Filmmaker Michael Moore was on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show on Tuesday, May 24, 2022. It was the day of another senseless mass shooting in the United States. The targets this time were once again school children. Twenty-one people in all killed in the town of Uvalde, Texas.

Moore is clearly for strong gun control legislation, but he didn’t say what so many proponents of gun control frequently say, “I believe in the Second Amendment.”

Instead, Moore pointed out how the Second Amendment has essentially given pro-gun people free license in opposing meaningful gun control. Then Moore raised a fascinating hypothetical question. “What if bullets had not been invented until fifty years after the U.S. constitution was written?”

His point was that gun rights are completely different from any other rights in the constitution. All of the other rights would have been relevant in the times of Greece, or Rome, or really any time. These non-gun rights could easily have stood alone without the Second Amendment.  This doesn’t mean that people could not have had guns once they and bullets were invented. The difference is that there would not have been a constitutional guarantee to be able to purchase and possess guns.

There are many who say that even with the Second Amendment, there is no such guarantee. The wording is thoroughly ambiguous:

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.

It may seem at first that this amendment guarantees people the right to bear arms, but the context is having a well regulated militia. So does the right to bear arms only apply for those who are in a militia (armed forces) or the United States, or can they own guns regardless of whether or not they are in the U.S. military?

This argument is one which America’s gun owners have won. Much as those who favor gun control want immediate new regulations, it appears that it will be years before Congress passes meaningful legislation or the Supreme Court chooses to value public safety above gun rights.

There are numerous reasons why the gun advocates are currently winning this dispute:

1. They own most of the guns, and that frightens many who want to limit gun rights.
2. The roots of the Second Amendment have a great deal to do with slave owners’ rights and needs to hunt down runaway slaves. Creating the constitution required considerable compromise to get southern states to agree to the document. Protecting their control over slaves who were already in the United States was essential to southern states’ acceptance of the constitution. In contemporary American society, many White Americans feel that they need to have guns to protect themselves against Black Americans.
3. Unlike most other democratic countries, the United States has this peculiar institution called states rights. In many cases, the rights of states supersede those of the federal government. For example, the state of Georgia can make a law stating that it is illegal to bring a glass of water to someone standing in line to vote, and currently there is nothing that the federal government can do about it. In the absence of strong federal gun controls, the states pass more “gun rights.”
4. The U.S. Senate favors small and southern states, and those are the states in which gun rights are most deeply cherished. This makes it very difficult to pass meaningful gun control legislation. It might be possible without a filibuster, but that arcane rule is cherished by senators from small states, rural states and southern states.

The United States did not come close to writing a constitution in a time before guns and bullets were invented. The first guns were invented in China in the 10^th Century. Michael Moore was not trying to point out that we almost avoided having the Second Amendment in our Constitution. What he meant is that it is significantly different than any other part of the constitution, and had guns not existed, we would have found a way to agree on the constitution.

It’s one of those “What ifs ….” that keep us thinking. It’s interesting talk, but regrettably, only academic now. Barring some sort of unforeseen circumstances, we’re going to have to live with lightly regulated guns for some time which means that we’ll have more Uvaldes and other mass shootings. The “thoughts and prayers” come easily; meaningful gun control is stymied by the oddity of having the Second Amendment in our Constitution.

The post What if Guns and Bullets Had Not Been Invented Before the Constitution Was Written? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 2021, as summer ebbs into fall, Democrats are concerned with a number of issues, but perhaps most importantly, abortion. It has become a wildcard issue because the Supreme Court has rendered a decision regarding it that neither is supreme nor courtly.

Bullies and cowards often travel together, and that is precisely how Republicans have acted regarding the latest legislation from the hallowed halls of the capitol of Texas. The Lone Star state has enacted the strictest abortion law in the land. Essentially it outlaws any abortion that would be performed approximately six weeks following conception. That’s the bullying part – exercising arbitrary and capricious power to encroach on a basic human right. And, of course, the Republicans chose to place far more restraints on the women of Texas rather than the men. In case you have forgotten, men don’t need abortions.

The cowardice angle is that the state is relieved of any enforcement responsibilities. Rather than have state authorities monitor abortion clinics for alleged crimes, the state “farms out” responsibility for enforcement to the citizens of Texas, or for that matter, the citizens of any other state who might happen to be in Texas. They are empowered to sue any woman in Texas who chooses to have a prohibited abortion.

The “infraction” is not settled in criminal court; rather in civil court where the “apprehender” or bounty hunter can seek to recover as much as $10,000 from a fine levied on the woman seeking the abortion. In further acts of cowardice, the law states that not only can a woman receiving an abortion be sued, but any other person who is “complicit” with her can as well. This could be the receptionist at the abortion clinic, the Uber driver who gives her a lift to the clinic, and any healthcare professional who works or volunteers at the clinic.

Indeed, Americans live in a strange country when the supreme court of the land, operating under the jurisdiction of the world’s oldest and presumed fairest constitution, cannot find one, much less dozens of reasons, to rule this sham of a law unconstitutional.

Almost all conservatives vehemently oppose abortion. Is there anything that draws a similar opposition from progressives?

How about gun control? Just as conservatives see abortion as an issue if life, progressives see unfettered gun rights as a matter of life, and death. Ever since 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States in the Roe v. Wade ruling, conservatives have been successful at chipping away at abortion rights to the point where now in Texas, over 85% of what were legal abortions are now against the law. Dozens of other states are fashioning similarly draconian laws.

During that same forty-eight-year period of time since Roe v. Wade, progressives have been trying to chip away at gun rights in the interest of gun safety. In 1973, Richard Nixon was still hanging on to his presidency with its law and order mantra. The rate of violent crime in the United States was growing rapidly. Conservatives favored stricter laws against gun crimes. Some progressives favored stronger penalties as well, but most wanted to deal with the root of the problem, the presence of guns, legal and illegal, on the streets and in the homes of Americans.

How much progress have progressives made in reducing the number and the of guns in America and the power of the types that are legally permitted? The answer is virtually none. In 1994, with Bill Clinton as president, the Democratic Congress passed a ten-year ban with the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. It did outlaw some powerful weapons, but there was the sunset provision, limiting the restrictions to ten years before the law had to be renewed.

Conservatives were outraged that the bill passed. Less than two months after the bill became law, the first nail was hammered into its coffin as Newt Gingrich and the conservative Republicans took over Congress. By the time that the ten-year life of the bill was over in 2004, Republican George W. Bush was president, and he was in a position to veto any extension of the law. Since that period, gun laws have not been strengthened; they have been weakened.

So, suppose that progressives wanted to counter the strength of guns in America in a fashion similar to what Republicans have done with abortion. If there was to be symmetry in their strategy to what Republicans did, they would choose to not have any have any government agencies or officials involved in enforcing the laws.

Instead, they would set up a bounty system similar to what Texas Republicans have done to curtail abortions. Progressives would pass a law that would enable citizens to monitor the presence of weapons, particularly assault weapons, in the streets, workplaces, schools and homes of America.

That way, progressives could try to be like conservatives and bully their foes. They could establish un-armed posses to travel throughout America, to wherever guns are present. They could courteously go to gun stores, gun shows, bars, gang hideouts and wherever else there might be high concentrations of guns and please ask the owners (legal or illegal) to surrender their weapons in return for a summons to appear in court. This method by progressives to deal with guns would have a parallel construction to how conservatives in Texas are currently dealing with abortions.

Conservatives would be pleased with these parallel laws. All that they would have to do would be to take a picture of a woman about to have an abortion, along with anyone assisting her, and issue a warrant for their arrest. They show up in court and their work is done and they are richer.

Progressives would simply take pictures of people with guns and find a way to serve a warrant on the gun owners and be sure to say ‘please’ when they do so.

This is what conservatives call fair. They can act like bullies and prevent a woman from having control of her body while the other side must forcefully try to confiscate powerful firearms.

Yes, the absurdity is very clear to progressives; not at all to conservatives. This is why conservatives are winning so many of the battles these days. They get to use firearms as their weapon of choice; progressives use a basic right on human reproduction. If you can’t see a power imbalance in this conundrum, look again.

The post Limiting guns vs. limiting abortions: The right wing wins again appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Mitch McConnell, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and most other Republicans are champions when it comes to playing “Kick the can down the road.” You can fill in the blank after the euphemistic six words: “Now is not the time to …” Sometimes they add two more words to make a full sentence, “Now is not the time to play politics.”

The mass shooting in Las Vegas is just another example of avoidance and distraction. The gunman, Stephen Paddock, had over forty rifles. He had an arsenal sufficient to kill nearly sixty people and wound over five hundred. But it’s not the right time to talk about gun control.

Well, I suppose that you could say that if a meteor landed on your head, “now would not be the right time to discuss gravity.” Unlike gun violence, being bopped upside the head by a meteor is not something that is man-made, and it does not require a man-made solution.

When, if ever, do Republicans think that it is the right time to talk about gun control? We all know that this is a specious question, because they never want to talk about. Whether we’re talking about Sandy Hook or the Pulse Nightclub shooting, or Las Vegas, it doesn’t matter. Now is not the time and there never will be a time.

It’s not that different from their views on health care. The myriad of plans that Republicans had to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act all seemed to be missing something. In a word, we’re talking about talking.

Some people think that Senator John McCain’s reasons for opposing the latest versions in the Senate of repeal and replace were minimalist. He did not necessarily say that he opposed the policies presented by his Republican colleagues. Instead, he said that a process was not being followed, a process that involves study, dialogue, deliberations and conversation. He was saying to Mitch McConnell and others, “Now is the time to talk about health care.” That seemed to be too much for his Senate leadership to accept; after all, with health care, we were only talking about one-sixth of the entire American economy.

Republicans are good at playing the news cycles. They know the drill. Something serious happens, the media comes in and covers it with varying degrees of serious consideration followed by what often is a maudlin aftermath. By then, we’re all worn out and ready to move on. And by then, Republicans can be confident that America does not have the appetite to give serious consideration to issues like gun control or health care.

One of the things that we work with students on is “B.S. Detection.” Five-year-olds begin to get the hang of it; by the time that kids are ten, they have a good handle on it. But there seems to be a certain numbing and dumbing nature to much of our education system and Republicans definitely know how to capitalize on that. So, they can say, “now is not the time to …” and they get away with it because not enough of the public sees the B.S. in it. Shame on them; shame on us.

The post Mitch, Sarah, I’m getting antsy. When can we talk gun control? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We’ve all heard the tragic stories about parents who just look away for one distracted second while disaster strikes their helpless toddler. There’s the kid who got into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati zoo, or the children in Texas who drowned while their mother was occupied with her cell phone. When I think about the damage that is being done to our society by the latest evolution of our gun culture, I can sympathize with those parents.

The post Gun crazy: Senator Roy Blunt edition appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A person in New York is less likely to die by a gun (murder, suicide, or accident) than in Missouri. Are the behaviors of a person so divergent according to where they live, or could the differences in gun laws play a part? (I’m a Missourian myself, so I can attest that the state isn’t filled with violent gun-toting miscreants.) This infographic shows a look at all firearm deaths by state and provides a bit of insight as to how easy (or hard) it is to procure a gun there. Infographic found at https://img.njdc.com/media/media/2015/10/05/firearm-mainchart-oct5-3.png

The post Infographic: A look at gun deaths and permits appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Numbers tell stories. Based on statistics from 2010, 24/7 Wall St. ranked Missouri eighth for overall gun violence. Missouri had 14 gun injury deaths per each 100,000 people – only 11 states had a higher rate: Louisiana (19.2); Alabama (16.2); Mississippi (16.1); Montana (15.4); Wyoming (15.1); New Mexico (14.9); Nevada (14.5);Arizona (14.6); Arkansas and Oklahoma (14.4); West Virginia (14.1).

The story these numbers tell isn’t surprising. Almost all of these states are poor, Southern or Western and deep red or getting redder. Missouri isn’t quite as poor or – maybe – as red as some, but given the inclinations of the Republicans who run our legislature, we’ll soon be charter members of the hard-scrabble, hand-to-mouth, red-state contingent. (You want to see what red-state economic theory does in action, read abut the Kansas experiment – which our own GOPers are eager to emulate).

This is true when it comes to rational gun policy as well. Like Missouri, none of the states listed above require permits to purchase handguns or, for that matter, most other types of guns. In Missouri, under the rubric of an almost universally misunderstood 2nd amendment, the good ol’ boys in the state legislature take turns trying to see who can introduce the most extreme laws to deregulate gun ownership. Governor Jay Nixon just vetoed this year’s iteration, Senate Bill 656, which would have “forced Missouri cities to allow teenagers to carry loaded firearms in public, would have allowed school districts to arm teachers, and would have made it impossible for parents to find out if someone is carrying a concealed firearm in their children’s classrooms.”

The bill would also have denied local jurisdictions their current right to forbid open carry which, in the absence of local restrictions, is legal for those who hold a concealed carry permit. Gun religionists claim with – some justification – that a patchwork of local laws can lead to confusion, but more often they just repeat the 2nd amendment mantra and scoff at the fearful reaction that most sane people have when they see guns casually displayed in a commercial setting, often taking major umbrage at what they characterize as “the indoctrinated response in America” to notify the police when folks are scared. I suppose the unindoctrinated response to fear would be to pull out your own gun and start shooting. Somehow, it doesn’t strike me as preferable.

Just for funsies, take a look at this trio who were arrested in Cape Girardeau while wandering around a mall sporting holstered handguns. These folks look basically normal if a bit on the hard side and they may be pussycats once one gets to know them, but if I met any of them (including the baby gunsel) in the aisle of a local store with guns on their hips, I’d quickly go the other way and call the police asap. Better safe than sorry. I’ve seen Natural Born Killers – and those folks were downright pretty. There’s something about a carrying a gun in a non-threatening, non-sporting environment that brands the mildest seeming folks as paranoid fools.

You want to get an idea about who belongs to the Missouri gun culture, just note the reaction of some citizens of Lake Ozark when the city recently decided to prohibit open carry in the interest of not scaring away tourists, the main source of local prosperity:

The city should not be treading on the Second Amendment for any reason, said Alderwoman Betsey Browning, who voted against the ordinance. “There are bad people in the world, and by golly if I need a gun I’m going to have a firearm at my side or in my purse,” Browning said. “I’m absolutely against this.”Audience member Gail Maeder was even more direct.

“Just because somebody felt scared is not a good enough reason to pass an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment,” she said.

Now I would be interested in just how Alderwoman Browning knows that she is surrounded by so  many bad people that she has to go armed, what criteria she employs to recognize them so that she can shoot them, and when or if she ever actually encounters an aggressive bad person, I wonder whether said bad person’s badness will have been enhanced by the ready availability of guns just like that carried by the alderwoman. I seem to read of a constant stream of innocent people who are mistakenly shot when people like Alderwoman Browning get themselves worked up (see, for instance,  here). And guess what else happens in states with lots of guns:

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

Makes you feel real secure knowing that Alderwoman Browning has that gun, doesn’t it?

I ask you, do you want these folks, with their rigid, comic-strip understanding of the 2nd amendment coupled with their total lack of respect for others running around playing at being tough guys and gals in public places, not to mention dictating decisions about perfectly legal, 2nd amendment-compatible restrictions of gun ownership? Thanks to Governor Nixon, and barring an override of his veto, we have staved off the flood of gun craziness for one more year – or to put it more accurately, it won’t get any crazier than it is now – but unless something changes in Jefferson City, that may not continue to be the case and Missourians could find themselves regularly taking shelter from myriad shoot-outs of the O.K. Corral variety.

The post Gun culture: Missouri-style appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As reported by Think Progress: Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) just signed a law former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-AZ) organization described as “the most extreme gun bill in America.”

The new law allows guns in bars, churches, nightclubs and libraries. It eliminates criminal charges against people who accidentally bring guns into airports or other buildings where guns are prohibited. It expands Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law so that felons may invoke this defense. And it permits certain schoolteachers and administrators to carry firearms inside their schools.

The new law is actually more moderate than an earlier draft of the legislation, which would have limited the punishment for carrying a gun on college campuses and which did not include a provision requiring people who want to bring a gun to worship services to obtain permission to do so. Nevertheless, the bill demonstrates how rapidly gun politics shifted to the right in Georgia. Last year, a less comprehensive bill allowing guns in bars and places of worship passed the Georgia house but failed to clear the state senate.

The provision authorizing guns in bars is especially likely to result in an uptick of violence. According to Washington State University Sociology Professor Jennifer Schwartz, “40% of male [homicide] offenders were drinking alcohol at the time” of their offense, and about one in three female offenders were also drinking.

Guns in airports. Guns in bars. In what universe do these provisions promote safety? And, by the way, it’s my understanding that Georgia state lawmakers, while putting virtually everybody else in harm’s way, made sure to protect themselves by not allowing guns on the floor of their own workplace– the state legislature.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of extreme legislation that, once passed in one state, tends to get passed around–often by ALEC. That’s exactly what happened after Florida passed its “Stand Your Ground” law. Stay vigilant.

The post Georgia’s new “guns everywhere” law: A new low appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“It’s an uphill battle. It’ll never pass.” That’s what is being said about legislation that would ban military style assault weapons. Yet, as I listened to the testimony of Neil Heslin whose 6-year-old son was one of 20 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I can’t accept this conventional wisdom.

Sandy Hook is a turning point. Too many lives have been taken by gunmen using weapons whose only purpose is to kill many people in mere minutes. Newtown is not going to “blow over” as the NRA has stated.

Heslin spoke tearfully at a Senate committee hearing on Feb. 27. “Jesse was the love of my life. He was the only family I have left. It’s hard for me to be here today, talking about my deceased son.” But he added, “I have to. I’m his voice. I’m not here for the sympathy. … I’m here to speak up for my son.

“There are many changes that have to happen to make a change effective. Mental health issues, better background checks, bans on these weapons, bans on high capacity magazines – they all have to come together and they all have to work effectively … common sense tells you that.”

The hearing was on Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill to ban military style semiautomatic weapons like the rifle used at Sandy Hook. It would also ban the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines in excess of 10 bullets.

Like Mr. Heslin, I’m a parent. As a baby-boomer, my first knowledge of gun violence was President Kennedy’s assassination. I was 9 years old, and I remember thinking how sad his children must have been. Then with the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., followed by other attempted and successful assassinations, gun violence became the “new normal.”

As a child, I remember doing tornado drills at school. Fast forward to 2013 where the “new normal” at schools is intruder drills. My future daughter-in-law teaches second grade at a suburban St. Louis elementary school. How can she and millions of teachers across the country realistically protect children from a gunman blasting his way into the classroom?

Those of us who support gun violence prevention know that common sense laws do not threaten Second Amendment rights. And the Supreme Court has ruled that regulation does not infringe upon the Second Amendment. Heslin supports the Second Amendment; he has owned guns and was a champion skeet shooter. He understands that laws to protect the public can co-exist with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns for personal protection, hunting and recreation.

I know it will be an “uphill battle” to get any legislation passed, much less the renewal of an assault weapons ban. But I am encouraged by the strong and sustained voices of mayors, law enforcement officials, physicians and parents advocating for laws that include the resources necessary to enforce them.

Today, March 13, is “Moms Take the Hill Day,” sponsored by the volunteer group, Moms Demand Action. In meetings with elected officials, mothers will advocate for: an assault weapons ban and ammunition magazine limits; background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases; reporting the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the BATF; and banning online ammunition sales.

Getting involved does not require a trip to Washington. Check out these websites: Mom’s Demand Action www.momsdemandaction.org; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence www.csgv.org; and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence www.bradycampaign.org.

(Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the Commentary section of the St. Louis Beacon.]

The post Gun regulation is a battle worth joining appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Ask a politician where he or she stands on gun control legislation and it’s likely you will get an answer that involves “mental health.” Many say they support the common notion of second amendment rights, make a slight nod towards some flavor of legislation and then promptly seek safe haven in the call for better treatment of mental illness.

In Missouri, the responses are fairly similar no matter where you look on the political spectrum. From Roy Blunt:

The right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and broadly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Founders clearly understood that one of the most basic rights of Americans is the ability to defend themselves and their families… I do believe it is important that we have a serious national discussion about preventing these senseless acts of violence and protecting our children in their schools…

Equally important, however, is an effort that more broadly addresses ways to spend federal dollars more wisely when it comes to treating and identifying those who are mentally ill as well as intervening before they tragically impact their own lives and the lives of others.

to Claire McCaskill:

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms.  I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens and have consistently voted to uphold this constitutional right… At the same time, we have to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of individuals who should not have them… We should have sensible, constitutional controls on gun ownership that address safety in our communities… Recent tragedies, such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut, have made it clear that our nation’s current gun laws should be reconsidered… Knowing that those responsible for some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent history have suffered from mental illness, it is equally clear that we must also consider mental health services available to our citizens.

It’s a safe dance. Who can argue with better mental health treatment? Dr. Richard Friedman brought a little perspective in a December 17 article in the New York Times:

All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

Then the New York Times took things an important step further in a February 24 editorial. The paper points out that a risk greater than mental illness lies in the mixing of alcohol and firearms.

Focusing on the mentally ill, most of whom are not violent, overlooks people who are at demonstrably increased risk of committing violent crimes but are not barred by federal law from buying and having guns. These would include people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors including assaults, and those who are alcohol abusers. Unless guns are also kept from these high-risk people, preventable gun violence will continue…

The evidence linking alcohol abuse and gun-related violence is compelling. One study found that subjects who had ever been in trouble at work for drinking or were ever hospitalized for alcohol abuse were at increased risk of committing homicide and suicide. Other studies also suggest that alcohol abuse is a factor in the association between gun ownership and the criminal justice system.

Politicians may claim they are dealing with gun violence by focusing on mental illness, but they do so at our peril. There’s a lot at stake and so much more that can be done.

The post Mental health gun-control dodge misses the bigger point appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been just over two months since twenty children and six adults were brutally gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Since then thirty-three people have died in gun violence every single day across this country. Tragically, it’s too late to save those 2,145 mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, grandparents, and friends.

The question is are we going to save the next 2,145 or are we going to pretend that there’s nothing to be done?

Contrary to the rantings of the NRA and right-wing media, the majority of us do not share their claim that the unfettered right to bear arms trumps the rest of our rights. For a majority of us, unregulated gun ownership takes a backseat to our right to safety, the safety of our children, and the right to live in our homes,  walk our streets, and interact in public places without fear of harm.

The truth is that public debate over what experts agree is the most effective method to decrease the killing—universal background checks—is settled.  The problem is that our elected representatives haven’t gotten the message.

Recent polls tell a lopsided story

According to Politifact.com, the latest Quinnipiac University poll in January/February showed that 92% of all of us support background checks for all gun owners.  Among those in households with a gun on the premises, 91% of us support universal background checks.

The Pew Research poll in January concurred:  85% of non–gun-owning Americans and 85% of gun owners favor requiring private gun sales and sales of guns at gun shows to be subject to background checks.

Other polls drawing the same conclusions keep rolling in. The CBS News/New York Times poll in January concluded that 92% of all Americans and 85% of those living in households (yes, your eyes aren’t failing you!) with an NRA member support universal background checks.

With poll numbers like these, on the one hand, and overwhelming Republican opposition to universal background checks, on the other, surely the only conclusion to be drawn is that we, the people, have lost our ability to influence our elected officials.  And when our elected representatives ignore the will of the people—as they surely are right now—then we are well on the way to losing the democratic compact as well.

For those old enough to remember, there used to be a public-service announcement that asked, “It’s 10:00.  Do you know where your children are?”  It’s time to rephrase the question. “Thirty-three precious lives are snuffed out by guns every day.  Do you know where your representatives stand?”

Where does your representative stand?

The staff at The Daily Beast has decided to help us answer that question.  By tallying the statements, voting records, ratings from the NRA and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, as well as reports of campaign contributions by the gun lobby for every member of Congress, The Daily Beast staff has assessed the likely votes of your elected officials on gun legislation. They call their graphic “This is Your Representative on Guns.”

According to their tally, 287 senators and representatives oppose gun reform. One hundred and eighty-eight support reform.  Thirty-six members have an unclear position, and twenty could be considered swing votes.

Click here,  and take a look at the list.  You’ll find out whether your representatives are working for you on this issue. And if you find they are not, then search your conscience and ask yourself these two questions:  Do I care that thirty-three people will be killed today?  And if I do care, can I not find the time to make a call, write an e-mail, or compose a short letter to remind my representatives that it is their solemn duty to protect and defend us—the people—and not the interests of the gun lobby.

The post This is your representative on guns appeared first on Occasional Planet.