DOWNLOADS: (57)

PLAYS: (205)

Embed

This is the second time I've heard Chris Wallace repeat this remark that the Boston residents on lockdown during the manhunt last week would have been safer if they were just more heavily armed. The first time was right around the same time Arkansas state Rep. Nate Bell sent out this tweet, on one of other the Faux "News" morning shows. The second time was during his interview with Rep. Dianne Feinstein on Fox News Sunday, who pushed back sternly at Wallace's assertion.

From Politicususa: Dianne Feinstein Calls BS on the Right’s Fantasy That Assault Weapons Can Stop Terrorists:

The thing that the right doesn’t seem to understand is that the Boston manhunt makes the case for why everyone should not have an assault weapon. The bombers were able to kill a campus police officer because they had the element of surprise. They were able to carjack and rob someone due to the element of surprise. A panicked population armed with assault weapons is likely to take law enforcement’s focus off of the bombers, because they would be dealing with every trigger happy scared individual who fired their gun. The last thing law enforcement needed during the search for the bombers was more people running around with guns.

Arming more people with assault weapons would help terrorists by distracting law enforcement. Sen. Feinstein was correct. If people wanted to feel safe there are literally thousands of guns that they could own.

The idea that assault weapons in the hands of regular citizens can stop terrorism is more NRA action movie fantasy.

The reality is that a scared and on edge population armed with assault weapons probably would have resulted in more death and destruction, but this is something that the NRA and their congressional lackeys don’t want to discuss.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (188)

PLAYS: (3769)

Embed

Here's something you don't see happen every day. Peggy Noonan actually got called out for attempting to repeat one of her favorite talking points -- that President Obama could somehow wave a magic wand and force the members of Congress to behave the way he wants them to -- and on Meet the Press of all places.

GREGORY: And-- and yet this week as-- as this was going on, as the investigation was going on, the Senate defeats a background check bill for-- for guns. So we-- we are confronting this violence but still very divided about how we react to it and try to solve it.

NOONAN: Yeah, I think the essential problem is that Americans at this point don’t trust their government so much to do the right thing. They are skeptical of all bills on things that they care about to-- to lower the conversation a little bit, get it down to-- to mere politics, I guess. I think there is a problem when you’ve got 90 percent of the American people wanting something like background checks and a president who is just re-elected and riding a wave, can’t make anything move that way. I think there is a problem there, and I think he is having, as somebody said, a problem with the levers of power.

KEARNS GOODWIN: But maybe the problem is also the structure of the Senate. You know, at the turn of the 20th century when public sentiment wanted a lot of things done to deal with industrialization and the problem of the slums, the Senate was impossible to move because it was millionaires in there. They finally realized they have to have direct election of senators. They used to be elected by the state legislatures and they’re only susceptible to special interest. Maybe that’s the trouble now, that structural Senate given the 60 votes that are needed, given who they listen to, given the power of special interest, public sentiment cannot penetrate. And we’ve seen it now for the last decade. That’s what the dysfunction is about. It’s not just the Senate, it’s the Congress.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (233)

PLAYS: (1693)

Embed

With the Senate just voting down the Manchin-Toomey amendment to the gun safety bill, while the media continues to focus on the Boston bombing attacks, MSNBC's Chris Hayes discussed the difference between the way crimes are handled once they're "put in the terrorism bucket" as compared to the "gun bucket" and the differences between what Americans are willing to accept in each instance.

Violence and terror: What’s the difference?:

On Wednesday night, host Chris Hayes asks the question: What happens when someone is apprehended? Will the identity of the bomber(s) impact the way we describe and govern the incident?

Incidents like the Boston Marathon bombings, that appear to be driven by unfettered hatred, shake us to our collective core. They make us think twice about entering public spaces: going out for a meal, taking public transportation, taking a dog for a walk. There is no doubt that the intended consequence of an act like the bombings at the Boston Marathon is to scare. But how should we characterize and define that fear? And what does this fear drive us to do? Does it drive us to suspend rule of law?

What exactly is the distinction between an ordinary crime and what we call terrorism?

After showing some of President Obama's speech following the filibuster, Hayes wrapped things up with this:

HAYES: And so, as we follow the developments out of Boston, as we leave no stone unturned attempting to find the perpetrator, another eighty eight or so people will lose their life to a bullet tomorrow, and the day after that and the day after that. And meanwhile, all worry that if the suspect who blew up the finish line isn't caught, we can't be sure that we're safe.

DOWNLOADS: (99)

PLAYS: (735)

Embed

The NRA's National School Shield Task Force chair, Asa Hutchinson may have finally conceded, after being badgered by Fox host Chris Wallace that he might be willing to go along with more background checks on gun sales at gun shows or over the Internet, but he was still being just as unreasonable as his cohort when it came to doing the checks on other types of private sales.

Take the word gun every time it's used here and replace it with the word car in Hutchinson's response.

WALLACE: Even if the NRA is right and we have had Wayne LaPierre on the show and he says, look, if a bad guy wants a gun, he's going to find a way to get a gun. The fact is 1.9 million sales, as I say, have been blocked. Why not make it as hard as possible for people to get their hands on a gun who have this history of either a criminal record or mental illness?

HUTCHINSON: Well, if you take those statistics at face value then the current system in place has been effective in blocking people who are not entitled to obtain a firearm from getting one. So, that's effective. Now, the question is, do you want to expand that system from where it is right now.

And I think in general concept, Americans, everybody would like to see effective background checks so that criminals do not have access to firearms.

But as a practical matter -- and I read the bill last night, if you are a farmer, 30 miles from town and you want to transfer a shotgun to a neighbor, you've got to go 30 miles into town, find the federal licensed firearm dealer, fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, have the background check and then you have a responsibility to keep those records for inspection by the government and that's a huge burden on citizens.

So, my look at that is, I don't know whether that's going to pass or not, but it's not going to address the problem of safety in schools. I'm not a spokesman for the NRA on this topic. I'm expressing my views but I want to look at things that work and keep children safe.

Yeah, what a terrible "burden" to keep from selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. I wonder what else he thinks those farmers would refuse to do if it required them driving more than 30 miles?

DOWNLOADS: (200)

PLAYS: (2307)

Embed

This was a nice change of pace, watching a Republican get shot down for their fearmongering on the air: ABC Journalist Calls Out Karl Rove: ‘Stop Scaring People’ About Background Checks:

During a heated debate about gun regulations on Sunday morning, ABC News’ Terry Moran accused Karl Rove of using “Orwellian” language to scare people about background checks, noting that the federal government is not seeking to confiscate guns but rather keep them out of the hands of criminals and people who are mentally ill. [...]

The proposals currently being drafted would require a background check on all gun purchases including those by private sellers while exempting family and temporary transfers. In some of the drafts being circulated, private dealers would have to maintain records for all private sales, while other exempt non-commercial private sales from record keeping. None of the bills would maintain a national gun registry, which is already illegal under current law. But the record keeping provision is important, advocates claim, to ensure that the checks are being properly conducted.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 88 percent of Americans, including 85 percent of gun owners, believe “those purchasing firearms at private sales and gun shows should undergo a background check.”

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (154)

PLAYS: (811)

Embed

Here's your Congress at work, still doing the bidding of the NRA and Wayne LaPierre when they hope no one is paying attention. As Zack Beauchamp at Think Progress noted, you'd think that after the tragic shooting at Newtown any new gun regulations would tighten regulations and make it harder for criminals to attain them, but sadly, just the opposite is true.

The First Federal Gun Laws To Pass Since Newtown Are All NRA Approved:

Six gun provisions were passed as riders attached to the resolution funding the government through September on Thursday. While all six had been federal law since 2004, each was approved by Congress on a year-to-year basis only. Now, four of the provisions are permanent. According to National Public Radio‘s Tamara Keith, the NRA “is the driving force behind these provisions.” Here they are:

1) Limit enforcement tools against crooked dealers. One rider would prevent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agents from shutting down gun stores due to “due to a lack of business activity,” arguably a sign of criminal sales.

2) Shield gun dealers who “lose” their guns. This legislation precludes any federal law that requires gun retailers to count their guns and submit the results as a mechanism of determining whether any weapons have been lost or stolen.

