Home

Tell Rep. Heck to get the lead out

Fri, 01/18/2013 - 1:37pm — whocares

With the incredible tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school last month the nation seems so horrified by gun violence that a "conversation" about limits on the almost unfettered use of weapons may be finally upon us.

President Obama has proposed legislation, and is signing executive orders which begin the process of limiting the use of guns to what all other civilized countries have considered reasonable limits for some time.

The NRA  (and it's media outlet, Fox News) is, true to form, ranting that the Prsident is a tyrant and the Second Amendment prevents any limitations on American's right to wield whatever type of gun they want.

The public is reporting, in overwhelming numbers that reasonable restrictions like universal backgroud checks and bans on assualt rifles are long overdue.

 What about Congress? The Republicans are, for the most part, predictably and reflexively yearning for a return to the 1800's and only affirming what the public already knows - they are anachronistic and risk irrelevance.

What about the Democrats? Well, many have stated their support for the measures the President has articulated - measures which if enacted would raise the U.S. from dead last among civilized countries to, well...still dead last. But some have either advocated for a "go slow" approach (can we go any slower?) or refused to take a stand.

This is absolutely a critical moment in American politics. A time for leadership. A time to be counted. A time to show the American people (us!) that they are capable of putting the public interest above corporate interst and electoral politics.

Our Congressman is one of those who has refused to immediately stand up and say enough is enough. The only words we have from Rep. Heck, so far, appear to be from his spokesperson: “He does not and will not support any legislation that takes guns away from law-abiding Americans,” said Phil Gardner, Heck’s press secretary. He added that the congressman has been listening to ideas from his constituents on how to prevent mass shootings but that he not signed on to any legislation and that he would take “a close look” at Obama’s plan. Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/01/16/2438050/obamas-gun-control-plan-gets-tepid.html#storylink=cpy

Well it's only been a month since he has been in office and a real test is before him. Dante told us that how one acts when confronted by tests of moral character are what define us.

Call/write/email Rep. Heck and tell him it's time we (as a nation) grow up and do all we can to reduce the violence. 

Russ Lehman

Comments

Sat, 01/19/2013 - 5:29pm — undercontrol

He did act...he said “He does

He did act...he said “He does not and will not support any legislation that takes guns away from law-abiding Americans"

Tue, 01/22/2013 - 5:29pm — whocares

Sheepishly kowtowing...

 to the NRA and the political history of Jolene Unsoeld is not "acting". Dante actually said that the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who stand still in times of moral crises. If one truly believes that an amendment to the constuitution is truly threatened AND public safety would not be enhanced than make that argument. A salute to "law abiding Americans" is little more than a shallow politically expedient way to avoid discussion of the topic. Kind of like annonymity of web posters, isn't it? 

Russ Lehman

—

Russ Lehman

Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:55pm — stevenl

Referee Time

Good points, Russ, but let's make the anonymous issue less personal please, speaking as one who uses a barely anonymous handle myself who also happens to be a moderator here. I would invite you to bring up that topic in a new post and not specifically point at one individual. Remember, "Play the ball, not the player." And believe me, undercontrol has caught it from me in the past as well for being too personal in comments, as I am sure he can tell you. But he is doing nothing wrong by choosing to remain anonymous according to OlyBlog policy. I seldom agree with undercontrol about much of anything, but I am aware he has very good reasons for being anonymous. As I do. Not all of us have the luxury of speaking our minds without consequences to our occupational lives.

Please carry on gentlemen, but under the house rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sat, 01/26/2013 - 11:58am — undercontrol

I took the honorable reps

I took the honorable reps comment as he is comfortable with current law. As far as my personal opinion goes we should probably strictly enforce current law before writing new one's. One of the huge problems with firearms on the street is the recent changes in search and seizure laws. It is increasingly difficult for law enforcement to get at the weapons that are in the wrong people's hands. Only good folks typically obey the law. As far as street level violence (which kills far more people than the active mass shootings, just far more random and scary) the only thing I see working is vigourous prosecution of corresponding crimes (burg, felony assaults, car prowls). The people that commit those crimes are largely the same people who posess and are willing to use firearms illegally. Having them locked up through their prime offending years would save a lot of lives.

As far as new law goes I don't see it as unreasonable to require background checks for handguns and 'assault' weapons. Banning high capacity magazines makes no sense in my mind. There are millions out there and the difference between 20 round magazines and two 10 round magazines is virtually nothing, it would not save lives or make anyone safer. Drafting laws to make everyone 'feel better' does just one thing, it makes people 'feel better', in reality they are not safer. I hope a reasonable conclusion will be reached in the national debate. Not the 'people should carry a hydrgen bomb if they want to' that comes from the NRA (which I am a member). Or the ban them all, collect them up, public registry, arguement that comes from the other side.

Tue, 02/19/2013 - 10:52pm — whocares

"Reasonable"? What does it look like?

Thank you "undercontrol". I appreciate your dialogue and what appears to be accomodation of "resonable" restrictions. Of course this is a true case of the devil is in the details.

The "just enforce current law" line of defence against new proposals assumes two things: 1) that current law sufficiently protects public safety (to the extent reasonable) and 2) that the reason for the non-enforcement is some sort of bureaucratic malaise.

The facts are something different however. The current laws are woefully inadaquate and have tilted substaintally in favor of a desire not to restrict the ability to own, use and sell various firearms...and ammunition. This despite any reasonable argument that an assualt weapon, or cop killer bullets (for example) is needed, or even used in hunting or self defense.

Further, the reason for the non-enforcement of many firearm-related laws is simply that enforcing agencies (i.e., BATF) has been strategically defunded as it cowers at the likely opposition of administrative mechanisms which could be interpeted as (god forbid) anti gun. As one small example, see the ability of the U.S. government to even study firearm deaths and injuries.

It is the NRA which now say that we should merely enforce laws that are now on the books while at the same time scaring the beegeebas out of the legislative AND admistrative branches of government with their political bullying and manipulation.

Yes "undercontrol" lets hope a resonable discussion can now take place, but admit it simply cannot when the NRA is like the Timber industry arguing that now that 95% of old growth has been cut down we now must (because of the potential jobs lost)  allow for unfetterd harvesting of what's left.

—

Russ Lehman

Wed, 02/20/2013 - 6:09pm — whocares

Now that's REALLY giving Congress Heck...

WASHINGTON -- The prospects of passing an important part of President Barack Obama's gun control agenda improved a bit on Tuesday when a House Republican announced his support for universal background checks for firearm purchases.

"I think the idea of background checks across the board, I'm not opposed to them," Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "And I disagree with people who say that this is going to be the first step to gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation. Look, about 40 percent of folks already undergo background checks when they get their guns. And that information is purged after a short period."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/universal-background-checks-joe-heck_n_2725239.html

 

 

—

Russ Lehman