Neither side gets a pass on this. Both Pro and Con sides are using emotional arguments unrelated to the actual problem to try to sway people to one side or the other on this very important topic. If there was ever a topic that needed level head debate, this is it. But neither side is letting that happen because they are too afraid to give an inch to do what is really right for everyone.
On the Pro Control side, let's look at the Chief Executive. He made his way up to Newtown again to use it as a backdrop for his agenda (which he is counting on being part of his legacy). He had all those people who lost loved ones around him during his speech, and then loaded them on Air Force One to fly back to DC and make the rounds of Capital Hill in advance of the coming debates. They will bring their sad pictures and truly unbearably sad story to legislators in an attempt to sway votes.
Why is this reprehensible? Because they are being used as emotional red herrings by the Pro Control crowd. Because NOT A SINGLE PROVISION of the current expected Gun Control bill would have done anything to even minimize the tragedy. If the complete bill had passed unanimously months or years prior to Sandy Hook, the outcome would have been EXACTLY THE SAME. So not a single one of these people are victims of us not passing this "common sense" legislation earlier, because it does not address any of the problems attendant in this case. Maybe an assault weapons ban would have kept the rifle out of play,
BUT THAT ISN'T INCLUDED in any of the bills
(and evidence remains out if the rifle was ever actually used or to what extent). Mental Health records MAY have kept his mother from being able to have any weapons in her home, BUT THAT ISN'T INCLUDED in any of the bills. And so on and so on.
I am tired of people holding up pictures of sad eyed children cut down at the very beginning of their lives because of a madman's actions, and trying to use that emotional appeal to push forward an agenda and laws that would do NOTHING to fix the problems that caused that loss. Those children (and adults, we often forget the brave adults who gave their lives as well) deserve our deepest sympathy and regrets, but using them as a pawn in this way actually demeans their memory.
But, as I said neither side gets a pass. Just as repulsive is the jingoistic rattling of the NRA and the GOA about 2nd Amendment Rights. They tell us NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to deny us those rights as enumerated. And anyone who even tries to tread on them is a traitor, moron, Communist, (insert favorite epithet here)..
Yes, there is a right to bear arms, and it is in the Bill of Rights and is the law of the land. But it is a basic tenet of human existence that no one has the right to do something that endangers others. It has been held up in courts literally hundreds or thousands of times, for everything from freedom of speech to human rights violations. Everyone has heard the analogy of "Screaming :FIRE" in a crowded theater'. While doing so might be your right under the 1st Amendment, the fact that the hysterical mob would probably trample to death dozens of people means you can not do that.
Let's bring it back to the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully no one thinks that it is OK to allow violent criminals unfettered access to guns. Or the violent mental patient. Or under-aged children without supervision who don't understand the consequences. So everyone agrees that SOME restraints to the 2nd Amendment are required.
Now comes the hard part; which restraints? That isn't up to me, but what I am saying is let's have a meaningful discussion of this without name calling, bullying and histrionics. Just because someone else believes in different ideas does not make them evil, or traitorous. It makes them different. RIGHT or WRONG is always right or wrong, but it is not always so easily quantified in things that have this much passion around them.
So please, this topic already has a high enough emotional quotient just by itself that we don't need to bring in martyred children or patriotic blinders to get our juices flowing. If the law being floated is about magazine restrictions, then bring up the pictures of the people who would have been saved by having smaller magazines (good luck proving that). And Gun Rights people, get over the fact that the hallowed 2nd Amendment does in fact NOT APPLY to everyone in every situation. Some people are just not able to own firearms for the good of everyone around them.
And let's start taking it seriously that what we need to do is determine HOW we are going to identify those people, and how we are going to ensure they don't get guns. Maybe it is background checks (I personally don't believe so, but it is a solution some have offered). Maybe it is extremely painful mandatory sentences for violent acts with a weapon. Maybe it is a return to real parenting and teaching people to be accountable for their actions instead of blaming someone else that they can then hunt down. Most likely, it is a little bit of all of tehse, and many more things.
I'm a gun owner, a CHL holder and a licensed gun dealer. And I am appalled at the number of people who die each year/month/day/hour from firearms. And not just the violent crime, but suicides as well (which many on the Gun Rights side forget to talk about). And the people whose lives are changed by that loss, or a non-fatal wounding, or even property damage caused by irresponsible gun use. So I believe this country does have a responsibility to do something. I don't believe laws, or restrictions and constraints are the way to do it, but something has to change.
Let's be the ones to lead the charge to a better future. Let's be the people we want to see in that future. Let's argue about the right things, for the right reasons.
