‘Representative democracy,’ yes?

When the founders created this great nation, they established a “representative democracy” in which those we elect to public office are charged with representing the majority view of those who send them to office.

Why, then, does the Texas Legislature — to cite just one example — continue to resist the will of the people who appear to support increasing the minimum age for those wishing to purchase firearms?

That’s what is going on here, according to a new poll published by the University of Texas.

The Texas Tribune reports: Released Wednesday, the survey from the University of Texas at Austin found 76% of voters support “raising the legal age to purchase any firearm from 18 years of age to 21 years of age.” Twenty percent of voters oppose the idea. Republicans back the proposal 64% to 31%.

Poll finds Texans support raising age to buy guns from 18 to 21 | The Texas Tribune

What is just as staggering as the overall support for such a measure is the significant majority of Texans who call themselves Republicans who also support increasing the minimum age.

Indeed, the GOP that controls the Legislature along with every single statewide office in Texas ought to listen to the will of the people for whom they work instead of the gun lobby that keeps funneling money to their campaigns.

I am not suggesting that increasing the age limit is the end-all to the spate of gun violence that plagues our society. It merely adds one more reasonable requirement for those wishing to purchase a firearm. While we’re at it, why not also include universal background checks to ensure that the gun purchaser isn’t a threat to those around him.

I doubt seriously the nation’s founders would approve of the way this political climate has shaken out 200-plus years after they created this representative democracy.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Rep. Jackson: Unhinged?

If you think for just a moment about this, you might realize the irony that I am about to present.

U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, the right-wing fruitcake who represents the Texas Panhandle, keeps yammering about President Biden’s mental fitness for the job he occupies. But yet … it is Jackson who sounds and acts like a man who needs an intervention.

He has posted a bizarre video on Twitter in which he dares the president to take away his AR-15. “Come and take it!” Jackson bellows while holding such a weapon, which he points at one of his feet … if you get my drift there.

Here’s my point. Joe Biden just signed a piece of legislation that doesn’t say a single thing about “taking away” our guns, let alone anyone’s AR-15. Jackson, though, seems to ascribe some sort of nefarious motive where none exists.

“I will NEVER give up my firearms. I will NEVER surrender my AR-15. If Democrats want to push an insane gun-grab, they can COME AND TAKE IT!,” Jackson wrote in the post accompanying the video.

Good grief! Settle down, dude!

Video of Ronny Jackson Daring Biden to Come Take His AR-15 Viewed 1M Times (newsweek.com)

I know the district Jackson represents pretty well. I lived there for 23 years. I moved there when another Republican, Mac Thornberry, took office. Thornberry retired in 2020, opening the seat up to all comers. Jackson moved to the Panhandle, having never lived there before, to run for Thornberry’s seat in Congress.

He once was a Navy admiral and White House physician to two presidents, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump.

But he’s gone, well, bonkers since being elected. The guy’s butter has slipped off his noodle.

He keeps yammering about President Biden’s cognitive ability. He’s full of sh**! This latest Twitter tirade only tells me that Jackson is the one who needs a medical exam.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Arm teachers? Seriously?

There he stood, yapping and yammering about how stricter gun laws don’t do a thing to keep us safer. Instead, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in the wake of the Uvalde school massacre, we need to arm teachers and let them settle the issue of a shooter marching down the halls.

What an absolute crock!

The notion of allowing teachers to pack heat in the classroom is preposterous. I realize that in Texas, some school districts allow such nonsense. Cruz, the Republican junior senator, wants to expand it. He says, in effect, more guns make us safer. Really … Ted?

They do not!

Indeed, Texas is one of those states that no longer requires anyone to demonstrate a level of proficiency with a firearm. We have that law enacted in 2021 called “constitutional carry” of firearms. Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill that made it legal for anyone who doesn’t have a criminal conviction on his or her record to own a gun.

How, then, does allowing teachers to carry guns into the classroom any safer? In my view, it doesn’t.

Let’s understand something about law enforcement officers who are licensed as well to carry firearms. They must pass continual tests during their careers to prove their proficiency. How can we expect a teacher to always know what to do in case of an emergency to react properly? We cannot!

I am going to continue to stand on the notion that there must be a legislative remedy that lawmakers of good will and those a conscience can find that doesn’t run counter to the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

Politicians such as Ted Cruz continue to lambaste those on the other side for “politicizing” tragedies such as Uvalde, or Sandy Hook, or Columbine or Aurora while at the same time leaning on their own political benefactors as they refuse to discuss or debate possible solutions within Congress or in state legislatures.

