Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Dear America...




Here's Why Everyone Thinks You Have A Problem With Guns






On April 15, Boston was hit with a terrorist attack that killed three, injured, and in many cases permanently maimed, almost 200.  During the manhunt, a security guard was murdered and another law enforcement officer severely wounded.  One of the two attackers was killed by police, and the second brother was finally captured. 

The city of Boston is recovering, it'll take longer for the innocent people who are still in hospital and dealing with their life-altering injuries.


I've read on several conservative blogs, as well as heard the usual talking heads on teevee and hate radio, that we need to either deport all Muslims, shut down their mosques, or just round them up and put them in internment camps.  At the same time I read on a conservative blog that Mayor Bloomberg is the most dangerous man in America.


We've clearly lost our minds.


What our friends on the opposite side of the aisle seem blind to is the fact that guns kill 30,000+ Americans every year.  Those 30,000 deaths are mainly American-on-American deaths, and yet these same people who clamor for getting rid of mosques [where are their worries about the Constitution here?] or kicking Muslims out of the country [I haven't seen any distinctions between American Muslims, naturalized Muslims, visiting Muslims] these same people are, (if you'll excuse the snark because of recent comments from a troll here), wetting their pants over what to do about preventing Muslims from killing Americans.


Guess what?  The criminal Muslims who murdered Americans in this country are a tiny minority compared with how many Americans kill Americans.  Yet the people shouting the loudest about trampling on American Muslim's Constitutional rights are completely oblivious to this hypocrisy and, in my opinion, reacting in total madness to the recent attack.


The United States Senate, in a cowardly move, blocked passage of a bill for universal background checks; among those who voted against it were four Democrats.  The rest, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, were Republicans, one of whom wrote to a constituent in his home state of Arizona (she lost a relative in the Arizona massacre) saying that he supported background checks.  And then he voted against it.  What a guy!  What a sniveling cowardly, little spineless excuse for a human being.


The police chiefs across America are on the side of the majority of Americans, Democrats, and others who see this legislation as sensible and the right thing to do.  Here is what they think of the lackeys of the N.R.A. who voted against it.  And of all those who continue to side with gun manufacturers and their profits over the safety of the American people:


U.S. police chiefs, including Salt Lake City’s, blast U.S. Senate gun vote Legislation »


Burbank calls U.S. Senate vote “a disgrace.”
By Kimball Bennion | The Salt Lake TribuneFirst Published Apr 23 2013 04:39 pm


"Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank, who is on the board of directors of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, joined in the group’s characterization of last week’s Senate vote as 'a disgrace.'

'Showing an unprecedented lack of courage, U.S. Senators defied the will of the American people and voted according to their instructions from the Washington gun lobby,' the association’s statement reads. 'Much was said about the rights of gun owners, but almost nothing was said about the equal rights of the public to be safe from gun violence.'


In an interview Tuesday, Burbank said the strong language of the letter was approved by the association’s five-member board of directors but that the association’s support of stronger gun laws — which include universal background checks, limits to high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons — represents the unanimous opinion of the association’s members, who oversee police agencies in the 70 largest cities in the U.S. and Canada. 

Burbank has been the board’s vice president for three years. Burbank said that while mass shootings such as the ones in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., get the most attention, there are many other gun deaths in cities across the country that police deal with every day. Restricting criminals’ access to guns would make a difference, he said. "People who want to do society harm are getting access to firearms when they shouldn’t," Burbank said."

Salt Lake City and its police chief can hardly be characterized as knee-jerk liberals, and yet they are in agreement with an overwhelming majority of Democrats and the American people on this issue.  Where are those yahoos who claim they respect our law enforcement officials on this?

It appears that cowardly U.S. Senators don't respect the men and women in law enforcement who have to deal with the thousands of shootings every day by Americans on Americans.

What happened in Boston on April 15 was an horrendous tragedy perpetrated by terrorists.

What happens every year in America:  30,000+ deaths by Americans on Americans is an horrendous tragedy as well.

Where is the outrage by the people (who call for the deportation of Muslims) on this carnage year after year, month after month, day after day, by Americans on their own countrymen?

Where?  

Cowering under their beds afraid of Mooslems?

AUSTRALIA KNEW HOW TO DO IT:










THE SENATE DOESN'T REPRESENT AMERICA.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Deaths by gun shot in America has been in the ten's of thousands for years, yet, you only scream when death comes near you.
It is you and your ilk that don't get involved until something gets you going. Where were your posts against gun violence before Newtown?
Where are the Americans who care when Republicans were bankrupting America?
Where were the Americans who care when the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire?
Selfish Americans only care when it effects them, like the cries now about austerity brought on by the deficit spending of Republicans for 30 years, and their "fix" of sequestration.
Americans were jumping on the "no new tax" bandwagon, while America went broke.
Americans don't care, and would rather have free wheeling guns and death, than put even the smallest restrictions on guns.
Don't cry decent Americans want something when their votes say otherwise.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anon,

You're full of crap.

I have published 16 posts on gun violence on my blog.

And many before Newtown.

You don't know what you're talking about.

skudrunner said...

Anon,

Shaw has posted against guns several times prior to Newton.

You seem convinced that the republicans bankrupted America but the 2008 crisis was lead by a democrat majority congress so at best both sides were culpable. Had dodd, frank and waters not been so blinded by their own corruption, maybe they would have listened in 2005 when warnings were issued.

The sequester was not a republican initiative and the authority to administer it was given to the obama but he chose to blame rather than lead, see the pattern.

Shaw,

You did not take into consideration that a large percentage of gun deaths are the result of suicide. 11000 murders, 19000 suicides. If you want to cut those deaths you need to outlaw knives, ropes and tall buildings.

How many of those 11000 murders were done by someone who owned a gun legally?

Ema Nymton said...

.

Sophistry ...

" If you want to cut those deaths you need to outlaw knives, ropes and tall buildings."

Of course, yes! The tall buildings, ropes, and knives... Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Let us take skudrunner seriously. Skudrunner ya right; there is a serious person.

______________

"And then he voted against it. What a guy! What a sniveling cowardly, little spineless excuse for a human being."

One is only considered a success in USA politics when one gets re-elected. Nothing else matters; NOTHING. Senators know the imperative (get re-elected!). Voting against 'background checks' will get the little spineless excuse for a human being re-elected.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud,

This post is about 30,000 deaths by guns, including suicide. It doesn't matter if guns are legally or illegally owned when someone shoots you in the face.

We have THE MOST deaths by firearms in the developed world and we have THE MOST guns in circulation than any other country in the developed world.

Ducky's here said...

How many of those 11000 murders were done by someone who owned a gun legally?

-----
What you don't seem to understand for whatever reason is that the legal owners are the ones blocking any efforts to control the illegal possession.

Now, what if a registry were proposed that could track the source of firearms used in crimes? Crack down on dealers who are the source.
Would you be in favor of that? John Ashcroft wasn't and in fact destroyed the data.

Covering up nude statues in the rotunda wasn't all John was about.

Saying that there have been no efforts to enact firearms regulation before Newtown absolutely tears the fabric of reason.
Firearms ownership has become such a fetish on the fringe right that you can't talk openly about it. The images of U.N. blue helmets come to take your arsenal dance in your heads.

Sal said...

"The Senate doesn't represent America"
Yes it does, even if you disagree with its decisions, even if a majority of the people disagree with their decisions, their vote makes, or does not make law.

Ducky's here said...

Getting back to normal in Copley, Shaw

Bless the boarders.

skudrunner said...

"the legal owners are the ones blocking any efforts to control the illegal possession."

So duckman, passing laws will deter criminals from breaking them. Maybe enforcing laws will deter criminals but passing another law that is not enforced will solve little.

I am not opposed to background checks for gun purchases. I also feel it will have no effect on the number of illegally owned guns, that's the reason they call them illegally owned.

Maybe the left should have pushed to have undocumented gun owners have background. That would have universal appeal.

Ducky's here said...

Closing the gun show loophole may have helped, no skud?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Love the photos, Ducky.

Wonderful images of the small moments and neighborhood in the city that make Boston so enjoyable.

The neighborhood mom and pop store on Salem St., was my local store when I lived on Unity St.

Now I hang out at My Cousin's Place and the new greengrocers' "Local Roots."

Thanks for linking to your photos. Keep on keeping on.

Shaw Kenawe said...

We live in a representative democracy. The Senate did not represent their constituents who wanted universal background checks.

Therefore, they DO NOT represent their constituents who were for that bill 92%.

The Republican and Democratic senators who voted against it represent the firearms industry, NOT the American people who voted for them to represent them.




Les Carpenter said...

What is befuddeling is supposedly intelligent individuals are incapable (apparently) of finding and agreeing to a solution to REDUCE the incidence of death caused by firearms. Indeed bewildering.

rEpublicans and the NRA are responsible for the bulk of my bewilderment. Just saying...

Anonymous said...

I guess you don't understand how the Congress works, or what a Congressional vote means. We live by the laws they vote for, and yes, do not vote for. All sorts of laws, the people do not agree with. I didn't know you were that dense.

