Yet another of those tragic, shocking shootings. When, when, WHEN will there be a loud outcry from the public saying that this has to stop?
As I have said before, the problem as I perceive it is that there are too many guns around, and guns are too easily obtainable, to the extent that mentally unstable people can (and do, very sadly) get their hands on guns.
It's terribly tragic that a recent US Supreme Court decision has undermined attempts of government jurisdictions to have gun control laws (this reverses years of jurisprudence that had held that some degree of regulation of firearm ownership was permissible).
Aside from this unfortunate Supreme Court ruling, most of the remainder of the problem is the NRA, the National Rifle Association, which, despite its name, seems just as concerned that there be completely unrestricted access to handguns and even assault weapons as it is with rifles.
The NRA is a very powerful, well financed, and vocal special-interest lobby in the U.S. Congress. According to a 2009 article, "The group's political action committee spent $15.6 million on campaign donations during the past two years, according to disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission." (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda#ixzz1AeRrW2FG) Read more of this article for information on just one instance of the influence of the NRA, which ended up killing voting rights in Congress for the District of Columbia because the NRA wanted the abolition of DC's gun control laws to be a part of that measure.
To tie in with another posting of mine on this blog, if the U.S. did not incorporate the South, we would not have as much influence by the NRA. This is because support for the NRA comes largely from rural areas and from the South.
Those who want to see some restraint on gun ownership have not only the NRA in the way—a not insignificant obstacle—but also the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As I said above, a recent Supreme Court decision lends greater influence to that amendment, or at least a certain interpretation of it. The Amendment itself is quite concise, but (despite what some people think), the interpretation of law (or of anything else written) is never simple and self-evident. I won't go into issues of interpreting the Second Amendment here; I'm not a law professor or a Constitutional scholar. However, I'd even go so far as to say that if gun ownership cannot be curbed because of the Second Amendment, the Amendment should be repealed. But I'm pretty sure that can't happen in today's America.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was listening after the terrible shooting to the father of the slain 9 year old girl who just happened to be at the site because of her passion for politics. The girl's father made a very touching statement about how his daughter was born on a violent day (9-11) and was taken on account of another violent day. The father went on to say that he saw all the restrictions put in place after 9-11 (pertaining to flight restrictions) and that he wasn't looking for more restrictions since he thought that wasn't the answer. I have always favored gun laws especially since I very much remember the political assassinations of the '60s and irresponsible inexcusable gun violence since. I've personally encountered gun violence having had a sawed-off shot gun put to my head and pumped while at a former workplace. Despite my strong feelings in favor of gun control I don't know if more restrictions are the answer when the current ones don't seem to work. Also I'm not sure the sole focus of the problem should be on the guns since the abuse and firearms have become so widespread and perhaps are now even unmanageable. Maybie concealed weapons is another story and better background checks. Many argue that no matter what crooks will always have the guns and ammo. I did listen to a woman on the news who is trying to improve our societal safety in regard to guns as she spoke specifically about the magazine (clip of 34 or so bullets) which were in the pistol in the Tucson shooting. Her arguement was that the magazine needn't be that large for average persons (excluding law enforcement and military) which again is as trying to regulate assault weapons. The other thing she stressed was how cheap it is to shoot a congresswoman or anyone else at only 22 cents a bullet from Walmart. I know I've said a lot here and please excuse but I'm trying to make a point of how big a problem this sort of regulation has become. There are so many factors that enter into this terrible Tucson tragedy that needlessly took and damaged lives. Maybie more can be done to improve gun laws but I can't help but suggest that existing laws need more teeth to somehow make them work better. Also, I think other things need to be looked at such as background checks, age, costs, retailers, and whoever, however. or whatever might be followed up on to diminish the likelihood of this sort of thing happening henceforth.
ReplyDelete