Johnson County Sheriff and his false statements on Iowa gun laws

Johnson County Sheriff, Lonnie Pulkabrek, issued a blatantly false statement during a "gun violence panel."

 “There are people who are or do have lengthy criminal records that are coming in and filling out the paperwork and getting permits to get firearms, and the sheriff does not have discretion in Iowa anymore to deny those, other than a couple examples … (and) that includes sex offenders,” Pulkrabek said, citing Iowa’s shall-issue law, which went into effect in 2011.

That's bull and he knows it.

A "lengthy criminal history" absolutely prevents a person from getting a carry permit in the state.  Unless you define habitual speeding as a crime so heinous that it would prevent a person from getting a permit. The reporter just parroted the false impression that it's so easy for criminals to get carry permits but no word that the applicant has to pass a NICS check.

The carry law now prevents the discretion that county sheriffs used to enjoy which led to all sorts of political favoritism. Having the discretion taken away from Sheriff Pulkabrek chaps his hide. That and not enough training for private citizens.

Not one person on the panel of "experts" to speak about the defensive uses of firearms, so it's probably not a place one would find solutions. Unless the solution is to make it more difficult to obtain firearms or the end-game of taking yours away from you.

Because these mayors are so helpful

They want to make sure we get to the bottom of the whole "Fast and Furious/Gunwalker" fiasco.

The group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is pushing Obama to lift a rider known as the Tiahrt Amendment from the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. By removing the rider, lawmakers would gain access to records of guns sold through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ operation "Fast and Furious," which oversaw the sale of weapons to known and suspected straw purchasers for Mexican drug cartels.

And more helpful advice:

“It is time to put it into effect to help ATF and other law enforcement identify individuals who may be buying guns like AK-47s and AR-15s by the carload and driving them south for sale to the violent drug gangs who are murdering thousands of people and destabilizing the entire border region,” they wrote.

Weren't the ATF involved with getting the guns to Mexico? If so, wouldn't they already know who was involved with the straw-purchasing? Considering they assured gun dealers to go through with the purchases anyway, it's a safe bet the answer is yes.

Mayors call on Obama to strengthen enforcement of country’s gun laws

I just trust them. (The proofreader missed his mark and may soon be fired - ed.)

Want your freedom? That's outrageous!

Regarding the fiasco of Rep Kaufman spilling out about the "schizophrenic" HSB 219 it seems to be creating a stir among opinionated editorialists at the Quad City times:

Hyperbole abounds at Iowa House GOP leaders’ whispers speak volumes

Helland last week abruptly shut down a meeting on House Study Bill 219, an outrageous measure that would eliminate any state permitting for guns. Iowa on Jan. 1 relaxed concealed carry permit regulations, leading to a virtual explosion in permits.

Since when is an enumerated right outrageous?

A little fear-mongering never hurt anyone did it, Herr Goebbels?

Stolen guns in Davenport

Normally I would treat this as very serious (and it is). Forty-six guns were stolen from a home in Davenport, IA with several recovered in the hands of convicted felons. But since this is an opinion piece and not a news story, although hard to tell the difference sometimes, I would like to add my thoughts.

Bobby E. Thompson Jr., 21, was under investigation in connection with the shooting of another Davenport man when police said they found the stolen 9 mm handgun.

It wasn’t until police traced the gun they found at Thompson’s, [police Capt] Struckman said, that they realized they had a much larger stolen-guns case on their hands. The victim was out of town and didn’t know he’d been burgled, so he hadn’t reported it.

Here's where the sloppy-arsed reporting comes in:

It is worthwhile to note the gun collector did nothing wrong. He was properly licensed, and his arsenal was secured behind a locked door.

One, you don't have to have a license (yet) to have a gun collection in Iowa. I would assume she meant he had a C&R license to purchase them directly from a distributor.

And using the word "arsenal" instead of "collection?" Nice.

Apparently she can't remember her own written words:

As police and federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, ATF, agents continue to search for the weapons and the people who stole them, they hope to piece together how so many firearms made it, unnoticed, out of the house.

The owner was out of town. She just wrote that in the previous paragraph but must have missed it.

Too bad the guy didn't use supernatural powers to notice that he was broken into while he was elsewhere. I'll try that next time I'm out of the house for a few days.

Because the guy also had ammunition (what good is one without the other), Barb gives us some sad news:

The obvious sour note is the thieves are armed with loaded weapons. Secondly, if they had to buy the ammunition, police might have had a lead by connecting a specific ammo buyer to a specific stolen gun.

Maybe in Illinois where you have to have a FOID in order to purchase ammunition, but in Iowa you only need proof of age. How would they link "specific ammo buyer to a specific stolen gun" unless the firearm was one of only one made in all of God's creation and you can only buy the ammo from one store with 28 forms of ID?

I hope one of my readers can help me out there.

And then Barb tries her hand at comedy. Referring to the fact that the thieves left behind the more collectible firearms:

In other words, they didn’t fit in the waistband of a pair of boxer shorts.

More than likely they weren't fully automatic AK47s that could spray 500 rounds per minute. Thugs and drug lords prefer those.

I know a collector who has Winchester lever action rifles. Those not preferred by thugs and drug lords.

And they don't fit easily in the boxers. Or briefs, either.

Is 'no retreat' gun law needed?

Jennifer Jacobs asks that question at the Des Moines Register.

I suppose if someone is coming after me or mine, I'm supposed to bend over and take it, Jennifer?

Oh, and talking about crazy:

"It's just absolutely crazy," said Brian Malte, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence. "It's a license to just start shooting in public. You're basically giving permission to shoot almost anyone and shoot in the public arena and possibly kill or injure an innocent bystander."

This panty-waist would rather a victim be assaulted, raped or murdered with no opportunity to protect themselves.

His advice would be to run away:



Remember, according to the Brady bunch, handling a firearm magically transforms a person into a cold-blooded killer.

Run away.

(Update) Jim jumped on this before me and added his analysis.

Leftist voices in Iowa taking the Legislature to task

In an obscure Iowa newspaper. Which begs the question of how and why do I find these people?

Clara Oleson asks: Where is the honor in Iowa legislature? in a Op Ed.

All week we witnessed the arrogance of a business controlled Iowa House of Representatives and Executive Branch

Ignoring the arrogance of Sen Gronstal, are we?

This week you had to look at CNN and the streets of Cairo, not the back rooms of Des Moines, to find honorable folk of fervor and belief.

Comparing and contrasting the citizen filled streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Suez this week with the screaming white males lined up at last year’s Health Care Forum around Iowa is also enlightening.

The noble protester in a country that will probably end up installing another tin-pot dictator to replace the current corrupt dictator, versus screaming angry white males and their implied racism.

Not only are we angry, but we are a bunch of cry-babies:

To create this juxtaposition is to expose the juvenile character of the rage of tea party Americans. Juvenile because of their petulance, of their insisting on their toys, i.e. guns, of their individualism gone amuck, of their lack of collective responsibility. My American brothers were enraged, but uninformed; enraged with selfishness.

She reinforces that with:

Throwing a tantrum in the nursery versus going “into the street” to demand democracy.

That's what we are, a bunch of cry-babies who demand their money back from the government; demand that the state and federal government leave us alone; little children who demand their toys (guns) in order to protect ourselves.

But Mizz. Oleson who is much more educated than the angry white males of the state, because we are uninformed little tykes and need her highly educated guidance.

How could we ever get along without her or her kind?

Who is Clara Oleson (the letter didn't tell us)?

Is she the woman who wrote a book on how to study for a drug test? (Listed as a program consultant in the Division of Continuing Education and adjunct assistant professor, College of Public Health, University of Iowa) A search of uiowa.edu produced no results, so I guess she retired?

Looks like she blogged for Obama as an Iowa activist where she asked the all-important question of, "God, what was his marriage proposal to Michelle like?"

A little idol worshiping going on there? Sounds a little juvenile to me.

But then she is also:

My name is Clara Oleson. I'm a national board member of the Alliance for Democracy, which is to the left of Lyndon LaRouche...

Obama isn't her only elected official she seems to admire. Dave Loebsack makes her proud, too.

Seems like she lost an election to the state legislature in 2006 to Kent Kaufmann. 62% to 38% - ouch.

A woman whose fascination with all things leftist, would probably never understand the ideas of smaller, less intrusive government. A search of her written work suggests an obsession with the labor unions and the collective mentality. Individualism may not even be in her vocabulary.

But since she was on the University of Iowa faculty and is an Iowa activist, it's obvious she is smarter than myself.

I'll console myself after my daily tantrum, Clara.

The hypocrisy of the Register's editorial board

The editorial board of the Des Moines Register protests against efforts to strengthen our state's preemption laws. In the balance is whether citizens can carry guns on city and county property without interference by local governments. They "awarded" a thistle to our statehouse legislators for their efforts.

Funny how they were all in favor of state control and against local governments regulating smoking in public. And it must be a strain on them to figure out which hypocritical side of an argument they take on any given day.

In their trite Roses & Thistles: Transparency in U.S. Senate; gun-toting in Iowa's capitol? maybe my other readers can come to the conclusion I have:

A thistle to Iowa state legislators who want to prevent cities and counties from enacting any local gun-control laws. This is a slap at the notion of local control under the Home Rule amendment in the Iowa Constitution. It is also hypocritical. Imagine, if you will, legislators sitting in the comfort of the state Capitol, with guards and metal detectors at the entrances screening for weapons. Meanwhile, they propose a law to prevent such protections at City Hall. Perhaps these legislators would change the rules and let people carry guns into the House and Senate chambers. Too bad Iowans repealed the section on dueling in the Iowa Constitution back in 1992. Emphasis mine.

Isn't that a veiled threat against the legislature?

Didn't their lord and savior make his case last week to pledge an era of peace a civility in our public discourse?

Then why the asinine statement that can be interpreted as wishing ill on our elected officials? But then it was probably meant as a joke.

The real joke is the Des Moines Register being thought of as a legitimate paper of record for the state.

Wanted: Intelligent opinions

Firing adjectives with both barrels, Rev. Carlos Jayne aims at the legislative effort to restore Iowans rights in an opinion piece published 1/29/11. "Radical," "astounding" and "egregious" were ammunition he used as he pointed out the powerful lobbying arm of the NRA and "state groups" (which we can assume are IFC and IGO and he's too lazy to name them) not to mention their minions, aka gun owners in Iowa.

It seems that the Rev Jayne is the legislative advocate for the Iowa United Methodist Church. Here he is, presumably on his way to lobby the state legislature in this dramatic and artsy photo:
Found at http://www.prisonterminal.com/documents/reenter.pdf

Our good Reverend is a very busy man as he not only advocates for prison reform, he campaigns against the evils of gambling, is an advocate for peace, and a signatory of a letter delivered to lawmakers advocating same-sex marriage.

The Board of Editors of Between Two Rivers refuses to place an opinion on same-sex marriage, as that subject is not a part of multiple viewpoints of this blog. I only bring it up because of the fact that the letter was presented by the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund. On their front web page we have this:

Protecting Iowa’s rich diversity of religious expression; ensuring that the influence of government and religious entities remain separate. Emphasis mine.

A group that attempts to influence government but at the same time wants to separate government and religious entities? Where are the howls of protest by Americans United Against Church and State?

So much for the introduction, let's go back to what Rev. Carlos writes this time.

The renewed Republican hold on the Iowa governor's office and the Iowa House carries a radical agenda, possibly moving Iowa further right and obviously seeking to repeal all vestiges of any progressive agenda.

That would suggest that controlling guns in the hands of private citizens is a part of the "progressive agenda." I would have thought that someone who advocates for a citizens rights would be on the side of freedom. I guess not.

After complaining about the NRA lobbyist and "state groups" lobbying the legislature (apparently only his pet groups should be allowed to lobby, perhaps?), he makes the claim:

There would be increased gun proliferation (blanketing the state with guns is more like it)...

News Flash: there are guns already in the state. I have no facts to back this up, but I would bet we have more guns than citizens.

