jump to navigation

Gitmo Groups Call Out Obama Over Political Cowardice April 30, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, Criminal Justice, Health, Human Rights, Torture.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

 

Roger’s note: On the first day of his presidency, Obama promised to close Guantánamo within a year.  That was over five years ago.  Guantánamo is a national disgrace and only one example of the president’s abominable lack of ethics, courage, and  of his broken promises.

‘Congress has very little to do with it’: Following press conference, groups say Obama has only himself to blame for Guantanamo

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

U.S. President Barack Obama stated at a press conference on Tuesday that he would like to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison but said that Congress was to blame for blockading any such action.

However, rights groups are calling Obama’s bluff, saying he actually does have the power to transfer detainees and put an end to the indefinite detention, solitary confinement, and torture inherent within the military prison—without the approval of Congress—and that he simply lacks the political courage to do so.

Obama stated Tuesday:

Now Congress determined that they would not let us close it and despite the fact that there are a number of the folks who are currently in Guantanamo who the courts have said could be returned to their country of origin or potentially a third country. . . . And so I’m going to — as I’ve said before, we’re — examine every option that we have administratively to try to deal with this issue. But ultimately, we’re also going to need some help from Congress.

In response, lawyers for Guantanamo detainees at the Center for Constitutional Rights stated, “We praise the president for re-affirming his commitment to closing the base but take issue with the impression he strives to give that it is largely up to Congress.”

Rather than waiting for Congress to make a move on Guantanamo, CCR reports Tuesday that Obama has the autonomy to take a number of actions:

  • Congress is certainly responsible for imposing unprecedented restrictions on detainee transfers, but President Obama still has the power to transfer men right now. He should use the certification/waiver process created by Congress to transfer detainees, starting with the 86 men who have been cleared for release, including our client Djamel Ameziane.
  • Congress may have tied one hand behind his back, but he has tied the other: he should lift his self-imposed moratorium on transfers to Yemen regardless of a detainee’s status. It’s collective punishment based on citizenship, and needs to be reevaluated now.
  • President Obama should appoint a senior government official to shepherd the process of closure, and should give that person sufficient authority to resolve inter-agency disputes.
  • The President must demonstrate immediate, tangible progress toward the closure of Guantanamo or the men who are on hunger strike will die, and he will be ultimately responsible for their deaths.

Likewise, the ACLU affirmed Tuesday that Obama holds certain powers to release at least half of the Guantanamo detainees:

There are two things the president should do. One is to appoint a senior point person so that the administration’s Guantánamo closure policy is directed by the White House and not by Pentagon bureaucrats. The president can also order the secretary of defense to start certifying for transfer detainees who have been cleared, which is more than half the Guantánamo population.

Carlos Warner, an attorney representing 11 Guantanamo prisoners, said today:

I applaud President Obama’s remarks — he hasn’t mentioned Guantanamo in years — but the fact is that Congress has very little to do with it. NDAA as written allows the President to transfer individuals if it’s in the national security of the United States. The President’s statement made clear that Guantanamo negatively impacts our national security. The question is not whether the administration has the authority to transfer innocent men, but whether it has the political courage to do so.

And writing at the Lawfare Tuesday, Benjamin Wittes adds that Obama’s comments on Tuesday are a direct contradiction of his own self imposed policies. Wittes states:

The President’s comments are bewildering because his own policies give rise to the vast majority of the concerns about which he so earnestly delivered himself in these remarks.

Remember that Obama himself has imposed a moratorium on repatriating people to Yemen. And Obama himself has insisted that nearly 50 detainees cannot either be tried or transferred.

‘Torture Reinforcements’ Not ‘Medical Personnel’ Arrive to Combat Gitmo Hunger Strike

US Military Calls in ‘Force-Feeding Teams’ as Guantanamo Hunger Strike Continues

- Jon Queally, staff writer

A US military guard carries shackles at the US detention center in Guantánamo Bay. (Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images)

The US military has confirmed that at least 40 “medical personnel” have arrived at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in order to expand a force-feeding operation designed to counter an ongoing hunger strike by more than 100 prisoners protesting their indefinite detention and ill treatment.

But because the procedure of “force-feeding” is widely held as a form of torture, critics of the practice may well view the medical teams as nothing more than ‘torture reinforcements’ as the number of those approved for the painful process continues to grow and their conditions deteriorate.

