The Weiner Component #110 – Killing of Two Policemen: The Price of a Human Life

Most of the news media have recently wrapped up examining the murder of two policemen last year on the morning of December 21st   in Brooklyn. No one considers this act lightly but former mayor Of New York City, Rudy Giuliani and Patrick Lynch, current president of the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association both stated that there was “blood on the hands” of demonstrators and elected officials who criticized police tactics. Apparently they saw the response to the killing of 18 year old unarmed Michael Brown and the suffocation Eric Garner, in addition to the constant killing of essentially black teenagers and young adults, as well as a twelve year old playing in a park near his home, as the cause of this murder.

I have a problem with these idiot comments by men like the two above who should know better but insist upon taking a simplistic and political approach to life, going ballistic over an unfortunate event and attempting to gain political points for themselves in the process.

The murder of the two police officers in Brooklyn, New York by a lone assailant, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who happened to be a black man that had a history of mental illness and police arrests going back over a number of years; who after he shot the police officers ran a block to a subway station and there shot himself through the head. If we ask why he did it? The answer would put him on a level with Giuliani and Lynch except that his reasoning was dark and irrational while the other two thinking would be aimed at political gain for themselves.

There is a protest movement going on in the United States about the killing of unarmed young black males by police and others. This currently seems to be at least a weekly event, if not more often, and in practically all cases is ruled, generally by a Grand Jury or District Attorney, as justifiable homicide. Strangely, in a society that is mostly white, I don’t find any cases of young white males or Caucasian children, while playing with toy guns, being shot by officials or others justifiably when unarmed. Something seems to be out of kilter.

The protest movement temporarily quieted down while the memorial and funeral for these two police officers was taking place. Meanwhile a number of policemen are going ballistic in frustration denouncing anyone who refused to absolutely blame the protest movement and any liberals like the President and Attorney General for this heinous crime. One of the leading Fox commentators, who likes to make God-like comments which have no basis in reality, Bill Reilly, has called upon the major of New York City, Bill de Blasio, to resign. I’m surprised he didn’t call upon the President and Attorney General to do likewise.

None of these officials or the police seems to be concerned with the endless number of deaths of unarmed black men caused in many cases by armed policemen. They don’t seem to matter compared to two murdered police officers.

In Milwaukee a policeman who killed an black man in a confrontation  on April 30, 2014 will not have to face charges. The District Attorney called the case “justified self-defense.” The police officer, Christopher Manney, encountered the black man while he was sleeping in a park. He patted him down. The man, Dontre Hamilton, awoke. A physical encounter occurred. Hamilton got hold of Manney’s baton and began beating the officer with it. Manney fired 14 times killing Hamilton with shots to the chest. Hamilton was 31 years old; his family stated that he suffered from mental illness. The police officer was later fired for treating Hamilton as a criminal when he had known he had mental problems.

The issue that emerges here is firing 14 bullets. One shot should have been sufficient to stop him. Firing 14 times indicates a man who has lost control of himself and is blindly responding. In Ferguson the police officer fired even more shots at the18 year old, unarmed Michael Brown. Before the Grand Jury the police officer spoke of seeing the teenager at a living demon. The issue here is: Who hires these people? They seem to have a secret fear of all black males. They certainly don’t have enough emotional stability to be police officers. Isn’t there or shouldn’t there be a battery of tests, written and otherwise, that can at least determine if the individual is stable enough to be a police officer.

The issue here deals with the value of a human life, of all human beings. Are the police officers lives worth that much more than the black youngsters that are killed? Is the implication in the United States that white lives are very valuable but black ones are almost without any real value? What is happening throughout the country would seem to indicate this. And if this is true it is a definite breach of the Constitution which states that all men are equal. The whole system of values seems to be out of kilter.

A human life is a wondrous thing. Each and every individual has a potential for some great achievements, if only within his family. To deprive anyone of his life goes against what this country stands for. Even the perpetrators who are taking these lives diminish themselves in the process. Whatever they feel they are accomplishing they are actually diminished by their act of mayhem, be it legally justified or not.

In the case of the two police officers who were virtually ambushed the question that comes up is: How did the shooter get hold of a gun? To my knowledge no one has asked this question. The man had a criminal record and was mentally disturbed.  By what process could he legally or otherwise acquire a pistol?

I understand that the National Rifle Association, with its influence in Congress and the state legislatures, scores every lawmaker continually on his position toward guns, their sale and use, and will financially support those who favor their position with contributions. I also understand that they are against gun checks of persons securing weapons as, I imagine, this would lessen the amount of pistols and ammunition sold. To what extent are they responsible for the current gun culture in the United States? There are more concealed weapons being carried around today than there were in the wildest days of the wild-west in this country.

