From the New York Times:
"As families of the victims of the Newtown, Conn., massacre watched from the Senate gallery on Thursday, 68 senators, including 16 Republicans, voted to break a conservative filibuster to allow debate to begin on a bill that would expand background checks for most gun sales. That a procedural vote was considered a breakthrough demonstrated how hard it has been to get even the most fundamental, common-sense reform of the nation’s inadequate gun laws past the gun lobby. Groups like the National Rifle Association still don’t want a background-check bill to come to a vote, but at least a few Republicans (and almost all Democrats) recognized how popular the bill is, and how politically unwise it would be to kill the effort before it reached the Senate floor.
The next steps are even more treacherous, and Thursday’s coalition will quickly begin to dwindle. There are several more potential filibusters to break, and the most extreme anti-gun-control senators — like Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah — are likely to erect procedural hurdles wherever they can."
Now the real work begins. I hope the momentum continues. It is up to us to keep the pressure on our legislators.
“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what. - Atticus Finch” ― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
39 comments:
Thanks for the news. Now I know that this weekend the whole right-wing internet will be a maelstrom of shrieking and wailing and cries of betrayal and threats to primary the "traitors" and on and on. There won't be enough popcorn in the world to get through it all.
I don't know about other conservatives, but I've never been one who disfavored bringing measures to the floor for a vote.
--------------
The kind of vile deed that Adam Lanza committed might never be preventable, however.
Let us remember that Lanza was under age 21. I may be mistaken, but I think that he obtained those guns illegally. Typically, people such as Adam Lanza and certainly felons over the age of 21 do not purchase guns in places that do background checks.
Also, there is no magic wand for successfully treating the mentally deranged nor for eliminating weapons that can kill.
Furthermore, I find it quite strange that the toxicology results for Lanza's autopsy have not been released.
Of course, we know that many people in the United States own firearms. What percentage of those people commit mass murder?
Excerpt from "Thoughts on Gun Control":
...Feel-good gun-control measures, which only deprive law-abiding citizens of their right to self-defense, are futile, because nihilistic killers, by definition, will NEVER obey any laws, including gun laws. They’ll find other means — bombs, poison, knives, automobiles, airplanes, or simple arson — to slaughter others....
Agree or disagree, the essay is worth reading, IMO.
"...killers, by definition, will NEVER obey any laws, including gun laws."
If the person who wrote that truly believes that is the reason for no restrictions or background checks whatsoever to ever be imposed on the purchase of firearms, then he or she must argue to do away with ALL laws, since killers and ALL LAW BREAKERS ignore all laws.
That's a weak argument.
"Of course, we know that many people in the United States own firearms. What percentage of those people commit mass murder?"
What percentage of people in the US rob banks? Yet all banks put all sorts of security in place so that people can't walk in off the street and help themselves to the money.
IMO we've had one too many mass shootings. That those shootings are only an occasional occurence is not a good enough reason, IMO, to not do something about it. Starting with background checks.
The 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct. Other guaranteed rights have restrictions.
As a nation, we've demonstrated we do not know how to handle firearms, and too many have died because of that incompetence.
Shaw,
As a nation, we've demonstrated we do not know how to handle firearms
IMO, not "as a nation," but clearly some individuals abuse firearms in all sorts of ways -- the worst way being murder.
I am unconvinced that background checks will provide a solution. The problem, IMO, stems from several different root causes.
BTW, you might take a look at this graphic. If you are so inclined, you might interpret that graphic in a comment here at your site. I've checked the comments-notification box.
IMO we've had one too many mass shootings. That those shootings are only an occasional occurence is not a good enough reason, IMO, to not do something about it. Starting with background checks.
As far as I know, a background check wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza. Am I wrong about that?
What others would a background check have prevented from obtaining a firearm? I'm serious with that question.
I would love for you to defend your thesis of the headline statement that no one can comment on.
Only a progressive would equate asking for ID at a polling station with denying someone their voting rights. About the only thing I agree with the UN on is their amazement at how loose our voting laws are.
And only a liberal can see no connection between "safe, legal, and rare" abortions, and Gosnell's charnel house.
That same liberal that cannot see the connection between abortion and infanticide, can spot all manner of non-existent connections between millions of law-abiding gun owners and mentally ill murderers.
Almost makes me wish Gosnell had shot all those babies with a scary-looking "assault weapon."
BTW, Cho the Virginia Tech mass murderer (2007), passed every background check.
//What others would a background check have prevented from obtaining a firearm? I'm serious with that question. //
That is a hypothetical. You may as well as " how many lives have been saved by mandatory seat belt laws"
You can not prove 'how many' yet it is safe to assume that lives have been saved. How many lives would background checks save? You can assume many. You can prove none.
but to claim that the problem is so great that no measures should be considered is delusional and evasive. We regulate alcohol,drugs,and motor vehicles...yet none of that is looked on as infringing on rights. There is a movement to regulate reproduction......birth control...and that is not thought of as infringing on freedom?
“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what. - Atticus Finch” ― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
That's a great quote from one of the great movies of all time, IMO.
That would be an accurate description of what faces an honest individual under constant bombardment from moonbat media—the media that deals in misdirection and disinformation. The media that wants to feed talking points to their brainwashed audience to accept their views and perspectives at face value—the media that almost makes Pravda of the ex-USSR look good by comparison. The moonbat media that calls itself "the newspaper of record" printing "all the news that's fit to print" for those swallowing the "first draft of history" straight from the swirling toilet bowl of the New York Times.
SF: "And only a liberal can see no connection between "safe, legal, and rare" abortions, and Gosnell's charnel house."
Touting Gosnell as representative of all abortion providers is the same as saying Adam Lanza is representative of all 2nd Amendment supporters.
It's dumb.
Gosnell needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
And my headline is up there as hyperbole--you know, the kind you tell me you like to use to make a point. Only when I do it, you get your feathers ruffled.
AOW, I believe okjimm answered the question on what difference background checks would make. I would then ask, what harm to the gun purchaser would it give?
shaw...do you need more proof on how insane your wacko rightwing pals are...heres one of them...talking about progressives...over at your friend fts blog...they must have unlocked this ones cell for the weekend...
"it is the progressives who are seeking and working on destroying the morality of our children in the public schools. The progressives and their celebration of everything immoral is being passed on to our children via the public school system. This is why progressives oppose vouchers and home schooling, and why they now support universal preschool for the very young. Make no mistake, the progressives only want to abuse the children by exposing them to homosexual acts, and by turning them into slaves of the state.
Progressives have never stood for liberty and freedom, they have always stood for government oppression. Look how they support murderous tyrants like Obama, Stalin, Lennin, Pol Pot, etc"
I'm not ruffled, and I'm not comparing all abortion providers to Gosnell.
I am examining the connection between abortion and infanticide (and progressives have defended newborn infanticide), on the one hand, and the non-existent connection between law-abiding gun ownership and the actions of crazy people.
Progressives have not defended infanticide, next non issue.
Where the hell is your evidence for progressives supporting new born infanticide?
You're saying progressives (you didn't qualify it, so you mean every one of us) support killing new born babies?
You, my friend, are full of bull puckey. And you lose all credibility for any argument when you state something as insane as that.
I know you have a burning need to demonize progressives, but that statement makes you look like a mouth breather. I don't think you are, so why do you insist on portraying yourself as one?
Because some conservative sites I've visited portray Barack Obama and his family as primates, does that mean all conservatives are racist? Do all conservatives believe Mr. Obama has no claim to the presidency because a small group of morons do not accept his birth certificate as proof of citizenship?
Get a grip, dude.
Silver, I'm not sure why you injected newborn infanticide into this thread, but, be that as it may you went beyond just stretching IMNHO.
Silverfiddle said progressives defend new born infanticide?
The statement below from FactCheck.org is probably what he was referring to, and he took it to the extreme in order to make progressives look like blood-thirsty, ghoulish baby-killers. In fact, because I support a woman's right to choose, some jerk on another blog called ME a baby killer. That's how crazed these people are when it comes to this subject. No exaggeration is too stupid nor too over-the-top in order to paint all progressive as killers.
From FactCheck.org (which, BTW, a number of conservatives disparage whenever it publishes something they do not agree with. When FactCheck.org supports their position, I've found they happily use it as supporting evidence.
"Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he’s conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they’re "lying."
At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.
Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
(cont.)
"However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."
CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that’s the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it’s just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they’re trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.
Obama: Let me clarify this right now.
Brody: Because it’s getting a lot of play.
Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade."
And MOST IMPORTANT to counter Silverfiddle's outrageous claim that progressives defend new born infanticide:
"The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?
In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won’t try to settle that one.
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."
Shaw,
I believe okjimm answered the question on what difference background checks would make. I would then ask, what harm to the gun purchaser would it give?
I see the comment.
I, personally, have no problem with background checks as I understand them.
But I still maintain that background checks serve as a bandaid on a spurting artery. Something terrible has happened in our culture -- that there are people who have zero regard for human life.
In all my 60+ years, I have known hundreds of people who own firearms. Not a single one has killed anyone else or committed any crime with a firearm.
Wait.
I do know one individual, now deceased, who killed his wife's lover when he found his wife and the lover together; the man who pulled the trigger served over 20 years in the penitentiary. This happened in Boston in the 1940s, I think.
And I do know someone else, also deceased, who killed his uncle -- a family feud. The state declined to prosecute because the uncle had been physically tormenting his nephew for years; once the nephew got old enough, he "took care of the problem."
But I don't know any mass murderers, and my circle of contacts and acquaintances must number in the thousands.
Okjimm,
What I'm trying to find out is specific names of mass murderers and other criminals that a background check would have put a curb on these people as to obtaining a firearm.
If you know any specific names, please say so.
AOW... you are truly being obtuse. A logical flow would state that ALL mass murders are mentally flawed. You dcouold easily deduce that, mathematically , all of them....realistically, say 50% as legal deterrents have been proven to subvert some crimes. There is a prove causal link between law and the abatement of crime. All, no, some, yes. But if you want specifics... much on this one....Seung-Hui Cho, The Virginia Tech Shooter. Long history of mental illness that went unreported and allowed him to purchase guns.
snippet from Wikki"The massacre prompted the state of Virginia to close legal loopholes that had previously allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years. The law strengthening the NICS was signed by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2008"
so no less than a Sovereign state and the president of the USA affirm that this one specific could have been prevented. Again, logic would dictate that there could have been more.
please, think it through.
Out this way there was a guy so
deranged that even the pawn shop refused to sell him a weapon. They put him in the psych
ward for a day and give him his arsenal back each time.
..ticking clock, guaranteed, but the NRA protects his rights.
I apologize for inadvertently deleting comments that may have been meant for this thread.
If you were a troll. I don't apologize. If your comment was relevent and civil. I am sorry.
It wasn't important really, just hoping to clear something up.
... How convenient...
Yeah Shaw, I was saying every last progressive wants to kill babies (*eye roll*)
Progressives advocating infanticide is a "non-issue?"
Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” (WaPo)
That's infaticide.
Check out Peter Singer
I'll spare you Barbara Boxer's dimbulb comment, since you would just say she misspoke...
I know I am off topic, so thank you for indulging me. Three points I ask people to ponder in the quiet of their own consciences, and then I will get off the subject.
Killing a baby outside the womb is an easy logical leap from killing him inside the womb. Planned Parenthood had made that connection, and academics have as well. I have no proof, but I imagine Gosnell's house of horrors is not the only place in America where practitioners snip the necks of live babies.
How would you feel if that were you on the operating table, waiting for the thumbs up or thumbs down? Or, God forbid, what if she were your child or grandchild? Would there be any doubt? No! If the nearest hospital were 200 miles away you would put that baby in the car and drive.
Finally, and this is the salient point, that baby who survives a botched abortion is now a living, breathing human being. Her life is no longer contingent on what the mother or anyone else thinks. Despite the best efforts of her mother and those who tried to kill her, she has achieved personhood status.
This is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue.
Okjimm,
I'm being obtuse? I'm asking a specific question!
Seung-Hui Cho, The Virginia Tech Shooter. Long history of mental illness that went unreported and allowed him to purchase guns.
Because his history of mental illness went unreported, he passed a background check. Now, the law has rightly been changed.
To be clear, Cho's history of mental illness SHOULD have been reported. After all, there were multiple signs of terrible mental problems and a court order ordering psychiatric treatment.
The ball was dropping in the case of James E. Holmes as well. He passed the background checks, I believe.
Of course, there is the thorny matter of doctor-patient privilege to deal with. IMO, that matter needs to be addressed ASAP.
Now, let me tell you a true story....A friend of mine -- a woman who is a registered nurse of over 20 years -- recently went to the doctor because she had insomnia. Probably menopause related. When she accessed her medical records, she found that the doctor had written "probable depression." Do you advocate a background check that would deprive her of purchasing a firearm?
BB,
Was that man hospitalized for mental illness?
I do think that we need to be careful of depriving anyone of his rights if he has not committed a crime and convicted of that crime.
For example, not gun related, if you are arrested for speeding, you are not assigned points on your driver's license and your insurance until the conviction occurs. Does that not seem the correct way to you?
Yes, yes, I know that mental illness if different from getting a speeding ticket.
But I also know how damned difficult it is to get anyone resistant to help any mental health treatment. People aren't just locked up because someone else says, "That guy is wacko."
There is also the matter of defining "wacko."
“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
I don't know about you, SF, but no where in that statement does it imply that the fetus should be killed or the live birth should be killed. Leaving it up to the woman, her family and physician could also mean to place it in adoption. You read into it infanticide. I don't.
Why is it that "progressives" support expanded background checks for gun purchases but say you should not even present an ID to vote.
Only 25% of cases involving providing false information for the purchase of a firearm are prosecuted. I guess it is a great idea to get more background checks so a larger percent can not be prosecuted.
Shaw,
Have you seen THIS in Slate?
Excerpt:
...But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk....
More at the link.
Your thoughts on the above?
Additional reading, this one from the WaPo: "Planned Parenthood’s defense of infanticide."
Excerpt:
...Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
Jaws in the committee room dropped. Asked again, she repeated her answer.
Only after a firestorm erupted in the conservative media did Planned Parenthood issued a statement that in the “extremely unlikely and highly unusual” event that a baby were born alive it would “provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.” That is debatable, since a Planned Parenthood counselor has been caught on tape admitting that the organization leaves infants born alive after an abortion to die. But if Planned Parenthood really does provide such care, why was it lobbying against a bill requiring such care in the first place?...
Back to the matter of background checks:
Beware the DSM-5, the soon-to-be-released fifth edition of the “psychiatric bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The odds will probably be greater than 50 percent, according to the new manual, that you’ll have a mental disorder in your lifetime.
Although fewer than 6 percent of American adults will have a severe mental illness in a given year, according to a 2005 study, many more—more than a quarter each year—will have some diagnosable mental disorder. That’s a lot of people. Almost 50 percent of Americans (46.4 percent to be exact) will have a diagnosable mental illness in their lifetimes, based on the previous edition, the DSM-IV. And the new manual will likely make it even "easier" to get a diagnosis.
If we think of having a diagnosable mental illness as being under a tent, the tent seems pretty big. Huge, in fact....
[...]
Some of the disorders added to DSM editions are primarily—or wholly—medical in nature. One example is the diagnosis of “breathing-related sleep disorder,” which arises from medical problems that interfere with sleep. One such medical problem is obstructive sleep apnea, which occurs when the muscles of the throat relax so much during sleep that they narrow or block the airway. Throughout the night, people with obstructive sleep apnea have their deep sleep cut short as they relax because they stop breathing; once in a lighter phase of sleep, they breathe normally again. This disorder is not a mental disorder, but a medical one.
Another example is the “disorder” “caffeine intoxication,” characterized by at least five symptoms after consuming the equivalent of two to three cups of coffee: restlessness, gastrointestinal problems, difficulty sleeping, nervousness, and rapid heartbeat. To meet the diagnosis, the symptoms must impair functioning in some way. It’s hard to believe that an episode of too much coffee or Red Bull constitutes a mental disorder, but there you have it....
AOW... in Cho's case the 'backround check' consisted mostly of documentation of residence and citizenship. His mental illness and the lack of reporting of such is the issue.
Depression? a check mark on a medical form? Your argument is disingenuous. Shit, I have been diagnosed and treated for depression for years....but then, I have never wanted or felt the need for a gun. My Depression is very treatable. At the level I am dealing with...it shouldn't be a problem...and a medical report would validate as such.
I also have cataracts...and cannot pass a test to drive a motor vehicle. Have my rights been violated? There are certain levels of mental illness that should prohibit both gun ownership....and ...the right to operate a motor vehicle. Currently, I can not drive a car....but blind and depressed, buy a gun.
The monstrous Planned Parenthood spokesmouth went on to say that the nearest hospital could be too far away. That points directly to letting the baby die, not adoption.
OKjimm.
We have very good data on survivial rates of seat belt uses vice those who don't buckle up. No such data exists to judge background checks.
If we could do the checks without government storing data and creating databases, that could be a solution.
If you want to DQ someone from gun ownership, it needs to be done by a judge, and there needs to be a time limit on it.
If someone must have their guns taken away, it needs to be temporary, and the burden must be upon the state to renew the ban.
Also, the guns must be stored by some third-party, not the state.
There is too much opportunity for abuse.
Okjimm,
[Cho's] mental illness and the lack of reporting of such is the issue.
We agree!
Clinical depression does not a dangerous mental illness make. Depression varies.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up cataracts. In any case, driving is a privilege and not a Constitutional issue.
Maybe your point is that you are so blind that you cannot handle a firearm safely; I've had elderly relatives who reached that stage and voluntarily gave up driving and owning firearms.
blind and depressed, buy a gun
Puhleeze.
I have never said that everyone should go out and buy a firearm.
Okjimm,
There are certain levels of mental illness that should prohibit both gun ownership....and ...the right to operate a motor vehicle.
I forgot to say that I agree with that as well. Are there any moves afoot to revoke drivers licenses of those who have serious mental illness? I haven't heard of any, but perhaps you have.
Post a Comment