Gabby Giffords to the Senate: Shame on you

Remove all ads!

Here's an op-ed from the NYT, written by Gabby Giffords the former member of Congress who was shot in the head in Tuscon. It's written in response to the Senate vote against requiring universal background checks on gun sales. While I largely agree with everything she said, one thing struck me as particularly startling:

She mentions that the law would also have banned the sale of guns over the internet. How the hell is it legal to sell guns online? How do you have any idea who the person on the other side of that screen is clicking the mouse? Really? Everyone is "OK" with this? How is that legal anywhere?

 

That is an extremely moving article. I think that even the most hardened supporter of allowing the public to have guns (is there a name for those people?) would have to concede that this woman makes an excellent point.

In my (rather seedy) teenage years, I was held at gun point once and knife point three times. I also saw a very close friend of mine get shot. Luckily he made a full recovery but having someone point a gun at me was the second most frightening thing I've ever been through. If someone is pointing a knife at you then they have to come in close to use it, you might not even see someone with a gun if they choose to shoot you.

The up and down of it is that I just don't get why. Why would you want to put that kind of power in the hands of some nut on the internet? Why is it ok to not do thorough background checks? And why, after allowing these people to have such weapons, do politicians try and blame everyone except themselves?

Anyway. There was a comment on the article that I thought was really well written:

 

I heard she is getting some pushback as the Senate is controlled by Democrats (of which she is one) and guess they aren't taking it too well that she is calling for their ouster.

Personally, I believe she is wrong and the Senate was correct. Congress shouldn't be trying to pass laws that violate the Constitution. The proper way to do this is to pass another Constitutional amendment that would negate the 2nd Amendment. Although, I don't see much chance of that actually happening.

 

I have a hard time with private sales being exempt from checks -- a procedure that stops criminals from getting guns (something we all agree is a good thing, they lost their right to gun ownership when they committed a crime) should be supported.

I get the NRA's paranoia, though. When people cast them all as loonies or as being partly responsible for atrocities, is it any wonder they believe that the next step anti-gun activists will take is to disarm them? I'd say both sides need to tone down the rhetoric and find methods that a larger majority of the populace can agree on.

 

Do you feel that we should be allowed to carry hand grenades and RPG launchers? How about private ownership of thermonuclear weapons, fully armed F22 joint strike fighters, M1 tanks, and surface to air missiles? How is this not a limitation on our right to bear arms as guaranteed by the second amendment?

Do you feel convicted felons should be allowed to own firearms? Again, why not? Assuming you can adequately explain why it is unconstitutional to mandate background checks for all firearms purchases, but not unconstitutional to restrict felons from bearing arms for the exact same reason, precisely how do you propose stopping convicted felons from buying a shotgun at Walmart without employing a background check? An honor system? Tattoos on emblazoned on the foreheads of all convicted felons? A secret handshake that only non-felons know?

None less than the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the government is well within it's rights to limit the ownership of certain types of weapons, and even limit who is allowed to have them, without violating the second amendment. Sure, there are limits to what the government can restrict, but if background checks violated the 2nd amendment, the 14th amendment would restrict the 50 out of 50 states that currently require some sort of background check on firearms purchases from enforcing that legislation. Limiting the types of arms we can own does not violate the second amendment. Neither does limiting who is allowed to own such weapons.

 

You lot seem to rely a LOT on a document that was drafted hundreds of years ago. Is it not a bit out of touch now?

 

No, I also don't believe we should be able to rape women, light people on fire, use my car as a ramming device, steal whatever I want, or just flat out murder people.

The law already prohibits people from owning military weapons. Do some simple research and I believe I posted this in the other thread. What you call an assault weapon is not a military weapon. It is a rifle with cosmetic changes to make it look like a military weapon.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 43 seconds later... ----------

If I used the same argument to say we should

Get rid of freedom of speech
Get rid of freedom of religion
Get rid of the right to not incriminate yourself
Bring back slavery
End the right of women to vote
Bring back prohibition
etc.

Would you still consider it out of touch???

 

Requiring a background check to buy a gun is not infrigining on one's right to possess a gun. (Unless you have a criminal record, or are of unstable mind, and in that case, there are already laws on the books that would prevent you from owning a gun.)

Here's another thing that I don't get. The vote on the Senate floor was 54 Senators IN FAVOR of passing the law and 46 Senators AGAINST passing the law. But the measure failed because it required 60 votes to pass. I thought you only needed the 60 votes to overcome things like fillibusters. Why was a super majority required on this particular vote?

I also don't like how the argument against it basically boils down to "Criminals don't follow laws, so they won't follow the law in this case either, and won't get a background check, and the law won't work." Problem: You can aruge in the exact same manner with any law, which means you don't need any laws at all. Sure, we can make it illegal to steal, but criminals don't follow the law, and so they'll still steal, and the law won't work. Sure, we can make it illegal to murder, but criminals don't follow the law, and so they'll murder, and the law won't work. So why not just get rid of the entire legal system? If non-criminals never break the law, and the law doesn't provide any deterrent against committing crimes, then there is no need for any law at all.

 

I think that was the issue Aldeth. They needed enough to overcome the filibuster.

 

No, that was the vote on the floor: 54 in favor of the law 46 against. It wasn't a vote to end the filibuster, it was a vote on the bill itself.

Maybe my math is bad, but last I checked 54 was more than 46.

 

I didn't say it was out of touch. I ASKED if it was a BIT out of touch. That means I would like your opinion on whether some aspects of it were designed for a life that does not include modern day technology.

I have no idea what your constitution covers. I have no reason to. For all I know it's still setting speed limits for horses and carts and thinks that bows and arrows are the only projectile weapons in existence

 

If a person is law abiding then how does it negatively affect them?

 

From a link in a link:

I think they were using this first vote as a preemptive strike against filibusters. But I don't understand the whole thing.

 

My apologies. To answer your question I do not believe that the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights are outdated.

 

There is a loophole that lets anybody buy guns over the internet or from a gun show and not have to undergo a background check, the aim of this bill was to close that loophole. There was a requirement in the bill that this have nothing to do with citizen to citizen (e.g. buying a gun from your uncle) gun sales, and another requirement that there never be a national registry of firearm owners. That this commonsense measure had bipartisan support and massive (80-90% depending on the poll) public support, and even massive (74%) support among NRA members, yet was still defeated because the NRA successfully created an atmosphere of doubt and confusion, is prompting this backlash.

(via Forbes) Adolphus Busch IV, the great-grandson of the founder of Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser beer, yesterday quit the National Rifle Association in outrage at its role in blocking legislation that would have expanded background checks for gun buyers in America. A member of the organization since 1975 and a strong supporter of gun rights, Busch wrote to David Keene, the president of the NRA:

" . . . I ask that you immediately remove my name from your membership roles and provide me an acknwoledgement of this action.

As most in your organization would admit, I have historically been a staunch defender of the NRA purpose and tradition . . .

It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA. As a starting point, one only has to ask why the NRA reversed its original position on background checks. Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. [Wayne] LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as “reasonable”? Furthermore, I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable. In fact, according to a Johns Hopkins University study, 74% say they support background checks.

I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision. The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus places a priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.

One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners."

 

If you are going to hide behind the second amendment in order to claim it is unconstitutional to limit the ownership of certain types of weapons, then you have a lot more work to do. The second amendment flatly states we have a right to bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. This is about as close as you can get to explicitly guaranteeing private ownership of military hardware. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. It is either constitutional to place limitations on who is allowed to own weapons and what types of weapons we are allowed to own or it isn't. The rest of it is just details.

The right to bear arms does not guarantee the right to bear any arms, for any reason. The Supreme court shot down the DC ban on all handguns because:

This is as far as the opinion went. Had DC chosen to ban certain specific types of handguns like, say, .50 caliber hand cannons, the ban would not have been overturned.

 

Question: If the figure of 74% is correct (and I realize that’s a big “if”), is there actually a chance that there would be enough backlash within the NRA to bring the organization down (or at least bring substantial changes)? I know that there are plenty of nutjobs who consider unfettered gun ownership to be an essential component of freedom and therefore oppose any changes, but if 74% of NRA members disagree with the official NRA position, might enough of them cancel their membership (or at least scream loud enough) that changes will be made? Or does the true leadership of the NRA (i.e. gun and ammo manufacturers) have such a stranglehold on the organization that change is impossible?