I have been out of the game here for a long time. I realize I am terribly overdue for an update. Recent events have propelled me back here and I would like to write about something I am taking issue with. Last week, the US Senate voted against the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, AKA S 649. Of course, during that week we also had a series of tragic events in Boston that dominated much of the news. However, in the wake of Wesnesday's Senate vote I came across a lot of misinformed opinions regarding the bill, and I would like to comment on them.
Now, I personally was disappointed by the results of that vote. However, I have seen, read and heard enough about the matter already that I don't feel compelled to discuss the details of it right now (however you can read the text of it here, which may help in completing my challenge below). What I want to talk about is a culture in this country that seems to take a hard line on a broad subject and generously apply it across a board of issues and variables. This makes its way into various subjects that I can discuss at another time: gun control, civil rights, abortion, etc.
There is a culture of reaction in this country, and I often see people get very vocal about subjects which they know little about. This bill was no exception. After the Senate vote went down, I heard from many people who were thrilled at the "victory", and who knocked President Obama for calling the legislation "common sense." These same people who called out the President and said the legislation was anything but common sense showed no knowledge of what the bill actually entailed. I even had a person insert legislation into the bill that was not in the bill but is already current federal law. In short, people have been knocking this legislation without even knowing what is in it. That is an unfortunately common trend I have noticed with people these days. I have read the bill myself, and can say that everything in it makes sense to me. I have asked everyone who has expressed their negative opinion of the bill to explain ONE single thing that is not common sense about the bill, and as yet no one has been able to do it. I am writing this blog to turn it over to all (three?) of you: what is uncommon sense about S. 649?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well the language isn't common sense, for one thing. :p Overall, though, there doesn't seem to be anything specific that I can see would be detrimental to personal freedoms or to the rights of gun owners. The matters discussed do, indeed, seem to be common sense and it is surprising that most of this bill is not already on the books. What is not clear to me, however, is how much passage of this bill would have helped prevent further gun violence. I certainly don't believe it would hurt the cause, but I'd like to play devil's advocate for just a moment, because this is something Alex and I have had a number of discussions on. The trouble with a lot of legislation, I've noticed, comes down to a simple matter of definitions. The definition of a firearm does seem to be a common sense one, but when it comes to defining them legally, it gets a little tricky. My current understanding is that there is a very specific mechanism in the action of a firearm that legally defines it as such. When absent, the (almost fully assembled) unit is not considered a firearm and is not subject to any state or federal regulations. The frightening thing is that these parts are very easy to manufacture (especially with the use of 3D printing) with parts that are not difficult to come by. How are we supposed to regulate something that is so easy to make oneself? Furthermore, and perhaps I am not reading the bill correctly, but I didn't see anything explicit about closing the currently existing loopholes for gun purchases. A great example is last year Alex bought not one, put two replicas of a civil war pistol (one in person in a store in Nevada, one online in CA). Neither time was he subjected to a background check or a waiting period because these guns are considered collectors items (6-shooter, black powder, cap and ball revolver). More disturbingly still, he was not even asked to show ID for proof of his age, legal status, etc. The story gets even more frightening after he purchased a conversion cylinder online so that the gun would accept pre-loaded cartridges rather than cap and ball (reduces the loading time significantly). Without this conversion cylinder, the gun neither needs to be registered nor does any purchaser need to be subjected to a background check or waiting period, if he were to have originally bought it with the conversion cylinder, that would have been completely different. This disturbed even Alex. Of course, we both know that he's not about to go out and go on a rampage, but anyone else could. Easily. Yes, it's "only" a six-shooter, and yes, even with the conversion cylinder it still takes time to reload. But that doesn't make it any less deadly. It would be nice if gun laws exhibited some degree of common sense, but the more and more I learn about them, the less of it I see. Thank you for this thought-provoking post. There is a lot of emotion on both sides of this issue, but very little careful thought that I'm able to see.
Kali, thanks for your reply. I think we are just about on the same page on this issue. Mainly what stirred me up about this was that immediately following the vote, I was seeing and hearing so many narrow-minded people criticizing Obama for calling the bill "common sense", when they clearly knew nothing about the bill. That in itself is part of a larger problem that I have with people in general, which is criticizing things they know nothing about themselves. That irritates me to no end and is a representation of one of the big things that is wrong with this country.
Post a Comment