explain this to me

Posted on September 16, 2013 by greg

Explain something to me. A couple of guys in Wisconsin decided to sling their AR-15s over their shoulders, strap sidearms to their belts, and then stroll down to the Appleton, Wisconsin farmer’s market. The farmer’s market, for fucks sake. Where the biggest threat they’d likely have to face would be a smoothie made with kale.

But that’s not what I want you to explain to me.

Even before these yahoos got to the farmer’s market, concerned citizens were dialing 911 to report them. That’s what you do if you see a couple of armed guys approaching a crowded public venue. Why? Because of the mass murder of movie-goers in Aurora, Colorado. Because of the mass murder of first graders in Newtown, Connecticut. Because of the mass murder at a Congresswoman’s meet-and-greet in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, Arizona. Because of what’s happening right now at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC.

You call the police because people carrying guns are likely to be fucking nuts. And the police, if they’re smart and cautious, will respond with weapons drawn — because they know that people carrying guns are likely to be fucking nuts. And that’s what the Appleton police did. They stopped the two guys at gunpoint, handcuffed them, and detained them. Eventually the guys were released, and their weapons were returned.

But that’s not what I want you to explain to me either.

Legal to openly carry in Appleton, Wisconsin

Why would these guys tote weapons to the farmer’s market? Because they’re dicks. Because they were looking to cause a fuss. Because that’s how dicks behave. One of the men, Charles Branstom, said:

“We never did it to prove a point, I carry every day for my safety.”

For his safety. In Appleton, Wisconsin. Where there’s been one murder in the last five years, and only about a hundred robberies. In five years. Yeah, he and his buddy are carrying two weapons each for their safety. Oh, and he’s videotaping the entire thing as well…but no, he’s not trying to prove a point, of course not.

But that’s not what I want explained to me.

On the video you can hear one of the responding police officers explain why these two dolts were stopped.

“I get what you guys are trying to do. … But when you grow up a little bit and you’re a parent and have kids at an event like this and you see someone walk through with guns strapped to their back, your first inclination is going to be, ‘All right, what’s this guy up to? Is my child going to be safe?'”

These two guys are upset, of course. Because the police pointed guns at them. One of them is talking about suing the police department.

“I’m still kind of shaken. I was one nervous twitch away from having a bullet put in me.”

Gun rights advocates all over the Intertubes are horrified that any professional police officer might see a couple of heavily-armed white guys heading toward a public event as some sort of threat. Had they been, say, wearing hoodies or black…well, you know you can’t be too careful. Had they looked Middle Eastern or maybe like somebody from the Indian subcontinent — like, say, Miss America — then sure, the police would have to respond; it might be a terrorist situation. But these guys were white.

But that isn’t what I want explained.

This incident has nothing to do with the right to bear arms; it has everything to do with being a dick. And of course they were trying to prove a point. And hey, they succeeded. The law in Wisconsin (and almost everywhere else in the United States) allows fuckwits like this to openly carry their weapons.

But even that isn’t what I want explained to me.

Illegal to openly carry in Appleton, Wisconsin

You know what they don’t have the right to carry in public? A Hello Kitty AR-15. No, I’m not making this up. Appleton, Wisconsin has a municipal ordinance that states:

No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate, threaten or terrify another person.

There. That’s it. Somebody, please, explain that to me.

UPDATE: It’s been pointed out to me that the Hello Kitty AR is actually a real weapon, not a toy. So hey, good news — you could legally carry it over your shoulder in Appleton, Wisconsin.

coffee, guns, & sensitivity

Posted on August 12, 2013 by greg

“Starbucks? You get coffee at Starbucks?” I get asked that question periodically. Sometimes by people who dislike the cost or taste of Starbucks coffee, sometimes by folks who dislike the way Starbucks treats its employees, sometimes by people who dislike the music at Starbucks, or the customers who frequent Starbucks, or the name Starbucks. And lately I’ve been asked that question by folks who are appalled by the refusal of Starbucks to ban firearms from their coffee shops.

