“I’m scared!”
We hear that a lot these days. It’s heartbreaking when children are terrified as they flee from a mass murderer at their school or are huddled in their classrooms waiting for help to come. It’s sickening when you discover that children in the U.S. are more likely to be killed by a gun than from any illness or accident. It’s disgusting when do-nothing politicians, fearful of the gun lobby, only ask for more thoughts and prayers, knowing full well that more mass carnage of innocent children will keep happening, and that thoughts and prayers will never stop assault rifle bullets from ripping through the flesh of our little children and teens. They are also aware that doing nothing will plunge more and more families into deep sorrow and profound trauma, often resulting with the surviving family being torn apart. And they proclaim to be pro-life and family values advocates?
So, what’s on the mind of do-nothing politicians who vote against gun safety laws and, instead, support even looser restrictions on gun safety? Simply put, they are scared of losing an election. I’ve heard repeatedly of some do-nothing politicians privately confessing that they would support some gun safety measures but they are scared of being primaried by lazier and crazier candidates who will receive the gun lobby’s money instead of them. That, my friends, is disgusting.
Such a stance is untenable for at least three reasons:
- Retaining your office is no excuse for being a crappy, tax-supported public servant. Nothing better describes a crappy public servant than one who does nothing about the slaughter of children, worshippers, shoppers and concert-goers. Public servants are supposed to be, among other things, ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare. And what is the foundation of domestic tranquility and general welfare? Being safe at home, in school, at church, in the workplace and out in public.
- If our do-nothing politician is already an eight out of ten on the right-wing continuum, what harm will be done if he or she loses in the primary to and NRA-backed candidate who’s a ten on the same scale? It’s simple math. Nothing means zero, and ten times zero is still zero. Therefore, the result is the same, two crappy politicians who will do nothing about gun safety. Moreover, if you lose to a lazier and crazier candidate, he or she just might turn off the electorate in the general election, and someone with a sense of duty to public service just might win your seat in Congress or in your legislature.
- Doing nothing about gun safety is the sickest form of political cowardice I can think of. In the scheme of things, I ask all of you do-nothing politicians, is your retention in office more important than the senseless taking of a child’s life by a weapon or war? Are the 1,600+ lives of children lost in 2022 due to gun violence merely collateral damage for preserving the right of a disturbed eighteen-year-old to carry in public an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine clip; or making it possible for a convicted felon to buy a high-powered pistol at a gun show?
And don’t give us that B.S. about no laws can stop mass killings. In the ten-year period of 1994 – 2004, when assault weapons were banned, mass shootings decreased by 70%. The U.K, Australia, and New Zealand all passed gun safety laws after a mass murder, and today an American child is 100 times more likely to be killed by a gun than a child living in any of these three countries. The United States is the only advanced nation on Earth where children go to school worrying if their school is the site of the next mass murder; or where parents kiss their young ones goodbye at the bus stop wondering if this is the last moment they will see them alive.
The United States is the only advanced nation on Earth where children go to school worrying if their school is the site of the next mass murder; or where parents kiss their young ones goodbye at the bus stop wondering if this is the last moment they will see them alive.
Only in America.
Finally, what’s happened to America’s vision of forming a more perfect union and having the courage to make it so? Why are do-nothing politicians so afraid of the 10% who are opposed to universal background checks? Why are they too afraid to pass meaningful gun safety laws and let the Supreme Court decide constitutionality, rather than relying on the biased opinions (and money) from the gun lobby? Are they afraid the Supreme Court might subscribe to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion that reasonable gun safety laws can pass constitutional muster? Are they afraid of being haunted by the realization that their do-nothingness all these years may have contributed to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent children? History is full of acts of courage by politicians, even to the point of losing their lives (e.g., Bobby Kennedy) or their political offices (e.g., Liz Cheney); yet here we have politicians who lack the courage to vote for a common-sense law supported by 90% of the voters (universal background checks) for fear of losing a campaign contribution or an endorsement. What a shame.
America has too many politicians who are too scared of being primaried; who are too scared to do something about gun safety because of the pitiful excuse that they’re keeping lazier and crazier politicians from defeating them at the polls; and who are too scared to honestly face the truth of the horrific collateral damage caused by having the weakest gun safety laws in the world. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a spine supporting gun safety laws.
For God’s sake, and the sake of our children, let’s throw these do-nothing, office-hoarding cowards out of office, and, at long last, get some decent gun safety laws on the books.
Well reasoned, Jim. Thanks. And in light of Nashville, the governor’s leadership is calling for more hand guns and carry permits. One wonders: how did America cut back on open-carry guns from the days of the old west? Or maybe it’s a Hollywood myth that every man carried a side arm in the 1800’s.
I am reminded of Justice Stevens’ argument about repealing the 2nd amendment, which to me makes much more sense, though even he acknowledged that to be a herculean feat. The only two logic interpretations of that amendment are 1) the government is not allowed to absolutely disarm the entire civilian population and prevent it from ever possessing firearms for self-defense (which is another matter altogether), or 2) seeing as the US has not operated under any schema involving militias, the 2nd amendment is obsolete and therefore inapplicable.
Firearms are the absolute worst form of self-defense as they immediately escalate any situation all the way up to lethal force. This has substantial impact on the ability of those involved to deescalate the situation, let alone give the weapon-bearer a false sense of control and righteousness. Nothing makes a tense situation more easily deescalated than both parties being under equal risk of injury from hand to hand combat as a result of ego-centric bravado.
Firearms do not save lives nor they do not take lives…they fire bullets in the direction in which they are aimed. As soon as the round leaves the barrel it is completely out of the control of the person who fired the weapon. That means that not only does the weapon-bearer have a false sense of affecting specific targets, but it also greatly increases the probability of fatal collateral damage, which given the weapon-bearer’s state of mind, will most likely not be a matter of concern.
The final argument for much, MUCH stricter firearm control laws and regulations is the fact that even the military imposes very strict strict rules a regulations regarding ALL weapons of war, to include “small arms”. You cannot take a weapon onto base. Those personnel who assigned to live on base must take all weapons immediately to the armory to be stowed under lock and guard, and have to go through a lot just to check them back out. All weapons assigned to a unit are also stowed in the armory and are under a lot of rules and regulations in terms of checking them out and being supervised at all times. Why should we have extremely laxed laws for untrained/undertrained civilians with no chain of command structure to coordinate fires if under attack with no incentive to account for collateral damage, when even the military recognizes the importance of strict firearm regulation?
Well reasoned Brian
Well reasoned Brian.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, said if there was one part of the Constitution he would like to remove, it’s the Second Amendment.