On gun control

I applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for it's passage of a bill today that would fix flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed a Virginia Tech student to obtain weapons despite mental problems. I applaud the NRA for endorsing the bill, and I applaud the fact that it looks like the bill will get passage in the U.S. Senate as well. That having been said, I have a major problem with concessions that were made to the NRA in order to get them to endorse the bill.

The NRA did win some concessions in negotiating the final product.

It would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

So let me get this straight, you can be mentally insane and still purchase weapons, as long as you're an armed services veteran? Now, I have nothing against those who serve in the military, or those who have done so previously, but why the hell should anyone, regardless of military background (or lack thereof) be allowed to purchase weapons if they have been diagnosed with mental problems?

Not only that, but why aren't the background checks being extended to every single American wishing to purchase a gun, period! As some of you already know, I'm getting ready to move to Arlington -- and in looking for a new apartment, I was told I would have to have a background check run on myself at nearly every single place I was interested in. If having a background check run is almost always necessary in seeking a place to live, why isn't it a necessity when looking to purchase a deadly weapon?

[Cross posted at Daily Kos]

The NRA hearts terrorists

From the mentally insane to suspected terrorists, it doesn't matter who you are, rest assured (if left up to the psychotic nuts at the NRA) you're going to be able to buy your guns no matter what!!

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Ha ha, so the NRA loves terrorists. Not surprising, really. After all, convicted terrorists are known contributors to the Republican party.

Bill to keep guns from mentally ill a 'knee jerk' reaction?

That's what one top Republican lawmakers aide called a bill that would keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill Americans.

Prompted by the Virginia Tech massacre, a U.S. Congress reluctant to tackle gun control may pass limited legislation to help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers and aides said on Sunday.

"Given the horror that happened at Virginia Tech, I think there's a real chance of passing this," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat, told "Fox News Sunday."

A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."

Seriously, are these people so damn hellbent on destruction, and determined to put firearms in the hands of every man, woman, and child that they completely lack the ability to think clearly? WHY weren't laws like this put into place LONG ago? WHY does anyone, much less a mentally ill person have the need to purchase, and possess a firearm? This is not a knee jerk reaction, it's a LONG OVERDUE safeguard. Hopefully it's the first of many that Congress will consider.

Tech gunman bought ammo on Ebay

So, can someone please tell me why the hell it's so easy for people to purchase weapons (and accessories for said weapons) in this country? And why is the sale of alcohol and tobacco more closely regulated than firearms?

Finally an update on George Allen's last "gift" to America; more on the lunacy of the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition!

You may remember last month I (and MANY others in the "blogosphere") wrote about outgoing Senator George Allen's ridiculous plan to introduce legislation that would allow carrying of concealed weapons in national parks, deemed "George Allen's last gift to America" by some. Then I followed up with an update saying that Senator elect Jim Webb had wrote a campaign letter on October 30, 2006 saying he plans to introduce similar legislation. Well last night, after reading Not Larry Sabato's post regarding an email the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition sent out bemoaning Frank Wolf for refusing to support guns in Darfur, I came across this entry on the VGOC's website, claiming that Senator elect Jim Webb might be backing off the proposal a bit. As you might imagine, they are on the verge of going into uncontrolled seizures over there because of it.

Is Jim Webb going to be just another politcal hack or the gutsy statesman that he fancies himself to be and wants you and me to think he is?

We are about to find out because Congress adjourned early on December 9th AND George Allen made the decision not to fight for the repeal of the National Park Ban.

Apparently, they wanted Allen to attach the piece of garbage as a rider to another bill, therefore it likely wouldn't be debated, and would likely go under the radar, (see: The 2003 "Rave Act" which I consider to be one of the most vile, dumb ass pieces of legislation ever passed, that was attached as a rider to the Amber Alert bill).

The author of the piece on the VGOC's website went on to say:

Why would I say that? Because Jim Webb refused to answer the VGOC survey AND was unwilling to put his gun promises at his campaign web site. So , why did Webb post them at a hidden corner of the internet?

That's funny!! The VGOC will be pleased to hear (probably for the first time, since they don't seem too well informed) that Webb had NO PROBLEM filling out a survey submitted to him by the NRA, whom by the way, he received an "A" rating from. The only reason he didn't win the NRA endorsement was because George Allen received an "A+" rating (you can guess why, can't you?). Jim Webb made it perfectly known (to anyone PAYING ATTENTION) that he was, and still is "PRO GUNS," a "proud gun owner," a concealed weapon permit holder, and has regular "shooting activity." It was one of the reasons he won over many independent, and "light R" voters, and then WON the election.

In the next paragraph they write:

"Political insiders have warned me me that Webb is already trying to weasel out of getting a recorded vote on his promise.

Webb is weighing waffling on his promises after being taken to the woodshed for his lack of political polish.

Well, I'm not sure who "me me" is, but I'd like to know who his/her "political insiders" are. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that Jim Webb has already proved to us that he DOESN'T CARE what any party tells him to do, he's going to do what he believes to be right, and will not change his position to satisfy someone. A Democratic Senate Staffer is even on record as having said "I think Webb is going to be a total pain, he's going to do things his own way!"

They're such genius' too, calling for Jim Webb to filibuster (I bet they're glad they still have that now, huh?) any bill, even if it is must-pass legislation, with even one anti-gun measure attached to it. So the VGOC would support withholding funding from the troops just to prevent "anti-gun" legislation from passing? Then they have some idiotic, childish letter for users to print out, sign, and mail to Jim Webb threatening him with:

I EXPECT YOU TO FILIBUSTER EVERY piece of anti-gun garbage that the anti-gun zealot, Nancy Pelosi, and your anti-gun Senate boss, Harry Reid, tries to shove down our throats. Please understand that you will personally own any anti-gun provision passed by Congress - - even if it is attached to must-pass legislation.

Uhm, sorry, but you're NOT going to be effective throwing around threats like that. Furthermore, take a look at this (click the image to make it larger/ more visible):

Please note in the TITLE OF THE POST, and IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, there are two blatant misspellings. Now, I'm not claiming to be the best of spellers, and we all make mistakes, but you'd think they would use a spell check, and you'd ESPECIALLY think that they REREAD their post to check for error. This entry was posted 2 days ago, and there is NO reason for it to remain uncorrected. The VGOC wonders why Jim Webb didn't respond to their "survey," but it's NO WONDER! Who would take you seriously with stuff like this?

Update on George Allen's last "gift" to America!

I reported on this the other day, about how George Allen planned to give America one last "gift" by proposing legislation to allow guns in national parks. Well, it would appear that Jim Webb might plan to introduce similar legislation if it is not passed in the current lame duck session of Congress. According to a November 24, Richmond Times Dispatch article,

An Oct. 30 campaign letter by Jim Webb -- the Democrat who narrowly defeated Allen -- shows that he promised to introduce similar legislation.

"And I intend to get it to the floor for a vote," added Webb, who also noted his possession for many years of a concealed-carry permit and his regular shooting activity. A spokesman for the senator-elect said Wednesday that Webb had not studied the Allen bill.

Apparently, David Barna, a National Park Service spokesman doesn't think the measure is necessary,

While the National Park Service did not take a stand on Allen's bill, the spokesman said serious crimes against individuals in the parks are extremely low and that there is not data demonstrating a need for visitors to carry concealed firearms.

Allowing people "with minimal or no training to carry firearms in national park areas will not lower the already negligible crime rate but will most likely increase the possibilities of basic altercations turning into something much more serious," said Park Service spokesman David Barna.

With that being said, and the fact that some parks ALREADY ALLOW FIREARMS DURING HUNTING SEASON, The Liberal Progressive cannot understand why such legislation is necessary, and remains opposed to the measure.

George Allen gives America his last "gift"

George Allen's proposal to allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks has passed to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. An editorial piece in today's NY Times sums it up quite nicely.

I agree with the author, hopefully this bill will die the miserable death it deserves.