That’s right, Starbucks allows its overly-caffeinated customers to be armed. Not every Starbucks; only those Starbucks in states that have ‘open carry’ laws**. According to Zack Hutson, a spokesman for Starbucks,

“We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve, abiding by laws that permit open carry. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.”

So if your state or city allows folks to openly tote a firearm, then Starbucks says you’re welcome to take that firearm into their coffee shops. They don’t advertise this, but there it is.

Gun safety advocates think this stance is massively stupid. Gun rights advocates are basically divided into three camps. There are those who think anybody who’d enter a Starbucks is a communist who’s only about five minutes away from gay-marrying a sheep. There are those who dislike Starbucks because they’re only ‘gun-neutral’ instead of ‘pro-gun.’ And there are those folks who think Starbucks deserves a round of applause for their bold hey-we-didn’t-write-the-law stance on firearms.

The latter group organized Starbucks Appreciation Day. Which was last Friday, in case you didn’t notice (and you probably didn’t). Starbucks Appreciation Day was sort of like Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, only that was for hating gay folks and this was for loving firearms. Given that there’s some serious overlap among the gun-loving and gay-hating subsets, it’s not surprising that Starbucks Appreciation Day received some blowback (hah, blowback…see what I did there?) from the triple-shot testosterone black coffee crowd.

The CEO OF fAGbucks told the rest of us that if we dont support ass munchers getting married, we should not buy fagbucks, so I now go to the Coffee Bean

I’m aware of [Starbucks] recent backing of homosexual “partnerships”. My point was that they have not changed their open-carry policy and that behavior deserves acknowledgement. As long as the homosexuals don’t “invade my space”, I’ll let them suffer the consequences of their lifestyle.

Yeah. Fagbucks. One argument for getting coffee at Starbucks is you’re not likely to meet the guy who refers to it as ‘Fagbucks.’

In any event, I was pleased by Starbucks Appreciation Day. Not because I support the notion of openly carrying firearms — I definitely do not. I like Starbucks Appreciation Day because 1) it brings attention to Starbucks’ policy (which, in my opinion, really needs to change), and 2) I’m a very firm believer in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” So it makes me perversely proud to see people with whom I actively disagree making a public stand and exercising their constitutional rights. I’m more willing to support people who openly stand up for causes I dislike than I am to support a corporation that quietly refuses to adopt a policy that’s in the best interest of its customers.

Here’s the thing about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly: if it’s to have any meaning at all, it can’t be limited for reasons of sensitivity. These rights cannot be restricted simply because they might upset somebody.

It would, for example, be incredibly insensitive and deliberately offensive for gun rights advocates to hold Starbucks Appreciation Day at a Starbucks in Newtown, where more than two dozen children and teachers were murdered eight months ago. Only a group of world class jackasses would schedule a pro-gun rally in Newtown.

And so, of course, that’s exactly what the Connecticut Citizens Defense League decided to do. Not surprisingly, gun safety advocates objected. Equally unsurprising, pro-gun folks mocked them.

Interesting comments by the “victim class” from Newtown.

They need to suck it up. We don’t all stop driving our cars when there is a big car crash. We don’t ban flights over a town where a plane crashed. to heck with all that. If we want to be sensitive of the kids fears then let them stay home from public school for a year. My rights are not negotiable on someone elses fears.

As if we should be ashamed at insisting on rights in such an insensitive way. Screw that! Sensitivity is why they band open carry and concealed carry in most states ages ago. It took us DECADES of tragedies before people started insisting on overturning those laws. We will NOT crawl back in our holes because someone whines and cries.

I guess civil rights stop after a killing.

Seriously, these guys were actually offended–offended–by the notion that they should be sensitive to the pain and suffering of parents whose six-year-old children were recently murdered. In fact, they seemed to see this as some sort of challenge. “You don’t want me to bring a gun to your Starbucks in Newtown? Fuck you in the neck, you whining babies. I’m going to drive an extra ninety minutes just so I can bring a gun to Newtown. In fact, fuck you so much I’m bringing TWO guns now. Sensitivity is for pussies. Suck my puny white dick.”

The whole Starbucks Appreciation Day idea put the corporation in an uncomfortable public relations situation (which, let’s face it, is exactly where they belong for having such a passive policy). They had to choose between 1) maintaining their policies and showing themselves to be heartless corporate fuckwads or 2) being decent members of the community. They tried to choose both.

Starbucks issued a statement on the decision of pro-gun advocates to hold Appreciation Day:

These events are not endorsed by Starbucks. That said, our stores are gathering places for the communities we serve and we respect the diverse views of our customers. We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding open carry weapon laws. Our long-standing approach to this topic remains unchanged.

Oh Starbucks, you had me at ‘that said.’ Except, of course, this is NOT an issue of ‘diverse views’ as the Starbucks statement suggests. It’s an issue of health and safety. While it’s true that occasionally somebody carrying a concealed weapon will prevent a crime from taking place, it’s a lot more likely somebody carrying a weapon will fire it in anger (and I don’t know about you, but every time I’m behind somebody who orders a “Venti iced skinny hazelnut macchiato, sugar-free syrup, extra shot, light ice, no whip” I want to kneecap them). It’s even more likely somebody will discharge their weapon accidentally (and if we’re lucky, they’ll only wound themselves).

In the end, Starbucks is a corporation and the only thing corporations really care about is maximizing profit. Starbucks isn’t about coffee; it’s about selling coffee. At least whoever owns the Newtown Starbucks franchise had the decency to close the coffee shop five hours early, so there was no Starbucks Loves Guns event there.

Oh, and if Starbucks is so wicked, why do I buy their coffee on occasion? Simple. There’s a Starbucks about seventy paces from the entrance to the main branch of the public library. I can stop there, buy a big white chocolate mocha, take it into the library with me, and sip on it for an hour or two while I work.

I’m apparently willing to periodically sacrifice my principles in the interest of convenience.

** There are only seven states and the District of Columbia (in red) that prohibit the open carrying of handguns (California permits citizens to openly carry rifles and shotguns in rural areas). Fourteen states (in green) require some form of permit to openly carry a handgun in public. Seventeen states (in gold) allow open carry of handguns, though there are general restrictions (for example, it may be prohibited to openly carry a handgun into a church or an establishment that serves alcohol). The remaining twelve states allow full open carry (though individual businesses and establishments can forbid weapons on the premises).

i got your 2nd amendment right here

Posted on July 25, 2013 by greg

Sometimes people–good people, under most circumstances–just get fed up. There’s only so much provocation a person can take. There’s only so much crap a person should have to put up with. And when you hit that limit…well, sometimes you just have to shoot somebody.

Take Margie Ramey, for example. She lives in Rogersville, Tennessee, and for some time she’s had problems with folks using her driveway to turn around. It’s her driveway, dammit, and folks ought to respect that. But did Oscar Scott of Rose Hill, Virginia and his wife and their five young children respect the sanctity of the Ramey driveway? No, they did not.

Margie Ramey

Scott and his family (the kids are between four and twelve years old) had spent the day enjoying themselves at nearby Bays Mountain Park. They got a wee bit lost and used Margie’s driveway to turn around. So she naturally opened fire on them. Hell, it was only a couple of shots, and only one of them actually hit the vehicle (pretty good shooting for a 72 year old woman sitting on her porch a hundred and fifty feet away). It’s not like anybody got hurt or anything.

Now if one of those Scott family hooligans had taken a leak on her property…well, that’d be a different story. That would be a story more like James Robert Crocker’s.

Crocker, of rural Steelville, Missouri (as opposed to urban Steelville), has also had his troubles with folks who just go and trespass on his property. Or trespass real close to his property. He lives on the Meramec River and he’s not quite clear on whether his property includes the gravel bar (which I assume is like a sandbar, only with…you know…gravel) that borders the river. And in his defense, nobody in Missouri seems quite sure where property rights end on the Meramec. If the river is navigable, then the entire river (including gravel bars that are underwater for part of the year) are open to the public.

James Robert Crocker

The friends and family of Paul Dart certainly assumed the river was navigable since they were navigating it, after a fashion. They were tubing down the river (an annual family event for the last half decade or so) when one of the group experienced the need to relieve his bladder. Rather than just let go in the river, the group beached their tubes on a gravel bar — which just happened to be the gravel bar that may or may not have belonged to James Robert Crocker.

As I understand it, Crocker couldn’t actually see the Dart party from his home…but he could hear them. And being familiar with his Constitutional rights, Crocker was not going to allow a stranger to just urinate willy-nilly on gravel that might, in some capacity, belong to him. America didn’t fight a war in Vietnam so total strangers could piss on any tiny riparian rocks they wanted to, after all. So he approached the group, 9mm pistol in hand, and demanded they put away their penises and leave.

Paul Dart stepped in between Crocker and the unfortunate man whose bladder had started the problem. So Crocker shot him in the face.

Now, granted, Paul Dart hadn’t so much as unzipped his pants, let alone urinated in anger. But Crocker didn’t care. “I just shot the one closest to me,” he told the police.

Paul Dart died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

See, this is the problem. When gun rights advocates say “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” they ignore the fact that people kill people easier and more often because they have guns. Right now, Margie Ramey (who was released on bail) probably regrets she had her rifle close to hand when the Scott family used her driveway. Right now, James Robert Crocker (who didn’t get released on bail) probably regrets carrying his handgun down to the gravel bar.

But they did have easy access to their guns, and children were put in danger for the crime of using Margie Ramey’s driveway and Paul Dart was stupidly murdered because his cousin urinated on a gravel bar that James Robert Crocker wasn’t even sure he owned.

Sometimes people–good people, under most circumstances–just get fed up. When that happens and there’s a firearm nearby, somebody could die and the lives of several families are shattered. And you know what? It just isn’t worth it.

it starts when you’re always afraid

Posted on July 14, 2013 by greg

We tend to think dogs that snap and bite are aggressive dogs. Mean dogs. Junkyard dogs. Dominant dogs.

Let me quote Gershwin: it ain’t necessarily so. In the dog world there’s a social behavior known as ‘fear-biting.’ It happens when a shy, timid, fearful dog is placed in an unfamiliar or anxiety-producing situation — a situation it doesn’t know how to handle. The dog responds (often even to friendly behavior) by baring its teeth, by lashing out, by biting. Not out of aggression, but out of fear. It’s a panic reaction.

George Zimmerman is a fear-biter. I don’t think he followed Trayvon Martin and killed him simply because Martin was black. I think he followed Martin and killed him because Martin was black and Zimmerman was afraid. I think Zimmerman carried a firearm because he was afraid. I think his fear caused him to respond irrationally to a threat that didn’t exist. And I think there are a lot of George Zimmermans out there.

The United States has become a nation ruled by fear-biters. A lot of our social policies are grounded in fear, and much of that fear is totally unfounded. We’re afraid of terrorists, so we find ways to weasel around the law in order to round up the people we’re afraid of and lock them away forever where we can’t see them. ‘Indefinite detention’ and ‘enhanced interrogation’ are other forms of fear-biting.

We’re afraid of criminals, so we weaken the laws that protect the innocent in the hope we’ll find some security against the guilty. Mandatory minimum sentences and ‘three strikes’ laws and the undermining of Miranda warnings — all forms of fear-biting.

We’re afraid we’re going to be attacked by strangers, so we make it easier to buy guns and to carry guns and to use guns in self-defense without punishment. Concealed Carry laws and Stand Your Ground laws — it’s all fear-biting.

We’re afraid somebody is going to take our stuff, so we live in gated communities and install alarm systems and hire private security firms to patrol our neighborhoods and organize armed volunteers to wander around at night just in case a stranger in a hoodie happens to pass through — nothing but fear-biting.

Conservative politicians are afraid they’ll lose their power when white folks become a numerical minority in the U.S., so they pass laws that make it more difficult for minorities to vote and they create twisted, nightmare-shaped Congressional districts that effectively ghetto-ize minority voters. Voter ID laws and re-districting — just political fear-biting.

