Holiday time, and neither the anti-abortion nuts nor the guns rights idiots could take time off. Weeks before the start of the South Carolina 2015 legislative session, bills were being pre-filed to make sure they were right in the front of the line to trample on our desire for peace and civil liberty.
As far as gun rights and the NRA are concerned, don't ever think you've heard it all. And, as with the anti-abortion war, any recent victory -- or defeat -- will result in more attacks on more fronts.
Since his not-quite-stunning defeat in the US Senate primary against Lindsey Graham, not-so-bright state senator Lee Bright has redoubled his efforts to be South Carolina's most formidable gun nut. If you recall, in the last legislative session, he attempted to top the "guns and liquor" bill by offering up his "guns everywhere" bill. Supporters of the "Constitutional Carry" bill claim that South Carolina is one of the most restrictive states in terms of allowing folks to tote guns, interpreting the lack of express restrictions in most states to mean that gun-toting is allowed, and not that it should be so obvious that guns aren't allowed that there has been no need for express laws banning them in specific situations. The "Firearms Freedom Act" would have kept South Carolina gun manufacturers and owners safe from all those pesky federal laws.
Neither bill passed, but we can count on Bright to come back energized and ready to take up the mantle once again like a warped Don Quixote. And he has been joined by fellow gun nut, Alan Clemmons, who has proposed a required three week Second Amendment curriculum in all public schools, ending in a Second Amendment Awareness Day, with the festivities closing with a poster/essay contest on "The Right to Bear Arms: One American Right Protecting All Others." That's right, because in the America we all grew up in, it's guns that have protected our freedom of speech and our individual rights. Oh, irony, since it's these same goofballs that are continually attacking individual rights. Maybe if we had weapons, women would be free to have private reproductive health care and gays could marry, anyone could vote and poor people would be given a living wage....
Anyway, obviously, the NRA has its hands all over this one.
But wait! Here are some of the other less-than-delectable tidbits from the gun nuts in our state legislature:
Again, the "constitutional carry" bill, which would change breaking the law from carrying a gun to carrying a gun with intent to commit a crime. So, as long as our police officers can spot a crime before it's committed, we're okay.
And because having all South Carolina residents carrying just isn't enough, there is a bill which would allow reciprocity for citizens from other states. Now, here's the thing about this. South Carolina does not allow reciprocity with other states for licensed professionals. South Carolina does not even allow persons from other states with motor vehicle learners permits to drive with licensed SC drivers. But: "Got a gun? Come on in!"
Last year, gun nuts had a resounding success with passage of the bill that allows guns in restaurants and bars. Because you never know when a gunfight will break out at the saloon, and we should all be ready to defend our honor and our shrimp 'n' grits. If you don't look too closely at the numbers of shootings in and around South Carolina, you might think that hasn't been a problem. And if you like the idea of protecting yourself when you take the family out to dinner, you will love the bill that will allow guns to be carried at any college. Because we'll all rest easier knowing our kids are getting their secondary education in a place where there will never be anyone who is stressed out and unstable and feeling the need to bring a gun to school.
The topping on that deadly cake are bills that would remove the fees for applying for, renewing or replacing one's concealed weapons permit, and of course, allowing it to be used as Voter ID.
To end on a more optimistic note, Democrats Gilda Cobb-Hunter and Mia McLeod have filed H 3034 that would require a person to surrender firearms if the courts have determined that he (or she) presents an imminent danger in a domestic abuse situation, with comparable bill S 3 in the Senate; and H 3033, requiring national criminal background checks. I believe I also saw a bill that would create penalties for adults when a child is endangered by a weapon in the home, but I haven't been able to find it again.
Now this is all very confusing for me, as I am sure it is intended. But I did my best, and apologize for any mistakes. The important thing is that we know these bills are up there, and they are going to move forward as long as we don't oppose them. That's how Georgia ended up with its "guns everywhere" law. Our state restaurant association claims not to have know about the bill allowing guns in bars and restaurants. So it will take more than occasional disgruntlement to fight this tsunami. The gun nuts in our legislature know how to rally the gun nuts in the populace. There really aren't as many of them as there are of us, but, as with the fight for reproductive rights, they are loud and persistent, and we need to keep up, and keep shouting. So find out who your legislators are, and let them know, today, tomorrow, and next week, how you feel about people walking around in our communities with deadly weapons, and how you feel about our children being forced to learn untruths about the Second Amendment.
It's not just a matter of quality of life, it's a matter of life and death.
Showing posts with label Gun Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Rights. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2015
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Firing Up the Anti-Abortionist
Our Supreme Court once again today made it that much easier for anti-abortion fanatics to harass and endanger the welfare of persons entering and leaving abortion clinics. To my dismay, but no longer my surprise, all nine justices agreed that a state cannot make legal a buffer zone around a clinic.
Obviously, these justices have not had the unique experience of attempting to walk through protesters to get into a medical facility that performs abortions. If they had, they might understand that the claim that protesters merely "sought to have quiet conversations" with women entering the clinics was either purely fabrication or a mental break with reality. Derisive shouts, cries of "murderer," pictures of bloody fetuses that misrepresent the actual procedure, all unwanted malicious harassment. Were we to walk down the street window-shopping or on our way to lunch and be accosted by such a crowd, we would surely have the right to have the harassment stopped. But pregnant women at a medical clinic have no such rights. They are vulnerable, and they are the true victims. Clinic workers have also been victimized: attacked, even murdered, by fanatics who see it as their right and duty to stop those who perform abortions. In fact, the Massachusetts law creating a buffer zone came to be because of harassment and violence at abortion clinics, including shootings.
The Supreme Court seems to think highly of freedom of speech. In fact, the headless corporate beast with many and deep pockets has over recent years been given the right to free speech. And here we have not just free speech, but the right to approach, uninvited, women who apparently do not have the right to not have to listen. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church was allowed to defile the funerals of members of our military with their anti-gay obscenities, there is a line wherein freedom of speech becomes abuse of others.
Here's the hypocrisy:
Nowhere do our Supreme Court justices go where they are forced to be assaulted, or even approached, by unknown members of the public, not even for the purpose of seeking "to have a quiet conversation" with the justice. Our members of Congress (supporters of gun rights who nonetheless approve of security checkpoints that disallow guns in Congress) even have a separate entrance to the halls of Congress so that they do not have to risk being approached by the commoner who would like to share an opinion. When our presidents speak to us, dissenters have the right to protest -- in a cordoned off area far, far away from where they might be seen or heard.
I would like to suggest that our justices and our elected leaders follow the same rules that they inflict on we the people. Whether it is making guns accessible or allowing protesters access, they should experience first-hand the effects of the laws and rulings that they make from their ivory towers.
Meanwhile, today's ruling is sure to fan the flames of psychotic rage that gives this small but tireless group of anti-abortionists their raison d'etre. And sadly, at some point, the words, vile enough on their own, will morph into acts of violence.
Obviously, these justices have not had the unique experience of attempting to walk through protesters to get into a medical facility that performs abortions. If they had, they might understand that the claim that protesters merely "sought to have quiet conversations" with women entering the clinics was either purely fabrication or a mental break with reality. Derisive shouts, cries of "murderer," pictures of bloody fetuses that misrepresent the actual procedure, all unwanted malicious harassment. Were we to walk down the street window-shopping or on our way to lunch and be accosted by such a crowd, we would surely have the right to have the harassment stopped. But pregnant women at a medical clinic have no such rights. They are vulnerable, and they are the true victims. Clinic workers have also been victimized: attacked, even murdered, by fanatics who see it as their right and duty to stop those who perform abortions. In fact, the Massachusetts law creating a buffer zone came to be because of harassment and violence at abortion clinics, including shootings.
The Supreme Court seems to think highly of freedom of speech. In fact, the headless corporate beast with many and deep pockets has over recent years been given the right to free speech. And here we have not just free speech, but the right to approach, uninvited, women who apparently do not have the right to not have to listen. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church was allowed to defile the funerals of members of our military with their anti-gay obscenities, there is a line wherein freedom of speech becomes abuse of others.
Here's the hypocrisy:
Nowhere do our Supreme Court justices go where they are forced to be assaulted, or even approached, by unknown members of the public, not even for the purpose of seeking "to have a quiet conversation" with the justice. Our members of Congress (supporters of gun rights who nonetheless approve of security checkpoints that disallow guns in Congress) even have a separate entrance to the halls of Congress so that they do not have to risk being approached by the commoner who would like to share an opinion. When our presidents speak to us, dissenters have the right to protest -- in a cordoned off area far, far away from where they might be seen or heard.
I would like to suggest that our justices and our elected leaders follow the same rules that they inflict on we the people. Whether it is making guns accessible or allowing protesters access, they should experience first-hand the effects of the laws and rulings that they make from their ivory towers.
Meanwhile, today's ruling is sure to fan the flames of psychotic rage that gives this small but tireless group of anti-abortionists their raison d'etre. And sadly, at some point, the words, vile enough on their own, will morph into acts of violence.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Bullies with Guns
I don't like going to the North Charleston Performing Arts Center. I don't like having my handbag searched. It seems that over the years they have evolved their search policy, and that it has become ever more ridiculous.
After 9/11, and with the certainty that the next attack would be on the Arts in Charleston, the search was for guns. A few years ago, I learned that they were now searching for cameras. Management explained that it was part of their contract with the theater company that was performing. Hmm, I thought, I wonder what would happen if the New York stage began to demand confiscation of cameras from their audiences....
This year, with no other option than to submit myself to a search in order to see Arlo Guthrie, I ruminated for weeks over whether they still confiscated cameras, and did that mean that they also took away smart phones? I never for one second entertained the possibility that they would have done away with the searches.
When I was approached at the door for the search and I asked what they were looking for, I was directed to a quite large poster board that was standing by the door, where some dozen articles of search were listed. Dumbfounded, and having lived in Charleston long enough not to want to make a fuss, I glanced at the list, noted that it included something about water bottles and, farther down, two-year-olds, stuck out my large purse and submitted to a cursory search and walked away.
Later I did go read the sign. Topmost was no food or beverages. Yes they can look in your pocketbook and confiscate a bag of M & M's. Farther down on the list, somewhere around number 5, was something like: No bottles, cans or weapons. And no, the two-year-olds were not confiscated, they just had to have a ticket. And they could not be in your purse. Although now that I think about it, I guess they could search your purse for your two-year-old's ticket. And guns was hidden behind bottles and cans, and within the word "weapons."
So as I waited for the concert, I continued to fume about the unquestioned right of a theater to search my personal property. This led to thoughts about the recently passed South Carolina law allowing guns in bars and restaurants. As amazing as the fact that the response to gun violence was not just to allow more guns to be sold, was that our legislators had now given express permission for them to be carried in the most volatile scenario, that where there is alcohol.
What was circling my mind, though, was the compromise that the usually more level-headed legislators reached. If a bar or restaurant owner did not want guns in their establishment, they could post a sign. That sign had to follow precise rules regarding wording and font size, exactly what walls and how high it needed to be posted, AND include a precise picture of a gun, all spelled out in Section 23-31-235. In other words, the law had more restrictions on the signage than on the weapons.
There is a lot of hot air about how the federal government infringes on the rights of business owners in South Carolina. And yet our legislators were happy to accept such detailed rules regarding being able to refuse to serve people carrying guns. And considered it a victory in the gun control fight.
It initially shocked me that two groups were not coming out in loud opposition to the law: police officers and bar/restaurant owners. But when I saw the sign at the Performing Arts Center in which the prohibition against guns was hidden under "bottles, cans or weapons," it suddenly made sense.
We are all being held hostage by the bullies with guns. We need to tread carefully around them, because to enrage them may not be fatal (although it might) but would certainly make it harder for us to go about our business. In the case of bar and restaurant owners, their association would not want to alienate this powerful group, because retribution by A.L.E.C. and the NRA, both of whom control our legislators, would be swift and painful. Police groups would also face retaliation in the form of budget and jobs. Those who post those precisely drawn signs risk the wrath of any gun bullies that may have patronized their business as well as many who do not.
And gun bullies are not afraid to rage against those that question their unfettered right to bear arms, because, after all, they are the ones with the guns.
After 9/11, and with the certainty that the next attack would be on the Arts in Charleston, the search was for guns. A few years ago, I learned that they were now searching for cameras. Management explained that it was part of their contract with the theater company that was performing. Hmm, I thought, I wonder what would happen if the New York stage began to demand confiscation of cameras from their audiences....
This year, with no other option than to submit myself to a search in order to see Arlo Guthrie, I ruminated for weeks over whether they still confiscated cameras, and did that mean that they also took away smart phones? I never for one second entertained the possibility that they would have done away with the searches.
When I was approached at the door for the search and I asked what they were looking for, I was directed to a quite large poster board that was standing by the door, where some dozen articles of search were listed. Dumbfounded, and having lived in Charleston long enough not to want to make a fuss, I glanced at the list, noted that it included something about water bottles and, farther down, two-year-olds, stuck out my large purse and submitted to a cursory search and walked away.
Later I did go read the sign. Topmost was no food or beverages. Yes they can look in your pocketbook and confiscate a bag of M & M's. Farther down on the list, somewhere around number 5, was something like: No bottles, cans or weapons. And no, the two-year-olds were not confiscated, they just had to have a ticket. And they could not be in your purse. Although now that I think about it, I guess they could search your purse for your two-year-old's ticket. And guns was hidden behind bottles and cans, and within the word "weapons."
So as I waited for the concert, I continued to fume about the unquestioned right of a theater to search my personal property. This led to thoughts about the recently passed South Carolina law allowing guns in bars and restaurants. As amazing as the fact that the response to gun violence was not just to allow more guns to be sold, was that our legislators had now given express permission for them to be carried in the most volatile scenario, that where there is alcohol.
What was circling my mind, though, was the compromise that the usually more level-headed legislators reached. If a bar or restaurant owner did not want guns in their establishment, they could post a sign. That sign had to follow precise rules regarding wording and font size, exactly what walls and how high it needed to be posted, AND include a precise picture of a gun, all spelled out in Section 23-31-235. In other words, the law had more restrictions on the signage than on the weapons.
There is a lot of hot air about how the federal government infringes on the rights of business owners in South Carolina. And yet our legislators were happy to accept such detailed rules regarding being able to refuse to serve people carrying guns. And considered it a victory in the gun control fight.
It initially shocked me that two groups were not coming out in loud opposition to the law: police officers and bar/restaurant owners. But when I saw the sign at the Performing Arts Center in which the prohibition against guns was hidden under "bottles, cans or weapons," it suddenly made sense.
We are all being held hostage by the bullies with guns. We need to tread carefully around them, because to enrage them may not be fatal (although it might) but would certainly make it harder for us to go about our business. In the case of bar and restaurant owners, their association would not want to alienate this powerful group, because retribution by A.L.E.C. and the NRA, both of whom control our legislators, would be swift and painful. Police groups would also face retaliation in the form of budget and jobs. Those who post those precisely drawn signs risk the wrath of any gun bullies that may have patronized their business as well as many who do not.
And gun bullies are not afraid to rage against those that question their unfettered right to bear arms, because, after all, they are the ones with the guns.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Why "The Right Is Winning"
I'm listening to commentators on the news shows talking about why we aren't winning the battle for gun control. You probably wouldn't want to hear what I have to say back to each of them. I have recently heard that Obama is not involved enough, Obama is too involved, the American people are not passionate enough, the American people are not involved enough, there is too much NRA money to fight them. And on and on and on.
It's all bullshit.
The difference is that we're all wringing our hands and worrying why no one is listening. Can you imagine Wayne LaPierre worrying about the fact that people think he is corrupt, or crazy, or the NRA being concerned that the public will reject its latest scheme? Or any of the idiots in Congress, like our own Lindsey Graham, worrying about anything of moral value or the consequences of not controlling guns.
The radical, psychotic, greedy, narcissistic and single minded supporters of ABSOLUTELY NO GUN CONTROL aren't worried. They are angry, they are wealthy, and they know how to manipulate. And being rational is not on their agenda.
I keep hearing the whining and the droning of the rational who "support" gun control trying to find ways of working around and working with the gun lobby. I hear people make excuses for red state Democrats in Congress. Maybe if we had more people showing up at the Capitol.
Perhaps if we only required background checks on Tuesdays. Hey, it would be better than not having them at all.
Meanwhile we are giving credence to the NRA proposing to arm teachers. I don't know about you, but there are some teachers I recall from my children's school days that would have been right in the front of the line to get armed, and would be the last I would want carrying in the same building as my children. And let's not forget that many teachers do not want to have to be responsible for fighting a crazed gunman to the death. Oh, and how about the fact that none of those same people that are going to arm our schools have wanted to pay what it's worth to educate our kids.
And then there are guns in shopping malls, and on the street, and in a movie theater. But hey, you can always arm the kid that takes your theater ticket.
Are we NUTS? Isn't it time that we stopped trying to compromise with the lobby of gun manufacturers and paranoid white supremacists? No, I don't think your quality of life would suffer if you had to go to a gun range to play with your semi-automatic. And it would be a lot less risky than trying to figure out who is gun-violence crazy versus who is just mentally ill.
I don't want guns on the streets I walk, or the schools our children attend. I don't want to for God's sake sit in a bar or go into a liquor store knowing our legislators have fought to give people the right to mix bullets and alcohol.
Enough. No compromise. And don't worry about Harry Reid flaking out, or what the southern Democrats need to support gun control. Just keep yelling.
It's all bullshit.
The difference is that we're all wringing our hands and worrying why no one is listening. Can you imagine Wayne LaPierre worrying about the fact that people think he is corrupt, or crazy, or the NRA being concerned that the public will reject its latest scheme? Or any of the idiots in Congress, like our own Lindsey Graham, worrying about anything of moral value or the consequences of not controlling guns.
The radical, psychotic, greedy, narcissistic and single minded supporters of ABSOLUTELY NO GUN CONTROL aren't worried. They are angry, they are wealthy, and they know how to manipulate. And being rational is not on their agenda.
I keep hearing the whining and the droning of the rational who "support" gun control trying to find ways of working around and working with the gun lobby. I hear people make excuses for red state Democrats in Congress. Maybe if we had more people showing up at the Capitol.
Perhaps if we only required background checks on Tuesdays. Hey, it would be better than not having them at all.
Meanwhile we are giving credence to the NRA proposing to arm teachers. I don't know about you, but there are some teachers I recall from my children's school days that would have been right in the front of the line to get armed, and would be the last I would want carrying in the same building as my children. And let's not forget that many teachers do not want to have to be responsible for fighting a crazed gunman to the death. Oh, and how about the fact that none of those same people that are going to arm our schools have wanted to pay what it's worth to educate our kids.
And then there are guns in shopping malls, and on the street, and in a movie theater. But hey, you can always arm the kid that takes your theater ticket.
Are we NUTS? Isn't it time that we stopped trying to compromise with the lobby of gun manufacturers and paranoid white supremacists? No, I don't think your quality of life would suffer if you had to go to a gun range to play with your semi-automatic. And it would be a lot less risky than trying to figure out who is gun-violence crazy versus who is just mentally ill.
I don't want guns on the streets I walk, or the schools our children attend. I don't want to for God's sake sit in a bar or go into a liquor store knowing our legislators have fought to give people the right to mix bullets and alcohol.
Enough. No compromise. And don't worry about Harry Reid flaking out, or what the southern Democrats need to support gun control. Just keep yelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)