The gun-control votes: 'Shame' & shamelessness
President Obama called it “shameful” that the Democrat-controlled Senate (operating under the Democrat-hatched 60-vote-majority concept of nearly 40 years ago) rejected sweeping gun-control legislation on Wednesday.
“Progressives” blamed Republicans for hijacking the upper chamber and might as well have said the GOP will have blood on its hands should there be another Newtown-like gun massacre of innocents.
What's really shameful (if not indicative of shamelessness) is that none of the rejected measures would have done anything to prevent the carnage in Connecticut or anywhere else and, in at least two cases, they would have done serious damage to the Second Amendment.
Democrats sought to criminalize a wide variety of commonly possessed semiautomatic firearms favored by sport shooters simply because they resemble their automatic military counterparts and have been exploited by criminals. They also sought to limit the number of bullets in magazines to 10 — a psychological “do-something!” placebo, a mechanical distinction truly without a difference given the mere seconds it takes to swap magazines.
Then there was the bipartisan amendment proffered by ardent gun-rights Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. For all of its positives — streamlining carry laws and criminalizing the establishment of a national gun registry, to name two — its enhanced background check provision applied to an infinitesimal cohort of gun sales.
That said, even more shameful is the non-prosecution of existing gun laws and the plethora of gun charges that are plea-dealed away.
Mr. Obama now is vowing to work to replace those senators who stood up for the law and the Constitution. Talk about shameful and shameless.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Calling out Russia: But weakly
- The Thursday wrap
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The China question
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Saturday essay: Beds of surprises
- The Box
- Fayette County Fair: More than rides & shows
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- The Chevy Volt: Short-circuited (again)
- Digitized medical records: They’ve become an unsecured threat