More Washington Elitism

E.J. Dionne, a liberal columnist for the Washington Post, has weighed in on the Virginia Tech killings. There's a lot to respond to in his article, so I will post his words in their entirety, interspersed with my comments in bold:

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing?

Because people such as yourself insist on having it.

Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent deaths. Opponents of gun control shout "No!" Guns don't kill people, people kill people, they say, and anyway, if everybody were carrying weapons, someone would have taken out the murderer and all would have been fine.

"Try to open a discussion". Nice try. It's more like, "Advocates of gun control seize upon every tragedy to immediately try to take away every law-abiding person's rights due to the actions of a tiny minority."

And we do nothing.

Because, as we found out with the now expired "assault weapons" ban and the Brady Bill, all that such legislation does is make it more difficult for regular Americans to obtain firearms, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent criminals and unstable people from doing so. The exception should not be the rule in devising legislation, that's what makes bad laws.

This is a stupid argument, driven by the stupid politics of gun control in the United States.

Typical liberal response. Instead of countering with facts, attack the other side's position as "stupid".

In other spheres, we act reasonably when faced with new problems. When Richard Reid showed that nasty things could be done with shoes on airplanes, airport security started examining shoes.

And didn't require everyone to take them off until 4 years later.

When liquids were seen as a potential danger, we regulated the quantity of liquids we could take on flights. We barred people from carrying weapons onto airliners long ago.
If we can act pragmatically in the skies, why can't we be equally practical here on the ground?

Because the Constitution keeps people like you from taking our rights away because of one, or even more, incidents of crime or terror.

In its zeal to defend our inviolable right to bear arms, is the National Rifle Association going to argue for concealed carry on airplanes?

I'm ok with it, if the permit holders are trained and carry frangible ammunition that won't penetrate the fuselage of the plane. You see, I trust myself and my fellow citizens more than I trust the government to protect travelers. An individual is responsible for his or her own safety, not the nanny state.

If not, won't the organization be violating its core principle that all of us should be free to be armed at all times?
No one pretends that smarter gun laws would prevent all violence. But it's a disgrace that we can't try to learn from tragedies such as this week's Virginia Tech massacre and figure out whether better laws might at least modestly reduce the likelihood of such horrific events happening again.

"Modestly". That's how total bans get started, with terms such as that, as well as others such as "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense legislation". These are code words for "ban", as people such as Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center have admitted. Take the recent Appeals Court decision in D.C., for example. The Brady Center is on record calling a complete ban on handguns, and forcing people to keep long guns disassembled in their homes, a "reasonable restriction". Reasonable to whom? Mr. Dionne, you just can't predict when a nut such as Mr. Cho is going to go off. You can't reduce that likelihood, as much as you and everyone else wishes they could. You can only allow citizens to exercise their right to self-protection when such incidents occur, as few and as far between as they do.

Our country is a laughingstock on the rest of the planet because of our devotion to unlimited gun rights.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I don't. No other country has anywhere near the freedoms that Americans enjoy. Why else are so many people trying to get here, both legally and illegally?

On Thursday, an Australian newspaper carried this headline: "America, the gun club."
John Howard, the solidly right-wing Australian prime minister closely allied with President Bush, bragged this week that when a mass killing took place in Australia in 1996, "we took action to limit the availability of guns, and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country." No doubt the NRA will mount a boycott of Foster's beer.

Personally, I'm proud to live in a country where politicians can't unilaterally take away my freedoms. It's easy to have a "national resolve" when it's shoved down your throat.

Any reasonable measures are blocked because most Republicans are opportunists on the gun issue and Democrats have become wimps. Republicans have exploited support from the NRA for years, and Democrats, eyeing rural congressional seats, are petrified of doing anything that offends the gun lobby.
The Politico newspaper, using figures from the Center for Responsive Politics, reported that in the 2006 elections, pro-gun groups gave $962,525 in contributions and groups considered "anti-gun" gave $49,090. Republicans received 166 times as much money from pro-gun groups as from anti-gun groups. Democrats received three times as much from pro-gun as anti-gun groups. Who owns Congress?

The people that elect it, which is why the Democrats lost both the House and the Senate after they passed the 1994 Brady Bill, and why they won't soon try that again. The people of this country understand firearms rights, and they are willing to cross party lines to vote for them.

But it's not just money. It's also how the gun issue has been "distorted and how it has been turned into a hot-button cultural issue," Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) said in an interview Wednesday.
"You're either for or against the issue, and that's kind of code for being 'one of us' or not, of being in tune culturally," he added. "And that's the end of the issue," meaning that it's difficult to deal with gun regulation "in a rational, measured way."

Again, only the liberal Democrats' argument is "rational and measured". Anyone who is for gun rights is "irrational and hysterical", right, Mr. Dionne?

Price said that when he confronts voters in his district who criticize him for being "for gun control," he asks whether they favor background checks for gun buyers, a ban on assault weapons and greater efforts to trace guns used in crimes "to check out gun dealers who supply guns." In large numbers, he says, such voters agree with him and reject the positions taken by the gun lobby.
The key, Price argues, is to propose "specific and well-targeted" measures aimed at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
Okay, let's be specific. What would the NRA's objection be to a law requiring gun dealers to establish whether a potential buyer is a student and, if so, to inform (or even get permission from) the student's high school or college before any weapons could be sold?

How about returning students in their 30s? Why should a person's school status have any bearing whatsoever on their ability to purchase a firearm? And the idea of a 21-year-old adult having to get "permission" from their school to exercise a Constitutional right is just laughable. Should they get permission to vote as well?

What about raising the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 25 or 30?

Hell, why not 50 or 55? Let's just raise that sucker up until no one is able to purchase one. There go those "reasonable restrictions" again.

Why not renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons?

Because it didn't work before. Why renew failed legislation? I know, I know, it'll make you "feel" better. Just as those students at Virginia Tech "felt" safer after the administration fought so hard to keep permit holders off campus.

Why not create a national bipartisan commission that would propose ways -- including, but not limited to, sane gun laws -- to push back our culture of violence?

Who defines what "sane" means? Oh, that's right, the likes of Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, and Tom Diaz will tell us.

One more question: Why are our politicians still cowering before the gun lobby after Virginia Tech?

Because they want to hang onto their jobs. If they try to limit the freedom of Americans, they'll get thrown out on their ears. It happened in 1994, and it will surely happen again.