So, now Sen. John Kennedy is officially opposed to strengthening firearms BACKGROUND CHECKS.
His newest proclamation (which really isn’t new at all) raises the obvious question of whether there is any level to which he will not stoop to kiss the ring of Donald Trump and the rest of the NRA-purchased Republicans who insist that it is never the time to discuss ways to curb the number of MASS SHOOTINGS that have plagued this country for the past 35 years.
Apparently, it wasn’t enough for Sen. John Kennedy to join fellow Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy in voting for the so-called tax “reform” bill that is so heavily weighted in favor of the very rich but now he has underscored that Gawd-awful CAMPAIGN AD in which he said, “…love is the answer but you oughta own a hand gun, just in case.”
He even repeated the phrase during a Senate committee hearing, saying it was an old saying from back in Louisiana though, to be honest, I don’t ever recall anyone but Kennedy uttering such an inane statement.
So, obviously, while it is never the time to discuss a solution, it’s always the time to ensure that the mentally ill will have unfettered access to weapons.
Kennedy clashed with Bobby Jindal—and later with Gov. John Bel Edwards—over the budget, repeating his mantra: “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” That, it turns out, was the most intelligent thing he had to say as State Treasurer. But the fact of the matter was—and is—that it was a combination of the two.
The problem is in the giveaways, as in tax credits, tax exemptions, tax incentives, and all the other breaks given away to industry that promised big jobs in exchange for keeping off the tax rolls but who failed to deliver. That spending problem created a critical revenue problem that was only partially alleviated by a 43 percent increase in college tuition.
Kennedy also proposed an across-the-board cut in state contracts. That was far too simplistic. A better solution would have been—and remains—to take a long, hard look at the multitude of contracts awarded by the sate to determine if they are really necessary.
Just as one example, the various studies of restoration of Louisiana’s coastline, like the bevy of studies awarded by the City of Baton Rouge to study traffic congestion, have brought the state no closer to resolving the problem than before tens of millions of dollars were spent on those studies.
But I digress. Kennedy, in constant search of a TV camera and microphone, has now gone beyond absurdity in opposing more stringent background checks. Does he not remember:
- Sandy Hook?
- Columbine?
- Aurora?
- Orlando?
- Las Vegas?
- San Bernardino?
- Chattanooga?
- Charleston?
- Oakland?
- Tucson?
- Blacksburg?
I could go on, but what’s the point? People like Kennedy are imprisoned by their own closed minds and political calculations about how to best play to the emotions of the gun enthusiasts and to how best to go about assuring the continued flow of NRA campaign contributions. The KILLING FIELDS of America are without comparison anywhere else in the civilized world, according to statistics published by the NEW YORK TIMES.
Oops, I forgot. That should be the failing New York Times, according to Donald Trump, on whose coattails Kennedy so shamelessly ran in his senatorial campaign. So, it must be fake news, right?
Well, those figures quoted by the failing New York Times were provided by the FBI, which keeps meticulous records on such things.
Oh, I forgot again. The FBI is no longer credible, according to Grump, who arbitrarily decides who is and who is not trustworthy and who sets such a shining example for the likes of Kennedy, Bill Cassidy and the other Repugnacans in Congress who apparently are unable to make as simple a decision as when to go to the bathroom without a directive from Thumper.
Yes, I know the NRA gun-totin’ flag-waving zealots are going to have me pilloried by sundown but I can live with that and I have this to say to them:
I would rather stand for what is right for all the victims who were so needlessly slaughtered by obviously mentally disturbed people who should never have had access to weapons than to have all the campaign money the NRA dumps into the campaigns of the likes of John Kennedy.
Those are my principles, Mr. Kennedy, what, pray tell, are yours?
As I asked Tom and others earlier this morning: “Is John N Kennedy the New, Improved Bobby Jindal?” He could certainly have given Jindal pointers on how to best stay in the limelight by being a faux iconoclast for whatever the issue.
Kennedy says he opposes the bill because it rewards [worthless {by implication}] bureaucrats for doing their jobs and what we should be doing is firing them for not doing their jobs. Okay, well and good, but is that really the crux of this bill and couldn’t that provision be removed by a simple amendment?
Well, the N Y Times is not doing well financially. The F B I is clearly off track and not as reliable as it once was. And the right to own a gun is guaranteed in the Constitution. Not one of the “shooters: was a member of the NRA, and in fact, most, if not all were democrats. We get it; you dislike Trump. Are you saying you think Hillary Clinton was a better choice ? I acknowledge that she is the best politician money can buy, but what is apparent to most, and the pending investigation will clearly show that she and her husband are corrupt beyond comparison.
Okay, so you drank the Kool Aid and the FBI is “not as reliable as it once was.” Nice to see you can think for yourself and don’t take your talking points from Trump (LOL). The right to own a gun is guaranteed for those who are not mentally ill, a convicted felon, or a terrorist, and a danger to others. Do you really want to be exposed to some armed nutcase strung out on coke or meth or who is suffering severe mental delusions?
But what I really would like to know is what is your proof that “most, if not all” of the shooters in the mass killings “were Democrats”? That seems like a pretty far-reaching claim unless you have personally seen their voter registrations. Where, exactly, is your proof of that idiotic claim? And please be specific. I seriously doubt you have a shred of evidence to back up that absurd allegation.
Finally, just who was talking about Hillary? Certainly not Tom. I read the post several times and could never find a single mention of Hillary and I do believe he has stated quite clearly in the past that he was no fan of either candidate—Trump or Hillary. I love the way you alt-conservatives always—ALWAYS—invoke the names of Hillary and Obama as if that is your only defense of the idiot we have in the White House now. Stage magicians call that misdirection: keep the audience’s attention on something else while you carry out the deception.
Now answer this honestly (and I don’t mean by that that you cherry pick facts that might support your argument and discard everything else): Do you really, in your heart of hearts believe Trump is any less crooked than the Clintons? For the answer, you might start with the Trump Foundation, Trump University, Trump casinos, Trump contract disputes, etc. etc.
@Buck: Isn’t it amazing that the Tumpistas keep bringing up Hillary Clinton? Why is that? She is not running for anything, she’s not an elected or appointed official, and in fact is a private citizen.
The only thing they can do is:
and in fact, most, if not all were democrats
Got some facts to back up that statement? Some links perhaps?
Kennedy supports MANDATORY reciprocity among all states regarding handgun concealed or open carry laws. This runs roughshod over States Rights, a principle that Kennedy from the other side of his mouth claims to support. Which is it John? You can’t have it both ways.
Tou have GOT TO BE an obama loving democrat!!! Get your head out of the sand. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and most of them are registered democrats!!! LOL
Wow, Tom, you were right. The gun nuts are coming after you with fire in their eyes. Don’t you love how they love to fall back on the cliche that guns don’t kill people, people kill people? Never mind a person with an assault weapon can take out a lot of people at one time (remember Vegas, Caroline Odom, or do have your own set of “alternative facts” like Trump?).
And, Ms. Odom, I will make the same request of you as I did Zoe: show me the proof the shooters in those mass killings were Democrats. Please give the cold, hard numbers for each shooter in the incidents listed in Tom’s post. I’d like to know their voter preference and you and Zoe obviously have so very much more knowledge about that than I.
…And you accuse Tom of being a Democrat like that was a bad thing while being a Trumpian Republican who would deprive sick children of medical care, repeal important legislation to protect the environment, and give the wealthy all those lovely tax breaks a good thing.
Good to know.
Buck, I’ll do Ms Odom’s and Zoe’s work for them showing that their claims are FALSE
https://www.snopes.com/democrat-shooters-list/
Another link debunking the “Dems are the shooters” drivel:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-fake-news-guns-215670
Another unfortunate example of another politician putting himself in front of the greater good. To quote our narcissist President, “so sad.”
I will never understand how a perfectly reasonable request for controls on who may or may not own guns equates to “They’re coming to take away our weapons.” Or, for that matter, why any individual needs to own an assault rifle (unless they think that deer or rabbit or duck is going to start shooting back). After all, no one is allowed to drive an automobile (which, last time I checked, did not qualify as a weapon) without proving to be a capable driver and providing insurance for the vehicle. Why shouldn’t ownership and use of guns be equally overseen? It’s very simple: if a person is mentally unstable, addicted to drugs, a convicted felon, or prone to violence or terrorism, they shouldn’t be allowed to own an object which makes murder and mayhem easy to achieve. As far as I can tell, there’s only one explanation for opposing such logical restrictions. Because big money (as in the NRA and its mouthpieces) don’t want to risk a penny in profits to safeguard the lives of our children, and play upon the ignorance and paranoia of right wing zealots to support their greed.
If the current laws are not enforced, add another one and they will be? How’s that for typical liberal thinking!!!
Well, Bud, I have to admit yours is the first intelligent argument opposing more background checks in this entire thread. I don’t agree with you, necessarily, but at least you make a valid point—as opposed to Zoe and Caroline. I believe you and I could sit down for a beer and have a logical debate and come away still respecting each other’s viewpoint. Zoe and Caroline?
Not so much.
Buck, you would be correct on the point of debate and walking away with respect. I will always respect another’s views even if I don’t agree with it because you are entitled to your opinions / views. I am a firm believer of the fact that we have enough laws to get the job done on background checks. What we don’t have are politicians who are smart enough to make sure there are funds to enforce the laws we have. Politicians of both parties are always ready to pass and support a law that they feel will further their political career but never follow up with making sure that enforcement of the laws will be funded. There is untold legislation passed for the looks of it but no support for funding. There is not a better example than our own Louisiana legislature that passes unfunded mandates year after year and the United States Congress is literally run amuck with the same. As for John Kennedy taking a position on this or anything else, he’s like Louisiana weather, just hang on he’ll change to the political climate.
Well said, Buck!
Amen!! Fredster, too.
I remember sandy Hook to Blacksburg and all of these incidents are FALSE FLAG events.
Okay, I usually make at least some attempt to be civil when responding to some of the comments posted here. But you, my conspiracy theorist friend, have been drinking the Alex Jones Kool Aid.
http://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-calls-charlottesville-violence-false-flag-650152
If you don’t believe those children died at Sandy Hook, you need help and you need it quickly.
https://www.infowars.com/5-confirmed-false-flag-operations-and-how-to-spot-them-in-the-future/
If you can offer me one shred of incontrovertible evidence of what you claim (other than from people like Alex Jones, who probably thinks WWII was a False Flag), and I mean absolute proof, I have a crisp new tinfoil hat for you.
And by the way, I have it on good authority that airplanes flying in the air from city to city are false flags, too.
And don’t forget that rumor that the Earth is round.
Charles, are you being facetious?
Alas, the mud flies both ways again! Gun control, hating Kennedy, Jindal sucks, if you disagree you drink someone’s Kool Aid. If you look at the gun control laws in Chicago, what affect would adding more laws do? If the government is in control of determining who is mentally unstable and should not be granted the right to purchase a gun, we may all be in trouble. Anyone taking a mild sedative or someone who posts crazy stuff on websites could be deemed mentally unstable. Think about it.
The problem is that the laws are not uniform. While Chicago may have strict laws, Milwaukee or St. Louis may not so it remains relatively easy to obtain them. If you look at countries that have uniform laws, you see much lower crime rates.
No one ever said the solution is easy, Sidwit. But you can’t deny the high crime rate is mostly the result of guns and the mass killings certainly are. Are you willing to just stand by and shrug and say, “Gee, that’s terrible”?
After seeing many comments by you, I am (a) convinced that you are quite intelligent and (b) puzzled that you consistently seem to feel it’s perfectly okay to just accept things as they are and never question why or address how things can be improved. What will be your position when someone near and dear to you becomes a victim of senseless gun violence?
Great article, Tom! Kennedy will always remind me of the goofy Randy Quaid.. The JIndalites/Trumpets/NRA, SDS will always be with us, the cowards are walking around East Feliciana with open carry. makes me feel so f***ing safe. Even Jindal wants the mental check and it is very easy to do as easy as having a credit card. anyhow….love always ron thompson
Some interesting comments here. My first thought on this is yes we have plenty of laws and our corrupt politicians do not enforce most of the laws. Therefore my proposed solution is to remove the corrupt politicians. At the core of us having corrupt politicians is who actually runs for office. Why are they so interested in getting jobs that do not pay that well and are not appreciated when they do a good job. It has to be for the corruption that goes along side the public job and benefits of federally and state funded retirements and health care after one or two terms. The incentives are there to be a mouthpiece for whoever pays the most. Additionally once they are in they can vote to give themselves whatever they need. That happens in local governments too.
The public is growing increasing numb to these shootings as well. There is always the finger pointing and justification speeches to get what one or the other faction wants. What have we heard from the massacre in Las Vegas. Nothing for what his motives were, how he got that much ammo and fire power into his room. What about the security guard who found him and then disappeared for few days. As long as our enforcement agencies fail at doing their jobs or have hidden agendas as we see with the FBI etc etc the public is going to continue to grow in their disbelief in what comes out of these agencies. We see our own State Police having credibility issues so this is happening across every state.
There is no one answer or solution to the chaos we are facing in daily life. It gets even worse when we have to actually deal with the bureacracies we have hatched in the legal system. You really can’t depend on justice in our legal system unless you have millions in the bank. Our judges have become as corrupt as the politicians we have voted into office. It will be getting worse at least as I see it not better solely based on the failure of our schools to teach students to think for themselves and to have real standards. Our ‘progressive’ thinkers want to keep the public as dumb (not thinking for themselves)as possible so they can hang on to their positions and power structure as elitist or statists.
Our society is truly in deep trouble. Without a spiritual awaking in the public generally we will slide into civil war as every group seems to have a real ax to grind against those that disagree with them and when the government starts diminishing our freedoms which they have been for some time now, there will be eruptions by those who see whatever restriction or lost freedom came last as the straw that broke it all for them.
This article is a shot at another politician who is optimizing his leverage to get support to stay in office one more term so he can live off the government. It is easy for us to write little comments on some blog like this in favor or opposition. To make a difference it takes action like visiting representatives offices and getting petitions signed to show opposing views. If we want the politician to change we have to change the incentives…
Kennedy has always said what he thinks his constituents want to hear, so Tom is spot on there. The headline however says “takes his marching orders from the NRA” to which I would think his position is actually completely in line with the predominant viewpoint of the people he represents which are the citizens of Louisiana. I do concede that many in La. will adopt this viewpoint rather mindlessly without doing their own empirical research which is a shame – but some, I think, would still come to the position that existing background check protocols are sufficient.
I wish the OP would clarify exactly what expansion of background checks he is in favor of, or feels is lacking so we can discuss the particular merits of each point – we may find we have some common ground on some issues. If OP is referring to the Trump reversal of legislation Obama signed into law post Sandy Hook which required the Social Security Administration to report anyone receiving an SSA benefit due to a mental illness to the NICS registry (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) then I agree with him. I can’t see a valid rational argument or prevailing positive from rolling this back under the premise that a small portion of these designated mentally ill SSA benefit recipients might actually be fit to own guns. I think the reason some are against expanded gun control laws is that often what is being pushed is a national gun ownership registry. I’m fine with the authorities knowing who owns what gun, but I’m not fine with that information being public knowledge due to potential abuse of that information – specifically as an example, what happened in New York in 2012 where a newspaper published the names and addresses of private citizens who owned guns in a clear attempt to use the prevailing sentiment in that region to cause discomfort to legal gun owners.
Please don’t conflate potentially some being against expanded background check requirements with conservatives now quasi being responsible for mass violent events – it’s disingenuous and flies in the face of actual statistics on violent crimes. The reality is that most mass violent events aren’t the result of legal gun retailers selling guns to known mentally ill individuals. In Sandy Hook Adam Lanza was clearly mentally ill – documented long term mentally ill – in this incident he used his parents weapons to murder his mother and then commit the mass atrocities (agreed weapons he never should have had access to). In the Virginia Tech incident the shooter had been reported multiple times as having stalked women on campus and was referred for a mental health examination by police, but a doctor mistakenly deemed him as a non violent threat thus no reporting to the NICS.
From the statistics and reporting (DOJ and ATF) that I could research and cull it shows that 80% of guns used in violent crime are not legally possessed guns and only 6% of guns used in violent crimes are purchased from actual dealers. I purchased a handgun for the first time in my life after the Alton Sterling civil unrest unfolded in Baton Rouge. I had to fill out a comprehensive background check prior to purchasing – it’s the same NICS background check that is required under federal law since 1998. If in fact Tom was referencing the roll back in the SSA having to report to NICS the names of any individuals receiving benefits for a mental disability – again, I agree with him on this – but it wouldn’t have averted any of the above tragedies.
Not all conservatives are against discussing current gun laws, but I think many conservatives and liberals alike are poorly informed about what our actual current laws are which is a shame. For example many don’t understand that fully automatic weapons are already illegal – but Tom is right in that no one (whether conservative or liberal) should be so closed minded as to not revisit current laws to see if they are still relevant and or possible to be improved – for example are our current laws against fully automatic weapons sufficient enough to include ancillary after market modifications that can make a legal semi automatic weapon now illegally fully automatic by modification.
In closing, there are millions of forums online that typically degrade to polarized tribal breakdowns between Democrats and Republicans to which the end result is zero actual discussion on specific issues because of nasty rhetoric as both sides express their outrage. Those forums are common place and a dime a dozen.
OP is beloved for his informative columns on graft and corruption, but OP may want to consider that his columns that are his political viewpoint have become unfairly barbed towards those with a conservative viewpoint. MY opinion is that his opinion can be expressed eloquently and framed to promote discussion instead of devolving into yet just another liberals and conservatives screaming at one another because the OP’s column is littered with anti-conservative rhetoric which evokes a very predictable response.
[…] for swift action on the incident is unclear. (Although Louisiana Voice blogger Tom Aswell offered this insight about Kennedy in January, “Kennedy, in constant search of a TV camera and […]
[…] for swift action on the incident is unclear. (Although Louisiana Voice blogger Tom Aswell offered this insight about Kennedy in January, “Kennedy, in constant search of a TV camera and […]
[…] for swift action on the incident is unclear. (Although Louisiana Voice blogger Tom Aswell offered this insight about Kennedy in January, “Kennedy, in constant search of a TV camera and […]
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-russia-butina-exclusive/exclusive-accused-russian-agent-butina-met-with-u-s-treasury-fed-officials-idUKKBN1KC0DE
The problem is not guns,it’s all the violence on tv that’s coming out of Hollywood. What about gun control in Chicago how is that working out? What about free speech are you ready tog give that up?