A Senate in the Gun Lobby?????s Grip

[_Kevin Graham]

By GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo — desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation — to go on.

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.

People have told me that I’m courageous, but I have seen greater courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we dedicated a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot in the head and saw the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran toward me as I lay bleeding. Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot him, and then Gabe died. His body lay on the pavement in front of the Safeway for hours.

I have thought a lot about why Gabe ran toward me when he could have run away. Service was part of his life, but it was also his job. The senators who voted against background checks for online and gun-show sales, and those who voted against checks to screen out would-be gun buyers with mental illness, failed to do their job.

They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby — and brought shame on themselves and our government itself by choosing to do nothing.

They will try to hide their decision behind grand talk, behind willfully false accounts of what the bill might have done — trust me, I know how politicians talk when they want to distract you — but their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest. I say misplaced, because to preserve their dignity and their legacy, they should have heeded the voices of their constituents. They should have honored the legacy of the thousands of victims of gun violence and their families, who have begged for action, not because it would bring their loved ones back, but so that others might be spared their agony.

This defeat is only the latest chapter of what I’ve always known would be a long, hard haul. Our democracy’s history is littered with names we neither remember nor celebrate — people who stood in the way of progress while protecting the powerful. On Wednesday, a number of senators voted to join that list.

Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way.

Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic representative from Arizona from 2007 to 2012, is a founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions, which focuses on gun violence.

[_ajax18]

Some peoples lives are saved by the right to bear arms. It's hard to get them to vote to put themselves in a defenseless state. Legislation cannot protect you against criminals. It only makes you vulnerable to them. It's not like there aren't a lot of gun laws already. New gun laws serve only to make politicians appear to be doing something for the public when more laws really don't help, especially when we only selectively enforce the laws we already have.

Your own Harry Reid voted against this bill Kevin. Yes there were disgraceful Republicans who voted for this bill, but the truth is that the bill would never have been voted down if every democrat had voted for it. Radical liberalism is not the majority in this country that many think it is. For many women, a gun is a great equalizer, so you don't get the gender gap that you get for issues like welfare. For inner city people, I'm sure defending yourself is more of a day to day reality than it is for me. I can't see them being very happy with the disarming of law biding citizens and leaving them to defend themselves from criminals with knives in a gunfight. Ultimately more regulations only serve to increase the cost to the point where people will not be able to afford to defend themselves legally.

[_ldsfaqs]

Listening to Obama simply made me sick, no different than watching Anti-mormon "Christian" "love" videos, especially the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith one.

Almost every word out of his mouth he was utterly LYING about those who believe in freedom, including the freedom to protect life, even with guns.

Even worse still is the LIE that the "bill" was going to "help" in almost ANY way actually stop recent mass shootings. The vast majority of the Bible went to NOTHING to stop actual gun shooting especially mass shootings, and further, the small amount such as the mental health aspects of the bill was just that, "small". That's the reason the bill fell, because it was just EVIL and STUPID.

And THANK GOD for actual FREEDOM, to Lobby FOR OUR FREEDOMS!!!!
As usual, liberals the Fascists they are want to take away freedom, such as the "gun lobby".
They call good evil and evil good as usual, placing "blame" where the blame doesn't belong, be it guns or pro-gunners.

[_3sheets2thewind]

According to el presidente, 10% of Americans rallied to ensure the failure of the senate bill, and the president can't stop bitching about that 10%.... It was probably the.same fcking 10% that madated obamacare.

[_Kevin Graham]

Listening to these idiots on the Right make me absolutely sick. It proves once and for all for me that some of the harshest criticisms I have given them are absolutely justified. Ultimately, all they care about is blaming the left for anything and everything they can spin as "bad" and obstructing any attempt to make the world a better place if it means the "left" will get credit for it.

There is absolutely no logical argument to be made against background checks. None. Most Americans overwhelmingly support the move. But the NRA money is more powerful than the voice of the people and this incident shows how the Republicans are controlled by money more than any other group. Democrats are guilty too, but to a far lesser extent. I've given these Righties a chance to explain their reasoning and all they can come up with are these cry baby, second amendment, straw men arguments such as the idiotic remarks made above by ajax and ldsfaqs.

This was a no-brainer as far as legislation goes. It makes it harder for those with criminal backgrounds and a history of mental illness, to legally purchase a gun.

What the hell could be so bad about that?

A person's background has legally determine eligibility for things like employment, driving, voting rights, etc. But we treat owning a gun like it is some sort of sacrosanct thing that anyone should be able to do do no matter what they've done in the past or what mental illnesses they suffer from. Idiots like Erick Erickson at Redstate are gloating about how they've "won" and we "lost." No, the majority of Americans lose on this one. They are just a bunch of idiotic puppets who let the NRA pull their strings. I know a lot of folks on the Right who sing their tune despite never owning a gun. It is why the Republican party is such a lost cause in this day and age. It is controlled and operated and adored by those whose values amount to nothing more than belonging to the tribe and supporting whatever their media priests tell them then should support and hating whatever they are told to hate. Just listening to these blathering fools call in on the radio shows and rant about how Obama is the bad person here, coming up with more baseless conspiracy theories just to kiss Sean Hannity's ass, made me embarrassed to be an American.

[_Kevin Graham]

Burton NewmanAttorney; Adjunct professor, Washington University School of Law



"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ~ Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Following the Sandy Hook massacre, gun rights, gun laws and the Second Amendment have been the subject of a national dialogue. Any discussion of these topics is severely tainted by calculated messaging by the NRA to deceive and mislead our citizens to believe that the Second Amendment grants far reaching gun rights which have not and do not exist.

The Second Amendment became part of our constitution in 1791. For well over two centuries the Supreme Court never decided that the Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. The widely held notion that such a right existed was a myth fabricated by the NRA for its own self interest and for the corporate profits of gun manufacturers. This fabrication altered the mindset of most Americans to accept fictional Second Amendment rights that permitted the proliferation of all manner and kind of dangerous weapons. We became a gun culture run rampant. The gun manufacturers reaped enormous profits as gun sales soared. In 2011 industry wide gun sales were $4.3 billion. Misconceptions generated by the NRA created a warped interpretation of Second Amendment that generated these sales.

The fraud perpetrated by the NRA is patent. We do not heed the warnings of prominent citizens such as former attorneys general Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot L. Richardson, Edward Levi, Griffin B. Bell and Benjamin R. Civiletti. The joint statement in the Washington Post of these former attorneys general in 1992 reads as follows:

"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobbies' distortion of the constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crime."

In a PBS News Hour interview in 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the NRA Second Amendment myth as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by any special interest group that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

The opinions of these distinguished legal scholars had no bearing on NRA propaganda that continued unabated. During the weeks before the 2000 general election, a self-anointed constitution "scholar," Charleton Heston, ceremonial president of the NRA, flooded the airways to urge voters to support candidates who would protect and preserve Second Amendment rights. Little did most Americans realize that such rights did not exist. The NRA's reading of the Second Amendment was purely fictional and unsupported by the law of the land.

Candidates for public office both state and federal reaped in political contributions from the NRA. These elected officials feared the wrath of the NRA should they stray from the NRA's Second Amendment myth.

A norm evolved offering sanctity to gun owners and manufacturers. Gun manufacturers and the NRA prospered and profited. As one gun manufacturing executive states the equation, the NRA "protects our Second Amendment rights and those rights protect the ability to buy our products." Elected officials stand idly by while gun deaths and massacres escalate without lasting public outcry or meaningful legislative efforts.

The statistics are staggering. The depth of lost life is evident by comparing deaths in foreign wars and firearm deaths of citizens within our borders. In all foreign wars during our history about 650,000 soldiers died. In the 45 years since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated in 1968, there have been over 1.3 million deaths in our country caused by firearms. The fraud perpetrated by the NRA as recognized by former Chief Justice Burger is linked to these deaths. The blood of thousands upon thousands of Americans permanently stain the hands of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.

How did the NRA gain such power and influence on our citizenry? For the first century of its existence beginning in 1871, the NRA primarily devoted its efforts to gun safety. Following enactment of new restrictive gun laws requiring gun licensing and taxes, a 1977 coup within the NRA membership led by militants resulted in a new harder edged and more aggressive NRA. The truth mattered not. The edifice of the NRA headquarters would now bear an abbreviated version of the Second Amendment: "The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms Shall not be infringed." The NRA amended the Constitution unilaterally to avoid even a hint that the language pertaining to a Militia had any meaning. The law of the land spoke otherwise.

In 1939 the Supreme Court issued the Miller decision. The justices ruled that "the Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia." That was the state of Second Amendment law until the 2008 Heller decision. Prior to Heller, the Supreme Court never recognized that individuals had an individual right to keep and bear arms. It was the NRA propaganda, not the law of the land, that led the cry for unlimited gun ownership and protection of gun owner rights. The NRA myths allowed the cycle of expanded gun sales and NRA power to purchase political influence. Democrats and Republican alike announced their allegiance to the Second Amendment and the public grew to believe that the NRA view of the Second Amendment was consistent with constitutional law. The NRA controlled too many elected officials to allow for protection of our citizens from gun violence, gun deaths and unspeakable gun horrors in schools and public places.

The NRA myths were disseminated on other fronts. Articles appeared in NRA publications and rewrote history by declaring that "Armed citizens [were] unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford." This credo became an NRA rallying cry.

The NRA poured millions upon millions of dollars into congressional and state legislative campaigns. Gun owners and manufacturers poured more money into the NRA. The revisionist view of Second Amendment rights gained momentum in 1982 when a Senate judiciary subcommittee issued a report about the discovery of "long lost proof" of an individual's constitutional right to bear arms. The chair of the subcommittee was Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The "proof" has never surfaced.

For over three decades the NRA funded legal research, legal seminars and pushed for law review articles supporting individual rights to bear arms. This and the NRA persuasion of elected officials led to a dramatic shift in Second Amendment legal views. In 2003 the NRA established a $1 million chair at George Mason University law school. The views of NRA supported professors and legal scholars were relied on in the 2008 Supreme Court decision finding an individual right to bear arms for the first time.

What did the Supreme Court say in the 2008 Heller decision? The Court held that there existed an individual right to bear arms only for traditional purposes such as self-defense in the home. The Court declared that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court gave examples of firearms laws presumed to be lawful. These included laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons, mentally ill persons and possession of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. The Court found that conditions on the commercial sale of firearms were presumptively lawful. The Court said this list was not exhaustive; and found that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning firearms that are "dangerous and unusual."

The ruling in Heller was a departure from the 1939 decision in the Miller case where the court stated that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to ensure effectiveness of the stated Militia. However, even with this departure the decision in Heller is limited in its scope. The only right specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion is the right of an individual to possess a gun for self-defense in the home.

Did this limited decision stop the NRA from its propaganda campaign? Of course not. On Meet the Press on March 24, 2013, Wayne LaPierre declared to the nation that under the Heller decision it would be an "absolute abridgement" of constitutional rights to regulate assault weapons. That myth, heard by millions, was intended to again mislead the country into believing that there are sweeping Second Amendment rights that cannot be regulated. Nonsense. The very language of the Supreme Court opinion in Heller calls out LaPierre as a liar.

How can the American people be educated to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of that Amendment? Such an education process could lead to sweeping reform of state and federal regulation of firearms. But how is the mindset of the American people to be changed? The same way our mindset about drunk driving and smoking changed over time. Let's take a look at the circumstances involved in smoking. Smokers 35 years ago would never have believed there would be no public smoking. When harms caused by drunk drivers and tobacco users were known in clear terms, the mindset of the public changed. New reforms, enforcement of laws and demands for a safer society became reachable goals. The change in that mindset did not take place in a day a week or a year. Nor will the change in the mindset regarding Second Amendment rights change overnight. But it is the education of the citizenry and the education of our lawmakers that is necessary in order for the calculated messaging of the NRA to be known for what it is: Lies, myths and fictions that have harmed and killed our citizens and will continue to do so until an enlightened view of the very limited scope of Second Amendment rights is known, understood and acted upon.

[_Analytics]

Some peoples lives are saved by the right to bear arms. It's hard to get them to vote to put themselves in a defenseless state....

The bill in question isn’t about the right for law-abiding, mentally stable people to bear arms. The bill is about whether people with criminal records or dangerous psychiatric disorders should be able to purchase weapons through legal channels.

Making it a harder for criminals to purchase weapons does absolutely nothing to mitigate the right of law-abiding systems to own a gun. Why do you want it to be easy for criminals and the mentally unstable to obtain weapons?

[_Kevin Graham]

Why do you want it to be easy for criminals and the mentally unstable to obtain weapons?

Oh, Oh, Oh, I know the answer to this one. It was spelled out for the blind sheep by the NRA and its sidekick media arm, FOX News. You see, guns are going to be obtained anyway, so this kind of law would do absolutely nothing to prevent any future tragedies. Hows that for logic!

It relies on nothing more than a guess. They can't just concede the point that the law doesn't hinder mentally stable, law abiding citizens to obtain guns, because that would prove they're irrational. So they have to invent this meme about how it somehow is an attack on the 2nd amendment.

Ultimately all that matters is the gun lobby gets its money's worth in force feeding this nonsense.

[_cinepro]

Honest question:Would background checks have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre or Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt?

[_cinepro]

Your own Harry Reid voted against this bill Kevin.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying the Reid voted against a bill that he was the sponsor of?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649#overview