Another mass-shooting in America - this time in Roseburg, Oregon at the Umpqua Community College, the 294th according the mass-shooting tracking data. What can we possibly say that hasn't already been said? This is an American failure, without question. How can one not say that we as a society have failed by endangering itself by not regulating deadly weapons. Some of the observations from today's panelists and the political soundbites stuck with us as key insights into the problem, the politics and the lack of a solution.
The National Review's Rick Lowry outlined the problem succinctly when he explained that doing things around the margins of the gun laws aren't enough the stem the problem or gun violence and anything beyond that infringes on people's individual gun rights under the constitution. Mark Leibovich of The New York Times noted that President Obama in his statement in reaction to the shooting accurately predicted everything that Republicans would say and how the media would cover it, and he really did.
Republican presidential candidates' statements ranged from Jeb Bush's lackluster "stuff happens" to Ben Carson and Marco Rubio saying that more gun laws don't protect us from the crazies and John Kasich said that gun control laws aren't a good idea because it takes guns away from law abiding citizens, which is conflating the problem with confiscation and that is not what should be done.
With all that laid out, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post was correct in saying that for the government not to do anything is an abdication of its responsibilities, and those responsibilities do not include confiscation, to be clear. However, the car-gun comparison does make you do more than just scratch your head. You have to get a license to drive (all 50 states), you have to have insurance (all 50 states), register the car (all 50 states) and in some states have it inspected yearly. You can draw your own conclusion as to whether having a license to own a gun infringes on your rights to have one. You can own a car and not have a license or insurance, but it's then unlawful to use it without those things.
And for Donald Trump's comments about Chicago having the strictest gun laws yet gun violence is out of control is to not understand the comprehensiveness of the problem. The only way to solve this comprehensive problem is to act nationally, through Congress, because leaving the problem to the individual states won't solve it. Debate away on that one. Another notion to chew one would be the result of any stronger gun laws would essentially slow the amount of guns being purchased, not limit the amount, but slow the pace of the number in society. The NRA can never go for that.
Using Mr. Trump as a pivot point in the conversation, we are leery of his statements on Syria in as much as he thinks its a good idea that Vladimir Putin has brought Russia into the conflict unmistakably on the side of Assad. Fmr. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul explained that Putin is in Syria because he's been supporting Assad all along but now weapons and money are not enough and Russia has to become directly involved in the conflict. Putin is "doubling down," Amb. McFaul said. And in that 'doubling down' Mr. Putin will certainly would mind having some proxy wins against its adversary the United States, like this week's bombing of rebel bases backed by the CIA. It's less likely that Mr. Putin will get bogged down in Syria as Mr. Trump described and more likely that in the midst of a practical power vacuum in the country, Mr. Putin sees the opportunity for a strategic foothold in the region, with an assistant from Iran. Not to mention that it shows such a cynical and callous view of life and suffering for Mr. Trump to say that things are better with Assad, Gaddafi, and Hussein still in power.
However, even though Mr. Trump is ahead in the polls (the only thing that matters to him), he really has no interest in overthinking these things. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be when deciding your vote.
Panel: Mark Leibovich, The New York Times; Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Amy Holmes, Anchor on The Blaze Network; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One More Thing...
Mixed Emotions... about there being an hour-long "MTP Daily" program on MSNBC. It's completely understandable that NBC wants Mr. Todd on the air more. His strength as a good, fair questioner is paying dividends that David Gregory couldn't deliver which was to have political guests from both parties come to the table. We also understand that Meet The Press is now Mr. Todd's brand and the two are hand in hand. We get it.
We not sure if it diminishes "Meet The Press" as the institution that it is or not, but here's the thing. Institutions, attitudes, and laws have to change with the times and we live in a different age where seeing you for an hour a week will lead to success, you 'gotta get it out there more,' as it were. The formats are different in that the daily is typical cable news/talk format that differs from the Sunday edition, but even so it would be great to differentiate the Sunday a bit more - a portion of the program that is truly meeting the press. Otherwise, more "Meet The Press?" Why not?!
(Whether we'll be commenting on it all remains to be seen, but it is giving us a reason to pause and think about our format as well.)
P.S. We'll be off for the next two weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment