Why Can’t We Do Anything About Guns?



Comments (8)

Comment Feed

I've always felt it was odd

I've always felt it was odd that gun control was a progressive issue...

Generally, progressive platforms have tried to focus on positive functions and benefits as a way to bring changes. Things like gay rights are where they are because of strong efforts to change public perception on what a real gay person is like. If you asked someone 20 years ago to describe a homosexual, you'd probably get something along the lines of Richard Simmons.

Ask that question today and you'll likely hear a completely average person who just happens to be gay (Maybe dresses really well, heh). Women take up more management positions than ever before, which has the effect of showing others that woman can do those jobs.

Progressives have always been good about shining the spotlight on positive effects of those movements. Discussion about effective companies with women at the helm, or articles of healthy homosexual relationships and their (adopted) children leading very normal lives push public perception towards viewing these changes as good things.

They tend to push for legalization of weed and proper sex-ed being taught in schools as they are not nearly the problems they had been made out to be, and that education and information are the best way to promote not only safety, but rights and freedoms.

Even though those things can, and have, been abused, showing the positive outcomes to the public really pushes the country forward in areas like rights, safety, privacy, and respect.

Firearms, however, don't get such treatment. Many progressive policies focus on correcting the minority of negative aspects of firearm ownership in the United States at the cost and punishment of the vast majority of positive aspects...

Progressive news coverage focuses on when a firearm is misused in a crime or murder. During interviews at rallies and gun shows the least diplomatic and, quite frankly, dumbest firearm owners are shown as if to say 'see? look how stupid these people are! This is what a gun-owner looks like!"

A progressive journalist is the one who would write a story about an inner city barbecue, showcasing the good community and cohesion of a neighborhood of people singing and chatting about while food is cooked out on the sidewalk. Interviews will be with long time residents, kids, even local law enforcement, all to show that people in inner cities are normal people, not crooks and bullies. Things like that promote understanding and support. They promote trust and bring the country together, seeing the positive functions of inner city life.

For gun owners, though, they get lambasted as uncaring, mindless, and radical blockades on the road to progress. There's no progressive reporting on the Boy Scout troop going target shooting with their parents, or the police officers talking about proper firearm safety and interacting with inner city kids, or the local gun club who get together to banter and talk about their latest treasure find at an old auction.
There's no coverage about the gun enthusiasts of the south, going out to the range with their homosexual friend to show them how to safely use a firearm, or even the women that carry a pistol so that they can be just a little more self assured that they will be better able to take care of themselves should something happen.
There's no coverage about the high school students that bring their rifles to school because they're going hunting later that day.

There's no coverage on the 99% of the times when firearms have a positive effect on their owners and communities...

Progressives have always pushed for more education and information to make good decisions; to counter-balance the negative numbers in papers with what people are really like. They focus on the best parts of the melting pot, on humanizing the seemingly inhuman.

We need stronger communities and trust to rebuild black communities, not harsher penalties and stricter policing. We need education and information to end drug abuse, not more arrests and longer sentences.
We need empathy and experience to solve our healthcare crisis, not demonizing and neglect.

Gun violence will not be solved by bans and registries, it'll be solved by communities and education, by showing the positives of what firearm ownership can do for people.

I wish Progressives could see that...

Kevin 194 days ago

Started reading this article

Started reading this article by Frank Smyth and he commences to explain what is and isn't in the second amendment. I thought he was a legal scholar, or perhaps a constitutional law expert. Nope, he's a free lance journalist. Yes that's the person who I want to explain what the second amendment means. While he may be an excellent writer, or even a poor writer, but certainly not someone qualified to argue constitutional law. Why do people need to interpret a statement that to me seems pretty clear and direct? Oh yea I'm a free lance journalist as well, means I can't get a full time job. Actually I'm a free lance gum owner.

Yosemite Sam 283 days ago

IF: "A well regulated

IF: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the ultimate truthiness, how can WE NOT FOLLOW THE UNASSAILABLE LOGIC that this right shall in no way be infringed by antiquated views of what constitutes proper Arms!
The second amendment was written when 'Militias' used weapons such as (one-shot) MUZZLE LOADERS to which bayonets were fastened! The 'art' of warfare has traveled light years since the Constitution was written.

Who are we to say that today's 'good guys' should NOT BE EMPOWERED to equip themselves with any and all forms of truly modern weaponry available to slow down, impede and yes - even if necessary KILL today's truly 'bad guys' with grenades, flame throwers, rocket-propelled missiles or any other available WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction), without even considering any bans on CBR (Chemical, Bacteriological, Radiological) Warfare!

Let's open the door to truly universal PERSONAL PROTECTION, and an up-to-date Militia with every able-bodied (though not necessarily mentally full-decked) individual armed to the teeth to 'protect' himself and OTHER CITIZENS all across this great nation of ours; EVERYWHERE! In Malls, school yards, churches, prayer meetings, night clubs, Trump Rallies, wherever and when ever danger lurks! Heck, if a guy with enough bucks to buy a plane, and an airport to park the thing, wants to equip the plane with some rapid firing machine guns or heat seeking missiles, who in god's green earth should have the RIGHT to stop him, or mess with HIS idea of 'well regulated militia'! ARMED drones should obviously be green-lighted for the well to do, since they've got more stuff to protect!

Things like well-regulated militias, voting rights for men - but not their slaves, wives or female children, WERE ALL WRITTEN INTO the Original Constitution. Who are We The People to second-guess and Change the minds of our thoughtful Founding Fathers? Or maybe it's time we 'grew up' ourselves just a tad and said, "Dad, I think JUST MAYBE you were wrong on this, and it's time to look at it again!"

Rob Treichler 294 days ago

Why not try something new

Why not try something new like subverting the gun culture in America with an automatic federal tax exemption for gun-free households? Verification could be conducted by specially trained dogs on random house searches. Such a law would in no way abridge the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and would be an incentive for some people to give up their guns while rewarding others for living gun free.

Will Stockwin 298 days ago

Yes, what a great idea. Pass

Yes, what a great idea. Pass a law to let gestapo come in my house and search it for a gun I may or may not have. Of course why stop there. Why don't they just search for everything. You know maybe we can give gun owners little gold stars so that they can be identified when the cattle trucks take them away.

Oh, but the incentive is to give the "gun free" houses a tax break. Yeah, that's amazing. They should totally go with that...or

They should do better firearm regulation. They should only allow citizens to legally own a firearm after taking a gun handler's safety course. You should have to have a certain amount of firing range time complete deach year, or a fine or license suspension should be instituted. You also may consider finding a way to stop the 2000+ guns that come in across the Mexican Border, every single day. You know the real guns that criminals are getting their hands on, and the ones that will still be coming in, even after every legal gun in the US was confiscated.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

-Tench Coxe

Only a fool would blame an inanimate object for the actions of a man. Only a fool with an agenda would ignore the illegal gun smuggling issue in America, and go after the legally purchased firearms owned by law abiding citizens. Only a fascist would come with the idea of random gestapo checks under the auspices of some "tax break".

Only a progressive would do all of the above. Blue dogs like me are all this country (and our party) has left to keep it afloat.

You are a dangerous man, with very dangerous ideas.

James Tavis 225 days ago

It is disingenuous to rail

It is disingenuous to rail against the NRA when the second amendment is popular among American citizens. You'll cite polls saying the percent of people - both gun owners and non-owners - who agree on this restriction or that. But you belittle the fundamental purpose of the right and avoid answers to the basic arguments of the NRA and others - arguments that you included in your article - and instead decide for other Americans what rights they should feel they need and which they should surrender. Another argument forwarded by second amendment defenders is that it is, along with free speech and the right to free association, a right which guarantees the others.

someone who doesn't own a gun 303 days ago

Your article is well written

Your article is well written and covers all of the bases and I truly believe that no one wants to let unqualified or unauthorized persons have guns. And death by gun shouldn’t happen. I get it.
That said, it should be evaluated within some context:
1) Gun deaths don’t even rank in the top 10 most common deaths categories in the US
2) Gun violence is more prevalent in 10 other countries throughout the world than in the US
3) We can continue to debate the nuances of issues like this however; in the end we have agreed to uphold the constitution including the 2nd amendment which part of indicates that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So from that, we can choose to “not infringe” or change the constitution or if one would like, find another country where the constitution is different (which I am not necessarily suggesting).
Nowhere in the documents state we should point fingers or continue to whine about gun law reform, registries, Nazis’, glossy new products and the constitution doesn’t say things like “…Please be sure to follow the recommendations of the New York Times because they know what caliber of gun needs to be owned by the people at any point in time.”
No reasonable citizen wants terror on the streets of the US. If you look at the Orlando shooting from a different angle, the people in the bar were disarmed (and I admit that guns and alcohol don’t mix but that isn’t the point). What would have happened if it wasn’t a gun-free zone?

Mega Man 304 days ago

Here is a great compromise,

Here is a great compromise, for liberals and conservatives. We give up ALL of our guns if liberals ban ALL abortions. That's a really good deal for liberals because Conservatives actually give up a part of their bill of rights . I mean if guns were killing 3 millions babies a year that would be a problem (amount of fetuses killed a year), 33 thousand die from guns and 1/3 are suicide, and who knows how many are accidents. 100 K on medical mistakes, not died on the operation table, medical mistakes ( and that number is probably higher, imagine how many mistakes you sweep under the rug daily at work). Here is the deal, it's a big huge issue to people who interpret the second amendment, it doesn't cause as many deaths as the main stream media sensationalizes, Chicago has banned guns and they have the highest gun deaths in america, and history has shown banning things (drugs,alcohol, etc) has the opposite effect. Just remember every hour .06 people die from a gun, yet 5.7 babies (hourly) are aborted here in the USA.

Jj 305 days ago

Built with Metro Publisher™