After the Senate blocked gun control measures brought up by the Sandy Hook shooting, the nation's quest for gun control solutions abrubtly came to a halt. Every single measure brought up fell below the necessary sixty votes, with regulations on gun trafficking coming the closest at fifty-eight to forty-two. The series of proposals ranged from expanding the national gun background check to broadening veteran's gun rights to banning high-capacity magazines. The results of today created much controversy, disappointment, and even shame on various levels.
Families directly linked to the Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. shootings responded with much disappointment and even anger to today's happenings. Lori Haas and Patricia Maisch, both victims from preventable gun massacres in Virginia Tech and Arizona respecively, shouted together, "shame on you!" The President himself stated that today was "a pretty shameful day for Washington.”
Those who opposed the legislation justified their decisions based on that they made the logical decision, and that passions and emotions held no place in the area of policy making.
Faced with the decisions of either cutting necessary gun control restrictions or proceeding to starting a fillibuster next week, it has been decided that the whole package would be put on hold. For now, it seems that there will be little progress made, as traction on this case grows weaker.
With the defeat in the Senate today, do you think the movement for regulating gun control will make any progress int he upcoming years? What do you think of what went down today? Do you think the result was justified?
Read more here.
3 comments:
Like the article states, if Congress votes against something that 90% of Americans want, the American people aren't going to forget about that. This makes one question, how accurate does Congress depict the American population, the American citizens? I find Congress's decision very surprising as it seems to portray a lack of response to the many shootings victimizing not only adults but also many many children and students. I think this is a good example of the pluralist theory of policy making as the National Rifle Association had a larger impact on Congress's decision than public opinion did. As a result, I do not think the result was justified.
I'd like to second what Jaehee stated in that 90% of Americans were in support of these laws. In fact, a majority of Senate members voted to approve this bill. I agree with Obama's comment that this was a "shameful day for Washington," and I think that this is a testament to the general inaffective state of the legislature as of late. This may also point to a need for filibuster reform--if the Senate can halt a bill as promising and well-supported as this one, what can we come to expect in the future? After watching Obama's speech on the matter (I watched it here: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/51575367#51575367), I agree with his statement that we as a people need to petition our Senators and make a stand that this was not an acceptable decision by the Senate. The Senate is meant to represent the people, not the NRA.
I find something inherently wrong with the concept that "emotions" have no place in policy-making. On a basic level, I unerstand that a certain level of objectivity is necessary in the process of developing policies. However, moral rightiousness, and the emotions that are an inevitable part of it, should definitely be taken into account. A policy cannot be successful if it ignores all emotional attachments, addressing issues on a completely primitive level. Additionally, the argument that the legislation was opposed based on "logic" is, well, not a valid argument. My defintion of logic is certainly not the same as that of these people.
Post a Comment