Originally Posted by vienna
The majority of Americans are just as puzzled and appalled as yourself. We often can't believe simple, common sense efforts are so vehemently opposed by gun manufacturers and sellers. They attempt to hide the fact they are mainly interested in their profits by puffery such as positing themselves as defender of Constitutional rights much in the same way politicians attempt to bolster their spurious or vacuous stances by wrapping themselves in the Flag. I've already heard some of the gun advocates saying the shooter could have been stopped if the audience members in LV had been armed themselves, regardless of the fact the venue, like almost all such large gatherings do not permit the carrying of weapons, of any sort, onto the venues' premises. Why? Because of the possibility of some terrorist or domestic nut-job would take advantage of lax controls to carry out a close up and personal attack. That's why virtually every venue such as concerts, sports sites, amusement parks, etc., requires some sort of inspection or electronic screening prior to entry. That's the reality of the world. Sometimes some of the positions the NRA takes for its corporate masters defy any logic, such as the NRA's unwillingness to support a ban on the sale of weapons to individuals who are known to have mental or emotional conditions that render them incapable of being trusted with a weapon. Mentally ill persons cannot legally sign a simple contract, yet the NRA doesn't seem to see a problem with them owning or acquiring guns; mentally ill persons cannot be licensed to operate vehicles, yet the NRA doesn't seem to see a problem with them owning or acquiring guns; mentally ill persons are not legally allowed to hold positions requiring they assume responsibility for public safety, yet the NRA doesn't seem to see a problem with them owning or acquiring guns. There are many other simple, common sense issues with gun ownership that the majority of Americans would like to see addressed, but neither the NRA nor Congress are willing to address. The power of the NRA is way out of context with its size; its influence is solely due to the vast amounts of cash it throws about to get its way. Before the advent of 'Political Action Committees' (PACs) as a means to circumvent political campaign contribution and financing laws and regulations to funnel funds to politicians and parties, the NRA was just about the only way for the big bucks to get to the right politicians and influence legislation without actually tipping the hand as to the real purpose of the expenditure and it was all wrapped up in the protective shell of "we're defending the 2nd Amendment", regardless of the fact the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere, isn't really at risk, or really need such questionable defense. The way the NRA and others try to present their case reminds of the sort of tactics used to sell basically unneeded products: there wasn't a need for a "restless leg syndrome" medication until some drug company decide to create a demand by, essentially, creating a heretofore non-existent condition into order to dupe people prone to idle foot tapping into believe they were suffering from a dire medical condition. What is need is to take a step back from the gun lobby rhetoric and, when faced with questions about gun related issues, ask "Who is really, actually, benefiting from the lack of controls: public safety or the bank accounts of the manufacturers and sellers?"...
<O>
|