Who, then, is playing politics while our children continue to die?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

‘Yes!’ on background checks

Someone will have to explain to me — in a persuasive manner — why the concept of “universal background checks” on anyone purchasing a firearm is so anathema to those on the right-wing fringes of political thought.

The issue has burst back onto our political consciousness in the wake of the Uvalde school massacre that killed 19 precious children and two of the educators who sought to protect them from the madness that erupted in their classroom.

Border Patrol tactical officers killed the shooter.

He purchased the weapons he used to slaughter his victims legally. How did he do that? Because he did not have to undergo a routine “universal background check” to look for any clues as to why he shouldn’t own the weapons.

Those in Congress — the men and women whose campaigns are bankrolled by the gun lobby — keep harping on Second Amendment freedoms. They suggest that any effort to legislate tougher gun laws runs counter to the Second Amendment guarantee of citizens to “keep and bear arms.”

They are wrong!

How can I explain this any clearer? Those who can pass a background check if they purchase a firearm have nothing in the world to worry about? The law-abiding citizenry can arm itself to the teeth. The Second Amendment stands strongly in favor of their right to own weapons.

A legislative remedy, though, does exist if Congress is willing to enact it as a deterrent against those who might have something in their background that can sound alarm bells.

Perhaps the details of such a background check can be worked out. There could be some serious negotiating into what constitutes a deal-breaker if someone seeks to purchase a firearm. Fine. Then work it out!

This so-called constitutional argument, though, against universal background checks is a canard. Those who seek shelter in the Constitution against such safeguards are seeking to frighten the rest of us into believing that government then will seize every weapon in every home from every law-abiding citizen.

That is demagoguery at its worst.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

How did this guy purchase a gun … legally?

Someone will have to explain this one to me.

John Houser was known to behave erratically. He had a rap sheet as long as his arm, maybe both arms.

And yet he was able to purchase a handgun — legally, it turns out — in Alabama.

He then took the gun into a movie theater in Lafayette, La., cases the crowd watching the film and then opens fire.

Houser killed two people and injured several more — before killing himself with the gun he used to commit the horrible crime.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/us/louisiana-theater-shooter/

How in the name of all that is holy did this guy purchase a gun legally?

We hear, of course, that existing gun laws are sufficient. Obviously, and quite tragically, John Houser has demonstrated that they are woefully insufficient.

Let me think: A background check might have determined this guy was unfit to own a handgun. A three- to five-day delay in the purchase to give local authorities time to check him out might have worked. He could have been denied permission to buy the gun.

Would that have prevented him from obtaining a firearm illegally, from stealing it from someone? Probably not.

But he bought the thing legally.

I’m ready for the explanation — and the justification — for why this is OK?

Get rid of gun free zones? Really?

Back in 1995, when the Texas Legislature was debating whether to allow Texans to carry concealed handguns, the publisher for whom I worked posed an interesting question to our state senator.

“Why don’t you just allow folks to carry guns on their hips and walk around the State Capitol?” he asked the late Teel Bivins, a Republican and an avid proponent of gun-owners rights.

I cannot recall Bivins’s response. Perhaps he thought it was a rhetorical question.

But it comes to mind now as I read this essay about gun free zones in the wake of the Chattanooga murders of four Marines and a sailor.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/gun-control-us-capitol-120310.html?hp=t2_r#.VapPCbnbKt8

Why not allow guns into the U.S. Capitol?

Joel Zeitz, the author of the essay, noted that Donald Trump sounded like a mainstream Republican when he said we need to “get rid of gun free zones.” According to Trump, the men who died at the hands of the shooter didn’t have a chance because they were in a zone where gun are prohibited, which of course didn’t stop the shooter from sneaking a gun into the place.

The U.S. Capitol has seen gun violence erupt. People have gotten past security systems with weapons. They have harmed individuals and damaged the structure.

Would guns inside the Capitol stopped the incidents? I have trouble believing they would have worked.

Texas’ concealed handgun carry law, by the way, hasn’t been the disaster some of us thought it would be when the Legislature enacted it two decades ago.

However, this argument that more guns makes us a safer society has yet to be proven — at least to me.

Burger chain: You can pack, just not in the open

Now that Whataburger has declared that people carrying guns in the open won’t be served in its Texas restaurants, let’s be sure we understand something else.

