Had enough mass shootings to support better gun laws? President Obama sure has.
“A visibly frustrated President Obama offered condolences to the victims of the mass shooting at an Oregon college on Thursday, but he added that “our thoughts and prayers are not enough,” and voters should demand changes to the nation’s gun laws.”
No America hasn’t shown the will to take any meaningful actions to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. The reasonable pleas to reform the system lose every time.
“So tonight, as those of us who are lucky enough to hug our kids a little closer are thinking about the families who aren’t so fortunate,” the president said in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, named for a man severely wounded by an assassin’s bullet. “I’d ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws, and to save these lives and let these people grow up.”
.jpg)
By Lawrence Jackson [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
He’s said it before. He’ll say it again. He’s asking you nicely America.
When I suggested that perhaps groups like the Oathkeepers that point guns at innocent people “protecting” the Bundy Ranch, and wanted to “protect” Kim Davis from being lawfully arrested, commenters defended their gun rights nearly as thoughtlessly as others defended the police’s supposed rights to shoot unarmed black people. The Oathkeepers must be getting really tired of waiting lawfully in their homes for a Black Lives Matter protestor to break in and loot their property, because they have gone around the country following protesters with loaded weapons. There is a recipe for disaster: a bored gun nut. Now the Oathkeepers want to threaten people with their guns to protect a sign in Hawkins, TX. Their reasoning sounds like this: Kim Davis’s denial to lawfully license same-sex couples, and a Christian territory marking sign on public property are definitely a reason to shoot someone.
If it isn’t a crime with mandatory gun removal to point a loaded weapon at innocent people it should be. Adding a terrorisic threat to that just seals the deal. Not just this group a majority of domestic terrorism can be tied to hate groups like Stormfront that have a disproportionate number of users that are mass shooters. But no, it is impossible to address gun legislation that removes guns from identified known dangerous people. Not just because they are a user at a hate group site. How many of these groups like Oathkeepers get away with flagrantly using guns to intimidate people? There are better, smarter laws than just that, but we won’t even try.
I asked before why we can’t have good legislation, and the comments helped me to understand why. There is no middle ground with gun laws. It’s either unlimited max rights short of murder with gun, or people think it’s the first step to taking everyone’s guns like the Khmer Rouge. (a real facebook comment)
Don’t believe me? Here are a few. Mind your head and keyboard.
“Because your position boils down to: if the laws aren’t how you want them, they are not good. In effect your position on gun laws is the same as theirs’ on gay marriage laws, except you’re using your free speech rather than your right to bear arms in defense of your position.”
“Yeah, but most of them don’t have a basis in the Constitution itself. I support good gun laws – but I will not, under any circumstance, support an end-run around the Constitution. Without a national consensus, the heart of THIS problem cannot even be addressed”
“You didn’t present any evidence of them brandishing guns, and your claim of “terroristic threats” is on very shaky ground. There are in fact laws against such things, so this is a factual dispute, not a legal or policy one. Unless you think that there should be a law that says “Lilandra Ra shall be the sole determiner of truth”, changing the law is not going to address your concerns.”
