Changes to make our gun laws more sane and reasonable are more popular than the right wing extremists, including the NRA, would like people to know - including legislators.
A few examples from polls:
We've had the right pushing paranoid gun nuts to buy more guns, more ammunition, because of a specious claim that 'Obama is coming for yer gunz' from the NRA and other crazies. The NRA back in '77/'78 was taken over by pro-gun extremists, who were also extremist right wing politically. That changed the NRA from being an organization that supported gun control and regulation to what we have now. They began funding, in part the shift to the far right among conservatives where there previously had been normal moderate conservatives.
And of course we had the drastic dumping of the mentally ill pretty much on the street during the Reagan era. While it was never a good idea to warehouse the mentally ill, state and local resources were not prepared to deal with the problem which simply put many mentally ill out on the street. Others, while not on the street, have faced increasingly less and less in the way of any resources to deal with mental illness.
A few examples from polls:
- 86
percent support requiring all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check, no
matter where they purchase the weapon or from whom they buy it. (January 2011 American
ViewPoint/Momentum Analysis poll)
- 63
percent favor a ban on high capacity magazines or clips (January 2011 CBS News
Poll)
- 69
percent support "limiting the number of guns a person could purchase in a given
time frame." (April 2012
Ipsos/Reuters poll)
- 66
percent support requiring gun owners to register their firearms as part of a
national gun registry. (January 2011 American ViewPoint/Momentum
Analysis)
- 88
percent support banning those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
(January 2011 American
ViewPoint/Momentum Analysis poll)
We've had the right pushing paranoid gun nuts to buy more guns, more ammunition, because of a specious claim that 'Obama is coming for yer gunz' from the NRA and other crazies. The NRA back in '77/'78 was taken over by pro-gun extremists, who were also extremist right wing politically. That changed the NRA from being an organization that supported gun control and regulation to what we have now. They began funding, in part the shift to the far right among conservatives where there previously had been normal moderate conservatives.
And of course we had the drastic dumping of the mentally ill pretty much on the street during the Reagan era. While it was never a good idea to warehouse the mentally ill, state and local resources were not prepared to deal with the problem which simply put many mentally ill out on the street. Others, while not on the street, have faced increasingly less and less in the way of any resources to deal with mental illness.
Part of that takeover, that shift to the far right, away from normal moderates, included steady, consistent, extreme reduction in the funding for mental health care. In places like Seattle, Washington, where there has been a sharp increase in shootings, including mass shootings, the difficulty in trying to get care, especially involuntary commitments for the severely mentally ill has been noted as a factor in those shooting incidents.
The right would rather give the wealthy tax breaks and provide corporate welfare to their donors. It is a bad priority, for all those who are not dangerous but need care; it is a dangerous priority for all of us when those who are dangerously mentally ill don't get care, but do get guns.
Pro-gun advocates would insist that this man, who clearly was a danger to himself and others, should not have been denied the purchase of a firearm, because his run-ins with law enforcement were dismissed. They rabidly deny law enforcement the option to keep people safe by denying dangerous people firearms.
The right would rather give the wealthy tax breaks and provide corporate welfare to their donors. It is a bad priority, for all those who are not dangerous but need care; it is a dangerous priority for all of us when those who are dangerously mentally ill don't get care, but do get guns.
Pro-gun advocates would insist that this man, who clearly was a danger to himself and others, should not have been denied the purchase of a firearm, because his run-ins with law enforcement were dismissed. They rabidly deny law enforcement the option to keep people safe by denying dangerous people firearms.
Former press secretary Gibbs is wrong, in speaking here in January 2011 about the Gabby Giffords mass shooting incident; the right wing extremists DO pursue a position that make it possible, even EASY, for deranged minds to acquire firearms IS what they claim under cover of 2nd Amendment rights.
Any attempt to screen out people like Jared Loughner is resisted; any attempt to regulate what kinds of firearms are available, like the assault style weapon or the body armor accessories or the drum magazine that held 100 rounds that made it possible to shoot so many, many people in a short period of time, and which would have done terrible harm to law enforcement even with body armor is resisted; any attempt to regulate the amount of weapons and ammunition that has characterized not only mass shootings, but also domestic terrorism like that of the right wing extremist militias is resisted as well.
Ordinary citizens who want to enjoy firears for recreation, or for home defense, or for hunting do not require those items used by James Holmes or the quantity acquired by him. Ordinary citizens would prefer to see people like Jared Loughner, or the man who shot up the cafe in Seattle denied firearms, and to see drug users not have access to firearms, or former felons either, given the incidence of them using those firearms for subsequent violence.
We need to adequately fund mental health care, including screening and where necessary, involuntary commitment. Thankfully, the ACA is a step in the right direction in making mental health care one of the many kinds of health care that will be more accessible to people who need it. That in turn will facilitate having dangerous people diagnosed. I would also argue that we would benefit from having a thorough overhaul of the terrorist watch list, to remove the people who should not be on it; but those who remain should be considered on a case by case basis for firearm ownership, so as to remove those who present a danger from firearms. But you can bet that the right, and the NRA, will spend a fortune to obstruct any measures which would reduce our incidence of gun violence. They make too much money from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment