Doing nothing

by | Jun 22, 2016 | Editor's Blog, Gun Control, Immigration | 36 comments

The shooting in Orlando reminds us how vulnerable we are in a society like ours. It also reminds us that there are people who hate some of us simply for who we are. And it reminds us that there really are people who hate America just because of our way of life. It also reminds us that Congress is broken.

After Newtown, after San Bernardino, and now after Orlando, Congress has failed to take any meaningful action to curb mass shootings. Despite a longstanding threat of terrorists from foreign countries entering the US, they’ve failed fix our broken immigration system. In short, they’ve failed in a very basic responsibility—to keep us safe.

You would have thought the mass killing of 20 six and seven year-old children would have spurred them to action. But it didn’t. Instead, mass shootings have become the new normal. Each one seems more horrific than the last, though Newtown scours depths of depravity.

Too many people blame the NRA for the inaction. But it’s not their fault. They’re an organization doing their job and doing it well. No, the blame is with the Members of Congress who refuse to stand up to the gun lobby because they’re more concerned with their re-election or campaign donations than doing what’s necessary to protect the country.

Many of those same politicians claim that terrorism, not access to high capacity clips or military-style assault weapons, is the culprit in these mass shootings. Yet they have failed to address our broken immigration system. They grandstand about mass deportations or building a wall but most of the suspected terrorists in the country either arrived by airplane or were born here. They have done nothing to make our borders more secure or to better regulate who is coming into our country.

At the very least, we should do all we can to keep weapons that can cause carnage out of the hands of potential terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, whether driven by ideology, hate, or psychosis. A start would be denying people on the no-fly list access to weapons. We should also require universal background checks for gun sales. Finally, we should lift the ban on funding research on gun violence so we better understand the factors that cause it. That’s a very modest start.

It’s time to at least try to curb the violence against innocent people. Congress should do something. After so many mass shootings, the one thing we know that doesn’t work is doing nothing. But, unfortunately, that’s what is wrong with Congress. As on so many other matters, they’re doing nothing.

36 Comments

  1. Ebrun

    Sure, D.g. And if you wrote it, it must be profound, right? But you are obviously unable to answer a simple question that does not require a profound answer. Can you cite a legal opinion from a federal court, not your opinion, that asserts that the right to fly on a commercial airliner is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

  2. Ebrun

    So bottom line: There is no constitutional right to board or travel on a commercial airliner.

  3. Ebrun

    D.g, there have been several occasions in the past few years where airlines have “arbitrarily refused to provide service to qualified individuals.” In several cases, they have been forced to exit the aircraft.” These decisions have been based on conduct or behavior, but in several instances the decisions were not justified as the individuals under suspicion were determined to be wrongly accused. But I don’t think you can cite a legal case where an abridgment of a constitutional right claim has been asserted in such situations.

    Similarly, a merchant can deny service to a potential customer, not for a discriminatory reason based race, religion or other protected class, but based on the customer’s conduct, behavior or personality. The offended customer could perhaps seek relief under tort laws or local business license regulations, but do such instances raise an issue of a constitutional right?

  4. Ebrun

    D.g., Re your last comment on the need for due process for individuals whose names appear on a no fly list, it looks at last that we have found an area of agreement. But to PW’s argument, which was what my earlier comment was referring to, there is no constitutional right to travel on a commercial airliner.

  5. Ebrun

    Troy, Not sure what your definition of “acceptable “is, but I believe any violence taken against any person or group exercising legal rights is unacceptable.

    • Troy

      I think that is a pretty boilerplate definition of “acceptable” given the context of this discussion.

      The more potentially devisive word requiring definition however is what “radical” is in the context of this discussion. Because, I’m not sure what your definition or understanding might be, given the twists and turns of some of our prior conversations.

      • Ebrun

        Troy, I will take this opportunity to amend my “definition” of acceptable to include not only the act of violence against any persons or groups exercising their legal rights, but the THREAT of violence or the ADVOCACY of violence against such persons or groups. And I would also include this in my definition of radical.

        Nowhere in any previous discussions on this blog have I even hinted that violence against peaceful protests or legal activities is acceptable. The only time I believe violence might be necessary is in response to gratuitous violence.

  6. Yojji

    What is this “Requiring Reporting of Online Terrorist Activity Act” that Burr is touting? He’s proclaiming that it will stop terrorists, but it sounds like another toothless effort to implement warrantless online surveillance.

    If this is his response to the Orlando mass shootings, it’s a bit of a non sequitur. I think most of us would like to see all mass-shooters stopped – not just those with a political motive.

    • Troy

      Burr and Feinstein no less! The legislation was approved in the Intelligience committee of which Burr is chair but apparently hasn’t made it past the door yet to the chamber floor. It will require tech companies to report on-line terrorist activity to law enforcement.

      What any of those things mean by definition will be anyone’s guess. I don’t disagree but it does get his name out in the public.

  7. Troy

    What does that mean, “Radical Islamic Terrorism”? I remember not too many years ago when some members of an organization known as the “Army of God” took great delight in sniping and blowing up abortion clinics and the doctors who worked in them. Were they “Radical Christian Terrorists”?

    Odd isn’t it how one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

    I place the blame squarely where it belongs; on the shoulders of the man who was pulling the trigger. A little blame is to be shared however with whomever preserved for posterity the ability of those on a government list who exhibit such external behaviors or statements as to make the government think they shouldn’t be allowed on planes to by guns. If you can’t be trustworthy enough to fly on a plane, why should you be trusted with a weapon?

    • Yojji

      “Radical Islamic Terrorism” is a magic phrase that, if only Obama would please utter into a microphone, on camera, all “terrorists” would go POOF and disappear.

      Sorry. People who think Trump is clever keep repeating his ludicrous declarations and that’s one of their favorites.

    • Ebrun

      There is a constitutional right to bear arms, but there is no constitutional right to fly on a commercial airliner.

      • TbeT

        Wrong. Airline travel would be covered under “freedom of movement under United States law, which is governed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.
        It is a right so inherent, so fundamental, that the framers thought it did not need explicit mention in the Constitution.
        As far as rights go, it is much more a basic American right than to own and bear arms.

        • Ebrun

          You must be living in a bubble. Airlines refuse to allow people on flights for any number of reasons—drunkenness, belligerence, rowdiness, being on a no fly list, or just because they act suspiciously. Don’t know of any court case that found these folks were deprived of their constitutional rights.

          • TbeT

            And you must live in an asylum.

            But really, thanks. Your travel restrictions examples just proved my point.

            One’s travel can be restricted when in the public interest, even though freedom of movement is a fundamental constitutional right. And so even with gun-ownership being a constitutionally-amended right, restrictions to it can and should be applied when they are in the public interest.

          • Ebrun

            While freedom of movement is a fundamental right, freedom to board and travel on a commercial airliner is not. Cite us a legal precedent that asserts that freedom to fly on a commercial airliner is a right under the U.S. Constitution.

      • Troy

        Yes there is. But is that an absolute right? One that can be exercised without constraint or reasonable regulation? No, it isn’t. We likewise have the Freedom of Speech, but that is not an absolute right. You cannot walk into a crowded theatre and shout “Fire” when there is no fire just because you wish to exercise your ‘right’. “Congress shall make no law respecting respecting an establishment of religion nor preventing the free exercise thereof.” So there will NOT be an official State religion as one NC legislator tried to foist upon us. That one is old news; but he damn sure tried. Another example however of radicalism gone awry.

        Rights have limits. Yours stop when they infringe upon someone else’s.

    • Ebrun

      Troy asks if those who blow up abortion are “Radical Christian Terrorists.” The answer is a no brainer—YES.

      • Troy

        So we can agree then that “Radical” anything is beyond the pale of acceptable, no matter what the persuasion, denomination, ideology, or cause?

        • Ebrun

          That seems obvious. Who do you think would disagree?

          • Troy

            To be perfectly candid, I was expecting you to. So in this instance, it delights me to have misconstrued your intentions.

  8. Ebrun

    A preachy essay and lecture about “the shooting in Orlando” and not one mere reference to the primary reason for the shooting—RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM. Blame Congress, guns, even our “broken immigration system.” Deliberate sophistry straight out of the Obama playbook.

    • Progressive Wing

      A snarky observation with no consideration given to the fact that 49 lives were lost (that number might grow bigger as some victims are still in critical care ) because a nutcase was enabled via the quick and convenient purchase of an assault-type semi-automatic weapon and scads of ammo. Go ahead; blame the killer’s religion and radicalization, but never admit that do-nothing, bought-and-sold congressional leaders, gun manufacturers, and the gun lobby share any blame whatsoever. Lame and callous claptrap straight from the NRA’s playbook.

