The Cuban political prisoner, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, has died after being on a hunger strike for 85 days. He was 42 years old. He had been refusing food in protest of the conditions at the jail. He had been arrested in 2003 and jailed with 75 other dissidents when the authorities cracked down on opposition groups. At the time of his arrest, he was participating in a hunger strike organized by the Assembly to Promote a Civil Society (they were protesting the arrest of several comrades). He was charged with contempt, public disorder, and disobedience. He was initially sentenced to three years in prison, but this was increased to 25 years in subsequent trials (obviously they felt that he and his activism was too dangerous to be let loose in Cuba. And when I say dangerous, I mean vocal.) Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience. Mr. Zapata's mother told a Miami newspaper that her son was "murdered" by Cuba's authorities. She said, "They managed to do what they wanted. They ended the life of a fighter for human rights." Laura Pollan, a dissident from the group known as Ladies in White, told the BBC, "He wasn't a murderer. He wasn't a thief. He wasn't a rapist. He was simply a young man who wanted a better future for Cuba. "
His death marks the first time in 40 years since a Cuban activist starved himself to death to protest government abuses. Cuba's Human Rights Commission says there are about 200 political prisoners still held in Cuba. Though they say there is about one-third less political prisoners now than when Raul Castro first took over as president from his brother Fidel. (Full Story)
Interesting article about recent pro-gun legislation being enacted in different states. In Virginia, the General Assembly approved a bill last week that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurant that serve alcohol. In addition, the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month. This comes three years after the shootings at Virginia Tech that claimed 33 lives and prompted a national push for increased gun control. Last year, the legislature also rejected a bill requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows. The recent pro-gun legislation has been enabled by the newly-elected Republican governor. Previously, the Democratic governor would veto legislation like this.
Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold, and used in state. At least three other states are considering similar bills. When I first heard about this, I was thinking how could these states exempt themselves from federal regulation? I think their rationale is that the guns are being made in the state and sold only in the state, and so there's no interstate commerce, so it should just be in the state's control. Regardless, I was uncomfortable with the idea of states being able to skirt federal regulation. Fortunately, I've come to find out that the Montana law is in fact being challenged in federal court. In addition, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to Tennessee and Montana gun dealers stating that federal law supersedes the state measure.
Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half-dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
In Indiana, the legislature passed a bill last month that blocks private employers from forbidding workers to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property.
Last year, gun rights supporters in Congress played a role in blocking legislation to give D.C. a full vote in Congress by attaching an amendment to repeal D.C.'s ban on handguns. Essentially setting up a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, with either option reducing D.C. autonomy.
However, there have been some gun control successes in the states. Proposed bills to allow students to carry guns on college campuses have been blocked in the 20 or so states where they have been proposed since the Virginia Tech shootings. Also, New Jersey limited gun purchases to one a month.
Gun control advocates are criticizing Obama for not doing more to control guns. He has yet to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks, to revive the assault weapon ban, and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes. Moreover, Obama has signed bills last year allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains. The president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said, "We expected a very different picture at this stage." The Brady group issued a report card last month failing the administration in all seven of the group's major indicators. When asked about the Brady group's critical report, a White House spokesman pointed out that the latest FBI statistics show that violent crime dropped in the first half of 2009 to its lowest level since the 1960s. He added, "The president supports and respects the Second Amendment, and he believes we can make common-sense steps to keep our streets safe and to stem the flow of illegal guns to criminals."
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights groups are still skeptical of Obama. The chief executive of the NRA said, "The watchword for gun owners is stay ready. We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us." He added that Obama signing legislation to allow guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains should not be seen as respect for the Second Amendment. Instead, he said that those measures were attached as amendments to larger pieces of legislation -- a bill cracking down on credit card companies and a transportation appropriations bill, respectively (why do those damn gun-rights congresspeople always pull shit like that?) -- and that Obama just wanted those bills passed. (Full Story)
I don't understand these pro-gun laws. Though I personally would never own one, and I find them to be dangerous for various different reasons, I'm not against people owning guns (certain guns, at least. No one needs an assault weapon). But I think it's perfectly reasonable that there are steps in place to purchase those guns -- like background checks and having to get a permit. Guns shouldn't be extremely easy to get. And if someone is a law-abiding citizen and purchasing a gun for legitimate reasons, they shouldn't have an issue with these protection rules. My issue with these pro-gun laws is that I don't get them. They don't make sense to me. Why, exactly, do people need to have a gun with them while eating at a restaurant? Or attending church? Or going to an amusement park? That seems dangerous and unnecessary. The only explanation I could think of is that they want to have a gun for protection. If someone robs the restaurant they're at, they have their gun on their hip. However, that seems extremely dangerous to me. We don't need a bunch of average Joes bringing about their own vigilante justice (this isn't Pulp Fiction...). That's going to cause more harm than good. Having a loaded weapon in a public place is either completely unnecessary or a recipe for disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment