58, 49, 14, 9, 26. These are not just numbers. These numbers represent real people murdered in senseless acts of violence; and underscore how mass shootings have become a part of America’s culture. When will it end?

Americans awoke Monday morning to another mass shooting tragedy. A gunman, armed with dozens of military-style weapons, took aim on unsuspecting concert-goers hundreds of feet below. He killed 58 and injured (some critically) over 400 people.

Heather Alvarado, 35. Dorene Anderson. Carrie Barnette, 34. Jack Beaton, 54. Steve Berger, 44. Denise Burditus, 50. Sandy Casey, 35. Austin Davis, 29.

Authorities found 23 guns in the Las Vegas hotel room, including a variety of high-capacity assault rifles. At least a dozen of these guns had been modified, legally, to fire like automatic weapons.

Thomas Day Jr., 42. Stacey Etcheber. Kevin Galavan, 31. Dana Gardner, 52. Angie Gomez, 20. Charleston Hartfield. Jennifer Irvine, 42. Jessica Klymchuk.

Las Vegas is an open carry state and allows one to legally carry firearms in public places. Hotels do not search guests’ luggage or require guests to pass through a metal detector. Would hotel staff have even raised an eyebrow if they had seen a guest check in with multiple firearms?

Rhonda LeRocque, 42. Victor Link, 55. Jordan Mcildoon, 23. Kelsey Breanne Meadows, 28. Sonny Melton. Adrian Murfitt, 35. Rachel Parker, 33.

There are no limits on how many rifles or how much ammunition a person can purchase in Nevada. The guns used in this attack, as far as authorities can tell, were all acquired (and modified into even deadlier weapons) legally.

Jenny Parks. Carrie Parsons. John Phippen, 57. Melissa Rameriz, 26. Jorydn Rivera, 21. Quinton Robbins, 20. Cameron Robinson, 27. Tara Roe, 34.

Ironically, this very week, House republicans in Congress were poised to pass legislation, backed strongly by the NRA, which would ease restrictions on gun silencers. The vote has been postponed (because of the latest shooting)…but not cancelled.

Lisa Romero-Muniz, 48. Christopher Royball, 28. Erick Silva, 22. Bailey Schweitzer, 20. Laura Shipp, 50. Susan Smith, 53. Brennan Stewart, 30. Neysa Tonks, 46. Michelle Vo, 32. Kurt von Tillow, 55. Bill Wolf Jr., 42.

It’s hard to read the names of these victims. It is even harder to believe that so many Americans will choose to do nothing to prevent the next massacre.

Yet, we did nothing when 20 six-year olds were slaughtered in their own classroom. We did nothing when nine church-goers were shot in their own parish. We did nothing when 49 people were murdered in a nightclub. We did nothing when 12 people were killed in a movie theatre.

After the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there was hope that Congress would tighten up gun regulations to make it more difficult for the mentally ill to acquire guns. Some basic measures were implemented during the Obama administration; in February, Trump signed legislation to repeal them.

Other bills, including one that would close the private sale loophole on background checks, were all effectively stopped by the powerful gun lobby.

The NRA claims guns are not the problem. After all, according to popular talking points, cars kill more people than guns and a bag of manure can take down a building. But there is no comparison. Assault rifles are intended to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time as possible. And our laws, or lack thereof, ensure easy access.

Now, I support one’s 2^nd amendment rights to bear arms though the original intent of the 2^nd amendment is widely debated. For instance, does every American gun owner belong to a well-regulated militia? If the 2^nd amendment does allow for the weapons of today, that doesn’t mean controls cannot or should not be put in place.

The majority of Americans support stricter gun control measures. Democrats and some Republicans are calling for a ban on bump stocks–the device the killer used to make his rifles fire like automatic weapons. It is a start.

Do you agree? If so…now is the time to contact your members of Congress to express your support for this measure and other responsible gun control provisions.

Don’t forget these victims. Work to end gun violence today.

Nicole Faraguna is a founding member of the Susquehanna Valley Progressives.

 

John and I were at the Susquehanna Valley Mall today.  I am not a mall person – not much of a shopping person… but I needed new running shoes (and yes, I did score a pair!).   On our way through Sears we saw a man carrying, in full sight, a .45 semi-automatic pistol on his belt.  John’s response was “really?!”.  Really.

Now a few thoughts go through your mind when you see a grown man, who appears for all intents and purposes to be sane, carrying a weapon in a department store.  I’ve just written these thoughts and questions down randomly – no particular order:

• I suppose one good thing: apparently there is no longer a need to carry those pesky concealed weapon permits.
• I guess President Obama must be the most lenient president ever on guns because before his administration I never witnessed people just carrying guns into stores and restaurants. So yeah Obama!?
• How much do you have to love your gun to not be able to leave it at home – I wonder if that same rule goes for the kids or the wife.
• Are guns like the new fall accessory? Will they too go out of style at some point?
• Do you think the mall is really that scary of a place? Maybe you should just stay home (have you heard about Amazon?).
• How do I determine if you’re a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?
• And if only good guys with guns carry their weapons unconcealed, won’t the bad guys eventually crack that code and do the same thing?
• How do you know which guys with guns are the good guys and which are the bad guys? Maybe there is some sort of secret nod or handshake.
• Is there ever a time or place where you feel you wouldn’t need to be accompanied by your gun? The shower, for example, church, or the Emergency Room (you know when you have to get those bullet wounds treated)?
• What happens if you make other customers uncomfortable? Do they have rights too?

I think that I can conclude a few things: 1) Obama has been great for gun owners and so at the very least we can finally put to rest those awful rumors suggesting otherwise; 2) carrying your gun(s) in full view doesn’t make you appear tough – it actually makes you appear weak; and 3) you and your weapons in full view do not make me feel any safer…and in fact, they probably don’t make you or me literally any safer either.

 

 

 

 

As both a liberal, and a gun owner, I have come to certain conclusions about gun control that take into account the concerns and beliefs of both of these often diametrically opposed groups. And while I truly believe the answers to the gun control debate (such as limiting magazine capacity and universal back ground checks), lie somewhere in between the overheated and divisive rhetoric, I do not do so just for the sake of pretending that all issues are down the middle or that every opinion has equal weight, as our gutless, ratings driven news media does. I base my opinion on facts, reason, common sense, and a life time of using firearms as well as being more than a casual observer of the gun control issue.

First off, yes, guns do kill people. But for many reasons America is a violent country. The causes of, and solutions to this epidemic need to be explored and debated. My fellow liberals must be faulted here because even as they claim to abhor our culture of violence, they defend the entertainment and sports industries that consistently glorifies and promotes all types of excessive brutality. The first amendment, like the second, is not absolute, and to what degree it can be exercised will always be argued, but it’s hypocritical for liberals to believe violent entertainment, even if it’s protected as free speech, isn’t part of the problem. It’s also equally hypocritical for conservatives to righteously condemn the left while permitting their young children to watch the very same movies, play the same video games, and observe the same brutal spectacles that have become acceptable in modern society. In a real way we all share the blame for the situation in our country.

Of course there are legitimate reasons for certain firearms in society. As a hunter, I use various firearms , but there is no sane reason justifying semi automatics or high-capacity clips as being necessary for the sporting pursuit of game. Also, the right for self-defense is undeniable, yet I don’t see the need to annihilate an intruder with some type of military assault weapon. A pistol or shot-gun would seem adequate.

Obviously then, there are other factors driving the near rabid insistence of the gun community to oppose any restrictions,( no matter how logical), on any weapon, (no matter how dangerous). Undoubtedly, much of the hysteria results from the fear and paranoia fanned by the far-right, anti-government advocates who fancy themselves as patriotic superheroes fighting the godless socialist tyrant in the white house. The Democrat, the black Democrat, godless, socialist tyrant in the white house. Conservative groups use emotionally charged rhetoric, baseless accusations, and out right lies to rev up and solidify their base in opposition to not just gun control, but any issues in the interest of conservative policies. By equating God, guns, and country with their far right ideology, they’ve managed to build a coalition of highly motivated followers. Armed with the belief that everyone from Jesus to John Wayne is on their side, they are ready to do battle and defend all they hold dear, including their guns. The far right has effectively nurtured the idea that any law, no matter how reasonable, is an attack on the constitution, and the simple concept of living in a society that values the common good is a completely alien concept. The specter of ” jack booted thugs”, “black UN helicopters”, and the “new world order” are powerful motivators for those with the predisposition to believe such conspiracies, so it is probably no small coincidence that interests who would also benefit from a weakened government, (big business, the wealthy), align themselves with the pro-gun community and ride the same wave. For example, the exaggerated fear of socialism and anti Americanism used to build opposition to gun control is the same one used to oppose health care reform. By bundling varied issues, conservative interests have successfully consolidated a large and motivated base, even if the members of that base don’t always benefit from its other stances. The union worker voting for the pro-gun, anti-labor candidate, or the hunter voting for the pro-gun, anti environment candidate, are two examples of how well this strategy has worked.

In recent years the credibility of the gun community has been eroded because some, but fortunately not all, gun owners have allowed themselves to be influenced by cartoon characters like Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent , and adhere to the increasingly extreme philosophy of the NRA. As a gun owner I’m insulted by the ridiculous arguments I’m supposed to accept, such as the ever popular “if guns are outlawed, only out laws will have guns”. (Well, yes, that’s how you control the possession of items deemed too dangerous for society. You “outlaw” them.) And of course we can’t even discuss creating any new law, pertaining to anything, because it puts us on the proverbial “slippery slope”. These ludicrous assertions along with talk of “secession” and”armed rebellion” by the extreme fringe of the pro gun community do nothing other than drown out the voices of the more reasonable gun owners.

While I believe it has been corrupted by the far-right wing in our country, the real intent of the Second Amendment, ensuring that our own government can not oppress us, is perhaps the most legitimate reason for civilian gun possession. Not everyone concerned about a runaway, tyrannical government is automatically a paranoid nut. Liberals don’t trust the government any more than conservatives, but I believe some of my fellow Liberals need to admit that there are viable scenarios (natural disasters, economic collapse, social upheaval, etc.) where a well armed individual may be the last best defense against mob rule, and the banding together of well armed citizens (militia?) may be the last check to an overreaching government. However, this in no way justifies the complete unregulated possession of any type of weapons by anyone who wants them. No group of civilians, no matter how prepared, can go toe to toe against the US military on an open battle field, and allowing the unregulated possession of military weapons in an attempt to equal the battle field capability of our armed forces is simply too dangerous for society. We could however, with even our semi-automatics and limited capacity clips, offer up a sustained insurgency, just the threat of which may be enough of a deterrence to hinder any sinister government plans. After all, the modern, scoped, bolt-action hunting rifle, of which there are millions privately owned, is still the most efficient and effective weapon in a guerilla style fight, especially in the hands of the American hunter and shooter.

As convinced as some people are that an impending gun grab is the first step in a government takeover , I see the erosion of our civil liberties, evaporating privacy, and dwindling access to uncensored information as a far greater threat to our way of life than any new gun regulation. Our country has become militarized. We are at a perpetual state of war and have been conditioned to accept surveillance, unwarranted searches, a bloated pentagon, even torture in the name of security. Ironically, it’s the most government fearing, flag waving patriots among us who tolerate things done in their name, often completely counter to our constitution and morals, as long as they’re done to someone else. The problem is, they’re being done to us, and no gun can defend against them. Our government is being bought and sold by big moneyed interests, and our media outlets are little more than propaganda machines programmed by unethical politicians and their corporate masters, yet we’re happy to “drink the koolade” if it conforms to what we want to believe.

As important as the second amendment in ensuring our freedoms, it’s just as important that we demand more accountability and openness from our “leaders”, severely restrict and the use of our military, especially in civil matters, and actively prosecute police corruption. Any betrayal of the public trust, by anyone, should not be tolerated. Although our system of government is far from perfect, it is the best the world has ever known. The use of the ballot box, by informed and thinking citizens, is a far surer guarantee of our freedoms than any gun.

Gun owners, myself included, need to recognize the legitimate concerns of non gun owners, and acknowledge not just our own rights, but the rights of the entire country, including the inalienable right of safety. And non gun owners must realize that not all of us gun owners are far right red necks stockpiling weapons to fight imaginary enemies, but we’re for the most part rational, responsible citizens who believe the “right to bear arms”, at least some arms, is a necessity for a free and secure society. If we’re allowed to have a conversation based on facts and reality I’m certain that, along with other important issues, gun control can be resolved.

Gilberton Police Chief Mark Kessler gained notoriety recently after posting several YouTube videos in which he uses profanity and weaponry to illustrate his anger over numerous issues, including a U.N. arms resolution, Nancy Pelosi, liberals in general, AND to show off his propensity for shooting aimlessly into the air.

I am not sure what I find more alarming: the videos themselves OR the fact that the little borough of 800 that employs this radical militarist wannabe actually feels it needs multiple full automatic weapons equipped with drum magazines.

Kessler was suspended by borough council this week not because of the content of the videos but because he had used the municipal weapons in the videos without permission.

A few observations:

First of all, for those who are truly heeding the words of the Chief and fear the ultimate takeover of our liberties by big government, a question: shouldn’t the citizens of Gilberton be just a tad concerned that the borough is packing such serious heat…and for what!? What could happen in Gilberton that would require these types of weapons?

And yes, free speech is an undeniable right. But that doesn’t make Kessler’s words defendable. All his videos seem to promote, besides showing off some colorful language, are threatening and hateful words and gestures toward those that don’t agree with him.

What’s worse is he posts these videos and statements as Chief Kessler. He is using his position to promote his personal beliefs, which very likely could violate the federal Hatch Act.

Irregardless of this law, it seems reckless for the borough to maintain Kessler as Chief based on the statements he has made. What I mean by this:

His ultimate goal seems to be to uphold the 2nd amendment – as Chief, his goals should be to uphold the law, period.
He has a responsibility to the community to protect all citizens – even liberals. From what Kessler says about liberals in his videos, I imagine those living in Gilberton do not feel particularly safe.

He seems to think he can choose which laws he defends. If a police officer can decide which laws to uphold than why do we need a legislature or congress, a governor and a president? Kessler is effectively placing the legislative and executive duties into his hands, the police officer.

He is also potentially dangerous. We can argue that his weapons have been misused in at least two situations. His pro-gun philosophy seems to guide his everyday actions; whether he is on duty or not, his gun seems to be his first defense, when it should in fact be his last defense. Add in the type of weapons that he has access to and you have the possibility for a very dangerous situation.

Kessler claims to want to uphold, at least one amendment of, the constitution while dismantling the very governmental structure that our founding fathers established. Because he doesn’t support the current president (to put it mildly), he thinks he can decide whether federal laws should be enforced…that’s not how our country rolls.

He certainly would make for a terrific militia leader — if you read the bylaws of his Constitution Security Force, you’ll see he’s well on his way — but he is no police chief. (On his website, he had a post that is now removed that states he believes the borough is planning to permanently fire him – let’s hope his instincts are correct.)

Oh and than there’s the whole fact that he’s wrong. UN resolutions have no bearing on our Constitution. Obama hasn’t taken anyone’s guns, nor has Pelosi for that matter. And it is pretty apparent, from Kessler’s own videos, that we do not have gun control in this country when angry and reckless individuals can gain easy access to military style weapons.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  That is the mantra held by the NRA and its members. The NRA opposes any form of gun regulation because they assert that it is not guns that are the problem, it is the bad people who use them. In fact, they go on to say that it will only be a good guy with a gun that will stop a bad guy with a gun.

Yet, the NRA opposes weeding out the good guys from the bad guys when it comes to purchasing guns.

The NRA emphatically opposes universal background checks for firearm purchases which would require all states to perform a search of federal criminal databases for all gun purchases. Universal background checks would fix current loopholes that exist in various states.  Many states do not require background checks on all gun purchases. For example, in Alabama, background checks are not required on any private gun purchases, including handguns. In Pennsylvania, private sale of long guns, including assault rifles, do not require a background check.  Won’t it be criminals that take advantage of these loopholes?

