Dana Loesch, “Crying white mothers are ratings gold…”

Full disclosure, I have had a number of conversations with Dana Loesch via Twitter. And we have had a number of conversations about taxes, civil liberties, national debt, and guns.
I like Dana and respect her knowledge on a number of topics, especially guns. She knows gun laws and statistics like the back of her hand, and many times when I have a question about a state’s gun laws, or the difference between guns, she is my go-to resources. Going into the town hall I knew it would be a tough environment for her, as emotions would be riding high. After watching the town hall (twice) I thought she did as about as good as anyone could have done.
I know many of my Liberal/Progressive friends will look at me funny for that last statement, but when I say she did a good job, I mean she stayed composed and worked to answer the questions of the students/parents/teachers. She didn’t lash out at anyone and she even defended students like Emma Gonzalez who in recent days was criticized by Conservatives/Guns Rights Activists.
And then today happened…
At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference Dana said the following,
“Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it,”
“Now I’m not saying that you love the tragedy. But I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to you and many in the legacy media in the back (of the room).”
“And notice I said ‘crying white mothers’ because there are thousands of grieving black mothers in Chicago every weekend, and you don’t see town halls for them, do you?”
“Where’s the CNN town hall for Chicago? Where’s the CNN town hall for sanctuary cities?”
I understand what Dana is trying to say here but this made me cringe. As I stated earlier the night before Dana remained composed, and IMO we need more of that in these conversations as we have too many people talking AT each other instead of TO each other. Instead the image of Dana from this point on will be the following…

Dana will be called unhinged, and one of the most important points made during the town hall Wednesday will be missed. Dana brought up the point that only 38 states are providing less than 80% of felony convictions to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). This is critical as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) uses data from the NCIC to approve background checks for gun purchases.

It will not matter how many laws you put in place for gun control, if the background checks system doesn’t have all the information it needs to do the job it supposed to do.

Dana is right that no one talks about the flaws with NICS, the day after the town hall no one wrote about it or spoke about it. But she also added to the distraction with her CPAC speech.

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

CNN’s town hall “Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action” #GunControl

CNN‘s town hall “Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action,”that will air tonight at 9 pm (Eastern); participating in this conversation will be students from Stoneman, parents, community members, Florida Representative Ted Deutch, Senators Bill Nelson & Marco Rubio, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, and NRA‘s national spokeswoman Dana Loesch.

It goes without saying that tonight’s town hall will be a passionate one, and there will be moments of people talking over each other. Hopefully those moments can be limited by Jake Tapper who will be hosting the event. So that we can focus on learning something.

For the past couple of days we have seen the pain of students and families who have lost loved ones and we have heard from the political pundits. It’s time to hear from lawmakers answer tough questions looking into the faces of students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and tell them why more can’t be done.

I have heard how the NRA supports sensible gun regulations, but what exactly is that?

Dana Loesch is someone I have had several conversations with (over social media) and while we may disagree on many things; our conversations are always productive. This is the platform for Dana to be productive and clarify the NRA’s message,

What does the NRA consider sensible gun regulations?

Why does the NRA not trust calls for a national registry?

Is the NRA against a ban on “assault rifles” like the AR-15, and if so why?

Will any of these questions be answered? If I am honest with myself, no.

I hope I am wrong, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a bunch of people talking at each other instead of talking to each other.

 

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough calls out NRA…

Obama

This morning on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe‘, Joe Scarborough called out the NRA for their latest ad against Senator Joe Manchin for his role in the Gun Control Bill (Toomey-Manchin Bill) that was voted down earlier this year.  In the attack ad the NRA linked Joe Manchin to President Obama and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Scarborough attacked the NRA for the misleading ad and also took the NRA to task for the image used for President Obama.  Scarborough noted how some people asked him if he thought the ad purposely darkened the image of Obama with shading, to make him look “more ominous”

It’s so obvious, look at his hands. It looks like he is a coal miner from West Virginia, look how dark they made his hands.  Look at the side of his face, this is a question that answers itself… You don’t have to call me up and ask me if I think the Washington NRA shaded Barack Obama hands… – Joe Scarborough

Here is a clip from ‘Morning Joe’ continuing to talk about the NRA:

As a fan of ‘Morning Joe’ I was a lil surprised Scarborough’s comments, my surprise was not in judgement of whether he was ‘right or ‘wrong’.  This is something I would have expected (not in a bad way) from his co-host Mika  Brzezinski.  Scarborough is far from being a Obama fan, so when a Republican like him makes an observation like this…  You can’t but take notice.