Men are afraid of independent women, so they pass arbitrary laws to regulate and limit a woman’s access to health-care and create an entertainment industry that relegates women to sexualized toys and support a culture that tells women to avoid being raped instead of telling men not to rape. Mandatory transvaginal ultrasound laws, ‘slut-shaming’ and hatred of feminists are forms of male fear-biting.

English as the official language — fear-biting. Marriage only between a man and a woman — fear-biting. Anger because somebody says ‘Happy holidays’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas — fear-biting. Aggression against street photographers — fear-biting.

Not all fear is irrational, but irrational fear is the parent of cruelty. And the fact is the citizens of the United States aren’t very much at risk of a terrorist attack. The vast majority of us are in no danger of being victims of violent crimes at the hands of strangers. Having ethnic, racial, or religious minorities in Congress isn’t going to result in a backlash against white Christians. And women who have control over their own reproductive nature aren’t a threat to men.

We don’t have to be afraid of people who aren’t like us. We have nothing to fear from Muslims or gay folks or people who speak another language or black folks or people taking photos in public.

What we need to be afraid of is a society of fear-biters.

it’s all about fear, isn’t it

Posted on May 8, 2013 by greg

People are often surprised to discover Wayne LaPierre, the man who usually speaks (or, more accurately, rants) for the National Rifle Association, isn’t actually ~~a mutant velociraptor~~ the President of the NRA. LaPierre’s title is Executive Vice President.

Why isn’t he the President? Two obvious reasons. First, the position of President is unpaid. There’s no salary. He’s effectively a volunteer. And Wayne don’t work for free. He likes the lucre. LaPierre’s base salary is US$845,469.00 each and every year. He also picks up some extra coin ~~biting the heads off chickens~~ doing odd jobs, like making speeches and general rabble-rousing for the NRA.

Wayne LaPierre

The second reason Wayne isn’t the President of the NRA is the president’s term is limited to two years. If LaPierre had been the NRA president, his term would have expired a long time ago, and we’d be deprived of his many charms. And wouldn’t that be a shame?

The President of the National Rifle Association is elected in a Soviet style system. There’s an election and all, but it’s primarily just for show. There’s only one candidate, and he’s been determined in advance. The candidate is actually chosen four years before his ‘election.’ He first serves two years as Second Vice President of the NRA board, then another two years as First Vice President, after which he’s ‘elected’ to the office of President.

The new President of the NRA lacks LaPierre’s social graces and his general air of genteel charm. The new President of the NRA is this guy — Jim Porter.

Jim Porter

Seriously, that’s him. Porter likes to come across as a Good Ol’ Boy — just another redneck from Alabama. But he isn’t as stupid as he sounds. Or looks. He’s surely from Alabama, but he’s also a lawyer (just like his daddy, who was also a former NRA president — and, in fact, it was his daddy who was the chairman of the infamous 1977 NRA annual meeting at which responsible hunters were removed from power and political gun nuts took control). Porter’s area of legal expertise? Defending gun manufacturers against lawsuits.I know, you’re totally shocked.

In a recent interview with NRA News (yes, that’s right — the National Rifle Association has a propaganda wing called NRA News; it’s so rabidly right-wing it makes FOXNews look like National Public Radio) Porter claimed gun owners are “being treated like second class citizens by the government of the United States.” Second class in what way, you ask? Second class in that they have to spend millions of dollars every year in lobbying at both the federal and state level, and contribute still more millions of dollars to political candidates, in order to get the legislation they want passed. It’s SO unfair.

As might be expected, Porter has a pretty low opinion of President Obama. Prior to the legislation introduce in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre, an interviewer mentioned to porter that President Obama hadn’t actually tried to enact any restrictions on firearms or gun owners, Porter said:

“I get so sick and tired of all these people with this fake president that we got who wants to say, ‘Well, you know he hadn’t done anything bad for gun owners.’ I say, let me tell you something bad that he’s done. His entire administration is anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment.”

Never mind that Porter calls the President of the United States a “fake president,” just try to make sense of that statement, I dare you. Or this one:

“Every time you take your nephew to the gun club, every time you take your daughter skeet shooting, every time you take your grandchildren out, we’re passing on the legacy of freedom.”

What the hell does that even mean? Shooting equals freedom? What? Porter shows an exceptional talent for saying things that sound like they must have meaning, but when examined turn out to be meaning-free. Just listen to this speech:

In the video above, Porter says

“I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so when they have to fight for their country they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it.”

Tyranny. I am so fucking tired of hearing these jack-asses talk about tyranny. When they say ‘tyranny’ what they really mean is ‘fear that somebody who is not like us might have some power over us.’ When Porter talks about the ‘legacy of freedom’ what he really means is the ‘legacy of people like us being in control.’ When the NRA leadership says gun owners are ‘treated as second class citizens’ what they really mean is ‘we don’t have the same unquestioned authority and privilege we used to have.’

That’s what it comes down to. Fear. Unlike most folks (including most gun owners), Jim Porter and Wayne LaPierre and a minority of NRA members are afraid of living in a world where people ‘not like us’ are in control. They’re afraid, and they can only see two ways to retain the illusion of power and privilege and authority: 1) keeping other people afraid too and 2) guns.

freebooters in the senate

Posted on April 18, 2013 by greg

I keep seeing some version of this headline: Senate Fails to Pass Popular Gun Control Legislation. I keep hearing radio and television news reporters repeating some version of this: “The Senate failed to obtain the sixty votes needed to pass the legislation.”

Those are lies. No, the Senate didn’t fail to pass legislation extending background checks to guns sold at guns shows and over the Internet — they were prevented from voting on the legislation. No, it doesn’t require sixty votes to pass legislation — it only takes fifty-one.

Here’s another lie: the Senate Republicans filibustered the legislation. They didn’t. They only threatened to filibuster it. Under current Senate rules, the mere threat of a filibuster is treated as an actual filibuster.

How the hell did we end up with a Senate in which the minority party has all the power? And just what the hell is a filibuster anyway? The term comes from the Spanish filibustero, which is derived from the Dutch vrijbuiter, which is translated as ‘freebooter.’ A freebooter is a sort of pirate — a mercenary who wages ad-hoc war primarily for the money in it, a seafaring hijacker. Like Edward Teach, better known as Blackbeard.

The original approach to the filibuster

In legislative terms, a filibuster is a tactic by which one or more members can hijack the debate over pending legislation, delaying it from reaching a vote. The intent was to give minority members a platform for voicing opposition to the proposed legislation, or to stall the vote while attempts were made to gather support from other legislators. This required the legislator(s) to take the floor of the Senate and hold it by continuously speaking.

Initially it was a rarely used tactic, partly because it required a great deal of effort and organization, and partly because it stopped ALL legislative activity. Nothing else could happen in the Senate so long as the filibuster continued. The filibuster is famously employed in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

A more refined form of filibuster

In the mid-1970s, the rules were changed to allow other legislative business to take place during a filibuster. The new rules created the ‘virtual’ filibuster we have now. Even so, the tactic was rarely employed. In fact, the filibuster had only been used 413 times before 1990.

In 2005, Democrats (who were the minority party in the Senate) began to use the virtual filibuster more frequently, mainly to block some of President George W. Bush’s more controversial judicial nominees. When President Obama took office in 2009, the practice skyrocketed. Now almost every nomination for every judicial position is subject to the virtual filibuster, as is almost every piece of legislation offered by Democrats. The virtual filibuster has become the norm.

Let me just repeat that. The virtual filibuster has become the norm. Republicans have normalized the practice. That’s why lazy journalists continue to claim the legislation requiring background checks to be extended to gun shows and internet sales was defeated, even though the Senate was blocked from voting on it. That’s why lazy journalists continue to claim sixty votes are required to pass legislation.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The Senate Majority Leader has the power to change that. Harry Reid can modify the rules of the Senate. He can restore the talking filibuster. He can do away with the filibuster altogether (though that would be a bad idea). And Reid keeps threatening to reform the filibuster rules. Ten days ago he said this::

“All within the sound of my voice — including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with — should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority. And I will do that if necessary.”

The problem with a threat is that it only has meaning if the person making the threat is taken seriously. Nobody takes Senator Reid’s threats seriously.

Majority Leader Harry Reid

In fact, Republicans openly mock him. After the shameful virtual filibuster on the recent gun control legislation (which was supported by nearly 90% of Americans and more than half of NRA members, and which was approved by a majority of the Senate), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell posted this on his Facebook page:

So long as Democrats have ineffective leaders like Harry Reid, and so long as filibuster rules remain as they are now, and so long as Republicans in the hire of the National Rifle Association continue to thwart the will of the public, nothing is going to change.

A handful of freebooters have been allowed to rule the legislative high seas. That needs to stop.

heaven, hell, and a horsepond

Posted on April 13, 2013 by greg

Marlin Stutzman is a Republican Congressman from Indiana. He’s often described in the press as a ‘Tea Party favorite.’ Like so many members of the Tea Party, Stutzman calls himself a States’ Rights advocate. He believes passionately in the right of individual States to determine what should be should and shouldn’t be legal within their borders.

States’ Rights Advocate Marlin Stutzman

For example, Stutzman opposes same-sex marriage reciprocity. In general, people who are legally married in, say, Iowa are recognized as being legally married in Indiana. However, since same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa but not in Indiana, Stutzman believes his state should not be required to recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple who married in Iowa.

“This is the one issue that as we talk about states’ rights, states’ responsibilities, which according to the Constitution what responsibilities are for the states and which are for the federal government, I think this is the one issue that you’ll even find that if states deal with it themselves that with a very mobile society as people move around the country if you have states that do recognize same-sex marriage and other states that don’t there’s going to be a series of consequences that are going to result because you may have one state in the east coast that recognizes same-sex marriages, if they move to the Midwest, a state like Indiana or Mississippi or other states that don’t, you’re going to have a patchwork quilt of laws.”

Stutzman, obviously, supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts federal marriage benefits and requires inter-state marriage recognition only for opposite-sex marriages.

Marlin Stutzman, however, isn’t quite so staunch in his support for States’ Rights when it comes to firearms. In general, a Concealed Weapons Permit issued in, say, Indiana (which has very permissive CWP laws) is not recognized in, say, Illinois (which has more stringent CWP laws). Stutzman supports national CWP reciprocity; he believes other states should be required to recognize the CWP issued by his state, even if its in violation of the laws of the other state.

States' Rights Opponent, Martin Stutzman

States’ Rights Opponent Marlin Stutzman

According to Stutzman,

“The right to self-defense is the cornerstone of the Second Amendment and my responsibility as a father to keep my family safe doesn’t change when I cross state lines.”

Just to be clear, Stutzman and many other Republicans believe individual states should not be required to respect the marriage laws of other states, but should be required to respect the gun laws of other states. He believes gay couples marrying is harmful to society, but carrying concealed weapons isn’t.

A 19th century minister, Charles Spurgeon, said this about hypocrisy:

Men turn their faces to hell, and hope to get to heaven; why don’t they walk into the horsepond, and hope to be dry?

I’m inclined to agree with Rev. Spurgeon. I think Marlin Stutzman should walk into a horsepond.

idiots, applebee’s, and a gun that shoots machetes

Posted on April 12, 2013 by greg

This guy? His name is Jeff Duncan. He’s a Congressman from South Carolina, serving his second term in the House of Representatives. He’s an idiot.

Congressman Jeff Duncan, Republican Idiot

I know, I know…it’s rude and juvenile to call people names. But I don’t really consider this as name-calling. It’s more of a political taxonomy — a system of classification. Jeff Duncan falls into the class of Republican Idiot.

I base that classification entirely on statements made by Jeff Duncan his ownself. For example, there was the time when Duncan believed President Obama was somehow going to issue an Executive Order that would…well, he wasn’t quite sure what the Executive Order would do, but it was something about guns, and dammit Jeff Duncan was not going to stand for it. Whatever it was. Or might have been. If Obama had actually done it. Which he didn’t. But this is what Duncan said in response to the Executive Order That Didn’t Exist Dealing with Something about Guns:

“The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights. We live in a republic, not a dictatorship. I will use every means at my disposal to combat the agenda of the Executive branch to undermine our Second Amendment rights. I will also fight any legislative action that is taken to implement more gun control. Americans don’t want their Second Amendment freedoms restricted in any way.”

A dictatorship? That’s idiotic on two levels. First, I guess it never occurred to Duncan that in an actual no-shit dictatorship anybody who suggested the president was a dictator would have a short shelf life. But Duncan felt perfectly safe in publicly suggesting the president is a dictator. Perhaps he thought President Obama just wasn’t a very good dictator, because any dictator who’d put up with Jeff Duncan would need some remedial dictatorship lessons. The second reason this was idiotic is because there was no such Executive Order. This is all based on something Duncan believed the president might be considering. Not even something he thought Obama might do; just something he thought he might be thinking about doing.

But okay, everybody over-reacts on occasion. You can over-react without being an idiot. If those comments were the extent of Jeff Duncan’s foolishness, I’d be reluctant to classify him as an idiot. But he’s built on that foundation of idiocy.

Jeff Duncan likes him some guns. That doesn’t make him an idiot, either. A lot of smart people like guns. But anybody who thinks he needs to be able to tote a firearm into Applebee’s in case he might need to shoot somebody for some reason (because you know how lawless Applebee’s is), well that person is an idiot. Duncan complained that the South Carolina legislature refused to pass a law permitting people to carry concealed weapons in establishments serving alcohol.

“[W]e can’t even pass [a law] to allow CWP (concealed weapon permit) holders to eat inside restaurants like Applebees and Ruby Tuesdays because they have a bar.”

Of course, CWP holders can eat in an Applebee’s in South Carolina. They just have to leave their firearms in their vehicles. Jeff Duncan is far more at risk from eating the desserts at Applebee’s than from its rowdy clientele*.

Troublemakers and hooligans hanging out at Applebee’s

In case there was any doubt left about Duncan, he established his Idiot bona fides recently by posting a lengthy screed on his Facebook page. Here’s some of what he says:

There is a reason that some want to end private gun ownership, limit ammo purchases, limit magazine capacity…. Ask yourselves about a National gun registry database and how that might be used and why it is so wanted by progressives.

Read about the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu and Tutsi tribes. Read that all Tutsi tribe members were required to register their address with the Hutu government and that this database was used to locate Tutsi for slaughter at the hands of the Hutu. (Since the government had the names and addresses of nearly all Tutsis living in Rwanda (remember, each Rwandan had an identity card that labeled them Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa) the killers could go door to door, slaughtering the Tutsis. Not with firearms, mind you, but with machetes.

I use this example to warn that national databases can be used with evil consequences.

That’s right, Congressman Jeff Duncan is apparently afraid that ‘progressives’ want a ‘National gun registry database’ so they can can go door to door and slaughter decent gun owners. With machetes.

Unidentified ‘progressive’ with a gun that shoots machetes

Is there any legislation under consideration by Congress that includes a national gun registry database? No, there is not. Is there a Federal law prohibiting the creation of a national gun registry? Yes, there is — since 1986. Is the United States in 2013 just like Rwanda in 1994? No, it’s not, and you’d have to be an idiot to think so.

Jeff Duncan is no natural-born idiot. He’s come by his idiocy the old-fashioned way; he earned it.

Editorial note: In Duncan’s defense, a 30 year old man and his girlfriend were shot in the parking lot of an Applebee’s restaurant in Georgia in January of 2012, following a play-off game between the New Orleans Saints and the San Francisco Forty-Niners. The shooter, a Saints fan, got into an argument with the victim (oddly enough, not a Forty-Niners fan – just a guy cheering on the team because his girlfriend was a fan). The shooter was forced to go to the parking lot to get his pistol, since it’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a bar in Georgia. The shooter was then forced to wait for two more hours until the victim and his girlfriend left Applebee’s, at which time he shot them. If Duncan had his way, the poor shooter would not have had to waste those two hours.

gregfallis.com

it's this or get a real job

Category Archives: guns