Anonymous said...

Don't make the stupid example that the people should always have what they want. If so, you would not be able to vote, own land, and other freedoms you enjoy that the majority of the people did not want. Slavery would still exist if we went strictly by what the majority of the people wanted. Thank God we do not have a strict majority rule system, and do have protections for the minority.
I guess you disagree, showing you too enjoy the benefits of dictatorship.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I guess you disagree, showing you too enjoy the benefits of dictatorship."


Did you really write that?

Expecting the elected representatives of the people to actually represent the people shows I enjoy the benefits of dictatorship?

Smarter trolls, please.

Anonymous said...

What a crybaby. The Congress did not do what you wanted, so it's not a representative body, what a laugh.

Ducky's here said...

What is befuddling is supposedly intelligent individuals are incapable (apparently) of finding and agreeing to a solution to REDUCE the incidence of death caused by firearms. Indeed bewildering.

-----
That's pretty rational, Rational. It is a puzzle isn't it.

I think you're befuddled because you assume we are able to operate in a rational environment.
The fear that any point of sale control will somehow lead to total confiscation is alive in a sufficient plurality to block any majority proposal in the legislature.

Remember as you try to apply a rational calculus that you are dealing with a large number of people who believe "Boston brought it on itself".
Reason got nothing to do with it, unfortunately.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anon,

The Congress ignored 91% of the American people, a majority of law enforcement, and a majority of the membership of the N.R.A.

This issue has nothing to do with what "I" want. It's what the overwhelming majority of Americans want.

You don't know your history when you say slavery would not have been overturned had it been put to vote.

Approval of slavery was NOT overwhelmingly a majority opinion. It was a SOURTHERN majority. We had to go to war with ourselves to get the southern states to give up that inhuman institution.





Anonymous said...

Going to war means it was not an overwhelming majority opinion, and America was fine with slavery (in a majority) for 300 years before Lincoln. Ya, tell me about history. It went to war because there were not the votes to outlaw it. Same for the debate in the Constitutional convention, there were not the votes to outlaw slavery. We were born a slave nation. Seems you don't know history.

skudrunner said...

Much like the vote on Obamacare, congress could care less what the will of the people is.

All our corrupt elected elite want is to get re-elected.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Are you deliberately being obtuse, Anon?

By the time of the Civil War, it was the southern states that wanted to hang onto slavery, and it was the southern states that initiated the war to continue it and even spread it to the new territories. It had nothing to do with "the votes to outlaw slavery."

There are lots of things that were accepted in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, even in the 20th century, when this country allowed the southern states to torture, hang and commit other terrorist attacks against African Americans with impunity.

The fact that human rights violations occurred in the early and modern history of this country proves what? That we have human failings like all peoples around the world, and that we see these major failures in human rights and we come together to change them.

The universal background checks legislation will pass, eventually. I guarantee it.

Anonymous said...

"By the time of the Civil War"

Which shows we were pro slavery for 300 years........and voted to be a slave country at the signing of the Constitution (ratified by all present) and the Declaration of Independence.
We are pro gun by a large majority, and will be for long past your death.
Some want restrictions, but they are still pro gun, and the Congress represents that.
To go back to what you said, "Congress is not representing the majority" is just wrong. Live with it. Live with the guns and live with the fact that America is gun crazy.
If it were not for your Democraps voting against it, it would have passed.
Just like your Democraps voted for the Iraq war, and then spent the last ten years blaming it on Bush.
Wake up to reality, and learn history.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Benjamin Franklin explained that the separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.


Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil—and their support went beyond words.

For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”

Shaw Kenawe said...

(cont.)

"Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.

It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
—George Washington"


Wrong again, Anon.

You're wrong on the recent vote in the senate, as well. Even with the Democrats who voted against universal background checks, that would not have brought it to 60, which is needed to overcome a filibuster.

And yes, some Democrats voted for the Iraq War, but it was Republican President George W. Bush who made the final decision to invade that country, and it was Republican President George W. Bush's administration's incompetence in carrying out the war that made it a national and international disgrace.

It was a war the neocons wanted, and it was a war that George W. Bush dragged the country into--Democrats or not voting, it was he who gave the go.

Anonymous said...

You are wrong again.
If the majority wanted to end slavery they would have. You cite people who were against slavery, but Lincoln had to end it with a proclamation, not a majority vote. Lincoln knew if he put it up for vote in the Congress, it would fail.
Just as you have.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Really anonymous, you need to get a life. I haven't failed anything. You appear to have some sort of weird obsession on this subject. I suggest seeing someone about this. Talk it out and maybe do some yoga.