Texas also has a concealed carry permit provision, meaning that Texans can carry a handgun hidden under their clothing. The only people who’ll be allowed to carry openly are those with concealed permits.

So …

If you have a concealed carry permit and you want to go to Whataburger for a big ol’ burger, you’re entitled to do so.

That’s my understanding.

Whataburger staffers aren’t going to frisk customers walking into their establishments to ensure they aren’t carrying weapons. The company, based in Texas, is merely banning those who have a gun strapped to their hips — in plain sight. The open-carry law takes effect in January.

After all, the concealed carry law that the Texas Legislature enacted in 1995 was meant to keep these firearms hidden from view and deterring bad guys from doing something they shouldn’t be doing for fear that the person next to them is packing a pistol.

Bon appetit, y’all.

Your guns are safe … honest

Given that social media commentary becomes part of the public domain once it’s posted, I want to share a thought from a friend of mine who put this out there.

“Is it just me, or did I miss the President saying he wanted to confiscate all guns? No one wants your f****** guns!!!! What I want is a conversation of whether or why gun violence is an epidemic in this country and what we can do about it. For beginners, you folks on the other side need to convince me why adding more guns is the answer. And I’m skeptical about defending yourself from the government, because right now quite frankly some gun owners scare me a helluva lot more than the government. Thanks for listening.”

My friend is a lawyer. He’s a smart fellow — and not just because I happen to agree with him.

Gun-rights advocates keep saying things that aren’t true, starting with their false claims that President Obama wants to take our guns away from us. After that, the lies spin off into fairy tales about martial law, seeking to suspend the Constitution and a conspiracy to get Barack Obama elected to a third consecutive term.

Another friend of mine actually told me — to my face — that he believes the third-term conspiracy actually has merit. I laughed out loud.

My friend’s request is a reasonable one, which is to have a rational conversation about whether there’s a way to stem the flow of guns in our society without doing harm to the Second Amendment, the one that guarantees Americans the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Can’t we have that conversation without the crazy talk that comes mostly from one side proclaiming that it’s all a plot to take away our guns?

 

That’s the ticket: blame the victim

National Rifle Association board member Charles Cotton has exhibited an amazing capacity for heartlessness.

He has placed the blame for the shocking shooting deaths of nine Charleston, S.C., church members on one of the victims.

Despicable.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/nra-board-member-blames-clementa-pinckney-charleston-shooting-119202.html?ml=po

Cotton’s narrative goes something like this: One of the victims is state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, who voted against legislation allowing South Carolinians to carry concealed handguns. Had the measure passed, according to Cotton, the victims would be alive.

According to Politico: “And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton responded to the post on Thursday afternoon. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

Pinckney, who was pastor of the church where the carnage occurred, is responsible for this tragedy. Did you get that?

What in the world is Charles Cotton, a Texas NRA board member, thinking in trying to blame one of the victims killed in that rampage?

Suppose for a moment that someone in the church was packing a pistol when the gunman opened fire. Is the NRA board member certain that he or she could have stopped the shooter on the spot — without anyone else suffering grievous injury or death on the melee?

Good grief! It’s been only four days since the tragedy erupted in that house of worship.

Can’t there be some sort of cooling-off period? Can’t we wait a reasonable length of time before leveling blame? And for crying out loud, can’t we declare “hands off!” the memory of one of the victims of this senseless act?

 

Open-carry still causes concern

Concealed-handgun carry legislation was thought to be of concern when the 1995 Texas Legislature approved it.

It has proved effective in at least one regard: Thinking that motorists might be carrying a gun with them has made other motorists a lot more circumspect if they get cut off on the street.

Now the 2015 Legislature is considering an open-carry bill. This one give me pause.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/14/open-carry-bill-poised-clear-texas-house/

Why is that? I’m concerned about what some have indicated might become a problem — which is that someone carrying a handgun openly could become a target in the event shooting starts somewhere.

Interesting, yes? I share that concern.

The bill got stalled today in the Texas House of Representatives on a procedural glitch. It’s likely to come up in a day or two and the House is likely to approve it.

I’d bet real American cash that Gov. Greg Abbott would sign it if gets to his desk.

That doesn’t alleviate my concern about open-carry legislation becoming a state law.

I continue to wonder whether carrying guns openly on one’s holster created a safer society back in the old days when it was customary. Will the presence of guns being carried in the open today make us safer than the belief that someone is packing a pistol under his jacket or in her purse?

I still have my doubts.