SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday announced plans for tens of thousands of asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico for their next immigration court hearings to be allowed into the United States while their cases proceed. 

The first of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers in Mexico with active cases will be allowed in the United States on Feb. 19, authorities said. They plan to start slowly with two border crossings each processing up to 300 people a day and a third crossing taking fewer. Administration officials declined to name them out of fear they may encourage a rush of people to those locations.

The move is a major step toward dismantling one of former President Donald Trump's most consequential policies to deter asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. About 70,000 asylum-seekers were enrolled in “Remain in Mexico,” officially called “Migrant Protection Protocols,” since it was introduced in January 2019.

On Biden's first day in office, the Homeland Security Department suspended the policy for new arrivals. Since then, some asylum-seekers picked up at the border have been released in the U.S. with notices to appear in court.

Biden is quickly making good on a campaign promise to end the policy, which the Trump administration said was critical to reversing a surge of asylum-seekers that peaked in 2019. But the policy also exposed people to violence in Mexican border cities and made it extremely difficult for them to find lawyers and communicate with courts about their cases.

“As President Biden has made clear, the U.S. government is committed to rebuilding a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “This latest action is another step in our commitment to reform immigration policies that do not align with our nation’s values.”

Homeland Security said the move “should not be interpreted as an opening for people to migrate irregularly to the United States.” Administration officials have said repeatedly that the vast majority of people who cross the border illegally are quickly expelled under a public health order in place since the pandemic struck in March, but releases of some asylum-seeking families in Texas and California has worked against that messaging.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday that she was concerned that limited releases in the U.S. may encourage others to cross illegally because “we don’t want people to put themselves in danger at a time where it is not the right time to come, because we have not had time to put in place a humane and moral system and process.”

Hearings for people enrolled in “Remain in Mexico” have been suspended since June due to the pandemic. Getting word out on when to report to the border for release in the United States may prove a daunting job.

Homeland Security said it would soon announce a “virtual registration process” available online and by phone for people to learn where and when they should report. It urged asylum-seekers not to report to the border unless instructed.

Asylum-seekers will be tested for COVID-19 before entering the U.S.

The announcement provides no relief to people whose cases were dismissed or denied, though administration officials did not rule out additional measures. Advocates argue that communication problems, including lack of working addresses in Mexico, caused some to miss hearings and lose their cases as a result.

More people are getting stopped crossing the border illegally since Biden took office.

Raul Ortiz, deputy chief of the Border Patrol, said Tuesday that more than 3,000 people had been stopped crossing the border illegally in each of the previous 10 days, compared to a daily average of 2,426 in January.

About 50 to 80 adults and children have been arriving daily since Jan. 27 at Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, which temporarily houses people released by the Border Patrol, said Sister Norma Pimentel, the group’s executive director. The charity tests for COVID-19 and sends anyone who tests positive to a hotel for isolation.

Jewish Family Service of San Diego housed 191 asylum-seekers the first 10 days of February after the were released by U.S. authorities, up from 144 in January and 54 in December, said Eitan Peled, the group’s border services advocate. They are quarantined in hotels for 10 days.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/10/1571685357129.png" alt="Photo courtesy Homeland Security&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy Homeland Security&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday announced plans for tens of thousands of asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico for their next immigration court hearings to be allowed into the United States while their cases proceed. The first of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers in Mexico with active cases will be allowed in the United States on Feb. 19, authorities said. They plan to start slowly with two border crossings each processing up to 300 people a day and a third crossing taking fewer. Administration officials declined to name them out of fear they may encourage a rush of people to those locations.The move is a major step toward dismantling one of former President Donald Trump's most consequential policies to deter asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. About 70,000 asylum-seekers were enrolled in “Remain in Mexico,” officially called “Migrant Protection Protocols,” since it was introduced in January 2019.On Biden's first day in office, the Homeland Security Department suspended the policy for new arrivals. Since then, some asylum-seekers picked up at the border have been released in the U.S. with notices to appear in court.Biden is quickly making good on a campaign promise to end the policy, which the Trump administration said was critical to reversing a surge of asylum-seekers that peaked in 2019. But the policy also exposed people to violence in Mexican border cities and made it extremely difficult for them to find lawyers and communicate with courts about their cases.“As President Biden has made clear, the U.S. government is committed to rebuilding a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “This latest action is another step in our commitment to reform immigration policies that do not align with our nation’s values.”Homeland Security said the move “should not be interpreted as an opening for people to migrate irregularly to the United States.” Administration officials have said repeatedly that the vast majority of people who cross the border illegally are quickly expelled under a public health order in place since the pandemic struck in March, but releases of some asylum-seeking families in Texas and California has worked against that messaging.White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday that she was concerned that limited releases in the U.S. may encourage others to cross illegally because “we don’t want people to put themselves in danger at a time where it is not the right time to come, because we have not had time to put in place a humane and moral system and process.”Hearings for people enrolled in “Remain in Mexico” have been suspended since June due to the pandemic. Getting word out on when to report to the border for release in the United States may prove a daunting job.Homeland Security said it would soon announce a “virtual registration process” available online and by phone for people to learn where and when they should report. It urged asylum-seekers not to report to the border unless instructed.Asylum-seekers will be tested for COVID-19 before entering the U.S.The announcement provides no relief to people whose cases were dismissed or denied, though administration officials did not rule out additional measures. Advocates argue that communication problems, including lack of working addresses in Mexico, caused some to miss hearings and lose their cases as a result.More people are getting stopped crossing the border illegally since Biden took office.Raul Ortiz, deputy chief of the Border Patrol, said Tuesday that more than 3,000 people had been stopped crossing the border illegally in each of the previous 10 days, compared to a daily average of 2,426 in January.About 50 to 80 adults and children have been arriving daily since Jan. 27 at Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, which temporarily houses people released by the Border Patrol, said Sister Norma Pimentel, the group’s executive director. The charity tests for COVID-19 and sends anyone who tests positive to a hotel for isolation.Jewish Family Service of San Diego housed 191 asylum-seekers the first 10 days of February after the were released by U.S. authorities, up from 144 in January and 54 in December, said Eitan Peled, the group’s border services advocate. They are quarantined in hotels for 10 days.

Thousands of asylum-seekers to be allowed in US starting this week

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?508959-1/impeachment-trial">Click here to watch</a>&nbsp;the replay of Day 5 of the impeachment trial

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate on Saturday acquitted Donald Trump of inciting the horrific attack on the U.S. Capitol, concluding a historic impeachment trial that exposed the fragility of America’s democratic traditions and left a divided nation to come to terms with the violence sparked by his defeated presidency.

Barely a month since the deadly Jan. 6 riot that stunned the world, the Senate convened for a rare Saturday session to deliver its verdict, voting while armed National Guard troops continued to stand their posts outside the iconic building.

The quick trial, the nation’s first of a former president, showed how perilously close the invaders had come to destroying the nation’s deep tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power after Trump had refused to concede the election. Rallying outside the White House, he unleashed a mob of supporters to “fight like hell” for him at the Capitol just as Congress was certify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. As hundreds stormed the building, some in tactical gear engaging in bloody combat with police, lawmakers fled for their lives. Five people died.

The verdict, on a vote of 57-43, is all but certain to influence not only the former president’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors. Seven Republicans joined all Democrats to convict, but it was far from the two-third threshold required.

The verdict after the uprising leaves unresolved the nation’s wrenching divisions over Trump’s brand of politics that led to the most violent domestic attack on one of America’s three branches of government.

“Senators, we are in a dialogue with history, a conversation with our past, with a hope for our future,” said Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa.., one of the House prosecutors in closing arguments.

“What we do here, what is being asked of each of us here in this moment will be remembered. History has found us.”

Trump, unrepentant, welcomed the his second impeachment acquittal and said his movement “has only just begun.” He slammed the trial as “yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country.”

Though he was acquitted, it was easily the largest number of senators to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty of an impeachment charge.

Voting to find Trump guilty were GOP Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

The trial had been momentarily thrown into confusion when senators suddenly wanted to consider potential witnesses, an hours-long standoff Saturday that stalled the momentum toward a vote. Prolonged proceedings would be politically risky, particularly for Biden’s new presidency and his emerging legislative agenda. The trial came amid the searing COVID-19 crisis, and the Biden White House trying to rush pandemic relief through Congress.

Biden has hardly weighed in on the proceedings and was spending the weekend with family at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland.

Many senators kept their votes closely held until the final moments, Republicans in particularly now thrust into minority status. Democrats took narrow control of the Senate with runoff elections in Georgia on Jan. 5, the day before the siege.

The nearly weeklong trial has delivered a grim and graphic narrative of the riot and its consequences in ways that senators, most of whom fled for their own safety that day, acknowledge they are still coming to grips with.

House prosecutors have argued that Trump’s was the “inciter in chief” stoking a months-long campaign, and orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims that unleashed the mob. Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

Trump’s lawyers countered that Trump’s words were not intended to incite the violence and that impeachment is nothing but a “witch hunt” designed to prevent him from serving in office again.

Only by watching the graphic videos — rioters calling out menacingly for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the vote tally — did senators say they began to understand just how perilously close the country came to chaos.

Many Republicans representing states where the former president remains popular doubt whether Trump was fully responsible or if impeachment is the appropriate response.

In closing arguments, lead prosecutor Michael van der Veen fell back on the procedural argument that Republican senators have embraced in their own reasoning of the case what he said is a “phony impeachment show trial.”

“Mr. Trump is innocent of the charges against him,” said Michael van der Veen. “The act of incitement never happened.”

The House impeached trump on the sole charge of incitement of insurrection one week after the riot, the most bipartisan vote of a presidential impeachment.

The delay Saturday came as senators wanted to hear evidence about Trump’s actions during the riot.

Fresh stories overnight focused onRep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington state, who said in a statement late Friday that Trump rebuffed a plea from House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy to call off the rioters.

Fifty-five senators voted for to consider witnesses, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Once they did, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina changed his vote to join them on the 55-45 vote.

But facing a prolonged trial with defense poised to call many more witnesses, the situation was resolved when Herrera Beutler’s statement on the call was read aloud into the record for senators to consider as evidence. As part of the deal, Democrats dropped their planned deposition and Republicans abandoned their threat to call their own witnesses.

Impeachment trials are rare, senators meeting as the court of impeachment over a president only four times in the nation’s history, for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and now twice for Trump, the only one to be twice impeached.

Unlike last year’s impeachment trial of Trump in the Ukraine affair, a complicated charge of corruption and obstruction over his attempts to have the foreign ally dig up dirt on then-campaign rival Biden, this one brought an emotional punch displayed in graphic videos of the siege that laid bare the unexpected vulnerability of the democratic system.

At the same time, this year’s trial carried similar warnings from the prosecutors pleading with senators that Trump must be held accountable because he has shown repeatedly he has no bounds. Left unchecked, he will further test the norms of civic behavior, even now that he is out of office still commanding loyal supporters.

“This trial in the final analysis is not about Donald Trump,” said lead prosecutor Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. “This trial is about who we are.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats began wrapping up their impeachment case against Donald Trump on Saturday after a tumultuous morning in which they gave up a last-minute plan for witness testimony that could have significantly prolonged the trial and delayed a vote on whether the former president incited the deadly Capitol insurrection.

An unexpected morning vote in favor of hearing witnesses threw the trial into confusion just as it was on the verge of concluding. But both sides ultimately reached a deal to instead enter into the record a statement from a Republican House lawmaker about a heated phone call on the day of the riot between Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy that Democrats say established Trump’s indifference to the violence.

Republicans are anxious to get the trial over with and discussion of Trump and the Capitol invasion behind them. Democrats, too, have a motive to move on since the Senate cannot move ahead on new President Joe Biden's agenda including COVID-19 relief while the impeachment trail is in session.

While most Democrats were expected to vote to convict the former president, acquittal appeared likely with a two-thirds majority required for conviction and the chamber split 50-50 between the parties. Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he would vote to acquit Trump, according to a person familiar with his thinking. Closely watched, the GOP leader’s view could influence others in his party.

At issue at first on Saturday was whether to subpoena Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington state, one of 10 Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment in the House. She said in a statement late Friday that Trump rebuffed a plea from McCarthy to call off the rioters. Democrats consider it key corroborating evidence that confirms the president’s “willful dereliction of duty and desertion of duty as commander in chief.”

The situation was resolved when Herrera Beutler’s statement on the call was read aloud into the record for senators to consider as evidence. As part of the deal, Democrats dropped their planned deposition and Republicans abandoned their threat to call their own witnesses. The case then proceeded to closing arguments, where Democrats again alleged that Trump was responsible for the deadly Jan 6. siege on the day the Senate was certifying the election results.

“He abused his office by siding with the insurrectionists at almost every point, rather than with the Congress of the United States, rather than with the Constitution,” said lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland.

Raskin earlier said witnesses were necessary to determine Trump's role in inciting the riot. Fifty-five senators voted for his motion to consider witnesses, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Mitt Romney of Utah. Once they did, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina changed his vote to join them on the 55-45 vote.

Trump lawyers opposed calling witnesses, with attorney Michael van der Veen saying it would open the door to him calling about 100 of his own. He said the depositions could be done in his law office in Philadelphia, prompting laughter from senators.

“If you vote for witnesses,” Van der Veen said, crossing his arms and then then raising them in the air for emphasis, “do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses that I can have.”

Senators meeting as the court of impeachment are restrained in taking up other business without consent of the Republican minority, which is unlikely. Rules require senators to be present for the proceedings and this past week almost no other major items have been considered as the trial was underway.

The outcome of the raw and emotional proceedings is expected to reflect a country divided over the former president and the future of his brand of politics. The verdict could influence not only Trump’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors.

“What’s important about this trial is that it’s really aimed to some extent at Donald Trump, but it’s more aimed at some president we don’t even know 20 years from now,” said Sen. Angus King, the independent from Maine.

House prosecutors have argued that Trump's rallying cry to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” for his presidency just as Congress was convening Jan. 6 to certify Biden’s election victory was part of an orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims that unleashed the mob. Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

Trump's lawyers countered in a short three hours Friday that Trump's words were not intended to incite the violence and that impeachment is nothing but a “witch hunt” designed to prevent him from serving in office again.

Only by watching the graphic videos — rioters calling out menacingly for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the vote tally — did senators say they began to understand just how perilously close the country came to chaos. Hundreds of rioters stormed into the building, taking over the Senate. Some engaged in hand-to-hand, bloody combat with police.

Many Republicans representing states where the former president remains popular doubt whether Trump was fully responsible or if impeachment is the appropriate response. Democrats appear all but united toward conviction.

Trump is the only president to be twice impeached and the first to face trial charges after leaving office.

Unlike last year’s impeachment trial of Trump in the Ukraine affair, a complicated charge of corruption and obstruction over his attempts to have the foreign ally dig up dirt on then-campaign rival Biden, this one brought an emotional punch over the unexpected vulnerability of the U.S. tradition of peaceful elections. The charge is singular, incitement of insurrection.

On Friday, Trump’s impeachment lawyers accused Democrats of waging a campaign of “hatred” against the former president as they wrapped up their defense.

His lawyers vigorously denied that Trump had incited the riot and they played out-of-context video clips showing Democrats, some of them senators now serving as jurors, also telling supporters to “fight," aiming to establish a parallel with Trump's overheated rhetoric.

“This is ordinary political rhetoric,” said van der Veen. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”

Democratic senators shook their heads at what many called a false equivalency to their own fiery words. Impeachment managers say that Trump was the “inciter in chief” whose monthslong campaign against the election results was rooted in a “big lie” and laid the groundwork for the riot, a violent domestic attack on the Capitol unparalleled in history.

“Get real,” Raskin said at one point. “We know that this is what happened.”

Six Republican senators who joined Democrats in voting to take up the case are among those most watched for their votes.

Early signals came Friday during questions for the lawyers.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked the first question, Two centrists known for independent streaks, they leaned into a point the prosecutors had made, asking exactly when Trump learned of the breach of the Capitol and what specific actions he took to end the rioting.

Democrats had argued that Trump did nothing as the mob rioted.

Another Republican who voted to launch the trial, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, asked about Trump’s tweet criticizing Pence moments after the then-president was told by another senator that Pence had just been evacuated.

Van der Veen responded that at “no point” was the president informed of any danger. Cassidy told reporters later it was not a very good answer.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Senate has voted to consider hearing from witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This could potentially extend proceedings that had been expected to end with a vote for conviction or acquittal on Saturday. 

The Senate is holding a rare Saturday session for closing arguments in Trump's trial over whether he is guilty of inciting the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Acquittal still appears likely, underscored by news that Republican leader Mitch McConnell plans to vote that way. The trial has laid bare the fragility of the nation’s tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators are poised to vote on whether Donald Trump will be held accountable for inciting the horrific attack at the Capitol after a speedy impeachment trial that laid bare the violence and danger to their own lives and the fragility of the nation's tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power.

Barely a month since the deadly riot on Jan. 6, closing arguments are set for the historic trial in a rare Saturday session, held under the watch of armed National Guard troops still guarding the iconic building.

The outcome of the quick, raw and emotional proceedings is expected to reflect a country divided over the former president and the future of his brand of politics.

Acquittal is expected in the evenly-divided Senate. That verdict could heavily influence not only Trump’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors.

House prosecutors have argued that Trump's rallying cry to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” for his presidency just as Congress was convening Jan. 6 to certify Joe Biden’s election victory was part of an orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims that unleashed the mob. Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

While it is unlikely the Senate would be able to mount the two-thirds vote needed to convict, several senators appear to be still weighing their vote. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will be widely watched for cues, but he is not pressuring his GOP colleagues and is telling senators to vote their conscience.

“This is ordinarily political rhetoric,” said Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”

But the presentation blurred the difference between the general encouragement that politicians make to battle for health care or other causes and Trump’s fight against officially accepted national election results, and minimized Trump’s efforts to undermine those results. The defeated president was telling his supporters to fight on after every state had verified its results, after the Electoral College had affirmed them and after nearly every election lawsuit filed by Trump and his allies had been rejected in court.

Democratic senators shook their heads at what many called a false equivalency to their own fiery words. “We weren’t asking them 'fight like hell' to overthrow an election,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Democrats say that Trump was the “inciter in chief” whose monthslong campaign against the election results was rooted in a “big lie” and laid the groundwork for the riot, a violent domestic attack on the Capitol unparalleled in history.

“Get real,” said the lead prosecutor, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., at one point. “We know that this is what happened.”

The Senate has convened as a court of impeachment for past Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and now twice for Trump. But the unprecedented nature of the case against an out-of-office president has provided Republican senators one of several arguments against conviction.

Republicans maintain the proceedings are unconstitutional, even though the Senate voted at the outset of the trial on this issue and confirmed it has jurisdiction.

🎥 Impeachment Trial Day 5: Senators vote to acquit Trump again

LAWRENCE — It is expected that 2020 will denote the biggest year of gun sales in U.S. history.

“Not only is this significant in how many people bought guns, it is also a banner year for the diverse types of people doing the purchasing,” said Margaret Kelley, associate professor of American studies at the University of Kansas.

The question of who and why these people are making this choice gets examined in extraordinary depth in Kelley’s article titled&nbsp;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/author/AVWFF8MQ8ZJMGQIUFM2N?target=10.1111/soin.12410">“Who Might Buy a Gun? Results from the Guns in American Life Survey.”</a>&nbsp;Her research explores patterns and correlations of such ownership in the United States, with an emphasis on differentiating those who will never own a firearm (“nevers”) and those who are open to ownership in the future (“maybes”). It is published in this month’s issue of Sociological Inquiry.

“Previous work has focused on traditional ways of thinking ‘maybe’ owners must be very similar to owners. We tried to complicate that a bit and show they aren’t just ‘gun owners lite,’ they are a wholly different category,” she said.

With co-author Christopher Ellison of the University of Texas at San Antonio, Kelley launched the Guns in American Life Survey (collected in September 2018 as a collaborative involving UTSA and KU) to explore the role of several classes of factors in shaping experiences and attitudes. These included socialization, fear/victimization, ideology and preparedness.

Kelley said, “We approach the topic thinking this is binary: You own a gun or you don’t, and people have characteristics that go with one of those categories. But it is not that straightforward. For example, there’s evidence that 20% of gun owners are liberals. That goes against our expectations of who might own a gun.”

Among the most common assumptions about gun owners is they gravitate toward the weapon out of fear.

“This is an overgeneralization that people buy guns because they’re afraid,” she said. “That’s part of it. But that’s not all of it.”

Instead, Kelley also delves into the positive aspects of ownership, which she terms “gun gratifications.” She found these are frequently divided by gender, with men feeling more empowered by guns, while women are motivated by the sense of protection granted. (The survey collected responses from more than 3,100 individuals, offering a strong representative data set of the U.S. public.)

On the other end of those studied are persons who claim they will never own a gun. This is mainly populated by respondents wrestling with an ideological issue. Many don’t believe guns are a part of “the good society.”

“Also factoring in is the fear of violence,” Kelley added. “In many studies, guns are specifically equated with violence. In fact, the vast majority of guns will never be involved in a negative outcome. Yet it is hard to disassociate that connection, given the very severe violence that does happen and the fear that is generated by mass shootings and things.”

Much of “Who Might Buy a Gun?” deals with society’s move toward what’s termed Gun Culture 2.0. This shift has fundamentally changed the central reasons for possessing a weapon.

“Our original gun culture is very different than what our current one looks like,” Kelley said.

“It used to be that guns were owned primarily for hunting and recreation. Just a generation before us, people kept shotguns and hunting rifles in their cars. They only had them around the home because they needed them for protection against animals. Since the 1960s, this culture of guns has been changing, and it is in large part an increase in handguns that are owned for personal protection. It is becoming the self-defense culture in a way.”

That includes owners welcoming the empowerment associated with the weapons, which is becoming a less passive condition.

“For people involved in having one for self-defense, it is something you think about when you get up in the morning. You have to ‘dress around the gun.’ You have to know which stores you can go into and which ones you can’t,” she said.

Entering her sixth year at KU, Kelley developed her research in partnership with a parallel ethnographic study examining women and firearms. She’s turning this into a larger book project specifically focusing on the average woman shooter in middle America.

“We don’t know the broader impact of changes in gun culture on social trust in a democratic society,”&nbsp;Kelley said.

“But it is timely for us to recognize who is open to gun ownership. KU research has shown that those who own guns are more politically involved and might influence the future of politics. It is important to know the reasons that lead to owning – or not owning – a gun.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/2/1612817809930.jpeg" alt="(Photo by Pexels)" />
 <figcaption>(Photo by Pexels)</figcaption>
 </figure>LAWRENCE — It is expected that 2020 will denote the biggest year of gun sales in U.S. history.<figure>
 <img src="https://news.ku.edu/sites/news.ku.edu/files/images/general/faculty_portraits/Margaret_Kelley_172.jpg" alt="Margaret Kelley" />
 <figcaption>Margaret Kelley</figcaption>
 </figure>“Not only is this significant in how many people bought guns, it is also a banner year for the diverse types of people doing the purchasing,” said Margaret Kelley, associate professor of American studies at the University of Kansas.The question of who and why these people are making this choice gets examined in extraordinary depth in Kelley’s article titled&nbsp;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/author/AVWFF8MQ8ZJMGQIUFM2N?target=10.1111/soin.12410">“Who Might Buy a Gun? Results from the Guns in American Life Survey.”</a>&nbsp;Her research explores patterns and correlations of such ownership in the United States, with an emphasis on differentiating those who will never own a firearm (“nevers”) and those who are open to ownership in the future (“maybes”). It is published in this month’s issue of Sociological Inquiry.“Previous work has focused on traditional ways of thinking ‘maybe’ owners must be very similar to owners. We tried to complicate that a bit and show they aren’t just ‘gun owners lite,’ they are a wholly different category,” she said.With co-author Christopher Ellison of the University of Texas at San Antonio, Kelley launched the Guns in American Life Survey (collected in September 2018 as a collaborative involving UTSA and KU) to explore the role of several classes of factors in shaping experiences and attitudes. These included socialization, fear/victimization, ideology and preparedness.Kelley said, “We approach the topic thinking this is binary: You own a gun or you don’t, and people have characteristics that go with one of those categories. But it is not that straightforward. For example, there’s evidence that 20% of gun owners are liberals. That goes against our expectations of who might own a gun.”Among the most common assumptions about gun owners is they gravitate toward the weapon out of fear.“This is an overgeneralization that people buy guns because they’re afraid,” she said. “That’s part of it. But that’s not all of it.”Instead, Kelley also delves into the positive aspects of ownership, which she terms “gun gratifications.” She found these are frequently divided by gender, with men feeling more empowered by guns, while women are motivated by the sense of protection granted. (The survey collected responses from more than 3,100 individuals, offering a strong representative data set of the U.S. public.)On the other end of those studied are persons who claim they will never own a gun. This is mainly populated by respondents wrestling with an ideological issue. Many don’t believe guns are a part of “the good society.”“Also factoring in is the fear of violence,” Kelley added. “In many studies, guns are specifically equated with violence. In fact, the vast majority of guns will never be involved in a negative outcome. Yet it is hard to disassociate that connection, given the very severe violence that does happen and the fear that is generated by mass shootings and things.”Much of “Who Might Buy a Gun?” deals with society’s move toward what’s termed Gun Culture 2.0. This shift has fundamentally changed the central reasons for possessing a weapon.“Our original gun culture is very different than what our current one looks like,” Kelley said.“It used to be that guns were owned primarily for hunting and recreation. Just a generation before us, people kept shotguns and hunting rifles in their cars. They only had them around the home because they needed them for protection against animals. Since the 1960s, this culture of guns has been changing, and it is in large part an increase in handguns that are owned for personal protection. It is becoming the self-defense culture in a way.”That includes owners welcoming the empowerment associated with the weapons, which is becoming a less passive condition.“For people involved in having one for self-defense, it is something you think about when you get up in the morning. You have to ‘dress around the gun.’ You have to know which stores you can go into and which ones you can’t,” she said.Entering her sixth year at KU, Kelley developed her research in partnership with a parallel ethnographic study examining women and firearms. She’s turning this into a larger book project specifically focusing on the average woman shooter in middle America.“We don’t know the broader impact of changes in gun culture on social trust in a democratic society,”&nbsp;Kelley said.“But it is timely for us to recognize who is open to gun ownership. KU research has shown that those who own guns are more politically involved and might influence the future of politics. It is important to know the reasons that lead to owning – or not owning – a gun.”

Survey reveals diverse motives behind American gun ownership

NEW YORK (AP) — About 1 in 3 Americans say they definitely or probably won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new poll that some experts say is discouraging news if the U.S. hopes to achieve herd immunity and vanquish the outbreak.

The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that while 67% of Americans plan to get vaccinated or have already done so, 15% are certain they won’t and 17% say probably not. Many expressed doubts about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.

The poll suggests that substantial skepticism persists more than a month and a half into a U.S. vaccination drive that has encountered few if any serious side effects. It found that resistance runs higher among younger people, people without college degrees, Black Americans and Republicans.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s leading infectious-disease scientist, has estimated that somewhere between 70% and 85% of the U.S. population needs to get inoculated to stop the scourge that has killed close to 470,000 Americans. More recently, he said the spread of more contagious variants of the virus increases the need for more people to get their shots — and quickly.

“No. No, no, no, no,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University expert on disease dynamics. He added: “You’re going to need to get quite large proportions of the population vaccinated before you see a real effect.”

Nearly 33 million Americans, or about 10% of the population, have received at least one dose, and 9.8 million have been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

The poll of 1,055 adults, taken Jan. 28 through Feb. 1, provides insight into the skepticism.

Of those who said they definitely will not get the vaccine, 65% cited worries about side effects, despite the shots’ safety record over the past months. About the same percentage said they don’t trust COVID-19 vaccines. And 38% said they don’t believe they need a vaccine, with a similar share saying that they don’t know if a COVID-19 vaccine will work and that they don’t trust the government.

Of those who probably will not get the vaccine but have not ruled it out completely, 63% said they are waiting to see if it is safe, and 60% said they are concerned about possible side effects.

“I don’t trust pharmaceuticals. I really don’t. And it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be safe,” said Debra Nanez, a 67-year-old retired nurse from Tucson, Arizona.

Nanez said she has gotten flu and pneumonia shots but is concerned about rumors about what’s in the coronavirus vaccine, and her friends have the same hesitation.

“It would take a while for me to do research on it to make sure it’s safe. I just don’t want to take anything that’s going to harm me,” she said.

Baron Walker, a 42-year-old laid-off insulation installer from Parkersburg, West Virginia, said he is in the “probably not” column, at least for now.

He said that if he were elderly, or lived in a densely populated area, he might consider the vaccine more strongly. But he is in rural part of the country, he has been wearing a mask and social-distancing, and he feels there is a good chance the nation will achieve herd immunity, he said.

“I feel like I have plenty of time before I get a chance to get (the vaccine) anyway, to find out if there are bad side effects and whether it’s even worth getting it,” Walker said.

In interviews, some Americans expressed concerns about the revolutionary speed with which the vaccines were developed — less than a year.

“I feel like they rushed it,” Walker said.

That was echoed by Matt Helderman, 31, of Greer, South Carolina.

“I’d like to see more safety data,” said Helderman, a video editor and associate producer for a Christian TV program. He also said that he would like to see more clarity on whether the vaccine is effective against new variants.

Health officials are trying to counter concerns about the vaccine with science.

The latest evidence indicates that the two vaccines being used in the U.S. — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — are effective even against the variants, Fauci said.

Also, while the development of the vaccines was unusually fast, it was the culmination of many years of research. And the vaccines went through clinical trials involving thousands of people who were monitored for 60 days after their last dose. Studies of other vaccines have found that harmful side effects almost always materialize within 45 days.

“Safety certainly was not compromised, nor was scientific integrity compromised,” Fauci said. “Many have reason for skepticism. But I think that when you explain the facts and the data to them, you can win them over.”

The survey found that older Americans, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19, are especially likely to say they have received a shot or will probably or definitely get vaccinated. Four in 10 of those under 45 say they will probably or definitely not get a vaccine, compared with a quarter of those older.

Black Americans appear less likely than white Americans to say they have received the shot or will definitely or probably get vaccinated, 57% versus 68%. Among Hispanic Americans, 65% say they have gotten or plan to get the vaccine.

Public health experts have long known that some Black Americans are distrustful of the medical establishment because of its history of abuses, including the infamous Tuskegee study, in which Black patients with syphilis were left untreated so that doctors could study the disease.

Americans without a college degree are more likely than college-educated ones to say they will definitely or probably not get vaccinated, 40% versus 17%. And Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that, 44% versus 17%.

NEW YORK (AP) — About 1 in 3 Americans say they definitely or probably won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new poll that some experts say is discouraging news if the U.S. hopes to achieve herd immunity and vanquish the outbreak.The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that while 67% of Americans plan to get vaccinated or have already done so, 15% are certain they won’t and 17% say probably not. Many expressed doubts about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.The poll suggests that substantial skepticism persists more than a month and a half into a U.S. vaccination drive that has encountered few if any serious side effects. It found that resistance runs higher among younger people, people without college degrees, Black Americans and Republicans.Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s leading infectious-disease scientist, has estimated that somewhere between 70% and 85% of the U.S. population needs to get inoculated to stop the scourge that has killed close to 470,000 Americans. More recently, he said the spread of more contagious variants of the virus increases the need for more people to get their shots — and quickly.So is 67% of Americans enough?“No. No, no, no, no,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University expert on disease dynamics. He added: “You’re going to need to get quite large proportions of the population vaccinated before you see a real effect.”Nearly 33 million Americans, or about 10% of the population, have received at least one dose, and 9.8 million have been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.The poll of 1,055 adults, taken Jan. 28 through Feb. 1, provides insight into the skepticism.Of those who said they definitely will not get the vaccine, 65% cited worries about side effects, despite the shots’ safety record over the past months. About the same percentage said they don’t trust COVID-19 vaccines. And 38% said they don’t believe they need a vaccine, with a similar share saying that they don’t know if a COVID-19 vaccine will work and that they don’t trust the government.Of those who probably will not get the vaccine but have not ruled it out completely, 63% said they are waiting to see if it is safe, and 60% said they are concerned about possible side effects.“I don’t trust pharmaceuticals. I really don’t. And it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be safe,” said Debra Nanez, a 67-year-old retired nurse from Tucson, Arizona.Nanez said she has gotten flu and pneumonia shots but is concerned about rumors about what’s in the coronavirus vaccine, and her friends have the same hesitation.“It would take a while for me to do research on it to make sure it’s safe. I just don’t want to take anything that’s going to harm me,” she said.Baron Walker, a 42-year-old laid-off insulation installer from Parkersburg, West Virginia, said he is in the “probably not” column, at least for now.He said that if he were elderly, or lived in a densely populated area, he might consider the vaccine more strongly. But he is in rural part of the country, he has been wearing a mask and social-distancing, and he feels there is a good chance the nation will achieve herd immunity, he said.“I feel like I have plenty of time before I get a chance to get (the vaccine) anyway, to find out if there are bad side effects and whether it’s even worth getting it,” Walker said.In interviews, some Americans expressed concerns about the revolutionary speed with which the vaccines were developed — less than a year.“I feel like they rushed it,” Walker said.That was echoed by Matt Helderman, 31, of Greer, South Carolina.“I’d like to see more safety data,” said Helderman, a video editor and associate producer for a Christian TV program. He also said that he would like to see more clarity on whether the vaccine is effective against new variants.Health officials are trying to counter concerns about the vaccine with science.The latest evidence indicates that the two vaccines being used in the U.S. — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — are effective even against the variants, Fauci said.Also, while the development of the vaccines was unusually fast, it was the culmination of many years of research. And the vaccines went through clinical trials involving thousands of people who were monitored for 60 days after their last dose. Studies of other vaccines have found that harmful side effects almost always materialize within 45 days.“Safety certainly was not compromised, nor was scientific integrity compromised,” Fauci said. “Many have reason for skepticism. But I think that when you explain the facts and the data to them, you can win them over.”The survey found that older Americans, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19, are especially likely to say they have received a shot or will probably or definitely get vaccinated. Four in 10 of those under 45 say they will probably or definitely not get a vaccine, compared with a quarter of those older.Black Americans appear less likely than white Americans to say they have received the shot or will definitely or probably get vaccinated, 57% versus 68%. Among Hispanic Americans, 65% say they have gotten or plan to get the vaccine.Public health experts have long known that some Black Americans are distrustful of the medical establishment because of its history of abuses, including the infamous Tuskegee study, in which Black patients with syphilis were left untreated so that doctors could study the disease.Americans without a college degree are more likely than college-educated ones to say they will definitely or probably not get vaccinated, 40% versus 17%. And Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that, 44% versus 17%.___

AP-NORC poll: A third of US adults skeptical of COVID shots

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?508916-1/impeachment">Click here </a>to watch a replay of Day 4 of the impeachment trial

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a whirlwind defense, Donald Trump's impeachment attorneys aired a litany of grievances Friday, arguing the former president bore no responsibility for the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol while accusing Democrats of “hatred” and “hypocrisy.”

The defense team, which wrapped up its arguments in just over three hours, said Trump was engaged in “constitutionally protected speech” when he spoke at a rally that immediately preceded the violence on Jan. 6 that left five dead.

Echoing themes often heard in conservative media, they called the impeachment trial a “witch hunt” and accused Democrats of elevating a destructive “cancel culture” to the halls of Congress. They also suggested Democrats were hypocrites for impeaching Trump after some had previously voiced support for racial justice marches last summer, some of which turned violent.

“It has become very clear that House Democrats hate Donald Trump,” said Michael van der Veen, a Philadelphia personal injury attorney who is part of Trump's defense team. “Hatred is at the heart.”

Here are some highlights from Friday's impeachment proceedings:

Regardless of what occurred after Trump's Jan. 6 speech, the former president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and can't be found at fault, his attorneys argued.

"The Senate cannot ignore the First Amendment," said van der Veen.

Nearly 150 constitutional scholars disagree. In a letter signed last week they wrote that “the First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings, so it cannot provide a defense for President Trump."

The First Amendment has long been invoked as a powerful and compelling defense in court. But impeachment proceedings are an inherently political process that exists outside the U.S. court system in which senators sit as jurors.

Further, just because speech is protected by the Constitution doesn't mean that there aren't limits. Threats to commit a crime or “fighting words” that are likely to incite violence can be exceptions to protected speech.

The articles of impeachment charge Trump with the “incitement of an insurrection,” a word that Webster's Dictionary defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.”

Trump's lawyers say that's not technically correct. And they offered some alternative facts to make their point.

“'Insurrection' is a term of art," said attorney Bruce Castor, and it "involves taking over a country” or “a shadow government taking the TV stations over and having some plan on what you’re going to do when you finally take power.”

“Clearly this is not that,” he added.

In any event, Trump still wasn't responsible for what happened after his speech, Castor said.

Trump's speech, in which he urged his supporters to “fight like hell,“ was actual a call for the "peaceful exercise of every American’s first amendment rights to peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances,” according to Castor.

And he suggested that Trump wasn't literally calling on his supporters to "fight," but rather get involved in the political process, like supporting primary challengers of elected officials they did not like.

Many of Trump's supporters who participated in the attack found far different meaning in the former president's words on Jan. 6.

They have said in media interviews, videos taken at the scene and in statements to law enforcement that they were acting on Trump's orders and aimed to overturn the outcome of the election by stopping Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's Electoral College victory — the definition of an insurrection.

Donald Trump’s defense team attempted to undermine a key Democratic argument: that the former president incited the attack on the Capitol by urging his supporters to "fight like hell" and “go by very different rules” or they “wouldn’t have a country anymore.”

To do so, they played a lengthy montage of video clips during Friday's proceedings, which featured President Joe Biden and other prominent Democrats repeatedly uttering the word "fight" during public speeches.

“There is a fight in front of us,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in one clip from November 2019. Another showed Biden talking about taking Trump “behind the gym” to “beat the hell out of him,” like in high school.

The use of the words “fight” or “fighting” is exceedingly common in political speech. The effort by Trump’s legal team amounted amounted to an effort to muddy the waters by drawing an equivalence and ignoring his false claims about voter fraud.

Trump used the word "fight" while trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election that he lost. And his use of the word on Jan. 6 came after weeks of baselessly claiming the election was being stolen from him.

There was no widespread fraud in the election, as has been confirmed by election officials across the country and former Attorney General William Barr. Dozens of legal challenges to the election put forth by Trump and his allies were dismissed.

Still, Trump's lawyers said they were making a valid point by highlighting Democrats' use of the word "fight."

“This is not whataboutism," said Michael van der Veen. "I am showing you this to make the point that all political speech must be protected.”

Senate Democrats seemed mostly amused by the defense's video of prominent party leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, repeatedly saying the word “fight.”

