This is something I’ve been thinking about for a long time. I doubt any of the rest of you are interested in this phenomenon but I’ve found it to be very true in my own experience. Once tragedy strikes, especially one we believe could have been prevented, we tend to change our minds about numerous things. That old saying “if it saves one life it’s worth it”, which the guy quoted below actually says at the end of his testimony, and most of us know is not a very legitimate tool to use to bring about change, suddenly has meaning.
When I think back to the Health Care debate and why it was so important to me, Daniel’s story about his sister’s death, matched my own perception of that debate at the time because of my niece’s death. During the years I fought for health care reform I met hundreds of people whose stories were similar to my own. And honestly, they weren’t all hot-headed progressives (and I’m not either although I do get hot-headed about health care inefficiencies). Most of them were simply hard working Americans who had a terrible story to tell about a health care system that had failed.
I think this is one of the reasons so many of the provisions in the ACA are popular while the bill itself isn’t. Some of us can imagine what it would be like to not have these new regulations or know someone who is benefiting from them now. And so even though the bill is a mess in so many ways, they’re grateful for it in other ways. It’s interesting to me that the polling is so skewed.
Anyway, my point really is just that while I really am not impressed with the bill that became the ACA, either during it’s development or now, I still can’t help but be grateful that someone elses family won’t have to suffer the same terrible loss that we suffered. That brings it down to the most personal level which is exactly what Daniels is talking about. This is when, right or wrong, people look to their government for help…………………most of us don’t really have anywhere else to go to find the same kind of resolution to an injustice. If the ACA had been in effect at the end of 2007 chances are very likely my niece would be alive today………………that’s a really life altering scenario to think about.
There’s a part of me that wishes things were different because I know it’s not necessarily fair to the rest of you who make it through life without this kind of event or are able to separate your logical and principled selves from needing or desiring any kind of assistance yourself. The idea that a man like Daniel, could now be attempting to influence a debate about background checks tells me all I need to know about reality.
WASHINGTON — Elvin Daniel, 56, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, an avid hunter and a self-described “constitutional conservative” from a small town in Illinois. He became an unlikely witness for the Democrats on Wednesday at the first-ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence against women.
Daniel choked back tears at the hearing as he recounted the story of his sister, Zina, who was shot and killed by her estranged ex-husband in 2012. After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.
“Now I’m helping to care for my two nieces who lost their mother and who will have to grow up without her,” Daniel told the committee. “I’m here today for Zina and for the stories like Zina’s that happen every day because of the serious gap in our gun laws that continue to put women’s lives in danger.”
American women account for 84 percent of all female gun victims in the developed world, and more than a quarter of female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by an intimate partner.
The two bills being considered in the Senate, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would strengthen federal gun prohibitions for convicted domestic abusers and those deemed by a judge to be a physical threat to a woman. Klobuchar’s bill would include physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers in the category of persons who are prohibited from buying or possessing a gun. Blumenthal’s bill would ban guns for those who have been issued a temporary restraining order by a judge for domestic violence.
All the provisions being discussed are supported by a majority of Americans, according to a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll. But gun limits are difficult for Congress to pass, even when they are broadly supported by voters, due to the strong opposition of the well-funded and well-organized gun rights lobby. A popular bill that would have closed gaping holes in the federal background checks system fell just short last year of the 60 votes it needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
The NRA is already fighting Klobuchar’s bill, claiming that it “manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘stalking’ simply to cast as wide a net as possible for federal firearm prohibitions.”
“If we can save just one life, that would be worth everything we’re going through,” Daniel said. “And I know we can save more than one life.”
Daniel’s Testimony and More is from Huffingpost which I realize is a very partisan source. I read about it somewhere else but now can’t find the source. At least it’s not Reuter’s Scott…………………LOL
Here’s a little less partisan one but still not the one I was looking for.