Chief Acevedo’s gun remarks draw ire from conservative bloggers |

“And that’s why it’s important for us as Americans to know our neighbors, know our families — tell somebody,” he said. “If you know somebody that is acting with a lot of hatred towards any particular group — especially if it’s somebody you know is a gun enthusiast or is armed with these type of firearms and they’re showing any kind of propensity for hatred — it doesn’t mean we’re going to take them to jail, but we might want to vet these people.”

via Chief Acevedo’s gun remarks draw ire from conservative bloggers |

I wanted to be sure I got the whole quote so no one would say I was taking this man’s words out of context. On one hand, if you know someone is actively planning an unlawful action, by all means, say something. It could be argued, that’s what the chief meant. I don’t think any of us would disagree with the idea of speaking up when you know someone is planning a mass shooting or other attack on innocent people.

But it’s the second part of Chief Art Acevedo’s statement is deeply troubling. We all want to prevent lawless violence. But Acevedo wants to “vet” anyone showing “any kind of propensity for hatred.” Somehow, I just don’t think he’s serious. Otherwise, he needs to start with the President of the United States, work his way down through the entire country. And to be fair, before he shoved his foot in his mouth with that statement, the chief did say, “To ensure that we protect the 2nd Amendment by keeping firearms in the hands where they belong; law abiding Americans of sound mind, and not in the the hands of people that want to do us harm…” But I honestly think this was just a vain attempt to avoid having his entire statement dismissed as typical anti-gun, political drivel even if that’s exactly what much of it was.

This fact is, the criminal to which the chief was referring, as the chief admits, a prohibited person. A felon. A convicted bank robber. Someone who, under current law, is barred from buying or possessing a firearm. Something tells me, the weapons used in that robbery weren’t legally purchased and likely weren’t even “straw” purchased. A background check would mean nothing in a transaction between two criminals and the fact is, people who intend to do harm will always find a way. The only response people like Chief Acevedo seem to have for these situations is finding ways to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.


CNN Opinion: Mental health, not guns, are the problem…

Maybe I’m being overly harsh but, CNN has, in the last year or so, has several of their contributors/commentators offer opinions that run counter to CNN and the mainstream media’s long standing stance on the “evil” of guns. They even cancelled Piers Morgan’s failed crusade against guns which I’m not convinced that was just about ratings.

The latest sign of intelligence comes with an opinion piece from Mel Robbins. Quite frankly, I’m shocked they published it on their own website. Robbins rightly points out the recent rampage in California, a state that gets an A rating from the likes of the Violence Policy Center/Brady Campaign for it’s stringent gun laws. Like the recently departed head of Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety, Mark Glaze, she readily states that none of the proposed gun legislation could or would prevent the next mass shooting. California already has all those measures in place and yet, the most recent mass shooter jumped through every single one of those hoops.

Next time there’s a mass shooting, don’t jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn’t get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.

Strengthening gun control won’t stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.

-Mel Robbins via Opinion: The real gun problem is mental health, not NRA –

Admittedly, Robbins does get into the touchy subjects of temporarily seizing guns from the mentally ill and background checks for all gun sales. But it’s not in the same tone as the like of Feinstein or Schumer who would conduct such seizures without due process.

But connecting the dots won’t help unless every gun sale is subject to an instant background check imposed on all licensed gun retailers.

And finally, the police need tools as well. They need training and the discretion to ask about and remove guns from any household where there is a domestic dispute, a call for a “well-being check,” or a person who exhibits violent or unstable behavior. They also need a mental health professional on call for such checks.

Connecticut, Indiana and, yes, even Texas have firearms seizure statutes aimed at dangerous persons. Laws like these enable the police to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior until a judge can make a final determination on fitness for gun ownership based on evidence presented at a hearing.

-Mel Robbins via Opinion: The real gun problem is mental health, not NRA –

To her credit, she acknowledges something we’ve pointed out for years. That the vast majority of gun deaths in this country are by suicide rather than homicide. Further, she makes a very clear statement that gun control is not the answer. And that is perhaps what is most shocking. This opinion piece actually appears on

“… Indeed, mentally ill people only account for a small fraction of the gun deaths in America every year and the vast majority of those are suicide, not homicide. Violence by the mentally ill is usually a symptom of the untreated mental illness — that’s why access to treatment, not gun control, is the answer.”

-Mel Robbins via Opinion: The real gun problem is mental health, not NRA –

Indeed, we’ve long said that infringement on the rights of the law abiding was not the answer but, reading it on CNN’s website is rather shocking, no matter how many times we see it.


Hillary Clinton: U.S. needs to ‘rein in’ proliferation of guns – CNN Political Ticker – Blogs

Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said “I think we’ve got to rein in what has become a almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

via Hillary Clinton: U.S. needs to ‘rein in’ proliferation of guns – CNN Political Ticker – Blogs.

And so it begins. Hillary is setting up her campaign platform. As was the case when her husband ran for office, guns will be front and center as the boogeyman dejour. Though I am not happy about it, I think she has a very real shot at being the next POTUS and one who may heavily influence the right to bear arms in ways that will make Barack Obama look like an addled school boy. Condoleeza Rice would make a far better choice for our country but, she is clearly not interested in seeking office…Those who really are qualified and really would have the nation’s best interests at heart never are.