  9. Leslie John Lee

    Both Sandy Hook and Orlando were attacks by U.S. citizens born here. To say immigration is part of the problem makes no sense. They were reared on the hate, racism and bigotry that exists here and is exemplified by Trump.
    People don’t hate us or attack us because of who we are or our way of life. That is another fallacy that is spread by people who don’t want to look at our warmongering history – especially against people who have oil.
    We do need to do something to “well regulate” the well-armed militia of fanatical NRA supporters. Doing nothing is not an option.

    • Ebrun

      So you want to “do something to….well regulate…fanatical NRA supporters.” Obvious answer: Amend the U.S. Constitution.

  10. STEVE KROPELNICKI

    How many constitutional rights are you progressives prepared to allow
    the government to deny us because a petty wannabe cop puts us on a secret list with no opportunity to challenge the denial, no trial, no due process?

    • Progressive Wing

      What petty wannabee cop? Name please.
      The list wouldn’t be “secret.”
      All the bills voted on this week had challenge/due process provisions in them.

      Try commenting again when you are more informed.

      • STEVE KROPELNICKI

        You progressives wallow in ignorance. What do you know about the cost and delays a citizen faces when he challenges a government fiat in the US District Court?
        You really are willing to trust a contstitutional right to those wonderful folks who
        brought you Ruby Ridge and Waco and predicted a wave of terrorism by returning G.I.’s. and are ordered by the administration to redact Islamic references from transcripts of the Orlando murder’s last words.

        • Progressive Wing

          Wow.
          You actually tried to bolster your argument against no-fly/no-buy lists by citing the Ruby Ridge and Waco sieges? Really? If that’s what you want to do, that’s your prerogative.
          But I’ll just reinforce my argument for having such lists by citing a couple of other incidents: 9/11 and Orlando.
          You regressives are mired in a poor perspective, bad judgment, and no sense of the common good.

          .

          • STEVE KROPELNICKI

            Oh ! somehow I missed the news about all those deadly assault weapons used in 9-11.
            I suppose you don’t believe Ruby Ridge and Waco happened?
            Or is there a statute of limitations on US government atrocities?
            Has the government never admitted that the Obama IRS shafted right-wing groups or that Nixon had his enemies list?
            You really do trust your government, don’t you?

    • STEVE KROPELNICKI

      Recent headline: ACLU opposes the Collins bill because because the federal watchlists are unreliable, based on vague and overbroad criterion, and deny due process.

  11. John Eyles

    Sorry can’t delete duplicate comments, or one with broken link.

  12. John Eyles

    According to John Oliver, the NRA is not that big (“fewer members than Planet Fitness :-)” Their great power comes from their incredible discipline: they make phone calls to their representatives in unprecedented numbers. So the real blame is on people like us, who favor common sense gun laws like “no fly, no buy”, but don’t make enough phone calls.

    I tried to link this video, but it has to be watched AT youtube. So I guess just paste this into a browser URL bar, but change the first part first:
    www-DOT-youtube-DOT-com-SLASH-watch?v=EtTHzegMWA0&t=2m43s

  13. John Eyles

    According to John Oliver, the NRA is not that big (“fewer members than Planet Fitness :-)” Their great power comes from their incredible discipline: they make phone calls to their representatives in unprecedented numbers. So the real blame is on people like us, who favor common sense gun laws like “no fly, no buy”, but don’t make enough phone calls.

    I tried to link this video, but it has to be watched AT youtube. So I guess just paste this into a browser URL bar, but change the first part first:
    www-DOT-youtube-DOT-com-SLASH-watch?v=EtTHzegMWA0&t=2m43s

  14. John Eyles

    According to John Oliver, the NRA is not that big (“fewer members than Planet Fitness :-)” Their great power comes from their incredible discipline: they make phone calls to their representatives in unprecedented numbers. So the real blame is on people like us, who favor common sense gun laws like “no fly, no buy”, but don’t make enough phone calls.

  15. Progressive Wing

    All true.
    Thanks for telling it like it is.
    If only our cowardly, selfish and uncaring elected officials would listen.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!