I read an intriguing article years ago (I think it was in Harpers) about how the first wave of SUVs were actually designed to look hostile and aggressive -- to appeal to the angry white middle-class male. There was a lot of talk about how they wanted buyers to perceive them as rolling fortresses to protect themselves and their families in a dangerous world. (It was more than a little ironic that so many of the early SUVs had a little problem with rollovers and ending up killing people, but I digress.) For someone who's paranoid, you can't possibly have enough protection - unfortunately for the rest of us.

I'd suggest that we all just stay home, but at least two people were shot by stray bullets while they were asleep in their own beds this past week.

Anyway, the Times takes a close look at how that open-carry law in North Carolina has worked out, so be sure to go read the rest:

Alan Simons was enjoying a Sunday morning bicycle ride with his family in Asheville, N.C., two years ago when a man in a sport utility vehicle suddenly pulled alongside him and started berating him for riding on the highway.

The bullet passed through Mr. Simons's helmet.

Mr. Simons, his 4-year-old son strapped in behind him, slowed to a halt. The driver, Charles Diez, an Asheville firefighter, stopped as well. When Mr. Simons walked over, he found himself staring down the barrel of a gun.

“Go ahead, I’ll shoot you,” Mr. Diez said, according to Mr. Simons. “I’ll kill you.”

Mr. Simons turned to leave but heard a deafening bang. A bullet had passed through his bike helmet just above his left ear, barely missing him.

Mr. Diez, as it turned out, was one of more than 240,000 people in North Carolina with a permit to carry a concealed handgun. If not for that gun, Mr. Simons is convinced, the confrontation would have ended harmlessly. “I bet it would have been a bunch of mouthing,” he said.

Mr. Diez, then 42, eventually pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.

Across the country, it is easier than ever to carry a handgun in public. Prodded by the gun lobby, most states, including North Carolina, now require only a basic background check, and perhaps a safety class, to obtain a permit.

In state after state, guns are being allowed in places once off-limits, like bars, college campuses and houses of worship. And gun rights advocates are seeking to expand the map still further, pushing federal legislation that would require states to honor other states’ concealed weapons permits. The House approved the bill last month; the Senate is expected to take it up next year.

The bedrock argument for this movement is that permit holders are law-abiding citizens who should be able to carry guns in public to protect themselves. “These are people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our community,” the federal legislation’s author, Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, said on the House floor.

To assess that claim, The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.

Like, look how many "law abiding citizens" used guns to kill people -- and how the cops basically didn't enforce the few protections there were in place that were supposed to protect domestic abuse victims. Reassuring!

Via Christian Science Monitor, it's good news that SCOTUS seemingly isn't all that eager to strike down all handgun regulation - and a bit of a shock, considering these are the same conservatives who ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller:

The US Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a potentially important gun rights case examining whether a federal regulation banning loaded firearms from vehicles in a government park violated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Lawyers for a Virginia man had asked the justices to examine a question left largely unresolved in the high court’s two prior landmark rulings identifying the scope and substance of Second Amendment protections. The question is: Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to bear arms in public for personal protection?

The court dismissed the case in a one-line order without comment. The action leaves lower court rulings intact and postpones the prospect of high court clarification on a key gun rights issue.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment establishes a fundamental right of law-abiding individuals to keep a handgun in their home for self-protection. In 2010, the high court extended that ruling to apply Second Amendment guarantees beyond federal enclaves like Washington, D.C., to all state and local jurisdictions.

The dismissed appeal, Masciandaro v. US (10-11212), had asked the court to examine whether Americans have a right to carry loaded weapons in public places for self defense.

How the justices answered that question would have established guideposts for future gun regulations at the local, state, and national levels of government.

In the 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court said that gun rights are not unlimited. The court said there is no right to “carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Gun rights advocates say that statement confirms a right to carry at least some weapons, in some manner, for some purpose.

The high court also said that “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” would not necessarily violate the Constitution. Gun rights advocates counter that the statement, again, suggests that a right to carry firearms must therefore exist in non-sensitive places.

This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters’ mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

DOWNLOADS: (256)

PLAYS: (1434)

Embed

[Note: This is the first in a series of posts I'll be doing this fall in conjunction with the fine folks at Media Matters -- where this will be cross-posted -- exploring issues related to right-wing extremism and gun-rights advocacy. See the note at the end. -- DN]

Those of us who grew up around the NRA are all too familiar with one of the more striking facets of the organization's relentless fearmongering, its paranoid style: namely, it not only traffics in wild and groundless conspiracy theories about "gun grabbers" and Bircherite "New World Order" takeover schemes, but it forms deep associations with the very extremists whose far-right worldview fosters such paranoia.

