm, regardless of where the sale takes place. Federal law also provides that a person who is not a dealer may sell a firearm from his personal collection without conducting a check.
Though Congress specifically has applied the background check requirement to dealers only, and specifically exempted from the dealer licensing requirement persons who occasionally sell guns from their personal collections, gun prohibition activists call this a “loophole.” Gun prohibitionists also falsely claim that many criminals get guns from gun shows; the most recent federal study puts the figure at only 0.7 percent.
After many months of claiming they wanted a bill that required sales of guns at gun shows, by non-dealers, to be subject to the background check requirement, anti-gun members of Congress voted against such a bill, because it did not contain other provisions designed to put gun shows out of business.
The Myth of “Unlicensed
A licensed dealer may do business temporarily at a gun show, just as he could at his permanent licensed premises. Every legal requirement applies equally at both types of location, including background checks and record keeping on all transactions.
People who “engage in the business” without a license can be arrested and convicted of a federal felony—whether they “engage in business” at a gun show, or out of a home, office, or vehicle.
A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, including from gun show dealers who are required to conduct background checks. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the government.
*The Skally again..is totally off the subject. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!” Ever hear that Skally dude?
But let us indulge ourselves: Out of all the Mass Murders committed by anyone in the history of the United States – how many of the guns used were procured at gun shows?
The truth is there are very specific reasons for non-licensed transfer of firearms. The first one goes like this: Your dad dies and leaves you his firearm collection. Say 25 to 50 guns. Are you saying that an NCIC check should be done on each and every firearm transaction made to you or one person? 2ndly, to go through a Licensed Firearm Dealer, it is going to cost you. Grandpa’s old Shotgun taken to licensed dealer and may be worth $140 dollars for say a Iver-Johnson .16 gauge. The Dealer will charge you $60 dollars just to do the paper work…much less never find you a buyer. So you just want to turn in your gun to police for a measly $100 Macy card…OK…be our guest.
Say you leave the country on vacation. Your wife is alone in the house. The house gets broken into….you son or daughter comes by to check on her. She has been the victim of a home invasion in process. The son grabs dads shotgun and rushed in…..after shooting the bad guy….the son is arrested for using an unregistered firearm and his right to keep and bear arms is taken away forever.
*By the way….in most cases those 1% of crime guns – had been stolen or borrowed or bought away from the gun show. Many guns that are used in
crimes are guns “borrowed” from relatives or friends. The basic rule stands:
NEVER LEND YOU FIREARM TO ANYONE EXCEPT YOUR SPOUSE! Not your kids, aunts or uncles either.
If the son grabbed the shotgun and shot the bad guy who by his presence as an intruder was threatening her life, then on just those fact he’d have a clear basis for a “choice of evils” defense and would not be convicted. (Now if he had known and set up the intruder, that would be different.)
There are many sensible republicans on the gun issue. Judge Larry Alan Burns, Mayor Bloomberg, are prominent examples.
Views that verge on the obnoxious are surprisingly stated by Pedroza’s “Libertarian” blog. They infer by the graphics they use, that gun control attempts are foreign to the American experience.
*Anna Bryson,
Good work out there! We like the David Keene approach the best: Much as we
have Pilots with Firearms……the same would be for School Administrators that
are willing to be trained and qualified with a firearm and follow all the requirements
of a County provided CCW.
Additionally, those schools who do not have Volunteer Administrators for this
kind of program could hire Private, Armed Prior Service Military or Police that again
are currently firearm qualified and must do semi-annual testing to keep up their skills.
Finally, the other option is to have Local Police dedicate part-time officers to the
daily security of schools. Example; Officers have their own schedules for Patrol or other duties. Two hours a day, they fit school security into that duty schedule…which
would allow for two hours of Overtime Pay.
In any event, there are some very logical methods to provide security for our schools. We do suggest that school security shifts for any of the above – not too exceed four hours per day per participant. We don’t need Security folks…sleeping on the job.
Ron & Anna Winship
Parker-Longbow productions
Cutting Edge – a talk show
http://www.cuttingedge-atalkshow.com
P.O. Box 935
Corona del Mar, CA 92625-2616
800.272.8486 in USA
949.760.5338 tel.fax
949.759.1868 h
818.601.8455 cell
P.S. Happy New Year too!