3) Interfere with ATF gun trace reports. The ATF is now mandated to include, in any reports concerning its tracing of guns back to crime, that trace data “cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime.” Academic work on guns has used trace data to firmly establish that several firearm regulations effectively prevent the spread of guns to criminal.

4) Expand the class of protected guns. According to Roll Call‘s John Gramlich, the fourth permanent law would “place a broad definition of antique guns and ammunition that may be imported into the United States.”

As Martin Bashir pointed out in his rant above, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre might be crazy, but he's crazy like a Fox when it comes to the success of his lobbying efforts.

Lawrence O'Donnell pretty well eviscerated the "Independent" Women's Forum's Gayle Trotter, and her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, where she testified that assault weapons should not be outlawed because they were the "weapon of choice" for young mothers who need a "scary-looking gun."

I was glad to see O'Donnell call out her organization for being anything but "independent" because they're not. And apparently attorney Trotter, who also opposes the Violence Against Women Act (go read why), isn't too fond of being called a right-winger. O'Donnell's back-and-forth with her starts about nine minutes into the clip above.

Here's more from O'Donnell's blog at MSNBC: ‘Guns make women safer,’ says Gayle Trotter. Study says, not so:

The use of assault weapons among women emerged as standout topic at Wednesday’s Senate hearing on gun control legislation. Gayle Trotter, a lawyer and senior fellow at the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, said women need that type of firearm to level the playing field when confronted by physically stronger male attackers.

The guns rights advocate told lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee that “guns make women safer.” To her, AR-15s are the “weapon of choice” because “they have good handling, they’re light, they’re easy for women to hold.” And the appearance of such a “scary-looking gun” deters violent male criminals during home invasions.

But a recent study conducted by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center disputed those assertions. The study found that women living in states with more accessibility to guns are at a greater risk for violent death. This includes “unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.”

During an interview on The Last Word Wednesday night, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell challenged Trotter for not being able to provide one real life example of a case when an assault weapon specifically saved one woman’s life in that kind of a situation. “You don’t go to the Senate to imagine things!” O’Donnell said.

While speaking in front of the senators, Trotter described a hypothetical scene of a “young woman defending her babies in her home” when faced with “three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home with her children screaming in the background” as a reason to own an assault rifle.

“The peace of mind that she has, knowing that she has a scary-looking gun, gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened, violent criminals,” said Trotter, who was the only woman on the five-person panel.

“If we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting these types of women at a great disadvantage–more so than men because they don’t have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to defend themselves in a hand-to-hand struggle.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pointed out that the woman she referred to in her statement, a young Oklahoma mother who shot an intruder, used a gun that wouldn't be banned by the law.

DOWNLOADS: (204)

PLAYS: (835)

Embed

I'm not sure what poll Grover Norquist is talking about here, but I am sure there's no way to magically turn the NRA's 4.3 million members into 20 percent of the population of the United States, which is over 300 million. But that's exactly what he did on ABC's This Week in response to The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel pointing out that the NRA isn't even representing the interest of their members, but the gun manufacturers instead.

There have been recent polls taken like this one, which reported that of those surveyed, 22 percent said they owned gun and about 7 percent said they belonged to the NRA, which is still a lot higher than the number the NRA itself claims to have as members. I guess it's not surprising that Norquist would like to overstate their influence since he's one of their board members.

VANDEN HEUVEL: This is the importance, the NRA is built on myths at this point in many ways. The NRA has 4 million members. It is essentially a lobby for gun manufacturers, not for its members, the majority of them, according to a poll commissioned by Frank Luntz, Republican pollster, do not agree with the NRA's positions on background checks, on ban on assault weapons. I think that's very important, because the NRA's myth has put us in a stranglehold in this country.

The other thing I'd say is I respect the noble sentiments about the need to treat mental illness, the need to deal with the video games in our culture, but other western industrialized countries have mental illness problems, have video culture. Japan is at the cutting edge. They don't allow access to military assault-style -- this is not about freedom, this is about tyranny and destruction.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The thing is, it's about all of this, this is what frustrates me...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ...I mean, you can't say it's got to be about one thing and not the other it's go to be about...

