Last night, I went to see a a new play by Liz Flahive at the NY City Center called "From Up Here," about the aftermath experienced by the family of a boy who brought a gun to school. It was good, with an innovative set design, capable direction, and riveting performances by the players, especially from Julie White (the mother) and Tobias Segal (the gun-wielding son).
I'm recommending it, but I'm not going to get into it. That introduction is for something, I'm guessing, Flahive wanted to facillitate, and that's a discussion about gun control.
It's amazing that in the recent debates, neither Obama nor Clinton have said much about gun control, especially considering the recent tragedy of the Virgina Tech shootings. WTF makes this discussion so off-limits? Are both of the Democratic candidates so afraid of alienating that middle-America demographic - since the current debate is who is more elitist than the other - that a reasonable approach to gun-control would be the death knell of their candidacy?
I grew up in a family that owns, uses and appreciates guns. My grandfather, father and uncle are all big hunters; I was firing a BB gun by the time I was seven; I used to regularly practice shooting targets with my father's shotgun every summer when camping on my family's private land. That said, whenever I think of the typical gun owner, that visceral image of Charlton Heston declaring in front of a crowd at an NRA convention, "From my cold dead hands!" pops into my head.
I get that. The Second Amendment was put in place for a reason, and it should be the right of any mentally-sound, responsible, crimeless-past American to own a gun reasonable for use for protection and hunting. In order to verify that a person passes all of these qualifications, yes, restrictions will have to be put in place. If you are a psycho with a history of depression, or have a police record, or are in college (sorry college kids, your track record for deadly psychosis omits you from gun-ownership eligibility), you shall not be allowed to own a gun.
SO why can't Obama or Clinton just say to all the NRA members who get their panties in a bunch at the slightest mumble of gun control, "You, who are members of the NRA and presumably responsible gun owners, should not have a problem passing the restrictions that I plan to put in place for gun ownership. The restrictions will not hinder the responsible gun-owner - they will prevent criminals, the mentally unsound, and children from getting their hands on a deadly weapon." No responsible gun-owner would balk at that, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Holy oversimplification, Batwoman.
Gun peoples do not want any restrictions. Restrictions just lead to more restrictions.
Where I would agree with you is that I don't really understand why they would feel threatened by the possible alienation of the gun-fanatics. They aren't voting for Hill-bama anyway. Because if they don't have their guns, THEN JUST WHO IS GOING TO DEFEND US AGAINST THE TURRARISTS????
Vern, I knew I was oversimplifying, but understand that I really don't know what I'm talking about.
Post a Comment