Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: It turns out supporting gun safety legislation is also smart politics (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (6+ / 0-)
    I still have a huge issue with Newton being used to call for more background checks, as both Nancy and Adam Lanza would have passed.  As far as I know, being diagnosed with Aspergers does not strip a citizen of his Constitutional rights, and I still have not seen anyone explain which background check the Lanzas would have failed and why.
    People can cite Newtown as another unspeakable act of gun violence without being required to make a literal connection between the way Adam Lanza became armed and the goals of legislation. Newtown motivated people who already felt revulsion over Aurora, the Sikh Temple shooting, Tucson, Virginia Tech.

    Advocates use Newtown to call for background checks because we can't just surrender to mass murder as a feature of modern life. The notion that consistency requires that Newtown should be removed from the discussion represents the meaning of Newtown in a profoundly distorted way.

    •  I want people to be upfront about things (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of rhetoric flies around here that people can't back up when chalenged on it.  People say that background checks would have prevented Newton.  When I ask if that means all Aspergers individuals must be disarmed, they get all squeemish.

      People say that "The NRA is arming terrorists".  I then ask if all Muslims should be disarmed, and they go silent.

      I understand that Newton was a last straw event.  But that isn't the same thing as saying we must have background checks BECAUSE of Newton, when the facts don't fit the case.  As an engineer I avoid emotional arguments, they lead to poor design choices.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site