Would The NRA Approve?

Basra residents asked to give up weapons

Fri Mar 28, 6:03 AM ET

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office says the Iraqi government has given residents of Basra until April 8 to turn over "heavy and medium-size weapons" in return for a reward.

Government adviser Sadiq al-Rikabi says the deadline is separate from a three-day ultimatum for gunmen in the southern town to surrender their arms and renounce violence or face harsher measures. That expires later Friday.

The move instead appears to be aimed at noncombatants who may have weapons like machine guns and grenade launchers, either for smuggling purposes or to sell to militants or criminal gangs.

The statement says Basra residents will get unspecified monetary compensation if the weapons are turned over before the expiry of the deadline.

Settlement Offered To VTech Families

Virginia Tech shooting victims' families offered $100,000 each

Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va.: Those close to the victims of the Virginia Tech mass shootings offered mixed reactions Tuesday to a proposed multimillion-dollar state settlement and whether it will properly honor their loved ones.

Families of the victims have until Monday to say whether they'll accept the settlement, which would give $100,000 to representatives of each of the 32 killed and ensures that families will have the chance to talk to the governor and university officials about the shootings.

Under the proposal, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, $800,000 would be available to injured victims. They and the families of those killed could seek additional money from a $1.75 million hardship fund.

Roger O'Dell, whose son Derek was among two dozen wounded April 16, said while he considers the proposal a very reasonable offer, he is concerned about how the money would be split among the survivors. The proposal only states that the money would be distributed "based on a matrix acceptable to the commonwealth, with a maximum payment of $100,000 to any individual."

"I'm inclined to believe this will not be settled by April 15th," O'Dell said. "I think there are too many question marks in the proposed offer."

Seung-Hui Cho, a mentally disturbed student, killed two people in a dormitory just after 7 a.m. University officials did not send an e-mail alert until more than two hours later — just before Cho killed 30 others in a classroom building across campus and then committed suicide.

Twenty-two families have filed notice with the state that they may sue. They have until April 16 to file. Families of all deceased victims and the survivors would be eligible for a payout under the settlement.

By accepting the proposal, family members would give up the right to sue the state government; Virginia Tech; the town of Blacksburg, where Virginia Tech is located; Montgomery County; and the New River Valley Community Services Board, which provides mental-health services in the area.

Cho had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005 and was ordered to receive outpatient mental health care. He never received the treatment.

Diane Strollo, whose daughter Hilary was shot three times but is back at Virginia Tech, said she believed the negotiations were ongoing.

"The families want accountability, justice and change," she said. "We have yet to see it."

O'Dell said there is no consensus among the families regarding the offer, though many feel it's "good in a number of respects."

"It's totally across the board as to how people feel. Some people feel that there is no wrongdoing and therefore there's no obligation by the state or the university to be paying anybody anything," O'Dell said. "At the other end, there's some who feel that this agreement — proposed settlement agreement — doesn't go nearly far enough and there needs to be much more money put into it."

The total cost of the proposed settlement, including attorneys' fees and a $1.75 million fund for charities, comes to about $8.5 million, plus the cost of reimbursing and paying for medical and psychological treatment for victims' families and survivors.

In October, the families and surviving victims received payments ranging from $11,500 to $208,000 from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, set up in the days after the shootings to handle donations that poured into the school.

In contrast to the Virginia Tech shootings, attorneys say there is little to indicate lawsuits might be pending against Northern Illinois University over its response to a Feb. 14 attack on campus. In that case, former student Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall, killing five people before killing himself.

Chicago attorney Kathleen Zellner, who has won several high-profile lawsuits, said the school might avoid being sued because there's no indication of glaring shortcomings in its security response.

Police entered the NIU lecture hall just minutes after the shooting began, and the school launched its emergency alert system — sending out e-mails and posting messages on Web sites to notify students a possible gunman was on campus — before authorities could confirm the gunman acted alone and was dead.

Attorney Michael Helfand, who monitors Chicago's legal scene for an online lawyers referral service, said attorneys would have been hotly pursing NIU lawsuits weeks ago if they thought they could win one.

There doesn't appear to be talk about a settlement in NIU's case similar to the one being offered in the Virginia Tech case.

Turning Grief Into Advocacy -Albany, New York

Albany Mother Takes a Stand Against Gun Violence

From time to time we point out how much we value and thank victims of gun violence who become activists to reduce firearm death and injury.

There are so many victims of gun violence: the person killed or injured, the families, the friends, the devastated communities, etc. A gunshot is like a ripple that spreads out over a wide area.

Allison Banks of Albany, New York, is still mourning the gun death of her 24-year-old son, Dushan. But that hasn’t kept her from advocating for gun control.

According to an Albany article, “After her son died, Banks joined Albany's Gun Violence Task Force and the Capital Region chapter of New Yorkers Against Violence. She said she'll keep fighting for justice.”

Turning grief into advocacy takes courage and perseverance. Those of us who are fortunate enough not to have personally known gun violence can emulate the strength and fortitude of those who have, people such as Allison Banks.

The Albany report notes:

Gun Violence Task Force Co-Chair Rev. Dr. Edward B. Smart said, "Our future is at stake. These young people who are getting killed. These families that are getting ripped apart because justice is not being served. We think that we all ought to be concerned about this."

They say getting community members to line up to take a stand against gun crimes is the first step to stopping them from seeing more police lines from hanging in the neighborhood.

That is something that we can all support by not being silent. Our voices need to be heard loud and strong.

The 'Bloomberg Collection'

Gun paint company taunts Mayor Bloomberg with paints named after him

March 21st 2008

Groll/AP

Bloomberg is the featured moniker of Lauer Custom Weaponry's gun-customization kit. Hizzoner is also an outspoken opponent of Lauer's gun paints - so much so he outlawed them in N.Y.C.

Lauer Custom Weaponry's 'Bloomberg Collection' features gun coatings with a color-by-borough paint set (Manhattan Red, Brooklyn Blue, Bronx Rose, Queens Green and Staten Island Orange).

...and a template to create a graffiti 'facade' for maximum gun pimping.

A Wisconsin company that disguises deadly firearms with bright paints and camouflage has a new target: Mayor Bloomberg.

Lauer Custom Weaponry, whose products were banned in the city in 2006 because they make dangerous guns look like innocent toys, is taunting the anti-gun mayor with a line of paints named "The Bloomberg Collection."

The company - which named its purple hue after Barney, the dinosaur beloved by toddlers - is peddling a rainbow of candy-colored paints for each of the five boroughs.

There's red for Manhattan, rose for the Bronx, blue for Brooklyn, green for Queens and orange for Staten Island.

And as an extra slap - a stencil of the mayor's face for the barrel of the gun.

Gun owners also can plunk down $129 for a "Bloomberg Collection EZ Camo Kit" to pimp out their semiautomatics and rifles with a brick wall and graffiti decoration.

It's no joke.

An outraged Bloomberg called gun-coloration kits "a tragedy in the making."

"Making a quick buck by coloring a handgun to look like a toy is craven and beneath any honest businessman," Bloomberg told the Daily News. "By coloring these guns, a real one looks like a toy, and a police officer won't be able to tell the difference."

"Imagine an officer who comes upon a teenager pointing a pink gun into a crowd. If the gun is a toy, an innocent teenager may be killed - and others, too.

"Our police officers have a hard enough job as it is, and that's why we passed a law to prevent these deadly tragedies from occurring."

It's just the latest time Bloomberg has come under fire from the weapons industry for his efforts to shut down New York's illegal gun trade.

Last year, a Virginia gun shop held a "Bloomberg raffle" - with the prize a brand-new gun - to protest the mayor's crackdown on stores he says are illegally peddling firearms that end up on New York streets.

Not to be left out, the National Rifle Association soon plastered a picture of Bloomberg as an octopus on the cover of its magazine.

This time, Bloomberg angered Steve Lauer, owner of Lauer Custom Weaponry, when he pushed through a law that punishes anyone who uses, buys or sells a gun-coloration kit in New York with a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.

"The mayor picked us out as being the pink-gun guys," said Toby Johnson, who described himself as Lauer's "right-hand man" at the Chippewa Falls company.

The bright paints were meant to help rescue workers and range masters locate guns more easily - not fool cops, Johnson said. They regularly sell the colors named after the boroughs and have even sold "five or six" Bloomberg camo kits, Johnson said.

Women also are big fans of the colors, he added.

"The ladies like it. They fashion their guns after their clothing," Johnson said.

But at least one woman was angered by the "shameful ploy" and "disgraceful marketing."

"In the hands of a child, a real gun made to look like a toy has deadly consequences," said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan).

Cheney says "SO?"

Cheney On Two-Thirds Of The American Public Opposing The Iraq War: ‘So?’»

This morning, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, ABC’s Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn’t care about the American public’s views on the war:

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

This opposition to the war is not a “fluctuation” in public opinion. The American public has steadily turned against the war since the 2003 invasion. According to a new CNN poll, just 36 percent of the American public believes that “the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over — down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began.”

Even though he doesn’t care what the American public wants, Cheney still thinks he is able — and entitled — to speak for the American public. Last month, Cheney declared, “The American people will not support a policy of retreat.” If Cheney were actually listening to the “American people,” he would know that 61 percent actually supports the redeployment of U.S. troops.

DC Handgun Ban Case...Both Sides

Official Transcript And Audio of Oral Arguments To the Supreme Court In D.C. Handgun Ban Case

Click here to see the official transcript of oral arguments to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

To hear audio of the oral arguments click here.

Official - Subject to Final Review

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, : ET AL., Petitioners v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER.

No. 07-290

Washington, D.C. Tuesday, March 18, 2008

APPEARANCES:

WALTER DELLINGER, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Petitioners.

GEN. PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf Of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners.

ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Va.; on behalf of the Respondent.

Read transcript here.

‘Colbert Report’ Video

A well-timed bit of comedy can sometimes completely destroy an insane idea.

Take for instance, the gun lobby's crazy and misguided agenda to allow hidden and loaded guns to be carried into bars. Well, instead of having a "reasoned" debate over the risks of drunk and armed gun owners in public, this hilarious video from the 'Colbert Report' demonstrates exactly why the gun lobby's plan is completely and utterly ridiculous.

You simply must watch this hilarious video about Tennessee State Senator Doug Jackson's (25th District) plan to allow armed citizens to carry weapons into bars and establishments that serve alcohol.

The best moment is the connection between "guns in bars" and terrorism. We're not kidding -- you have to see this.

Sen. Jackson has clearly failed at basic logic.

On one hand, Sen. Jackson said that although his legislation allowed armed citizens to enter a bar with a loaded and hidden firearm, patrons could not consume any alcohol.

Doug Jackson said that gun owners would obey the law and not drink. Isn't this a double standard?

Doug Jackson, like all the rest of his misguided fellow gun zealots, then turns right around and says that "gun laws" don't work.

Well which is it Senator? Do "gun laws" work, or don't they?

(Also, if you can't drink in a bar with your concealed weapon, then why go into a bar at all?)

Everyone knows that armed gun owners are going to drink if they visit a bar. This is just one more tactic to permit deadly weapons in every possible public space whether it's churches, daycare centers, hospitals, schools, and college campuses.

Second, maybe gun proponents really are this crazy that they actually think guns and alcohol are a good mix.

Let's hope that saner, cooler, and less ideologically motivated voices prevail.

Do you want fries with that?

Burgers, Guns, Shootings: It’s Just Business

Last week, we reported on one of the disturbing high-profile shootings in America. This incident occurred at a Wendy’s in Florida.

According to the Associated Press:

A gunman dressed in a suit and tie burst into a Wendy's restaurant at lunchtime Monday, killing one person and himself and injuring five others, officials and witnesses said.

The gunfire sent customers scampering out of the restaurant. Motorists at the drive-thru window also fled, some leaving their vehicles running.

Palm Beach County sheriff's spokeswoman Teri Barbera said three of the survivors were in critical condition. Two others had minor injuries, including one person who was injured while running away.

Several people were carried from the restaurant on stretchers. Authorities did not identify the shooter or the victims.

Another day, another inexplicably horrible public shooting.

Reading further down into the AP story, we found this interesting piece of information:

The mayhem unfolded just after noon during the lunch hour rush at the eatery on a major suburban road lined with strip malls, car dealerships and fast food restaurants, about five miles from downtown West Palm Beach. A billboard advertising an upcoming gun show stands just behind the Wendy's.

It's a little disturbing that guns were being promoted for sale on a billboard looming above the site of a random and deadly scene of gunfire. Perhaps it is an appropriate symbol of how guns are treated as just another commonly accepted product.

But we should remind ourselves once again that firearms are not just another item that civilians should be able to purchase almost as easily as a burger and fries.

A Little History?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6AWl18xWak&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBHtjZmSpw

Every action, every crime
Every time, we're all responsible ...on both sides

We like Bloomers For This!

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Says Presidential Candidates Must Show Him “Innovative Ideas, Bold Action and Courageous Leadership” On Gun Violence and Other Issues To Receive His Endorsement

Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote in an op-ed in the New York Times on Feb. 28th: "I'm Not Running for President, But...".

Watching the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge.

And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.

The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them.

How true. None of the presidential candidates from either major party even acknowledge the appalling gun violence epidemic in our country.

This is why an "independent approach" that Bloomberg speaks of is so important -- a focus on solutions instead of debating ideology and getting caught up in bitter partisanship. No wonder why Mayor Bloomberg has emerged as such a strong leader on efforts to clamp down on illegal guns, gun traffickers, and a call to reduce gun violence.

Bloomberg also urges the presidential candidates to produce an urban renewal agenda:

Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is.

In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades?

More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue.

We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.

Now that Bloomberg stated he will not run for president, he goes on to say he will work aggressively to push and advocate the presidential candidates to stop ignoring our nation's big challenges -- including gun violence -- and start working towards solutions.

In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.

These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.

Bloomberg is in effect saying, "Who wants to join me in the solutions business?"

Our advice -- and again it's just our opinion -- that if the presidential candidates want Bloomberg's highly sought out endorsement, they should reach out to him over the issue of stopping illegal guns and gun trafficking, an issue that is near and dear to Bloomberg's heart.

Now is the time for the presidential candidates to accept Bloomberg's challenge: adopt "innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership" to reduce gun violence, or continue to pander to special interests such as the gun lobby, or continue to ignore our nation's looming challenges to their own political peril.

Mayor Bloomberg is anxiously waiting for their answer. And so are we.

In-Depth Commentary: Candidates Quiet On Gun Issues

Ronald Safer, a former federal prosecutor who headed the Justice Department's prosecution of Chicago's notorious Gangster Disciples, wrote a persuasive guest commentary on Feb. 28th in the Chicago Tribune that stated at the end of his piece:

If the debate about gun control is taking place, it is certainly not front and center on the national scene. Why shouldn't we look to Washington to at least struggle with the question, if not provide the answer?

The NRA and its members are single-minded about what the answer is not. They are organized, well-funded and hire extremely effective lobbyists. Could that be why the question is not being asked?

The most baffling question to us that we put not just to the presidential candidates, but to any politician running for office or re-election is this: "What are you so afraid of?" Don't candidates know, haven't they realized by now that the gun lobby is not the "big bad wolf" that the gun lobby likes to believe that they are?

As if doing the right thing and voting the right way wasn't a good enough reason already -- taking a moral stand against violence and protecting our children and communities -- the fact that political candidates have taken the gun lobby's bait and allowed themselves to be "defined" by gun extremists is a significant part of the problem.

The current American political playbook almost dictates that candidates state their "support for the Second Amendment." Once a candidate does so, he or she is immediately in a defensive position to the gun lobby.

The candidate must define and reframe the gun issue to talk about the need to enforce the law on illegal gun traffickers; make the connection between our lax gun laws and the threat of terrorism; make the common sense case to close loopholes so that every gun owner must pass a sensible background check; create clear distinctions between military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber sniper rifles and hunting rifles; emphasize the costs of gun violence and highlight the pain and suffering of victims and survivors and the urgency to get our gun violence epidemic under control; embrace and build upon alliances with grassroots advocates, law enforcement, public health, social justice, business and interfaith leaders.

Perhaps most importantly, a candidate must use "fighting the gun lobby" as an advantage to highlight the candidate's strength, authenticity and independence to appeal to suburban voters and families to build robust and inclusive coalitions to pass legislation.

With just a little bit of tenacity and smarts, virtually any candidate could turn the tables on the gun lobby and redefine the gun issue and put the gun lobby on the defensive. There is no shortage of arguments to use against them.

This is no easy task to be sure. At heart, a candidate must be confident, demonstrate leadership, and be willing to take the onslaught from the gun lobby who spare no shortage of the worst and negative tactics against anyone who challenges their position.

Added to the difficulty is that lawmakers move in "packs" and group think makes it easier to just go with the flow and vote with the gun lobby. Rarely do politicians, especially moderate or swing lawmakers, ever pay a price for voting with them. This creates even more incentives to give the gun lobby whatever they want instead of standing up to them. Redistricting obviously favors the status quo where lawmakers are neatly protected from challengers as well.

Here's the truth that political consultants refuse to tell their clients: You can't run away from the gun lobby, triangulate or negotiate with them. You have to take a moral stand based on your principles and fight them.

But a lot of candidates feel that fighting the gun lobby is a hopeless cause. According to a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, most Americans believe in an individual right to own a firearm.

"Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10."

This fallacy perpetuated by the gun lobby must rate as one of the most successful con jobs ever pulled on the American public. A focused, simplistic and sustained public relations, media and communications campaign has successfully rewritten American history and convinced Americans to buy into the gun industry's and lobby's slogans.

We have three responses to this fact.

1) Americans often have competing and illogical dichotomies with respect to guns. On one hand, as the Gallup Poll found, Americans believe in the right to own a gun. But at the same time a far majority of Americans forcefully support gun control on virtually every topic and question asked about the issue.

In Wisconsin, which has a sizable number of hunters for example, a recent bipartisan poll found that "68% of NRA Members" support requiring background checks on all guns sales (see p. 2 on link).

According to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago:

Support for the stricter regulation of firearms is widespread both in terms of the range of measures endorsed by the public and in terms of the high level of public approval for such measures.

Majorities in 2006 favor all proposals to expand regulations: 91% support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol, 85% want the sale of 50 caliber rifles limited, 82% want the sale of semiautomatic, assault weapons limited, 80% favor criminal background checks for all sales of guns, including private sales between individuals, 79% back requiring a police permit before a gun could be purchased, 76% believe that terrorist attacks have increased the need for stricter gun control, and 54% want illegal gun sales to be punished more severely than illegal drug sales with another 37% saying that punishments for illegal gun sales should be as tough as penalties for selling illegal drugs.

2) We believe that part of the reason the Gallup Poll's numbers were so high is that elected leaders, political candidates -- and let's not forget the media's complicity -- have given up on debating the Second Amendment and ceded the issue to the gun lobby which claims a near monopoly on the discussion.

There might be a good reason for this. Even many gun violence prevention advocates don't want to waste their time arguing over the history of guns and Constitutional law while kids, cops, and women are being gunned down. Most advocates feel that debating the Second Amendment is playing on the gun lobby's turf and that it's a debate advocates will consistently lose. They're probably right as the deck is now completely stacked.

But Professor Saul Cornell who wrote what we believe to be the seminal book on the Second Amendment, "A Well Regulated Militia", and is also the director of the Second Amendment Research Center contends that giving up the "rights" debate to the gun lobby is a mistake. According to Cornell, most Americans have a revered understanding and view of the Constitution as a sacred document. When the gun lobby claims a monopoly over the debate, the "gun rights" frame is surely to trump any policy debate or communications battle.

If we could reverse history and engage the gun lobby back when they started their cynical campaign to convince Americans they have a "right to own guns" then our politics would certainly be in a different place. But it's too late now and the gun lobby's well-armed genie is out of the bottle.

3) In light of the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll most political candidates and leaders believe that the gun issue cannot be turned around, and that "we" -- advocates and everyday Americans -- have to live hostage to the gun lobby.

We reject this notion entirely.

Let's just called a spade a spade: a lot of candidates are just plain lazy and don't want to pick a fight with a bunch of gun nuts and crazies that will surely be a pain in the neck to their campaign. Politicians can, and often do, beat the gun lobby. But it's just easier to placate them.

Finally, political candidates should recognize that long-term and dramatic trends are shifting to the side of gun violence prevention -- not to the gun lobby or gun industry's favor. As time goes on, the gun lobby's base will continue to erode.

The NORC survey released some astonishing statistics in a report, "A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America."

Gun ownership in America is declining.

During the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006.

During the period 1980 to 2006, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than nine percentage points: from a high of 30.7 percent in 1985 to a low during the period of 21.6 percent in 2006.

As we noted in yesterday's GunGuys.com post about Mayor Bloomberg's call to the presidential candidates to work for solutions on the issue of gun violence to receive his endorsement -- it's past time for gun control to reemerge as a national issue and debate.

Let it begin now.