If You Live in Alabama…

You should know this:

IN LESS THAN 90 DAYS, YOUR CHANCE OF BEING KILLED IN ALABAMA WILL INCREASE.

WHY?

 

On March 11 this year (2022), Republican Governess Kay Ivey signed into law House Bill 272, which was proffered, and supported by the state’s GOP legislators, to wantonly arm the citizens, WITHOUT requiring proof of anyone’s ability to demonstrate competency, or properly handle, the concealed firearms they will soon be allowed to carry EVERYWHERE THEY GO. The law will become effective January 2023. 

(see: https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB272/id/2544995/Alabama-2022-HB272-Enrolled.pdf)

Of the 29 total votes against HB272, 3 were Republican, 2 Democrats did not vote, 2 Republicans were absent, Yeas totaled 70.

 

Even our Armed Forces, at the most fundamental level, MANDATE that EVERY SERVICE MEMBER demonstrate competency with numerous firearms, and other weapons of war.

 

But not in Alabama.

 

Guns… EVERYWHERE YOU GO.

 

EVERYWHERE.

 

Schools.

Hospitals.

Nursing Homes.

Worship Centers.

Grocery Stores.

Birthday Parties.

Libraries.

Pharmacies.

Retail Stores.

Restaurants.

Gas Stations.

Convenience Stores.

Work Places.

Doctors’ offices. 

 

Except for

Common Sense Gun Reform Laws

“Common sense isn’t so common, anymore,” goes one woefully pithy saying.

And, it certainly seems true — at least when it comes to matters of politics in this period.

But, exactly WHAT IS “common sense”?

Common sense could be the proverbial “moving target” which changes with every whim, and puffing wind of doctrine.

But, let’s hit the “pause” button for a moment and examine some matters surrounding firearms, aka “guns” and at least the two most recent tragedies in Buffalo, NY and Uvalde, TX, both sites of mass murders by 18-year-old gunmen armed with AR-15 style rifles.

Campaign flyer for GOP Arkansas U.S. Representative, Jay Dickey, CD-4.

Hyperbole aside, is there ANYTHING which could have been done to have prevented either holocaust?

Quite possibly, yes.

So, let’s examine some facts, and what laws ALREADY EXIST (or not) pertaining to firearms that might have prevented such carnage, and if they were useful — or not.

First, in BOTH cases, the perpetrators were aged 18.

Second, in BOTH cases, the firearm used — an AR-15 style rifle with a high-capacity ammunition magazine — was legally purchased.

Incidentally, that was also the firearm of choice used in numerous other massacre-style killings.

With respect to the Federal Government, there is NO law requiring establishing a comprehensive database of such massacres, and because of that, there is none. The ONLY such databases are maintained by private, non-governmental entities. That should not be so.

The Department of Justice maintains all sorts of statistics about crimes, and their perpetrators, but not on matters like this.

Why not?

That’s because a GOP Representative from Arkansas’ 4th Congressional District, Jay Dickie Jr. (1939-2017), put a “rider” onto a budget item in 1996 which has since been monikered as the “Dickie Amendment” which specifically forbade the Federal Government from studying such things.

At the time of his terms in the House of Representatives, Dickie described himself as an ardent Second Amendment supporter, which essentially translated into being “the NRA’s point person in Congress,” as he later described his role in a July 27, 2012 Op-Ed co-authored with Dr. Mark Rosenberg, MD.

“One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and

Oops… there goes the “Good Guy With A Gun” theory. #2A

In a direct blow to the firearm radicals (aka “gun nuts”) crowd’s assertions, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has shown that, contrary to what the tax-free National Rifle Association has publicly claimed, “of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU.” (Self Defense Gun Use)

In other words,

“a good guy with a gun”

does NOT

lower nor reduce criminal activity.

What is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)?

The BJS writes this about the NCVS:
“The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the nation’s primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 135,000 households, composed of nearly 225,000 persons, on the

Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA

“It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA.
As a starting point, one only has to ask why
the NRA reversed its original position on background checks.
Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when

Ronald Reagan on carrying loaded firearms in public

“Americans don’t go around carrying guns with the idea they’re using them to influence other Americans. There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

–Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California, speaking in Sacramento, California, Tuesday, May 2, 1967, after “a dozen of the armed youth – members of

Reasoned Debate: Our Second Amendment Rights & Preventing Firearm Violence

Alabama State House GOP “Dare Defend Our Rights” gun logo, from the FaceBook page of Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn

Recently in another Social Media forum, a long-time friend had posted a link to a site operated for the Alabama State House GOP faction, which is a so-called “supermajority” in that state’s elected legislative body. That site may be found here: http://ALHouseGOP.com/WeDareDefend/.

Perceiving that that those political ideologues were very likely drumming up support for their positions based upon pure emotion and fear, rather than reasoned, rational and informed debate, I initially responded by quickly writing a somewhat sarcastic response, precisely worded to give pause for thought. My initial response elicited a query, to which I delightfully replied more eruditely.

The exchange as it exists presently, now follows.

• Me: Yeah. Alabama was wrong on their right to segregation and their right to deny civil rights, too.

• Friend: So, do you support the

Ronald Reagan co-signed letter supporting Assault Gun Ban

The Second Amendment, as some have so misbelieved, has no limitations. However, as we all know, there are limits to our First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights. For example, one cannot yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. It is reasonable, therefore, that limitations should similarly exist for the Second Amendment, some of which already include denying firearm ownership to convicted felons, and those who are mentally unstable.

As some have come to so interpret it, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to empower citizens with the ability to overthrow a despotic government – not to hunt wild game. If that be the case, one mustn’t be intellectually dishonest about the matter, and must acknowledge if that interpretation is at least accurate in part, then the Second Amendment was written to give citizens the right and authority to kill their governmental leaders.

Regarding how the spirit of the Second Amendment might be honored while simultaneously providing sane regulation to prevent tragedies as we have most recently witnessed, I offer the following.

The Second Amendment reads

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

• People who own firearms – particularly military style assault weapons – should be required to, as part of their ownership – be active members in good standing of “a well regulated militia.”

• Individuals who only own hunting firearms could be exempted from militia participation requirements.

• All firearm owners should be required to pay a federal tax upon acquisition of the firearm, no matter the type.

• All firearm owners should be required to submit to a federal background investigation and security clearance, including fingerprinting.

• Military style firearms could be subject to an acquisition tax, the amount of which could be the equivalence of the purchase price, or more – similarly to the tax imposed upon fully-automatic weapons.

• Annual accountability for all firearm owners – essentially asking the legal status of the individual, e.g., whether they’ve been arrested, or convicted of any disqualifying crime or behavior, and performing mandatory annual background checks with federal, state & local Law Enforcement Agencies.

• Lying or attempting to deceive to obtain a firearm by deliberately misleading would be a federal crime, the punishment of which could be determined – perhaps even including a ban on ownership for a set period of time, up to and including a permanent lifetime ban.

—

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban

May 05, 1994|WILLIAM J. EATON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.

Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.

Together, the four make a formidable lobby, stretching across

Thinking of Liberty, Freedom, Rights and Responsibilites… and not so much about Ted Nugent

Some may not be familiar with Ted Nugent nor the “Motor City Madman” antics for which he became renown… or infamous, take your pick.

Certainly, there are things about which many of us are passionate, and hold dear – among them, family, freedom, and for some, firearms.

While by no means am I anti-gun, I am anti-nutcase. To be explicit, the reader should understand that what I mean to express by that sentiment, is that no one takes the ramblings of a madman seriously, and to be taken seriously, one should not behave or carry on as a madman. When on one hand someone appears civil, well-spoken even erudite, then later appears obscenely venomous, vitriolic, rude, crude and perhaps even diabolical, then it causes one to wonder if there is some degree of mental instability present, such as – for example – schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Individuals with such mental defect are automatically excluded from, and denied firearm ownership.

Since 1968, federal law has forbidden firearm ownership to those whom are declared mentally unfit. However, the problem with that has been twofold, which means that first and foremost, a court must first