Ed.: 022018f – Words: 809 – Audio: N/A
Post Introduction-
Listen to the kids, for starters.
The public is a broad generic term to include anyone and everyone. For this particular issue it means those against gun controls and those for gun controls and everyone in between, and those just plain apathetic and passive in their passions. In another more specific sense, the public includes all Americans (although the public is not comprised of only Americans). So what do we do with that knowledge on this gun issue?
Obviously there is a public outcry (a measure usually assigned by the media, but that is not to say it’s fake by any means; the media reports.) for some sort of gun control. No question there are some, a minority, in the crowd who would love “no guns”.. but that’s not going to happen for many reasons. Yet, the anti-gun control “public” enjoy using that singular reason for promoting fear that the nation is just an inch away from losing one of the Bill of Rights.. and of course, the demise of American democracy as we know it. While most of the “public” acknowledges that scenario is nonsense given there’s no history in this country pointing toward any sort of changes to the Bill of Rights, and the fact that many Americans do own guns who might favor gun control, the anti-gun control “public” hangs on to that reasoning in large part pushed by the NRA.
[NOTE: Obama signed a directive to put some restriction with someone with mental health problems from purchasing a weapon. Trump reversed it simply because he’s got his own mental issue with anything “Obama”. Anti-gun proponents classified Obama’s directive as.. “Obama tried the kill the Second Amendment and Trump saved it.”]
My Recommendation..
If you are an anti-gun control proponent…
You might want to consider adapting your objection and convey to the NRA and your elected officials that the mood of the nation just might start to sway in some direction you may not wish. That perhaps you might want to make some compromises in cooperating with some gun control in order to change the growing populist feeling that the gun lobby and political right wing conservatives are dead set against any gun control. Perhaps showing some contribution toward mental health policies; push such action with the NRA. The idea is that it makes good sense to show the gun control “public” the anti-gun control “public” also favors humanity, and protecting our children. Drop the “give the liberals an inch and they will take away our guns” nonsense. Likely more liberals own guns than conservatives anyway. One thing is for sure.. there are more gun owners in all of Congress than just with republicans in Congress.
Show cooperation to the greater picture… protecting our schools and public places from mental cases, and show some compromise to gun control measures that make sense.
If you are a gun control proponent….
The young Emma Gonzalez, a student survivor in the Florida shooting, who was so articulate in front of the media a couple days ago, made an excellent suggestion. Essentially she suggested that if a politician accepts NRA contribution money then that politician does not get elected. Maybe someone will think of a catchy phrase to represent that opinion on a baseball cap.. but the point being is that if this single idea spreads further the GOP, and the gun lobby, is going to suffer in the next two elections. There’s no question that Trump’s appalling performance in his first year, and expected to continue, along with whatever the Mueller investigation turns up during the coming year, the GOP majority in Congress will go adios amigo with the gun control movement.
If the elected official, or the candidate, accepts NRA contributions, they don’t deserve your vote. If between now and the election the NRA and the gun lobby begin to show a sincere effort to be human beings and support mental health initiatives and can compromise on some gun control measures.. then it’s up to you if they’ve earned your vote.
Also… it might be a good overall strategy to hit on your state elected officials in the legislatures rather than focus on Washington. Many gun control efforts have been tackled by various states, some effective, some not so effective. But the point is, it’s easier (in theory) to change your own neck of the woods first because state politicians represent more your local feelings… it’s more grass roots. If enough voters can change their respective states to make more gun control efforts then ultimately the political mood could flow into Congress. For example, if changes to the federal database don’t happen, then perhaps those changes can be added on the state level. Obviously, there is still the scrutiny of the state and federal Supreme Courts, but by that time you’ve sent the message to Washington.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART SEVEN (of Eight Parts).
***
I agree the emphasis should be on the city, county and state elections…..after all there is this thing called states rights…..I am also of people saying that they feel these students pain…bullshit unless your best friend was gunned down in front of you….or you are a parent of a child gunned down in their prime…so please will people stop feeling their pain….it is bullshit also.
Then we have a president that needed crib notes when meeting with students and parents….that should be the key to understanding the NRA and its property, the politicians.
This is number 5 right? LOl chuq
What a great way to achieve “compromise”! Teach children to demonize your opponents.
While it’s a good idea, the biggest problem with state-centred gun control is that so many major cities are within a 30 minute drive of the state line, if not right on the damn line. (St Louis, Chicago, DC, NY to name a few.) If major urban centres are that close, you’re “success” is totally dependant on what your neighbour decides to do.
When something easily mobile is legal on one block, but illegal on the next block…you’ve got yourself a makeshift one-way street.
Agreed.. to some extent. If some national gun check becomes mandatory.. universal among all states, then that limits those kinds of “holes”. What’s left is maybe using a similar idea as applied with “traveling” rape laws. For example… if age of consent is lower in state “A” than state “B”, and you are a resident of state “B” and travel to state “A” to have sex with what would be a minor in your state, then you can be charged with statutory rape even though the act was committed outside your state of residence.. IF you traveled it can be proven you traveled to state “A” expressly to have sex with a minor. In other words, if state “A” says no assault rifle purchases but state “B” allows it… and you go to state “B” to buy one.. then the state “B” gun store must verify your purchase based on the laws of your state of residence.
Who the hell needs to “travel rape”? Even creepy Judge Roy Moore didn’t have to go further than the nearest mall to get what he wanted and…-er-“semi-consentually” at that.
To a Canadian, the idea of the crime of “Crossing State Lines” has made me laugh ever since I was a kid. I could drive all day and still not get to my nearest provincial border. It just sounds like something from the Dukes of Hazzard, where if Bo & Luke got across the county line, they could stop, take a drink of moonshine at wave at Sheriff Roscoe.
Then again…America is a lot more like Hazzard County than it used to be…and not in the good way, either.
Yep.. and we have our share of Boss Hogg’s around here too!