Military authorities repeatedly claim that force-feedings are somehow necessary, but experts are unequivocal when they declare that the procedure is torture.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission considers the practice of force-feeding—in which detainees are strapped to a restraining chair, have tubes pushed up their nostrils and liquids pumped down their throats—a clear form of torture. In addition, the World Medical Association prohibits its physicians from participating in force-feeding and the American Medical Association has just sent a letter to the Pentagon calling the practice an affront to accepted medical ethics.

One detainee, speaking recently through his lawyer David Remes, described the process by saying it felt a “razor blade [going] down through your nose and into your throat.”

In an interview with the Guardian, Remes discussed the treatment of those at Guantanamo as he pushed back against the US military’s claims that it is safeguarding the prisoners by torturing them. “It’s like the way you would treat an animal,” he said. Watch:

Despite testimony like this and the many objections by human rights advocates, reports indicate that at least 21 men have been approved for force feeding at the US prison.

As The Guardian reports:

Authorities said that the “influx” of medical reinforcements had been weeks in the planning. But the news will fuel speculation that the condition of hunger-striking prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is deteriorating. Shaker Aamer, the last British resident being kept at the centre, told his lawyer earlier this month that authorities will soon see fatalities as a result of the current action.

“I cannot give you numbers and names, but people are dying here,” said Aamer, who is refusing food.

The action is a protest against conditions at the centre, as well as the indefinite nature of the remaining prisoners’ confinement. Aamer has been cleared for release twice, but is still behind bars after 11 years. He has never been charged or faced trial but the US refuses to allow him to return to the UK, despite official protests by the British government.

Late last week, president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Jeremy Lazarus, sent a letter to US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in order to remind the Pentagon that the AMA’s long-held view is that force feeding is both an unethical and inhumane practic practice.

As Reuters report:

[The AMA letter] urged the defense secretary “to address any situation in which a physician may be asked to violate the ethical standards of his or her profession.”

Hagel had just returned from a trip to the Middle East and it was unclear whether he had seen the letter, said Pentagon spokesman Army Lieutenant Colonel Todd Breasseale.

Asked if military doctors had raised ethical concerns about being asked to perform force-feedings, Breasseale said, “I can tell you there have been no organized efforts, but I cannot speak for individual physicians.

Vince Warren, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights which represents many of the detainees, welcomed the AMA’s letter.

“In reaffirming its long-standing opposition to force feeding Guantanamo prisoners, the country’s most prominent medical association has delivered a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration’s wholly inadequate response to the hunger strik,” Warren said. “The administration cannot force feed its way out of this growing medical emergency.”

He added, “The only true solution is to resume transfers of prisoners and close Guantanamo.”

________________________________________________

 

‘Time for a Reckoning’: UN Investigator says US/UK Must Account for Torture, Human Rights Violation March 5, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Human Rights, Torture, Uncategorized, War on Terror.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Roger’s note: “Under Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Department of Justice would not prosecute any official who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance given by its Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush era on interrogation.”  The mind boggles at this statement, which was the classic Nazi defense  (not to mention the classic “Nixon Defense:” if the president does it, it is legal).  It is as if Nuremberg never happened.  
Published on Tuesday, March 5, 2013 by Common Dreams

‘Words are not enough. Platitudinous repetition of statements affirming opposition to torture ring hollow,’ says Ben Emmerson’

- Jon Queally, staff writer

If the US and UK governments truly want to rebuke the role that kidnapping, torture and prolonged detention without trial played—and in some cases continues to play—in their declared “war against terrorism” than they must go beyond words and release the still disclosed internal reports that document such abuses.

Ben Emmerson: failure to release intelligence reports shows seeming unwillingness by UK and US to face up to international crimes. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

That’s the argument of Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, who spoke out on Monday against the secrecy and denial that persists within both governments.

Perpetrators and architects of such programs should be held accountable and face justice, he declared in both an official report and in a speech delivered Monday.

“Despite this clear repudiation of the unlawful actions carried out by the Bush-era CIA, many of the facts remain classified, and no public official has so far been brought to justice in the United States,” Emmerson writes in the report written for the the U.N. Human Rights Council, which he will present Tuesday.

Prefacing the report in Geneva on Monday, Emmerson criticized “a policy of de facto immunity for public officials who engaged in acts of torture, rendition and secret detention, and their superiors and political masters who authorized these acts.”

Citing the hypocrisy of such secrecy and the damage done to the reputation of both countries abroad, Emmerson continued:

“Words are not enough. Platitudinous repetition of statements affirming opposition to torture ring hollow to many in those parts of the Middle East and North Africa that have undergone, or are undergoing, major upheaval, since they have first-hand experience of living under repressive regimes that used torture in private whilst making similar statements in public.”

“The scepticism of these communities can only be reinforced if western governments continue to demonstrate resolute indifference to the crimes committed by their predecessor administrations.”

Shortly before the speech in Geneva, Emmerson told the Guardian it was time for “a reckoning with the past”. He added:

“In South America it took up to 30 years before the officials responsible for crimes like these were held fully accountable. With the conspiracy organised by ther Bush-era CIA it has taken a decade, but the campaign for securing the right to truth has now reached a critical point.

“The British and American governments are sitting on reports that reveal the extent of the involvement of former governments in these crimes. If William Hague is serious about pursuing a policy of ethical counter-terrorism, as he says he is, then the first thing the British government needs to do is to release the interim report of the Gibson Inquiry immediately.”

And Reuters adds:

Emmerson, an international lawyer from Britain, has served since August 2011 in the independent post set up by the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2005 to probe human rights violations committed during counter-terrorism operations worldwide.

The “war on terror” waged by Bush after al Qaeda attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 led to “gross or systematic” violations involving secret prisons for Islamic militant suspects, clandestine transfers and torture, Emmerson said.

Under Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Department of Justice would not prosecute any official who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance given by its Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush era on interrogation.

But Emmerson said that using a “superior orders defense” and invoking secrecy on national security grounds was “perpetuating impunity for the public officials implicated in these crimes”.

With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger February 22, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Roger’s Note: Good thing that war-monger Romney wasn’t elected, no?  Unless my sense of geography fails me, Niger borders upon Nigeria, which is African for OIL.  Someone should do an analysis comparing the gallons of oil extracted with the gallons of blood spilled.
Published on Friday, February 22, 2013 by Common Dreams

West African nation that will host fleet of US drones will also have armed US soldiers with “boots on the ground”

- Jon Queally, staff writer

With little more than a note to Congress, President Obama announced Friday morning that he has ordered the deployment of approximately 100 armed US soldiers to the west African country of Niger.

President Obama has order US soldiers to the west African nation of Niger. (AP)

According to the Associated Press, Obama’s letter stated that the mission would be to conduct “intelligence sharing” with French troops stationed in the neighboring country of Mali who have joined that country’s army in a fight with Toureg fighters in the north.

As AP notes:

The U.S. and Niger signed an agreement last month spelling out legal protections and obligations of Americans who might operate from the African nation. But U.S. officials declined at the time to discuss specific plans for a military presence in Niger.

The announcement of “boots on the ground” in Niger comes just weeks after reports surfaced that the US was in negotiations to establish an airbase in the country so that a portion of its drone fleet could operate in the region.

Events in Mali that led to the current violence followed on the US/NATO intervention in Libya in 2011. The cumulative effect, however, has been a growing chorus of western officials who say that west Africa is now the new front on the “war on terror” and the increased military presence, from Libya, then Mali, and now Niger, suggests that the buildup in the region is just beginning.

In the era of executive authority—almost entirely enabled by the annually renewed Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted after the events of 9/11—the question remains, at what point will Congress reassert its right to control declarations of war and at what point will the US public begin to question a “war on terror” that can deploy US soldiers in a foreign nation with the quick delivery of a simple presidential note?

US Senator: I Support Drone Program That Has Killed 4,700 “Innocent People” February 21, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, War, War on Terror.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Roger’s note: Let’s say, if you will excuse the expression, conservatively, that for each of the 4700 murdered, there will be 5 family and friends so outraged as to become serious life long enemies of the United States: that makes 23,500 converts to Al Qaeda.  Good work BushObama!
Published on Thursday, February 21, 2013 by Common Dreams

Republican from South Carolina becomes first elected official to impart government’s estimate of civilians killed by US drones abroad

- Jon Queally, staff writer

Becoming the first elected government official to publicly state an estimated number of “innocent people” killed in US drone attacks overseas, Sen. Lindsey Graham told a local crowd in his home state of South Carolina that “We’ve killed 4,700.”

“Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war,” said Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Speaking to a group of Rotarians at a forum in Easley, South Carolina, Graham responded to a question about drones by saying, “Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of Al-Qaeda.”

His remarks, reported by the local Easley Patch, included a defense of the use of drones despite their propensity to kill innocent bystanders, including women and children.

“I didn’t want him to have a trial,” Graham stated, refering to a US citizen, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was assassinated in Yemen by a missile from a US drone in 2011.

“We’re not fighting a crime, we’re fighting a war,” Graham said. “I support the president’s ability to make a determination as to who an enemy combatant is. It’s never been done by judges before. I support the drone program.”

Graham’s remarks have since been picked up by national and international media due to the fact that he appears to be the first high-ranking US government official to put an exact number of the number civilians killed by the US practice.

As Al-Jazeera reports:

Several organizations have tried to calculate how many militants and civilians may have been killed in drone strikes since 2004 but have arrived at a wide range of numbers.

The figure cited by Graham matches the high end of a tally by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It says the number killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia is between 3,072 and 4,756.

The Washington-based New America Foundation says there have been 350 US drone strikes since 2004, most of them during Barack Obama’s presidency. And the foundation estimates the death toll at between 1,963 and 3,293, with 261 to 305 civilians killed.

US intelligence agencies and the White House have refused to divulge details about the strikes, which are officially termed classified, but officials have suggested that few if any civilians have been killed inadvertently.

The comments by Graham set off speculation about whether or not the senator mistakenly cited official government estimates, and human rights advocates and civil liberty groups would be pleased to discover that such numbers actually exist given the Obama administration’s refusal to release any details about the program which was initiated under President Bush but escalated over the course of the current president.

Micah Zenko, credited by many for breaking the story of Graham’s comment at his CFR blog, said it’s notable that Graham’s publicly stated estimate “nearly matches” the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s.

“Either Graham is a big fan of TBIJ’s work,” wrote Zenko, “or perhaps he inadvertently revealed the U.S. government’s body count for nonbattlefield targeted killings.”

And Anti-War‘s John Glaser adds:

It should be noted also that TBIJ, despite their rigorous methodology, was for a long time shunned by a mainstream media that refused to cite their casualty estimates, simply because it recorded the highest ones available. Newspapers and TV typically used the middle-of-the-road estimate, which was New America Foundation. Graham – with his seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee – is almost certainly privy to some secret government numbers on drone war casualties. The fact that he might of let it slip here – and the fact that it’s way higher than virtually anybody in the mainstream reports – should be something of a lesson, I think.

Graham also noted in his comments that in addition to his support for the drone war overseas, he supported further use of the technology within the US.

“I don’t want to arm them, but we need drones along the border so we can really control illegal immigration,” Graham told his constituents.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Gun Lobby Speaks: We Need More Guns, Especially in Schools December 19, 2012

Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far
Published on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 by Common Dreams

Gun Lobby Speaks: We Need More Guns, Especially in Schools

The NRA, its affiliates and the lawmakers it supports did not stay silent for too long. Now, the familiar arguments and strategies to defang a national push for stronger gun regulations

  – Jon Queally, staff writer

As a nation mourns and as funerals continue for the child victims of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut last week, gun industry lobbyists and their political affiliates are emerging from ‘the rock they’ve been hiding under‘ since Friday to deliver their solution to the country’s ongoing gun violence epidemic.

The Newtown school shootings have sparked renewed calls for gun control. (Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA)

Their message, in short: more guns. Especially in schools.

On Tuesday, a bill was introduced in the South Carolina legislature that would permit school teachers to carry loaded firearms in their classrooms.

The bill, introduced by state Rep. Phillip Lowe (R-Florence), would demand that a teacher wanting to have a gun in the classroom would have to meet a set of criteria, but would only allow school officials to deny the request “upon a finding of just cause.”

According to the Charlotte Observer, one fellow lawmaker called the bill “idiotic” but the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Greg Delleney (R-Chester), said he would give the bill a hearing.

Governor of Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell, also joined the ‘more guns in schools’ chorus by telling constinuents in his state that he would consider such a law for his state.