================================================
In a message dated 12/28/2012 9:15:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Evers@Stanford.EDU writes:
EXCERPT Anna Bryson, a trustee for Capistrano Unified, the county’s second-largest school district, said she examined the NRA’s stance Friday with great interest. She’s an NRA member and grew up in a household of gun owners.
“We have made schools gun-free zones, weapons-free zones, and all of the people who have evil intent are aware of it,” Bryson said. “I don’t think that people with evil intent should have that comfort level. If they walk through our doors, they should be wondering, ‘Is there someone there who could harm me first?'”
Bryson said she’s looking forward to having more discussion about the issue and hearing from her constituents. Capistrano district staff is researching issues related to how often armed deputies are present on the district’s campuses and the feasibility of the district allowing employees to bring concealed weapons onto campuses, Bryson said.
“People in California have their own views, but it’s important to hear the other side of the concern and the realities,” Bryson said. “I’m open to thoughts and inputs from all of my constituents.”
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
http://www.ocregister.com/news/school-381821-district-gun.html
Dec. 27, 2012 Updated: 2:44 p.m.
NRA stance too simplistic, O.C. school officials say
Local school districts call the National Rifle Association’s position on protecting students from gun violence impractical.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE / ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Orange County school officials have called the National Rifle Association’s stance on protecting students from gun violence impractical and overly simplistic, saying that installing armed guards on every campus won’t solve the broader challenges of improving school safety.
Still, local officials said the NRA’s position is just one of many national perspectives – along with state and local ones – that officials should be considering as campus safety issues are revisited in the coming weeks.
“There isn’t one simple answer,” Orange County schools Superintendent Al Mijares said. “To think you’re just going to have someone at the door with a firearm and that’s the end of the discussion, there’s more to it than that. It also requires people working together and creating a network of safety among parents, teachers, support staff and students.”
After a weeklong silence following the Connecticut school shootings, the National Rifle Association on Friday called for a program to arm and train guards in schools as the best way to protect children from gun violence.
Armed police officers in all American schools will be needed to stop the next killer “waiting in the wings,” the NRA declared Friday as calls for gun control have increased after the Newtown, Conn., shootings that claimed the lives of 26 children and school staff.
Orange County officials said that, rather than hiring more armed guards, schools must work to foster a campus culture where students feel safe and supported and to proactively address students’ emotional and mental challenges.
In Santa Ana Unified, the county’s largest school district, a district police team of 24 armed, sworn officers and 38 non-armed security guards patrols the district’s campuses. It’s by far the biggest campus security agency among K-12 school districts in Orange County.
Even so, staffing every Santa Ana Unified campus with a full-time officer armed with a gun would not only be cost-prohibitive, but also would not address the underlying predicament of how to improve campus safety, said district Trustee John Palacio.
“The issue isn’t that we need armed personnel; our banks have armed personnel and they’re still robbed,” Palacio said. “It’s that we just need to be better prepared to handle emergency situations and have strong relationships with our sworn and non-sworn personnel.”
Palacio said that the district’s $6.7 million annual police budget would more than double if it were to assign an armed officer to every campus. Also, allowing non-sworn volunteers to carry guns would pose too much of a legal liability to the district, Palacio said.
Some local school officials expressed disappointment Friday at what they said was an oversimplified and insensitive approach by the NRA to addressing safety in schools.
Michael Stone, a trustee for the California Teachers Association, said gun-rights advocates should be coming together with video game makers, Hollywood producers and other stakeholders to address the broader issues of violence in American culture.
“I was kind of shocked at the comments by the NRA; I felt they were off base and incredibly insensitive to the victims of the tragedy,” said Stone, an Aliso Viejo Middle School math teacher.
At the same time, Stone said, “They do have a role to play in this because of the boarder discussion about gun safety and gun control. I would welcome that they are part of it.”
Anna Bryson, a trustee for Capistrano Unified, the county’s second-largest school district, said she examined the NRA’s stance Friday with great interest. She’s an NRA member and grew up in a household of gun owners.
“We have made schools gun-free zones, weapons-free zones, and all of the people who have evil intent are aware of it,” Bryson said. “I don’t think that people with evil intent should have that comfort level. If they walk through our doors, they should be wondering, ‘Is there someone there who could harm me first?'”
Bryson said she’s looking forward to having more discussion about the issue and hearing from her constituents. Capistrano district staff is researching issues related to how often armed deputies are present on the district’s campuses and the feasibility of the district allowing employees to bring concealed weapons onto campuses, Bryson said.
“People in California have their own views, but it’s important to hear the other side of the concern and the realities,” Bryson said. “I’m open to thoughts and inputs from all of my constituents.”
Karen Yelsey, a trustee for the Newport-Mesa Unified School District who participated in a district roundtable last week about campus safety, said that while the ongoing school safety discussions shouldn’t focus on the gun issue alone, they certainly should include the topic.
“There are some people out there who might want to voluntarily carry a gun on campus, and that’s what we have to look at,” Yelsey said. “We should take into account the input of every resource we can get.”
Register wire services contributed to this report.
FYI -from Ron & Anna
Winships,
I am with you on the prevention and cure – no worries – I am healed.
I have a serious question. Do Matt Cunningham, skallyway, cook, the ‘Ships, and other pro-RKBA people believe that pro-gun activists Stanley (“From the Exile,” “From the Asylum,” and now “White Power”) Fiala should be allowed to own a gun? Then, to be fair — should I be allowed to own a gun?
Anyone around the OC political blogosphere, on any side of this issue, who thinks that the U.S. should keep crazy and violent people from owning guns — and thinks that the opinions of those around them should factor in as part of that assessment — should by now be able to generate an opinion on whether Stanley or I (and anyone else who wants to be assessed, come on in) should be allowed to own a gun. Such a proposal calls on people to do just that, so let’s get started.
In the interest of fairness, this is a now a “no censorship of Stanley Fiala zone,” so buckle your seatbelts accordingly. (Some exceptions for defamation and hate speech may apply, but it’s fair that he gets to exercise his opinions on this question without restraint.)
*Actually, Stanley has greatly mellowed and we agree with him on a variety of issues. One thing for sure, he was raised in the Hockey Capital of the World and we admire folks from the Czech Republic. They also had a mandatory military service element and were taught how to fire the infamous AK-47 and a variety of CZ pistols and such. All of which are well engineered and usually are not prone to stoppages.
*It is not our intent to “Channel Stanley”….but we do believe that he probably thinks most Civilians here in the US that one – have not had military training or enjoy fundamental firearms training…..probably should not have access to firearms.
We might suggest that issues such as those do have a semblance of merit. However, my Great Grandma shot a 2nd Story Burglar in the middle of the night with her .32 Caliber Smith & Wesson nickel plated revolver. She had to go next door and ask the neighbor kid at 3am to run down to the police station and have them dispatched. Her phone was a “party line” that had been cut by the burglar. Great Grandma weighed 98 pounds soaking wet, with white hair at the age 82 in 1922, Los Angles – Burnside Street….for those who might know where that was.
The burglar was arrested, taken to the hospital, treated for his gun shot wound to his shoulder and taken to jail.
And “Stanley mellowing” is a figment of the Winships’ doting minds…possibly explained by the fact that ne and Greg still delete a lot of his commentary.
That’s OK — I agree with him on some issues too. (Usually it’s when he’s slamming someone who warrants it.) But that wasn’t my question.
Do you think that Stanley should be allowed to own a gun? I’ll just presume that somewhere embedded in the story about your Great Grandma is the implication that your answer is “yes.” That being so, a few more questions:
I think that people are failing to think through the operation of this “mental illness” exception to the RKBA. If you can’t tell me who falls into it — Stanley, me, the ‘Ships — then of what use is it?
“*It is not our intent to “Channel Stanley”….but we do believe that he probably thinks most Civilians here in the US that one – have not had military training or enjoy fundamental firearms training…..probably should not have access to firearms.”
Really? Do you think that the NRA and the gun manufacturers would support legislation from Congress saying that any person who has not had military training or basic firearms training should not be permitted to own a gun?
*We are not Stanley….ask him!
*We are also not Wayne LaPierre…..but you can call him in Virginia….we are sure he will take your call.
Assuming Stanley holds that position, do you agree with him?
*We assume nothing….Assumption and Hypothetical questions are great when you get tired of playing Parcheesi or Canasta. Right now, our Checkers Board is full of Chess Pieces. How about “Metaphors”?
Are you in to those?
From a Pravda article:
Americans never give up your guns.
It is about power and a total power over the people. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. Do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Americans never give up your guns.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
Pravda. Really?