It is apathy by the American people over gun control that caused the Aurora, Colo. movie massacre

The U.S. public doesn’t seem to give a damn about the lives of those who die and are injured, some critically, in incidents like the shootings by James Holmes in an Aurora, Colo. movie theatre killing 12, wounding another 59.  There are 11 still in critical condition.  If Americans were really concerned, they would pressure Congress and the White House to strengthen gun laws.  One firearms expert commented that this wouldn’t have happened if assault weapons were banned.
I wonder just how many of the survivors of the 12 killed or family and friends of the 59 injured are against gun control?  If any were, I wonder if they still are?  Similarly, I wonder about those connected to the 569 shootings resulting in 311 deaths since March of this year that I have documented in my Monthly Shootings Report?  I cannot believe there isn’t some consternation among this group over just how easy these maniacs are able to obtain guns to kill.
Richard M. Aborn is president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City and a former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  In a recent opinion piece he did in the Washington Post, he said that “indifference to gun violence is a national crime.”  Further, “The debate about guns in the United States has always been between David and Goliath. Last year, the gun lobby outspent advocates of gun control by 11 to 1, or $2.9 million vs. $260,000. Interpreted, gun nuts are much more passionate about their cause.
NRA members and American public join Alice
And that’s because the head wacko of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), Wayne LaPierre, instills the fear of God in his members that Barack Obama is conniving to take away their guns.  Of course this is bullshit since Bill Clinton didn’t do it and neither has President Obama.  So what will it take to change these “apathetics” as I call them, to support reasonable gun control? 
To start with, we are probably talking banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, stronger background checks and closing the gun show loophole.
Aborn says supporters of gun control are most likely “…broad-based progressives who also support education reform, reproductive choice, marriage equality and other issues.”  He adds that with U.S. low voter turnout, it is hard to organize around single-issue voting blocs like this, but the NRA is the master using their fear-mongering mentioned earlier.  However, you would think after an incident like in Aurora, Colo. new believers would emerge for gun control.
But have they or will they?  There are three things critical to taking control back, according to Aborn:
  1. Americans must understand that violent crime is still with us, evidenced by incidents like the massacres at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Arizona, and now Aurora, Colorado.
  2. We have to talk to and understand gun owners with the idea of negotiation always open.  90 percent of gun owners support reasonable gun control and don’t want to see more carnage like the above.
  3. We have to establish a national system for tracking the effects of gun control to counter NRA arguments that it does not work.  I suggested in a post yesterday that we identify NRA members involved in any shootings resulting in death or injury.

Over and over, most gun control advocates have indicated they don’t want to take away the basic rights of the 2nd Amendment.  But it should be clear to most of you by now that the NRA’s conception of guns for anyone to take anywhere they want to has not worked.  It is time to change that.

2 thoughts on “It is apathy by the American people over gun control that caused the Aurora, Colo. movie massacre”

  1. Wait, Jack, the right was to have a citizens' militia, as opposed to a large, standing army. Scratch those half-quotations from the “pro-gun” side and we find things like Patrick Henry saying “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny”(Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788Elliot 3:51–52)

    Elbridge Gerry at the Ratifying Debates:
    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution.

    Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890:

    It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

    Second Amendment rights are trampled by an supersized military establishment, not by gun control!

    Like

  2. Did you see the new Frank Luntz poll, released today, that shows pretty strong support for reasonable gun laws among NRA members? So who are our politicians afraid of? It's time to stop believing their lies.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s