Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: January 2013

Opinion Worth considering Considered


I ran a cross this opinion a few days ago and  decided to post is as another side of the firearms issue. This posted by  California Congressman Mike Thompson:

“As a hunter and gun owner, I believe that we should protect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to own firearms. As a dad and grandfather, I also believe that we have a responsibility to make our schools, streets and communities safe. We can do both if Congress steps up. Many of the president’s executive actions will help reduce gun violence, but the policies that would have the greatest impact require congressional action.

After being named chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Gun Violence Prevention Task Force last month, I held town-hall meetings in my Northern California district. Hundreds attended, and I heard from law-enforcement officials, mental-health experts, school officials, National Rifle Association members and gun-control advocates.

Many feared that their Second Amendment rights would come under attack when my task force makes its recommendations to Congress next month. Others wanted to cast those rights aside. I think both views are extreme.

I will never give up my guns and I will never ask law-abiding individuals without a history of dangerous mental illness to give up theirs. Not only am I personally against this, but the Constitution wouldn’t allow it. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed once and for all that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

image

David Gothard

However, just as the First Amendment protects free speech but doesn’t allow Americans to incite violence, the Second Amendment has limitations, too. As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia outlined in Heller, there is no constitutional problem with laws forbidding firearms in places such as schools or with laws prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from carrying guns.

This ruling provides people on both sides with an opportunity to work between the extremes and within the confines of the Second Amendment to pass legislation that will reduce gun violence.

There is wide agreement that we must close the holes in our mental-health system and make sure that care is available for those who need it by improving early intervention and addressing the shortage of mental-health professionals.

Many people on both sides also agree that everyone who buys a firearm should go through a comprehensive background check. No one wants convicted criminals or people with a history of dangerous mental illness to have access to guns. Yet our laws allow people to buy firearms privately or at some gun shows without going through a background check, and many states remain deficient in transferring important records to the federal database used to conduct background checks on gun buyers. This needs to change.

Voters also want Congress to crack down on “straw-purchasing,” the process by which someone legally purchases a firearm for the purpose of transferring it to a friend who is barred from gun ownership (someone with a history of domestic abuse, for example). There should be stricter federal consequences for such unlawful transfers.

The same goes for illegal gun trafficking. Many law-enforcement officials say that illegal gun-traffickers are most often charged with mere paperwork violations. To successfully cut down on their illicit conduct, we need more agents to conduct more frequent inspections of gun stores, and we need stiffer federal penalties for those who purchase and traffic these guns.

Federal authorities also give undue attention to prosecuting prohibited buyers who attempt to purchase firearms. Federal law bars nine categories of people—including felons and those who have been judged seriously mentally ill—from buying guns. But when ex-convicts attempt to buy guns, they are hardly ever prosecuted. Although the FBI referred more than 76,000 such cases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 2010, Justice Department attorneys prosecuted just 44 of them. Prosecuting these criminals should be a priority and Congress needs to stiffen the penalties.

There is also strong popular support for a national program modeled on California’s Armed Prohibited Persons System, which requires that those convicted of certain crimes or found to have serious mental illness turn in any firearms they own. Expanding California’s system nationwide would help make sure guns are kept out of the hands of those we all agree shouldn’t have them.

A majority of Americans also agree (according to a Pew poll released this month) that assault magazines have no place in our society. These magazines hold more than 10 rounds and allow a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time without reloading. Banning them will save lives.

On the issue of reducing gun violence, there is a path between extremes. This debate isn’t a choice between protecting the Second Amendment or reducing gun violence. It is about the willingness of a responsible majority to do both.”

— Mr. Thompson, a Democrat, is a member of Congress from California

Learning Curve


The human learning curve has been studied (or not). The learning curve is possibly illustrated by the events surrounding a national election and reinforced by the lesser elections that occur in the states and cities. The learning curve is knowledge gleaned from events and disasters that around the world. This learning curve is: ” Early uses of the metaphor (learning curve) on the pattern’s positive aspect, namely the potential for quick progress in learning (as measured by, e.g., memory accuracy or the number of trials required to obtain a desired result)  at the introductory or elementary stage. Over time, however, the metaphor has become more commonly used to focus on the pattern’s negative aspect, namely the difficulty of learning once one gets beyond the basics of a subject”. This phenomenon has been broadly illustrated by the last election. The social economic conditions of the past 10 to 15 years have made the last 4 years a perfect study of the learning curve. With all of the “progress” made in Race and foreign relations, we have made little. This has shown up in the attitudes of the candidates for President and the long serving Congress. As a country we have fought tyrants and injustice around the world yet we have returned to a pre civil war mentality about race. This points out the efficacy of the “learning Curve”. As a country we have made more progress in 200 plus years than the old world countries yet we have made little in relation to Race. In this country where there is supposed to be equal opportunities for all, some still refuse to recognize that the success of one (1) is the success of all and should be supported. This is the learning curve in reverse.

Idoits with a forum


Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer both appear to so called conservatives who by the virtue of being read are essentially “idiots with a forum”. These two folks are blessed by the virtue of living in America, in any other country they would or could be arrested, tortured or worse. It is quite easy to throw out unfounded and seemingly truthful statement but to offer opinions based on real ideas and as much honesty as possible is different. There is nothing wrong with espousing a party line or a real belief but personal opinions based on nonsense is not laudable. It is unfortunate that these people have a following as their followers appear to be more believers of nonfacts rather than the real truth no matter if that truth flies in the face of their core beliefs (which are sometimes misplaced).

What we Need to Do.


As I look at President Obama’s second inauguration, it occurs to me that there we all have taken sides and in truth there are no sides. What we really have are individual opinions Based on information we read, hear and perceive. Not enough of us broaden our scope of knowledge to see that our real issues are not going to be resolved by our elected officials. These elected folks have an agenda that does not necessarily include what we want or need. Taking the recent and fiery issue of firearms, the President has never stated he would take away any firearms from anyone; the desire is to keep the firearms out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people (including the mentally ill). I believe we all can agree that no matter what weapons are available there are reasons to exclude the availability of certain people to possess and acquire firearms of any kind. The controversy over stronger laws against acquisition the so called “assault weapons” means only  future purchasers of these types of weapons will need to undergo closer and more intense scrutiny  prior to purchase. There is nothing said about taking the weapons from existing owners. The one issue should be the purchase of additional high capacity magazines and that I believe should be the only cause for concern among owners of the high volume weapons that use them. If the various Gun rights organization would assist in informing their memberships of what is really in play perhaps we would have better laws that could prevent repeats of the recent events which took so many lives. What we have is as stated in a classic movie: “a failure to communicate”.  The beauty of America is the ability to dissent and voice opinions but an informed opinion is better than a crowd mentality of misinformation.

The Many Faces of The Firearms Issue


The firearms issue has many faces, all of which appear to be reasonable to their advocates. Many feel that the government should have no hand in creating firearms regulation, many feel the government should have more involvement and then there are the folks who believe that only the states (and sometimes municipalities) should hold sway over firearms laws. These all appear to be good arguments as far as they go. The real trick is to create a safety net so to speak that would address all of the issues and create a conversation piece that would suit every need. This is possible but implausible given the great amount of vitriol over this subject. There are (unbelievably) several ideas that could work collectively to address all  (or most)of the needs of the majority. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done. These items range from  more comprehensive background checks, limits on who can own or purchase high capacity weapons and related  magazines. These are just the main topics on this subject, there are several others less prominent but just as important. The overall effect has been a lot of confusion on the issue  which promote the idea that firearms will be confiscated, restricted to law enforcement  or be banned outright. These ideas have been floated before but reached no conclusion beyond new unenforceable regulations and costly additional handling of paperwork. There are many people who do not own or want to own firearms, there are those who use them for sport and there are the hunters. These are the people who are for  regulations and licensing if the regulations are reasonable and enforceable. No one is  for the wild west scenario where everyone carrys a firearm even though this option is available under license from various states. The real test of a proper conclusion on this issue is an examination of the FACTS and reviewing all of the regulations from every state and create a universal policy with some room for the individual states to have exceptions according to the needs  of their residents. This whole issue has manufacturers, buyers and sellers on edge and needs to be resolved. . The real danger in all of this is the extreme rhetoric that flows from the uninformed and those who believe their way is the only way. Lastly, involve the manufacturers but do not regulate them out of the business or the country and strongly consider the ideas of Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado.

No Complaints


Usually people will complain mightily about bad service but will rarely extol the virtues of the good experiences. I was reminded of this by Chuck at Schlosser Transmission service.  As I waited we talked about some of the businesses in town that failed the public and those  who exemplify the best in service that people want. I have found that the people who provide good service and good will to customers are sometimes secrets because satisfied customers just accept the good fortune and  never pass it on. There are a few outfits in town who do not serve the public as well as they should or could. I will name the industry and only the initials of the company.  Plumbing: MW,auto repair Mi (not Meineke),Home Repair supplies L.  I have had the good luck to have had services by Schlosser Transmission, Meineke Auto Repair, Elite Auto body (west side) and Menards  to name a few. This poor service may not apply in other locations but here in Springfield it matters.

Really – NRA?


The NRA’s   recent media blurb that included the statement about the Presidents security that covers him and his family is at once ludicrous and possibly racist. The President’s family is automatically covered by secret service the same as previous occupants.   The President has not said anything about changing the 2nd amendment or adding any new laws aside from improving current laws over the transactions which are  done between individuals, not Licensed dealers. There is nothing wrong with protecting 2nd amendment rights but  do it  the right way! To go on the attack as the NRA has done all through the previous Presidential campaigns  and the most recent is at once a bit off base and again possibly Racist. The president has put forth proposals for Congress to consider and cannot make or amend any laws, that is all up to the congress (which the NRA does or appears to own). The knee jerk actions of the NRA is indicative of an outdated  mindset. Being an owner of firearms myself, I fully understand the reasoning behind the Presidents proposals and know that something positive has to be done to curtail the use of high volume weapons by people who are not mentally capable of rational thought. There has been no mention of taking any guns from anyone, all that has been said is that there needs to be stronger laws or enforcement of existing ones to hopefully prevent these weapons from getting into the wrong hands. Each state has its own firearms laws on the books and nothing has been proposed that would take those laws out of play, the main thrust is simply to prevent the ownership and availability of these high capacity weapons to unstable people.

Only In America


Only in America can people protest against anything and anyone. These same protests get media attention and act as coercion to provoke action from elected officials. Is it any wonder that the few laws enacted  on the fast track are not as good as they should be? The belief in public demonstration is fine in its purest from however when initiated in a knee jerk fashion ,it becomes counterproductive. No one disputes the need for new laws and changes in existing ones but these new laws and changes need to done in a reasonable manner and with correct results. It is of no value to enact a law that has to be revisited later rather than using the time spent on new business. We citizens demand more from our elected officials but we continually place obstacles in the way of that process. Those obstacles are  the knee jerk reactions which are important yet tend to derail the process of law making.  Only in America can we shoot ourselves in the foot and blame the government. Ouch!

Post Newtown-Et al.


As the debate over gun (firearms) control  and Second amendment rights to bear arms continues, again we see each side courting favor for support in the media. While there may be some validity in each side’s argument. Neither  of    them seem to be able to just shut down the rhetoric and make some effort towards an accord or some reasonable decisions. This seems to be an abstract concept as they are apparently not interested in a balanced solution. While professing to   speak for all americans (firearm owners or not) The NRA has maintained their hardline against certain types of firearms being regulated. This hardline is where some members (if they will admit it) deviate from the organizations mainline. Nobody wants to regulated by government but if we face the facts, without some government oversight and regulation we would be in deeper trouble than we are now. Ours while not perfect is still a model of  government that works, the downside is that we have come to rely on elected officials who are only human and prone to mistakes as we all are. It is within our ability as citizens to demand proper laws that will hopefully reduce the chance of these types of firearm incidents occurring with or without the NRA’s support. This is not a slam on the NRA but more a question as to what the NRA could be doing to help reduce the chance of these incidents occurring again. We already know that some of our Congress members have been reluctant in enacting or altering any firearms laws but sometime the “bullet has to be bitten” for things to get better.

Several Things Considered


Recent war of words on gun control (should be firearms control), Afghanistan and new cabinet members produced many thoughts in my head and I need to get them out. The fire arm situation comes down to who can invoke a reasonable solution to a prickly problem. It is understood that the tragedies could possibly have been prevented but what would have prevented them? We have a host of laws in most states on firearm ownership and use but we have nothing on the mental state of a person purchasing or owning them. There are background checks and these checks no doubt have prevented the sale of firearms to some. We have no method of determining the mental state of an existing firearm owner of future purchasers. It is possible that perhaps the limitation on who can own or purchase “assault” type weapons could have prevented or  limited the loss of life and injury in the recent events but it seems that the doers of these bad deeds had mental issues that would by law (if it existed) have been prevented them from purchasing or owning firearms. It is true that the Connecticut situation is different in that the shooter did not own or purchase the firearms but had access. It appears that a list of solutions are possible up to and including a special license to buy or own “assault” type weapons but will this do the job? I have no specific recommendations but some sort of special application could apply to these type of weapons where the applicant would have to survive a mental provision or test. On to Afghanistan: The president of Afghanistan is not an ally and never will be, he is no more than the highest ranking feudal leader in the country and will always be. He will take aid and assistance from anyone who will give it and give nothing back beyond lip service. WE need to get out and let the chips fall where they may. Cabinetry: There are several proposed members of the Presidents cabinet and some prove to be controversial but never the less most if not all will be confirmed. The Congress appears to take more interest in small issues to avoid the biggest issue-the economy, that being said I again state that we need to think in terms of changing the membership of Congress on the State and Federal level. No more to be said today on this. Happy New Year.