In a 54–46 vote, the United States Senate shot down all new background check requirements for gun-buying purposes. Astounding. I don’t understand what’s controversial about requiring people to go through a thorough background check before allowing them to buy a device capable of killing people. The resistance doesn’t make sense, especially when, according to a CNN/ORC International poll, 86 percent of Americans support implementing universal background checks.
Background checks for guns? Nope, sorry
In a 54–46 vote, the United States Senate shot down all new background check requirements for gun-buying purposes. Astounding.
I don’t understand what’s controversial about requiring people to go through a thorough background check before allowing them to buy a device capable of killing people. The resistance doesn’t make sense, especially when, according to a CNN/ORC International poll, 86 percent of Americans support implementing universal background checks.
Let me say that again: 86 percent of Americans wanted to see universal background checks, and the Senate voted it down. So who the hell are our representatives representing?
Here in the United States, we like to use the word “democracy” as our badge of superiority over nations whose rules and laws are made by a dictator or a few men in power. We’ve spent trillions trying to spread this political ideology to Iraq and Afghanistan, but we seem reluctant to use the method at home.
By voting down a measure that was overwhelmingly supported by the citizens of this country, who was the Senate trying to please or protect? Who “won” this vote? I’d say we can chalk up a victory for special interest groups and their allies.
This attempt by President Barack Obama to introduce some meaningful change in order to benefit a large number of Americans feels like deja vu. Back when Obama was
trying to overhaul our health care system, he started with a bold set of legislation that was close to his—or his party’s—version of ideal.
After receiving incredible amounts of opposition from Republicans and, more importantly, special interest groups in the medical industry, Obama watered down the bill significantly, taking out many of the most assertively progressive aspects. The Affordable Care Act passed (barely) but many of its key components were lost.
Obama’s attempt to overhaul gun control was once again met with massive resistance from Republicans and special interest groups associated with the gun industry. This legislation had also been watered down to the point that universal background checks constituted the only key measure left on the bill. This was done to satisfy the opposition and to reach a compromise, yet the bill still failed. (Look for this pattern to occur again when immigration reform comes up for discussion.)
With basically everything cut from the bill apart from universal background checks, you’d think that the National Rifle Association and its Republican minions would’ve been appeased enough to vote for the bill and make good on their end of the compromise. Apparently, though, background checks are too damn intrusive of our Second Amendment rights.
It must be un-American to need someone to make sure you aren’t mentally or emotionally unstable or a violent criminal before buying a gun. Our other registration processes don’t require such painstaking procedures.
Oh wait, they do.
If you want to get your driver’s license, the process is arduous. If you want to get a medical marijuana card, the process is arduous. If you want to get an abortion, the process is arduous. How then can the leaders of this nation believe that the process of purchasing a lethal weapon should be smooth sailing?
We’re getting to the point where Americans are desensitized to mass shootings, and we need to change the gun culture and attitudes in our country. Guns aren’t toys that people should be able to easily purchase and play with. Background checks don’t impose on anyone’s rights, and I can’t understand why this is such a controversial issue.
The opposition claims that those who wish to do harm will obtain firearms regardless of the law, so gun reform won’t decrease the loss of innocent life through gun-related violence and will only impede upon Second Amendment rights. Interesting logic.
Since people who really want to shoot up heroin or smoke crack will obtain the substances anyway, do we need drug laws? You can see that the reasoning behind the opposition is nonsensical and difficult to comprehend.
Don’t worry, though, if you don’t understand; your needs weren’t the ones the politicians had in mind when the bill was shot down.
