Senator To Newtown Families: The Gun Debate Has Nothing To Do With You | ThinkProgress
When the NRA and their Senator tell people who lost their children in a massacre that they have nothing to do with this debate--that they have no voice here--that is gun culture. Is it all about those families? Nope. but good god. Their young children were butchered by guns. They get a voice here.
10 comments:
Of course they get a voice, but why should they get more of a say than any other person in this society. What about the crime victims that defended themselves with guns? Do they get a say?
Do you think developing policy based on a tragic event is a good idea?
Read some of the comments on that site. With fans like that, it may be time to get rid of the "think" in Think Progress. There doesn't seem to be much interest in a national dialog. I have that site bookmarked and have noticed that it has gone down in quality. I think I will stick with TalkLeft.
Given my profession, every single day I see legislation introduced on an emotional basis. Quite often, that legislation casts a too-broad net in "fixing" an otherwise impossibly-rare situation. The end result? Things like mandatory minimum sentences or extraordinary penalties attached to things that are either already illegal or now VERY illegal when they didn't used to be.
But everyone's emotions are satisfied. And any reasonable opposition or criticism of the measure is virtually bullied into silence by the voraciousness of the emotional response. That is BAD legislation and BAD debate (no debate, really).
The Senator was clumsy in his words. He added NO help in an emotional debate. Better he said "this is about everyone" rather than "*not* about you." Look, I'm not saying that we shouldn't EVER base legislating on emotional responses - though it quite often stills debate and yields a bad bill - because sometimes an emotional response is either necessary for legislation or is entirely appropriate. But the key is this: everybody gets their voice included, not one group over another.
But that Senator aside - and many like him - I'm not seeing reasonable debate out of anyone on this issue. Maybe the gun issue is immune to reason. For instance, the gun "nuts" are prone to unreasonable fear of government intrusion and live apparently in minute-by-minute fear of being assaulted by someone. How can you have a good debate when one of the primary participants lives in constant fear of something that *isn't* going to happen (as far as statistical probability)?
I'm cutting this comment shot cuz I am running into a meeting.
I think it is possible to have a reasonable debate if you stick to actual reason and what could realistically happen. Saying that Obammy is going to suspend the Constitution and make himself a dictator is asinine, but saying that small scale confiscation or declaring some guns contraband will never happen is naive. It has and is happening.
I think that once a concrete proposal is on the table and people can look at the provision, then reasonable minds can prevail.
Mandatory-minimum is a good example. Look at the sex offender registry. Even some of the parents of the those victims are questioning a system that lists teens that lists as sex offenders, teens that had consensual sex with other teens and people that urinated in public. Look at the Patriot Act. I have slammed this and been told would I say that to the families of the 9/11 victims?
Let me just say that I have had issues with Think Progress as well. I think many of their headlines are misleading and problematic. But rejecting this particular story based on a dislike of the site is simply intellectually dishonest. Do you have any reason to believe that they misquoted the Senator on this?
And I think Smitty is right (and I actually said this in my original post--please read what I say--"Is it all about those families? Nope."), but to tell people who lost their children that their pain means nothing in a debate about how they died? That makes no sense.
And yes, those who defend themselves with a gun have a voice as well. I am not sure why you assume I would say they didn't. Unless we are back to just looking for a fight.
Good point, and TP is certainly not the only website to engage in this practice. I don't know if these sites are just trying to compete for viewers, but it seems that a lot of them, especially 2nd and 3rd tier sites, do this.
I agree that he probably could have crafted his words better. I saw an interview on the CBS morning news of a Senator that was pro-gun. The reporter asked him about his position and what he would tell the families of the victims. For the most part, he handled it well and sympathetically.
To be absolutely fair, I agree that Inhofe could have phrased his words better. But where I disagree is that I don't think he intended to sound better. He was trying to stand up for the people he is accountable to--his contributors and his base--and those people don't want conciliatory or compassionate language. As Lindsay Graham admitted the other day, standing up to Obama--no matter what the issue is--is good politics for the right.
Every time the government further restricts who may own a gun, or makes it more difficult to purchase a gun, they violate the US Constitution. And all those elected representatives that vote for more rules violate their oath.
Gary, you are a moron. The grownups are talking. You need to go back under your bed where you await the gay army.
There's a gay army?
ARE THEY RECRUITING??
NOOOOOO
Post a Comment