alan
Member
Posters Note:
The following is excerpted from the Times editorial below:"But neither party’s leaders have shown any sign of stepping up their responsibilities."
Does anyone think that the silence of "party leaders", their "failure to step up to their responsibilities" might possibly arise from a more complete recognition of their responsibilities, among which are included the oath they undertook to Uphold, Suport and Defend The Constitution? Possibly they might also be concerned regarding what sort of ruling the USSC might come up with in Heller v. D.C., who knows? See what The Times has to say.
Gun Crazy
Published: March 1, 2008
The Valentine’s Day massacre at Northern Illinois University, like the killings at places such as Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, has evoked expressions of horror and sympathy and familiar questions about the killer’s motives and mental health. Atrocities like these make Americans feel angry and perhaps helpless.
Our political leaders are not helpless. They could match public shock with prompt, concerted and effective action to make mass shootings a less frequent fact of American life. But neither party’s leaders have shown any sign of stepping up their responsibilities. The latest campus carnage barely caused a ripple in presidential politics, where conventional wisdom dictates against actively advocating more stringent gun control laws.
No single measure or combination of measures can ensure that deranged individuals are prevented in every instance from shooting up a crowded classroom or shopping mall. But neither the absence of a perfect solution nor opposition from the powerful gun lobby is an excuse to do nothing — not when some 30 people are killed with guns every day in America. The rampage at the Northern Illinois campus was at least the sixth multiple murder in this country in just the first two weeks of February.
In a rare outbreak of reason on the subject of guns at the end of last year, Congress approved a measure worked out with the National Rifle Association to provide financial incentives for states and localities to share pertinent mental health records with the national database used to screen prospective gun buyers. But there are other practical steps the nation can take that would make it more difficult for dangerous people to obtain deadly firepower.
A short, smart public safety agenda would include:
¶ Requiring background checks for every gun purchase. That means closing the egregious loophole that permits unlicensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting any background check.
¶ Limiting purchases to one gun a month in order to defeat traffickers who use straw purchasers to buy weapons in bulk and then resell them on the street.
¶ Once again banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used by the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University killers. These magazines would have been outlawed under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but President Bush and the Republican Congress recklessly let it expire in 2004 to please the gun lobby.
Along with health care, trade agreements and the war in Iraq, proposals to reduce the scourge of guns warrant open discussion and debate during the remaining months of the presidential campaign. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor stronger gun control, though it may be hard to tell from their campaign Web sites or speeches, which generally avoid the issue.
To his credit, John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, starred in television ads supporting state ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado to close the gun show loophole. Lately, though, he signed onto a Congressional brief urging the Supreme Court to use a case it is hearing this month to set a legal standard that could foreclose other needed gun restrictions that pose no real threat to the right to bear arms.
The Democrats should not be afraid to challenge Mr. McCain — or gun zealots’ wacky idea that the solution to campus mayhem is to arm teachers and students.
The following is excerpted from the Times editorial below:"But neither party’s leaders have shown any sign of stepping up their responsibilities."
Does anyone think that the silence of "party leaders", their "failure to step up to their responsibilities" might possibly arise from a more complete recognition of their responsibilities, among which are included the oath they undertook to Uphold, Suport and Defend The Constitution? Possibly they might also be concerned regarding what sort of ruling the USSC might come up with in Heller v. D.C., who knows? See what The Times has to say.
Gun Crazy
Published: March 1, 2008
The Valentine’s Day massacre at Northern Illinois University, like the killings at places such as Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, has evoked expressions of horror and sympathy and familiar questions about the killer’s motives and mental health. Atrocities like these make Americans feel angry and perhaps helpless.
Our political leaders are not helpless. They could match public shock with prompt, concerted and effective action to make mass shootings a less frequent fact of American life. But neither party’s leaders have shown any sign of stepping up their responsibilities. The latest campus carnage barely caused a ripple in presidential politics, where conventional wisdom dictates against actively advocating more stringent gun control laws.
No single measure or combination of measures can ensure that deranged individuals are prevented in every instance from shooting up a crowded classroom or shopping mall. But neither the absence of a perfect solution nor opposition from the powerful gun lobby is an excuse to do nothing — not when some 30 people are killed with guns every day in America. The rampage at the Northern Illinois campus was at least the sixth multiple murder in this country in just the first two weeks of February.
In a rare outbreak of reason on the subject of guns at the end of last year, Congress approved a measure worked out with the National Rifle Association to provide financial incentives for states and localities to share pertinent mental health records with the national database used to screen prospective gun buyers. But there are other practical steps the nation can take that would make it more difficult for dangerous people to obtain deadly firepower.
A short, smart public safety agenda would include:
¶ Requiring background checks for every gun purchase. That means closing the egregious loophole that permits unlicensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting any background check.
¶ Limiting purchases to one gun a month in order to defeat traffickers who use straw purchasers to buy weapons in bulk and then resell them on the street.
¶ Once again banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used by the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University killers. These magazines would have been outlawed under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but President Bush and the Republican Congress recklessly let it expire in 2004 to please the gun lobby.
Along with health care, trade agreements and the war in Iraq, proposals to reduce the scourge of guns warrant open discussion and debate during the remaining months of the presidential campaign. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor stronger gun control, though it may be hard to tell from their campaign Web sites or speeches, which generally avoid the issue.
To his credit, John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, starred in television ads supporting state ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado to close the gun show loophole. Lately, though, he signed onto a Congressional brief urging the Supreme Court to use a case it is hearing this month to set a legal standard that could foreclose other needed gun restrictions that pose no real threat to the right to bear arms.
The Democrats should not be afraid to challenge Mr. McCain — or gun zealots’ wacky idea that the solution to campus mayhem is to arm teachers and students.
