Tag Archives: 2nd amendment

CNN knows “The best way to respect guns.”


Economist Philip Cook and Pol Sci Kristin Goss at cnn.com:

“There’s actually a common sense approach to the gun issue.”

…And it took just the two of them to opine.  Thank god, now I feel so much safer.  So Imma gonna git me some “gun control” and problem solved!


They continue:

For example, in poll after poll, Americans of all political stripes, including gun owners, support background checks on all firearm purchases. (A requirement of that sort was enacted by popular vote last November in Washington state.) California, New York, and a handful of other states, altogether constituting one-quarter of the U.S. population, have regulations on gun design, transactions, possession or use that go well beyond federal requirements.

On the other hand, public opinion in support of protecting gun rights has grown in recent decades, and in red states there has been a highly successful effort to deregulate guns.

 The political environment is surely challenging on this issue, but we see several promising policy approaches that are especially well suited to balancing different interests while advancing shared goals.

Shared goals?  Don’t think so.  These authors go on to suggest that “Smart Guns”, “Reductions in Illicit Carrying” and a “Better Approach to Mental Health Care” are necessary, while suggesting, at least in regard to “Smart Guns”:

It seems ironic that the effort to block the introduction of such guns in the United States, so far successful, is led by organizations that advocate gun rights.

…and “Illicit Carry”:

…most drunk-driving cases are “victimless” in that no one was harmed, but overall the successful crusade (by MADD and other groups) to have DUI treated as a serious crime has saved thousands of lives. Reducing illicit carrying would have the same effect.

Cook and Goss have written extensively on “guns” and “firearm regulation” but they miss an important point:  I tell clients often – We can sue somebody, get paper on them – a judgment or order.  We can have them held in contempt, get a money judgment, or have them commanded to do, or not.  But in the end, it’s just a piece of paper.

Bottom line, legislation that restricts my rights is not going to stop a criminal or mental defective with a gun.






Intel Bulletin Warns of ISIS Urging Jihad Attacks Against U.S. Soldiers at Home

091814_trace(Image/Fox News Insider, The Kelly File)

At foxnews.com:

A law enforcement bulletin obtained by FoxNews.com warned that Islamic State fighters have increased calls for “lone wolves” to attack U.S. soldiers in America in recent months, citing one tweet that called for jihadists to find service members’ addresses online and then “show up and slaughter them.”

There will be “a continued call – by Western fighters in Syria and terrorist organizations – for lone offender attacks against U.S. military facilities and personnel,” warned a July law enforcement intelligence bulletin from the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, a state-run agency that gathers, assesses and shares threat information and works with the Department of Homeland Security. “These threats will most likely increase should the U.S. or its allies attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) in Syria or Iraq.”

The tweet reportedly stated:

“You could literally search for soldiers, find their town, photos of them, look for address in Yellowbook or something,” the tweet read. “Then show up and slaughter them.”

Rather than simply say, “sure, let ’em come over here to ‘merica and try that in my neighborhood” (which I did), I see a bigger problem.

First, I am glad we have 2nd amendment rights at least here in Florida, that allow us civilians to protect ourselves when we may have the chance.  Compare that, with this.  Or this. 

Second, should not existing policies prohibiting our service men and woman from enjoying the same freedoms be up for review?



I am not getting my hopes up.