Republicans were a no show at gun control town halls around the country organized by the Parkland students.

.@BarbaraComstock refused her invitation, so gun violence prevention group (and anti-Comstockers) @GaysXGunsDC showed up in her place.

“Smile and say ‘NRA!’” pic.twitter.com/HrBNLTIiM3

— Kara Voght (@karavoght) April 7, 2018

Courtesy of Mother Jones:  

The organizers of last month’s March for Our Lives have taken their movement to town halls across the country and invited congressional lawmakers—who have returned to their districts for a two-week recess—to discuss action on gun control. According to the Town Hall Project, more than 130 of these meetings are taking place, with most of the events happening on Saturday. 

Though invited, no Republicans appeared at any town halls, and many of the forums featured empty chairs to symbolize their absences. 

Mother Jones‘ Kara Voght attended the town hall at Virginia’s 10th congressional district, where every Democratic candidate seeking to unseat Republican incumbent Rep. Barbara Comstock showed up to discuss gun legislation. Comstock, unsurprisingly, refused to attend.

In town hall after town hall the Democratic candidates showed up in force, while nary a Republican was spotted anywhere. 

Thank you @SenWarren @RepKClark @RepDavidLinsky for talking to students today about #GunContolNow #THFOL #TownHallForOurLives #mapoli pic.twitter.com/XO9nj8F5J2

— doylemama (@doylemama) April 7, 2018

This is an empty chair.
If @RepChrisCollins had made time to listen to his constituents, he could have sat here and explained his positions on gun violence. Instead, he ignored the student organizers, and called them names. #TownHallForOurLives #NeverAgain pic.twitter.com/UeQcxYGx3t

— Amy Ludwig VanDerwater (@amylvpoemfarm) April 7, 2018

Thank you Congresswomen @NydiaVelazquez and @RepMaloney for hosting the#NYC #TownHallForOurLives. It was an honor to join the other panelists and represent @MomsDemand at this student moderated event to say #EnoughIsEnough pic.twitter.com/6NgTSEVBdx

— @Solluna (@Solluna36541375) April 7, 2018

I know that the Republicans are praying that this is a passing fad and that gun control will not figure prominently in the next election cycle, but I do not think they have been listening to the young people for whom school safety and gun control are taking center stage.

Wait, people still interview Sarah Palin?

Courtesy of Fox News Insider:

The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate said she sees "hypocritical double standards" when it comes to the left's push for more gun control measures. 

She said all Americans have the constitutional right to protect themselves and their families in the same way celebrities and politicians are protected. 

"We have every right, we have a God-given right that’s codified in our Bill of Rights to protect ourselves and to protect our property and our families. It’s not just a select few that government will choose who gets to be protected. The movie stars, the politicians in D.C., those in a courthouse, no. The Bill of Rights does apply to every single citizen of the U.S.," she said. 

Responding to President Trump's renewed calls for border security, including using U.S. troops, Palin said it's "obvious" why Democrats are opposed. 

"I think that they just fear that Americans aren’t gonna vote Democrat, so by golly they’ll import people who will," she said. 

Palin said those in favor of "globalization" want cheap labor and Americans are getting "sick of it." 

"It comes back to either supporting the rule of law, our legal immigration system, or supporting and incentivizing illegal immigration with no expectation of assimilating any of the people into our culture or anything else. It’s really whack. People are really sick of it," she said. 

It's really whack?

Do you know what else is "really whack?" The fact that Sarah Palin does not understand that you cannot "import" people who will vote the Democratic ticket because they are not yet US citizens.

Unless of course Palin buys into that conspiracy theory that claims the 3 million votes that Hillary Clinton beat Trump by in the popular vote were cast by illegal aliens.

But that's just crazy, right?

Of course the idea that ANYONE would seek an opinion about ANYTHING from this whack-a-doodle has been is equally crazy.

So thanks to the pressure from those Parkland students Florida passed some gun control laws. So now the NRA is simply suing the state.

Courtesy of the BBC:  

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is suing Florida after it passed a gun control law in the wake of a school shooting that left 17 people dead. 

Governor Rick Scott, a staunch ally of the gun lobby, enacted the bill, which the NRA says violates the constitution. 

The law raises the legal age for buying rifles in Florida, but also allows the training and arming of school staff. 

It does not ban semi-automatic rifles like the one used in the 14 February massacre in Parkland. 

But it does introduce a three-day waiting period on all gun sales and a ban on bump stocks, a device that enables semi-automatic rifles to fire hundreds of rounds a minute.

The NRA filed its lawsuit on Friday just an hour after the bill was signed by the governor. 

One of its arguments is that the legislation violates the rights of young women as they are unlikely to commit violent crime.

Oh yeah, it's all about protecting young women. THAT sounds like something the NRA is well known for giving a shit about. 

By the way, whatever happened to all that "state's rights" rhetoric that the conservatives are famous for?

Not when it interferes with gun sales dammit!

It's not going to make a difference however.

As the great Joy Reid pointed out in her recent Daily Beast article, the NRA is losing.

Illinois gun show bans the selling of AR-15's.

Courtesy of WaPo:

It looked like many other small weekend shows across America: folding tables covered with handguns, rifles, parts, ammunition and war mementos, including helmets, patches, pistols and even vintage Nazi memorabilia. 

But no AR-15s. 

Organizers halted an advertised raffle that would have awarded an AR-15 to the winner, and vendors were told they would not be allowed to sell the weapon at the monthly show. 

Frank Cesare — of the Pioneer Valley Sportsman’s Association, which has hosted the show for more than 40 years — said the decision followed complaints the group received after the Parkland shooting and as gun-control advocates planned to protest. 

“We did the ban to try to calm the situation down and show them we are willing to work with them,” he said, referring to the protesters. 

Cesare said that the ban on AR-15s also would remain in place for April’s show and that the club is “waiting to see” what the mood is like before deciding on shows later in the year. But the move has forced the club into the gun culture war that has gained new energy across the United States since Parkland.

It may be a small gesture, and perhaps only a temporary one, but it is still more than we have seen in response to past mass shootings in this country.

And I have to say that if the Parkland students have their way this will certainly NOT be temporary, and it will only be the beginning. 

My confidence in their abilities grows by the day.

Dick's Sporting Goods will no longer sell assault style weapons at their stores.

BREAKING: Dick's Sporting Goods, the nation's largest sporting goods retailer, will stop selling assault-style weapons like the one used in the Florida high school shooting. The company says it will also raise the minimum age for all gun sales to 21. https://t.co/NGffuGea9U pic.twitter.com/BRPRWxFeFy

— CNN (@CNN) February 28, 2018

Here was there official announcement.

Statement from Dick’s Sporting Goods: “Thoughts and prayers are not enough.” https://t.co/k3AUhGtwRr pic.twitter.com/pmDDvKKXzQ

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 28, 2018

Well maybe they will have to change their name to "Not a Dick Sporting Goods."

Sorry, had to do that.

Yesterday also saw this startling announcement from Walmart. 

Building on our 2015 decision to not sell modern sporting rifles, we announced important changes today:

- Raising the age for purchase of firearms and ammunition from 18 to 21 years old
- Removing online items resembling assault-style rifles

See details https://t.co/K7wnc0XEwK

— Walmart (@Walmart) February 28, 2018

Don't let anybody tell you that these kids will not change a damn thing.

They already have.

And I believe they are just getting started.

I identified this as perhaps my favorite moment of last night's CNN town hall.

Watch little Marco Rubio get booed at when he says he’s going to take NRA money no matter what. He’s pathetic. #NeverAgain #BanAssaultWeapons https://t.co/TkvDRmn9IE

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 22, 2018

Watching this young man pin Rubio to the wall over taking NRA donations, was an amazing moment.

And even with that, Rubio REFUSED to say that he would reject those donations.

That tells you essentially all you need to know about the NRA's influence.

By the way let me just say that if you did not watch that CNN debate last night, you missed an important historic moment. 

You can find it on You Tube and I urge you to watch if you haven't already.

In a tweet yesterday Donald Trump accused Democrats, that's right DEMOCRATS, of not wanting to do anything about gun control.

Just like they don’t want to solve the DACA problem, why didn’t the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn’t want to, and now they just talk!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2018

First off the Democrats did NOT have control of Congress for very long at all during the Obama Administration.

Courtesy of Ohio.com: 

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21…..Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009. 

Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009. 

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010…at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.

This is a lie that the Republicans have been telling for eight years now, and they need to be called out on it EVERY..SINGLE..TIME!

And as for the Democrats not wanting to do anything about gun control, in the five years right after Gabby Giffords was shot the Democrats introduced more than 100 gun control bills, and they were ALL blocked by the Republicans.

Very few of them even made it to the House or Senate floor.

I know that this orange POS lies like some people draw breath, but we cannot allow him to spread this bullshit on our watch .

Just another reminder that Australia solved the problem of mass shootings.

In 1996, Australia enacted strict gun laws. It hasn't had a mass shooting since. https://t.co/KzqngxRzjI pic.twitter.com/qSU2hiUURQ

— Slate (@Slate) October 3, 2017

And this means it is once again time to remember Jim Jefferies amazing bit on gun control.

Part one.

Part two.

It can be done.

We've seen it.

The question is whether or not the American people have the courage to do it.

Las Vegas mass shooting completely changes band member's stance on guns.

pic.twitter.com/0NFjHf3PW2

— Caleb Keeter (@Calebkeeter) October 2, 2017

Courtesy of WaPo:

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued: 

We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power. 

Enough is enough. 

Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were just powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this f—ing coward received shrapnel wounds. 

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

(Keeter is the lead guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band)

Yes, of course we need gun control, but the Republicans are still saying that it is wrong to talk about it in the wake of this most recent shooting, because it would be "insensitive" to politicize it.

The problem of course is that after a couple of weeks everybody's nerves will calm down, and nobody will feel compelled to talk about it at all. That wouldn't be goal would it?

rhetorical question, of course it is.

That's why the NRA is delaying TV ads in Virginia. 

Gotta wait for the dust to settle.

According to Quartz this is the 338th mass shooting in 2017.

That is more than one mass shooting a day.

So this one band member's position on the 2nd Amendment has been changed, but for the rest of the country, who were NOT ducking bullets while people around them were murdered, this is still an academic argument.

So do we need to wait until EVERY American barely survives a mass shooting in order to see a change to our gun laws?

Because sadly even then that may not prove enough of an incentive.

Simply put, you cannot call yourself the greatest nation on earth if your citizens are being gunned down in random shootings every day.

Why is that so damn hard to understand?

The Brady campaign has a rather tongue in cheek remedy for keeping guns out of the hands of toddlers. Deport them.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

There are numerous proposals floating around Congress for reducing America’s gun violence epidemic, including: 

Shutting down online gun sales. 

Strengthening background checks. 

And banning people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms. 

But in its latest PSA, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has introduced a solution for ending gun-related deaths that you’ve probably never considered: 

Cracking down on America’s toddlers. 

“Americans are shot by toddlers at least once a week,” the one-minute video notes. We need to lock them up. Not the guns — that’s just un-American. Round them up. Deport them. Get them out of our country. And keep them away from guns.”

As much as I want to applaud the Brady Campaign's inventiveness, I have to admit that I am still a little freaked out by seeing all of those kids holding guns.

But perhaps that's what we need, a little more freaking out about this.

Then perhaps somebody will start to care enough to do something to protect our kids from the amendment supposedly designed to keep us safe.

Because it's not.

One Nevada gun shop is offering a sale on assault rifles before "Crooked Hillary gets in."

"Pre-Hillary sale. Don't wait! Prices will skyrocket after Crooked Hillary gets in." Vegas armory ad in Adelson News. Wow! And...surrender? pic.twitter.com/c24FWw99L0

— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) October 16, 2016

Oh yeah, this is certainly going to help the Trump supporters accept defeat.

Of course as you know guns sales reached historic numbers while President Obama was in office, and now it looks like Hillary's presidency will continue that pathetic tradition.

In fact there is a part of me which believes that gun manufacturers are secretly pulling for Hillary to win so that they can take advantage of ammosexuals terrified of losing their metal penis extenders by selling them even more weapons for which they have no use.

So who is it that wants to take our guns away again?

Trump: "They will stop, they will frisk, and they will take the gun away and they won't have anything to shoot with." pic.twitter.com/gGx0rJniU7

— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) September 22, 2016

Hillary Clinton just wants to increase background checks and allow folks to sue gun manufacturers for faulty products.

Trump wants to allow cops to stop you on the street for no reason and take your guns away even if you are not suspected of a crime.

I patiently await the NRA's outrage over this.








Yep, still waiting.

New NRA ad claims that Hillary Clinton is going to allow home invaders to rape and murder you.

Courtesy of Politico: 

The National Rifle Association’s new spot is aimed at people who are already afraid, and hammers Hillary Clinton for wanting to leave them defenseless. 

The gun rights group said it’s spending $5 million to run the spot on national cable and on regional stations in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. 

The ad does not mention Donald Trump, who the group endorsed in May. But it does dovetail with messages that both he and the NRA have delivered before, casting Clinton as an elitist who would take away individuals’ guns while benefiting from armed protection herself. 

The ad, called “Nightstand,” shows a woman, alone in bed, awakened in the night by an intruder. She dashes for a landline phone, and a gun stored in a safe. But it fades away before she can grab it. A narrator says the average 911 response time is 11 minutes. 

“Hillary Clinton would take away her right to self defense, and with Supreme Court justices, Hillary can,” the narrator says. “Don’t let Hillary leave you protected with nothing but a phone.” 

Yeah if this woman owned a good dog and even a mediocre security system the burglars would likely have either passed by her house completely, or run away at the sound of a barking dog or high pitched alarm. (My alarm is so goddamn loud I can't even think straight enough to call the company to turn it off much less burgle a house.)

As for those statistics here are some other statistics to chew on: 

This is also a nation in which, in 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes, defined as murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Or, put another way, 1.2 million scenarios in which there was potential for someone to kill in self-defense. 

Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.

Those 259 justifiable homicides also pale compared with, in the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Report. The ratio for 2012, per the Violence Policy Center, was one justifiable killing for every 32 murders, suicides or accidental deaths (the ratio increases to 38-1 over the five-year period ending in 2012). That’s a heavy price to pay.

If you have a gun in your house the odds are far better that it will be used during a domestic dispute to injure or kill a member of your own family, stolen by a thief, or used by a suicidal family member to take their own life, than to be used to protect the home.

But none of that really even matters because Hillary Clinton does NOT want to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

As I laid out on Monday, all Clinton wants to do is expand background checks, push for comprehensive background check legislation, which would include banning all domestic abusers or the severely mentally ill from buying or possessing gun, implement “no fly, no buy” policies, which would prohibit people on terror watch lists from gaining access to guns, close loopholes that allow people to purchase weapons at gun shows without going through a background check, and repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act so that negligent gun manufacturers could be sued for selling a faulty and dangerous product.

So which one of those policy ideas would keep that woman from having a gun in her safe?

That's right, none of them. 

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on gun control.

So CBS News has a new feature where they post the policy positions of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on various issues.

I think that is very helpful and cuts through a lot of ridiculous rhetoric and circus like atmosphere of this political season.

Today's topic is gun control, which just so happens to be one of my top concerns.

First up Hillary Clinton: “I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets,” Clinton said in June. “We may have our disagreements on gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few things.”

Here are her proposals: 

Clinton advocates for “common sense gun laws” 

She wants to expand background checks 

She is pushing for comprehensive background check legislation, which would include banning all domestic abusers or the severely mentally ill from buying or possessing guns. 

She wants “no fly, no buy” policies, which would prohibit people on terror watch lists from gaining access to guns. 

Clinton pledges to close loopholes in existing firearm laws 

She wants to close the “Charleston loophole” which allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check is not complete within three days. According to the FBI, it’s how Dylann Roof -- the shooter in Charleston, South Carolina who killed nine parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church last June -- was able to get his gun. 

She would ask Congress to close the so-called “gun show loophole” and require any person engaging in a high volume of gun sales -- particularly at gun shows and on the internet -- to be held to the same standards as sellers at gun stores.

Clinton would repeal immunity protections for the gun industry 

She would repeal the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.

I find many of these stances to be pretty courageous considering that they are guaranteed to fire up the NRA and 2nd Amendment types to work against Hillary's campaign.

Now let's see what Donald Trump has to offer:

Trump pledges to defend the Second Amendment 

His campaign website says he would “enforce the laws on the books” 

Trump wants to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court that would also uphold the Second Amendment 

Trump is open to “no fly, no buy” policies (Well that's something at least.)


In a “Face the Nation” interview in June, Trump said he was open to “no fly, no buy” policies to prevent people on terror watch lists from buying firearms, in a seeming break from his party. Of discussions with the NRA, Trump said “I’m talking to them about the whole concept of terror watch lists. Should we take somebody directly off it -- if there is a terror watch list and if somebody is on, should they be allowed to buy a gun? Now, we understand there are problems with that, because some people are on the terror watch list that shouldn’t be on. You understand that. And that’s happened. Maybe you can reverse it.” 

Trump wants to expand mental health treatment programs 

He wants to create a “national right to carry” 

Trump believes concealed carry permits should be valid in all 50 states. 

His campaign website says that “a driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state.” (The hell it is!)


Trump would get rid of gun-free zones (Oh shit!)


Under a Trump administration, military bases and recruiting centers that are now “gun-free zones” would allow the use of firearms. 

Trump would do the same for schools. After Oregon’s Umpqua Community College shooting where nine people were killed last October, Trump suggested that the outcome would have been better if teachers had been equipped with firearms. “It was a gun-free zone,” Trump said at a rally shortly after the shooting​. “I will tell you -- if you had a couple of the teachers or somebody with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.” 

He would enforce existing laws. (The President actually explained why this does not happen:"One of the most frustrating things that I hear is when people say -- who are opposed to any further laws -- 'Why don't you just enforce the laws that are on the books?'" Obama said. "And those very same members of Congress then cut (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) budgets to make it impossible to enforce the law.")

So does this mean that Trump is planning to override the GOP led Congress and force them to increase the budgets for these law endorcement agencies so they can do their jobs more effectively? Of course not.

I am not a single issue voter by any measure, but if I were this would likely be one of the issues at the top of my list. And after seeing these two compared side by side, there is no doubt who I would vote for in a heartbeat. 

Donald Trump says that due to Hillary Clinton's stance on gun control that her Secret Service agents should be stripped of their guns.

Courtesy of NBC News: 

Donald Trump mixed policy with intimations of violence in Miami on Friday, reversing his position on re-engaging with Cuba and pushing for Hillary Clinton's security to disarm because of her proposed firearm reforms. 

Trump represented Clinton's position on gun rights as wanting to "destroy your Second Amendment" and said that her bodyguards should no longer carry firearms in light of her policy stance, which includes expanded background checks for gun sales. 

"She doesn't want guns, take their — let's see what happens to her," Trump said. "Take their guns away, okay? It'll be very dangerous."

It appears that it is not good enough for Trump to rile up his "basket of deplorables" to attack Muslims and minorities in this country, he is also trying to agitate 2nd Amendment folks into possible aggression against his Democratic opponent.

And it is not the first time either: 

In May, at a National Rifle Association conference, Trump called Clinton a "heartless, hypocrite" who wanted to take guns away from Americans when her own body guards used them for her protection. 

"So I think that, in addition to calling for them to name judges, we'll also call them and let their body guards immediately disarm. OK, no they should immediately disarm and let's see how good they do. Let's see how they feel walking around without their guns on their bodyguards." 

Trump has intimated violence against Clinton in the past, joking at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina last month that if Clinton wins and gets to pick Supreme Court justices there's nothing that can be done for proponents of the right to bear arms. "Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

I'll say it again, if there is ever an attack against Clinton I think Trump should be charged with  inciting violence.

I also think that his rhetoric disqualifies him from ever being the President of the United States, and hopefully the American people recognize that as well.

A number of Trump supporters like many of Hillary Clinton's gun control policy ideas.

Courtesy of Pew Research Center:  

For the past several years, large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans have favored making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. 

Today, this proposal draws support from 90% of registered voters who back Hillary Clinton and 75% of voters who back Donald Trump.

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted August 9-16 among 2,010 adults, including 1,567 registered voters, also finds broad support among both candidates’ backers for other gun policy proposals, including barring people on federal watch lists from purchasing guns. 

Other proposals are much more divisive, however. For instance, about twice as many Clinton supporters as Trump backers favor a ban on assault-style weapons (74% vs. 34%) and the differences are about as large in views of a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips (75% vs. 34%).

So it appears that Hillary's strong gun control stance may not be a deal breaker for all conservatives.

By contrast I wonder how many Hillary supporters are supportive of Doanld Trump's policy ideas?

Is there a number lower than zero? 

Sure winning a gold medal at the Olympics is remarkable, but if you want to impress Sarah Palin you need to win it with a gun.

Courtesy of Okey Dokey Annie's Facebook page:

How beautiful that the first gold 🏅of the 2016 Summer Olympics goes to an American girl with a gun!? Congrats, Ginny Thrasher, you make ALL of us proud! (cool name too!) Go Team USA! 🇺🇸

So clearly this is a slam directed towards those of us who want common sense gun laws in this country. (That's right Sarah I can use the phrase "common sense" as well, and it even makes sense when I do it.)

However I think one would be hard pressed to find a gun control advocate who would have a problem with rifles being used at the Olympics, or for competitive shooting contests, or even for hunting to feed one's family. (There are always a few of course.)

So her nasty back handed insult really has no validity in this case.

I actually heard Ginny Thrasher being interviewed after her win and she was delightful, and not really very political:

“Some of the (controversy surrounding) gun laws in America is just distracting from our sport, which is very different,” Thrasher said.

However, speaking of political, as of this post America has won six medals altogether, but none of those are of any interest to Palin because she cannot use them in an attempt to create controversy.

Personally I am rooting for America to bring home a whole truckload of gold, silver, and bronze medals. And I don't care if they use a rifle, pole, paddle, or just their bodies to do it.

California Governor Jerry Brown signs sweeping new gun control legislation into law.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

California Governor Jerry Brown on Friday signed a sweeping package of gun control bills, banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and expanding the definition of prohibited assault weapons in the wake of mass shootings in San Bernardino and Orlando. 

Democrats in the legislature rushed the measures through in hopes of passing them before their summer break, in part to try to forestall a competing gun control proposal headed for the November ballot. 

California already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, but after the shooting spree in the Southern California city of San Bernardino last December, lawmakers began work on measures they said would close unintended loopholes. 

“My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Brown said in a signing measure.

The bills signed by Brown ban so-called bullet buttons, which allow quick changes in the magazine of a military-style weapon, and require background checks for purchasers of ammunition. 

Ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets at a time will also be banned, and background checks will be needed for people borrowing guns from non-family members. 

Brown also vetoed several bills, including one that would have allowed co-workers, educators and mental health professionals to request restraining orders forbidding people deemed dangerous from owning guns.

Leave it to California to always be on the cutting edge of where this country is going.

Of course it's going there at a fucking snail's pace, but I have confidence that we will all get there eventually.

I just hope I actually live long enough to actually see it.

Hawaii now has a law that automatically places the names of citizens who register a gun into the FBI criminal database.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Hawaii’s governor signed a bill making it the first U.S. state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said. 

The move by gun control proponents in the liberal state represents an effort to institute some limits on firearms in the face of a bitter national debate over guns that this week saw Democratic lawmakers stage a sit-in at the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Hawaii Governor David Ige, a Democrat, on Thursday signed into law a bill to have police in the state enroll people into an FBI criminal monitoring service after they register their firearms as already required, his office said in a statement. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation database called “Rap Back” will allow Hawaii police to be notified when a firearm owner from the state is arrested anywhere in the United States. 

Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to place firearm owners on the FBI’s Rap Back, which until now was used to monitor criminal activities by individuals under investigation or people in positions of trust such as school teachers and daycare workers.

I think this is a great idea.

Of course I am also one of the people in a position of trust whose fingerprints have been sent to the FBI like five times now, for a variety of different positions.

If the FBI gets to keep an eye on me, a peaceful non-gun owner, then it seems perfectly fair that people with deadly weapons in their possession should be tracked as well.

I mean if they don't do anything wrong, they have nothing to fear.

Right?

P.S. By the way Hawaii has the lowest number of gun fatalities in the nation.

The most powerful medical association in America prepares to do battle in Congress over stricter gun control laws.

Courtesy of Think Progress:  

The largest medical organization in the United States, the American Medical Association, passed a historic resolution last night in response to the weekend’s mass shooting. After years of tiptoeing around the topic of gun control, AMA leaders voted to officially call gun violence a public health issue — and respond accordingly. That means flexing the organization’s powerful political muscle on Capitol Hill to refocus federal funds toward studying gun violence. 

To see this through, however, Congress would need to lift a 20-year-old ban that blocks the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from funding any research related to gun violence. But the AMA, with one of the largest political lobbying budgets of any organization in the U.S., appears ready to fight. 

“Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries,” said AMA President Dr. Steven Stack, in a written statement. 

“An epidemiological analysis of gun violence is vital so physicians and other health providers, law enforcement and society at large may be able to prevent injury, death and other harms to society resulting from firearms,” he added.

Remember how I said that we were reaching a breaking point over gun deaths? 

Yeah well I might have underestimated that a little.