They Deserve A Vote
President Obama ended his SOTU speech last night by calling on Congress to at least vote on the proposals made to try to rein in some of this country’s gun violence. It was, in my opinion, perhaps the finest moment of this speech — reminding us of the price of a violent society, honoring recent victims of gun violence and making the GOP actually participate in a standing ovation for gun control. One article I read today noted that the repetition of “They deserve a vote” wasn’t in the prepared remarks — prepared or no, President Obama delivered a little bit of church yesterday and walked away with a great rallying cry:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDNLsNHZoQw[/youtube]
That was powerful.
As a friend of mine who has CP and is a gun owner said,
“Your personal tragedy doesn’t mean you “deserve a vote” on denying people rights….that was perhaps the most emotional part of the State of the Union speech…Which is precisely why it should be ignored.”
Using the grief of people who have lost more than you could even imagine in order to push anti-rights, anti-freedom proposals you’ve had laying around for years waiting for the opportune time to push them is flat out disgusting.
And of course there’s the plain fact that not one of the proposals Obama and the Dems want a vote on would have stopped any of the sad events Obama mentioned in his speech.
the two things from that clip and the speech that stuck with me:
Gabby Giffords clasping her hands and shaking them up and down instead of clapping because she can’t really control one of her arms anymore.
That woman holding up a picture as she dabs away tears.
and mike you’re wrong. If we pass some laws that clamp down HARD on straw purchasers and illegal gun trafficking it may have been harder for those chicago gang members to have gunned down the majorette. That wouldn’t affect your rights as a law abiding citizen one bit.
Gifford’s presence alone is a powerful symbol of determination and resolve. If she can be there, all of us can be present for the coming votes.
You can hear how rattled the gun anarchy side is. There are commenters here who are literally trembling in their chairs.
Mike,
That’s where you (and your friend) are wrong. It’s not a personal tragedy, it’s an *American* tragedy. How many communities did Obama rattle off in that speech? How many more could he have mentioned? We’re not talking some small special interest group, we’re talking about thousands directly affected, millions indirectly. Millions more than there are members of special interest group the NRA, whose members largely support these measures.
And quit using that “none of these policies would have prevented these shootings” tripe. Half the stuff that got rammed through Congress after 9/11 wouldn’t have prevented those tragedies. They were passed to prevent future tragedies or at least make it more difficult to happen.
And go talk to Scalia about Second Amendment rights and whether they’re absolute. I’m sorry, after this week’s shooting at my brother’s workplace, I’m tired of hearing how your right to bear any arms you see fit trumps people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mike –
In reverse order…
1. You can’t take serious reform off the table saying “it’s anti-freedom” and then also complain that the reforms being discussed aren’t serious. It’s a problem that doesn’t have to be this bad, but you’re not open to any of the options that would make the big improvements you supposedly want.
2. This was a personal tragedy that brought guns to the forefront of public discourse. Are we supposed to ignore the impetus for a current issue all together? To borrow from Ezra Klein, if roads were collapsing all over the country, wouldn’t we start talking about how to stop roads from collapsing? Wouldn’t that discussion necessarily reference events?
Looking at current events and saying “something should be done about this” is how laws take shape. Saying that we can’t reference current events when trying to make society better is the kind of weak argument the opponents of gun control keep using. Find something better.
3. “Your personal tragedy doesn’t mean you “deserve a vote” on denying people rights” – why is it that gun ownership is supposed to be a universal and unlimited right in America, but we all accept that universal and unlimited free speech can be dangerous?
As in all cases, your right to swing your arms around ends at the other man’s nose. Your unrestricted gun ownership is having a serious (re:deadly) impact on other people.
This isn’t a personal tragedy at this point, it’s a national one. It’s not just Newtown. Or Aurora. Or Oregon.
Between 2012 and 1982, there have been 61 mass shootings (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map). More than three-quarters of the guns used in those shootings were obtained legally.
7 out of the 12 most deadly shootings in US history have happened since 1999. 6 of those 7 happened since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadliest-us-shootings/
There’s a positive correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths – yearly gun deaths have declined from over 9 (per 100k) to a little over 5 (per 100k) since 1970 ; gun ownership dropped from 50% to a bit more than 30% according to the General Social Survey.
The Constitution was written to, “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” When your claimed “right” infringes on those other bits, it’s time to re-evaluate.
“If we pass some laws that clamp down HARD on straw purchasers and illegal gun trafficking it may have been harder for those chicago gang members to have gunned down the majorette. That wouldn’t affect your rights as a law abiding citizen one bit.”
Why pass any more laws when Obama’s DOJ isn’t even bothering to actually prosecute straw purchasers?
Hell, his administration did the opposite. During Fast & Furious they intentionally sold guns to felons who couldn’t pass an NICS check. If we’re going to clamp down on straw purchasers and illegal gun trafficing lets start right at the top, with the Obama Administration.
“why is it that gun ownership is supposed to be a universal and unlimited right in America, but we all accept that universal and unlimited free speech can be dangerous?”
It’s already heavily regulated and rights are already heavily infringed upon. Given that, why the heck would we pass more laws which will not do anything except further infringe upon the law abiding? Doing the same thing over and over again is insanity, but that’s gun control for you.
“I’m tired of hearing how your right to bear any arms you see fit trumps people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
If you are tired of the 2nd Amendment move to a gun free utopia in some other country. I’m sure they’re all crime free. 🙂
Why do straw purchasing laws have to be federal? I’m talking state level too.
Also the federal law is hard to prove. If they swear up and down they bought it for themselves and there’s no evidence they didn’t (like written discussion about the purchase) they can’t be prosecuted.
The solution I’ve heard is that they make it mandatory to report any time a gun is stolen once it’s discovered. If not, there’s penalties. No legal responsible owner wouldn’t report their property stolen (like you would if someone stole your car, or your flatscreen) and then straw purchasers, when cops say “hey we found your gun at a crime scene” can’t just say “oh yeah, it ws stolen.” which is what happens now. I don’t see how someone could have a problem with that.
No one is “tired” of the 2nd Amendment- what I’m tired about is the daily slaughter – ” a civilzed nation” endures – gun safety laws, background checks, limiting gun clips – are winnable -and measures that both the general public and specifically NRA members are in support of – I doubt they’ll be able to ban the sale of semi- automatic- and yes they deserve a vote- these measures will not end the killing but it will bend the trend of this violence-
From Mike:
“If you are tired of the 2nd Amendment move to a gun free utopia in some other country. I’m sure they’re all crime free.”
Most of Europe and other countries have very strict gun possession and training laws. Gun crimes are much reduced from what we experience.
No legal responsible owner wouldn’t report their property stolen (like you would if someone stole your car, or your flatscreen)
So I take if you’d have no issue with laws that criminalized you for failing to promptly report theft of a kitchen knife, your car, chainsaw, axe in your garage, flatscreen etc. etc. then?
Tom – We have nearly a gun for every citizen, yet our homicide rates aren’t even anywhere near the highest in the world. Given that we’re awash in guns compared to every other country on earth why are our murder rates and other violent crime rates relatively low?
Look at the UK. They banned guns and their violent crime rates have soared, their violent crime by gun especially. If guns caused crime then we should be without a doubt the most violent country on the planet, and places like Chicago and DC should be some of the safest in the entire U.S…… oh wait.
the problem with saying “look at the…”, is that people WILL look at it and see you are either wearing pants made of fire, you yourself didnt “look at it”, or someone lied to you.
To illustrate Ben’s point, here’s a list of all the world’s countries by murder rate. The US tops every other country in the so-called First World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
well reuse of stolen flatscreens isn’t a source of ongoing gang crime, the there would be no purpose for that law.
and honestly, I would absolutely report all those things and jewelry or money or whatever else stolen in a list of all the crap I lost in a robbery because I’d want them back.
I see literally no downside to this. You’re going to report your stolen property anyway to try and get it back. And blocking this law because some nutjob thinks that government is going to put them on some list and come for them later (for a gun they apparently no longer have) is dumb.
Doesn’t change the fact that you are actually criminalizing someone for being the VICTIM of a crime. Would you pass a law requiring a rape victim to report her crime under penalty of law? Should she (or he) report it? Sure. Does reporting it constitute a net benefit to society? Sure. That doesn’t mean the law should go after the person who was the victim.
Unless of course the real reason behind these laws is to attack, persecute and criminalize gun owners, which is exactly the point of gun control.
So socialistic ben, are you, in your esteemed wisdom, saying that the UK’s violent crime rates and violent crime by gun have NOT gone up since their ban in the 1990’s?
Hmmm…. But it’s an island….and they banned guns and criminalized self defense. That seems to have worked out swimmingly. Meanwhile we are doing exactly the opposite and are seeing falling violent crime rates that are the lowest in decades. More guns = less crime.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
criminalized self defense….. yeah, like the poor victim George Zimmerman. He must have been so SO terrified by that skinny black kid and his horrific bag of skittles. Tell me, why would a law abiding citizen not report a stolen gun?
“oh well, derp derp derp, i guess whoever took it needs it more than i do”
Mike, little tip, try making you argument without things you’ve seen on bumperstickers.
The other thing about gun owners….. to me, owning a gun indicates a willingness to take lives. I want those people watched and tracked.
We already have laws requiring people to report crimes.
More guns does not equal less crime. Canada has a lower crime than we do with stricter gun control. Not that I am a big fan of comparing the USA to other countries. We are unique in size, scale, population, make-up and history.
I find it interesting that you chose rape as an example to conflate with gun laws. One has to wonder if you are so attached to your guns that you have THAT level of attachment to them.
i guess when they have no other natural defenses, like strength or intelligence, a gun has to do…. maybe it is like de-clawing a cat.
The rape example is quite astounding… unless you view women as property.
You guys are giving the trembling and twitching gun nuts too much credit in these threads. I read the trembling and twitching gun nut’s comments at times and doubt they are from a real person. Rather they sound like the work of a bot that just scours the web pasting up nonsense.
or DL contributors trying to make things interesting.
Oh, Mike’s real. Click on his name and you’ll be directed to his blog.
oh god, you’re right. Man he really IS a gun nut, real life straw man. I’m sticking by my cat-claw analogy. Some of us are nothing without our car, or significant other, or cell phone…. these guys have made killing tools their all-important self-identifying trait. it would be sad if it wasn’t so terrifying.
He’s also so full of shit he could use turds for bullets.
You can make statistics say anything. As usual, conservatives can’t read, and so don’t realize that their links always undermine their arguments.
In the case of guns in the UK, the statistics are belied by the raw numbers. From the link provided by Mike (is his last name Hunt?):
“Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.”
Fewer than 10,000 crimes committed with guns — that’s all crimes in which someone was armed, not shootings — in a country (England, not the entire UK) of more than 53 million.
By comparison, the US has nearly that many gun murders per year.
The more brains a person has, the less likely the person is to own a gun. And vice versa.
What is also true about the UK is that they do not have a society where large numbers of so-called grownups have been suckered into lives of fear and count on guns as an antidote.
Someone brought up concern as to why Federal, and not states. The reason is guns cross borders. One gun store outside Chicago is responsible for 10% of all criminally confiscated guns in that city. Mississippi is responsible for 10% of confiscated Chicago guns. When gun nuts say look at Chicago, it has the toughest laws in the nation, they are really pointing us to exactly why we need federal control of the buying and selling guns.
If you click on this link and play around with it you quickly see why this is a problem too big to be handled by individual states.
http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/IL/imports/
every adult in the state of delaware has an obligation to report child abuse or they can be charged. We’re a mandatory report state.
So SA’s right, we already have laws mandating reporting crimes.
Please give me a reason why a legitimate victim of a robbery/burglary where guns were stolen wouldn’t report it once they became aware of it.
Kim Jung-un adopts the NRA line:
Who’s joining?
Please give me a reason why a legitimate victim of a robbery/burglary where guns were stolen wouldn’t report it once they became aware of it.
Most people would. The problem comes with the people with clean records who buy guns and then sell them illegally. Police complain alot (at least here) about tracking back guns to one of these owners only to have them say the gun was stolen, when it was just illegally transferred.
scroll up cass, that’s what i was arguing earlier 🙂
I knew I heard that before!
“The rape example is quite astounding… unless you view women as property.”
Please deconstruct it logically, since the example has absolutely nothing to do with “viewing women as property.”