Congressmen and women, stop saying there's nothing we can do. Stop offering prayers as substitutes for action.
But the political reality is that our political system does run on money with the full backing of the highest court in the land. Simply kicking out a politician who ignores the will of the people and replacing he or she with the next corporate fund collecting politician is a temporary fix, if even that.
Nothing short of a change in the Constitution that specifically protects the First Amendment from being interpreted as money is speech and corporations are individuals will be sufficient to change our corrupt system. As long as money fuels our political system, our system will put money, first. Until you, the individual voter, can cough up as much money as the gun lobby and bully like the NRA, thoughts and prayers are all you’re going to get after each massacre. Change the system instead of shuffling the corporate, big-money fundraiser deck.
To John Atcheson:
You sound about as mad, discouraged and fed up as I am.
Here in Calgary, at a big book store, Chapters/Indigo, they just moved the science magazines from a place of prominence down to where they can barely be seen.
I think that is ‘the writing on the wall’.
But I think this too.
Knowledge of science is hard, and its ‘benefits’ much overestimated. For example, just to name one, the American Diet is killing us all. There is science to inform us which way to go - but you would have to be part genius to figure it out.
Meanwhile, the bottom half of the population is effectively without any monetary wealth whatsoever, and working more than one job to make ends meet - and they know somethings wrong - but constitutional amendments are about as far from their problems as is the science of climate change.
And they are called the ‘bottom’ - the lower class, just to add insult to injury.
Valuation based on money is at the root of our problems, and the concentration of wealth by those few who have the ‘money touch’, as Ted Roosevelt put it, are no more than ‘glorified pawn brokers’, also a quote from T. Roosevelt.
You have one of these glorified pawn brokers in the White House right now - in fact - pawn brokers at least perfom a useful function.
As for laws - they are a poor substitute for natural justice embedded in the heart of every citizen.
Laws come and go - while all legislation is a from of coercion and control.
If it were up to me, I’d ban all the way down to a crossbow (I’d allow compound bows and stop there), but it may be biting off too much to chew to ban semi-automatic guns in the US at this point. They are 1/2 the guns sold these days it’s going to be a million times harder to pass something like that than it was the assault weapons bill.
The person I’d really like to hear from on what we should go after in terms of legislation is Bernie Sanders. I agreed with him completely on protecting manufacturers or gun store owners from lawsuits when a legal product which was acquired legally is used illegally. We have laws for when stores or manufacturers do illegal (or negligent) actions and I don’t want the law blurred by stupid attempts to solve a problem that must be solved by other means. One of many things that irked me about the way Clinton treated Sanders was her attack on his stance on this issue.
I just searched and read http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/, but I’m not sure if any of his views have evolved since then or not. I do think that if we are going to try for an assault weapons bill again in the future (one of the positions in this link), we better be much more careful on language and get people who actually know guns to write the legislation. I got sick and tired of hearing about how inept the last legislation was on classifying guns more on cosmetic than functional criteria.