You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Obama did his part. Will Congress?
Obama has political courage? He can't run for re-election. That takes no courage. No new gun laws would have prevented any of the recent tragedies and everyone knows it. Chicago already has about the strictest gun laws effectively blocking law abiding citizens from owning a gun. The result: 512 murders in 2012 almost all the hands of illegally owned weapons. So, do tell us, anti-gun zealots, who will be affected by new gun laws?
To ensure political correctness, many politicians, the general media and anti-gun advocates are limiting the discussion on the proper use of guns to hunting and sports shooting. What is being ignored is the reality that the Declaration of Independence speaks of, "…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." and the U.S. Constitution, is in place as it establishes the foundation for the legal system to protect individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is tragic, and that is an understatement, that politicians especially, are, and excuse my frankness, gutless to take the position that self-defense is an acceptable use of guns.
Along the same line, in the past few years, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion on rights (e.g., health care, reproductive, immigration, etc.). I find it astounding, even when I should not, at the skewed perspective of anti-gun advocates to blindly ignore the reality that gun ownership is a right embedded in the "Constitution". This of course while holding firm to the belief that all other so-called rights (e.g., "wants") are not under the intent in the "Constitution" adopted to limit the role of the Federal Government.
Think of it this way, every year in Northfield, Minnesota, "Jesse James Days" celebrate the actions of armed citizens taking on the gang which subsequently lead to their demise. Yes, this is not that time period but true historians, not Hollywood, have written on the myth of bandits riding into riding into town, shooting. Not that this did not occur but particularly after the civil war, citizens were armed and the consequences of riding into town shooting were potentially deadly.
It is tragic that this discussion is being funneled to a single path. A path similar to Prohibition and Illegal Drugs, which generated "Feel Good Legislation" despite both initiatives being dismal failures.
If owning a firearm requires a mental health clearance, two things will happen as a result- a de facto database of persons owning firearms (passed- mental-health forms proof )will be created; and the old Soviet mental health hammer, care as required by the local and state soviet governments, will establish who gets rights... Theory sounds nice, but there are some serious threats to freedom as we knew it that need to be safeguarded before we write the check.
Never before in our country's history has ANYTHING substantial been done to curb increasing gun carnage. This is a bold first, and long overdue. The whole package addresses virtually every major aspect fueling gun violence, from research (shut down by the NRA for 20 years), mental health training to identify disturbed youth, funding school personnel for extra protection, studying violent media, and closing loopholes allowing 40% of all gun sales to occur without background checks. Nothing like this has been attempted before and I, for one, am sick to death of all the instant naysayers declaring this multi-pronged approach DOA. Wingers can't find enough things wrong with ANY approach to deal with gun violence, but they don't offer a single viable solution EVER. Tear it down, rip it up, declare it "only feel-good" all you wish, but for crying out loud: WHERE IS YOUR SOLUTION???? The very same thing occurred with health care reform; tear it down, declare it a disaster before it's even implemented, but God forbid you offer a solution to the health care crisis. Naysayers are a cancer feeding on the very body that allows it to exist: America.
"WHERE IS YOUR SOLUTION????"... Perhaps you problem is not my problem, or even a problem to most, and thus does not even merit a solution... Or: the price of rights has always been blood - the right is worth the price - just as many people didn't want to go to war in WW2 because they thought the price was too high, even as little children were being bombed and killed in London and Nanking, many people today think that even one life is not worth the price of protecting rights... The price of rights is dear. (In the 2012 UN report, the US is 110th out of 215 listed countries in rate of all violent crime - even if I was willing to give up a right, you would have to show me that your solution would do something, and that it wouldn't just shift the violence over to another vector.)
CrystalBay: Get your facts straight, gun violence is down, and violent crimes are down over 50% since 2008 (www.fbi.gov). Understand the facts before you have your little tantrums.
"Get your facts straight, gun violence is down, and violent crimes are down over 50% since 2008"...............All violent crimes or gun deaths, sir? Makes a difference, you know? Beyond this, just how many suicides, homicides, or accidental deaths by guns are too many in your view??? 17K aren't "too many"? How about 5K?? The NRA has effectively shut down all research on the gun culture, so how can we even know just how far-reaching the problem is?? Are you against background checks on all purchases?? The NRA has fought it mightily for two decades. It's stunning to me that the massacre of innocents is considered by some as "the price we pay for our right to bear arms".
The most violent areas of our country are cities and counties that vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Go ahead and take guns away from violent Dems but leave us peacful Cons alone. We are not the people committing the violence.
"Go ahead and take guns away from violent Dems but leave us peacful Cons alone"...............No one is talking about "taking guns away". Why do you reactionaries keep jumping to this unfounded conclusion??? Because one specific kind of gun is up for banning - a weapon who's only purpose is killing multiple humans -you reactively jump to "they're coming to take all our guns away". This is absurd fear-mongering, just the kind of nonsense FOX incites. No one wants to "take your guns away"; we want one particular kind of weapon to cease being produced. That is all.
we want one particular kind of weapon to cease being produced.---- ever heard of the slippery slope argument?
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks