Tag Archives: gun violence

Compromise = good legislation

For as long as I have been studying politics and government — which predates my college years in the 1970s — I have accepted a fundamental truth about effective governance.

No one should expect to get everything they want or require, that compromise is an essential part of what I call “good government.”

Thus, the legislation on gun reform that has won U.S. Senate endorsements from both sides of the great divide, while not perfect, is as good as we can expect to get from the current, sharply divided legislative body.

I am particularly intrigued by Republican opposition to the bill from the likes of Ted Cruz of Texas, from those who contend that it does too much, that it is too restrictive of Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. On the other side we hear yammering from progressives that the legislation doesn’t go far enough, that it should contain provisions banning assault weapons and should increase the minimum age of those who want to purchase a firearm.

There once was a time when I was a young ideologue who wanted legislators to see everything my way. Then I got older and, presumably, a bit wiser about how the real world functions.

I have a wish list of items I want to see enacted in legislation that seeks to reduce gun violence. The “red flag law” contained in the current bill is a good start; so are background checks for younger purchasers of firearms. I can live with it and I want it all to become law.

It has been many decades since Congress has gotten off its a** and done something, anything, to deal with this gun violence crisis.

Thus, I will endorse what Senate negotiators have pieced together. I pray it’s just a start. That they hammered this deal out gives me hope.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Compromise can work

Ted Cruz keeps demonstrating why he is such a loathsome politician, suggesting repeatedly why it’s better in his sick mind to go down on principle rather than seeking common ground.

The Texas Republican junior U.S. senator was one of 34 GOP senators to vote “no” on a bill crafted in part by his Texas Republican colleague, John Cornyn.

Cornyn was the lead GOP negotiator on a bipartisan effort to seek legislative remedy to the gun violence that continues to break our hearts, such as what happened not long ago in Uvalde.

OK, the bill ain’t perfect. It’s a start, though, toward curbing violent outbursts.

The National Rifle Association, naturally, has condemned the effort. The NRA doesn’t want anyone to mess around with what it says are constitutional guarantees of firearm ownership. Except that the bill doesn’t stop law-abiding Americans from owning a firearm. Ted Cruz is in the NRA’s hip pocket.

The Texas Tribune reports: The legislation does not restrict any rights of existing gun owners — a nonstarter for Senate Republicans. Instead, it would enhance background checks for gun purchasers younger than 21; make it easier to remove guns from people threatening to kill themselves or others, as well as people who have committed domestic violence; clarify who needs to register as a federal firearms dealer; and crack down on illegal gun trafficking, including so-called straw purchases, which occur when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person to execute the paperwork to buy on their behalf.

U.S. Senate advances bipartisan gun legislation backed by Cornyn | The Texas Tribune

Is this the stuff of radicalism? Hardly. It’s a reasonable start.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Gun deal appears done

U.S. Senate Democrats and Republicans have come together to approve a deal that takes some important baby steps toward curbing the gun violence that has claimed so many innocent lives.

It isn’t the perfect deal. Then again, as the saying goes, senators sought to avoid letting “perfection become the enemy of the good.”

The package does a number of good things. As the Detroit News reports: The legislation would toughen background checks for the youngest firearms buyers, require more sellers to conduct background checks and beef up penalties on gun traffickers. It also would disburse money to states and communities aimed at improving school safety and mental health initiatives.

It isn’t perfect. I would have liked to see increasing minimum age requirements for buying firearms and strengthened universal background checks.

However, what has come out of the Senate deal negotiated by a bipartisan group of lawmakers is better than what we had already.

Which was nothing.

President Biden is going to sign the bill when it arrives in the Oval Office. The proposed legislation isn’t all that he wanted, either. However, he served long enough in the Senate to understand that compromise at times is the only way to achieve important goals.

Progressives want more legislative remedies. Archconservatives want nothing done. Neither extreme is correct.

The best answer lies in the vast middle ground. Senate negotiators have cobbled together a decent start on the quest to restore sanity in a nation plagued by senseless gun violence.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Uvalde cops are stonewalling

The term “stonewalling” became known to Americans during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s.

We are seeing it play out once again in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman walked into an elementary school and opened fire with an AR-15 rifle. Nineteen precious children and two educators died in the carnage.

Police didn’t respond as they should have to stop the madman. Meanwhile, the families of the victims are horrified because they don’t yet know what happened. Nor will they learn the truth if police and politicians have their way.

Stonewalling remains the tool of those who seek to cover up the truth, to withhold it from the public that has every right on Earth to demand it from those who know it.

However, we are not getting the truth.

Were there cops in the building? Did the Uvalde school district police chief — Pete Arredondo — know he was in charge of the response, and why did he wait so damn long before taking action?

We need the truth! We need it now!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

How does town recover?

I continue to grapple emotionally with the tragedy that has cloaked Uvalde, Texas, the site of the hideous slaughter of 19 fourth-grade children and two teachers.

Twenty-one innocent victims lost their lives to a madman.

What seems to give this story an extra dose of pain is the reporting about the tightly knit nature of the city of 15,000 residents.

We heard in the immediate aftermath of the massacre at Robb Elementary School that the entire town seems to know someone involved in the school, and how the entire community is feeling a sort of visceral pain as a result of the madness.

Yes, there remain questions about the police response, the horrifying length of time it took for officers to storm the structure and engage the shooter. The Uvalde school district police chief, Pete Arredondo, is still perched on the hot seat and for the life of me I am puzzled as to why the school board hasn’t gotten rid of the chief.

But the pain still throbs as it emanates from Uvalde.

The Uvalde Independent School District is going to tear down the school that is the site of the massacre. That won’t eliminate the intense pain being felt in a community that, I fear, is going to remind everyone who hears its name will think first of senseless gun violence.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

A deal on guns … finally

Let me be clear: The deal in principle by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators doesn’t go nearly far enough to curb gun violence.

But … it is a baby-step start.

The Texas Tribune reports on the deal announced today: The tentative deal includes a mix of modest gun control proposals and funding for mental health. It would incentivize states to pass “red flag” laws, which are designed to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others; boost funding for mental health services, telehealth resources and more school security; permit juvenile records to be incorporated into background checks for purchasers under the age of 21 and crack down on the straw purchase and trafficking of guns.

Deal on post-Uvalde shooting gun legislation reached in Senate | The Texas Tribune

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the senior Texas Republican, is part of the senatorial team that hammered out the deal.

My own preference would have been to ban assault rifles, raise the minimum age requirements for purchasing firearms from 18 to 21 years of age and launch comprehensive universal background checks for every purchase.

That won’t come forward. House of Representatives Democrats want more. They’re likely to resist what the Senate is pitching.

I am not going to dig in just yet against this plan, which is good remember is just a deal in principle.

However, it is more than we got after Sandy Hook, after Columbine, after Las Vegas, after Sutherland Hills, Aurora, El Paso or Parkland.

Uvalde and Buffalo proved to be the catalyst to provide something.

It is far from ideal. However, I am going to accept it as possibly the beginning of a march toward more meaningful reform to end the gun violence that is killing too many innocent Americans.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Is this the tipping point?

U.S. senators from both parties are actually saying something few of us thought possible, which is that there might be some legislation coming forward that could impose some limits on gun purchases.

A gunman killed 10 shoppers at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y. Then just a few days later another gunman slaughtered 19 fourth-graders and two teachers.

Americans have taken to the streets in protest. They are demanding something be done. President Biden has joined the chorus for gun reform.

Republicans in the Senate aren’t budging on a couple of key points: raising the age limit to purchase a firearm and extended universal background checks.

But … there appears to be some movement. Something might come forth. There could be a “red flag law” enacted allowing states to withhold possession of a firearm if a buyer comes up suspicious.

I guess I am heartened only a little by the apparent change of heart among some lawmakers. Get a load of this: Some Republican senators, such as Mitt Romney of Utah, said he now supports raising the age limit from 18 to 21 years of age to buy a firearm.

I won’t call this a tipping point. Indeed, many of us thought that the Sandy Hook Elementary School (Conn.) tragedy a decade ago — when 20 second-graders and six teachers were massacred — would have spurred some action. It didn’t.

Some in the Senate, naturally, are blaming reformers of “politicizing” events such as Buffalo and Uvalde. What an utter crock! Their refusal to act in the wake of this senseless violence in itself is a highly political demonstration. Therefore, they can cease the “politicization” argument … OK?

A little bit of movement, though, toward a legislative remedy — no matter how timid — is far better than what we’ve had so far. It gives me a glimmer of hope.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Politics outshines politicians

I long have believed that politics is a noble profession, in that it is designed to serve the public, to do the public’s bidding. We pay for public policy decisions with our money, so those who enact that policy are doing noble work.

Except for this reality.

Politicians too often do not stand up under the standard set by their chosen profession.

I read in the Washington Post, for example, that U.S. senators say that a deal is within reach that would seek to curb gun violence in this country. However, what emerges from the Senate conference rooms will not contain all of the things on President Biden’s wish list. Therein lies the meaning of what I am suggesting.

The president — a lifelong politician, to be sure — has implored Congress to “do something” in the wake of the Uvalde school slaughter of those 19 precious children and two of their teachers. “Enough is enough,” he said the other evening.

Politicians heard him. Some of them ignored his plea because they are too beholden to the money that pours in from those who oppose any legislative remedy to the senseless slaughter. Others applaud the president.

What happens now? Some senators are huddling to find what they will call a solution. It won’t live up to the billing. Yet the politicians who cobble together this alleged remedy will praise themselves for their “bipartisanship.”

Pols do this every couple of years when the latest continuing budget resolution runs out. They take the nation to the brink of fiscal calamity, only to craft another continuing resolution. Oh, and then they slap themselves on the back and tell us all how great they are. They make me sick.

What will it take for politicians to live up to the standard set by the craft they pursue? Just stop playing games … especially now when lives are at stake!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Are we no longer shocked?

The thought occurred to me a little while ago, which is that I cannot remember my reaction to the first incidence of mass slaughter, the first time I heard about a gunman opening fire and killing dozens of innocent victims.

There have been so many of them, it appears I might be hardening somewhat to these tragedies. I do not want to harden my heart.

The Uvalde massacre in Texas has hit me harder, perhaps, than most of the recent events. Nineteen fourth-graders were gunned down along with two of their teachers. President Biden has implored Congress and state legislatures to “do something” to stop the carnage. I have some hope this time that we might get something done, although not nearly enough.

But, my goodness, there have been so many communities linked by these horrific events. There are too many of them even to list. Doing so would likely result in my forgetting one or more of them. They all have broken our hearts.

Abcarian: Endless mass shootings make our outrage dim. We can’t let gun violence harden our hearts (yahoo.com)

It’s just that these events are occurring with such sickening frequency that I fear we’re becoming — odd as it seems — numbed to them.

If left to a choice between frequency and shock value, I would prefer to be shocked.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Waiting for an explanation

My patience is vast and deep … but it does have its limits. Particularly as I await a detailed explanation of how the Second Amendment to our Constitution is imperiled by legislation that mandates background checks for firearm purchase and adjusts the minimum age for buying a gun from 18 to 21 years.

Those two elements appear to be the crux of the debate that is now raging in the wake of the Uvalde school massacre. Our hearts remain shattered over the deaths of those 19 children and two teachers in Robb Elementary School.

The National Rifle Association, as expected, has dug in against any legislative solution to gun violence. The NRA and its Republican beneficiaries in Congress continue to press the idea that the Second Amendment is immune from any legislative action. In other words, anything at all damages the Second Amendment and, by golly, we just can’t have that.

Here I sit in the middle of Flyover Country, in gun-lovin’ Texas wondering out loud: What in the hell is wrong with requiring background checks and raising the age from 18 to 21? 

If someone can pass a background check, they get to purchase a gun. If they are 21 years of age and free of any felony conviction, they can buy a firearm. Law-abiding citizens of this country are in no jeopardy of losing their right to “keep and bear arms.” Period. Full stop!

The right-wing demagogues led by the NRA are continuing to throw out the “Democrats want to disarm Americans” canard. It is wrong. It is a shameful appeal to people’s fear over something that is not going to happen.

Once again, someone will have to explain to me as if I am a 5-year-old how the Second Amendment is put in any danger as a result of common-sense legislative solutions.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com