Saturday, July 9, 2016

Sense and Nonsense on Guns

You can't get much more nonsensical on the issue than Matt Funiciello.

Funiciello said both bills are an overreach of federal authority.

He said local gun boards should be elected in each municipality to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether residents should be allowed to buy guns.

“We elect responsible people who we feel are good with their guns,” said Funiciello, a bread company owner and political activist from Hudson Falls. 

OK, first fuck that federal authority bullshit. I'm pretty sure I heard the nuts at Malheur and the Bundy Ranch spouting the same argument. Sometimes I think one of Matt's primary  news sources is Alex Jones. Fuck it, I'll just put up my comment. Why mess with perfection?

“We elect responsible people who we feel are good with their guns,”

What does that mean? All I can think of is Annie Oakley (or Sarah Palin) shooting a silver dollar out of the air. It sounds as tho non-gunowners need not apply. Illegal to be sure. That brings up that many boards wold likely skew to everyone or no one gets a gun, tho. How many blacks in the South (or Boston, to be fair) would have gotten a gun 50 or 60 years ago? Good thing there's no prejudice anymore.

Then there's, do you want to be on a board turning down a psychopath's gun application? And betting he doesn't get one anyway? Being sued might be the least of your worries.

If the board is going to make a sound decision, they're going to have to have access to criminal and mental health records, presumably. Is that a problem?

These are questions off the top of my head. I trust there are brighter people in the Derrick and Stefanik campaigns who can come up with better inquiries. Maybe even the local media can before they make an endorsement this time around.

Yes,“We elect responsible people who we feel are good with their guns.” He really said that. I know Maury Thompson and he wouldn't lie. Anyway. Matt responded in the comments. And just let me say, he's not into that whole paragraph thing. 

Reformed (and Kevin), the actual conversation I have around gun control is this ... I am a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment. Period. It's about deer hunting, yes, but it's also about King George and protecting ourselves from tyranny and fascism. And, in my book, both reasons are entirely valid and I defend them both. That said, the FBI and other federal agencies regularly give clearance for gun licenses and permits to people who should not ever have them granted (bear in mind that the majority of them are white American males - this is not really about "terrorism" at all). This is because these agencies do not KNOW the people in question. My brother, who owns many handguns, rifles and bows, had a great idea about issuing permits (and that is what Maury and I were speaking about). His idea is that we have Citizen Advisory Boards elected from the actual communities the permits will be issued in (made up of people who actually know or have access to those who know the people looking to obtain the permits). If the FBI had questioned Omar Matteen's co-workers at G4S or even just spoken with his abused wife, I'm pretty sure he would not have so easily procured the weaponry he used to kill all the people he did. In the bigger picture, we need to stop being a culture of violence and empire. The Republican and Democratic Party bills being offered are reactionary and unconstitutional. They just add many more layers to an already bloated and entirely inappropriate surveillance state and place more people on "watch lists". What they also do is absolutely nothing to decrease our gun dealing as a nation (we are responsible for 80% of the world's weaponry). These illegal bills just allow more people to be discriminated against by officially labeling them as "terrorists" ... right along with the 4 year old children and Ted Kennedy and animal rights activists who are traditionally placed on our insipid and Orwellian "watch lists" today. 

Or actually addressing the questions I had about the loony tune "local gun board" thing in the first place. So what the fuck. Double down and ask another question, I always say. 

Thank you for the response, Matt. I was looking for more details about the local gun boards because I didn't think it sounded really practical. A web search showed they had it somewhere in Michigan and ended it. It didn't use elected officials or at least ones elected for that sole purpose.

I do believe one can support the second amendment and not be an absolutist. I have talked to gun owners in the threads who are open to reasonable controls. No one wants to deprive hunters of their guns. Why discuss it? It's a big leap between having a gun for hunting and defending against tyranny and fascism. That's not a gun policy I want to hear from my representative. If it was, I'd move to Texas. I asked someone here in the threads this question and got no response. But, I'm dogged. Who gets to decide that we are being ruled by a tyrant? I remember people saying Obama was a tyrant because of Obamacare. Was that tyranny worthy of sedition? Apparently not. Were the Bundys in the right at their ranch or at Malheur Preserve?

You speak a lot about the evil that corporations do. You seem to give the NRA/Gun Industry a pass. They control gun policy in this country. That's not conspiracy theory. It's reality. Does it not concern you?

Technically, I guess I asked two more questions there. He didn't come back and answer either of them. I believe I'm going to make a special request to Mike Derrick to ask them. My final comment.

Someday I may get an answer to that question. Charges of tyranny and fascism fly too freely for my tastes. My concern is that the shooter or shooters in Dallas may have felt justified for these reasons.

This guy is the Green Party, Progressive, Fuckin' candidate for Congress in my district. Please pardon the f-bombs, but it has been an annoyingly deadly week that calls for a few. Just to bring things down a little, here's Sharay Santora:

Videos of the attack show officers running toward the gunfire to help citizens.

Sharay Santora, who was there with her children, told CNN she overheard marchers say, “They were here for us, I’m going to be there for them.”

“My children and I are going to be there for their funerals because they lost their lives protecting me and my children,” she said. 

Bless you and thank you for that, Ms. Santora. 

No comments:

Post a Comment