Okay, I am back to the gun debate, after only one day of staying away.
I almost cannot help it. So much of the rest of the world seems to have forgotten the Parkland shootings already. At the school yesterday, everyone there seemed so be too busy laughing at Fergie's rendition of the national anthem (frankly, who cares?) that any lessons that might have been learned, and any possible call to action has largely been silenced, mostly through our own desensitized reaction, our own collective national indifference.
True, some teenagers are taking stands. There was a clip of teens in Iowa marching in protest, and Florida high school students - where the latest shooting took place - are also protesting and marching. And, indeed, there were teens in Washington who laid down in front of the White House, protesting the lax gun laws.
That was the silver lining, but there were dark clouds, too, with numerous reactions that were not merely disrespectful towards these students, who are interested really in their own safety, but who at times were outright threatening.
And yet, President Trump yesterday called for a ban on bump stocks, the mechanism used by Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas in the very deadly October mass shooting, and he will be meeting with victims, and the parents of victims of mass school shootings. So with all of these developments, I thought it would be hard to ignore.
Every time that there is a mass shooting, like there was last week in a Florida high school, and like there is often here in the United States, you very quickly see and hear the arguments going from both sides of the gun debate.
I almost cannot help it. So much of the rest of the world seems to have forgotten the Parkland shootings already. At the school yesterday, everyone there seemed so be too busy laughing at Fergie's rendition of the national anthem (frankly, who cares?) that any lessons that might have been learned, and any possible call to action has largely been silenced, mostly through our own desensitized reaction, our own collective national indifference.
True, some teenagers are taking stands. There was a clip of teens in Iowa marching in protest, and Florida high school students - where the latest shooting took place - are also protesting and marching. And, indeed, there were teens in Washington who laid down in front of the White House, protesting the lax gun laws.
That was the silver lining, but there were dark clouds, too, with numerous reactions that were not merely disrespectful towards these students, who are interested really in their own safety, but who at times were outright threatening.
And yet, President Trump yesterday called for a ban on bump stocks, the mechanism used by Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas in the very deadly October mass shooting, and he will be meeting with victims, and the parents of victims of mass school shootings. So with all of these developments, I thought it would be hard to ignore.
Every time that there is a mass shooting, like there was last week in a Florida high school, and like there is often here in the United States, you very quickly see and hear the arguments going from both sides of the gun debate.
A vast majority of Americans - anywhere between an estimated 84 to 88 percent - believe that the purchase of a gun should require a background check, while more than three-quarters of Americans also believe that there should be some kind of a waiting period, as well.
In fact, not only do most Americans agree that some limitations on gun access should be imposed, but even a majority of Republicans believe this. That might come as a shock, since the Republican party is the same one that automatically, continually blocks any and all stricter gun legislation, as a rule. It sure seems counterintuitive that the majority of Republicans favor tighter gun laws, yet their Washington representatives vote against their wishes.
So, why is there never any gun legislation at all? I mean, seriously! From the horrible school shooting that seemingly shook the country to it's core at Columbine back in 1999, we have had numerous mass shootings since then, including many that had more victims, and some with arguably even more shock value, particularly the one at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Yet, despite the "thoughts and prayers" sentiments that prominent government officials regularly give, little else is done. Virtually nothing, particularly, in terms of lasting legislation that effectively protects the American people from angry people acquiring guns.
Even when it seems like action will inevitably be taken. It looked that way for a while following the shock of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Yet, nothing concrete happened, really, despite numerous serious efforts. Then came the Orlando shooting, and similarly, nothing. Last year's Las Vegas shooting shocked many, and almost seemed to lead to a ban on bump stocks. Hell, it even appeared that the NRA was encouraging Congress to review, and ultimately perhaps to ban, bump stocks.
But in the end, of course, the same result. Nothing happened. Nothing changed. Another shooting in Sutherland Springs, and again, nothing happened in terms of legislation for tighter gun accesslaws. Now, Parkland, Florida.
Can you blame those of us who remain skeptical when we hear young kids expressing strong confidence that this time, it will be different?
Just five years and change ago, the seemingly random shooting of 20 children under the age of 10 years old was not enough to make legislation change. Just under half a year ago, video footage of seeming de facto machine gun fire from up high at a Las Vegas hotel, killing almost 60 and injuring over 400 others, was not enough. All of those mass shootings that we have seen - and there have been a ton of them - were not enough to change the hearts and minds of Americans, who could surely force action, could force legislation, if they really wanted to, if they stood together and refused to accept no as an answer.
True, maybe this time, there is more of an organizational movement to protest, and organize walkouts. But will that really work? Republicans are apparently very tough to shame, despite overwhelming evidence of disgusting and despicable behavior and beliefs. And when Republicans do not care about something - and they certainly do not seem to care about protests, a tradition dating back to the 1960's - then what will change about that now?
I would love to believe that this time, something will truly change. Believe me, I would love to see something actually change this time, and it would thrill me to be proven wrong, and to question my own skepticism on this issue.
However, history is hard to ignore, and in recent history, Republicans have seemed to have a shield that prevents them from feeling any kind of shame, and they also seem to have a shield that prevents them from suffering serious, much less severe, losses when election season rolls around.
Unfortunately, though, I just do not see it happening. A lot of people have demanded action, have tried to force change, and sounded certainly angry and determined enough to do it.
But it is 2018, and we have had a lot of mass shootings. A hell of a lot of them, frankly. Seriously, Parkland was the 18th school shooting this year, and this year was not even seven full weeks old! We have regularly witnessed unbelievable images of bloodied people running out of buildings, and escaping from incredible carnage brought on by some madman with a gun. Columbine was the better part of 20 years ago. Virginia Tech took place over a decade ago. Aurora and Sandy Hook were well over five years ago now, as well. Orlando is going on two years ago. Even Las Vegas was many months ago now, as was Sutherland Springs. And now, Parkland, Florida.
I totally agree that action should have been taken a long, long time ago, and am as perplexed as anyone else as to how the American people could allow action to not be taken after all of those incidents, after so much time.
Still, the sad reality is that no serious, and certainly no lasting, action ever seems to be taken. The NRA profits, prominent government officials get some of the money and then vote against the best interest of the citizens that they are supposed to represent, and the vicious cycle just keeps going.
Trust me, I would love to be wrong about this. But will I be?
I doubt it.
I have been alarmed to have seen some people that I respected arguing in favor of guns, and against commonsense gun legislation. Now, more than ever, they seem to be grasping, arguing with whatever they can throw to obstruct the path for the United States to join literally every other industrialized nation and implement tighter gun legislation, and not allow madmen and murderers to easily acquire guns, as it literally allows right now.
To these ends, gun rights advocates keep bringing up certain arguments. Here are some:
School shootings happen in schools, because God is no longer in schools.
Okay, but God is certainly in churches, right? And there have been many, many shootings in churches, as well.
Cars and alcohol and some other things can and do kill people, too. But nobody is calling for them to be banned.
True, but cars are not specifically designed to kill people. In fact, they are actively being designed to have better safety features, year after year, specifically so that they do not kill people. And alcohol, also, is not specifically designed to kill people. Drunk driving does happen, but it is illegal, and if you are caught, you will face serious penalties. The difference between these things, and guns, is that guns serve basically only one functional purpose, and that is to kill. Period.
What do you have against guns, anyway?
Guns always seem to get to the hands of truly dangerous, angry people who do enormous damage to them!
Why are you scared of guns?
See above. Also, see the headlines. Pretty much any halfway serious newspaper or news network will do.
We need to protect ourselves against the excesses of government.
Fine. But if it comes to that, do you really think you can hold your own for very long? With professionally trained soldiers numbering in the tens of thousands, and with the military having at it's disposal staggering levels of sophisticated weaponry, how long do you think you actually think you will last against the full force of the government?
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for all Americans, and anything less would be an infringement on my constitutional rights.
Yes, the second amendment does promise that the "right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed." True enough. Before that, however, it also mentions that that this is necessary for a "well-regulated militia."
We need to protect ourselves against the excesses of government.
Fine. But if it comes to that, do you really think you can hold your own for very long? With professionally trained soldiers numbering in the tens of thousands, and with the military having at it's disposal staggering levels of sophisticated weaponry, how long do you think you actually think you will last against the full force of the government?
Never does it say anything about allowing everybody, under every circumstance, to own whatever weapon that they want. If it did, then private citizens would presumably be able to own all sorts of other weaponry that they wanted, assuming that they could afford it. They could own tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, even nuclear weapons, so long as they could afford to pay for it. Somehow, however, it is accepted that people should not have this right, because those weapons are just too deadly to be trusted in the hands of private citizens. I think we have seen enough - more than enough - to qualify assault rifles, automatic, and semi-automatic weapons under the same category.
And I think back to a quote that I first ran into years ago, where a conservative former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court summed up the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment clearly, and most certainly not favorably:
"The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militias – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger
In fact, not only do most Americans agree that some limitations on gun access should be imposed, but even a majority of Republicans believe this. That might come as a shock, since the Republican party is the same one that automatically, continually blocks any and all stricter gun legislation, as a rule. It sure seems counterintuitive that the majority of Republicans favor tighter gun laws, yet their Washington representatives vote against their wishes.
So, why is there never any gun legislation at all? I mean, seriously! From the horrible school shooting that seemingly shook the country to it's core at Columbine back in 1999, we have had numerous mass shootings since then, including many that had more victims, and some with arguably even more shock value, particularly the one at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Yet, despite the "thoughts and prayers" sentiments that prominent government officials regularly give, little else is done. Virtually nothing, particularly, in terms of lasting legislation that effectively protects the American people from angry people acquiring guns.
Even when it seems like action will inevitably be taken. It looked that way for a while following the shock of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Yet, nothing concrete happened, really, despite numerous serious efforts. Then came the Orlando shooting, and similarly, nothing. Last year's Las Vegas shooting shocked many, and almost seemed to lead to a ban on bump stocks. Hell, it even appeared that the NRA was encouraging Congress to review, and ultimately perhaps to ban, bump stocks.
But in the end, of course, the same result. Nothing happened. Nothing changed. Another shooting in Sutherland Springs, and again, nothing happened in terms of legislation for tighter gun accesslaws. Now, Parkland, Florida.
Can you blame those of us who remain skeptical when we hear young kids expressing strong confidence that this time, it will be different?
Just five years and change ago, the seemingly random shooting of 20 children under the age of 10 years old was not enough to make legislation change. Just under half a year ago, video footage of seeming de facto machine gun fire from up high at a Las Vegas hotel, killing almost 60 and injuring over 400 others, was not enough. All of those mass shootings that we have seen - and there have been a ton of them - were not enough to change the hearts and minds of Americans, who could surely force action, could force legislation, if they really wanted to, if they stood together and refused to accept no as an answer.
True, maybe this time, there is more of an organizational movement to protest, and organize walkouts. But will that really work? Republicans are apparently very tough to shame, despite overwhelming evidence of disgusting and despicable behavior and beliefs. And when Republicans do not care about something - and they certainly do not seem to care about protests, a tradition dating back to the 1960's - then what will change about that now?
I would love to believe that this time, something will truly change. Believe me, I would love to see something actually change this time, and it would thrill me to be proven wrong, and to question my own skepticism on this issue.
However, history is hard to ignore, and in recent history, Republicans have seemed to have a shield that prevents them from feeling any kind of shame, and they also seem to have a shield that prevents them from suffering serious, much less severe, losses when election season rolls around.
Unfortunately, though, I just do not see it happening. A lot of people have demanded action, have tried to force change, and sounded certainly angry and determined enough to do it.
But it is 2018, and we have had a lot of mass shootings. A hell of a lot of them, frankly. Seriously, Parkland was the 18th school shooting this year, and this year was not even seven full weeks old! We have regularly witnessed unbelievable images of bloodied people running out of buildings, and escaping from incredible carnage brought on by some madman with a gun. Columbine was the better part of 20 years ago. Virginia Tech took place over a decade ago. Aurora and Sandy Hook were well over five years ago now, as well. Orlando is going on two years ago. Even Las Vegas was many months ago now, as was Sutherland Springs. And now, Parkland, Florida.
I totally agree that action should have been taken a long, long time ago, and am as perplexed as anyone else as to how the American people could allow action to not be taken after all of those incidents, after so much time.
Still, the sad reality is that no serious, and certainly no lasting, action ever seems to be taken. The NRA profits, prominent government officials get some of the money and then vote against the best interest of the citizens that they are supposed to represent, and the vicious cycle just keeps going.
Trust me, I would love to be wrong about this. But will I be?
I doubt it.
I have been alarmed to have seen some people that I respected arguing in favor of guns, and against commonsense gun legislation. Now, more than ever, they seem to be grasping, arguing with whatever they can throw to obstruct the path for the United States to join literally every other industrialized nation and implement tighter gun legislation, and not allow madmen and murderers to easily acquire guns, as it literally allows right now.
To these ends, gun rights advocates keep bringing up certain arguments. Here are some:
School shootings happen in schools, because God is no longer in schools.
Okay, but God is certainly in churches, right? And there have been many, many shootings in churches, as well.
Cars and alcohol and some other things can and do kill people, too. But nobody is calling for them to be banned.
True, but cars are not specifically designed to kill people. In fact, they are actively being designed to have better safety features, year after year, specifically so that they do not kill people. And alcohol, also, is not specifically designed to kill people. Drunk driving does happen, but it is illegal, and if you are caught, you will face serious penalties. The difference between these things, and guns, is that guns serve basically only one functional purpose, and that is to kill. Period.
What do you have against guns, anyway?
Guns always seem to get to the hands of truly dangerous, angry people who do enormous damage to them!
Why are you scared of guns?
See above. Also, see the headlines. Pretty much any halfway serious newspaper or news network will do.
We need to protect ourselves against the excesses of government.
Fine. But if it comes to that, do you really think you can hold your own for very long? With professionally trained soldiers numbering in the tens of thousands, and with the military having at it's disposal staggering levels of sophisticated weaponry, how long do you think you actually think you will last against the full force of the government?
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for all Americans, and anything less would be an infringement on my constitutional rights.
Yes, the second amendment does promise that the "right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed." True enough. Before that, however, it also mentions that that this is necessary for a "well-regulated militia."
We need to protect ourselves against the excesses of government.
Fine. But if it comes to that, do you really think you can hold your own for very long? With professionally trained soldiers numbering in the tens of thousands, and with the military having at it's disposal staggering levels of sophisticated weaponry, how long do you think you actually think you will last against the full force of the government?
Never does it say anything about allowing everybody, under every circumstance, to own whatever weapon that they want. If it did, then private citizens would presumably be able to own all sorts of other weaponry that they wanted, assuming that they could afford it. They could own tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, even nuclear weapons, so long as they could afford to pay for it. Somehow, however, it is accepted that people should not have this right, because those weapons are just too deadly to be trusted in the hands of private citizens. I think we have seen enough - more than enough - to qualify assault rifles, automatic, and semi-automatic weapons under the same category.
And I think back to a quote that I first ran into years ago, where a conservative former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court summed up the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment clearly, and most certainly not favorably:
"The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militias – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger
Here are some of the articles that I used in writing this particular blog entry:
Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, FEB 22 2017:
Don't let the title of this article fool you. It is written by an Army guy, who writes very persuasively and intelligently about why assault weapons really do not belong in the hands of the general public:
“Fuck you, I like guns.” Posted on February 15, 2018 “Fuck you, I like guns.”
This article was interesting, but is written by a gun lover, who feels that we who are not familiar with guns should actually learn more about guns. As far as I am concerned, we have learned plenty about how deadly assault rifles and semiautomatics with bump stocks can be, and the discussion does not really need to go farther. Australians and Europeans did not feel it necessary for their citizens to get a tutorial on gun culture in order to pass and enact laws designed to protect their citizens from the deadliest guns. Why should we? Is this not just another way of essentially accepting the unlimited presence of easily accessible guns in our country? In any case, for a different point of view than my own, this is an interesting article:
6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun Control By Meredith Dake-O'Connor OCTOBER 6, 2017
The 12 Most Common Fallacious Gun Arguments (and How to Refute Them) The Independent Thinker 5 months ago
https://theindependentthinker2016.wordpress.com/2017/10/05/the-12-most-common-fallacious-gun-arguments-and-how-to-refute-them/amp/
Most Americans — and most Republicans — want stricter gun laws: Why doesn’t it happen? by MATTHEW SHEFFIELD 02.16.2018:
NEWS MAR 1 2014, 10:46 PM ET 33 Dead, 130 Injured in China Knife-Wielding Spree
No comments:
Post a Comment