My response to the background check amendment vote.
I waited a few days before saying anything. I had to cool down. The Manchin-Toomey amendment was widely supported by over ninety percent of this country's citizens and the U. S. Senate shot it down. Why? The senators who voted against it were afraid that they would not be reelected. They were afraid of the power of the NRA. Two women shouted "Shame on you" after the proposal was defeated. I couldn't have said it better.
I consider myself a moderate. I vote issues, not parties. I agree with President Obama when he said, "a pretty shameful day for Washington." These people decided that their jobs more important than the life of one child.
No one claimed that this bill would solve all the problems this country has with gun violence, but it was a start. It would have been slightly inconvenient, similar to registering your car, but if it saves the life of one child, it is worth it..
The following link is the NRA's response: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/letter-from-nra-institute-for-legislative-action-executive-director-chris-cox-to-the-united-states-senate-on-background-checks.aspx
The NRA states: "This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by
honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to
get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face
prosecution."
Yes! This is the idea! It is designed to keep the private transfer of weapons to criminals and the mentally ill. It means that you would need to fill out paperwork if you buy a gun at a gun show, from a friend or on the Internet. I don't understand what the NRA's issue is. If you are a law abiding citizen, what are you afraid of? That you'll get a hand cramp? That you won't get immediate gratification?
This has been covered a great deal by the press so I will say no more. I do hope that anyone who disagrees with the outcome of this vote, write their senators and inform them that they are unhappy and as a result, will not be voting for them when they are up for reelection. A list that provides the names of the senators and how they voted can be found online (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-control-amendment-votes-041713). Use the power of the pen and your vote to tell these people how you feel. How they were able to look into the faces of the Newton families is beyond me.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Postscript: If you read the amendment you will find that family and friend transfers are exempted from the requirement of criminal background checks. It did not extend the exemption to Internet and gun show sales.
Jane, I can kill a man with my bare hands in less time and with less trouble than it takes to fire a gun. And with no disorientation after from the loud sound. Will you now propose to tell me that I am not allowed to protect myself using my hands or feet? I can kill a man with a nail file on the end of my nail clippers. Do you want to ban and outlaw those as well. How about you tell me that I can in now way protect myself ever and must always wait for the government to come save me. Hell, if I try a little harder, I could get the man to kill himself just by talking to him. Will you ban my right to speech?
ReplyDeleteI will always protect myself better than anyone else. Tell me that I do not have the right to do so seems kind of evil to me. An insidious evil predicated upon fear and loathing. When you discover of what, then you will see things in a different light.
First, I don't buy the bare hands analogy. In many states, martial arts experts are required to register their hands, as they are considered lethal weapons. So your analogy doesn't hold water there. Also, you can kill one person with your bare hands, but not 26 in a matter of minutes. And the person you are killing with those hands has the ability to fight back.
DeleteNo one is taking your guns away. No one is saying you can't protect yourself. This bill had nothing to do with banning guns. For God's sake read it! The bill was about background checks. I have several friends who are police officers and they support it. The bill's purpose is to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from purchasing guns at gun shows and on the Internet without a background check. Will it solve the problem? No, but it will help stem the flow. If it saves one child's life, I'm all for it.
Your last paragraph, in fact your entire response, is an over reaction. If you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from this bill.
Ruth Marcus did a far better job in regards to this bill. Read her commentary: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-on-gun-laws-congress-betrays-our-faith/2013/04/18/339ad29a-a851-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html