Failure To Learn, or Worse?

Work with me on this.  The GOP lost the last Presidential election decisively.  With no change, the demographics predict an even wider loss margin next time.  So why would 42 GOP Senators vote to filibuster back ground checks when over 90% of Americans polled think back ground checks are a good idea?    What are they thinking?

The two justifications provided by the “no-sayers” are: (1) Sandy Hook would not have been prevented by back ground checks, nor would outlawing Bushmasters and high capacity ammunition clips have helped (unless there was confiscation of existing assault weapons and clips).   And,  (2) they piously invoked the sanctity of the second Amendment.  These Senators resisted anything they considered an assault on the second amendment.

The rhetoric sounds good, and said by pros, sounds even plausible.  It masks, however, a calculus on when there might be momentum in their States to throw them out of office.  These Senators apparently see Second Amendment supporters as organized, well funded, and determined to reject any candidate that messes with guns.  They see the “90%” as softies.  These Senators have made their call.

Hmmm.

It certainly looks like these GOP Congress members think saying no will get them reelected, and getting reelected appears to be more important than passing common sense legislation.  This legislation might not stop another Sandy Hook, but it’s hard to argue that it would not lessen the severity.

Further with additional hard nose legislation could be built upon these initial ones.   For example, establishing liability for those whose weapons are stolen and later become used in criminal activity, along with similar laws could provide meaningful controls.

Guns for sport, hunting, and in some cases personal protection should be protected.  The right to bear any arms should not be limitless.  How can it be right that bearing arms should create an environment where other Americans are more likely to be injured or killed by the misuse of guns?

I cannot help but think that there is more to this.  Is it that the gun issue is a meal ticket for those who preach second Amendment rights.  Could it be that if they can get reelected at least once more, the result would be six years to increase their personal net worth.

Hmmm.  What a sorry state of affairs.

 

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party

Tags: , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

5 Comments on “Failure To Learn, or Worse?”


  1. Could you please explain what you mean by “in some cases, personal protection”?


    • Homegun, fair question… personal protection use ought, in my opinion, be restricted to the home. I can understand some exceptions (where public safety official’s response time would be too long) especially for those living in rural areas or on a hunting trip in the wilderness.

      Carrying should come with training with respect to safe use and how to secure weapons when not carrying.

      In the 21st century, our society should be relying upon State, County, and local police for protection. So in Times Square or Fenway Park, there should be no guns, period.


      • I agree that training in and of itself is necessary for anyone who wants to learn how to protect themselves.

        While I do not disagree with Weber’s “Monopoly on Violence that is gained through legitimation” theory, the blind application of such a theory poses practical problems.

        The biggest issue with an individual ceding (willfully or by force) all responsibility for their individual security to the state is that the courts in the United States have held that police are not responsible for the individual safety of citizens even if they are denied the means to protect themselves.

        This was held in the Warren v. District of Columbia court decision.

        The District of Columbia denied residents the right to the means to protect themselves yet got a free pass to shirk the de facto assumed responsibility for DC residents’ individual safety.


  2. Post Script 4-19-13

    TV coverage seems non-stop on law enforcement officials pursuit of the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. The process should serve to show the meaninglessness of some guns rights supporters whose final justification of unlimited gun possession is “protection from the government”.

    This position flies in the face of “one man, one vote” since that is how governments are chosen and rules are made and changed.

    But even more dramatic is the suicidal chance anyone would have against these well trained public (militias) police units.


  3. Homegun… This is in reply to your 4-19 comment. Thanks of course for making your points…

    Government at all levels hold certain monopolies normally as the assumed best method to provide that service. And in general, it is difficult to sue the government for anything… although wrongful arrest or conviction has turned out to be an exception… so if someone is in their home and defends them self with a gun, the question usually is, “was this appropriate use of force”… If the intruder was a child, normally the use of a gun is considered too much force whereas in the extreme if it is an armed intruder, then the use of a gun is usually deemed appropriate.

    As we saw in Florida with George Zimmerman, he took a gun on a neighborhood watch, called 911 over a suspicious person, ignored the 911 order to back off, approached the individual and when a fight ensued, shot and killed Trayvon Martin with the defense of Stand Your Ground… Points, guns in the community are misplaced and subject to misuse… Stand your Ground has only one place and that is in your home.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: