Actually, Ima, it was all but four of the Republicans and four conservative democrats. The liberal senators voted for the ability to prevent such tragedies in the future. But majority rule no longer operates in the senate, due to Republican abuse of power. Fortunately, I suppose, the Affordable Health Care Act did get passed, and it will save even more children’s lives than the gun safety legislation would have. But it would be nice to have intelligent conservatives again, so that we could save lives on both issues, rather than hearing ignorant claims of how freedom must necessarily require more innocent death.
I would put forth an observation on the American people in response to this issue. First, it is inane and ridiculous to propose that any senators or typical gun owners would endorse or condone an act like Sandy Hook. The super heated level of dialog that is promoted, better said opinion, that comes out of this topic is essentially fueled by the real pain and horror that all people experience.
Typically, many Americans want the government to pass a restrictive law to control the problem. More laws fix everything when heinous acts like this are perpetrated. Typically they are short sighted or go to extremes in their proposal. Cartoons like this one come out regularly, gun owners (and the NRA) are accused of condoning murder of children by their resistance to more legislation. Gun owners, even those who are generally supportive of our most recently proposed legislation become very defensive at the accusations, labels and insults hurled at them. That’s not to unusual in our super heated media climate that exists today. Aside from that, to repeat a phrase used before for situations like this, “don’t shoot the messenger (pun intended).”
I wonder how long it will take before the media realizes we are saturated with these vulgar cartoons that seem to have no limit to how demeaning they can be. But the real effect is to turn people off. Like it or not, Americans have short attention spans. Add to that the latest Gallup poll listed gun control fairly low on the list of American’s concerns, (#9 of 16) most of their concerns being unemployment, government deficits, safe to say our economic malaise in general. Yes there is an adamant group (GC is evidence) who are rabid supporters of gun control. But when you couple that voice with all the others (Diane Fienstien, Michael Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo) who are screaming for prohibition people dig in their heels and resist. Add to that a poorly written bill that was political and not practical in origin, plus people start looking at the Second Amendment issue as symbolic of government trying to control their choices and rights as an American citizen.
FWIW, I’m done posting on this issue. I feel like at this point it’s mired in emotion and generally speaking we’re just yelling at each other. I like mediating my student’s in a “solutions” discussion on such issues. One came up with a two paragraph proposal on the private sale/transfer, gun show (public venue) regulation that could have passed congress if they were just concerned with substance and not politics. They constantly restore my faith, in spite of their obsession with cell phones, iPads and other social communication devices. One of our future discussions will be the “artificial sense of urgency and importance” that we have created that mandates this “need” to constantly be “in touch.”
^ No, it would have been filibustered. -That said, I agree that Reid should not have agreed to the 60 vote passage. Republicans would have taken the heat for the filibuster.
“Strong conclusion, take away the guns from honest civilians.”I suppose asking you how background checks at gun shows would “take guns from honest civilians” would be a waste of time?
“The law already exists.”I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist everywhere…but nevertheless, you didn’t answer the question I asked of Ima: How does such a law “take guns from honest civilians”?
I’m not sure I see expanding the law outside of Florida as “writing the same law over and over”.Are you also against registration for cars? Marriages? Birth certificates?
“But requiring background checks, even gun ownership prohibitions do not stop criminals.”I think it more accurate to say that it doesn’t stop all criminals. Speeding laws don’t stop all speeders. Heck, murder laws don’t stop all murders. Why abandon the idea of a law because it might be broken?
ARodney almost 11 years ago
Actually, Ima, it was all but four of the Republicans and four conservative democrats. The liberal senators voted for the ability to prevent such tragedies in the future. But majority rule no longer operates in the senate, due to Republican abuse of power. Fortunately, I suppose, the Affordable Health Care Act did get passed, and it will save even more children’s lives than the gun safety legislation would have. But it would be nice to have intelligent conservatives again, so that we could save lives on both issues, rather than hearing ignorant claims of how freedom must necessarily require more innocent death.
Mickey 13 almost 11 years ago
I would put forth an observation on the American people in response to this issue. First, it is inane and ridiculous to propose that any senators or typical gun owners would endorse or condone an act like Sandy Hook. The super heated level of dialog that is promoted, better said opinion, that comes out of this topic is essentially fueled by the real pain and horror that all people experience.
Typically, many Americans want the government to pass a restrictive law to control the problem. More laws fix everything when heinous acts like this are perpetrated. Typically they are short sighted or go to extremes in their proposal. Cartoons like this one come out regularly, gun owners (and the NRA) are accused of condoning murder of children by their resistance to more legislation. Gun owners, even those who are generally supportive of our most recently proposed legislation become very defensive at the accusations, labels and insults hurled at them. That’s not to unusual in our super heated media climate that exists today. Aside from that, to repeat a phrase used before for situations like this, “don’t shoot the messenger (pun intended).”
I wonder how long it will take before the media realizes we are saturated with these vulgar cartoons that seem to have no limit to how demeaning they can be. But the real effect is to turn people off. Like it or not, Americans have short attention spans. Add to that the latest Gallup poll listed gun control fairly low on the list of American’s concerns, (#9 of 16) most of their concerns being unemployment, government deficits, safe to say our economic malaise in general. Yes there is an adamant group (GC is evidence) who are rabid supporters of gun control. But when you couple that voice with all the others (Diane Fienstien, Michael Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo) who are screaming for prohibition people dig in their heels and resist. Add to that a poorly written bill that was political and not practical in origin, plus people start looking at the Second Amendment issue as symbolic of government trying to control their choices and rights as an American citizen.
FWIW, I’m done posting on this issue. I feel like at this point it’s mired in emotion and generally speaking we’re just yelling at each other. I like mediating my student’s in a “solutions” discussion on such issues. One came up with a two paragraph proposal on the private sale/transfer, gun show (public venue) regulation that could have passed congress if they were just concerned with substance and not politics. They constantly restore my faith, in spite of their obsession with cell phones, iPads and other social communication devices. One of our future discussions will be the “artificial sense of urgency and importance” that we have created that mandates this “need” to constantly be “in touch.”
Michelle Davis Premium Member almost 11 years ago
:-D
braindead Premium Member almost 11 years ago
^ No, it would have been filibustered. -That said, I agree that Reid should not have agreed to the 60 vote passage. Republicans would have taken the heat for the filibuster.
riley05 almost 11 years ago
“Strong conclusion, take away the guns from honest civilians.”I suppose asking you how background checks at gun shows would “take guns from honest civilians” would be a waste of time?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
“The law already exists.”I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist everywhere…but nevertheless, you didn’t answer the question I asked of Ima: How does such a law “take guns from honest civilians”?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
I’m not sure I see expanding the law outside of Florida as “writing the same law over and over”.Are you also against registration for cars? Marriages? Birth certificates?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
“But requiring background checks, even gun ownership prohibitions do not stop criminals.”I think it more accurate to say that it doesn’t stop all criminals. Speeding laws don’t stop all speeders. Heck, murder laws don’t stop all murders. Why abandon the idea of a law because it might be broken?
riley05 almost 11 years ago
Here’s what the NRA spent on their senators for this vote:http://www.demandaction.org/Receipt?akid=658.1292312.wSkrNg&rd=1&t=2