About once a month I'm greeted with a lovely response to a blog of mine which includes so many right-wing talking points and bumper-sticker slogans, it presents me with the challenge of, "Can I think of any more?" Often times I give up after about two minutes of thinking over that very question. Just this morning I was greeted with such a comment - this in response to a pro-gun control blog I wrote in wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
This individual, who came across as a high school NRA member, responded to the blog with this:
"liberal lackies know they are saying stupid comments but do so to take focus away from the real issues....
the fact is that no gun law will take guns away from criminals... we already have a law that says a criminal cannot own/possess/have-access-to firearms
yet every day, in every state of the union, crime is being committed by criminals, many with stolen, smuggled, or otherwise illegally possessed weapons that they are not legally allowed to possess... yet they do! despite the laws already on the books. and until recently the gun had no effect on the sentence. now with mandatory sentences, the prosecutors are ignoring the laws on the books in order to make plea bargains to allow these law snubbing A-holes to get out sooner and steal, maim, and kill again
until the laws already on the books are used we don't need new ones. and we never need laws that takes away the rights of law abiding citizens."
Rule number one for engaging in a civilized discussion with a person - start said discussion by labeling them as a "liberal lackie."
Oddly enough, this individual, whom referred to me as a "liberal lackie," doesn't make much sense with his opening statement. Let me get this straight - liberals, such as myself, utter stupid comments to take focus away from the "real" issues? What are these "real" issues exactly? Is gun violence not a "real" issue? Is it not a "real" issue that 20 6- and 7-year old kids were shot and killed while in school and many more people die from guns than terrorism in this country? Also, regardless of one's opinions, how does it make any logical sense for a person to utter stupid comments in order to take focus off the "real" issues? What, do "liberal lackies" start shouting things like, "Squirrels like nuts and Indian food!" and "I'm a man, but have always wondered how hot I would be as a woman, and whether or not I'd always check myself out in the mirror!" while debating with people about how to reduce gun violence? Oh, I'm sorry, gun violence isn't a "real" issue. My bad...
Then the responder says, "the fact is that no gun law will take guns away from criminals... we already have a law that says a criminal cannot own/possess/have-access-to firearms."
Wait, what? No gun law will take guns away from criminals, but we have a law that says criminals cannot own guns? So, we already have a law in place which says criminals can't own guns, yet no law will take their guns away? I see... Well, in any case, he's wrong.
Courtesy of a study conducted by the Violence Policy Center regarding convicted felons and firearms, the following results were found:
"Although created to benefit one corporation (Winchester), the program ('relief' program for convicted felons) quickly became a mechanism by which thousands of individuals with felony convictions had their gun privileges restored. In the 10-year period from 1982 until 1992, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms processed more than 22,000 applications. Between 1985 and 1990 ATF granted 'relief' in approximately one third of those cases. (ATF estimated that approximately one third of those not granted 'relief chose to drop out of the process, while the remaining one third were denied 'relief.')
The crimes committed by those individuals granted 'relief' were not limited to non-violent, 'white collar' crimes like those committed by Olin (Mathieson). Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) the Violence Policy Center obtained 100 randomly selected files of felons granted 'relief.' Among those 100 cases were: five convictions for felony sexual assault; 11 burglary convictions; 13 convictions for distribution of narcotics; and, four homicide convictions. In fact, of the 100 sample cases, one third involved either violent crimes (16 percent) or drug-related crimes (17 percent)."
Moving on with my responder's comments, he then said:
"yet every day, in every state of the union, crime is being committed by criminals, many with stolen, smuggled, or otherwise illegally possessed weapons that they are not legally allowed to possess... yet they do!"
Well, I already established that wasn't true in many cases, but feel free to carry on with your debunked claim. Also, the illegally possessed weapons aren't legally allowed to be possessed? Really? I'll be darned.
The responder then closes with this lovely bit:
"until the laws already on the books are used we don't need new ones. and we never need laws that takes away the rights of law abiding citizens."
First off, how is expanding background checks taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens? Do we have to have our backgrounds checked when applying for a job? Yes. Do we need ID to purchase Sudafed? Yes. So why is it okay to necessitate one providing some form of identification and to have their background checked when it comes to potential employment and anti-allergy medication, but not when it comes to a deadly weapon?
Job interviewer: "Well, we will check your background, and so long as everything is fine there, expect to be working here next week."
Job applicant: "That sounds good! Thank you so much!"
Pharmacist: "I'll need to see some ID first before you can purchase that (Sudafed)."
Customer: "Aw, man. Alright, I'll have to go back home and come back. Dangit!"
Buyer at a gun show: "That one looks nice! Shoot! I left my ID in the car. I'll be right back."
Seller: "Naw, don't worry about it. Here you are. Have fun shooting people, I mean, things."
The other half of the responder's comment comes across as something an NRA spokesperson might say (and has said). We don't need any new laws until all the old ones are put into action, right? No, once again I'm afraid, he's wrong.
A fairly recent report came out which discovered this:
"For the last quarter century, the NRA's lobbyists have been working the shadowy corners of the congressional budgeting and appropriations process to insert 'riders' - restrictions on how federal funds can be spent - that target the enforcement powers of the federal government."
The NRA has gotten 15 of these "riders" into federal budgets, which has done all of the following:
- Blocked ATF from requiring gun dealers to check their inventory
- Prevented ATF from computerizing records in their possession
- Tried to prevent ATF from catching straw purchasers working for Mexican drug cartels
- Prevented the federal government from transferring any ATF responsibility to any other federal law-enforcement agency, such as the FBI or Drug Enforcement Agency
Sure, the NRA will gladly tell people that the federal government should enforce the gun laws already on the books, because it makes them look good to uninformed citizens and they've found a way to prevent those very laws from getting put into action. In other words, yes, we do need new gun laws. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a liberal lackie - a liberal who lacks in NRA brainwashing.
Comments
Post a Comment