Rachel Maddow interviews Pittsburgh Councilman Ricky Burgess on Gun Violence Part 1

[onehandle]

Run time: 07:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdaUa3eGuUs   Posted on YouTube: May 07, 2011 By YouTube Member: onehandle Views on YouTube: 1   Posted on DU: May 07, 2011 By DU Member: onehandle Views on DU: 1805

 
Part 2 coming in a couple of minutes.

[sasha031]

1. K/R

[valerief]

2. That was amazing. nt

[eleny]

3. K&R I hope many watch this if they didn't see it last night on Rachel's program

[Bozita]

4. That's MUST SEE video. Thanks for posting.

[HankyDubs]

5. the gungeon HATES this interview

pretend to be surprised.

[gejohnston]

17. such a strong word

blaming me for violence that are financially supported by a bunch of pot heads and drug addicts, yeah I would hate it too.

[Plucketeer]

6. As I replied to another part of this....

This was a truly compelling segment from Rachel last night. It's only just occurred to me that it's too bad she didn't take Megan McCain along on this tour.

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Actions have consequences, indeed they do.

So much easier to excuse your own actions when the consequences fall on "those other people".

[Rhiannon12866]

8. K&R. You could feel this man's pain...

;(

[baldguy]

9. k&r

[fiorentina5]

10. my old neighborhood

I grew up in Homewood, and everything shown there was completely true. I have since left PA for obvious reasons, but the NRA has no desire to change any of their rulings. They love to see segments like the one on Rachel's show. The NRA would love nothing more than to have all of the guns they sent into our neighborhoods be used to kill all of our people. That is there goal. It is no coincidence that the NRA was formed only a few years after the Civil War ended. For the NRA Homewood is a success story, and the only way things could change is if the politicians would stand up to that special interest group and do what's best for all of society not just a few people who profit from death. But since they have been around for 140 years growing in power each year clearly that's not going to happen. I can imagine that things might change if gun violence reached white neighborhoods in ways that it has reached African American neighborhoods, but we won't know how the government will react to that until it happens.

It's funny that people's second amendment rights were perfectly fine without the NRA, I wonder how much they would be in jeopardy now if we got rid of the power of the NRA today. The second amendment can exist without the NRA.

[BeliQueen]

14. That's my old neighborhood, too!

Welcome to DU!

I remember growing up in Homewood in the 70s and 80s, and it wasn't as bad as it is right now. When gangs and drugs moved in, that's when it got really bad as it did for a lot of black neighborhoods.

[gejohnston]

16. that special interest group is grassroots with lots of members

and is supported by half the country. Your claim that the NRA is a bunch of racists that want gangsters to be armed is total BS. The blame is belongs squarely on the gangsters themselves and their pot and coke head customers that give them the profits to buy the guns. The DAs will not prosecute gun cases including felon in possession which is a federal gun control law that NRA supported. In fact, the NRA supports the five current federal gun control laws on the books. The NRA and Brady both support sending gun crimes like felony in possession to federal court.

[gejohnston]

11. Watched the whole thing

Burgess lost all credibility when he started talking about "people walking the streets with submachine guns, M-16s, M-4s etc." Unless congress repealed the National Firearms Act of 1934 and I missed the news, the ATF needs to be looking for the dealers and start sending the machine gun toters to federal prison. Quite frankly, it sounds like he is scapegoating some farmer in Montana and a grassroots organization he does not like because the city goverenment is too stupid or lazy to deal with the real issues. Before Nixon's war on drugs, the average street gang could not afford guns. How about this for real solutions:
instead of tighter laws that do not affect gangsters, enforce the current ones. One thing NRA and Brady agrees on is instead of letting local DAs plead out federal gun charges, the offender goes to federal court like Virginia did with Project Exile.
really want to take guns out of the hands of gangs? Take away their money. End the stupid drug war and they will be back to using chains and knives against each other just like when I was a kid.

[wxgeek7]

12. Okay

"city goverenment is too stupid or lazy"

Sounds like you've lost all credibility.

How about this for a real solution: Repeal the 2nd amendment. This isn't the wild west, nor frontier land anymore. These are different times, where we're trying to have a civilized society.

How about we replace it with "A right to affordable healthcare".

[gejohnston]

15. nice try

History lesson, the wild west was not that wild outside of the movies and Ned Buntline novels.
Growing up in Wyoming we all had guns, had rifle clubs in high school. Conservation officers patrolled vast areas of wilderness unarmed until meth labs started showing up. We do not shoot up the streets. In my life time, police officers that were killed in the line of duty were killed by cars not guns. By now you know what I think of your civilized city society.

Repealing the second amendment is not a solution. It is not even relevant.
Thinking that putting more restrictions on people who are not part of the gangs, or the drug trade, is going to stop gangsters from shooting each other is stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is. It defies logic. Your bong contributes more to the violence than my target pistol because your pot purchase gives them the money so they can buy the gun on the black market.

Yes intellectually lazy, coming up some knee jerk nonsense that gets chuckles from criminologists and history. In every place including Canada and Europe the simple answer got only two results: Canada and Europe, no change. UK and Jamaica, got worse.

Yes I stand by lazy and stupid.


How about these solutions:

Violate federal gun laws like felon in possession, you go to federal court so some local DA can't plead it down. Like Project Exile, something NRA and Brady agree with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
Beyond that:
move good jobs back in those areas (I don't buy the politician's theory.) give them an alternative to the gangs.
programs to move the talented entrepreneurs to more legitimate business models
pour money in schools, give good teachers incentives to go there, and combat anti intellectualism
improve community relations with police
end the drug war, take away their money and gangs will be back to using knives and chains like before Nixon's war on drugs.

I can think of these off the top of head and I'm just some tree hugging hick from Wyoming.
Which one of these would the NRA oppose?

[RSillsbee]

13. It sounds like those guns that are doing all the killing

need to be arrested, tried and sent to jail.

Seriously, I have to ask why is Rachel so wiling to give up her journalistic integrity on this subject.

Rev. Burgess probably doesn't know the difference between a ruger 10/22 and an M4 but Rachel does (or she purports to) and let she lets the lie stand.

Why?