(CROSSTALK)

VANDEN HEUVEL: The mental illness argument has been used to evade action. More guns and bullets, more dead children. We must, must regulate guns. And I do think it's a tipping point moment, not just The Daily News and The New York Post, but you're seeing pro-NRA senators like Senator Manchin, Senator Warner, Governor Hickenlooper in Colorado, others saying we must move, speed is of the essence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I agree with that. And I think we're just saying that Senator Manchin did say we have to consider everything comprehensively. We should give Grover a chance to respond to some of this now.

NORQUIST: I think -- look, the National Rifle Association represents a great number of Americans and 20 percent will tell you in polls that they belong to the NRA. And so one, there's a very important issue, one is we should support the First Amendment as well as the Second Amendment. I'm not quite sure -- some people's suggestions of censorship there worry me.

But look, one, we have got to calm down and not take tragedies like this, crimes like this, and use them for political purposes. President Obama has been president for four years. If he thought that some gun control would solve this problem he should have been pushing it four years ago. He didn't.

Democrats had a majority in the House and a super majority in the House and the Senate for the first two years that they were in office. If they thought that this was really an important issue, they might have done something then. They didn't. So what they're now doing is politicizing a tragedy rather than trying to do something that might...

DOWNLOADS: (175)

PLAYS: (539)

Embed

Surprise, surprise... another Republican senator decided to play the part of mouthpiece for the National Rifle Association: NRA-Backed Senator Says Washington Can’t Find ‘Real Solutions’ To Gun Violence:

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) refused to answer questions about any specific gun control legislation he would consider supporting in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting. Host Chris Wallace referenced the suggestion made by the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre that schools need more armed guards and also President Obama’s call for more gun control, but all Barrasso could offer is that he is a “strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights.”

In fact, he suggested he might not support any relevant national legislation because “Washington is not necessarily the place” to find “real solutions”: [...]

Barrasso claimed that health care is part of the solution to the “culture of violence,” but he has led the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The American Psychiatric Association has said the law is crucial to extending mental health parity throughout the health care system and expanding access to mental health services to prevent tragedies like the Newtown shooting in the future. He also has supported decreased funding for health programs.

The NRA endorsed Barrasso this year, awarding him with an “A” rating for his support of their positions.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (191)

PLAYS: (1147)

Embed

This interview with Wayne LaPierre on this Sunday's Meet the Press ended up going pretty well the way I expected it would, which is with David Gregory hitting LaPierre with some difficult questions, but doing what he usually does and going easy on him with any follow up. Why NBC felt the need to give this guy a national platform to repeat the same talking points he made during his bizarre press conference the other day is beyond me.

After allowing LaPierre to blame our problems with gun violence in the United States on everything from a lack of armed guards in our schools, to our mental health system and on anything and everything other than guns, LaPierre said this about the gun show loophole.

LAPIERRE: Now, I know where you're going with this. They come up with this whole... the gun show loophole. There's not a gun show loophole. It's illegal for felons to do anything like that, to buy guns. What the anti-Second Amendment wants to do is put every gun sale in the country under the thumb of the federal government. Congress debated this at length. They said if you're a hobbyist or collector, if someone in West Virginia, a hunter wants to sell a gun to another hunter, they ought to be able to do it without being under the thumb of the federal government.

So he basically defended the loophole while claiming it doesn't exist. And David Gregory continued by trying to reason with someone who is not a rational or reasonable person.

GREGORY: What I hear you saying is, well, you can't do anything about high capacity ammunition magazines, because it simply won't work, yet you're proposing things that you don't know will completely work, but you're into the art of the possible, because your standard is, anything that has a chance of working we ought to try, except when it has to do with guns or ammunition. Don't you see that people see that as a complete dodge?

I don't know why David Gregory ever thought he was going to get an honest answer to that question. The man is paid to represent the gun manufacturers and their interests. That's it.

About all I can say after watching the entire interview with LaPierre is that it's too bad Lawrence O'Donnell wasn't allowed to sneak into the studio and ask him questions.