It's Time

I'm trying to gauge the pathos in a year with 298 mass shootings, especially when only 247 days of that year have passed. Any idiot capable of inhaling and exhaling without a prompt could see it for the horror it is.

But there are special kinds of idiots aligned with the NRA, and one of the most prominent is Mitch McConnell.

The witless lap dog of Donald Trump, the senator from Kentucky resembles not so much a freely-elected representative to the United States Senate, but actor Lincoln Perry's Stephin Fetchit character, a bumbling, eternally fearful man terrified of upsetting the boss man.

Like Perry's character, McConnell is scared shitless of his boss. That's why he makes no statements without first clearing them with the Trump-whore.

After Wal-Mart grew a pair and decided to apply even a moderate amount of pressure to the gun-control brake pedal by refusing to sell ammunition for assault weapons and hand guns, Mitch couldn't comment. “Oh no. I have to check and see with the boss first.”

Translated, this means I need to know what he thinks before I know what I think.

Of course the NRA, in its time-honored myopic fashion, lambasted Wal-Mart for caving to the so-called gun control 'elites' and potentially compromising the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Gosh.

Is there anyone among us—anyone at all—who believes that tens of thousands should be fatally shot or wounded every year in service of the Second Amendment?

That's what I thought.

The NRA opposes each and every piece of gun-control legislation, no matter how sensible or respectful it is of “law-abiding” gun owners. The NRA's vocabulary consists of but a single word: no.

And for decades, we have accepted that.

What we have to show for our compliance is a country with more guns than people. A country where the paranoid, the disenfranchised and the mentally ill can amass weapons stores capable of hideous acts of mass murder. A country where anyone is able to buy any kind of gun they want because anything less is a violation of the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

It's time for the rest of us to land a gut punch to the NRA.

In the early-nineteen-eighties, when drunk driving became a recognized social problem, legislators didn't hem and haw about pending legislation, fearful of reprisals from liquor manufacturers and their lobbyists.

No. They went ahead and did the morally-responsible thing. In the face of a mounting public slaughter, they increased awareness of the toxic effects of drinking and driving and dramatically increased the penalties for those who continued to violate drunk driving statutes.

No one gave a second thought to the impact on “law-abiding” drinkers. Simply put, the greater good was served.

That isn't the case with gun violence. The NRA has made it crystal clear they are comfortable with any amount of collateral damage, so long as the rights of “law-abiding” gun owners are protected.

I cannot overstate this: the NRA refuses any and all efforts at gun reform. In other words, they are okay with Odessa and El Paso and Dayton and Gilroy. You get that, right?

This is why Democrats need to stop playing nice. They need to stop being respectful of “law-abiding” gun owners and act on the realities of 2019 America.

America is a shooting gallery. A place where anyone—no matter the state of their mental health or personal inclinations—can buy an assault weapon and wage war on whoever happens to be around.

And again—the NRA is fine with that.

Can't get laid? Got fired? Spouse got custody of the kids? Thanks to the NRA, you can go out and purchase an assault weapon and seek (real or imagined) revenge with no more effort than squeezing a trigger.

And again—the NRA is fine with that.

Is it okay with you?

Representatives and Senators are refereed to as elected representation because they are elected to represent people from a specific geographic area. It is presumed they will act on the wishes of that electorate. And yet, I don't recall the electorate expressing a preference for inaction on gun control in a very, very long time, if ever.

And yet that is exactly what we have.

A two-thirds majority has consistently desired stronger gun-control legislation and deeper background checks in the face of our mounting carnage. But the NRA's hold on Republicans is stronger than ours.

Let's be clear: if you vote Republican, you are endorsing gun violence.

Vote Democrat, and perhaps one of these options might see the light of day:

Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. When gun manufacturers are held accountable for the carnage they enable, I'm guessing they'll develop a sudden interest in developing safer weapons and meeting gun-safety activists half-way than hiding behind the sneering petulance of the NRA.

Tax guns and ammunition the way we do alcohol and tobacco. We now understand the latter two are responsible for an inordinate amount of public expense due to the destructive and easily abused nature of these products.

Guns are no different. Let users pay for the carnage that goes hand in hand with our over-abundance of firearms.

Let's mount a gun buyback. This would be hideously expensive due to a quarter-century of Republican largesse, but it was hugely successful in Australia, and as a result suicides and fatal domestic disputes dropped dramatically.

Of course, Australia isn't burdened by the likes of the NRA, who would no doubt oppose a drop in suicides and fatal domestic disputes.

We've done it the Republican (er, NRA) way. This is what we have as a result. We really need to try something different, like steering around the iceberg.

Republicans prefer an 'A' from the National Rifle Association over your safety and your entirely-reasonable desire not to die while attending a concert, a festival, school, church or work. Or while sitting on your porch, in a parked car or while waiting for a bus.

We can cut off the head of the gun monster and begin to work back towards making America a safer place to live.

Or we can vote Republican.