Spare me your crocodile tears, Governor Jindal, you've got the blood from this massacre all over you

[damnedifIknow]

This is an awful night for Lafayette, an awful night for Louisiana, an awful night for the United States,' said Governor, and presidential candidate, Bobby Jindal at the scene of America’s latest mass shooting.

His voice wobbled, his lips trembled and his eyes welled up as he dug deep into the reservoirs of statesmanlike emotion.

All fine words, of course.

Exactly what a Governor should say when people in his state have just been murdered and maimed as they watch a movie.

But Jindal’s rhetoric made me want to vomit, coming as they did from a man who’s on record as saying: 'In Louisiana we love us some guns.'

Louisiana is ground zero for America’s gun violence epidemic.

An official report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a year ago revealed that 45 per cent of Louisiana residents have a gun in their homes.

This compares, as the local Louisiana Weekly newspaper pointed out, to 13 per cent for Rhode Island.

The State ranks fifth for weakest gun laws in the country, according to data researched by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Louisiana has twice the national average of gun deaths, with 18 per 100,000 residents.


This is the second-highest rate in America.

After the hideous annihilation of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, more than 100 new gun laws were passed by state legislatures.

But Louisiana actually LOOSENED restrictions on guns, making it easier for people who wanted to carry concealed weapons to stay anonymous.

Jindal is primarily responsible for all this.

This is a guy awarded an A+ rating from the NRA – meaning they absolutely love him for his pro-gun speeches and legislative behavior.

*What happened in his state last night is what happens when the people charged with governing a state fail in their central duty to protect their citizens.

So spare me all your crocodile tears, Governor.

You’ve got the blood of those victims all over your A-star-rated, NRA-loving, 'we love us some guns in Louisiana' hands."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173327/PIERS-MORGAN-Spare-crocodile-tears-Governor-Jindal-ve-got-blood-massacre-NRA-approved-hands.html

[Stellar]

1. k&R

I'll bet he thought his monkeyazz was looking presidential too. Can you imagine him as POTUS? He'd probably have 5 year olds packing guns in their lunch box.

[damnedifIknow]

3. Yep

They also love prisons in Louisiana.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Chicago is a city of 9 million in a nation of 330 million or 2.7% of the total US population

In 2012 it had over 500 gun homicides of the total 11,000 nationwide or 4.5% of the nation's gun homicides. In other words it had nearly double the gun homicide rate in spite of the fact its laws imposed a near total prohibition on gun ownership.

Houser was not legally allowed to own a gun. Prohibitions do not work.

[Martin Eden]

4. The city of Chicago has under 3 million people

Gun laws are ineffective when they're not universal. Straw buyers can go across the border to Indiana (red state with lax gun control laws) and buy guns with no background checks at gun shows, then supply the gang bangers on the streets of Chicago.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. If accessibility were the issue

the places you allege are providing guns to Chicago would have equal or worse gun violence rates. And the "no BGC at gun shows" is a myth. My husband bought our shotgun at a gun show and, yes, we had to wait for a BGC.

...then supply the gang bangers on the streets of Chicago.

How would gang-bangers get money to buy guns?

[SCVDem]

15. They make money selling drugs

Stealing is also effictive.

The clothes have changed but it's still organized crime.

I feel so sad for the victims and families and also have nothing but disdain whenever I hear Jindal preach about family.

Now we have even more families in mourning.

Screw you Piyush!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. "They make money selling drugs"

Impossible.

There's an absolute nationwide prohibition against the manufacture, transportation, distribution, purchase, possession and use of drugs with dedicated law enforcement agencies cooperating amongst the local, state and federal governments and sometimes international efforts as well.

How could they possibly buy and sell drugs with that sort of control regimen in place?

[SCVDem]

20. Now I have to clean my keyboard

Coffee and nose, ya know?

[bravenak]

34. Omg

[jomin41]

35. and that regime has been in place for 45 years so

by now, one could not possibly find a scrap of meth or heroin or cocaine, anywhere.

[Martin Eden]

26. You're being deliberately obtuse, trying to make a point that is senseless.

The location of the sale, for anything, is often far removed from where the product is used. Whether or not a BGC is always/never/sometimes required at gun shows in the state of Indiana, the plain fact of the matter is guns thusly purchased are used for crimes in the streets of Chicago (there have been Chicago Tribune articles with these facts, including straw purchasers who've been caught). No doubt many more are not caught. The point being that strict gun control laws regarding the sale of firearms are easily circumvented by a short drive across the border. Stricter laws, universally applied, would make accessibility much more difficult and would save lives.

You are being deliberately obtuse with your question about gang bangers getting money and with your answer to SVCDem.

The senseless point you're trying to make is that laws won't stop criminals from breaking laws, so the laws are useless. Try taking that to its logical conclusion, if you are capable of logic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. I wasn't being deliberately obtuse.

I was being deliberately sarcastic. What does that say about you?

Prohibition fantasies won't disarm criminals, especially those of depraved mind. They could just as easily be pitching Molotov cocktails to gain the notoriety they crave.

The senseless point you're trying to make is that laws won't stop criminals from breaking laws, so the laws are useless.

Laws don't work by trying to prevent things from happening. They work by punishing once a thing has occurred. I don't see the value in punishing people for self-defense -- which is a basic human right -- and which is all the current gun control movement seeks to accomplish.

[Martin Eden]

30. You have progressed from sarcasm to obtuse

Stricter and universally applied laws don't equate to prohibition. They make accessibility more difficult for the young gang bangers, while keeping intact the right for law abiding citizens.

And you couldn't be more wrong about laws being affective only after the fact. Fewer guns on the streets mean fewer crimes with guns, and laws that are more thoroughly enforced increase the likelihood of being caught and therefore have more of a deterrence.

Your last sentence is part strawman, entirely illogical, and just plain wrong.

If you think the intent or effect of better gun control laws is to punish people for self defense, you are indeed obtuse with no ability to think logically. You wrote that punishment happens "once a thing has occurred." News for you: justifiable self defense has long been established in our legal system, and better gun control laws like universal BGC, registration, and licensing wouldn't change that.

If you think the gun control movement is motivated by and seeks to punish people for self defense, then you are entirely off the rails and should seek help.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Then you obviously don't know the gun control movement.

I see their misogyny and pettiness every day right here on DU. I've seen them comment on the case of a woman stabbed to death by her ex-BF while her gun permit exceeded the 30 day processing period established by law with, "she should have picked a better boyfriend." I see them discussing how if they see someone lawfully carrying they'll call police -- a thing that got an innocent man shot and killed in WalMart. I've seen the fantasies of gun owners being, "dealt with extreme prejudice." I'm entitled to write what I wrote because it's the unending mode of operation.

So save your arrogant little insults for those who can be bullied because I'm not one of them.

[Martin Eden]

37. You obviously don't know the difference between cherry picked anecdotes and the majority

In ANY movement, extremists can be found who have carried things far beyond reason.

That's what you have become (in the anti-gun control movement), based on your nonsensical posts in this thread.

One of the most dishonest political tactics often employed (but not exclusively by) the right is to cherry pick extreme cases to represent an entire "movement" or policy on a given issue. For example, they've tried to discredit the environmental movement based on the acts of fringe saboteurs.

You're outraged (perhaps not without justification) at some extremists, but you're making a mistake when you think they represent the majority of citizens who believe we need sensible gun control laws that preserve the right of private ownership while saving the lives of innocent people.

If you truly believe the vast and diverse swath of the public which supports, for example, a universal and improved system for background checks is motivated to punish people who defend themselves and their families, then you are blinded by your outrage and have carried things far beyond reason. You have become just like the extremists on the other side of this issue whom you despise.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. Just stop with the arrogant insults. They don't work on me.

Your constant "your nonsensical posts" and "if you are capable of logic" and "no ability to think logically" rhetoric shows you to be just as petty and arrogant as the other run-of-the-mill Controllers I encounter day-in and day-out. For someone attempting to argue I'm cherry picking anecdotes and blinded by outrage you have spent every post convincing me you're just like those I cited.

So let's look at the "mainstream" gun control movement.

We got a GOP billionaire who oversaw one of the most racist policies in NYC employed in the name of gun control trying to buy legislation. He astroturfs different propaganda groups like Everytown.org, Trace.org and MAIG whose membership actually has a higher criminal record rate than your average concealed carrier. So far his electoral successes amount to getting 2 Colorado state senators thrown out of office in historically unprecedented recall elections and a third to resign to avoid a recall. Meanwhile, registration requirements and magazine limits are being ignored by both the people and law enforcement. On the private side, every time gun control makes the news it touches off a buying spree amongst the people. Probably because the people reject the idea that the should be the only ones armed since the police grace their TVs every night in stories about unarmed civilians being killed by the police. All the while the Big Man in Gun Control surrounds himself with a coterie of heavily armed mercenaries. And he does, in fact, want to criminalize self-defense because Mrs. watts admits a total ban is their ultimate goal.

And that's pretty much it. That's the gun control movement in all its glory.

Bravo. Bra-vo. *slow metered clap*

[Martin Eden]

39. You just proved my point.

You single out some extremist who most people never heard of, and cite that as representative of the majority of Americans who support measures like universal BGC, do NOT support ban/confiscation, and are most definitely not motivated to punish people who act in self defense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Okay, so who are they?

[Martin Eden]

44. Not sure "who" you're referring to.

I'm done with this exchange. I'll part with my personal view, which I posted in a different web site. I think this is much more in line with general public opinion than any extremists on either side of the issue:


I've never been fully convinced private gun ownership is a Constitutional right (given the "well regulated militia" phrase) but SCOTUS has deemed otherwise, so I accept it. However, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that a future court could restrict that right to citizens serving in a regulated militia. Consider how divided the court is today, with written opinions so wildly divergent in how the Constitution should be interpreted in any number of cases. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be politicized but it is, and the balance could be tipped.

Some gun owners view every proposed regulatory law as a slippery slope inevitably leading to ban & confiscation. I don't know if that's unfounded paranoia or a realization (conscious or not) that the 2nd Amendment is not as rock solid as they insist.

Given all the above, I would support a comprehensive gun law (or Constitutional Amendment) that guarantees and spells out the right to private gun ownership, in terms that make sense in the 21st century. The bar should be set very high for denial of this right. Violent crimes and mental illness posing danger to others are examples I can think of. With rights come responsibilities. I would support such an Amendment if it included universal gun registration, transfer of title at point of sale, penalty for failure to report sale or theft/loss, and licensing based on a course & test similar to obtaining a drivers license (required, but reasonably easy to pass).

Tell me who would not be able to own a gun under that law, and why they should not be denied.

I expect the biggest objection will be that Big Brother Government will know every gun owner and what they have, but I would like to point out we are a nation based on Constitutional law and we're talking about a guaranteed right. Confiscation without just cause spelled out in the law would not hold up in court, so perhaps the objection stems from the notion that citizens might have to wage and win an armed conflict against our own elected government.

If that happened in this day and age and the the government forces were somehow defeated, the aftermath would entail a loss of freedom orders of magnitude greater than the fantasies currently entertained by pseudo militias who see themselves as heroes in such a conflict.

Let's secure the right in no uncertain terms, enhance public safety, put to rest the lunacy over this issue, and start working together for a more sane and just society.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. You were complaining that every gun control advocacy group I named was extremist.

So I asked who among the gun control advocacy would you consider to not be extremists?

