Continuing on the theme from yesterday about Obama using the Newtown shooting victims as "props" according to Rand Paul, our esteemed Senator sent this to Harry Reid:
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) in a letter to
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today urged him to reconsider
immigration legislation because of the bombings in Boston. “The facts
emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our
current system,” Paul writes. “If we don’t use this debate as an
opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more
evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.”
I hate to point out that some might think that Rand Paul is using the tragedy in Boston for some kind of political gain. You'd think someone who could hold these two thoughts simultaneously without seeing the logical conflict would be suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance, or maybe not.
Little Lord Fauntleroy strikes again.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
More thoughts on our shameful Senate.
I'm still dumbfounded by that Senate action last week (see previous post) where it failed to get the 60 votes necessary to get the full Senate to vote on something sensible, yet watered down, like expanded background checks. This is an idea supported by 90 percent of the general population, yet it can't even get a vote?
We need to be asking some serious questions of our representatives, such as, "who do you think you are working for?"
An expanded background check wouldn't have caused any conflict with the second amendment, but the NRA has gone rabid in its protection of gun manufacturers, and there simply isn't any rational argument that can be made for the NRA's position. None.
One argument which is always suggested is something like, "Universal background checks won't stop all of the mass shootings," which is tantamount to saying, "We oppose anything unless its cures everything."
Also troubling are the lies and shifting positions of the anti-gun controllers. First is the argument that we should never take an action while some mass shooting is still fresh in the collective mind, because that's using a tragedy for a political gain. Really? Was that argument made after the Hindenburg fiasco and the decision that hydrogen was too risky for dirigible use? Or after the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where the use of aluminum wires was questioned? No, somehow we must wait for some unknowable amount of time after a mass shooting to be able to discuss ways to address the problem. The problem is that that moment never arrives, there's always another shooting which interrupts the cool-down period.
Also, any time "gun control" is mentioned, the NRA answers that it is "gun elimination" that is really being suggested and the second amendment has already decided that question. I notice that our esteemed Mitt McConnell and Rand Paul are already posting that lie on internet ads.
In short, it is still impossible to rationally discuss anything that hints of gun control in our society. Too much reactionary BS to even get the issue on the table.
We need to be asking some serious questions of our representatives, such as, "who do you think you are working for?"
An expanded background check wouldn't have caused any conflict with the second amendment, but the NRA has gone rabid in its protection of gun manufacturers, and there simply isn't any rational argument that can be made for the NRA's position. None.
One argument which is always suggested is something like, "Universal background checks won't stop all of the mass shootings," which is tantamount to saying, "We oppose anything unless its cures everything."
Also troubling are the lies and shifting positions of the anti-gun controllers. First is the argument that we should never take an action while some mass shooting is still fresh in the collective mind, because that's using a tragedy for a political gain. Really? Was that argument made after the Hindenburg fiasco and the decision that hydrogen was too risky for dirigible use? Or after the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where the use of aluminum wires was questioned? No, somehow we must wait for some unknowable amount of time after a mass shooting to be able to discuss ways to address the problem. The problem is that that moment never arrives, there's always another shooting which interrupts the cool-down period.
Also, any time "gun control" is mentioned, the NRA answers that it is "gun elimination" that is really being suggested and the second amendment has already decided that question. I notice that our esteemed Mitt McConnell and Rand Paul are already posting that lie on internet ads.
In short, it is still impossible to rationally discuss anything that hints of gun control in our society. Too much reactionary BS to even get the issue on the table.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Cowards and Traitors
I got one of those crazy ass right wing emails about the Senate voting down the U.N. treaty on international gun trafficking. As you know, it was all about the U.N. taking our guns away, under the guise of rational limitations on the sale of weapons across borders. The email denounced the treaty and included the names of Senators who voted in favor of the treaty, and it called them "traitors" and demanded they be replaced at the next election.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the treaty specifically stated that it could not be interpreted as in any way as limiting 2nd amendment rights. It didn't need to include that language, because any treaty cannot limit a constitutional right.
The inclusion of the clarifying language didn't fool the gun nuts, though. They staged an active campaign to defeat the treaty, and it worked. By not ratifying the treaty, the U.S. joined the esteemed company of Iran, Syria and North Korea in voting it down.
Because of the strong NRA push to defeat the treaty, I think the Senators who voted for the treaty showed some backbone, something we don't see often in Washington.
Similarly, the NRA campaign to defeat the closing of the background check loopholes by falsely claiming it would create a national registry of guns and would outlaw the transfer of a gun between brothers-in-law worked. The senate today defeated the provision which would have required a background check at gun shows, etc. The hold of the NRA over Washington is absolutely amazing. And the Senators who voted against the provision, parroting the NRA lies about the law, are cowards of the first order.
The fact that lies are peddled in some wholesale manner to the public, and the fact that the public cannot recognize it as such is dumbfounding. Far too many people cannot think for themselves, instead, relying on their own paranoid fantasies and Fox news to give them the information that they are so hungry for.
Validate me, please.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the treaty specifically stated that it could not be interpreted as in any way as limiting 2nd amendment rights. It didn't need to include that language, because any treaty cannot limit a constitutional right.
The inclusion of the clarifying language didn't fool the gun nuts, though. They staged an active campaign to defeat the treaty, and it worked. By not ratifying the treaty, the U.S. joined the esteemed company of Iran, Syria and North Korea in voting it down.
Because of the strong NRA push to defeat the treaty, I think the Senators who voted for the treaty showed some backbone, something we don't see often in Washington.
Similarly, the NRA campaign to defeat the closing of the background check loopholes by falsely claiming it would create a national registry of guns and would outlaw the transfer of a gun between brothers-in-law worked. The senate today defeated the provision which would have required a background check at gun shows, etc. The hold of the NRA over Washington is absolutely amazing. And the Senators who voted against the provision, parroting the NRA lies about the law, are cowards of the first order.
The fact that lies are peddled in some wholesale manner to the public, and the fact that the public cannot recognize it as such is dumbfounding. Far too many people cannot think for themselves, instead, relying on their own paranoid fantasies and Fox news to give them the information that they are so hungry for.
Validate me, please.