Though initially stone-faced and impassionate, as the minutes ticked by some reacted, particularly after their own turn on the screen.

Some giggled, others gasped. Some raised their hands or shrugged.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar rolled her eyes. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts fidgeted with a pen during a lengthy section devoted to her. But Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, was visibly annoyed.

It “feels like they are erecting straw men to then take them down rather deal with the fact the events (on Jan. 6) happened," said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for Donald Trump opened his impeachment defense Friday by accusing Democrats of waging a campaign of “hatred” against the former president and manipulating his words in the lead-up to the deadly siege of the U.S. Capitol. Their presentation included a blizzard of their own selectively edited fiery comments from Democrats.

In hours of arguments, the Trump legal team characterized the impeachment case as a politically motivated “witch hunt” — an outgrowth, they said, of years of efforts to drive him from office — and they sought to reduce the case to Trump’s use of a single word, “fight,” in a speech preceding the Jan. 6 riot. They played dozens of clips showing Democrats, some of them senators now serving as jurors, using the same word to energize supporters in speeches railing against Trump.

“You didn’t do anything wrong” in using the word, Trump attorney David Schoen told the senators. “But, please, stop the hypocrisy.”

The Trump defense team left out that what Trump was doing in telling his supporters to “fight like hell” was to undermine an election that the states and Congress declared was free and fair, basing his exhortations on false attacks on the integrity of voting systems. Instead, they said, he was simply telling his supporters to press Congress for reforms to the election process — something he was entitled to do.

The case is speeding toward a conclusion and near-certain acquittal, perhaps as soon as Saturday. The defense arguments and the quick pivot to the Democrats’ own words deflected from the central question of the trial — whether Trump incited the assault on the Capitol — and instead aimed to place impeachment managers and Trump adversaries on the defensive .

After a two-day effort by Democrats to sync up Trump’s words to the violence that followed, including through raw and emotive video footage, defense lawyers suggested that Democrats have typically engaged in the same overheated rhetoric as Trump.

But in trying to draw that equivalency, the defenders minimized Trump’s monthslong, efforts to undermine the election results and his exhortations to followers to do the same. Democrats say that long campaign, rooted in a “big lie,” laid the groundwork for the mob that assembled outside the Capitol and stormed inside. Five people died.

Without Trump, who in a speech at a rally preceding the violence told supporters to “fight like hell,” the violence would never have happened, Democrats say.

“And so they came, draped in Trump’s flag, and used our flag, the American flag, to batter and to bludgeon,” Rep. Madeleine Dean, one of the impeachment managers, said Thursday as she choked back emotion.”

Trump’s defenders told senators that Trump was entitled to dispute the 2020 election results and that his doing so did not amount to inciting the violence. They sought to turn the tables on prosecutors by likening the Democrats’ questioning of the legitimacy of Trump’s 2016 win to his challenge of his election loss. When Trump implored supporters to “fight like hell” on Jan. 6, he was speaking figuratively, they said.

“This is ordinarily political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years,” said Michael van der Veen, another Trump lawyer. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”

The defense team did not dispute the horror of the violence, painstakingly reconstructed by impeachment managers earlier in the week, but said it had been carried out by people who had “hijacked” for their own purposes what was supposed to be a peaceful event and had planned violence before Trump had spoken.

“You can’t incite what was going to happen,” he said.

Acknowledging the reality of the January day is meant to blunt the visceral impact of the House Democrats’ case and quickly pivot to what Trump’s defenders see as the core — and more winnable — issue of the trial: Whether Trump actually incited the riot. The argument is likely to appeal to Republican senators who want to be seen as condemning the violence but without convicting the president.

Anticipating defense efforts to disentangle Trump’s rhetoric from the rioters’ actions, the impeachment managers spent days trying to fuse them together through a reconstruction of never-been-seen video footage alongside clips of the president’s monthslong urging of his supporters to undo the election results.

Democrats, who concluded their case Thursday, used the rioters’ own videos and words from Jan. 6 to try to pin responsibility on Trump. “We were invited here,” said one Capitol invader. “Trump sent us,” said another. “He’ll be happy. We’re fighting for Trump.”

The prosecutors’ goal was to cast Trump not as a bystander but rather as the “inciter in chief” who spread election falsehoods, then encouraged supporters to come challenge the results in Washington and fanned the discontent with rhetoric about fighting and taking back the country.

The Democrats also are demanding that he be barred from holding future federal office.

But Trump’s lawyers say that goal only underscores the “hatred” Democrats feel for Trump. Throughout the trial, they showed clips from Democrats questioning the legitimacy of his presidency and suggesting as early as 2017 that he should be impeached.

“Hatred is at the heart of the house managers’ fruitless attempts to blame Donald Trump for the criminal acts of the rioters based on double hearsay statements of fringe right wing groups based on no real evidence other than rank speculation,” van der Veen said.

Trump’s lawyers note that in the same Jan. 6 speech he encouraged the crowd to behave “peacefully,” and they contend that his remarks — and his general distrust of the election results — are all protected under the First Amendment. Democrats strenuously resist that assertion, saying his words weren’t political speech but rather amounted to direct incitement of violence.

The defense lawyers also returned to arguments made Tuesday that the trial itself is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office. The Senate rejected that contention as it voted to proceed with the trial.

On Thursday, with little hope of conviction by the required two-thirds of the Senate, Democrats delivered a graphic case to the American public, describing in stark, personal terms the terror they faced that day — some of it in the very Senate chamber where senators now are sitting as jurors. They used security video of rioters searching menacingly for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, smashing into the building and engaging in bloody, hand-to-hand combat with police.

They displayed the many public and explicit instructions Trump gave his supporters — long before the White House rally that unleashed the deadly Capitol attack as Congress was certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.