Monday afternoon going into evening I read the news that made me exclaim “You have to be fucking kidding me!” in my living room in a volume that startled my wife and dogs.
“Senate rejects series of gun measures”
“Senate Rejects 4 Gun Proposals Inspired By Orlando Attack”
“Senate Rejects 4 Measures to Control Gun Sales”
That’s right our senate after another mass shooting, the worst in our history, failed to do fuck all about anything. Just like they did with Virginia Tech, just like they did with Sandy Hook, just like they did with Charleston, and now with Orlando. The only thing that they are doing is the one thing that they have done after every mass shooting, and every failure to pass any form of legislature that would prevent this type of senseless bloodshed: point fingers and blame each other the failure.
The most baffling part is that these collective asshats, this gathering of 100 useless idiots, could not do what the public is already telling them that want them to do:
…support for specific gun control measures was very strong, with 92% saying they wanted expanded background checks, 87% supporting a ban for felons or people with mental health problems and 85% saying they would ban people on federal watchlists from buying guns. Among Republicans, that number is even higher — 90% say they favor preventing people on the terror watch list or “no fly” list from buying a gun. That number is at 85% for Democrats.
Damn near the entire country is saying that we want stronger gun control. That we want stronger regulation and background checks. We are basically saying that we wanted what was up for you all to vote on yesterday and you failed. Why did it fail? Don’t these people have common fucking sense? So what happened?
“Partisanship and the power of the gun lobby played a large role in the amendments’ failure.”
The measures Monday each went down in succession on largely party line votes. The 60-vote threshold required for passage prevented even Republicans, who control the chamber, from pushing through their favored measures.
Republicans and their allies in the NRA gun lobby said the Democratic bills were too restrictive and trampled on the constitutional right to bear arms. Democrats attacked the Republicans’ two proposals as too weak and accused them of being in the thrall of the NRA.
Legislation to protect a population from violence shouldn’t be a team sport with a booster club. The only losers are the people, and the families that lost their loved ones. So, while these asshats continue to point fingers, more guns are going to get into the hands of the wrong people and we will all just wait around for the next headline. Once that happens, this will all repeat in the same fucked up cycle that it always does.
Enough is enough.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
However, in 2008 there was a Supreme Court case “The District of Columbia vs. Heller” that redefined the 2nd amendment:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home…The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Basically, because history shows that our forefathers didn’t want a disarmed population, it was interpreted that anyone can carry a gun despite being in a militia because guns are needed “for defense of self, family, and property”. Unless you are an ex-con or mentally ill, then you don’t get to defend anything of yours.
…prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Here’s what they are talking about:
When the bill of rights was ratified in December of 1791, not even a year after (May, 1792) an act was passed detailing what standards the national militia would go by:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Now, obviously, this wouldn’t hold up by today’s standards because of obvious reasons; however this act clearly shows that the militia was set up to be what we would look at as the National Guard and also a police force (which didn’t exist at the time). The point is, the right to bear arms in order to maintain “A well regulated Militia” was created for just that. For qualified people to keep a gun (notice I used “a” meaning single and not an arsenal) in order to defend the country. At the same time the founders believed that an armed population was the best natural defence against tyranny, domestic and foreign.
Because of this case we can all carry guns and the ruling is based on historical interpretation, but what about common sense? There are laws that need to be implemented to make sure that guns are only used for “traditionally lawful purposes” and that only “well regulated” people can access them!
We also need a new, more relevant, definition of “well regulated”. Because, if we are all the militia, we the people, then we need to be regulated because right now we are in chaos; however this debate has apparently been going on since the late 1700s, just the names of the debaters has changed.
Hopefully, it won’t go on another 225 years.
See you at the polls.