In Memory of Sandy Hook, Let's Put Politics Aside and Regulate Gun Ownership

newtownIn the wake of the horrific slaughter of the teachers and children in Newtown, Connecticut, the issue of gun regulation is now  front and center.  But in the national conversation that has ensued,  Republicans,primarily,  are proving that they are not the adults in the room.  This is a moment when Congress and the President should be on the same page.  It is clear that something must be done. And the president has acted with that in mind.

Yet the Republicans and  their surrogates in the media would rather cloud the issue by creating a phony hysteria about gun confiscation by the federal government.  Or by ginning up fears about Second Amendment rights. Or by disingenuously denying the central problem: the easy availability of assault weapons to unstable individuals.

So we hear right-wing extremists like radio talker Alex Jones shrieking at Piers Morgan on CNN: "Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns,...I'm here to tell you 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms." And the Drudge Report reinforcing this maniacal demagogy with pictures of Hitler and Stalin.

This is sheer revisionist malarky---Vice-president  Biden might say.  The fact is, and  Martin Bashir pointed this  out yesterday on MSNBC, Hitler didn't take the guns. In 1938, with the German Weapons Act, he actually loosened restrictions on firearms, expanded exemptions, lowered the age of gun ownership to 18, and extended the firearm permit from 1 to 3 years.

This is a propitious moment for all Americans to come and reason together. We don't need  historical misconceptions. We don't need constitutional smokescreens.  We need a civil discourse based on the truth. No one is taking away guns from their owners. No one is threatening  Second Amendment rights.   What we want and need is plain and simple. We want and  need background checks, a national database. And sensible, responsible regulation of assault weapons and ammunition clips, like the ones  used to savagely murder the teachers and children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Filed under: politics

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I think I exhausted myself on Chicago Political Commentary.

    But basically, in response to those who say that having a gun prevents tyranny (look at Syria as an example, sure), I say that if the big eared King of England (and his wife Secretariat) quarters troops in my house in violation of the Third Amendment, I'll get a musket and exercise my Second Amendment rights. Heck, that guy disparaged my exercise of First Amendment rights.

    And even if that guy doesn't become King of England, the next King is lucky that he takes his looks from his mother.

  • In reply to jack:

    Heck, I see that I have an indefinite antecedent. In that last paragraph, I was referring to King Charlie the Nonexistent.

  • Nice job of putting politics aside, you couldn't do it from the title to the body. How about a haiku about how the dems refuse to acknowledge the 30-50 black on black shootings on the south side every weekend. Where's the black collage?

  • In reply to 4zen:

    That seems pretty obvious for the daily newscasts. You have black activist Father Pfleger railing about it, including shootings on his own church steps.

    Maybe the unusual thing is honky 13-20 year olds getting their hands on machine guns, including even from mommy, which would have been hard to control if mommy were a legal purchaser. Or The Joker in Colorado.

    Now, whether Cuomo and Emanuel have the answer may be a different question. But the NRA sure doesn't.

  • In reply to jack:

    You sound too intelligent to believe that Cuomo and/or Emanuel do. There is a happy medium somewhere but we will never know as long as that Klown in the W.H. keeps acting like Chairman Mao!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    the kid in Connecticut didn't get his hands on a 'machinegun'.
    How about being FACTUAL?
    The 'kids' in Chicago - namely 'gangstas' get their hands on illegal FULL auto weapons from their buds south of the border.
    And the gun he had WAS illegally owned by 'mommy' and illegally stored too. And the ACLU KILLED the mental health bill in Connecticut earlier in the year - February - that would have had the kid in a mental institution before the massacre took place.
    Cuomo is a little hitler waiting for power. I get tired of hearing from all these people with 24/7 taxpayer ARMED security telling us what we can't have for defense.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 4zen:

    Amen.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Your premise is wrong.

  • I suppose the 41 people killed in Chicago since Sandy Hook do not matter, because they are the wrong color and live outside the comfort zone of neat and safe suburban and city streets? Let's just ditch that old Second Amendment because those killed in Sandy Hook were rich and blue eyed?

    After that Second Amendment is killed, lets work on the First Amendment, because words have incited more riots and revolutions and killings that a piece of machinery.

    Who needs any of it?

    Let us just be ruled and tossed some stale bagels now and then.

  • I agree, just pointing out the bias, that bias that keeps everyone unconscious. Maybe if we stopped paying children to have and raise other children, we could put an end to the endless teen assassins they're growing on the south and west side. But, as Bill Crosby found out, don't mess the matriarch and it's long term plan.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    that was a reply to jack, i was late.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I'm not sure how that is a reply to me, recognizing that I did use some sarcasm in my post.

    I don't think Emanuel or Pfleger are concerned about white on white shootings, although Newtown certain gives Emanuel another way of getting on TV.

  • In reply to jack:

    certainly

  • In reply to jack:

    I don't think that's true of Father Pfleger. He has spoken out against gun violence in general across the nation. I take him at his word.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    But there is a certain inference to be drawn from his appearances on the steps of St. Sabina, and I don't think it is the one 4zen is drawing, even if Pfleger speaks elsewhere.

  • In reply to jack:

    i was agreeing that the NRA, alone, does not have the answer.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Thanks for clarifying that.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Ha! Jack I keep reading your comment and I can't see where you don't understand where I could agree. Not everyone lies in the unconscious bliss of blaming one side and being free of their shadow. We need some Yoda training up in here, me thinks.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Maybe from 2 words "I agree," compared the rest that didn't seem to, especially on the assumed bias point, which was the main point to which I was responding to you. But since we are clear, fine.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 4zen:

    It's not that they don't, alone, have the answer. the problem is anything they say is ridiculed. A psychological technique called 'marginalizing'.
    In the 1990's Pres Clinton instituted a COPS program for police in schools. The left loved it. It gave their disctrcits MILLIONS of dollars. Pelosi, Feisntein, Schumer etc all loved it becuase they got all that money.
    The tide is changed, because they don't want schools protected - because it is too much of a politcal hay to have school shootings so they can use the crisis to puch more gun control ie remove more freedom. It isn't the GUNS they want, they want to break the psychological and mental 'bacl' of the 'guns and bibl'e crowd.
    That done, Obama will have his way politically with no one else in the way.

  • We should never do anything out of misguided memory of whatever. That is how bad policy is made. This constant syrupy sympathy demonstrates the stupidity of the average voter. You got the government you deserve.

  • In reply to Peter Bella:

    How and why "misguided"? Characterizing an outpouring of human sympathy as "syrupy" is too cynical for me.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Peter Bella:

    Bravo ! Well spoken!
    and Thank you!

  • Just ban all guns like Chicago does-works there, right?

  • Maybe by gun regulation you mean all of the actors who appeared in the Sandy Hook videos, huh!

  • In reply to RufusVonDufus:

    Explain.

  • When there is a horrible tragedy like Sandy Hook, our emotions take over and we instinctively say that we MUST . . . DO . . . SOMETHING. Anything - just as long as SOMETHING is done. That's because too many people think with their glands and not with their brains.

    While it seems counter-intuitive, the facts and the evidence point to LESS crime, particularly less violent crime, when individuals are allowed to own guns. When private gun ownership was banned in DC, the crime rate soared. When FL relaxed its 'concealed carry' laws, gun-related crimes dropped. But those hard facts are indigestible to people who are emoting rather than thinking. Their knee-jerk reaction is that if a gun was involved, ban all guns.

    As for defending ourselves, we need to look at history. When Germany invaded and occupied France during WWII, England sent an urgent request to the U.S. to supply them with small arms - rifles and handguns - and with trainers who could teach the population how to use them. England had virtually disarmed its population after WWI, and they saw the result as the Germany army took over France with little or no resistance. America sent over 7,000 firearms to Great Britain, along with ammunition and NRA certified instructors.

    We don't need a grandstanding President who is trying to earn political capital by using the Sandy Hook tragedy, and by his blatant photo op surrounded by children. Obama's own children attend a school that is heavily secured by people with guns. If he wants to ban guns, lets start with those guarding his children's school.

  • In reply to MisterMan:

    The England point is an extreme example. It expected to be invaded by Hitler's army.

    Grandstanding? No, using the bully pulpit and demonstrating leadership.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Aquinas wired:

    'Leadrship' ?
    Still waiting for the 'president' to do so for four years now.

  • In reply to Wayno:

    You're in the minority opinion, Wayno. 65,899,557 people disagree with you, including me.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    So that makes the minority position, wrong in your judgment?

    The facts about gun ownership and crime simply don't support the 'majority' point of view.

    Also, a 'leader' does not usurp the power given to the other branches of government. Obama's Executive Order end-around is a blatant power grab of Congressional authority.

    It's not only the Second Amendment. Anyone with a child in a public school knows how Michelle Obama imposed her will on the school lunch program, with terrible results. They are just now beginning to undo the mess she caused. I refuse to be a lab rat in the Obamas social engineering experiments.

  • In reply to MisterMan:

    Issuing an Executive Order is not usurping power. GWB did it quite often.
    The fact is the majority of NRA members would like to see more gun regulation. 92% of Americans favor universal background checks.

    My friend, the history of our republic has been a series of social and political experiments.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    no one is against universal background checks... they've been trying to get a mental health list for a while... what shouldn't be done is taking legally owned guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens... I'm also not apposed to requiring training for the ownership of anything more then a home defensible weapons...

  • In reply to Cueil:

    Cueil, ignore my inquiry further down. I didn't see this comment. What you say is a sensible starter in any gun control conversation. BTW, 97% of Americans are with you on background checks. I myself would be in favor of a national registry of gun ownership. And why should there be 300,000 million firearms circulating in a country with an equivalent number of people?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Because "it" can never happen here, right? Even some of the most repressive regimes in history did not try to regulate the size of a soft drink or what kind of fat a person consumed. All in the name of good intentions.

    Whether an invasion was expected or not, the fact remained that if England were invaded without a well armed militia, the English people would have had to use cricket bats.

  • It's also wildly ironic that the members of the news media who are advocating the gutting of the 2nd Amendment are doing so by exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

    It hasn't dawned on the liberal members of the Fourth Estate that if we can justify removing one Amendment from the Bill of Rights, other Amendments are in the same jeopardy.

  • First of all, no one is gutting the Second Amendment. So no one is justifying "removing one amendment from the Bill of Rights:.

    Secondly, irony aside, what's reprehensible about exercising 1st Amendment rights by either the left or right, or center?

  • I swore an oath to defend the Constitution... I never unswore that oath and if necessary I will act to defend the Constitution. The right of the people to own fire arms shall not be infringed... the point is the right to rise up and overthrow your government if they try and remove your rights. The right is there to hunt or even to protect yourself from criminals... though those are both good reasons to own a gun... it's to protect yourself from having your government removing your rights. It's been used before and eventually it may be used again.

  • In reply to Cueil:

    What kind of sensible regulations would you be for, Cueil?

Leave a comment