Re: Gun Games in the Senate
The New York Times is notable for its high-minded approach at all issues written in editorials. Its target audience of liberal city-dwellers forces subjects to lose a certain amount of objectivity in the name of slight sensationalism for issues such as gun control.
The article seems to be siphon for personal rage at the negligence of the Senate for not passing a bill through fast enough, and then the bill ultimately being blocked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). There is not much in the way of an argument, and the little that is presented is unclear of what the writer wants to accomplish. The most tangible thesis that can be gleaned from this is that the writer believes that actions should be taken to speed up the process of bills passing through Congress. Luckily enough, to compensate for the lack solid argument, the writer does not waste the reader's time by trying to manipulate any group of people in particular to change their minds to match the writer's own beliefs. Solid facts are used to support the writer’s cause for rant. Nothing is specifically quoted, but substantial piece of evidence are brought forward to prove that the editorial is justified.
The conclusion seems to have put together an idea that a new law should be created every time a new travesty towards your fellow man is committed. The law that was so callously brought down by Sen. Coburn was to eliminate the loophole in gun control laws that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to purchase the guns he used in the Virginia Tech Massacre. The root of the argument there is that Cho was not included on the list of citizens not allowed to purchase firearms due to mental instability because he was under outpatient mental treatment rather than in-patient.
There is no doubt in my mind that stricter measures should be taken about who should and should not own a gun, but I will always oppose a law that was created and rushed to ease the troubled minds and souls who turn to the government for all of their answers. Knee-jerk, reactionary legislation is how Americans wound up with the Patriot Act, and if even another month was spent on that "miracle" of Congress my fellow countrymen would not have to worry about who was listening to the other end of their phone call.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I appreciate the thrust of this critique--Congress has taken us back to ancient Rome--bread and circuses, and if that's not enough, then off with someone's head.
All they do is knee-jerk reaction with little or no thought for the long-term real issues of our country. No wonder that their approvaal is less than half of George W.'s anemic 35%.
Also, gun-control has to be an issue that has some limits--on both sides. It has always been upheld as a key element of the Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has elected to review it again this session. Maybe they will read it in a 21st Century mode that says "only a militia has the right to keep and bear arms."
But up to now, the historical reading has been clear that the framers reallt meant this: any government is capable of misusing it's military or police force to take unconstitutional control at times.
At that time, the militia, which means a cobbled-together rabble of an army, also known as the rebels, has to have the means--desperate though they are--to resist and hopefully right the situation.
Unfortunately, most folks today would just tune in for more bread and circuses rather than risking anything for their freedom. They have a wholely childlike assumption that the government is just a great big puppy dog which only aims to serve and feed and entertain them.
A Russian captain who defected here 15 years ago was asked how the very nice-sounding Russian Constitution was so easily overthrown and if it could happen here in America. He said, "Oh, no. It could never happen here. Too many citizens have guns."
Post a Comment