Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA big, big step forward on gun control
A big, big step forward on gun control
Posted by Greg Sargent on April 10, 2013 at 11:54 am
Senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin just held a press conference at which they unveiled their compromise on expanded background check proposals. Until now, I didnt grasp how politically effective it would be to have two gun rights Senators one a Republican, and one a red state Democrat, both with A ratings from the NRA jointly calling for real action on guns, and describing it as a moral imperative on behalf of our children.
Yes, theres a long, long way to go. But having seen this presser, there is now cause for cautious optimism that something like this emerging compromise could actually become law.
Notably, both of these Senators with strong NRA ties forcefully rebutted the argument that expanding background checks is an infringement on Second Amendment rights. This was good to see from Senators who represent states Pennsylvania and West Virginia with strong gun cultures. And they repeatedly hit the messaging sweet spot on expanding background checks, again and again describing the idea as a common sense response to gun violence, and that not doing anything at all is morally unacceptable.
The events in Newtown changed us all, Manchin said. Nobody here in good conscience could sit by and not try to prevent a day that has happened in Newtown from ever happening again.
I dont consider criminal background checks to be gun control, Toomey said. I think its just common sense. Toomey added that current national law, and the one that exists in Pennsylvania have done nothing to restrain the lawful ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens.
more...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/10/a-big-big-step-forward-on-gun-control/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 821 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A big, big step forward on gun control (Original Post)
babylonsister
Apr 2013
OP
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,079 posts)1. A good step, no doubt.
Hopefully not the only one, though.
bigtree
(85,915 posts)2. k&r
krispos42
(49,445 posts)3. Expanding background checks is Constitutional
unless, of course, it is made very burdensome simply for the sake of being burdensome.
The issue is privacy... if a background check is de facto gun registration, for example.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)4. I wish someone would introduce me to Toomey so that he couldn't say this:
"I dont know anyone who disagrees with that premise"
Well I do disagree with him. His language is lazy to the point of being cavalier, and consequently it is extraordinarily sloppy and stigmatizing.
In the first place in saying these things he extends the false equivalency between being criminal and being mentally ill. What sort of justice is it that turns a diagnosis into a criminal conviction?
I understand that this is in no insignificant way a consequence of the FBI's having named the database of persons disqualified for gun purchases the "National Instant Criminal Background Check System."
But the equating of mental illness with criminality is a truly damaging false equivalence that institutionalizes damaging attitudes and misunderstanding that does real harm to the mentally ill. If you replaced the national origin of any American minority for the phrase 'mentally ill' this would be obvious and completely unacceptable.
In the second place he lumps together all persons with mental illness as being equally dangerous. Again this sort of ignorant conflation perpetuates stereotypical falsehoods that give credence to both attitudes and discrimination that harm people with mental illness.
All mental illness ARE NOT equally associated with violence, criminal violence, or gun violence in particular. It would quite surprise me if one elected representative to congress per 100 could actually name the top three mental illnesses which are most associated with gun violence.
Well I do disagree with him. His language is lazy to the point of being cavalier, and consequently it is extraordinarily sloppy and stigmatizing.
In the first place in saying these things he extends the false equivalency between being criminal and being mentally ill. What sort of justice is it that turns a diagnosis into a criminal conviction?
I understand that this is in no insignificant way a consequence of the FBI's having named the database of persons disqualified for gun purchases the "National Instant Criminal Background Check System."
But the equating of mental illness with criminality is a truly damaging false equivalence that institutionalizes damaging attitudes and misunderstanding that does real harm to the mentally ill. If you replaced the national origin of any American minority for the phrase 'mentally ill' this would be obvious and completely unacceptable.
In the second place he lumps together all persons with mental illness as being equally dangerous. Again this sort of ignorant conflation perpetuates stereotypical falsehoods that give credence to both attitudes and discrimination that harm people with mental illness.
All mental illness ARE NOT equally associated with violence, criminal violence, or gun violence in particular. It would quite surprise me if one elected representative to congress per 100 could actually name the top three mental illnesses which are most associated with gun violence.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)5. Isn't it amazing
that such a no-brainer as criminal background checks would even be hotly debated? Objected to?
"Not doing anything at all is morally unacceptable."
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)6. I concur w/ Toomey's statement about background checks.
Expanding the scope of background check requirements is not so much gun control as it is simple common sense. Along with much more aggressive enforcement against traffickers and straw purchasers, this is the best proposal to come out of the recent surge in calls for gun control.