Well, we have had another mass shooting, This time at a high school. The immediate response response was predictable." Something must be done. We must stop this. This time it's different." Have we heard this before? There is something different. Young people have taken up the cry and there is more sound and fury. But will it signify anything? So far more elected officials, particularly at the state level have joined in the something must be done chorus. But the usual obstructive comments even by those who say something must be done are being made. Whatever is proposed, there is , even by politicians who say that something must be done such as Marco Rubio , the argument that" this measure would not have prevented this shooting". And of course this is true. In a country with more guns than people and some estimated 10 to 15,000,000 assault type weapons there is no measure to eliminate mass shootings without confiscating all such weapons and that is never going to happen. Then there is the argument that it is difficult if not impossible to define what is an assault weapon. That could be done.
The most popular measures being proposed are more restrictive registration requirements and the ever popular" we need more guns not less-let's arm the teachers". Apparently it is believed that we can identify all disturbed or dangerous people and keep guns out of their hands. On the face of it that is nonsensical because it can't be done. We are all potentially dangerous and subject to triggering events that can cause us to snap. The prevalent response to such occurrences now appears to be to grab a gun and shoot somebody, or maybe a lot of somebodies.
Now let's turn to the arming of the teachers solution. This of course is the Pavlovian response of the NRA. Also, cadet bone spur appears to be favoring this. At his press conference, this nitwit blithely said that had a teacher with the gun been present in lake land he would've quickly blown away the shooter and no one would be harmed. This has provoke a response from various people who actually know something about the use of guns and who nearly unanimously suggest this is ridiculous. These vigilante fantasies may be fun, sort of like watching a John Wayne movie when you are a child-or in many cases when you're an adult-but on its face is preposterous. There is an old saying" don't bring a knife to a gunfight". A corollary would be don't bring a pistol to an assault rifle shootout. The NRA leadership, truly despicable people, have seized upon the okay Asian to say even more outrageous things than usual. There leaders, Boris and Natasha, have deemed all proposals other than theirs as a massive assault on individual liberty, particularly the second amendment. Natasha also stated that the" Legacy press "which I assume means anyone who doesn't agree with her relishes these mass shootings because it increases ratings. That is a new low even for the NRA.
It is not likely that anything significant will happen. Pretty clearly, assault weapons are not going to be banned, even the sale of them. The long-term answer is to diminish the political clout of the NRA. And that can only be done by voting–voting in people who resist the NRA. Perhaps one promising sign is the energy exhibited by our youth. There will be a march organized on March 24 nationwide but marches happen and then they are gone. Only 16% of those eligible to vote between the ages of 18 to 29 vote in by year in elections. That March 24 March needs to beef turned into a voting registration campaign. Until we elect responsible State and local officials, nothing will happen of any significance. Let us support our youth and urge them on to register and vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment