Florida echo~ National Rifle Association's lobbyist pay for influence
A Pensacola Florida opinion explains how Senator Marco Rubio continues to support the agenda of the National Rifle Association (NRA), even after two mass gun violence slaughters have killed and irreparably harmed his Florida's constituents. (Pulse Nightclub in Orlando FL June 12, 2016, where 50 people were killed and 58 injured; and the February 14, 2018, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School slaughter, where 17 children were killed by a gunman.) This carnage is enabled by lobbyists who buy influence.
Opinion echo from a letter written by Patricia Edmisten and originally published in the Pensacola News Journal
PENSACOLA, Fl ~ On Valentine’s Day, 2018, a sick young man took 17 innocent lives at Parkland High School. Surviving students plead with legislators to stand up to the NRA and do the right thing by banning assault weapons.
Femme Fatale, Marian Hammer, who ably represents the NRA in Florida, is a powerful lobbyist. She monitors legislators who depart from her talking points and the bills she helps to write on gun laws. Our legislators have sold their souls for an A-plus (MaineWriter~ but deserving of an F- public rating) NRA rating and funding from Ms. Hammer’s handlers. Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, who received $3.3 million from the NRA, is also opposed to any ban on assault weapons. Nationally, the NRA just convinced Mr. Trump to reverse his gut impulse to call for a ban on assault weapons sales and a registration tax on ownership.
Article II of the Constitutional Amendments reads “…a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” qualifies the first clause, “a well regulated Militia” And so it was understood until 2008, when, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court established an “individual rights” interpretation. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S 570 (2008). Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (Commentary, http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/).
 |
| Enough is Enough! |
PENSACOLA, Fl ~ On Valentine’s Day, 2018, a sick young man took 17 innocent lives at Parkland High School. Surviving students plead with legislators to stand up to the NRA and do the right thing by banning assault weapons.
Femme Fatale, Marian Hammer, who ably represents the NRA in Florida, is a powerful lobbyist. She monitors legislators who depart from her talking points and the bills she helps to write on gun laws. Our legislators have sold their souls for an A-plus (MaineWriter~ but deserving of an F- public rating) NRA rating and funding from Ms. Hammer’s handlers. Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, who received $3.3 million from the NRA, is also opposed to any ban on assault weapons. Nationally, the NRA just convinced Mr. Trump to reverse his gut impulse to call for a ban on assault weapons sales and a registration tax on ownership.
Article II of the Constitutional Amendments reads “…a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” qualifies the first clause, “a well regulated Militia” And so it was understood until 2008, when, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court established an “individual rights” interpretation. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S 570 (2008). Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (Commentary, http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/).
In fact, the Supreme Court stressed that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to restriction, that protected arms are those used “for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Before and during the American Revolution, the United States had no standing army. To win independence the colonies required militias comprised of ordinary men, many of them farmers, who knew how to use a pistol, musket, or rifle. (Muskets relied on a flintlock, spark, gunpowder, and lead. They were fired from the shoulder and could only be fired four times a minute by a trained soldier.) The militias were subject to local control.
The majority of Americans want reasonable restrictions on guns. The banning of assault weapons and the requirement of universal background checks are not the first steps in a movement to deprive citizens of the weapons they keep for legitimate purposes, such as hunting and self-defense. My husband grew up on a North Carolina farm. Guns were a normal part of family life because they were used to bring home game for the table. No one, however, used anything more powerful than a 12-gauge shotgun.
Psychological screening of individuals who pose a threat to themselves and others is not a science. While desirable, it is magical thinking to believe that mental health professionals will be able to catch every instance of aberrant, violent thinking or behavior that may or may not lead to actual violence.
Before and during the American Revolution, the United States had no standing army. To win independence the colonies required militias comprised of ordinary men, many of them farmers, who knew how to use a pistol, musket, or rifle. (Muskets relied on a flintlock, spark, gunpowder, and lead. They were fired from the shoulder and could only be fired four times a minute by a trained soldier.) The militias were subject to local control.
The majority of Americans want reasonable restrictions on guns. The banning of assault weapons and the requirement of universal background checks are not the first steps in a movement to deprive citizens of the weapons they keep for legitimate purposes, such as hunting and self-defense. My husband grew up on a North Carolina farm. Guns were a normal part of family life because they were used to bring home game for the table. No one, however, used anything more powerful than a 12-gauge shotgun.
Psychological screening of individuals who pose a threat to themselves and others is not a science. While desirable, it is magical thinking to believe that mental health professionals will be able to catch every instance of aberrant, violent thinking or behavior that may or may not lead to actual violence.
Moreover, the arming of teachers is a dangerous and ludicrous decision that will undermine students’ relationships with teachers and further endanger them. While an armed school officer might lessen the carnage, it’s likely that he or she would be among the first eliminated. And even if the FBI and every local sheriff’s department acts precisely as they should, there is only one sure way to make mass killings less likely. We must accept reasonable restrictions upon gun ownership. Let’s start by requiring universal background checks and ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines. And to those legislators who continue to carry water for the NRA, I say grow a spine.
Patricia Edmisten is retired from the University of West Florida where she taught sociological foundations of education and served as director of the office of International Education and Programs.
Patricia Edmisten is retired from the University of West Florida where she taught sociological foundations of education and served as director of the office of International Education and Programs.
Labels: enough is enough, March for our lives, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, National Rifle Association, NRA, Orlando Florida, Patricia Edmisten, Pensacola New Journal, Pulse Nightclub
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home