3 ms·
> There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . .
by monochromatic 14y ago
> There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . . . We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety
Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.
- untog 14y agoHe doesn't say that we need more gun control, though. He has described the situation as he sees it, but he hasn't prescribed an answer, aside from a "national discussion", which by it's nature involves an exchange of opinions, not an answer from on high.
- monochromatic 14y agoIs there anyone who thinks that the weasel words of having a "national discussion" about guns could possibly mean anything other than "we need stricter gun laws"?
- untog 14y agoConsider me deluded, then. To me, it says "I think we need stricter gun controls, and I wish to discuss my desire with the nation as a whole in order to create a consensus about what we will do".
- monochromatic 14y agoPoliticians don't debate for the purpose of creating a consensus. They debate for the purpose of getting what they want. Sometimes a consensus is a necessary prerequisite for getting what you want, but in politics it is never an end in itself.
- 1123581321 14y agoIt's indeed a euphemism for gun restriction laws and an introduction of social pressure against gun owners to disarm advocated in national-level media. I am unsure of the origin but it seems to be a newly adopted phrase used to talk about gun restriction and mental health access in relation to the recent shooting, which is probably why you're only taking it at face value.
- monochromatic 14y agoObama was using this phrase before last week.
- nsmartt 14y ago"We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety, or that it’s a settled political issue." This clearly shows a desire for stricter gun laws.
- philwelch 14y agoGun control is (or was) a fairly settled issue. Even James Carville said, "I don't think there's a Second Amendment right to own a gun, but I think it's a loser political issue." The only reason to unsettle it is if you wanted to change it, and since it's considered a civil right by many Americans, that's a pretty big deal. If you want to better understand that sentiment, just substitute any other Constitutionally guaranteed civil right for "guns". "We need to have a national discussion about the right to a fair trial by jury." How does that not sound sinister? It's fairly settled that we have fair trials by jury, or at least try our hardest, and it doesn't serve any good purpose to reopen the question.
- hga 14y agoIn D.C. vs. Heller, all nine Supreme Court Justices agreed "there's a Second Amendment right to own a gun" (the so-called individual right, vs. the "collective right" that had been claimed for decades), they just split on if this meant anything (D.C.'s ban on new gun registrations was total, and they effectively banned the use of any grandfathered guns for self-defense). It is now settled law, there's very little to have a "national discussion" or "conversation" about, especially since we all agree on minor details like: murder is wrong and is properly illegal, felons and the severely mentally ill have no right to own guns (although due to privacy issues it's very hard to do anything about the latter, and too many states like Pennsylvania refuse to report this to the feds), people should treat guns with respect, etc.