Background checks help keep guns out of the wrong hands. Plain and simple. For law-abiding citizens, this is an easy and speedy process (if you have ever purchased a firearm from a dealer in Pennsylvania, which requires the search of both state and federal databases, you know that it takes just a few minutes). Universal background checks make it all the more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms.

So why does the NRA oppose universal background checks when nearly 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support the measure?  If you’re an NRA member, you might want to call them and ask. Perhaps it is because the NRA supports gun manufacturers rather than gun owners.  Selling guns is what gun manufacturers do and what the NRA is about….whether the gun is purchased legally or illegally, gun manufacturers are still making money.

Of course, the NRA says that gun laws are ineffective because criminals do not obey laws and will acquire guns through whatever means possible.  This is true. Criminals are not above stealing guns. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, over 145,000 firearms were stolen in the U.S. in 2010 alone. However, according to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), only 10-15% of weapons used by criminals are stolen. (Source: PBS Frontline)

The ATF suggests that the majority of guns used by criminals are purchased legally by someone and then sold or transferred to the criminal. These transactions are called straw purchases — when an individual knowingly makes the purchase for someone who is lawfully unable to own a firearm.

The NRA opposed recent legislation that called for harsher penalties on straw purchases.  They claim such attempts would impose penalties on innocent people.

The NRA proposed amendments that would place the burden on law enforcement officers to prove that the individual purchasing the gun intended to commit a crime by acquiring the gun for someone else (Source: The Hill). The NRA’s proposed language, however, effectively nullifies the straw purchase law meaning the act of selling a weapon to an unlawful recipient would no longer be the crime. Per the NRA’s revisions, a crime would only exist if law enforcement officials can prove that the individual purchasing the gun for someone else intended to be an accessory to a crime that may have been committed.

The NRA proposes to water down the very law that needs strengthened; in fact, an added measure should ensure the straw purchaser be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with the acquired firearm.

The bipartisan federal gun legislation proposed a few weeks ago would have made these transactions a felony, recommending a 15 year prison term for the straw purchaser or 25 years if the weapon they purchased ultimately was used in a violent crime. The NRA effectively killed this gun legislation; a minority of NRA-funded senators blocked a vote on the bill.

Many states regard straw purchases simply as a misdemeanor. In Arizona, for example, the law clearly states that it is illegal to transfer a weapon to someone who is prohibited by law to posses a firearm. In an editorial by the Arizona Daily Star calling on Congress to make these transactions a felony the editorial board explained, “if convicted under the [current] state law, the defendant would be eligible for probation, or could face a sentence of six months to 1.5 years.” (Source Arizona Daily Star)

In 2012, Governor Corbett signed a law that would re-impose a 5-year minimum sentence for anyone making a repeat straw purchase in Pennsylvania. (Source: Montgomery Media) Repeat. How many straw purchases does it take for a weapon to get into the wrong hands? Pennsylvania allows for multiple straw purchases before a harsher prison term is imposed.

Universal gun laws related to background checks and illegal purchases make it less likely that guns will get into the wrong hands and provides universal rules for an item that can easily be slipped across state borders. Even states that had the political will to pass strong gun control measures are victims of weaker, across-the-border gun laws. The ATF seized 8793 guns in New York, which arguably boasts the toughest gun laws in the nation; they found only 1595 were purchased in the state.  (Source: New York Post)

If the NRA is really on the side of law-abiding citizens than why do they oppose measures that would make it harder for criminals to access firearms? It seems that it is in the best interest of gun advocates to support gun control laws that will prevent the next mass shooting or decrease the annual number of crimes and homicides brought forth from the barrel of a rifle or handgun. In 2011, 68% of homicides in the United States were a result of firearms (Source: FBI).

So the NRA is almost right: guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people. You could even say bad people with guns kill people.

And the NRA kills bills that could keep these guns out of the hands of bad people…why?!