These people are just too stupid to believe.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 01/21/2011 4:18:52 AM PST by marktwain
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the fiercest Second Amendment defenders on Capitol Hill, supports another look at gun laws designed to block firearm sales to the mentally ill, his office said Thursday.
Congress passed such a law in 2007, following the shooting deaths of 32 students and teachers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Yet the suspect in this month's Arizona shooting reportedly had little trouble buying a handgun in November, even despite earlier concerns about disturbing behavior and habitual drug use.
The tragic episode — in which a federal judge was killed and a congresswoman critically injured — has prompted gun reformers on and off Capitol Hill to call for additional scrutiny of the effectiveness of the 2007 law. On Thursday, Coburn's office said the Oklahoma Republican agrees.
"He is open to revisiting the law," Coburn spokesman John Hart wrote in an e-mail. "His goal is to make sure we have a way to ensure that people who are truly mentally ill and are a threat to themselves or others are not allowed to buy a firearm.
"However," Hart added, "he won’t support any measure that prohibits any American from buying or possessing a firearm without cause."
Asked whether Coburn would spearhead an effort to revisit the 2007 law, Hart said it's still "too soon to say."
In 1968, Congress enacted a law blocking gun sales to anyone deemed by a judge to be a "mental defective." Licensed gun dealers are currently required to consult the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to see if potential buyers fit that category — or any other prohibiting them from buying firearms.
The 2007 gun-reform law neither altered the "mental defective" designation nor expanded the categories of barred gun purchasers. Instead, it provided financial incentives to states to submit more information
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
These people are just too stupid to believe.
There's a gun shop/shooting range that I've hung out at for over 40 years. I've become friends with both families that have owned it. They've sold guns to people that they were sure were: gangbangers, gun runners to Mexico, and nutcases. In every case the purchaser cleared the background check, so what choice did the gun shop have? Refuse them?
They'd get sued by the NAACP over refusing the gangbangers
They'd get sued by the MALDF over refusing the gun runners to Mexico
They'd get sued by the ACLU over refusing the nutcases.
Most of the people that work at gun shops have developed a good set of radar, and I'll bet could be very close to 100% accurate in predicting the reason a gun is being purchased.
But wait, we can't get them involved because they are the “enemy”, part of the “gun culture”. Let's come up with a hundred new stupid laws and systems, none of which will work.
They veer a lot earlier than that. All one has to do is really listen to what they say.
I’m baffled by Coburn’s recent statements. Like you, I wonder if for some reason (money, threats, wanting to be “liked”—who knows) he’s gone over to the dark side. Red flags abound—from saying Nancy Pelosi is a nice person to saying he wanted to sit with Chuck Schumer at the SOTU address—not to mention, also working with him on gun control. Many Oklahomans refuse to see the warning signs, but something is changing with Dr. Tom Coburn.
This all comes up after the AZ shooting, and the shooter’s background WAS checked by the FBI, and nothing turned up. Nothing CAN turn up unless for some reason a person has been under the care of a psychiatrist or been committed. That didn’t happen here. The parents knew he was going off the deep end, his friends knew it, certainly other students knew it. But since he never sought treatment (and since no around him forced him into treatment), his name wasn’t on anyone’s list. New laws will not change that.
We have laws about drunk driving. Sort of like psychotic gun-owning.
According to an interview on our local (OKC) teevee last week, Coburn IS working with Schumer on gun legislation. Very sad.
That's exactly the point.
Outlaw electricity and refrigeration within five miles of the Capitol. Make them telecommute from offices in their districts, where they'll be constantly aware the tar and pitchforks are just on the other side of that wall....
Journalist’s Guide to Gun Violence Coverage
Guns are a sad fact of life in American culture and are a major topic in modern journalism. A good Journalist has a duty to get involved and make a difference in this important societal debate. By following certain guidelines, the concerned Journalist can be assured of having the maximum impact on this shameful problem.
The first principle to remember is that subtle use of terminology can covertly influence the reader. Adjectives should be chosen for maximum anti-gun effect. When describing a gun, attach terms like “automatic,” “semi-automatic,” “large caliber,” “deadly,” “high powered,” or “powerful.” Almost any gun can be described by one or more of these terms. More than two guns should be called an “arsenal.”
Try to include the term “assault weapon” if at all possible. This can be combined with any of the terms above for best results. Nobody actually knows what an assault weapon is, so you cannot be criticized for this usage. Your local anti-gun organization can provide you with a list of the latest buzz words like “junk guns,” “Saturday Night Specials,” and “the criminal’s weapon of choice.”
Don’t worry about getting technical details right. Many a reporter has accidentally written about semi-automatic revolvers or committed other minor errors. Since most people know little about guns, this is not a problem. Only the gun nuts will complain and they don’t count. The emotional content of your article is much more important than the factual details, since people are more easily influenced through their emotions than through logic.
Broadcast Journalists should have a file tape showing a machine gun firing on full automatic. Run this video while describing “automatic” weapons used in a crime or confiscated by police. At the least, a large graphic of a handgun should be displayed behind the on-air personality when reading any crime story.
Do not waste words describing criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Instead of calling them burglar, rapist, murderer, or repeat offender, simply use the term “gunman.” This helps the public associate all forms of crime and violence with the possession of guns.
Whenever drug dealers are arrested, guns are usually confiscated by the police. Mention the type and number of guns more prominently than the type and quantity of drugs. Include the number of rounds of ammunition seized, since the number will seem large to those who know little about guns. Obviously, the drug dealers who had the guns should now be called “gunmen.”
Political discussions on gun control legislation usually involve pro-gun organizations. Always refer to these organizations as “the gun lobby.” If space permits, mention how much money the gun lobby has spent to influence political campaigns and describe their legislative lobbying efforts as “arm twisting” or “threats.”
Gun owners must never be seen in a positive light. Do not mention that these misguided individuals may actually be well educated, or have respectable jobs and healthy families. They should be called “gun nuts” if possible or simply gun owners at best. Mention details about their clothing, especially if they are wearing hunting clothes or hats. Mention the simplistic slogans on their bumper stickers to show that their intelligence level is low. Many gun owners drive pickup trucks, hunt and live in rural areas. Use these details to help portray them as ignorant rednecks. Don’t use the word “hunt.” Always say that they “kill” animals.
Don’t be afraid to interview these people, they are harmless even though we don’t portray them that way. Try to solicit comments that can be taken out of context to show them in the worst possible light.
Never question the effectiveness of gun control laws or proposals. Guns are evil and kill people. Removing guns from society can only be good. Nobody really uses guns for legitimate self-defense, especially women or children. Any stories about armed self-defense must be minimized or suppressed.
Be careful about criticizing the police for responding slowly to 911 calls for help. It is best if the public feels like the police can be relied upon to protect them at all times. If people are buying guns to protect their families, you are not doing your job.
Emphasize stories where people kill family members and/or themselves with guns. It is important to make the public feel like they could lose control and start killing at any moment if they have a gun in the house. Any story where a child misuses a gun is front page material.
View every shooting as an event to be exploited. Always include emotional quotes from the victim’s family if possible. If they are not available, the perpetrator’s family will do nicely. The quote must blame the tragedy on the availability of guns. Photos or video of grieving family members are worth a thousand facts. Most people will accept the assertion that guns cause crime. It is much easier than believing that some people deliberately choose to harm others.
Your story should include terms like “tragic” or “preventable” and mention the current toll of gun violence in your city or state. Good reporters always know exactly how many gun deaths have occurred in their area since the first of the year. List two or three previous incidents of gun violence to give the impression of a continuing crime wave.
Little space should be devoted to shootings where criminals kill each other. Although these deaths greatly inflate the annual gun violence numbers, they distract from the basic mission of urging law abiding citizens to give up their guns. Do not dig too deeply into the reasons behind shootings. The fact that a gun was involved is the major point, unless someone under 18 is affected, in which case the child angle is now of equal importance.
Any article about gun violence should include quotes from anti-gun organizations or politicians. One quote should say that we must do something “for the children.” Anti-gun spokespersons should be called “activists” or “advocates.” If your employer wishes to appear unbiased, you can include one token quote from a gun lobby group to show that you are being fair. The anti-gun statements should be accepted as fact. The gun lobby statement can be denigrated by including text like, “according to gun lobbyist Jones.”
Fortunately, statements from anti-gun organizations come in short sound bites that are perfect for generating an emotional response in the reader or viewer. Gun lobby statements usually contain boring facts that are easy to ignore.
Feel secure in your advocacy journalism. The vast majority of your fellow Journalists support your activism. The nation will be a better place when only the police and military have guns. Remember that you are doing it for the children so the end justifies the means.
Eventually, the government will have a monopoly on power. Don’t worry about the right to freedom of the press, just contact me then for more helpful hints.
Professor Michael Brown School of Journalism, Brady Chair Vancouver College of Liberal Arts
Political Satire, copyright 1999, Michael Brown. May be reproduced freely in its full and complete form. The author may be contacted at mb@e-z.net
Contact: Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS “We publish the gun laws.” 4848 E. Cactus #505-440 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog
Psychiatry and the law are so deeply and flagrantly in bed. Pass a law like that, and in no time at all, you’ll be adjudged mentally ill BECAUSE you want a gun.
Could we red flag all patients placed on certain drugs and presenting select symptoms? Part of the information given by the MD that he would submit a quick form to red flag ( stop) gun sale to the patient with no other info given because of Hipa laws. It can be undone by the same MD if patient meets criteria to be removed. It seems simple.
I fully realize this would force people intent on harming others or themselves to knives, fists and other means. It would not be 25 at a time.
and the evidence of the failure is a neon epic failure, yet 'one of the fiercest' 2A defenders in *DC* is willing to add a few saw strokes to the branch we're sittin on to appease the ENEMY and save face and the perks of being a 'prince' among the royal thieves...
is there even one politician that will uphold his oath, and use his position [and television opportunities] for the push to rollback this crap, back towards FReedom ???
so far Ive only heard a lil lip service before elections...
one of the best ive read lately...but would add that anyone walking the streets should, by common sense and law, retain all of their Rights...as you demonstrated...
There is no “cause” for tyranny Coburn you asshat!
“...Yet the suspect in this month’s Arizona shooting reportedly had little trouble buying a handgun in November, even despite earlier concerns about disturbing behavior and habitual drug use...”
The POINT BEING is that IF the Douchebag Sheriff, currently mouthing off, would have done HIS job and arrested the Perp for drug use, trouble/threat making, etc., etc., on any ONE of the multiple occasions that he had to perform his JOB as a Public Servant - then Loughner WOULD have had a record, and would have been instantly declined by the National Instant Check system, and the State level instant check as well.
Or...on the other hand, he could simply have bought one out of the trunk of Jamal or Julio’s low rider in the barrio...
But hey...let’s just let the media and all the others skim over those troublesome little facts!!!
if hes too 'dangerous/unstable' to posses weapons, then keep em locked up...with impartial judicial review of course...
Thankfully, he is term limiting himself, as he did in the House. Sadly, this shows the corrupting influence of the inside the beltway crowd.
progressivism the gift that keeps on giving.
“Outlaw electricity and refrigeration”
****
For every advancement HVAC has enabled in the private sector, there has been at least one step toward socialism made in government because of it.
Congress would meet only a couple of months per year if HVAC were banned in DC. Let’s do it for “the environment.” :-)
You’re right. If that loud-mouthed incompetent Sheriff manages to skate out of this while keeping his job, without criminal negligence charges, without civil liability suits... Well, then there really is no justice left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.