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Bill to Expand Background Checks on Firearm Purchase Short of 60 Votes to Pass

Toomey-Manchin130411

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) who led the bi-partisan effort with Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) to present legislation to expand background checks on firearm purchases; says he is short the 60 votes need for the legislation to pass the Senate.

Here is a statement from Sen Manchin’s communication director, Johnathan Kott:

“Senator Manchin remains optimistic and hopeful that if Senators and the American people read the bill, they will support his commonsense approach to require criminal and mental background checks for advertised sales, including purchases at gun shows and online sales, without infringing on Americans’ Second Amendment rights … So far Senator Manchin has managed to garner support from an A-rated NRA member and three Republican Senators as well as 90 percent of his own party. With a record like that, I see no reason to bet against Senator Manchin today. He will continue to explain his bill to his colleagues and anyone with concerns until the minute they vote.”

Manchin and Toomey are still working to get the necessary votes and it’s believed they are not far from the 60 for passage, the bill was scheduled to be voted on at 4pm today.  More than likely the vote will be delayed until they have secured the 60 votes.

It’s shameful that it is so difficult to get the necessary votes on something everyone should agree on, the Manchin-Toomey Bill will not infringe on anyone’s rights to legally purchase firearms.  And for those worried about records being kept there is a provision in the bill that makes it a felony to use the records for a national database.

Here are some highlights from the Manchin-Toomey Bill:

  • Closes the gun show loophole
  • Allows for interstate firearm sales
  • Precludes states from enforcing local gun laws when gun owners are transporting guns across state lines
  • Imposes a 15-year prison term for any government official who keeps gun ownership records.

Let’s make this happen!!!

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Talking Points Tuesdays – President Obama failure on Gun Control….

In 2008 candidate Barack Obama talked about re-instituting the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons; 4 years later we have a witnessed tragic shootings that have left a member of the United States House of Representatives (Gabrielle Giffords) recovering from being shot in the head and senseless murder/injury of innocent people trying to watch the latest Dark Knight movie (Dark Knight Rises).   While it is true that you cannot say for sure that these shooting could have been prevented with stricter gun control laws, what can be said is that the weapons used in the attacks would have been banned (AR-15 and extended magazine clip).  Of course having a ban of such weapons doesn’t guarantee no violence but it’s a start.  The last thing we should want to do is make it any easier for NUTBAGS like James Holmes to be able to purchase firearms and ammunition.

And as much as I will defend President Obama on some of his policies, I CANNOT DEFEND HIM ON THIS!

The NRA and nutbags within the GOP would have you believe that President Obama wants to take away your guns.  Well that is simply not true as President Obama has not done anything when it comes to gun control.  What’s sad is that Obama had the perfect opportunity to take up the fight of gun control when Representative Giffords was shot in the head; she survived along while 6 others died that day including a 9-year-old girl.  He had the sympathy of the nation but nothing was done….

There is no indication even if the president won re-election that he will pursue the federal assault weapons ban. Jake Tapper of ABC News reported that the White House has suggested that the president does not have the appetite to pursue stricter gun control laws.

“The president’s views on this are, as he has stated and as he spelled out in the op-ed that was published in an Arizona newspaper, which is that he believes we need to take steps that protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons…” – WH Press Secretary Jay Carney (reported by Jake Tapper)

Basically the president is saying, he has to SHOW that he is not planning to take people’s guns away as he can’t afford to lose any possible votes to Mitt Romney.

Sorry Barack, but if you have no appetite now when will you have one?

Hopefully we will not see another tragedy like Aurora, but then again didn’t we say that after the shooting in Arizona????

In case you forgot below here are some of the regulations included in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban:

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine

The earlier term assault rifle refers to rifles that are capable of fully automatic fire. By that definition the ban did not cover “assault rifles” at all. Instead, it created a new definition of “assault weapon,” a term that was broad enough to encompass all three categories of firearm (rifle, pistol and shotgun) capable of semi-automatic fire and having a combination of features as listed above, but did not include fully automatic firearms of any type.

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Militant Mondays – When did Facts stop being enough….

Sunday’s episode of the ‘The Newsroom’ (I’ll Try to Fix You) was timely; in the episode Will McAvoy (Anchor) reports on the misinformation campaign against President Obama concerning his record on gun control.  McAvoy runs clip after clip of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Glenn Beck talking about how Barack Obama wants to take your guns and destroy the 2nd Amendment.  The only problem is there is no evidence of such a campaign by President Obama, to show this McAvoy talks about the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence‘s report card on how Obama has performed in strengthen gun regulation.

*** This report card was based on Obama’s record after 1st year as president ***

Candidate Obama in 2008 was way tougher on gun control then President Obama; basically Obama has been a GREAT friend to the gun industry!

Information like this is not top-secret, you can easily Google this and find the facts.  Or at least I thought so….  Before last night’s episode of ‘The Newsroom’ I just so happened to engage my colleagues at work in a debate concerning gun control.  For the record these guys are smart guys who happen to love guns, and I respect the right for people to own a gun.  But the conversation quickly went into a death spiral when one guy stated that, “Barack Obama wants to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and take away everyone’s guns…”

Ummmmmm…….

Of course I tried to correct him but he was adamant that; when I asked where he got this information from he said the head of the National Rifle Association aka NRA.  GTFOH, so the organization that fights any attempt to regulate guns was his source?!?!?!?

Folks this is what we are dealing with today, I could understand if this was 1980… Before the internet, the 24 hour news cycle, and GOOGLE!!! But this is 2012, this is the INFORMATION AGE and we still have people who are just as ignorant as if it was the stone age.  As usual my stubborn nature did not allow me to just walk away shaking my head, so I went into how the president has not introduced any legislation toughening gun control.  I showed article after article supporting what I was saying…

Did it work??

Nope, instead of believing numerous sources this guy preferred to believe the opinion (with no facts to back up) of a few people aka NUTBAGS.  So what do we do when people prefer to believe the non-factual rantings of nutbags?

I have no idea….

I am the type of person who relies on facts and it disturbs me when people ignore them; I will always stand by the facts but I have ask.

Have I been fooling myself in thinking that at the end of the day facts will always win out?

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Ted Nugent Has the Right to Say What He Said…

You may disagree with Ted Nugent‘s political beliefs and God knows I do, but that does not mean he should be censored in any way.  At a NRA (National Rifle Association) event Nugent made the following comments…

“I’ll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year”

“vile, evil America-hating administration” (referring to the Obama Administration)

“We are patriots, we are brave hearts… We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their (Pres Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Eric Holder) heads off in November…”

Some have said that Nugent’s comments were threats being made to the president, I don’t know about that.  When I first heard about the comments I will admit I was like WTH is he talking about chopping heads off???  Then I decided to look up the video and listen to the comments on my own and come to my own conclusion.

Ted Nugent Has the Right to Say What He Said…

I can see how people could misconstrued Nugent’s comments but I read it as a man who simply hates President Obama and wants to see a change in government.  When he says, “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November…”.  He does not ACTUALLY mean killing anyone, he is referring to electing a new Executive gov’t in November.

Don’t get me wrong the language is strong and hateful but the outcry is a little bit over the top.  The Liberal media has to be careful as I can’t recall much of a defense of Dubya while entertainers took their shots.

What I will say is that Mitt Romney should distance himself from Nugent, like Obama had to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan in 2008.  There is just no room for a presidential candidate to allow a “supporter” to speak like that on his behalf.

But you know what, judge for yourself…

Update:

Ted Nugent was visited by Secret Service Agents concerning his comments:

“The issue has been resolved” and the agency “does not anticipate any further action,” Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary told the Washington Post.

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!