Listing the bills, he finds the HSB17 to be the one that gets his panties in a twist, calling it "egregious." That would be the bill that would add a state Constitution amendment codifying gun rights in the state. In his eyes, adding an amendment to the state Constitution similar to our United States Constitution (Second Amendment) is the most terrible piece of legislation. I would assume he's against the federal one as well.

He doesn't care for HF7, the bill that would end the practice of prosecuting citizens for defending themselves. (The old saw of: if you shoot someone, you have to drag them into your house or else be tried for murder, has been told long before I was born.) He reads the tripe from anti-gun advocates apparently:

This legislation is referred to by national gun control groups often as "the Justifiable Homicide Bill" or " the Shoot First Bill" or the "Vigilante Bill."

Apparently in the Reverend's world, you only have the right to protect yourself in your home, not on the street.

He doesn't care for strengthening our preemption laws either while advocating for banning assault weapons because a congresswoman was shot with a handgun. No large capacity magazines in his world either.

The hoplophobic money quote:

It actually has been frightening for some politicians and citizen activists to stand up and be counted on matters that can be seen by these gun enthusiasts as gun control simply for the sake of control. Emphasis mine.

And there is the point of his written spewage, he is an advocate of gun control "simply for the sake of control."

He and his ilk want to control the behavior and the rights of every citizen in this state.

If Rev Carlos wants to assist those in the prisons, good for him. It would seem that he is among most Christians who think that is a proper thing to do. After all, didn't Jesus advocate to help the poor, heal the sick and visit those in prisons? Maybe you should stick with that Carlos.

But he pulls out some poll that he claims that Americans prefer more gun control to advance his position. What if a poll revealed that two-thirds of the citizens want to enslave the other third? Or outlaw practicing a religion? Or that our population is too high and anyone older than 60 head off to the gas chambers? If he is consistent in his beliefs, he would have to go along with these ideas.

I doubt he would.

In a revealing paragraph we find out his other fear: it shows the power of self-advocacy of a active and vigorous citizenry.

When a bill is being actively considered on the floor of either chamber at the Statehouse, the zealots for "gun rights above all else" flood the legislative switchboards and swamp the e-mail servers with their demands. The communication from the other side can be measured in dribbles.

I would count myself proud to be labeled a zealot. Zealots fought for freedom and liberty from the oppression of Roman rule in 1st Century Judea and I am not worthy to be labeled in their numbers.

I know this is a long piece, but I have one more point to bring out.

The Register has gone overboard when they allow a staff member to create a poster advocating what this religious hack is crying out for.


Created by Mark Marturello presumably for this opinion piece, my question is how many other posters or illustrations have the register's employees created for opinions written by Sean McClanahan of Iowa Firearms Coalition, or Aaron Dorr of Iowa Gun Owners, or Chris Rager, lobbyist of the NRA?

If they did, it probably wouldn't be a favorable illustration.

Carlos Jayne is a registered lobbyist at the statehouse and apparently is afforded special privileges by the Des Moines Register.

Liberalizing gun laws = job killer

Florida's attempt to have less gun control will ruin efforts to create jobs by wasting time on creating a free society instead of more important work.

At least the editorial board of the South Florida Sun Sentinel says so.

So it must be true.

If the government can force you to buy health insurance...

They can force you to get a 401K.

Make 401k's mandatory

Counter-view on Iowa gun laws

Blue Wave News, a site that promotes the Democratic party, took a swipe at Paul Dorr and his victory in court last week. Previous post: Judge to sheriff, go back to class.

At IA Judge Puts Concealed Weapon in the Hands of Anti-Choice Activist With Conviction Record Elise tried to make a point that Mr Dorr has a (gasp) criminal record. Since he protested at abortion clinics, he had been arrested for misdemeanor trespassing etc. but never for a violent crime. Since he has no felony convictions and no misdemeanor domestic violence crimes in his past, he can pass a NICS check and actually purchase a gun from a real FFL dealer. The horrors.