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with registration. The 5th amendment prohibits penalizing criminals for failing to register guns used in crimes. As to --

If that happened in this day and age and the the government forces were somehow defeated, the aftermath would entail a loss of freedom orders of magnitude greater than the fantasies currently entertained by pseudo militias who see themselves as heroes in such a conflict.

That is wild supposition.

[X_Digger]

47. Wait, you think Bloomberg is an extremist in the gun control pantheon?

And yet you think that you're in the majority when you say, "I've never been fully convinced private gun ownership is a Constitutional right"???!!??

What is this, bizarro world?

Some gun owners view every proposed regulatory law as a slippery slope inevitably leading to ban & confiscation. I don't know if that's unfounded paranoia

You know we might not think that if your side didn't keep tossing out jewels like this..

"We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns- is going to take time ... The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."

Pete Shields, founder of HCI (later to become Brady)

[Martin Eden]

48. I didn't say a damn thing about Bloomberg

Unicorn cited some "GOP billionaire" who he didn't actually name. Is that Bloomberg? I don't read it or follow him.

What set me off on Unicorn was his statement in post #28:

"Laws don't work by trying to prevent things from happening. They work by punishing once a thing has occurred. I don't see the value in punishing people for self-defense -- which is a basic human right -- and which is all the current gun control movement seeks to accomplish."

Do you actually agree with that BS -- that laws only have an effect after the fact and the gun control movement isn't primarily motivated by public safety and saving livings, but is instead intent on punishing people after they've acted in self defense?

If so, you are the one living in bizarro world, where Unicorns roam freely.

You also failed to comprehend what I wrote in the post you responded to.

I stated the 2nd Amendment could be overturned by a future Court, given the possibilities for interpreting the "well regulated militia" phrase and the wildly divergent views by Supreme Court justices. I followed that by advocating a new law or Amendment that guarantees and spells out the right to private gun ownership, in terms that make sense in the 21st century.

I'll repeat that for you:
guarantees and spells out the right to private gun ownership, in terms that make sense in the 21st century

THAT, I believe, is the mainstream view. American citizens generally want effective regulations that promote public safety while securing the right to gun ownership. I never heard of Pete Shields, but I'm willing to bet a total ban on handguns would fail utterly to gain enough support at the national level. That's what I'm talking about when I say "mainstream." I talk to people I know, some of whom are long time gun owners and a few who could be called "enthusiasts" but not nuts or fetishists. Most of them have no problem with better regulations as long as their rights are not taken away.

I'll also finish the excerpt I wrote that you cut short:
Some gun owners view every proposed regulatory law as a slippery slope inevitably leading to ban & confiscation. I don't know if that's unfounded paranoia or a realization (conscious or not) that the 2nd Amendment is not as rock solid as they insist.

Since you're slow to comprehend (or just willfully misrepresenting what I write) I'll explain that in the context of what I wrote about the possibility of the 2nd being overturned by a future Court:

If the 2nd is not threatened by different interpretation and the USA continues to be a constitutional republic ruled by law, then a total ban & confiscation of all firearms would never hold up in court. Nevertheless, every time a gun control measure is put forward -- even something with broad support like a more effective and universal system of background checks -- the gun crowd shifts the debate to the notion of banning private ownership. Why do they do that, unless deep down they really feel the 2nd Amendment might be overturned?

That's why I support a better written law for the 21st century which guarantees the right to private gun ownership in no uncertain terms, while instituting universally applied regulations that improve public safety.

Without a doubt, that probably wouldn't sit well with extremists on both sides -- but I'm confident there would be broad public support among citizens who are not so obsessed with the issue they can't see beyond the battle lines.

[X_Digger]

49. Aww, isn't that cute! It's.. 'for the 21st century!'

Somehow I doubt the end result would be different than Mike Bloomberg and Pete Shields were after.

And if you have no clue who those two people are, can you really call yourself familiar with "21st century" gun control, and what 'mainstream' might be? Seriously?

It's not as if we haven't seen this bullshit cloaked in similar language.

Nice try, but no cookie.

[Martin Eden]

50. So then, you think Bloomberg and Shields want laws to permanently secure the right of gun ownership?

I have explicitly and repeatedly advocated a solid guarantee to secure that right against the possibility of a future Court overturning 2A. If you equate my views with theirs, then you either concur with the subject title of this post or you are being pathetically dishonest by trying to misrepresent what I've written -- probably because you have nothing else at this point.

Also, you didn't answer the question whether you concur with what Unicorn wrote:

"Laws don't work by trying to prevent things from happening. They work by punishing once a thing has occurred. I don't see the value in punishing people for self-defense -- which is a basic human right -- and which is all the current gun control movement seeks to accomplish."

BTW, we live in the 21st century. The "well regulated militia" phrase is an 18th century anachronism open to interpretation.

I don't give two flyin effs about Bloomberg, Shields, or the vast array of pundits/activists drawing the battle lines on this issue, and my bet is most American citizens don't either. I have stated quite clearly more than once I think the mainstream public supports, as I do, a Constitutional right to gun ownership as well as more effective regulations like an improved universal background check system.

Are you saying that position is NOT in the mainstream of American public opinion?

[X_Digger]

51. Free clue: Most Americans want gun laws kept as they are, or relaxed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

[sarisataka]

42. You forgot Bloomberg

and Everytown's biggest success.

Recall how they, with other gun control groups, targeted Mark Pryor(D) for failing to vote for gun control. They campaigned to have his donor's boycott his events and ran attack ads. They were cheered by our gun control enthusiasts here with the refrain, 'we don't need that kind of Democrat.'

Well Sen. Pryor lost to Tom Cotton- who likes to write to Iran and compares SoS Kerry to Pontious Pilate- in a very close race.

They did the same in Alaska, successfully converting a critical Senate seat to Republican.

I can't think of a single seat they have taken from a Republican. Yet it is "gun enthusiasts" who are told Trump is their candidate while 'gun control enthusiasts' only talk about Sanders on a single issue.

[True Blue American]

5. Houser Was Refused

A Gun license in Georgia because his history showed a record of Domestic abuse. He was able to buy one legally in Alabama from a Pawn Shop.

Houser admired Westboro Church. His Internet writings are full of hate and rage. A Right Winger whose family was trying to have him committed.

[Stellar]

11. Speaking of guns...

The top 10 city murders in the country, I've been trying to find where Chicago lined up, but can't find it anywhere. Can you share your link with me? And NO, Chicago doesn't have 9 million people at all, that would make it larger than New York city. This couldn't be another FOX 'news' generated lie could it. Most people that post negative things about Chicago also make it look like Chicago of 1980 (The Blues Brothers era) which is totally a lie. Even the slum areas are clean here.


These Are The Major U.S. Cities With The Highest Murder Rates, According To The FBI

10. Kansas City, Missouri
09. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
08. Oakland, California
07. Cincinnati, Ohio
06. Birmingham, Alabama
05. Baltimore, Maryland
04. St. Louis, Missouri
03. Newark, New Jersey
02. New Orleans, Louisiana
01. Detroit, Michigan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/12/highest-murder-rate-us-cities-2013_n_6145404.html

Chicago is not on the list on any the searches that I've done. Not even for the State of Illinois.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/13/24-7-wall-st-states-most-gun-violence/71003050/

Vacation spots in the country: Chicago is usually in the top 10.

I could be wrong but I think it was done by FOX 'news' to mostly try embarrass the President. And since gun laws have changed a lot of thing around town, people here are finding it easier to get their hands on one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Not so much a stat as stories from 2012 stating Chicago had its 500th murder in late December.

It's fair to note that several of the cities you listed are also infamous for their gun control laws. And I think the focus on Chicago centers more on the fact that it was the origin for the Otis McDonald decision from the USSC.

[Stellar]

23. Thank you...

please share your stats, please.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

18. Hey, who needs stats when we have 'stories'. nt

[Stellar]

21. I'd be happy for you to share your stats...

no kidding!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

25. You know who else liked stats?...... Hitler! Who also loooved

confiscating guns. Or something.......

[Eleanors38]

29. Detroit's homocide rate is lowest in 47 years, according to Detroit News.

You may have to look that up since my tablet is balky about linking. Don't know the reason for this big drop. The police chief there suggested the public arm themselves as LEO response time had increased to over 30 minutes. Maybe there is a drop in crime overall because fewer people are carrying cash, and the usual suspects in gun-violence are finding it difficult to operate from jail cells.

[onehandle]

14. They would if we had the same 'prohibitions' from coast to coast.

Tick tock...

The tipping point approacheth.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. You can't even get FFL-transfers-only legislation.

And, seeing as Chicago's gun laws were declared unconstitutional you cannot impose them nationwide and even if you did you would probably find them largely ignored by both the people and law enforcement QED Connecticut's registration law and NY's SAFE Act.

Then what?

[Sienna86]

19. Time and time again, this shooter had a serious mental health issue

I think that's where we need to focus. Let's get these folks the medical help they need and deal somehow with those who are dangerous and are non-compliant.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. YES! Absolutely. And not just him but virtually all the rampage killers were previously

identified as needing mental health interventions.

[Skidmore]

6. From the same idiot whose campaign ads here

daily have him bawling thar the US needs to hate and kill its enemies. One of the most hate filled ads I have seen.

[Eleanors38]

31. The bawling bellicosity and those acting on their hatreds is behavior increasingly legitimized...

by hate radio, and encouraged by many politicians who cater to the most powerful political group in the country: The extreme Right. An indicator of how the beliefs of the Extreme Right have been legitimized is the constant discussion about "bullies." The Right knows full well how bullying works due to the volume of complaints about it, so they will increase their behavior. Not much discernible opposition to all this, either.

[gordianot]

7. Jindal owns a piece of this action.

What happens when you court the angry and violent and something comes out with teeth.

[localroger]

8. Not the first time he's done it, either

A lot of people credit his rise in Louisiana politics to blowing on a helicopter after Katrina and looking real concerned about the situation in real time. Jindal knows the value of catastrophe for a photo op.

[hack89]

9. Didn't the shooter buy his gun in Alabama? Nt

[Paladin]

12. K&R. (nt)

[ellennelle]

24. except...

he bought the gun in AL.

[Skittles]

32. WHO CARES?

the point is THEY LOVES THEM SOME GUNS, then get all crocodile-teary when they're actually USED

[malaise]

27. They're not real tears

It's his only chance of being seen - he's using dead bodies for campaign purposes because no one in his/her right mind will vote for him

[UTUSN]

33. R#55 & K for, yip, this is what I posted from the first JINDAL appearances with joly smiles

JINDAL has never looked happier. He's so thrilled to be able to show how he could really really handle the Big Job, how he could be right there and just know what everybody is going through!1 Unfortunately, his brand of "comforting" is to recite an abstract laundry list of theoretical emotions everybody is going to go through, but most of all that, "We will get through this!1" right away even before anybody goes through the list. Nary a mention about how many shooting deaths will it take for his wingnut jerks -- no, "jerks" is too mild, more like CRIMINALS and I'm talking about the followers!1 -- to realize we have a gun problem, and nary a hint of a suggestion that a solution is registration like a driver's license.

[lpbk2713]

40. Yeah well, maybe your Duck Dynasty pals can help you out.

But don't hold your breath.

[ileus]

43. I didn't think the shooter was from Louisiana???

[question everything]

46. Ah. But he got some air time. First since announcing

his candidacy. Nice to squeeze by the monster.