The Representatives

Thr Senate has opposed logic. The Senate has opposed the majority os the people.  The Senate represents someone, but not us. 

Around 90% of the people support more background checks for gun purchases, but despite this the Senate has decided not to support them.  The Senate has represented the lobbyists.

For how long will this charade of democracy be accepted?  It's gone on far to long.  Are democratic institutions enough?  Or should we demand more?

I'm tired of the excuses.  Commentators speak about protecting the minority.  When it's convenient, some people say that we don't have a democracy, but a representative republic.  When it's time to change the filibuster, they don't.  Obviously the "representatives" are representing someone. 

It's not only the gun control issue.  We have a Democrat president offering to cut social security.  He has the nerve to ask "Who are we here to represent?" 

Mr. President, we know who you are there to represent.  Haven't you bargained a tax hike for on many middle class people?  Aren't you offering to cut social security?  Aren't you proposing a cut to heating oil subsidies for the poorest among us?  Have you proposed anything to fix our tax system which allows some of the largest corporations to not pay one cent of taxes?  Come on Mr. President, who are you guys there to represent?  I think you know the answer to that.

Dot 1, Dot 2...Connected

Two big stories occupying a lot of space in the press.  Let's call them "dots" and connect them because our press seems unable to do it.

Dot #1:  Gun control debate.

Dot #2:  Serious tensions with North Korea.

(As we run through this dot connecting exercise, we'll notice the low quality of our policy makers in Washington, and the low quality intellect of some press agencies.)

Dot #1 contains the debate over what the Second Amendment actually means and how to try and reduce the amount of gun crimes that are committed in the country.  During the back and forth, our vice-president, Joe Biden trying to show the lack of necessity of using assault weapons for personal defense, told a story.  "[I said to Jill] if there's ever a problem here, just walk out on the balcony, here, walk out, put that double barrel shotgun and just fire two blasts outside the house.  You don't need an [assault rifle]."

Thanks for the advice Joe.

Dot #2 is the situation in which the United States and South Korea, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to play war games off the coast of North Korea.  These two countries are technically at war having failed to sign a peace treaty since 1953.  (Talk about lack of initiative!)  Expectedly, North Korea has decided to get itself on war footing since a mock war will be going on off it's coast by it's enemies.   Of course, the U.S. is offended by the "provocative" nature of North Korea's decision, and our press has hyped the story as if an insane North Korea is acting improperly.  Does anyone question that it may be irresponsible or provocative to carry out this show of force on the part of the U.S. and South Korea?

Now let's connect the two dots....

What if North Korea thinks like Vice-President Biden?  What if North Korea, from within it's house, notices a problem outside?  What if North Korea decided to cock it's shotgun as a warning?  They haven't fired two blasts like Biden advised his wife to in a similar event.  If Biden's wife actually fired the blasts she would actually be violating the laws according to the police in her neighborhood.

To me, it all seems like a lot of ignorant chest thumping.  Blasting off shots and playing war games.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Of course, Washington thinks of itself a a special goose so nobody is willing to connect those dots.  

On Opposing Logic

In the discourse involving gun control, something to me seems illogical.  People who oppose any more gun laws often make the claim that we should just enforce existing laws. Yeah, we should.

But what doesn't make sense to me at all is that given the fact that a person can avoid a background check by purchasing a fire arm at a gun show or from another individual, existing law doesn't seem to prevent someone who shouldn't be able to purchase a gun from doing so. Call it a loophole if you'd like, but it's a damn big one.

The opponents to new laws, or better laws, make the argument that a criminal will break the law anyway and buy one and law abiding citizens, well aren't breaking the law so we shouldn't burden them.

By making it law that every gun purchase must require a background check on the purchaser, at least every legitimate gun sale would prevent someone not eligible to buy one from doing so. It's pretty solid logic. The burden wouldn't be on the buyer, but the seller. And if someone is selling a lethal weapon, let them be a bit more burdened. It's not as if we would be preventing them from selling it.  They would just be prevented from selling it to someone who shouldn't be buying it.

No, this kind of law wouldn't prevent illegal gun sales, but it would ensure that all legal sales are legitimate.  Can we consider a sale legitimate now if a person unable to purchase a gun in a gun shop does buy one from a gun show? Come on, that's not logical nor intelligent.  Leaving this kind of "grey area" in the business of selling arms is just plain irresponsible.

If our politicians can't even take obvious steps to minimally address the situation then they really don't deserve to receive a salary paid by us.  They can go work for an industry that they do the bidding for and stay the hell away from public business.