I Read Each of the Anti-Background Check Senators' Statements And Tweeted My Responses

No law is perfect, and there is no absolute solution, simply mitigation. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill people. Take guns out of the equation, and it's harder. Make it harder to get guns, and it's harder. Let's just make it harder.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Huffington Post put up this list of the senators who voted against the gun background check bill yesterday.

I actually went through this entire list. I went to every one of their Twitter feeds and read each of their statements. And not one of them had a legitimate, rational reason to vote no. Many of them had no comment, and three of them simply stated that they voted with each other. All of the statements were sleight of hand rhetoric about what the law could become, not what it is.

I tweeted each one of them what I thought of their statements. If you're interested or would like to re-tweet, you can see it on my Twitter page. I also had some meaningful interactions with defending responders -- all civil -- and in each one we elaborated upon our opinions and in each one came to terms.

In regard to the senators' statements:

Many of them complained about unimportant and always undefined flaws in the law. No law is perfect, and there is no absolute solution, simply mitigation. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill people. Take guns out of the equation, and it's harder. Make it harder to get guns, and it's harder. Let's just make it harder.

Many of them said they're protecting the second amendment, and this law could lead to a slippery slope to full gun control. That's ridiculous. You vote on a law, not what it could become. Comparing this law to full gun control is like saying DUI laws will lead to prohibition. And because the constitution is well over years old, we have to interpret its spirit, not read it literally. Just like the Bible, which is a dear issue to these senators' constituents. We don't ignore the Bible because it suggests the world is flat, and we shouldn't ignore the spirit of the Bill of Rights because our forefathers didn't have the foresight to regulate a world with Bushmasters.

Not one of these senators addressed the fact that this law still makes it perfectly legal for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns. One of them actually had the nerve to complain that the law makes it "inconvenient." Another one said it would require too much paperwork.

One "tweep" responded to me that the senators serve their constituents -- specifically, this was in response to Sen. Alexander in TN. I had a good conversation with the guy, and I saw his point. I don't know polls in TN are truly against this law, and if they are, his vote is justified. My position is that laws aren't popularity contests -- if they were, marijuana and gay marriage would be legal and there probably wouldn't be speed limits. Laws are in place to protect us.

These senators protected their NRA-funded war chests against the safety of our children. And I told them what I thought. Just one man's opinion. I'm a husband and a father and, luckily, the nationwide problem hasn't touched home for me, and I hope it hasn't and won't for you. Whatever your choice, I respect it. And you might wanna tell these guys what you think too -- either way -- especially if they're your representative.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot