Double-standard on Recall Elections?

Image from source, Wonkette

Back when Wisconsin Governor Scott Wanker Walker faced a recall election, the prevailing wisdom was that recalls are for elected officials who have done something wrong. Not something unpopular, but committed a crime, or done something unethical. So, even though Walker was deeply unpopular, he managed to keep his seat, because Wisconsinites thought a recall wasn't the right thing to do.

Tuesday in Colorado, there was a recall election that was successful. A couple of legislators who'd been behind some modest gun control measures were recalled. They didn't commit a crime, or do anything unethical. They just went against the NRA, a lobbying group with very deep pockets and a fanatical base. Of course, recalling legislators for unpopular actions rather than crimes isn't without precedent. It was done in Iowa with state Supreme Court justices who'd decided in favor of marriage equality. In fact it was attempted in two separate elections, though it failed on its last try.

But I guess I'd like to see a little consistency in the conventional wisdom. Are recall elections for unpopular (or just unpopular with a small but vigilant group) a good thing or a bad thing?

[Excerpt]

NRA Fires Two Colorado State Senators For Doing Their Jobs And Voting On Stuff
Welcome to the USofNRA! And woe be unto you, any politician who dares to cross our not so new overlords in this quick-draw special interest group, by trying to maybe take high-capacity magazines from any maybe-crazy-maybe-not person who wants to get their warm, live fingers on a gun. Because in Colorado, where two rather awful mass-murdering shooting sprees were committed by some awfully deranged mass-murdering spree shooters in Columbine and Aurora, state Senator Angela Giron and Senate President John Morse were straight up recalled by 56% and 51% respectively of the maybe voter suppressed folks in their districts, because “Morse and Democrats passed laws that limit ammunition magazines to 15 rounds and require universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers. . .”


Read more at Wonkette

Quote of the Day: Steven Weber on Gun Control Arguments

Image from Huffington Post

"As a culture, we have become so disassociated from reality that we are to the point where even though men, women and children are mowed down in schools, movie theaters and streets by nut jobs with assault weapons, we rush to defend the right to own these absolutely inessential weapons constructed with the sole purpose of shredding human flesh as efficiently as possible, and cite shaky-at-best interpretations of the Second Amendment as justification."

--Steven Weber, Actor and Writer

Source: Huffington Post 

In Case You Missed It: Jason Alexander's Response to Gun Assault

Image from Salon.

I don't know how much longer the terrible events in Aurora, Colorado will be in the news. Sometimes these mass shootings fade from the news cycle quickly, sometimes they linger for a long time. But we never really seem to have any meaningful movement on doing something about it. Many gun fetishists nuts advocates will say nothing can be done, without taking away their "freedoms." Most of the rest of us either sadly shrug our shoulders, or futilely rail about it for a few days. It is the rare elected official who will come out with anything that sounds remotely "anti-gun."

I'm not anti-gun. But I don't think it's unreasonable to consider and discus sensible efforts to curtail the availability of weapons that can kill or wound six dozen people in a minute or two. I don't think that's a bad place to draw the line. Anyway, enough from me. Jason Alexander (George Costanza of Seinfeld) wrote a very, very good piece on this subject, the day after the shootings. It's really good, and captures my thoughts better than I could ever put them. Alexander--whatever you think of him--is a well spoken and smart guy, and this is worth a read.

[Excerpt]


Jason Alexander’s amazing gun rant


. . .This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst. . .

Read more at: Salon.com

Romney: Not the Right Time to Talk About Gun Control

Image from source, TPM

After a big shooting tragedy, we can be sure we'll hear these things:

1. If there were more people with concealed handguns, people would have been saved.
2. Gun control laws only keep guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands.
3. Any restriction or regulation of guns is an infringement on our freedom.
4. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
5. There's nothing we can do to prevent these tragedies.
6. Now is not the time to talk about gun control/"play politics"

The first one is stupid, just stupid. The second assumes all crazy shooters would know where to get illegal guns, and ignores that most of these guys got their guns legally. Number three ignores that there are restrictions and regulations on all of the bill of rights. Freedom of speech has restrictions. The fourth one would be far more accurate if it were phrased, "Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people." It's tired. Number five sure didn't apply after 9/11, did it? And the last one? Mitt Romney just used that one, and it ignores that the best time to address this issue is after a big tragedy, when it's fresh in peoples' minds, and something might actually get done.

[Excerpt]

Romney: Not The Right Time To Talk About Gun Control

Mitt Romney on Monday dismissed calls for more stringent restrictions on the Internet sale of ammunition and semi-assault weapons in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., shooting tragedy, arguing that it is a time to come together and help communities in need. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Would More Guns Have Helped in Aurora?

I knew people would go there. My friend (and rival blogger from the other side of the aisle) Dan at LasVegasBadger knew people would go there. And so they have. Gun rights advocates (or gun fetishists, as I like to say) are all over the interwebs, talk radio, and doubtless FOX "News," loundly proclaiming that if they had been there, they'd have stopped it, by cracky! They'd have pulled out their concealed weapon, and popped that wacko before he did so much damage.

I for one am horrified by the thought. It would be bad enough finding myself in a situation like what happened Thursday night in Aurora, Colorado. The terror of an event like that probably can't really be imagined if you haven't been there. But you know what? The Dirty Harry or Die Hard imaginings of these vocal gun nuts is primarily imagination. It's quite simply delusional. And the following writeup from Wonkette--a snarky, largely humorous site--has one of the best takes I've seen on the subject. From a person who was in a shooting incident. Read it, please, particularly if you disagree with me.

Image from Wonkette.

[Excerpt]

Notes From The Periphery Of A Shooting: A Wonkette Moment Of Tenderness

You don’t have to have witnessed a random shooting in a public place to question whether an armed bystander could have stopped the shooter, but it helps. On the morning of May 21, 1998, on the way to a movie matinee, I stopped by a Tucson post office to send a package of comic books (“The Maxx”) to be autographed by the artist/writer Sam Kieth. I take my nerding seriously. . .

Read more at: Wonkette