START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Resolute, But With An Asterisk


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, congress, constitution, corruption, dishonesty, ethics, Govtfearmongering, Guns, lies, media, obama, politics, propaganda, republicans, terrorism )

Kit
- 581 days ago - truthdig.com
The nation demonstrated again last week how resolute it can be when threatened by murderous terrorists--and how helpless when ordered to heel by smug lobbyists for the gun industry.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 5:53 am
Photo: Barry Myers


The nation demonstrated again last week how resolute it can be when threatened by murderous terrorists—and how helpless when ordered to heel by smug lobbyists for the gun industry.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s deadly rampage through the Boston area provoked not fear but defiance. Even before one brother was killed and the other captured, the city was impatient to get back to normal—eager to show the world that unspeakable violence might shock, sadden and enrage, but would never intimidate. “Sweet Caroline,” the perennial eighth-inning singalong at Fenway Park, became an unlikely anthem of unity and resistance.

The Obama administration decided Monday to charge the younger Tsarnaev, in custody at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, under criminal statutes rather than as an “enemy combatant.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and some others will disapprove, but this is really an issue of semantics. No one has argued for kid gloves and leniency.

There is also the unanswered question of whether the Tsarnaev brothers had contact with some terrorist organization or acted alone. I have no doubt that authorities will find out. No stone will be unturned, not just in Cambridge and Watertown but in the remote vastness of Chechnya and Dagestan as well. The brothers’ relatives and acquaintances will be interviewed, their movements traced, their Internet habits minutely examined for any possible clue.

Can the Tsarnaevs’ motive be described as “Islamist,” and would that be in a religious or cultural sense? When Russian security officials flagged Tamerlan Tsarnaev for scrutiny, did the FBI drop the ball? Are there telltale patterns of behavior that hint at dangerous self-radicalization? Or is this tragedy more like Columbine, an unfathomable orgy of death?

It may be, in the end, that there simply was no way that authorities could have anticipated and prevented the bombing of the Boston Marathon. But rest assured that we will move heaven and earth looking for answers. Since the 9/11 attacks, we have demonstrated that when alienated young men who are foreign-born and Muslim kill innocents, we will do anything in our power to keep such atrocities from happening again.

Shamefully, however, we have also shown that when alienated young men who are not foreign-born or Muslim do the same, we are powerless.

It is inescapably ironic that while Boston was under siege last week, the Senate was busy rejecting a measure that would have mandated near-universal background checks for gun purchases nationwide—legislation prompted by the massacre of 20 first-graders and six adults last December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Gun violence costs 30,000 lives in this country each year. Other steps proposed after Newtown—such as reimposition of bans on military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines—were deemed too much to hope for. But expanded background checks once had the support of the powerful National Rifle Association, and experts considered them potentially the most effective way of keeping deadly weapons out of the wrong hands. They might not have prevented the last senseless mass shooting, but might prevent the next.

The NRA changed its position on background checks to “never” and dug in its heels, however, threatening to punish senators who voted in favor. And so, despite polls showing that up to 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could not muster the 60 votes needed to move the legislation forward.

Some critics say President Obama didn’t push hard enough for action on gun violence, didn’t twist enough arms or slap enough backs. Some say Reid could have done more to keep red-state Democrats in the fold. Some say the barrier arises from the architecture of the Constitution, which gives Montana’s 1 million residents the same number of senators as California’s 38 million.

There are lots of explanations for the failure of legislation on background checks, but no good reasons.

Imagine what our laws would be like if the nation were losing 30,000 lives each year to Islamist terrorism. Do you think for one minute that a young man named, say, Abdullah or Hussein—or Tsarnaev—would be able to go to a gun show and buy a semiautomatic AR-15 knockoff with a 30-round clip, no questions asked? Would the NRA still argue, as it essentially does now, that those thousands of lives are the price we must pay for the Second Amendment?

When we say “never again” about terrorism, we really mean it. When we say those words about gun violence, obviously we really don’t.
***

By: Eugene Robinson | Washington Post | Truthdig |


 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 6:00 am

Gee, we sure don't want to see anymore schools assaulted by gun violence, but register guns? That would never work, or if we register guns, then Hitler will come and take them all. When are we going to grow up and behave as adults on this issue? If you want to own a gun then each gun should be in a registry, if one person is amassing an arsenal; both the police and the public need to know we have gun nut as a neighbor. You can not drive a car without a license and updated registry, we acknowledge this is mostly for taxation purposes but we do it anyway. It is the law. We have allowed the crazies to control all aspects of this debate for far too long. We need to hear from some voices of sanity.
 

Arielle S. (316)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 7:05 am
The NRA must have breathed a huge sigh of relief when Boston happened - took the pressure off them, turned everyone's attention in a different direction, and it involved bombs, not guns. However - this is not going to go away. Not this time.
 

Arielle S. (316)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 7:23 am
I just sent this to my senator with a subject line of "nice":
With research conducted by the Sunlight Foundation, The Guardian reported on the donations from the NRA and other pro-gun organizations over the last couple of decades. The NRA alone had given $800,000 to the Senators who helped nix the bill.

Among the top NRA recipients are Roy Blunt (Missouri) with $60,550 and Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) with $56,950. Fellow Republican Senators John Thune (South Dakota), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma) have each received well over $40,000 apiece, as well.



Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RIQnOycB
 

Pat B. (353)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 7:25 am
I agree with your comment, Kit, for gun registry. I drive a car, it's registered, and pay taxes to DMV. Why not register guns? I'd sure want to know if Mr. Joe down the street has them...! I would also like to see background checks, even tho' it seems that that's not feasible. Yes...we sure do need some sanity in passing these laws.!! Thank you for this.
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 7:40 am

Well, I see nothing wrong with registering guns, limiting the size of magazine and for goodness sake, let's not be those zombies that react with drooling tongues to every word stated by the NRA or like organizations. They have an agenda, as should we. Ours should be public safety, theirs is the promotion of gun sales.

I like that letter Arielle, and I think I will send a copy to both John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. Just saying something will not work should not be acceptable as a counter argument. Present something that will work, or risk being reviled by the voters.
 

Angelika R. (144)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 1:51 pm
The last 2 paragraohs alone do it perfectly, they should be a huge headline in all public places, on billboards etc!
 

Angelika R. (144)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 1:55 pm
Can s.o. reveal such NRA gifts to any of the 4 democrat Senators ? THAT would be great..
 

marie c. (168)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 3:49 pm
Noted
 

Jennifer C. (169)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 5:10 pm
Thanks.
 

Lynn Squance (232)
Tuesday April 23, 2013, 11:44 pm
"Imagine what our laws would be like if the nation were losing 30,000 lives each year to Islamist terrorism. Do you think for one minute that a young man named, say, Abdullah or Hussein—or Tsarnaev—would be able to go to a gun show and buy a semiautomatic AR-15 knockoff with a 30-round clip, no questions asked? Would the NRA still argue, as it essentially does now, that those thousands of lives are the price we must pay for the Second Amendment? "

Eugene has a point and brings out the dichotomy of the gun issue. 30,000 killed annually by unspecified weapons versus 30,000 killed annually by terrorists. To me, there is no difference.

Register all weapons.
Extensive background checks
Mandatory training.
Written and practical tests.
Weapons licensing.
Health requirements.
Liability insurance

These are the same things required for getting a driver's license and driving a car.
 

Susanne R. (249)
Wednesday April 24, 2013, 9:57 am
I can't understand how so many intelligent people can be convinced to worship at the altar of Wayne LaPierre and the corrupt leadership of the NRA!
 

Raul M. (0)
Wednesday April 24, 2013, 10:16 am
Money interests again?...
 

Lois Jordan (56)
Wednesday April 24, 2013, 4:04 pm
Thanks, Kit. At least many have taken note of the "coincidence" of the gun bill not passing and the Boston bombs. Correlation also exists with acts of terror perpetuated by the U.S. use of drones for murder.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Thursday April 25, 2013, 1:12 am
thanks for the info
 

Sherri G. (113)
Thursday April 25, 2013, 2:22 am
Hell Yes there is NO GOOD REASON NOT TO REGISTER GUNS, limit how many bullets magazines hold, and do background checks. We have to do this in CA. My brother lives in Arizona and like TX has none of these restrictions. We must NOT Kow Tow to the NRA or gun lobbyist. The oldest brother bomber in Boston was finally stopped when his clip ran out of bullets. LET'S GET THAT ON A POSTER! I agree with Kit yes it is time for us to grow up, Susanne I don't understand either, Yes, Angelica follow the money, Thanks Arielle for telling us these 4 senators had $800,000 reasons for voting in favor of the NRA, & Lynn for your recommendations (CA has all but the last 2). Thanks Kit another spirited debate.
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday April 25, 2013, 7:33 am

I can buy 50lbs of gun powder at one time with no registration, no back ground checks and no one cares.
 

Scott haakon (4)
Friday April 26, 2013, 6:10 pm
I am against any registration whatsoever. Training yes for everyone. Including those who do not ever intend on buying or using one. A trained populace would be the best as the fear can be replaced by respect. Fear is never a good way to legislate.
I myself do not want to live in a Police State. I like freedom. Which includes choosing a 32oz drink and a steak and beer and watching football. Freedom is about choices. Gun control is a lie. I could make a gun is a week using tools common to any big home improvement store. I really rather just buy it. But it is my choice.
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday April 26, 2013, 6:25 pm

And guns give you freedom? Very sorry that this mental disability is so deeply ingrained that not even a reasoned discussion would or could elicit reasonable responses.
 

Diane O. (164)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 3:35 am
Guns give Americans protection against the "bad guys." Those with criminal aspirations will never allow themselves to go through background checks to buy a gun. So, what do they do? I guess the best examples of this would be Chicago and Washington DC who have very strict gun laws. Then you need to ask yourself this question, "How did these criminals get guns?" That's the whole point in this argument.

It is not a mental disorder according to the Second Amendment. It is a right to own a gun to protect yourself and your family when someone is breaking into your home and putting the lives of your family members at risk.

We also have The Patriot Act in place where businesses must report large quantities of purchased items, such as ammo, and bomb making supplies.

The problem we face in our country are those who have entered our country with visas and when those visas expired they remained in our country. Many are called "sleeper cell terrorists" who live among us and work beside us waiting for their call to strap a bomb to their chest and go out into a crowd and murder innocent Americans. Their religion tells them that if they do this to the infidels (Americans) that they will go to heaven and meet their 13 virgins.

My next example of how strict gun laws work is England. Their crime rate soared. So, how does that happen? According to the liberals, strict gun laws are suppose to eradicate crime. Statistics prove otherwise.

For you to suggest that people who do not agree with your line of reasoning as having a mental disability is breathtaking. You are but one person with a personal opinion. I am one person with a personal opinion and I disagree with you but I would never suggest that you have a mental disability.

My guess is that what you call "reasonable responses" translates into "only those who agree with me have reasonable responses."

Scott, big green star coming your way. Believing in the Second Amendment doesn't mean you have a mental disability. You also brought up an interesting fact about the 32 oz drink being banned in New York. This is exactly how our freedoms are taken away from us....one 32 oz drink at a time LOL! Liberal states are entertaining these days. So, what's next? A one child per family law?

 

Kit B. (276)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 8:07 am


@Diane: "We also have The Patriot Act in place where businesses must report large quantities of purchased items, such as ammo, and bomb making supplies." Wrong!

Let me make this clear: those who follow only the NRA line of disinformation, are either stupid, don't care about the public safety and are extremely callous, or just lack human compassion. Should that take your breath away, then I am well satisfied with your response.
 

JL A. (272)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 11:34 am
The facts of the matter, for those who consider facts relevant to forming opinions:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/overall/

"Overall
HSPH FEATURES
Global Health

Department of Global Health and Population celebrates 50 years
Global Health

Video: Students study electronic health records implementation in China

1. The United States has a very high rate of firearm death

Using recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO), this paper provides striking evidence on the size of the U.S. problems of gun homicide, overall homicide, gun suicide, and unintentional gun death compared to other advanced countries—for both genders and every age group.

Richardson, Erin G; Hemenway, David. Homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003. Journal of Trauma, 2011; 70:238-43.



2. The risks of a gun in the home typically far outweigh the benefits

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family and concludes that for most contemporary Americans, the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit

Hemenway, David. Risks and benefits of a gun in the home. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 2011; 5:502-511."

More facts on other countries (vs. myths some spout) also available at the site.

More guns equals less safety no matter what unfounded propaganda the NRA convinces people to spew.
 

Diane O. (164)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 2:33 pm
I enjoy reading left wing articles. Makes me feel better. However, I have a little article I'd like to post for you to read or not. It's up to you.

Several reports on gun ownership around the world clearly refute the assertion that the abundance of guns in the United States leads to a high rate of firearm homicides.

Americans are the biggest gun owners by far, with an estimated 270 million civilian firearms, in addition to those used by law enforcement and the military. That’s according to the Small Arms Survey of 178 nations conducted by the Switzerland-based Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

In sheer numbers of civilian firearms, the No. 2 nation, surprisingly, is India with 46 million, followed by China (40 million), Germany (25 million), Pakistan (18 million), and Mexico (15 million).

The United States also leads in gun ownership rate, with about 88 firearms per 100 people, according to the most recent Small Arms Survey compiled in 2007.

That is far ahead of No. 2 Yemen, which has 55 firearms per 100 people. Switzerland is third with 46 per 100 people, followed by Finland (45), Serbia (38), Cyprus (36), Saudi Arabia (35), and Iraq (34).

But when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t even make the top 25.

According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world.

The highest rate by far can be found in Honduras, 68 homicides per 100,000, followed by El Salvador (40), Jamaica (39), Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34), and Colombia (27).

For America’s neighbors, the rate in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000, and in Canada, 0.5 per 100,000.

It is interesting to note that not only does the United States have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list.

“The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes CNS News commentator Stephen Gutowski. “In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.”

But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.”

I guess it depends on what you read and who you want to believe. By the way, the United States cannot be compared to smaller countries with very little crime. There are many articles written about the high crime rate in England and, of course, they have strict gun laws.

Personally, I'm not bothered by having a background check for my gun. I'm one of the "good guys" and I'll follow the law. However, if you and yours believe that the "criminals" or as Kit referred to people as having "a mental disability" if they disagreed with her....if you think for a nano second that the "bad guys" are going to submit to a background check to buy a gun then I have a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.

Fact: bad people buy guns on back streets. They don't follow any laws. This translates into: nothing will change with background checks. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. Do you think a change in our law will stop crime? Of course it won't.
 

Robert K. (31)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 2:36 pm
The separation of fact and ideology is just stunning. If you have a gun in the house you're 3 times more likely to be shot than if you don't. The states with the loosest regulations, just what the NRA proposes we do, have the highest levels of handgun violence. And the sanity level of gun nuts is probably somewhere between sociopath and psychopath.

I don't mean the average guy who likes to hunt, or even the true collector, but anyone who thinks 10 shots isn't enough is probably either insane or stupendously neurotic.

Back in '79 armed thieves broke in on my girl and me along with a friend. My gun which was in the bedroom was useless and if I had managed to get my hands on it, I probably wouldn't be posting here, since in most cases the guy who draws down on the guy pointing a gun at him gets killed.

And I love the stupid comment about responsible gun owners and how they shouldn't have to undergo background checks. Hint for the reality challenged, everyone is a responsible gun owner until he isn't. Knowing who doesn't have the makeup to stay responsible in a time of stress is just insurance for all of us. And those who argue that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns are forgetting that the only reason outlaws have guns in the first place is because bad people made sure that the laws are weak and any fool can get a gun. It's a self perpetuating problem.

Make even the smallest illegal gun activity an automatic 20 year sentewnce without the possibility of parole and MAYBE some bad guys would be stopped.
 

Robert K. (31)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 2:36 pm
Oh, kudos to Gene Robinson, one of the finest columnists writing today.
 

Diane O. (164)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 2:45 pm
Sorry, Robert, but no one can stop a "bad guy" who is intent on murdering an innocent person for his own gain or pleasure. There's no way to stop those intent on holding up a bank or a convenience store, car jacking, breaking and entering, burglary....you name it.....there are plenty of loons out there who, without a background check, can steal a gun or buy one on a back street. There are other weapons used to kill people such as knives, steel pipes, baseball bats, etc. Should Americans have to register to own these dangerous weapons and submit to a background check? How about having to submit to a background check because you have two hands that can strangle an innocent victim? Hands can kill and many women have been strangled to death.

 

JL A. (272)
Saturday April 27, 2013, 4:17 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Robert because you have done so within the last day. Thank you Robert for comments consistent with factual research on guns--so refreshing to read opinions consistent with the research and data and other unbiased factual evidence.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Kit B.

Kit B.
Kit's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 0
Stories submitted: 3517
Front Page stories: 3420




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.