Skip to main content

I want to address an issue I feel too strongly about not to address as my first diary entry. This one in particular does not get the support it requires to be dealt with logically. To any hardcore liberal out there, I know I may be preaching the choir, but bear with me.

The problems that surround the 2nd amendment in this country are so unbelievably important, however, it is also something that is so embedded in our culture that not enough people feel enough passion about changing the gun laws for anything to happen unless of course they have personally suffered a loss of a loved one as a result of gun violence. It's the saddest thing, really.

I, myself, feel that I am lucky enough to live in Connecticut, one state in particular that has certainly become on of the most progressive states in the Union, particularly on gun laws. It is a shame, however, to think that our government can only be reactive instead of proactive in that sense.

I was attending WestConn at the time of the Sandy Hook shootings which is located about ten minutes away from where that unthinkable tragedy took place. I knew professors that had lost children at Sandy Hook Elementary and could never imagine the pain of losing a child no more than seven years old. It is absolutely ridiculous that something as awful as the murders of twenty first graders is what needed to happen in order for our state legislatures to create such strict gun laws. I would apply the same opinion to the rest of the country, however, for some states, particularly southern it would seem, I am not entirely sure what would need to happen in order for the legislatures to strengthen their state's gun laws. Our government being reactive is, of course, the case with any disaster we deal with. I guess we cannot assess the correct way to fix a problem until it has actually occurred? I just don't know.

What's even more absurd is having a 90% public approval for background checks incorporated into the gun purchasing process in the United States and still not one single republican congressman could vote for something that would have literally saved the lives of the people who were victims in the recent California shootings, which brings me the point of this whole entry.

It is because our congressmen FAILED to do the right thing, because the NRA has far too much power over the government, that they now both OFFICIALLY have blood on their hands. It is appalling to think that these are the people who run this country. One of the fathers of a boy who was murdered by Elliot Rodger actually addressed this to the press, although, it was eye-opening to see that he actually knew the real reason his son died, or was at least aware of decisions that could have saved his sons life.

"Why did Chris die? Because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris's right to live?"- Richard Martinez, father of Chris Michael-Martinez, victim of May 23rd, 2014 shooting at University of California, Santa Barbara
Everyone is supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To all the gun nuts, your second amendment rights DO NOT triumph ANYONE'S right to live. Nor will it ever. I believe in the silly idea that less guns will equal less deaths. Call me crazy.

God forbid a republican in congress feels compassionate enough to vote in the best interest of the people. A country of the people, by the people, for the people? A joke. The conservatives that we've observed ever since Obama took office hold no interest except their own, or is that too obvious of a statement to make?

While I try see both sides of story, it is also important to make the distinction between the people who stand up for the rights of the people versus the ones who simply stick to their ideology and nothing more. We have seen who those people are. We know who is controlled by the NRA and who is not. I will never see the gun argument and I refuse to see how anyone else does when any gun supporter seems to think the ONLY solution to gun deaths in America is to make guns even more accessible than they are now and at the same time think that anything that makes having a gun safer means that the government is trying to take away their guns completely. From their cold, dead hands, supposedly. I do not claim to be expert by any means, but the numbers are very simple and really just a "google" away. Britain had 33 homicides due to gun deaths in 2010 and the United States had 11,078 that same year. It's not rocket science... or at least I never thought it was until recently.

So this is my question: When will enough finally be enough? When will these gun advocates set aside their ideology and put the lives of their people first? Although some of us are more open-minded than others, unfortunately, humans as a species do not seem to identify with any sort of struggle until it actually happens to them.

Sympathy, however, is something that needs to be more important than empathy in a matter of gun violence towards a six year old child. The fight for a progressive nation continues...

Originally posted to MillennialYippie! on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:12 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  After the Sandy Hook tragedy (7+ / 0-)

    the California state legislature significantly enhanced our gun control laws here. I believe the Brady Campaign rates them the toughest gun control laws in the US.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:25:03 PM PDT

    •  Oh, yes! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennyp, Smoh

      California is well known for its strict gun laws. I believe Connecticut is up to number five on the top ten list according the Brady Campaign, as well. You would think we would be number one after something as awful as Newtown. I hope California eventually sets a trend as far as gun safety goes. Slowly, but surely, I imagine.

      •  Check out Massachusetts. And there are new (4+ / 0-)

        strenghtening tweaks coming.

        And the vast majority of Massachusetts citizens want them.

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 04:47:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of the new "tweaks" reported concerns (0+ / 0-)

          tracking guns stolen in burglaries, which aren't always reported.  (How embarrassing is it for a "responsible gun owner" to report being irresponsible in her/his storage of her/his guns so that burglars stole one or more of them.)  One would be required to certify, I think it's every six years, that one has all the guns one had prior reported having, with none missing.

          The head of the tiny nut-group "Responsible Gun Owners" asserts that that "goes too far"; that one should simply ask the gun owner, and accept the answer the gun owner gives -- because, obviously, humans, especially "responsible gun owners," never ever lie.

          All gun control laws do, of course, is ensure that gun owners are responsible, without the unacceptable alternative of being irresponsible.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 06:26:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Which have not made things better nor decreased (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today

      Gun sales nor deaths.

      Gun laws are a bandaid on a gaping wound, useless.

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 04:28:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gun control law works when designed to work, and (6+ / 0-)


        When the NRA is involved with the writing of such laws, you can be certain they are deliberately designed to fail.

        It's like Republicans who run for gov't office by running "against" gov't based upon the claim that gov't doesn't work -- and then when elected do everything they can to undermine gov't by "prove" that it doesn't work.

        (And what is their alternative?  "Repeal and replace" with nothing.)

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 04:50:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They are not the touchest. Hawaii has that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, on the cusp, schumann


      And Massachusetts is second.

      Massachusetts has, as example, mandatory reporting: if a client or patient or member of the "flock" condifides in his lawyer, doctor, or clergyman that s/he is planning -- or appears to be headed in that direction -- to kill, then the given professional is mandated to report it to the proper authorities, subject to fine for failing to do so.

      That does not seem to be a requirement of California law.

      Come down to it, the issue of comparative stringency of gun control laws is not the issue; it is whether the laws do what is required, regardless the state.

      Not so many months ago the NRA lost its under-the-radar effort to repeal Michigan's background check law, which had prevented thousands of efforts by ex-/felons, domestic abusers, and mentally ill from getting guns during the prior year.  The NRA wants such laws repealed because they actually work as intended.  

      Because the NRA wants criminals, etc., to get guns, in order to create the environment on which to base its "argument" that EVERYONE NEEDS guns because criminals, etc., have them.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 04:46:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A very good First Diary (10+ / 0-)

    The subject is a controversial one so be prepared for some "spirited" discussion and try not to get too drawn in.

    Good Job!

    T answer your question ... Enough will not be enough until those who wish to live in a peaceful society own more politicians than those who do not.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:33:43 PM PDT

    •  I was just going to say something about this. (5+ / 0-)

      I'm hoping the diarist has lurked for a good long while. When the nasties arrive, MajerliActually, just remember that you have many on your side. Judging by most diaries, you have the vast majority on your side. I would suggest completely ignoring any assholery that goes on. I MEAN IT, ignore it utterly and completely. If we didn't give the gun nuts a voice, they'd stop talking. Here at least.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 05:06:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have noticed how we all bow to the NRA and (7+ / 0-)

    politely ignore a gun crazy parade leader on their board of directors.

    NRA Ted Nugent

    Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

    by 88kathy on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:52:46 PM PDT

  •  Nicely composed. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, i saw an old tree today

    BTW -- in your first sentence, it should be "bear with me."

  •  There's a third side to the story RE the NRA (7+ / 0-)

    If a gun manufacturer should try to make a safer gun or market in a sager way -- the NRA can and will destroy them.

    Still, the NRA and gun manufacturers often disagree on key issues. And, when they do, the NRA usually wins. Here's a fascinating anecdote from Jarrett Murphy:
    When Smith & Wesson struck a deal with the Clinton administration in 2000, agreeing to a long list of changes to its products and business practices — including limiting the size of magazines for its semi-automatic weapons and avoiding dealers who sold a disproportionate number of guns later used in crimes — the gun lobby howled.

    [The NRA] led a boycott of Smith & Wesson that nearly killed the company; in a span of just two years, the number of guns manufactured by Smith & Wesson fell by 44 percent. “They just beat the crap out of Smith & Wesson for a while, then let them back in,” says Diaz. Colt Firearms and Sturm, Ruger have been similarly punished for crimes against the Second Amendment.

    Still, these spats are rare. By and large, the NRA has managed to fend off restrictions on guns for years — there hasn't been a gun-control bill pass Congress since 1999. And that's been good for business.
    •  Yup, the evil NRA is winning; it owns the TGOP (4+ / 0-)

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 04:31:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Second Amendment actually, in fact, being (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, a2nite, i saw an old tree today

      irrelevant to the issue of private, individual ownership of guns.

      Unless one insists otherwise, and then these facts kick in:

      AFTER the Second Amendment -- which was written by Congress -- was ratified, the Congress, in keeping with the Militia Clauses at Art. I., S. 8., C. 15 and 16, and Art. 2. S. 2, C. I. -- enacted a lengthy series of Militia Acts, which regulate the subject of the Second Amendment: well regulated militia.

      That fact in itself means:

      That the Second Amendment is not a bar to regulation.  That is, the Amendment does not protect FROM regulation whatever is said to be "protected" by the Amendment.

      So the false Heller holding that the Second Amendment protects a private, individual right to own guns is of little to no real affect: anything which is said to be within the scope of the "protection" of the Second Amendment can be regulated as needed.

      So what that false holding does do is to add a second point through which private, individual gun ownership can be regulated.  That should cheer and motivate those who are for increased gun control.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 05:02:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I stand against most forms of gun (0+ / 0-)

    control, especially magazine capacity limits, but I'm good with background checks. No, they don't work all the time and I doubt they would have prevented Sandy Hook. But background checks work some of the time without compromising my RKBA, and that's good enough for me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site