Commercial appeal
by Lori Barrett | April 17, 2008 at 8:36 am
Posted in baltimore crime, baltimore news, baltimore politics
Mayor Sheila Dixon is starring in a new television commercial, which I was lucky enough to catch during the 11-o’clock news last night. Otherwise I may not have known it even existed.
It was late when I first saw the ad, and I didn’t quite understand its purpose. It doesn’t push one presidential candidate over another. Rather, it features all of them and stresses bipartisanship. If all three candidates are in support of closing the “gun-show loophole,” what’s the problem, right? I can’t imagine there are any eligible voters (i.e., people without a felony record) who want illegal guns in the hands of criminals. Then it occurred to me. The NRA.
Spending five minutes on the NRA’s website (most of which was an attempt to navigate through it) made me realize why this commercial is running on television. Let me preface this by saying I don’t hate guns — when they’re in the correct hands. However, some of the NRA’s viewpoints are really taken to the extreme.
For instance, the NRA believes that Wal-Mart’s new policy of videotaping every firearm purchase is akin to harassment, because buying a gun is no different than buying prescription medication. Also, that it’s probably making Sam Walton roll over in his grave. (No permalink, sorry. Just look in the archives of “Wayne LaPierre: What They Didn’t Tell You Today” for the April 16 post.)
The right to carry was discussed a bit yesterday, but is anyone honestly against more thorough background checks to gun buyers? I know most criminals aren’t walking into Wal-Mart to buy a piece, but the extra step can’t hurt anyone, as I see it.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
the NRA has done a lot more to protect my rights than the ACLU
April 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
I think your point about is anybody against more regulation of guns is naive. You don't like guns so you're not bothered by more regulation. You like blogging. What if you had to purchase a government license to exercise your free speech rights? How about having your webcam and laser jet printer purchases being videotaped to ensure that you weren't using them for subversive purposes? It's the same thing.
For all you folks who hate "no-fly lists" and other security measures to prevent terrorism your brand of free thinking includes dumping licensing and other restrictions on a freedom granted in the Bill of Rights. If we're going to have more restrictions let's make it apply to everyone. Register your religion with the government. Put CCTC cameras at the entries to mosques, synagogues and churches. Register computers and IP addresses for so-called "journalist" bloggers. Have yearly inspections of homes to ensure that your privacy license is still valid. Be consistent - that's all I'm saying.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
The fact of the matter is guns kill people, blogs do not. So to even try and make the comparison is ridiculous. The majority of people that legally buy guns do so to protect themselves not to purposefully harm others (I hope) so it shouldn't matter if there is one more step in the regulation process.
This argument is better compared to legalizing drugs. They too can be harmful, so if to legalize them wouldn't you want to make sure that the are being used for the right purposes?
April 17th, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
Hmmm...So, buying guns and buying webcams and laser jet printers is the same thing? When was the last time you read of a drive-by webcam attack? Have you ever seen a news item on a murder-suicide by laser jet printer.
Let's face it, guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands. If you are a gun enthusiast, and you have a clean record, you should have no problems. The right to bear arms is given to us in the Bill of Rights. But remember that Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that we have certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness. All three of these can be taken away from us with the pull of a trigger.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
people kill people. apparently blogs don't do anything.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
@finalrevolt: You're right; people kill people. But the primary method for one person to kill another is with a gun.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:10 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
Stephen,
The primary method for one person to kill another is with a gun. I agree with you there. But just because teen-agers are the most deadly drivers doesn't mean that we should pull cars from them. I don't believe government intervention makes people responsible. In fact I think it does just the opposite. Which is why I find more regulations on our 2nd amendment appalling and a stepping stone to even worse things.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
@finalrevolt: Teenagers are the most dangerous drivers on the road; that's why their driving privileges are highly restricted. While I'm not advocating that responsible gun owners should be treated like minors, I don't think it's unfair to say that guns--like automobiles--come with a certain amount of lethality. You're right that it's not possible to legislate our way to responsible citizens, but we can try to hold irresponsible people accountable any way we can.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
I'd say in court but you'd probably be against criminal punishment.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:48 am | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
Consider this.
We're likely the only creatures in the universe (I'll let spacemen argue me on that point) who have developed industry, technology and science to where we can construct guns, ammunition, and then use the said items to kill other creatures.
Yet by the same token we're also probably the only creatures in the universe who can individually choose NOT to do so. Owning a gun doesn't make one a killer.
For some amusement, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html
April 19th, 2008 at 7:16 am | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
It's been said before, but the majority of people who commit crimes with guns don't get the guns legally anyway. The law may make it difficult for them to walk into Walmart, but they find an alternative. It makes it more difficult for the people who want to protect their families. So many citizens who would use guns responsibly won't bother with the hassle.
The solution for everything seems to be to pass more laws about it as the first resort. From file sharing to guns. If our government could only spend more of this time and money and legal power investing in education, more people in society would have a social and moral understanding of how to deal with these issues. I think a large number of laws could have been solved in other less severe ways.
And the NRA? Like many lobbying organizations, they are extraordinarily extreme. I don't think they represent the gun control debate any more than the criminals do. The discussion could go on and on