Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Memo to Congress: Why the NRA's Absolutism Is Indefensible
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-radcliffe/pro-gun-politicians_b_2685787.html- Snip -
If a "pro-gun" member of Congress looks to Supreme Court decisions to justify an absolutist reading of the Second Amendment, she will be disappointed. The Court has stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation -- such as prohibition of concealed weapons, sales to criminals and the mentally ill, carrying weapons in certain locations, and possessing "dangerous and unusual weapons," as well as legal constraints on commercial sales. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has handed down only two significant decisions on gun control in the last 150 years and so has largely remained silent on its constitutionality.
The NRA often asserts that the facts warrant its absolutist view. The favorite "factual" claim supposed to justify the NRA position is that gun controls "don't work," that they are "ineffective" -- and are therefore needless administrative burdens on gun owners and a waste of taxpayers' money.
Apart from the ambiguity of slippery terms like "work" and "effective," a chief weakness of this argument is that the available data lead to the opposite conclusion. In other industrialized countries with much more stringent gun laws, the rates of gun violence are dramatically lower than they are here. For instance, in the latest years for which data are available, a United Nations study found that 67 percent of homicides in the U.S. were by firearm and homicides by firearm per 100,000 people were 3.2. Contrast these numbers with those for Germany (26%, 0.20), United Kingdom (7%, 0.10), Australia (12%, 0.10), Finland (19%, 0.40), and Denmark (32%, 0.30). Such figures strongly suggest that gun regulation can inhibit gun violence. Indeed, this assumption underlies all federal and state gun control laws now in place.
In any case, does the NRA really believe that the regulation of guns has no effect on gun crimes? What research data can it cite to support that -- especially given that, since the late 1990s, congressional allies of the NRA have blocked federal agencies from doing research on gun violence? (President Obama has now reversed this policy through an executive order.)
- Snip -
If a "pro-gun" member of Congress looks to Supreme Court decisions to justify an absolutist reading of the Second Amendment, she will be disappointed. The Court has stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation -- such as prohibition of concealed weapons, sales to criminals and the mentally ill, carrying weapons in certain locations, and possessing "dangerous and unusual weapons," as well as legal constraints on commercial sales. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has handed down only two significant decisions on gun control in the last 150 years and so has largely remained silent on its constitutionality.
The NRA often asserts that the facts warrant its absolutist view. The favorite "factual" claim supposed to justify the NRA position is that gun controls "don't work," that they are "ineffective" -- and are therefore needless administrative burdens on gun owners and a waste of taxpayers' money.
Apart from the ambiguity of slippery terms like "work" and "effective," a chief weakness of this argument is that the available data lead to the opposite conclusion. In other industrialized countries with much more stringent gun laws, the rates of gun violence are dramatically lower than they are here. For instance, in the latest years for which data are available, a United Nations study found that 67 percent of homicides in the U.S. were by firearm and homicides by firearm per 100,000 people were 3.2. Contrast these numbers with those for Germany (26%, 0.20), United Kingdom (7%, 0.10), Australia (12%, 0.10), Finland (19%, 0.40), and Denmark (32%, 0.30). Such figures strongly suggest that gun regulation can inhibit gun violence. Indeed, this assumption underlies all federal and state gun control laws now in place.
In any case, does the NRA really believe that the regulation of guns has no effect on gun crimes? What research data can it cite to support that -- especially given that, since the late 1990s, congressional allies of the NRA have blocked federal agencies from doing research on gun violence? (President Obama has now reversed this policy through an executive order.)
- Snip -
The right-wing gun lobby and Second Amendment absolutists are the major contributors to the gun violence problem in our nation, and that includes cowardly "Democrats" who pander to the NRA for votes. The claim that gun control regulations "don't work" is just one of the lies from the NRA crowd, and is right up there with "guns don't kill..."
Support a gun control organization of your choice today and help to elect those representatives who will stand up to the right-wing gun lobby and the insidious influence of the NRA. Our children deserve a safer world than they are being born into, and our country deserves to be free from right-wing ideology and the violence it brings.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
while another 100 million guns will be produced and bought by gun fanciers over the next decade. That's 100 million more guns that we will have to deal with when we come to our senses and get tough on guns. Until we do, criminals will steal more guns or buy them from owners who don't care if they sell a gun to a criminal. We'll have more gun nuts like Zimmerman, Dunn, Loughner, etc.
And we'll see more worthless losers like this polluting society:
