Giffords VS. Guns

Gabrielle Giffords & Mark Kelly sit down with neanderthal newscaster Diane Sawyer to discuss how 2+2 = 4.

Gabrielle Giffords & Mark Kelly sit down with neanderthal newscaster Diane Sawyer to discuss how 2+2 = 4.

Following the tragedy in Newtown, CT, America’s conversation about guns and gun ownership has been pushed to the forefront once more.  While the NRA dictates a stance that borders on both delirium and moonshine, others have been discussing new methods in relation to curbing gun violence.  As discussed on NPR, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Laws have already been shown to be both counterproductive and futile (Thanks Grumpygrad!).  In addition, Tucson has been implementing a gun buy-back thanks in no small part to their Republican city councilman Steve Kozachik, while lawmakers like Joe Biden are hoping to address and discuss with gun safety advocates about new policies to curb gun violence and its impact on culture (and yes, he’s gonna have to sit down with the NRA).  However, as most of you are aware, the NRA ain’t havin’ it.  They don’t like the gun buy-back because guns that were purchased from law abiding gun owners will be disposed of.  They still stand by the notion that we need more individuals armed with automatic weapons to police our schools.  They probably think the big bad fed will take away our guns.  It’s a slippery slope indeed when we talk about the Second amendment, and unfortunately, one group usually has a sway over the discussion.  Know who?  You guessed it, the NRA.

However, someone is thinking of fighting back.  Former U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has launched a PAC (political action committee) called “Americans for Responsible Solutions” that is aiming to beat back the influence that both the NRA and the gun lobby have over American political discourse related to the atrocities involved with the Second amendment.  As some of you know, Giffords was a victim and target of the 2011 Tucson Shootings that killed 6 and wounded several others, including herself with a gunshot wound to the head, making her an ideal leader for this group.  Furthermore, both her and her husband, Mark Kelly, are gun owners, which should hopefully dispel any ideological ramblings that they’re out to melt your guns.  Giffords and Kelly’s main aim is to raise enough money to fight back against the NRA’s efforts, and if that means making war, then that just might be what’s needed.  You can read her statement and intentions for starting “Americans for Responsible Solutions” here on USA Today.

Whatever your thoughts are about the Second amendment, gun violence is something that affects all of us.  It’s obvious that the NRA has had way too much control over the nation’s discourse concerning gun control, but overall, the big picture tells us that we need to make a more concerted effort to curb gun violence.  There are many broad ways we can curb this, whether it’s a change in culture, a change in the way we view our rights, or a change in the way we regulate gun ownership and purchasing at large, but whatever it is we do, we have to have the impetus to do it.  Unfortunately for us, Congress usually has the task of doing so, and as Gabrielle Giffords has mentioned, “Congress has done something quite extraordinary — nothing at all.”

You can find Americans for Responsible Solutions here.  Until then everyone, good night, and good luck…

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Giffords VS. Guns

  1. Thanks for the information and sending the links to the PAC. I don’t know if you saw it but Jon Stewart devoted all of his Jan 8th show to talking about gun control:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-january-8-2013-stanley-mcchrystal

    I also recently found a blog which quotes Lincoln:

    “Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled,–the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains,–its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war.”

    Oh by the way, this is what our founding father George Washington did when some farmers refused to pay taxes on whisky and fought the government. This is the Whisky Rebellion entry from Wikipedia:

    Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.

    Yet some people still argue that the founding fathers created the second amendment so people could fight the government. It’s ludicrous because not only is that not what the 2nd amendment says (“for a well organized militia”) but it flies in the face of all historical evidence.

  2. Thanks for commenting Grumpygrad. All great quotes and anecdotes indeed. If many an American could hold what you’ve said to heart, then maybe the choices about this issue would become much more clear. Cheers mate!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s