Are guns so easy to acquire on the East Coast of the United States that anyone, regardless of his background, can get one at will?  Has the NRA been successful in making the laws so inept that anyone can easily and legally acquire a pistol?  There’s certainly something wrong with the laws on the East Coast of the United States when a crazy with a history of mental illness and a criminal record can show up at his ex-girlfriend’s apartment and threaten to shoot himself and then shoot her the day before he goes to New York City and arbitrarily murders two policemen.

Just a few days ago a twenty-nine year old woman in Idaho was shot in the head in Walmart when her two year old son took her concealed pistol out of her handbag and fired it at his mother. I feel a great empathy for this baby who killed his mother; the act will haunt him from the time he reaches cognizance of what he had done to the end of his life.

If responsibility has to be placed at someone’s doorstep in these cases it should rest at the door of the NRA whose goal seems to be to put a weapon in the hands of everyone regardless of their mental state or their criminal history. Who is responsible for this outrage? Mostly the National Rifle Association and their continuing lobbying policies are. Unfortunately these episodes will play out otherwise.


A tragic incident has occurred.  No one will question that.  Will we continue to have reenactments of these tragedies? Isn’t it time for legislation both on the state and federal levels to bring about sensible laws concerning gun culture in the United States for both the perpetrators of these tragedies and for their victims?

I am reminded of John Donne’s 17th Century poem which is as valid today as it was when it was first written.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself.

Each is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

If a clod is washed away by the sea,

Europe is less.

As well as if a promontory were.

As well as if a manor of thine own

Or of thine friends were.

Each man’s death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.

Photograph taken at the Gay Pride Parade in Ne...

The Weiner Component #42- The NRA

NRA Headquarters, Fairfax Virginia USA

It seems to me that the National Rifle Association is the weapon and munitions manufacturer’s major lobby in the United States.  Many of their chief executives are on the NRA’s Board of Trustees and these corporations are the major contributors to the NRA.

The association, founded in 1871, claims to be an American nonprofit organization that promotes firearm ownership and safety.  Its yearly budget is 231 million dollars.  The NRA’s political activity is based on the premise that firearm ownership is a natural right as well as a civil right protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  They have nearly a century long record of influencing or lobbying for or against proposed firearm legislation on behalf of its members.  The NRA is seen as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington. 

The Association claims to speak for its more than five million members but, in fact, its actions are really called by a small group of seventy-six members of its Board of Directors.  The majority of the Board are nominated by a top down process and elected by a small fraction of the NRA members.  Eighty-seven percent of the organization’s membership is men.  Ninety-three percent of them are white.

Among the Board members most, if not all, the major weapon and munitions producers are represented.  There is the woman who helped craft and implement Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which served as a model for similar legislation in other states.  We find the founder and publisher of the “Soldier of Fortune” magazine, who, interestingly, was sued in the late “80s for running want ads for mercenaries and guns for hire.  There is the former Idaho senator who sponsored a bill protecting gun manufacturers from liability in connection with their products being used by criminals, which is similar to poison gas manufacturers not being responsible for the use of their products.  These ate only a few of the seventy-six Board members.

As a sort of footnote: when James Madison wrote what is now the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the early days of our nation, weapons were muskets and single shot smooth-bore pistols.  The rifle was just coming into existence.  Madison had a problem.  There was no organized military at the time but all adult males belonged to the National Guard and could be called upon to serve in any emergency.  The state governments did not have armories; each man had his own musket to be used in these situations.  The problem was to provide an armed force in times of crisis.  The right to own weapons had always existed and was understood.  Madison wrote the Amendment as a run-on sentence with two objects: one was the need for a national guard in times of emergency and the other was the right to own weapons.  Which of these was his primary object?  It can be argued either way.

Remember also that weapons were a lot simpler then.  There were no automatic rifles that could shoot well over 100 rounds a minute or magazines that could hold 15. 30. to 100 rounds for pistols or semi automatic rifles.  There were no lasers that could increase accuracy.  A man then, if he went berserk, could do damage; but a man now, if he goes berserk, can create mass mayhem, such as in Newtown, Connecticut or in the Washington, D.C. naval yard.  

There are positive things that the NRA does such as firearm safety, marksmanship training, and hunting and self-defense training; but why have they become paranoid on the subject of gun ownership?  Why do they see every move or non-move by the Federal Government as an attempt to take weapons away from U. S. citizens?

In 2008, shortly after Barak Obama was elected President the NRA announced that he planned to take people’s guns away from them; in 2012, after President Obama’s reelection they announced that the fact he did not attempt to take guns away from people during his first term was proof that he would do this during his second term.  The logic of this thinking escapes me! 

After the Newtown Tragedy there was a movement to require that all weapons purchased be registered.  In over the counter sales of firearms the weapons are registered to their prospective owners after a five to ten minute government check on the purchaser.  This is not done in gun shows where anyone can buy a gun and walk away without any check of any sort.  Convicted felons and unstable individuals can easily acquire all sorts of firearms at these shows.  Is the NRA now representing convicted felons and other similar undesirables?  Or are they just afraid of any legal measure that has to do with firearms?

We now come to an interesting question:  Is the goal of the NRA so focused on selling more weapons and munitions that it doesn’t care who buys and uses them?  If this is so then the NRA has become an organization that supports criminals and societal misfits.  The have become a group that sponsors, under the guise of selling more weapons and munitions, mayhem and death, placing profit, the dollar, above human lives.

In many states, where the Republicans have control of the government, Stand Your Ground laws, based upon the Florida model, have been passed and also legislation allowing more and more people to carry concealed weapons.  There have been innumerable Stand Your Ground shootings.  The George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin case being only one of them.  The sales of firearms and ammunition have increased expedientially.  The profits for the manufacturers have also increased phenomenally.

Interestingly the State of Iowa recently passed a law that allows virtually anyone to apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  This includes people who are legally blind.  They cannot get a driver’s license but at least three of them have gotten gun permits and now carry weapons.

If one looks up the sale of guns and munitions on the Internet that person finds all sorts of information.

Used weapons, both pistols and automatic and semi automatic go for about $400 to $1,000

New automatic and semi automatic rifles cost from $1,500 to $2,000

AK-47 assault rifles are from $200 to $800

Pistols range from $250 to $969


          Remington box of shells  $28.26 to $64.64

          50 rounds for a pistol is in the area of $19

          20 rounds .32 s&w long  $19.75 box

          20 & 50 round boxes  $23, $24

Bulk Rifle Ammunition

          500 to 3,000 rounds  $40 to $510

Ammo Magazines

          100 round drum  $266

          30 round clip (pistol) $26

          15 round clip (glock) $36, $40

If we consider the cost of ammunition and target practice, particularly with an automatic weapon, then the amount could easily reach hundreds if not a thousand dollars a session.  The profit in ammunition would be greater than the cost of the weapons.

What is the primary purpose of the NRA?  Originally it had been to serve its members.  Now it seems to be one of the leading spokesmen for the weapon industry, using its tax free contributions for its lobbying efforts, both on the Federal and state levels.

Not too many years ago the NRA supported background checks for anyone buying a firearm.  Now it sees background checks or any other gun safety measure that would protect the public as the first step in a move to take guns away from everyone.  Its position seems to be that the government is the enemy and that its mission is to protect gun owners from the Federal Government.  This is the road to madness and chaos!

Somehow the NRA has to be brought back to the point where it positively serves its members and the general public and not the weapons industry.  Returning or giving organizations power to its members by direct election can do this.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #19 – Guns & the American Way of Life


The Second Amendment to the Constitution states:  “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.”   What does it mean?  Why was it written?

The Constitution was adapted in 1787 by eleven of the Twelve States that had won their independence from England.  Each state functioned as an independent entity, existing as a loose new nation under the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitution was meant to tie the states into a single unit or nation and required ¾ of the states, 9, to approve it.  Some of the state constitutions included a Bill of Rights that specifically stated the rights of all individuals.  A number of the states requested that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.   The Founders promised this during the ratification process.  The question then became where to put this declaration.  Some wanted it to be in the document, others wanted it to be added as an appendage to the Constitution.  It was finally decided to add it as Amendments to the Constitution.   James Madison wrote twelve Amendments; ten of these were adopted and became the Bill of Rights in 1791.

The Second Amendment is a run-on sentence that has two distinct meanings.   Is the purpose of this sentence to give everyone the ability to be armed or is it to provide a militia in times of need?

Any established government needs a militia.  The new United States did not have one.  After the Revolutionary War all the troops went home, both from the states and the National government.  In emergencies the central government drew its troops from the free citizenry within the states.  The states did not have any functioning military; they got their troops from their citizenry.  Therefore it would follow that the local citizens had to have their own armaments, muskets, which could be used when the occasion occurred.

This would be a logical interpretation of the Second Amendment when it came into being shortly before the turn of the 19th Century.  Nowhere does it indicate an unlimited right to bear arms: pistols, rifles, automatic weapons of war, assault armaments, rocket launchers, high impact ammunition, magazines or drums capable of holding up to one hundred rounds of ammunition.  People owned weapons in the early days of our nation because they were tools used for hunting and protection.  We now have stores that provide us with food and police forces that provide us with protection.  We have set up a government under the Constitution that provides for our safety and welfare.

The Second Amendment has been used to sanctify the possession of weapons.  How important is the ownership of guns to a good percentage of the American public?  And how important are the types of ordinance owned?

My oldest son owns one or several weapons.  He goes hunting on average of no more than once a year, going with friends from California to Colorado.  He specifically told me once that if you own guns you need a safe at one end of your house for your weapons and a safe at the other end of your house for the ammunition.  He currently has four sons living with him and his wife.  If an emergency ever arose where he had to protect his family would he have time to get a gun and load it?  As a matter of fact in a large number of shootings that occur in households where the owner has a weapon for defense, it is the owner who gets shot.  Unlike the movies a gun does not necessarily stop a home invader and it is very difficult for an ordinary person to actually shoot someone.

Yet the thought, to my son, of someone taking his guns away from him is virtually inconceivable.  It is like removing a holy relic from his house.  He would support no government administration that attempted to do this.  I don’t consider him unique.  I suspect a goodly percentage of the gun owners in this country have a similar attitude.

What is there that is so wonderful about owning a weapon?  I would suspect that it fills some psychological need, some extension of power or strength, or even of identity.  The gun has become part of their integral self.  This is probably the essence of the “gun culture” in the United States.

Yet for this we, as a nation, pay a continuing price in terms of continued use by the irresponsible or mentally disabled in terms of lives continually taken from our citizens.  Perhaps the most blatant instance is the massacre of children and adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December of 2012 by a mentally ill young man.  These killing shocked the nation and have brought the legality of military assault weapons into question.

Does the average gun-loving citizen need a weapon that the military would use in a war firefight?  I hardly think so.  Somehow the Second Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with all of this.

What is the cause of this “gun culture” in the United States?  If we look to the movies, particularly on television a good percentage of the films utilize weapons and shoot outs.  Does this really exist in real life or is it a fantasy to enhance the myth of manliness in drama?  The cinema has also created a mythical  “old west.”  People there generally did not go around wearing pistols in holsters and continually settling their disputes with a fast draw.  Cowboys wore pistols as a noisemaking tool in controlling cattle.  Most westerners owned rifles that they did not carry with them at all times.  The various attempts to legalize concealed weapons are relatively new phenomena.  Today we seem to be trying to get back to a time that never really existed.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is an organization of 4.3 million members in a nation of over 330 million people, where the leadership holds positions far to the right of a goodly percentage of its own members who, according to poles taken since the Newtown, Conn. Tragedy, would like to see more regulation on the sales of assault and other weapons, as well as high impact ammunition.  I understand that there is pressure brought upon this group by other small groups far to the right of the NRA who feel the NRA has compromised and given up far too many gun rights already.  Also the NRA, in addition to being funded by its member’s dues, is also funded by the weapon industry.  They are considered a powerful lobbying group and are heavily involved in political campaigns.  The NRA has what seems to be a “one strike” principle.  If anyone of either party ever supports legislation that restricts weapon usage in any way they will financially oppose him in his next primary and/or election.  Their goal seems to be to increase the number of weapons out among the general public with no restriction on the types of guns or ammunition.  .

However, the situation, as it currently exists, is totally ridiculous.  In terms of the percentage of weapons in the hands of the population there are far more today than there ever was in the wildest days of the Wild West.  The legal requirements for buying weapons today are a joke.  Anyone can buy virtually any kind of firearm if they have the cash.  And, unfortunately, the system as it is currently set up allows anyone to purchase these weapons at will.

The NRA’s president, Wayne La Pierre, has suggested that Congress pass a law and fund having a police officer in every elementary school in the United States.  That, he apparently feels, would protect all children from unstable people on their campuses with weapons.  That would bring about several undesirable changes.  It would turn every single elementary school into an armed camp and destroy the concept of the school being a safe place.  Also Mr. La Pierre has not been to any elementary or any other public school campus in many years.  The campus covers a large area of land, far more that a square block, with a multitude of classrooms.  How would one police officer be able to assure safety constantly throughout the entire structure?  Also there were police present during the Columbine High School Massacre and the Virginia Tech Massacre.  They were not able to stop killing sprees by unstable people.

The NRA concept is nonsense.  It would create feelings of insecurity among the students and staff of the elementary schools in our nation and probably create generations of insecure people.  In addition all those anxious people with weapons would have occasional accidents.  What we need to do is limit the types of weapons available and provide total background checks on all persons purchasing any kind of firearm.

Do people have a right in the United States to own guns?  I suspect that James Madison’s reason for writing the Second Amendment to the Constitution is different from the interpretation of some of the judges who have ruled on its meaning.  If we look at the era between 1980 and 2012 we find that there have been conservative Republican presidents for twenty of the thirty-two years.  They have appointed a host of conservative justices.  Given the reverse from 2008 on we could get a like or larger number of liberal judges.  The interpretation of the Second Amendment can easily go either way.

No one is saying that guns should be removed from everyone.  What this article is indicating is that sanity should rule the ownership of weapons.  Responsible people have no problem with them; it is irresponsible individuals who should not be able to acquire them.

Enhanced by Zemanta