“I think there should at least be a discussion of that,” McDonnell said during a public Q&A Tuesday. “If people were armed, not just a police officer, but other school officials who were trained and chose to have a weapon, certainly there would be an opportunity to stop aggressors trying to come into the school, so I think that’s a reasonable discussion that ought to be had.”

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association broke its media silence late Tuesday evening and issued a statement promising “to offer meaningful contributions” to a national dialogue and make efforts to “make sure this never happens again.”

The NRA’s statement was met with immediate scorn by many.

As a post by New York Magazine‘s Joe Coscarelli points out, “It took the NRA four days to come up with ‘Shocked, Saddened, and Heartbroken’”?

Commenting on the group’s announcement for a “major” conference on Friday to expand on what their “contributions” to solving the nation’s culture of violence and mass murder would be, Coscarelli commented derisively: “That should be something.”

And, as gun policy expert Kristin Goss told CNN, the NRA’s strategy is a signature part of the organization’s playbook after an incident such as the massacre at Sandy Hook.

“The typical pattern is something horrific happens. There is a national outcry, mourning. People call for a national conversation on gun control. Gun rights proponents lay low,” Goss said. “They’re used to seeing this cycle express condolences and hope the attention will shift to a new issue.”

CNN adds:

When the NRA does speak in detail, it will do so forcefully and with the type of political sway and heft the pro-gun lobby has carefully amassed over dozens of election cycles, experts say.

“When the emotions come down, I’m sure you’ll hear the NRA address this issue. It’ll be in January when legislation is introduced. They’ll testify at hearings. You’ll hear the same kind of arguments that I’d come up with,” said Richard Feldman, who served as regional political director for the NRA during its rise to power in the 1980s and is president of a gun rights group, the Independent Firearm Owners Association.

When that happens, the group will wield the full power of its millions of members and leverage the $17 million it spent in federal races this year helping elect candidates who it considers supporters of the NRA’s mission, said policy experts.

For his part, Larry Pratt, executive director for Gun Owners of America, appeared on Piers Morgan’s evening show to hash out the familiar arguments of the pro-gun lobby, including arming teachers to make schools “more safe”:

 Comments   

 

  • Grant Schreiber

    Clearly, anyone who has guns for “protection” is a cringing sissy afraid of every shadow.  The entire carrying of a concealed weapon is for people who are too spooked to be anywhere outside of their homes.  Only a wimp needs a gun to feel safe.  And that’s the message we need to hammer out:  Guns are for weaklings.  Real Americans don’t live in fear of their neighbors.

  • John A Randolph

    Ban the NRA’s (and all corporate interest groups’) lobbying powers.

    Get the gun powder out of government!

  • WJM51

    Pinheaded morons. Guns will make everything just WONDERFUL for everyone, won’t they? And so MORE guns will just make sure that no one is ever killed again by one, right?

    It’s time to get over this nonsense. Guns are not the answer, and NO ONE needs a freaking assault weapon in a civilized society. Their ONLY purpose is to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible. NO ONE needs that in society, and you can’t have a society if those are allowed. We are living proof of that right now.

    We’ve been letting our politicians and our “leaders” play divide and conquer on us for a generation, now, and this is the end result. We let them arm us like we are still the wild west (where most guns were actually used to beat someone with, bullets were expensive), and then wonder why people shoot each other rather than discuss things. Our government is totally dysfunctional, and they expect us NOT to see that. Our KIDS see that. Seems the only ones who don’t are the politicians and pundits.

    To hell with the NRA. Wayne LaPierre is a 100% insane nut case for an industry that is destroying this country, and we are foolish enough to let them. We have more than enough guns, we could shut down the whole industry and no one would notice for decades, there are more than enough used ones around. I’m all for melting them ALL down, personally, but that’s just me.

  • rudyspeaks

    In the last several days a number of posts have appeared citing instances of people using guns to protect themselves against crime. Frankly, some seem of questionable authenticity, but, some are probably true. Based on these accounts several pro-gun spokespeople have suggested bluntly that arming more citizens is the answer to gun violence. Pay attention, though, to the slew of shootings that no one defends as authentic “protection”, e.g. (just recently) 3 shot/1 dead in an Alabama hospital, 5 dead in Colorado, a guy shot in a pizza shop over an overdue pizza, a roommate dispute with 1 dead in Fla., a killing over loud music in N.C. There is no question that this is the result (it is, after all, what happened, y’kinow, reality) of the present level of an armed citizenry. And, to get the “benefits’ we’re promised will come of universal carry permits, even MORE people would have to be armed, meaning more of these lethal escalations. Does this strike anyone as a reasonable, or even sane, solution?

  • Gubdeb

    “Save Our Children”? Really? Save Our Children? How many countless children have been sent or are being sent off today to die for these sons-of-bitches in Washington? And for nothing. The citizenry needs the same firepower as these goons in D.C. have. Some will argue the founders didn’t know the firepower guns of the future would have, true, but neither did they know how absolutely evil, sinister, and all powerful our government could become. Again, never cared for guns or savored over them. But I think it may be time to own one now.

    Btw, I happen to see the Piers Morgan interview last night. No fan of either guy, but Morgan was reduced to calling his guest “stupid”. Really? Stupid? That’s the best

Clearly, anyone who has guns for “protection” is a cringing sissy afraid of every shadow.  The entire carrying of a concealed weapon is for people who are too spooked to be anywhere outside of their homes.  Only a wimp needs a gun to feel safe.  And that’s the message we need to hammer out:  Guns are for weaklings.  Real Americans don’t live in fear of their neighbors.
  • Avatar
    John A Randolphan hour ago

    Ban the NRA’s (and all corporate interest groups’) lobbying powers.

    Get the gun powder out of government!

  • Pinheaded morons. Guns will make everything just WONDERFUL for everyone, won’t they? And so MORE guns will just make sure that no one is ever killed again by one, right?

    It’s time to get over this nonsense. Guns are not the answer, and NO ONE needs a freaking assault weapon in a civilized society. Their ONLY purpose is to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible. NO ONE needs that in society, and you can’t have a society if those are allowed. We are living proof of that right now.

    We’ve been letting our politicians and our “leaders” play divide and conquer on us for a generation, now, and this is the end result. We let them arm us like we are still the wild west (where most guns were actually used to beat someone with, bullets were expensive), and then wonder why people shoot each other rather than discuss things. Our government is totally dysfunctional, and they expect us NOT to see that. Our KIDS see that. Seems the only ones who don’t are the politicians and pundits.

    To hell with the NRA. Wayne LaPierre is a 100% insane nut case for an industry that is destroying this country, and we are foolish enough to let them. We have more than enough guns, we could shut down the whole industry and no one would notice for decades, there are more than enough used ones around. I’m all for melting them ALL down, personally, but that’s just me.

  • In the last several days a number of posts have appeared citing instances of people using guns to protect themselves against crime. Frankly, some seem of questionable authenticity, but, some are probably true. Based on these accounts several pro-gun spokespeople have suggested bluntly that arming more citizens is the answer to gun violence. Pay attention, though, to the slew of shootings that no one defends as authentic “protection”, e.g. (just recently) 3 shot/1 dead in an Alabama hospital, 5 dead in Colorado, a guy shot in a pizza shop over an overdue pizza, a roommate dispute with 1 dead in Fla., a killing over loud music in N.C. There is no question that this is the result (it is, after all, what happened, y’kinow, reality) of the present level of an armed citizenry. And, to get the “benefits’ we’re promised will come of universal carry permits, even MORE people would have to be armed, meaning more of these lethal escalations. Does this strike anyone as a reasonable, or even sane, solution?

      • Save Our Children”? Really? Save Our Children? How many countless children have been sent or are being sent off today to die for these sons-of-bitches in Washington? And for nothing. The citizenry needs the same firepower as these goons in D.C. have. Some will argue the founders didn’t know the firepower guns of the future would have, true, but neither did they know how absolutely evil, sinister, and all powerful our government could become. Again, never cared for guns or savored over them. But I think it may be time to own one now.

    Btw, I happen to see the Piers Morgan interview last night. No fan of either guy, but Morgan was reduced to calling his guest “stupid”. Really? Stupid? That’s the best the man could do?

Nothing for you here … yet. But as you comment with Disqus and follow        other Disqus users, you will start to receive notifications here, as well as a personalized        feed of activity by you and the people you follow. So get out there and participate in        some discussions!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers