As 2012 drew to a close, the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre put the gun control debate on center stage. Hardly noticed was the five-year extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) signed into law by President Obama. Both stories are about violence in America and each challenges the meaning of an Amendment in our cherished Bill of Rights. But it seems our government is taking extraordinary measures to address the wrong problem.
Every year about nine thousand Americans lose their lives in gun related murders. Most we never hear about. It’s only after mass shootings occur that gun control advocates have their chance to be heard. Usually they’re quickly shouted down by those in Congress beholden to the National Rifle Association lobby and its fear mongering that big brother is out to repeal the Second Amendment.
In comparison, 17 U.S. citizens have been killed on American soil in terrorist like attacks since the national tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. Of those, 13 were soldiers gunned down by one of their own at Fort Hood, Texas. Last year, 17 other private citizens were killed by terrorists on foreign soil. All but two were in Afghanistan where we’ve been fighting the so-called war on terror for 11 years.
Given these facts, it’s hard to imagine how the President and Congress can spend so much political energy crafting laws and regulations to protect us from terrorism while doing almost nothing to stem the tide of gun violence. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone who thinks our representatives in Washington are out of touch with the problems faced by the average American. It’s similar to the point that Kate Troll made in her recent Empire column about the NRA not truly representing its membership. Congress really doesn’t represent our interests either.
The FISA extension is just one example of how the threat of terrorism is being distorted. If it’s so vital to national security that the government be allowed to monitor international communications without a warrant, then the bill should have been brought to the Senate floor months ago to debate whether or not it undercuts our Fourth Amendment rights. Instead, it was left till the waning days of a lame duck Congress.
Both Alaska Senators voted against extending FISA. In a press release Sen. Lisa Murkowski stated that “the existing law is insufficiently protecting Americans’ communications privacy right now.” But the bill still passed by a three to one margin.
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) argued that intelligence gathered under FISA contributed to some of the 100 arrests of terror suspects over the past four years. She didn’t say how many, or if any, led to convictions. Nor do we know if any were cases where the FBI allegedly paid informants to pose as a terrorist to recruit the suspects. We’re just being asked to trust a secret program run by a government that we generally don’t trust in the first place.
And when it comes to gun violence, we have little reason to trust Congress. For years they’ve put little or no effort into addressing a problem that’s much more of a real threat to us all than attacks by Islamic terrorists. Their impotence is largely due to the lobbying power of the NRA.
After Sandy Hook there should be no debate about the need to reinstitute the law banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons for civilian use. Especially if we remember the response to a plot by terrorists to detonate liquid explosives on international flights bound for North America. On the same day that the British government made arrests in that case, our government began prohibiting airline passengers from carrying any liquids past airport security checkpoints. Those restrictions have been relaxed some, but the tragic irony is that we’re acting as if containers holding more than 3.4 ounces of liquids pose a more serious threat to society than the assault weapons which almost anyone in the country can purchase.
A ban on assault weapons won’t end gun violence in America. But it’ll help prevent more tragedies like Sandy Hook, which are the real terrorism threats we face. And the President and Congress need to act now.
• Moniak is a Juneau resident.
Comments (125)
Add commentVery thoughtful and well-written, Rich
You bring up some interesting points which seem to have sailed right over the heads of the cold dead hands in the audience---I don't think they can hear them over the call to ban assault weapons. It makes me wonder how many know what the fourth amendment is without looking it up, or anything of the Bill of Rights beyond #2...
I'm sure a few do. It is nevertheless ironic how many on the right and the left have been complicit in the steady erosion of all our rights, going along with whatever political expediency is sold to us by either party---War on Drugs, War on Terror; surveillance bills, the suspension of habeas corpus... Far from mindful of these erosions, we're a society full of parents who will argue passionately for the ability of the government to force their kids to pee in a cup!
Our politicians have cleverly manipulated us into selling our rights for the illusion of security, for convenience---In return we've slowly but surely relinquished our rights to free speech and assembly, to representation, to be secure in our persons, to privacy, even the right to petition our government, to name only a few of the casualties of our endless state of "War."
Good
What a childish argument.
Human Being
I am fully aware of the level of concern in our country over the control of gun ownership or access to weapons. People are pretty well set in their beliefs and convictions and so we must wait to see what happens. People will continue to express and try to support their stance.
Then there is the question of anonymity when people comment regarding articles in the newspaper. The Empire has every right, and perhaps they are right, in allowing people to say whatever they want anonymously - or at least just using some title to identify themselves. However, at times people like Mike Dziuba or Ken Dunker or others like myself, just sign on and if anyone wants to challenge our views, they have every right to do so, and know exactly who we are. If anyone wants to know more about Mike or Ken or myself, they are free to search the records, or I think even free to call on the phone. My phone number is 789-3311.
But when people in the heat and passion of debating issues say or write that if someone disagrees they consider that person to be like a participant in Special Olympics and no matter how hard they try, they are still "retarded" that goes beyond the bounds of commenting and degenerates into what is called "ad hominem"arguments attacking a person rather than the question or issue, and becomes simply "name calling" and personal attacks, but never having the courage to say "I am the person making this accusation."
I don't know how many readers have some understanding of all the genetic factors that may cause a person to come into this world with physical, mental, biological problems and by some be called "retarded." When individuals who came into this world less fortunate physically than most of us, and then do their best to become the greatest person they can be, to me they are cultural heroes.
What might restore my confidence in commentators regarding issues would be to have those like "Hoonahfish" simply apologize and admit "I was wrong in what I said." Or even have someone be brave enough to come forward and identify who they are when they comment.
I am not a Lutheran as far as religion, and never have been. But I have always admired Martin Luther for tacking up a list of topics he was willing to debate, and signing his name. From what I can tell, he also said something to the effect that "Here I stand"..... He seems to be like the current Governor of New Jersey saying what he thinks, his opinions, and his ideas openly, like " Here I stand." That takes courage and conviction and not hiding under some pseudonym or being "anonymous."
That's my opinion
Wally Olson, Auke Bay
Quick poll
Who would win in a fight-
A man with a gun or a man with a knife?
A group of 5 guys with a single shot hunting rifle or a group of five guys with AR-15's?
A group of 5 guys with six shooter revolvers or 5 guys with tec9 semiauto pistols?
Just curious to see people's thoughts.. I have a feeling that most of you commenters would call all 3 scenarios an even match.
Super~
All of those scenarios, assuming equal terrain and footing and awareness, would fundamentally depend on the mindset of the people involved and their ability to remain centered and calm when confronted with violence. Especially in the first one, someone with a knife and focus and the ability to avoid tunnel vision, freezing up, adrenaline shakes and so on, assuming proximity, could easily defeat someone with a firearm who is less able to deal with the encounter.
Musashi said that nobody was ever guaranteed to leave the field in one piece, regardless of skill.
Ya got me.
Let me rephrase- who would most likely win in a fight?
Typical shallow garbage from Moniak
This is such a childish, poorly thought piece, and is typical of the swill that comes forth from this guy. Ban assault weapons? Ok. There are hundreds of thousands of these in the street already. It will take decades to get them out of the general populace, and in the meantime nothing has been done for the violence perpetrated by the mentally ill.
A reasoned discussion of this topic includes violent video games, mental health, security of public places, the value of concealed carry, etc. But this chump just focuses on alienating gun owners and pointing fingers at them and gun rights champions.
Mark, really, can't you do better than the likes of this guy to fill your pages?
It is entirely frightening
It is entirely frightening though not entirely surprising that the blathering one calling themself "humanbeing" alleges to have "taught these children as a teacher..." I assume that to mean "taught" in some official capacity and as an involved father of several who have attended local public schools I am 99% certain that my children have not had the misfortune of being exposed to you in an official setting and I pray for their sake and others that you stay away from their public schools for the foreseeable future.
