I wish to complain about this parrot...
I read today, on
ThinkProgress, about the NRA talking points that Republicans are openly parroting as they oppose background checks for guns, and as the prospects of this measure with 91% approval from the American people
look worse all the time (Thanks, Harry Reid).
And then, one of the more recent quotes/parrots from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) struck me as oddly familiar...so while I got a late start to this one today, it seems worth posting up anyway as illustrative of the problem that so-called responsible gun owners represent.
Now, by "so-called" I mean there are some of them out there, not all, but some who are "responsible" only because gun laws have been structured so as not to touch them. If there is no pertinent law, no real restriction, on the proliferation and use of guns, what does it mean to be responsible when the only qualifier is having not shot oneself or someone else today?
With that in mind, I read about the Republican Senators representing the NRA in Congress...
In the days following the Sandy Hook shooting, a bipartisan group of lawmakers signaled they would be open to supporting the requirement. But as memories of the “Connecticut effect” fade, many are refusing to vote for the provision and are parroting NRA talking points to justify their opposition:
So, that first link mentions Harry Reid, who's now searching for some way to assassinate background checks without leaving much forensic evidence. They've got Jeff Flake, one of my Senators and one on the Judiciary Committee, supporting background checks in early February before he
voted against them about a week ago, along with every other Republican who could. They had Tom Coburn on that list of Senators who were supposedly not bought and paid for by the NRA, Tom Coburn, who broke the bipartisan compromise
himself for the sake of a toothless law. They had such hopes for him; can't imagine why.
So, on to the NRA talking points and one interesting conclusion that can be drawn from them. Here's Wayne LaPierre, and his Republican sockpuppet, Chuck Grassley.
“Background checks will never be ‘universal’ — because criminals will never submit to them.” [Wayne LaPierre, 1/30/2013]
|
“Obviously, criminals do get guns. They obtain them because they do not comply with background checks. Supporters of this bill contend that if we only make background checks universal, criminals will not get guns. But criminals do not comply with existing background check laws.” [Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), 3/12/2013]
|
So the NRA's point is that criminals don't submit to the laws we pass. That's why there's no point to the laws being passed. I realize, it's pure unadulterated malarkey. I don't see anyone looking to abolish laws against murder just because criminals
break them. But that's the quality of the NRA argument. On the other hand, to consider it for a moment, for the sake of argument...what does that make these responsible gun owners from the NRA rally in Albany, New York?
It doesn't require much of a transcript, just a note in passing that the crowd chats "We will not comply!" at a rally protesting the new gun laws that had just been passed there, while the fellow at the podium cheers them on with an "I can't hear you!"
What does the NRA's stated position here -- one these fellows would likely accept without question -- say about them? What does it say about the various law enfarcement travesties, these jokers who say they won't enforce the laws they don't like? What about the state legislatures cheered on by the NRA, passing laws about their non-compliance and desire to arrest federal agents who might try enforce any possible new law -- before any new laws have even been voted on in Congress?
At least it does help to put the NRA's spirited defense of felons and domestic abusers into perspective. The NRA defends criminals from gun laws. They represent criminals. Their members and allies brag of their willingness to ignore and break the law. And the NRA's own rhetoric identifies these people as criminals. And they're winning this fight.
Well, I didn't expect it to be easy, but progress is not a matter of instant gratification these days. Or of instant background checks, it seems. Time will tell.