I'm not going to pass judgment for his activities that some may consider political or religious. You know, like civil protests and such. But if someone can pass a background check (which some call Unconstitutional) then all right by me.

This week a Judge put a conceal carry permit in the hands of an anti-choice activist with a criminal record. Paul Dorr’s First Amendment rights were at risk and apparently those rights are more important than the rights and safety of millions of women in this country and the doctors and nurses helping them get medical attention at clinics. Dorr’s First Amendment rights are more important than the safety of public officials at City Council meetings, and more important than the safety of people in courthouses – because, you know, no one has ever been killed by a gun in a court house.

Lumping Dorr with regular thugs, criminals and abortion doctor murderers is borderline libelous.

The Iowa gun rights activists and the NRA aren’t going to stop with this conceal carry law, they’re aiming for bigger fish. They believe that many gun laws in Iowa are unconstitutional and they plan to challenge them – no matter who they would put at risk.

Because these laws are Unconstitutional, we are going to fight to repeal every one of them.

Referring to West Burlington's ordinance against firearms in city-owned facilities (previous post NRA lawsuit in Iowa):

Of course, West Burlington had every reason to enact this ordinance given some of the history of gun violence in Iowa.

With a line like that, you'd think Iowa would be the murder center of America. I think Chicago has us beat.

What Elise doesn't seem to understand is that Sheriff Weber could very easily denied a permit to a pro-abortion activist, like maybe her, listing that "people fear her". He would still be wrong.

The ruling, if she had decided to read it, (go to Only Guns and Money) Mr Dorr was denied for what he believed. He believes that government should be responsive to the people and he acted on it. That's why Weber denied the permit, because Dorr was asking about county finances, not his "anti-abortion activities."

In the future, when Elise has a right denied by a government official, her lawyer can point to this ruling and use it as a precedent and sue the crap out of them.

Dennis Henigan: Supreme Court, yawn

Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center fame, tosses out his latest opinion that the Supreme Court doesn't really matter. I would be no difference in his eyes if they would affirm an individual's right to keep and bear arms, or rule in favor of Chicago and it's gang of Daley. What if Chicago Loses Its Supreme Court Gun Case?

A few paragraphs in, he tossed out this:

Although some have expressed concern that a ruling against Chicago would cripple “stop and frisk” and other law enforcement tactics against illegal carrying of guns on the street, nothing in Heller itself would jeopardize those tactics.

Does this mean he's in favor of stopping anyone on the street without probable cause and a law enforcement officer conducts searches based on what? A "feeling"?

Is a "stop and frisk" tactic, no matter how effective, what we want in our country?

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hear." Tell that to those poor souls sent to the gulags.

LEOs do not have any authority except those powers delegated to them by the citizens. Keeping this concept, the right of citizens to be secured in their persons or effects and the right to not to be illegally detained, should be maintained. Why would I allow my neighbor to snoop around my house just because they were curious?

Why would anyone want to live in an environment that condones such action by LEOs?

Why would anyone promote this as a good thing for society?

I've got a big but...

As in "I support the 2nd Amendment, but..."

We've all read the opinion writers and politicians say this phrase. Even the NRA does that to some extent, and as soon as the but is displayed, I tend to not listen to agree with much of anything they say.

From the Muscatine Journal:

I've heard suggestions that more Muscatine residents should buy guns and get permits to carry concealed weapons. That concerns me even though I believe in the Second Amendment.

But keeping guns in your home and defending it and your family if someone breaks in is one thing. Carrying a concealed weapon and responding to gang violence with vigilantism would only lead to more violence. Editor's Notebook: Ganging up

The old "violence begats violence" argument. Whatever happened to "strength through superior firepower"? An elderly lady in Des Moines proved that theory a few days ago.

This guy's helpful suggestions instead of having a means of protecting oneself:

Becoming more like Father Edward Flanagan, the founder of Boys Town, and less like Dirty Harry Callahan, the cop played in the movies by Clint Eastwood

Ha Ha, Dirty Harry. He could have called us knuckle-draggers and throw out the compensating for our inadequacies, but didn't.