And Wally, why is my, or any other here writing under a pen name such an interesting issue for you? I can only assume that you wish to attack the character of the person writing rather than evaluate the substance of the written on its own merits. That practice certainly has a long and infamous history of its own.....
What will they do after they
What will they do after they ban guns, and hazing, and booze, and cigarettes and cheeseburgers, and video games and everything else, but bad things still happen?
I guess it really doesn’t matter because they will at least be able to say they were compassionate…problem is that their compassion is like that Bugs Bunny character… “I will love him and squeeze him and call him George”. It suffocates and strangles.
Fmast
A reasoned discussion includes all of that AND the use of high powered weapons and big ammo capacities. How many mentality ill, unstable teens playing call of duty went on a rampage using words and not guns?
Agree hero
It does. Moniak focused only on guns. If a 'solution' is to be found then all of the issues need to be thoroughly and competently (which the media is not) examined and vetted.
NRA looking to go from 4.2 million to 5 million members
Astronomical growth happening 100,000 new member in 3 weeks.
Keep it up Rich, superhero and company. People aren't fooled by extremists trying to veil their real agendas.
fmast
I would actually disagree in saying that the media is only focusing on one issue.. its just that the biggest issue is gun control.
good
Keep convincing yourself that guns are nothing but harmless toys and see where that gets you.
Keep going S
Keep blabbing your lib lips and get a bunch of republicans elected.
im not a liberal
im actually very pro-life.
And what is wrong with an agenda to reduce the yearly deathrates from 30,000+ to only a few hundred?
@wmolson and @humanbeeing
you two are very entertaining. I'm thinking about harvesting all your posts for a book - the title?
'Mental Masturbators Unite'
Human being needs to move to Europe
The right beat arms is very clear just cause the gun change doesn't mean the right to that gun have and if you don't like it move to Britain.
Anyone willing to restrict rights
Deserves no rights...
And so what if a gun wasn't designed for just game
It's our right as Americans to bear arms it's not selective on which arms...
Ever wonder why it's the second amendment just behind freedom of speech against our government? And not further down the list human?
And who are you to take away or limit my rights as an American born on American soil to American parents...
You can join Europe cause that's where you should live except Sweden.
A GOOD GIRL WITH A GUN
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, THE MEDIA IS TREATING IT LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
Taku 2
It's not in the major media because stories like that happen almost on a daily basis and America is so used to seeing it that it wouldn't sell a single sheet of newspaper.
The funny thing about that story is that gun nuts use it to show that guns are good but also ignore the fact that the bad guy HAD A GUN... Now, imagine if this man only had access to a knife. Also, where were the off-duty officers during Columbine shooting or Virginia tech?
What a terrible argument... a man has access to a gun, almost kills his girlfriend, almost kills more people but thank God an off-duty officer just so happened to be there at the right time. A dangerous man with a gun can only be stopped by a person who just so happens to be at the right place at the right time and this is an argument to continue with the status quo? I fail to see the logic.
News flash- people already can conceal carry and yet 30,000+ deaths a year...
Jaymz273
Your rights are already limited... unless you know where someone can pick up an AK-47 or an RPG...
Laws and restrictions limit rights in some way or another
to the benefit of society. Without laws and restrictions we all would be free to do as we please regardless of the impact on others. I don't see how the argument that "those who want to limit rights deserve no rights at all" because anyone who is for law and order would therefore deserve no rights at all. Living in a society we aren't free to do as we please. Sorry, it's just the downside to living in a civilized society. We have to give up our right to rape, murder, steal, etc. People like jared loughner believe we all deserve the right to kill others. In a non-civilized world that might be the case. I like to think others around me are civilized, however.
Laws can not and do not prevent crime. They are intended to limit crime.
Interpretting the second amendment should take into account the impact on society regardless of how much "my guns mean to me personally". It's not a human rights issue to own a gun. It's a luxury we in America have to the extent greater than any other country in the world. We need to remember this.