The most recent example of this has been the way the NRA's fearmongering about President Obama has fostered real violence from right-wing extremists.

The reason for this kind of extremism is in fact a top-down phenomenon: increasingly, the people running the NRA are themselves deeply extremist.

The folks at the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence have put together a directory of the NRA's board titled Meet the NRA Directors. It's a fascinating site, one that well rewards scrolling through and reading.

In addition to what you'd expect -- a lot of ties to the arms manufacturers who funnel much of the money that is the NRA's lifeblood -- there is also, predictably, a deep undercurrent of right-wing extremism.

The most striking example of this is Robert K. Brown, the longtime publisher of Soldier of Fortune magazine. As David Holthouse has explored in some detail already, Brown's magazine was for years the monthly Bible of the "militia" movement in the 1990s, one of the movement's more prominent promoters. The magazine not only promoted the concept of militias but offered advice on how to form them and urged participants to prepare for persecution from the New World Order.

The ties to violent extremists run deeper, in fact:

Soldier of Fortune distributed copies of a newsletter called The Resister during the 1990s. The Resister was published by Steven Barry, then a member of the Army’s Special Forces and leader of the unsanctioned Special Forces Underground organization. The newsletter initially drew inspiration from the controversial siege at Ruby Ridge. The content of the newsletter evidenced a “white Christian militia mentality,” according to Michael Reynolds from the Southern Poverty Law Center, containing racist and anti-Semitic content while also exploring “New World Order” conspiracy theories. When Timothy McVeigh was arrested for the Oklahoma City Bombing, in his possession was a Soldier of Fortune-distributed copy of The Resister.

Continue reading »

There are places where having someone armed and standing guard makes me feel at least a little secure. The guard at the bank, the airport, and the police patrol cars on the street are harbingers of safety.

However, church is not one of those places. At least, not for me. But evidently the good Republicans in Louisiana think differently, and so today Bobby Jindal signed the "gun-in-church" bill, authorizing people with concealed weapons permits to bring them to church.

NOLA.com:

Including the "gun-in-church" bill, House Bill 1272 by Rep. Henry Burns, R-Haughton, Jindal has signed into law 940 of the 1,067 bills the Legislature sent him, vetoed 12, and used his pen to line-item spending measures in four different budget bills.

Burns' bill would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons having passed the training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force.

The pastor or head of the religious institution must announce verbally or in weekly newsletters or bulletins that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.

It sort of kills that whole "love one another" idea, doesn't it?

(h/t Video Cafe)

Yes, it's tiresome, but we still have to report on the CCM. (Conservative Comedy Movement)

Sarah Palin went on Leno's new-old-show and really had me laughing.

Leno asked Palin what she thinks about joining the media by becoming a Fox News analyst. Palin told Leno that she's there to build trust in the media. "I think that the mainstream media is quite broken and I think that there needs to be the fairness, the balance in there. That's why I joined Fox." Leno laughed.

When asked about the "beautiful" Tea Party movement, Palin described it as a group of "many, many independent people, not excessively partisan, not one side or another." Palin acknowledged that if the movement were to become a political party that it would probably hurt Republicans.

As part of her stand-up routine, Palin told Leno's audience she planned to speak at a gun-rights convention: "Be there or else," she warned them.

She's single handedly going to build back the trust in our media by joining the propaganda arm of the GOP. Then she branded the teabaggers as basically non-partisan. OK, I'll bet her five pounds of salmon on that one. Even she is issuing warnings to the teabaggers not to form a third party. Don't worry Sarah, only a few from the arch-conservatives will branch off on their own to capitalize on the cash they can make. The rest will neatly fold into the GOP.

Elections do have consequences. That only matters when a Republican wins by the way, but when it comes to the Supreme Court, electing a Republican president only means more rulings like this.

More gun laws are about to go up in smoke.

The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.

The court heard arguments in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area by asking the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.

The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."

The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the majority in 2008.

At the very least, Tuesday's argument suggested that courts could be very busy in the years ahead determining precisely which gun laws are allowed under the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," and which must be stricken.

The right is using four citizens to represent their wishes. By not making the NRA the lead on this one is a smart one, but with this court does chess playing really matter? By allowing so many guns to be sold, which puts more guns into the hands of criminals---it's not surprising that some people want to arm themselves against the criminals who have guns. Only in the end, many more people will get hurt.

DOWNLOADS: (721)

PLAYS: (1845)

Embed

Apparently, the job of filling in for Glenn Beck comes with a wingnuttery quotient proviso. Because yesterday on Beck's show, Judge Andrew Napolitano made sure he filled his.

Napolitano started by complaining that it was "progressives" who were arguing that we had to give up our liberties in order to obtain security. Come again?

What exactly did we hear from the American Right during the eight years of George W. Bush's nonstop assaults on civil liberties -- ranging from wiretapping citizens to using torture to using military tribunals to try American citizens? Oh, that's right -- we heard that opposing these measures meant we hated America and cared more about terrorist rights.

It's true that Napolitano opposed the wiretaps and the torture. But is he now claiming that these were progressives who argued they were necessary?

In any event, the real capper came shortly after:

Napolitano: Can the government keep us safe? I don't think so. I think airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, because cockpit doors are now like bank vaults, and because the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals, in the private sector, and not by the government.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe by keeping and bearing arms, 9/11 would never have happened!

Come again, again? Napolitano seems to think that if everybody on board those planes had been permitted to pack heat -- which is the scenario he seems to envision here -- we'd all have been a lot safer.

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Just let everybody bring their guns on board. That'll make us safer. Uh-huh.

Maybe Napolitano is arguing that only pilots should have been allowed to pack heat. But that would not exactly be consonant with his complaint that the feds had taken away our "natural rights" to carry guns.

All I can say is that if the airline system were insane enough to follow his suggestion and let everyone exert their "natural rights", I'd be exerting my natural right to take a train or a bus.

DOWNLOADS: (1743)

PLAYS: (1579)

Embed

From the very moment he was elected, right-wingers have been waiting, hoping, and watching anxiously for President Obama to take some kind of action -- any kind of action -- relating to guns. Just so they can start screaming, "He's trying to take away our guns!!!! Lock and load!!! Molon labe!!!"

Of course, he's done nothing. Nada. Zippo.

Which means they're now forced to just make stuff up.

This is never a problem for the paranoid, gun-toting right anyway. It's what they do.

Lou Dobbs was out leading the parade last night:

DOBBS: A record 1 million background checks on gun sales were completed by the FBI in the month of August alone. Those numbers show that gun owners are increasingly concerned that the Obama administration is on a mission to restrict Second Amendment rights in this country.

Supporters of those rights gathered in St. Louis over this weekend to fight attempts to strip Americans of their right to keep and to bear arms. Bill Tucker with our report.

And what exactly is the source of that fear? Um, well ...

TUCKER: Ask them why, and they recall the words of Attorney General Eric Holder on the need to ban assault weapons to help reduce drug violence in Mexico.

They point to the president's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, who personally is not just opposed to hunting, but said back in 2007 it should be banned. Or they will point to the president's consistent voting record for gun control, both in the Senate and back in Illinois.

Nor do these gun rights enthusiasts trust the newest Supreme Court justice, who in her only ruling on gun rights said the Second Amendment could only be applied to the federal government.

Hmmm. This sounds like almost exactly the same charges the NRA has been peddling since January, and yet the Obama administration has not acted on guns in any fashion.

The only new thing is the bit about Cass Sunstein, the demonization of whom began with Glenn Beck and has now spread to Dobbs' show. Dobbs and Tucker delve this in more detail:

TUCKER: All of them, of course, united under the banner of securing their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. For his part, the president does say he respects the constitutional right and promised that he will "protect the rights of hunters and other law- abiding Americans to purchase, own, and transport, and use guns."

But gun activists remain skeptical -- Lou?

DOBBS: I mean, the attorney general, Eric Holder, has said "They just want to do a few things with the Second Amendment." And the czar here, Cass Sunstein -- I mean, what's his deal?

TUCKER: He's a vegetarian, and he believes that hunting ought to be banned.

DOBBS: So, he's not big on hunting.

TUCKER: He's not big on hunting at all. But he has openly supported the right of animals to sue. He believes animals ought to have rights...

DOBBS: I'm sorry, repeat that again?

TUCKER: He believes animals should have rights, which would include the right to sue if they have been mistreated.

DOBBS: If they were hunted.

TUCKER: Or I guess hunted.

DOBBS: If they were hunted -- really?

TUCKER: I can't explain it, Lou, I'm just telling you.

DOBBS: I just think we should let this sort of percolate, because, presumably, the president knows this man, knows who he put there...

TUCKER: Yes.

DOBBS: ... as the regulatory czar over guns. That's truly, truly interesting.

Thank you very much, Bill Tucker.

TUCKER: You're welcome.

Cass Sunstein, the regulatory czar over guns? Not exactly. And by "not exactly," we mean, "not even remotely related to the truth."

Sunstein has been nominated to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, whose role it is to review draft regulations under Executive Order 12866; additionally, "OIRA reviews collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in the areas of information technology, information policy, privacy, and statistical policy."

Guns are nowhere near this picture, except hypothetically (it would be possible, as a matter of conjecture, that Sunstein's office would review the efficacy of proposed gun regs coming out of the ATF). And that's it. That's the entire "connection" here.

But hey, don't worry, Lou. When the next Richard Poplawski kills three cops because he was afraid Obama was gonna take his guns away, we'll know who to thank.

DOWNLOADS: (1727)

PLAYS: (3765)

Embed

So it turns out that Contessa Brewer had good reason to see a connection between the rabidly hateful rhetoric spewed by the likes of Pastor Steven Anderson and the angry, gun-toting protesters turning out for presidential events: One of the most prominent of these, an African-American man named "Chris", is in fact a member of Pastor Anderson's congregation.

"Chris" was on Alex Jones' "Prison Planet" radio show late last week and discussed how "my pastor was beaten up" at a Border Patrol checkpoint.

Yes, that pastor is indeed Steven Anderson, who was arrested in April by the Border Patrol for being uncooperative at a patrol checkpoint. Anderson attempted to make himself something of a national martyr to the conspiracists out there by posting a video to YouTube about it that quickly went viral.

Jones took note of the Anderson connection:

Jones: Now I'm starting to get a clearer picture. You go to Pastor Anderson's church, I see.

Chris: Yeah, yes I do. Proudly. I think it's the best church in the world.

The funny thing about these gun-toting protesters is that they like to portray themselves as being simple, honest defenders of their gun rights when they show up for public events, especially those featuring the president, packing heat publicly.

They adamantly deny that they're bringing their guns to intimidate their fellow citizens from speaking out with a contrary view. But this is beyond disingenuous; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the vast majority of the people who attend a public debate will perceive someone with a gun as someone they should fear -- particularly if they have an opposing view. Most people will see someone with a gun at an event that does not deal with guns as a potential threat. And you can't tell me that most of these gun-toters are not perfectly aware of the intimidation factor they carry with them and are not in fact packing heat for just that reason.

Moreover, these gun-toters want to assure us they pose no threat whatsoever to either the president or his supporters by bringing these guns. They're just ordinary citizens standing up for their rights, right? The Secret Service need have no fear about their motives.

But then we find out that at least one of them ardently admires a pastor who preaches how much he hates Obama and wishes him dead, in order "to save this country."

And we're supposed to tell these "innocent" gun nuts from the people who might actually aim their weapons at the president how?

[H/t to reader jefro3000.]

I think there should be an amendment to the old adage "There are only two things that are certain: death and taxes" to read "The only certainties in life are death, taxes and Sarah Palin will make a convoluted word salad in lieu of a lucid speech."

I admit, I can't get more than three or four minutes in to one of her speeches before my eyes glaze over because she uses so many words and takes so much time to say absolutely nothing at all. Poor CSpanJunkie did the hard work and recorded her "Goodbye, Cruel World" speech:

Part 2 is here.

Apparently, Alan Colmes has a better ability to sit through such bizarre ramblings than I do (no doubt the practice he got from years sitting next to Sean Hannity):

In her bizarre farewell speech as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin fed red meat to the right-wing, invoking patriotism and the military in her first sentence. It was unclear to whom she was referring when she talked about those who are “tearing down our nation”, “American apologetics” and unmentioned forces “suggesting that our best days were yesterdays.” How can that be, she pleaded, when there are volunteers willing to fight for our freedoms.

Next it was on to criticizing the press, lecturing them that soldiers “are willing to die for you,” so “quit making things up!” And the new governor, Sean Parnell, has a nice family too, “so leave his kids alone!”

After what sounded like a campaign speech for re-election, it was time to defend gun rights, and warn that “You’re going to see anti-hunting, anti-Second Amendment circuses from Hollywood.” This will be done by using “delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets” who will “use Alaska as a fund raising tool for their anti-Second Amendment causes.” Luckily, “patriots will protect our individual guaranteed right to bear arms.” And “Hollywood needs to know we eat, therefore we hunt.”

Can you blame me for not be able to get through the speech? My buddy Jon Perr has come up with his own personal list of Palin's greatest hits, and that--in combination with her incredible popularity amongst the GOP-- makes me doubt Darwin.

Frankly, I wish that I could say this is the last we'll hear from Sarah Palin, but given how inexplicably popular Palin remains, I don't think we'll be so lucky.