You would think that the events of 2012 would have been a wake-up call for Senators to get out their ammo (their thoughts and ideas) and target what some would argue as an ongoing trend in our society over the last few decades: gun violence. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook. Has Congress forgotten these events that were plastered in every newspaper across the country? Has it forgotten the blood, the hysteria, the tears on people’s faces when they found out they would never see their loved ones again?
You would think that four months ago when Adam Lanza killed his mother and then walked through the doors of Sandy Hook Elementary School where he shot and killed 20 children and six women, that Republicans, Democrats and even groups like the National Rifle Association may want to do something to prevent other children and their families from experiencing a similar trauma.
I am sad to report that this target was missed on Wednesday, April 17th when in a vote of 54 – 46, the Senate rejected a compromise plan to expand background checks on the purchase of guns. As a result, the proposal that would have kept weapons modeled in the style of those used by combat forces out of the hands of civilians was rejected. As I’m writing this, it’s strange to imagine how six more votes would have formed a majority to pass the bill and probably would have made this review a positive outlook on the Senate rather than a negative one.
I just have one question: Is the Senate insane or just coldhearted and emotionless? I would not be surprised if it was the latter. It just doesn’t seem to make any sense. After the past year, why wouldn’t we want more background checks, especially if they prevent another mentally-deranged person from shooting down a bunch of defenseless, first-graders or a family who spends time together at the movies?
Yes, the second amendment does give citizens the right to bear arms and should that be respected? Absolutely, but with limits. What I mean is that while weapons should continue to be available to the public, they should only be carried by those whom are mentally stable and can adhere to the responsible possession of these weapons. And if a weapon is modeled after one used by the armed forces, doesn’t that make it necessary for war and battle zones rather than American households? After all, the whole point of owning a gun is for protection instead of killing a burglar or unstable person.
But what really pisses me off are the four Democrats who voted against such a measure just to save their seats in the Senate. Yes, it’s politics. Yes, I understand…that you care more about that than setting an example for your gun-pro states that this violence has to stop and that the only way to do so is by limiting access to those who cannot be trusted with a gun.
Author
