Maiello: The Big Hollywood Crack Up
Oxy Mora: Fracking Bans Widen
Wolraich: Best of dag Nominations
I'd intended to make no post on this topic. While I won't go into my views on the overall topic, my opinion is that nothing will change; not one single thing. Not two days from now; not two years; not in the next decade.
But the usual thing that is said is starting to show up, again, from various sources and I (in a flash of wishful thinking) hope to stomp on it early in its appearance, whatever its variation:
We need to have a conversation about gun control.
Lieberman, as talking head, opined: "We need a commission."
Connecticut Senator-elect Chris Murphy (D) said that "there needs to be a conversation about gun control"; apparently literally saying it.
So here it is, for values of "...we..." and "...conversation..." that I will leave undefined:
No, we do not need a conversation about gun control.
We are already having it.
We are already so deep into that conversation only metaphor suffices; and even it fails: we are suffocating on the smell of the conversation.
In spite of over a decade wasted on this conversation, Sandy Hook happened.
Perversely, and at this point, it should be obvious why I leave "...conversation..." undefined. In spite of my affirmation that we are suffocating on the smell of this decades-old conversation,"we" are not having anything of the sort.
This is a one-way, write only, narrative. That, ladies and gentleman, is the conversation you are having.
That's politics. You're welcome.
Following the crazy, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said:
"I wish to god she had had an M-4 in her office..."
Summation: let's keep assault rifles in our public schools and make training in their use mandatory for (at least some, or is it all?) principals and teachers.
Actual outcome: an increase in violence, since spree killers no longer need to bring their own weapons; which will, for instance: make entrance to schools easier.
West Virginia's Republican party: "A national discussion on preventing such catastrophes should and will take place later."
And in keeping with the one-way, write-only narrative, Manchin (who is associated with why we are where we are) wants to bring the NRA into the "discussion" on gun control.
Like I said: nothing will change...the same organization that is doing the one-way writing of the narrative will (subtly or overtly) dominate whatever happens "...later..."; and please note that Manchin cannot "bring in" an organization that is already the loudest, most powerful, speaking actor in this entire thing.