Puppets in the Senate controlled by NRA's strings
The gun bill’s misdirection
By Richard Cohen, WashPost, Published: April 15
Washington is one big magic show. In black tie and tails, the Senate points to the bereaved parents of Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six adults were shot to death. While the audience is focused on the Newtown horror, senators vote to take up a bill that would do absolutely nothing to avoid such a tragedy. A grateful nation, fooled by what magicians call “misdirection,” applauds like crazy while, in the wings, the National Rifle Association cackles in triumph. The Senate reaches into its top hat and, with appropriate flourish, extracts a bird. We expect a dove. What we get is a turkey.
The ugly bird of a bill would expand background checks and increase the penalty for illegal gun sales. Good. But the Senate voted only to consider the bill, not pass it, and already some members who voted for consideration have announced their opposition. More to the point, even if miraculously enacted, the bill would not have stopped 20-year-old Adam Lanza from his murderous rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The guns, after all, were not even his.
The Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle belonged to Nancy Lanza, his mother. It was purchased perfectly legally. A shotgun was used by Adam to kill her. It too was legal. He then used the Bushmaster at the school, reloading frequently. For some reason, he didn’t always expend all 30 rounds in the magazine but rather paused to reload. He also had two of his mother’s handguns, one of which he used to kill himself.
The other pertinent mass murder, the killing of 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, also entailed the use of legally purchased weapons — a Remington Model 870 shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 semi-automatic rifle and two Glock handguns. James Holmes bought them all — and 6,000 rounds for the Glocks and the Smith & Wesson — while he was seeking psychiatric treatment and undergoing a clear psychological breakdown. Yet since he had never been convicted of a felony or involuntarily institutionalized, he was entitled to his weapons — and would be under the proposed bill. So much for background checks.
(More here.)
Washington is one big magic show. In black tie and tails, the Senate points to the bereaved parents of Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six adults were shot to death. While the audience is focused on the Newtown horror, senators vote to take up a bill that would do absolutely nothing to avoid such a tragedy. A grateful nation, fooled by what magicians call “misdirection,” applauds like crazy while, in the wings, the National Rifle Association cackles in triumph. The Senate reaches into its top hat and, with appropriate flourish, extracts a bird. We expect a dove. What we get is a turkey.
The ugly bird of a bill would expand background checks and increase the penalty for illegal gun sales. Good. But the Senate voted only to consider the bill, not pass it, and already some members who voted for consideration have announced their opposition. More to the point, even if miraculously enacted, the bill would not have stopped 20-year-old Adam Lanza from his murderous rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The guns, after all, were not even his.
The Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle belonged to Nancy Lanza, his mother. It was purchased perfectly legally. A shotgun was used by Adam to kill her. It too was legal. He then used the Bushmaster at the school, reloading frequently. For some reason, he didn’t always expend all 30 rounds in the magazine but rather paused to reload. He also had two of his mother’s handguns, one of which he used to kill himself.
The other pertinent mass murder, the killing of 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, also entailed the use of legally purchased weapons — a Remington Model 870 shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 semi-automatic rifle and two Glock handguns. James Holmes bought them all — and 6,000 rounds for the Glocks and the Smith & Wesson — while he was seeking psychiatric treatment and undergoing a clear psychological breakdown. Yet since he had never been convicted of a felony or involuntarily institutionalized, he was entitled to his weapons — and would be under the proposed bill. So much for background checks.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home