The firearm background
checks bill is dead. So much for our “democratic representative republic”.
The Senate ignored “we the
people” and cowered before the cash and lies of the NRA, weapons manufacturers
and right wing gun nuts.
The shrill cries still echo.
“Obama’s coming to take our guns!” “It’s imposing mandatory gun registration!”
“Eek a mouse!”
Instead
of being dead or in jail as he promised, Nutball Nugent declared Obama is “an
evil and dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom.”
While I’m more annoyed at Obama for his free handed war making, surveillance state and Wall Street coddling, I admit he was right
about this:
"They claimed that it
would create some sort of ‘big brother’ gun registry, even though the bill did
the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and
simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter."
"The gun lobby and its
allies willfully lied about the bill," Obama said. "There were no
coherent arguments as to why we couldn't do this. It came down to
politics."
It was about money and the
“free speech” of money over the clear will of the people.
Once again our Senate has
proven the majority of Americans are not who they represent. A clear majority
of Americans approve of more background checks at gun shows and for internet
sales.
The House is even more
anit-democratic. More Americans voted for Democratic representatives than
Republican, but who cares? Not Big Money and the ruling minority of elites.
If on-line and gun show
background checks dissuade criminals or unstable people from owning AR-15's
then that is a good thing, right?
What's the problem with
that? There wasn't. That is, until the “Black President” took office and
supported the idea.
Before it became a political
power game and tool for instilling fear of the Black President for weapons lobbyist Wayne LaPierre, he was on record supporting
background checks. But in typical Right Wing fashion, as soon as Democrats, or
especially Obama, support a GOP idea, then we see the GOP/NRA disavow their
stated positions.
When will we see a coherent
argument for that behavior?
Pandora ’s Box is open.
There may be little we can do to prevent mass murder short of imposing a police
state. But that is no excuse to not do what little we can is it?
In October 2012, a Wisconsin Columbine
High School
Private commercial sales of
firearms without a background check have been linked to gun crime generally.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, gun shows
are "a major venue for illegal trafficking" of firearms. The ATF
specifically connected this assessment to private sales at gun shows, which
have been taken advantage of by traffickers who supply weapons to Mexican drug
cartels.
As an April 17 New York
Times article notes, online "unregulated bazaars" where private gun
transactions are completed are used by individuals who cannot pass a background
check. According to 2011 investigation by New
York City
In the meantime, terrorists,
the mentally ill, and criminals who will buy guns without a background check,
and they most certainly will, have the NRA, the Republican Party and the
cowardly Democrats to thank.
When will we see a coherent
argument for allowing that?
Posts
3 comments:
eeek! a mouse! is very correct. The bill, in my estimation, was a weak, mild step in merely acknowledging that there is a serious, insidious problem.
// as soon as Democrats, or especially Obama, support a GOP idea, then we see the GOP/NRA disavow their stated positions.//
Now that is a REAL problem. There are so many different factions in the USA that will never...never...accept a Black American President. Especially a Democrat. Relating to your last post...what real progress have we made? Hilary Clinton...as a WOMAN and a Democrat, would have received much of the same obstructionist opposition. We still are a racist and sexist society. Tune in tomorrow...and nothing will have changed.
Dave Dubya: "When will we see a coherent argument for allowing that?
When Hell freezes over? Either that, or when we don't have a black president in office. Which ever occurs first.
The bill was nothing. It was an encomberance on law abiding citizens. In the vast, vast majority of mass shootings, most of the shooters aquired their guns illegally by stealing them.
So basically what that bill said, is we want to punish law abiding gun owners for the crimes of non-law abiding gun owners. That is why it didn't pass. It wouldn't have saved even one life had we had it. Recent events have proven that when you really want to kill a lot off people, all you need are some pressure cookers and some fire-works. Criminalizing guns or thier sale simply punishes the law abiding while empowering criminals.
Post a Comment