And:

Getting to know our neighbors and looking out for each other. I know my next-door neighbor would call the cops and scare off anyone he saw who looked suspicious in our neighborhood. I'd do the same for him.

I'm glad I don't have him for a neighbor because mine will come running to help instead of cowering behind the curtains peeing their pants. And the Stranded household has already done the same. We look out for each other.

By finishing up with a weird locker room old buddy scene, I think this guy has some serious issues.

Lies and hyperbole promote fear

The Daily Iowan (the University of Iowa student newspaper) distorts the as-of-yet unsigned concealed carry bill SF2739

If signed, the bill would also allow Iowa gun owners to openly carry their weapons, carry long guns, and extend the length of time between license renewals. Gun law stirs controversy

This bill does not redefine the methods of carrying in Iowa and open-carry is not allowed except on your own property, place of business or during hunting or target practice at an approved range. See Iowa code 724.4. The bill doesn't change that.

Johnson County sheriff Lonny Pulrabek adds

“People are not going to come in to our office on year two or three of their permit and say to us that we need to take their permit away because they were charged with domestic abuse,” he said.

The new domestic abuse law states that if someone is charged, the sheriff is authorized to go get the weapons, not wait until they are delivered. If the accused is a permit holder, the sheriff, would probably grab the permit, too. It would be stupid on his part to not to. I

Is the sheriff so stupid that he doesn't know who is charged? Doesn't he check those charged against his permit holders? The Iowa City Press Citizen or the Cedar Rapids Gazette probably would, hell they get the list of permit holders regularly.

Would the good sheriff wait for drug dealers and rapists to turn themselves in as well?

How many permit holders in the state have ever been charged with domestic abuse? I don't know, but put that number against "only-ones" who've been charged and I bet it would be less.

SPLC: Iowa Rep. King advocates MURDER

Douglas Burns gives us another thoughtful editorial, this time about Iowa Representative Steve King. King has advocated the abolishment of the IRS for years, but Burns takes him to task over these remarks:

ThinkProgress: “Do you think this attack, this terrorist attack, was motivated at all by a lot of the anti-tax rhetoric that’s popular in America right now?”

King: “I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS. I’ve been for it for 30 years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary, and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.” (Found at King Justifies Terrorism)

So in Burn's and this "progressive" web site's eyes, abolishing the IRS is terrorism? Well others share that view:

"What Steve King said is extremely close to an apology for murder,” said Mark Potok, the intelligence project director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups in the United States.

In an interview with the Daily Times Herald, Potok added, “Words have consequences.”

(Oxymoron of the day: intelligence and SPLC)

Rep. King is complicit with a crazed murderer because he wants to get rid of an agency that is responsible for the collection of taxes from hard-working citizens?

Am I missing something here?

Why am I reading this guy's crap?

Hyberbole abounds at: A smirking King justifies domestic terror, murder

Don't fear, Obama won't take your guns

Douglas Burns, of the Carroll, IA, Daily Times Herald, opined that since Obama hasn't made an effort to take guns away from citizens, the unwashed masses have nothing to fear from Obama.

Whose fault is that? Is it actual policies (which based on the record just don’t exist)[sic] or hysterics being drummed up by Republicans?

That's right, the hysterical masses buying guns because of an irrational fear. I'm surprised he didn't throw in the race card.

In order to win Senate seats and the presidency the Democratic Party has to third-rail the guns issue. This lack of action may mean more dead black kids on the streets of Newark and Baltimore, but Obama and his party’s princes have long since reconciled themselves to that.

Those murdered with firearms are because of honest law-abiding citizens purchasing a firearm during the Obama-rush of the past year or so?

In a prime example of hyperbole:

[Iowa Gubernatorial candidate] Republican Bob Vander Plaats sought to play the role of the detached anthropologist this week in Carroll when he advanced one of the ugliest and spectacularly irresponsible narratives in America today: people have cause to “fear” President Barack Obama and arming themselves to the hilt is an understandable reaction.[emphasis mine]

It seems to me that VanderPlaats was trying to explain a historical phenomenon in America today. Neither advocating nor condemning what has been going on.

It also seems like Burns is conducting himself in the same manner he's accusing VanderPlaats of.

Read more at: Vander Plaats: Scared of Obama? Buy guns

Arnold Schwarzenegger: comedian

Don't quit your day job, Ahnold.

“No matter where you go in the world, people still want to come to California,” Schwarzenegger said. “There’s no one screaming like, ‘I can’t wait to get to Iowa.’ That I can guarantee you. They want to come here to California.”

We dumb hicks are missing out on tourists. And I'm disappointed?

But if there is a choice of where to live? Who wants to live in a high-tax, over-regulated, corrupt politicians everywhere... Wait a minute.

Maybe neither Iowa nor California is such a good choice.

Gov. Schwarzenegger takes a stab at Iowa

With neighbors like these...

We've got people in this state with the same opinions as elsewhere. But here's a couple of opinions from Minnesota and Missouri:

From Mary Lewis Grow of Northfield, a board member of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. She seems to think that anyone can get any weapon they want at a gun show and she thinks the error-prone (just ask the cub scout) terror watch list should be used to prevent firearm ownership. You know those "common-sense measures" Bloomberg and company crows about.

A security risk big enough to accommodate a jumbo jet full of terrorists is the failure, both in federal and most state laws, to mandate background checks at gun shows when the seller is not a federally licensed firearms dealer. Indeed, private sellers may set up shop at most American gun shows (of which there are thousands each year) and sell any kind of high-powered weapon, in any quantity, with no check required to see if the buyer is in a prohibited category. Mary Lewis Grow: Security alert: Gun show loopholes

And speaking of gun shows, Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Star tosses in a few cliches of his own during a recent gun show visit:

Thousands of people were there. More than 95 percent were men and white. I have never seen more pickup trucks in one place.

Ha Ha guns and hicks - yeah we get it.

Gun sales have skyrocketed since Barack Obama was elected president. It is difficult to know whether these folks think Obama will try to restrict their Second Amendment right to gun ownership or whether they are concerned about Obama being the first black man in the Oval Office.

No doubt, these are good, law-abiding, salt-of-the-earth folks. But I worry about such weapons, the ease with which they can be acquired as well as the motivation and verifiable mental stability of each buyer.

Again, with these self-righteous opinions from hoplophobes? So in Diuguid's opinion, anyone who has a gun is mentally unstable. Nice that he got that in print.

Register is "pointless" and a distraction to Iowans

A Des Moines Register editorial calls the gun bills currently proposed in the Iowa legislature as "pointless" and a "distraction" to the hard work ahead for our state.

Given the truly important issues that need attention, the Legislature should not waste time on pointless debates about gun permits and same-sex marriage. We don't have the room here for a full discussion of the reach of the Second Amendment, and the Iowa Legislature certainly doesn't need that distraction, either.

A restoration of our rights is pointless?

Get budget in hand and move Iowa ahead

Des Moines Register wants status quo

The Register editorial board doesn't see a problem with the current concealed-carry laws either.

Iowa lawmakers have plenty of important business to tend to when the Legislature convenes next month. Their priorities include reconciling a large budget gap and agreeing on ways to reorganize government to find efficiencies.

I thought governments were instituted among men to secure rights. Guess I was wrong. The legislators will be too busy trying to clean up the current mess in Des Moines this year. And who put us in this mess? Democrats (not that the Republicans were doing any better)

Neither proposal would make Iowa a better place to live. Both would increase the odds of people getting shot. It's not as if Iowa is a dangerous place, but that is exactly the message lawmakers would send by taking up this gun-rights legislation.

The old "blood-running-in-the-streets" canard. Looks like they didn't read the FBI report. Data vs opinion

More people carrying around deadly weapons doesn't make Iowa a safer place to live. Rather, it likely increases the odds of innocent people getting hurt. Nervous about someone approaching your car? View someone as a threat? Easy access to a gun means you're only one twitch of a finger away from shooting that person - killing them and perhaps landing you in prison for murder.

Possession of a gun turns one into a nervous potential murderer according to these guys.

For more hyperbole go here: Don't make it easier to carry guns