About the only thing upon which the NRA and the rest of us can agree is that serious, enforced gun laws probably wouldn't have prevented James Eagan Holmes from shooting 70 people in an Aurora, CO theater. We can also agree that the shootings at Virginia Tech, Columbine, and everywhere else associated with senseless slaughter would most likely have occurred regardless of any weapons restrictions. Beyond that there is no agreement.
I realize that the Supreme Court rulings in McDonald and Heller pretty much ended the conversation on the Second Amendment. Your right to own, carry, conceal, stockpile, and defend yourself with a firearm is, for the foreseeable future, settled law...much good may it ever do you. However, the notion that it's too soon to debate our easy access to weapons, including assault weapons, and its effect on our society is not just wrong it's heinous. For a loudmouth like Chris Christie to suggest that we should not "politicize" the tragedy in Aurora is to imply that constructive dialogue about guns in America is somehow a political issue like taxes or foreign policy. That's bullshit. We can and should talk about this while the smell of cordite is still fresh in the noses of the survivors.
Hell, theater owners are working toward a ban on costumes in theaters. That's like banning all underwear on airplanes. Does anyone think that preventing geeks from dressing up as Batman or Frodo will prevent the next senseless act of violence? Nevertheless theater owners haven't called a press conference to moan that "it's too soon" to talk about precautions to improve the safety of moviegoers. At least they are trying to think of something. The gun lobby and all who serve them are only interested in covering their own asses. The gun gang doesn't even wait for someone in power to mention gun ownership. They send their mouthpieces straight to Fox News to decry any and all who would "use this tragedy to further their anti-Second Amendment agenda".
Talking about gun laws won't result in any change in America's love affair with firearms. No amount of carnage will cause one Congressman or one Senator to change his/her stance on guns. But make no mistake this is not a political issue...it's a money issue. The NRA funds all of the Republicans and most of the Western states' Democrats. Besides, there's no public outcry to curtail gun ownership. There is no serious counterbalancing force to compete with the gun lobby.
Jeez, one moron Congressman suggested that if the theatergoers in Aurora were all packing, there would have been fewer patrons killed. All those who think that a shootout in a packed theater would have been a good idea please kill yourselves now.
It is baffling to think that, after 9/11, our response was to shred our Constitutional rights to privacy in a panicked effort to protect ourselves from another attack. We began to hate all things Muslim. We rounded up and imprisoned suspected terrorists all over the world. Some are still in jail. Does anyone doubt that if the Aurora, CO shooter had been an Iranian or Pakistani our rage would have been uncontrollable? Why is it then that we can't muster the slightest scintilla of indignation toward gun sellers or the politicians who pander to them? Where is the outrage?
Reasonable people can agree that, if we can monitor the purchase of fertilizer or dynamite, we can certainly keep track of people who stockpile ammunition. There are clearly no legitimate reasons to own thousands of rounds for an assault rifle. The "slippery slope " argument is crap. There are fifty restrictions we could logically apply to gun ownership without ever curtailing the sacred right to own a gun...or several guns. Suppose we ask the President to sign an oath that he will never sign an anti-gun bill? Would that encourage the NRA to green light mandatory trigger-guards or chemical tagging of gunpowder? Sure it will. Just not in your lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment