Friday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The tragic massacre in DeKalb: “The 27-year-old gunman who killed five students and himself in a university lecture hall was known as “an outstanding student” but had stopped taking medication a couple of weeks ago and had been behaving erratically, police said Friday.”

* Additional details: “Law enforcement officials said [Stephen] Kazmierczak started buying his guns last August, all legally and all from the same gun dealer in Champaign, where he was enrolled at the University of Illinois. He bought a Sig Sauer 9mm on Aug. 6 and a Highpoint .380 on Dec. 30. Two of the weapons — the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun — were purchased less than a week ago, on Saturday, authorities said. He had a valid permit required for all Illinois residents who buy or possess firearms, authorities said. ”

* Is the Clinton campaign really going to try and ride the “only 18 debates thus far” wave to victory in Wisconsin? It seems to me she has stronger pitches than this one.

* The SEIU endorsement was expected, but now it’s official: “The Service Employees International Union gave Barack Obama its highly prized endorsement on Friday afternoon. The S.E.I.U.’s endorsement is especially coveted because the union has 1.9 million members and has a rank-and-file that is far more politically active than most other unions’. Moreover, its political action committee is expected to collect more than $30 million this campaign, making it one of the biggest PACs in the nation.”

* Justice Department Official Steven Bradbury argued, without a hint of irony, that the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding isn’t like the torture technique used during the Spanish Inquisition, but rather, is like “the sort popularized by the French in Algeria, and by the Khmer Rouge. This technique involves placing a cloth or plastic wrap over or in the person’s mouth, and pouring or dripping water onto the person’s head.” I suppose this is supposed to make us feel better about the national disgrace?

* After 13 months of campaigning, Obama has passed Clinton in national polls for the first time. (Of course, Obama fans shouldn’t get too excited about this, given that it’s a state-by-state race, not a national one.)

* Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a prominent Clinton backer, is opposed to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to count delegates from Michigan and Florida. “You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period,” Kerrey said.

* As it turns out, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was also against torture before he was for it. No wonder he and McCain get along so well.

* There’s at least some evidence that the term “socialized medicine” may not be nearly as scary to Americans as Republicans would like to believe.

* Al Gore told a group of businesspeople yesterday that the mortgage crisis and the financial risks facing investors in carbon-based industries are worth comparing: “You need to really scrub your investment portfolios, because I guarantee you — as my longtime good redneck friends in Tennessee say, I guaran-damn-tee you — that if you really take a fine-tooth comb and go through your portfolios, many of you are going to find them chock-full of subprime carbon assets…. The assumption that you can safely invest in assets that come from business models that assume carbon is free is an assumption that is about to go splat…. You have lots of assets, many of you do, in your portfolios right now that truly do deserve that epithet “subprime.’”

* If Dems used winner-take-all primaries like Republicans do, Clinton would have a big lead over Obama. If Republicans used proportional primaries like Dems do, Romney would practically be tied with McCain. Interesting.

* Given his history, Chris Matthews should probably just not talk about Hillary Clinton at all, but he apparently can’t help himself: “Chris Matthews fired a salvo at the Clinton campaign this morning after both he and his MSNBC colleague were privately and publicly rebuked for recent comments deemed misogynistic or inappropriate. Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the Hardball host went off on the Clinton press shop, calling them ‘knee cappers’ who were ‘lousy’ and delve in the business of ‘intimidation.'”

* Fascinating item from Cernig: “There were over 24,000 tapes made of interrogations at Gitmo, according to official statements by military officers. What happened to them?”

* Remember all of those times Rudy Giuliani bragged about his budget skills? Well, never mind all that; his defunct campaign is facing a mountain of debt. “We are deeper in the hole than I thought we would be,” wrote John Gross, the campaign’s treasurer, in an e-mail message to several senior campaign aides obtained by the Times.

* And finally, maybe my favorite Lee Shanahan short yet: “The world. It’s a scary frickin’ place. But President Bush is standing firm on the most important issue facing your security … immunity for giant corporations who helped the Bush administration violate the Constitution.”

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

Steve, you are wrong about Clinton having a lead over Obama if Dems had winner-take-all. Obama would still be leading but by a small amount. Look at the charts again. The side-by-side blue & red represent comparisons with Obama and himself and Clinton with herself. Compare blue to blue and red to red to see the actual differences between the two.

  • Thank god our waterboarding isn’t ala the Inquisition, i feel much better that its more like French Algeria or the Khmer Rouge. Yes, much better.

  • Sen. Bob Kerrey, a prominent Clinton backer, is opposed to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to count delegates from Michigan and Florida. “You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game…

    …even if you are running against a Muslim.

    And a shout-out to my namesake above…solidarity!

  • “If Dems used winner-take-all primaries like Republicans do, Clinton would have a big lead over Obama. If Republicans used proportional primaries like Dems do, Romney would practically be tied with McCain.”
    Chris O’s right: you’re misreading the charts. Moreover, Romney would have a big lead over McCain.
    The presentation’s a little confusing, but Klein’s discussion is clear.

  • “What she has to do is get rid of the kneecappers that work for her — these press people who’s main job seems to be…going after the press…I think her press relations are lousy…human reaction to intimidation is, `Screw you.'”

    If the GOP had media knee-cappers, Matthews would have said “Screw you” by now.

    Ergo, Matthews shills for them out of love.

  • Justice Department Official Steven Bradbury argued, without a hint of irony, that the Bush administration’s use of waterboarding isn’t like the torture technique used during the Spanish Inquisition, but rather, is like “the sort popularized by the French in Algeria, and by the Khmer Rouge.

    Popularized? Do you think that’s the right word? Remember, these people are running the JUSTICE department!!

  • Of course, this Illinois thing is disturbing, and I think it’s time for those of us on the left to start pushing the electorate on gun control. The NRA is wrong, we’re right and staying quiet is no longer an option. It’s not about politics…it’s about life and death.

  • Clinton has a very easy comeback to Obama’s “we have had 18 debates” ad. It is that they have only had a single one on one debate and now he seems to be ducking too many more one on one debates.

  • Clinton has a very easy comeback to Obama’s “we have had 18 debates” ad. It is that they have only had a single one on one debate and now he seems to be ducking too many more one on one debates.

    That would be compelling if Clinton and Obama had not monopolized all those other debates, too. Granted, there were other people on the stage, but they did most of the talking.

  • MW: I’m betting the world is divided into two camps – those who have watched 3 or more debates, and those who have watch 1 or none. The first group is solidly decided. The second will at most change their mind if there is a tear moment, a huff, or a “there you go again” moment. This “more debates” theme is one of the more insincere talking points of the campaign.

  • What a relief that the US is only as bad as Pol Pot and the same gang that brought us the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Talk about being able to hold our heads higher.

    “(He) stopped taking medication a couple of weeks ago and had been behaving erratically.” Can someone please check and see if John McCain is still on his meds? I can’t tell if he’s just flip-flopping or being erratic on his torture votes.

  • Obama has an easy comeback to Clinton’s we’ve had only a single one on one debate:
    Since when do I owe you a living?

    By the way, very shrewd of him not to mention Hillary at all in the Madison speech. His prior two victory speeches of course did. Now suddenly she is gone. All the time spent on her got shuffled to an extended attack on McCain. I’m surprised that Clinton supporters like MW don’t complain about that too…

  • Hmm, was the gun slaughter in Illinois the action of a “well regulated militia'” (which the Second Amendment protects)? I don’t think so… We need to start to disarm Americans. It’s time to give up the gun… Guns are much too dangerous to have in the hands of American men. The Japanese have a virtually gun-free society and they are doing just fine. If you are worried about totalitarian governments, join the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); that is the only real way to protect ourselves against government power.

  • Interesting note on the telco immunity bill. Kevin Drum (Washington Monthly) says that the immunity covers actions taken only after 9/11. They would not be immune for actions taken before then. Also, while I am not endorsing the opinion, at least I think he makes the closest thing to a cogent argument for the immunity. The pre vs post 9/11 bit is in the fourth comment, but it claims to be written by Drum.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013138.php

  • Right on to CJ and james k. sayre.

    This individual right to own a gun crap is exactly that. Such a right doesn’t exist in our Constitution.

    Owning a gun is a privilege that I support, but only under specified circumstances…and owning lots of guns that can get off 50 rounds in 20 seconds while suffering from a debilitating mental illness is not one of those circumstances. What the fuck?

    I don’t understand why the progressive community has gone dark on this issue, but as CJ implied, it’s time to start raising our voices again and raise awareness among the electorate. (Forget the politicians for now…when the electorate is ready…the body politic will follow.)

  • CJ: “It’s not about politics…it’s about life and death.

    Exactly!

    I’m sad today (again), but I’m also extremely mad. Our violent crime rate is getting more insane everyday. With our silly love-affair with firearms, we might as well be living in a third-world country. This stuff should be absolutely unacceptable…for some unkown reason, it isn’t.

  • “There’s at least some evidence that the term “socialized medicine” may not be nearly as scary to Americans as Republicans would like to believe.” Well, yes and no, and no and yes again. From the poll, Americans understand “socialized medicine” to mean:

    “Strong majorities believe that it means that “the government makes sure everyone has health insurance” (79%) and “the government pays most of the cost of health care” (73%).”

    So the American people have no understanding what “socialized medicine” means. They’ve confused it with “socalized health insurance.” So the good news is that they’re not awfully scared of single-payer health insurance, but then again, they’re pretty scared of it, for the bad news.

    In other words, the American people are not actually misled when the Republicans call it “socialized medicine,” because Americans don’t know what “socialized medicine” is, and think it’s single payer, which is what the Republicans don’t want them to have, so in a way, everyone is happy.

    And we’ll never have it. And, we don’t really want it that much.

    Got it? Great. I mean groan.

  • ***“only 18 debates thus far”***

    Why is Hillary afraid of Barack talking directly to the people, instead of through her? Hasn’t America had enough of the emphatically-overacting, has-been, drama queen “hackophelia?” She’s like Susan Lucci with a bleach-job….

  • “…The U.S. government keeps meticulous records of all interrogation..” Hmm, sounds like some Germans we’ve heard of.

    (pleeese dont beat me over the head with Godwin’s Law, I couldnt resist!)

  • At this point, I’m really wondering if Hillary’s now realized they’re going down and wants to look like they’re going down fighting, so as to not let their peeps down. Because I’ve yet to hear any good strategy coming out of her campaign lately. It just seems like a big struggle between desperate and desperater, and it’s only an issue of how much they’re shooting themselves in the foot with every move.

    I have been wanting her to drop out for the good of the party (though I understood why she wouldn’t). Now I think she should drop out for her own good. This is just getting embarrassing.

  • Is the Clinton campaign really going to try and ride the “only 18 debates thus far” wave to victory in Wisconsin? It seems to me she has stronger pitches than this one.

    Yes she is going to try to ride this and no, she doesn’t have stronger pitches. There is no real substance to her campaign once she could not get by with the inevitability or experience arguments. That’s why she sticks with this nonsense. That’s why she makes issues of things like Obama’s kindergarten and third grade papers. That’s why she continued to make noise about the pimping Chelsea comment even after the apology and suspension. That’s why she sent out mailers distorting Obama’s position on issues such as Social Security and abortion. That’s why she makes a big deal out of mandates. That’s why she has been lying about the Obama’s position on dealing with the mortgage foreclosures. That’s why she claims Obama has stolen her economic plan (even though Obama’s own plan is actually better than hers).

    When you don’t have a good argument for why people should vote for you, you are stuck with weak arguments such as that Obama is only debating her 22 times instead of 23 times.

  • The tragic massacre in DeKalb: “The 27-year-old gunman who killed five students and himself in a university lecture hall was known as “an outstanding student” but had stopped taking medication a couple of weeks ago and had been behaving erratically, police said Friday.”

    Don’t they have medication patches they can embed in schizoids? It really shouldn’t be optional.

  • Steve said:

    ***“only 18 debates thus far”***

    Why is Hillary afraid of Barack talking directly to the people, instead of through her? Hasn’t America had enough of the emphatically-overacting, has-been, drama queen “hackophelia?” She’s like Susan Lucci with a bleach-job….

    Is this the level of discourse she should aspire too? I thought this was the weekend the clinton-hating was banned.

  • “Don’t they have medication patches they can embed in schizoids? It really shouldn’t be optional.”

    Are you kidding? In our for-pay medical system? No way they’d mandate something like this. Much better to leave insurance parasites free to profit off our illness and accept the violence and death it leads to, than to make sure Americans have the health care they need.

  • This might be a shock to Obama supporters today he stated that he didn’t believe in gun control

    Since you give neither link nor context I have no choice but to become instantly outraged and switch my vote to Hillary.

    YOU’RE GOING DOWN OBAMA

  • My guess is that mass shootings seem to be a publicity-seeking way of committing suicide, going out with a bang rather than a whimper, in an “I’ll make them remember me – they won’t ignore me this time” kind of way, spreading their pain around much more effectively than a simple suicide or suicide-by-cop. I imagine people who work themselves up to this sort of action must imagine their photo on the news and in the papers, with their name and their motives discussed at length, along with what they see ‘glamorous’ descriptions like “gunman” and “loner”.

    Although societies with strict gun control clearly have far fewer of these sorts of tragedies, I think adequate gun control will never happen in the US. Instead, I’d suggest publicity control, where standard TV reports and newspaper articles simply refer to the shooter without using his name or much in the way of adjectives other than along the lines of “the asshole DeKalb shooter”. (In the interest of free speech and public information, the name could be released on the internet, but it doesn’t have to be front and center on TV.) Denial of the shooter’s 15 minutes (or several days) of notoriety might make that path less attractive.

  • If Dems used winner-take-all primaries like Republicans do, Clinton would have a big lead over Obama.

    Of course, Obama would probably also have spent more time campaigning in California and less in Nebraska.

  • Dale, if I wanted to resort to Clinton-hating, I’d have mentioned that Susan Lucci won an Emmy, and Hillary hasn’t.

    Oops! I just mentioned it. I suppose I’ll be banned from the Internet for life, water-boarded, and shipped off to a re-education camp, where I shall be forced to read Mark Penn’s book over and over again until I can not only recite it verbatim, but also fervently believe every word he wrote….

  • This might be a shock to Obama supporters today he stated that he didn’t believe in gun control…

    I’ve searched and can’t find anything on that, but I’d be surprised if it’s entirely true. I’m suspect he supports, for example, the assault weapons ban that the Republicans allowed to expire.

    Either way, it’s political suicide to take a strong position on gun control. That’s why others have suggested that we leave our favorite politicians alone (lest we sabatoge them) until we can persuade the electorate that the positions taken by the NRA crowd are literally killing our kids.

    I agree. It’s time to get mad and bring this issue back to the fore.

  • It’s not talked about because the NRA has such a stranglehold on the issue…

    I agree…kind of.

    It’s risky for politicians to talk about gun control, but there’s no reason for progressives not to talk about it. The public is gradually moving left in the areas of gay rights, health care, capital punishment, trade, …

    When we lead…the politicians follow (or lose elections, as we’re seeing).

    It’s time to lead. Getting pissed off on the blogs seems as good a start as any.

  • A helpful visual aid for comparing the relative state of American interrogation practices:

    U.S. Gov’t = Pol Pot

  • N. Wells,

    Read the article. The guy was was suffering from a serious mental illness that required medication, and he shouldn’t have been able to purchase guns. Period.

    This is OUR fault, all of us, for letting such things happen in OUR country when they can be prevented so easily.

  • Ok, must have been something in the html with the less than sign cutting things off. One last try, no idea why that’s getting cut short.

    Torquemada > Pol Pot = U.S. Gov’t.

    Is that the kind of message we as a nation really want to be putting out? Seriously?

  • Open thread:

    Regarding yesterday’s House vote for contempt citations for Bolton and Miers. Got a message from Wexler earlier today (it was sent last night, but ended up in the spam box, from which I fished it out today). Plenty of yada-yada but this (I think) was the money quote:

    “I am pleased to inform you that today’s legislation allows Congress to bypass the Attorney General (who has stated to me this week that he would not enforce contempt) and immediately take action in the courts. ”

    I guess then, that CB’s “DoJ is not supposed to take action” was not a typo after all (as Ms Joanne had posited). Mukasey is proving to be Bush’s golden retriever as everyone (except Schumer) had expected…

  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2004Nov26.html

    “In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

    Hastert’s position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats’ influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year’s intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if “the majority of the majority” supports them. ”

    Did any of the Republicans complain about how unfair things were back in 2004?

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • I read the reports about the Illinois shooting with dismay, sadness, and anger.

    The people I am angry at are not all the Second Amendment gun nuts. They’re the easy target.

    My anger is directed as the Psychiatric Establishment over the past 40 years as they have substituted cant and fashion for anything approaching treatment. Of course, the fact that you can present the same set of facts to any ten of them and get 20 wildly, mutually-opposed opinions, does nothing for their intellectual standing. The truth is, a shaman probably knows more than these over-educated, under-intelligent, otherwise-unemployable idiots.

    There was nothing worse they did than the “liberation” of the insane 40 years ago. Yes, tales of “the snake pit” did have some basis in fact, but every time I look at some poor homeless nutcase self-medicating his/her insanity with drugs and alcohol as they sleep on a stretch of sidewalk – as is their constitutional right to do so! – I have to wonder how much better off they are than they would have been under the tender mercies of Nurse Ratched.

    My late brother was a paranoid schizophrenic, who once tried to kill me for the “crime” of coming to his home and trying to straighten out the latest disaster he had gotten himself into with his self-medication of lots of booze, merijuana and cocaine (with a little speed when he needed to stay up). He aimed a double-barreled shotgun at me and pulled both triggers. Fortunately I had disarmed that weapon a few months previously during the last disaster. While they were taking him off to his involuntary 3-day committment, the officers who came in response to the 9-1-1 call and I found 43 weapons in his bedroom!

    I then spent a day arguing with the “professional helpers” at Northridge Medical Center to keep him. They wanted to release him because he was “drunk” when he was admitted and that was not a cause for committment. I finally managed to convince one of the morons – fortunately the most senior halfwit – that he was a danger to himself and others (me).

    When he got out, he was able to obtain a restraining order against me, keeping me off his property, as a “threat” to his continued freedom (to kill himself). His arsenal was returned to him because he was “an upstanding citizen with no history of mental health problems” who the goddamned “psychiatrist” who counseled him to get the restraining order against me said he was found not to be a threat (This was a brother who once told me how, when his wife served him with divorce papers, he went into his basement and planned to kill her and his daughter, and then himself, but got too drunk while trying to find the courage to commit this unspeakable act and passed out) . When I attempted to talk to the “psychiatrist” treating him, the idiot told me how my brother felt “threatened” by my “oppressive” behavior toward him.

    10 months later, I was awakened by a call from the local police at 3am. My brother (later found to have a .24 blood alcohol and massive quantities of cocaine and methedrine in his system) had driven his car onto the off-ramp of I-5 and hit an 18-wheeler coming off the freeway at what was later determined to be a closing speed of 90mph, head on. The only good thing was that it was instantaneous. I can tell you that when you see the body of your little brother after something like that, the only way you can identify the body was by the color of his hair.

    I lay this crime, as well as the crime in Northern Illinois, the crime at Virgina Tech, and all the others on the doorstep of those who are responsible: the Psychiatric Establishment. The otherwise-unemployable witch doctos of our age. Every 12-step meeting I’ve ever been in, the ones most in need of help and least likely to ask for it were the “helpers.”

    I wouldn’t believe one of them if he/she said it was Friday night, not even with three calendars and four indpendent sources for confirmation.

  • “There’s at least some evidence that the term “socialized medicine”* may not be nearly as scary to Americans as Republicans would like to believe.”

    * May replace with “withdrawing from Iraq”, “tax increase”, “gun control”, “stem-cell research”, “gay marriage”, and “abortion”.

  • Tamalak (#27), Jim (#26) might be referring to the item below, but if so, he’s seriously misrepresenting it. I haven’t had a chance yet to search the MSM sites for corroboration.

    Obama Says Gun Violence Must End

    The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, says he believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individual gun rights.

    But he says it’s subject to commonsense regulations like background checks.

  • All guns are extremely dangerous tools, but it should be kept in mind that the most dangerous of them have mostly been brought into this country by our own government. These are the guns that most often end up in the hands of people who should not have them and the people most likely to commit some sort of crime with them. Particularly in the case of assault rifles, there are only a certain kind of people with access to large numbers of basically military hardware and the ability to bring them into the county.

    First they bring the drugs (or look quietly on while the drugs are brought in, skimming some off the top in protection money); the drugs provide a motivation for using the weaponry, i.e. a market; the same drugs also provide a profit; finally, the profit is transferred back to the people who enabled that profit trough the arms trade.

    It is the corporate model, with its violence laid bare. And in this case, the corporation is the government…which uses the some total of its profit to fund pleasantries like extraordinary rendition, coupes, and destabilizing terror.

    This is not an obtuse rationalization for free and easy access to firearms for any and all; it is only a tangential observation.

  • Hmmm….regarding the recent campus shootings (Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, etc.) …I have to admit that I have become torn on the issue of gun control. I used to be a staunch supporter of strict gun control, but it is hard to argue that these “gun free” campuses make the students safer when it seems clear that they are easy prey for one armed loony.

    I mean, think about it. What if a few students at Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois had had proper licenses to carry a weapon? When the shooter started picking off innocent, defenseless people, an armed person could have justifiably shot back in self defense. Perhaps a much smaller number of fatalities could have been the result.

    I’m not saying I absolutely support this line of thinking, but it is compelling. Thoughts? And please, be more thoughtful than a shoot from the hip automatic rebuke without clear reasoning. Thanks.

  • Quick note on the debates:

    Even the “1-on-1” line of argument is specious. They’ve already debated with just him, Clinton, and Edwards on stage, which is just as much exposure, twice (or was it 3 times?). They also have agreed to 2 more debates, which would make it 3 one-on-one debates in a period of 4 weeks. This is something to complain about? Please.

  • Wow, Tom. That’s a depressing story. And when I think about it, you’re right – I can’t recall any personal experience with a psychiatrist or psychologist where they were anything close to accurate. But they pull down the big bucks, and it’s not an exact science, so they never have to be bang-on.

    I had to go, with my second wife, to see a psychologist because it was part of the marriage counseling deal. I guess I went willingly enough, but I was really just going through the motions, and I don’t think I made any effort to conceal that. As far as I was concerned by that point, all the marriage needed was somebody with a bible to say some words over it while a couple of manual labourers threw dirt on it.

    She later told me that in a private session (we each had one of those, too) he told her that he thought I really loved her. What I felt was pretty much the polar opposite, and he either told her that because he thought it was what she wanted to hear, or he made a diagnosis that was 180 degrees out.

    Neither of us got hurt the way you did, but it serves to suppport the point. It’s fine to go see someone like that, but it’s not medicine and the practices for getting at the root of your condition owe far more to speculation than anything else. The only other practice where you can be so consistently wrong and still have a job is weather forecasting, and even that is getting disturbingly accurate.

  • Uh, for the people who say that having no guns* in a country makes it a safer one, that’s not exactly the case. For one, that’s only for legally possessed and obtained firearms. The vast majority of crimes committed with guns in countries with weapons restrictions are done with illegally obtained firearms. The people who have their illegally obtained guns aren’t going to surrender them, because banning guns or other weapons only widens the power differential between themselves and their prey.

    Granted, banning guns will prevent tragic accidents, crimes of passion, and the like, but if you really want to kill someone, you’ll find a way to do it. Guns only make it easier.

    Most “gun nuts” and members of the NRA will concede, if sometimes grudgingly, that there do need to be sensible safeguards placed, like background checks, psych evals and the like. What the NRA is more concerned with the actual banning or restriction on gun sales.

    *Oh, and since Japan is virtually run on the local level by varied groups of mafia-type organizations, who completely outclass the state police in terms of manpower and firepower, it’s something of a fallacious statement to say that Japan is “safe” because it has no guns, since the Yakuza probably have more guns than the Japanese police does.

  • Guns in America are ubiquitous. If it were the case that a heavily armed populous would be safer, I’d expect to see more stories of brave citizens shooting it out with criminals. I can’t recall any such story, ever, in 40 years, so I have my doubts this notion makes any sense at all. Still, if someone can hunt up a few of these stories, I’d be more inclined to concede the point.

  • Allowing professors and students to be armed would be extremely dangerous. First imagine an auditorium filled with armed students when something like NIU happened and everyone started shooting. Just imagine how many might accidentally get killed or wounded. I for one would not want to be in a crowded room and have a bunch of untrained students opening fire.

  • The NRA mantra that the way to prevent shootings is with more guns doesn’t make sense when they say it, and doesn’t make sense when it is in the words of ‘independent thinker.’ I agree with Antonius that I just haven’t heard the stories of shootouts with bad guys — and I have heard far too many stories of kids getting shot, in drive-bys or by their friends playing with Daddy’s gun.

    In my ‘heart of hearts’ I’d like a system like England, Japan, or Australia. But it ain’t gonna happen any time soon. (I’m someone who has spent my whole life in Eastern cities, but I’ve spoken to and read comments by Westerners and people in rural areas, and even progressives there are relatively pro-gun — though without the ‘the Gummint is trying to disarm us so they can impose their sinister plans’ from the black helicopter crowd.)

    So I’m going to suggest the following plan — it’s a little long, bear with me.

    I:After a six-month period, all guns currently owned must be registered — with an amnesty against prosecution for having owned an unregistered gun.

    II:All weapons manufactured in the US or imported into it must have a unique serial number and must be registered before they may be sold or ownership transferred — say to a dealer.

    III:ANYONE (local drug dealer or local mayor) found in possession of an unregistered gun — or one with a defaced serial number — after that point would face a minor but mandatory jail sentence.

    IV: Any transfer of ownership or control of a gun must be registered — a simple 3-copy form that says nothing more than ‘for consideration, I have transferred ownership of my Glock 9: serial #__________ to (name). But that must be done even if the transfer is within family.

    V:(The heart of the plan) Any gun is the responsibility of the last registered owner — whether that be the manufacturer, a dealer, or a private person — and that person would be legally and financially responsible for any damage caused by that gun. Your gun was stolen? Why didn’t you report it to the police? (There might be certain rare cases where the presumption of ownership might be rebuttable, but it would be a hard case to make. The owner would have to demonstrate he took reasonable precautions against theft and that the theft happened so recently he hadn’t had time to report it or, in some cases, to be aware of it.)

    In other words, somebody gets shot with your gun, you are legally responsible for damages, medical bills, even ‘wrongful death’ or ‘criminally negligent homicide’ unless you can show the shooter obtained the weapon without your consenst and despite reasonable precautions. (As a non-driver I’m not sure, but I think this is similar to how car ownership is handled.)

    VI: Every weapon must be brought to a police station — or possibly to some sort of registered lab — every six months, at which time a ‘ballistic fingerprint’ will be taken and kept in a central registry, so that a weapon used in a crime can be identified from the shell casings.

    VII:Certain types of people, felons, people with certain psychiatric disorders, people determined to be ‘violent domestic abusers,’ would be prohibited from owning guns — perhaps, sadly, there would have to be some ‘job-related’ exceptions in certain of the last type. (And it wouldn’t necessitate a criminal prosecution. A finding in divorce court, for example, would be sufficient.)

    Okay, that’s it. No, it’s not perfect, and I see ways of getting around some provisions. But ‘the perfect is oft the enemy of the good’ and this is at least a good start.

  • Michael W. (#43) gave this:

    Obama Says Gun Violence Must End
    The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, says he believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants individual gun rights.
    But he says it’s subject to commonsense regulations like background checks.

    I’m with Obama on this. After all, we don’t know what Bush has up his sleeve near the end of his term. I don’t believe the dictator-in-chief will “go willingly into the night” on January 20, 2009. Frankly, I am really worried about this. I fear that the Bush Administration will not cede power, especially to the Democrats. I think he is up to something.

    *Why did Bush gut the 200 year-old Posse Comitatus Act (which limits the president’s ability to use military force AGAINST AMERICANS in domestic affairs), if not to institute martial law at some point? (Google “posse comitatus” and Bush to read about it.)

    *Why did Bush gut the Constitutional right of habeas corpus, which is “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” (US Supreme Court said this in Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969).

    *Why was Halliburton given a $385 Million contract for “establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants (???) into the United States, or to support the rapid development of new programs. (???)” (Read it here (page 5, at the bottom): http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2006/corpnws_012606.pdf)

    I don’t own a gun. I don’t know how to use one. However, I think people need to have guns to protect themselves from freaks like Bush/Cheney. Why am I so paranoid? I simply do not know.

  • Yes, Prantha, you ARE paranoid. It’s understandable. Some people are so destructive and result in such evil that we forget they still are people and not comic book villains.

    I remember when a lot of people, including me, were afraid Richard Nixon would start a nuclear war rather than accept impeachment.

    But yes they are people, even Bush, even Cheney — though that’s a harder case to make. And — this may not make me popular here — I think Bush, despite the incredible horrors he has done, really believes in his heart that he was ‘doing the right thing’ and is acting for ‘the good of the country.’ (This does NOT hold for Cheney). He’s a liar yes, but the first person he lies to is himself. He has the particular type of religious/credulous mindset that, once he has what he believes is ‘the truth’ holds on to it and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

    He’s bought into all the Republican bullsh*t and had an almost religious need to find an excuse to atack Saddam Hussein (who, we forget, was behind an attempt to assassinate his “Daddy.”) so he convinced himself of the WMDs and Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. And I think he still believes them — think ‘creationist’ and how no evidence will change their minds. He’s a dangerous, sincere fool — which can be worse than the sort of villain we sometimes call him because of that sincerity.

    But because of this, I am much less worried than you about a coup d’etat. The same beliefs that keep him making his horrible, deadly mistakes and crimes will keep him from this particular action.

  • Prup (#53) Thanks for trying, but you have not given me much comfort.

    I think that Bush will sincerely, religiously think that he is acting for the good of the country when he takes control of the US by force. Remember that Cheney still advises (programs) him – and that he is surrounded by a bubble of “yes” men and women who support Cheney’s agenda.

    (As a slightly humorous aside, I babysat for some friends of mine about a week ago. Their kids played a video of PINKY & THE BRAIN episodes. I was transfixed. Bush is “Pinky;” Cheney is “The Brain.” )

  • What I want to know is why I knew he was off his meds before I knew his name.
    Very suspicious.

  • Working as a civilian in South Vietnam and having been the shooter in a “spur-of-the-moment” righteous destruction of a US Army Jeep, the routing of 4 South Vietnamese Army officers and the near accidental killing of their Vietnamese NCO driver, the idea of an auditorium full of students licensed to carry shooting it out with a deranged gunman scares the crap out of me. they might get the bad guy but with all that lead flying around there would be a lot of good guys to escort him to the nether life.
    David Chisholm

  • Comments are closed.