Skip to main content

Still too soon to talk about this?!?

I'm getting sick and tired of this. I've reached a point where, once a day, after hearing about another mass shooting in this country, I raise my hands up in the air, grasp for words or meaning, and come up empty. So I wind up shaking my head and sighing for long periods of time, feeling overwhelmed and almost helpless by the anger and violence in my own home country. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of hearing 24-hour cable news networks covering a mass shooting almost every day. I'm sick of hearing about the killers' backgrounds and motives. I'm sick of hearing about political parties trying to spin the situation into their favor to win votes in the next election cycle. I'm sick of the constant talk by politicians with no action. But most of all, I'm sick and tired of the National Rifle Association (NRA) owning the Republican Party, dictating our gun laws, and brainwashing their supporters, all the while showing the least sensitivity humanly possible to the victims and their families. I'm not a religious man, but if there were such a thing as a devil on Earth, I'm starting to believe it's the NRA.

After each and every mass shooting, it's the same old tired rhetoric uttered by the NRA and their following:

- "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

- "The only way to stop a bad gun with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The NRA has also claimed that more guns equals less gun violence, less restrictive gun laws equals less gun violence, and of course, they always make mention of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution, well a portion of that 2nd Amendment anyway.

What does the NRA claim the 2nd Amendment says?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!"

What does it actually say?

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yeah, they tend to bypass that bit about a well-regulated militia.

Like the NRA, the Republican Party tends to go the condensed-Constitution route as well, but also typically utters the following things:

- "No matter what laws we have, criminals are going to find a way to break them."

- "We shouldn't be taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens."

- "What's our next move? Taking away spoons that make people obese? Regulate knives?"

- "What about cars? Cars kill more people than guns!"

- "Just look how well gun control works in Chicago!"

- "It's too soon to talk about this."

These are all erroneous arguments, of course. Guns don't kill people? Sure, tell that to the victims' families. More guns equals less gun violence? Right, and more ice cream equals less obesity, more drivers equals less car wrecks, and more Fox News-viewing equals a declining IQ. Okay, that last one makes sense. Regulating guns would be like regulating spoons or knives? Yes, knives can be used to kill, but unless a knife-firing gun starts being sold, it's a pretty safe bet that guns are much more efficient at killing people than knives. Spoons? Really? Spoons can be used to eat healthy soup, can be used for cooking certain dishes, or can even be used for magic tricks courtesy of Neo in The Matrix. Also, poor eating habits, while fairly common in obesity, often times isn't the only factor. Genetics and poor metabolism are often factors as well. Also, obesity (physically) harms a single person - the obese individual with a poor diet (and possibly poor metabolism and family history). When it comes to gun violence, an individual is physically harming others. This is an example of false equivalence at its finest. I love the "good-guys-with-a-gun" argument. Considering we experienced the 355th mass shooting in the U.S. this year just yesterday, I'm quite curious where these good-guys-with-guns have been the entire time. With regard to the other arguments, if an individual is a law-abiding citizen, he or she wouldn't have anything to worry about if the government closed background-check loopholes. Criminals will break gun laws regardless of what they are? What's the point of having any laws in the first place then? What is the point of a law? To be 100% perfect and completely prevent a certain event from ever taking place? Yeah, good luck with that. No, the point of a law is to establish some semblance of order in our society and to increase the odds of this nation's citizens of being able to go about their days with as little disturbance and risk of tragedy as possible. No, stricter gun laws won't be perfect. Yes, some criminals will still find a way to break them. However, as history would indicate, stricter gun laws would reduce the frequency of gun-related crimes, and with that, the number of gun-violence victims. When it comes to cars, guess what? People actually need to pass a vision, written, and driver's test in order to obtain a license. Some states are trying to make it legal for blind people to own firearms. Many are doing away with requiring testing of any kind to purchase and own a gun. When all 50 states require as strict of testing to own a firearm as they do to provide a driver's license, then we can talk. Until then, the comparison is yet another example of false equivalence. The Chicago talking point has been around for a while, but again, it misses the mark. The state of Indiana, which possesses far fewer gun restrictions, is just 30-40 minutes outside of Chicago. So while gun laws might be strict in the city of Chicago, that fact is fairly irrelevant considering people can obtain guns 30-40 minutes away (Robertsdale, Indiana - Google it, as well as the state's gun laws). Nice try, though...

Lastly, I'm getting tired of the line, "It's too soon to talk about this." Well, when is the right time? It was too soon to talk about gun violence and the need for stricter gun laws after the Newtown shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It was too soon to talk about gun violence and the need for stricter gun laws after the Charleston, South Carolina church shooting earlier this year. It was too soon to talk about gun violence and the need for stricter gun laws last week following the attack on a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs. Even after the 355th mass shooting of the year yesterday, it's apparently still too soon to talk about gun violence and the need for stricter gun laws. The GOP tends to stand back and say, "We pray for the victims and their families." Sure, that's nice and all, but it's not enough! It's not enough to stand there, pray to a supposedly omnipotent deity, and not do anything to try and make it less likely that such awful events occur in the future. If they believe in God, didn't God supposedly give us free will? If that's the case, what would he/she/it like for us to do with that free will? Sit back and pray to him/her/it to make things all better, or to actually work together to try and put an end to these mass killings?

The NRA and GOP have many of their followers fooled. This isn't about the Constitution. It's not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about money. The NRA went from a respectable organization, preaching gun safety (actually favoring some forms of gun control), to one about nothing more than profit. For 365 days a year, they sell fear. When President Obama was elected president in 2008, what'd the NRA say? "President Obama is going to take away your guns!" After the president earned a very poor grade from the Brady Campaign for gun violence prevention in his first term, the NRA uttered the same line after he was elected a second time: "It didn't happen in his first four years, but believe us, Obama's going to take away your guns!" After every mass shooting and every speech the president gives on the matter, the NRA screams to the masses, "He's about to take away your guns!" Yet it's never happened. That's just the NRA selling fear, and with that, guns, and lots of them. The NRA isn't even saddened nor fearful of these mass shootings, because they know they have the Republican Party in their pocket, nothing will get done in Congress on the matter until both chambers lean Democratic, and they know news of mass shootings prompt fear, and with that, an increase in gun sales.

I don't know about any of you, but I'm sick and tired of feeling overwhelmed and helpless by the seemingly non-stop news of mass shootings. It's about time Congress starts listening to the people and trying to do more to protect us at home rather than constantly blowing the NRA for money (Yeah, the GOP may be against gay marriage, but they seem to be just fine with the NRA doing them from behind 365 days a year). Most in the Republican Party like to claim they're pro-life. Well, prove it! Because I'm sorry, but if by the 355th mass shooting in a year, you're still saying, "It's still not time to do anything about that," then you can't call yourself pro-life.

To contact members of Congress, go to this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Comments

  1. I absolutely agree with this! Such phenomenal writing. Insightful. Thoughtful. Enlightening. Wow. How can I share this on my Facebook?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Just copy the URL from this page and paste it onto your Facebook homepage. That should about do it. I'm curious how many NRA folk I piss off. ha-ha. :)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"