Ann --
My son, Daniel, was a smart, quiet kid.
He'd just become a straight-A student, and he was overcoming his shyness as a new member of the debate team.
On April 20th, 1999, my beautiful and bright 15-year-old son was killed by two teenagers with guns in the library of Columbine High School -- one of 12 innocent kids who lost their lives for no reason at all.
It's been 14 years since that horrible day -- 14 years of fighting so no family has to grieve like ours did.
These tragedies keep happening, and so far, Congress has failed to take common-sense action to stop them -- even though nine in 10 Americans have agreed that expanding background checks would help close the loopholes that put guns in the hands of dangerous people and prevent future violence.
Today, OFA and allied organizations are standing up for a national Day of Action to ask members of Congress: What will it take to finally act to prevent gun violence?
I hope you'll join in -- say you'll do one thing this week to show Congress you want action to prevent gun violence.
The evening of the shooting at Columbine High was the most hopeless I've ever felt.
Since Daniel's death, I've found a way to honor him: by trying to prevent other families from feeling this pain. I've advocated locally and nationally for smarter gun laws -- even helping achieve a statewide ballot victory here in Colorado.
In December, when I heard about the shooting in Newtown, I sat in my office and broke down. I was watching another community torn apart by guns -- more parents grieving, more kids who would never see graduation, or a wedding, or a family of their own.
And in the wake of another tragedy, nine in 10 Americans agreed that it was time to act -- expand background checks to close the loopholes that put guns in the hands of dangerous people.
But Congress disappointed us, putting politics above the safety of our kids.
That's why this week, we're asking: How many parents will have to go through what I did before we say "enough"?
You should be a part of this, too. Tell Congress you're going to keep asking until they act:
http://my.barackobama.com/Do-One-Thing-for-Gun-Violence-Prevention
Thank you,
Tom
Tom Mauser
Littleton, Colorado
August 21, 2013
Obama's Organizing for Action exploits the memory of Columbine.
In my email inbox:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Hey, common sense and stuff...9 out of ten and well, there.
I'm amazed at how lamely manipulative and soggy these emails are. Really pathetic writing and reasoning. I'm surprised they think this stuff is effective on anyone not on their bus.
To me, despite the man's loss, his letter is pathetic and laughable and I don't believe him.
Sorry.
The link in your blog post makes it possible for people to sign the petition in your name.
Yes, a tax-free group that advocates for causes. They just happen to be the exact same causes the president is interested in and the advocacy rises and falls to the beat of the Obama message of the day.
Nothing like dragging out a victim to push your political agenda Mr. President. Well done.
Mr. Mauser,
When you are ready to demand a total ban on all firearms in the hands of American citizens, step forward and be heard.
Until then, if you think your son died because of a gun - not twisted teenagers - you are sadly mistaken. Take your sorrow and your passion to your community and demand that parents be responsible for their children, that they insist on knowing what their children are doing around the clock, with whom they are spending their time. Stop trying to take away the rights of citizens.
Tom Mauser.
He's named after a pistol.
I am sorry he lost his son.
But his loss may make his conclusions on the gun issue less reliable, not more.
(I don't own a gun. Don't much like guns and the chance I would ever need one is very small. But I'm not interested in prohibiting other citizens from armed self protection if they choose.)
Legislation of the type Mr. Mauser wants could have been enacted if Obama had been more effective and vigorous in his efforts. But Obama wasn't. Now he's back at what he does best--making political points but not getting things done. It's sad that Obama exploits people like Mr. Mauser.
These tragedies keep happening, and so far, Congress has failed to take common-sense action to stop them -- even though nine in 10 Americans have agreed that expanding background checks would help close the loopholes that put guns in the hands of dangerous people and prevent future violence.
Non-sequitur theatre, activate!
Sure, "we" tried for months to confuse people about what background checks were and were not required already.
Sure, a poll has no actual relation to what is or isn't good policy or would or would not actually stop a nut from getting a gun.
But let's ignore that and just push for More Gun Control, because handwaving about "dangerous people".
(The guns in Columbine? Legally purchased by people who could - don't know if they did, but COULD - pass an FBI background check.
So universal checks would have prevented... none of it.
Just like they wouldn't have prevented Newtown, where again, all guns were purchased by someone who did pass a NICS check and would not have been denied by any proposed change - or a least not any one that would pass Constitutional muster.
Cheap hack-work. Good job, OFA.
Hey, I hope they focus on gun control - it'll marginalize them and waste their time.
These people are f***ing shameless.
"The link in your blog post makes it possible for people to sign the petition in your name."
Oh, hell!
And here I am making their links hot to be fair.
Links removed.
Can anyone check to see if someone signed for me?
For the record: I don't sign any petitions and I don't give any money to anything political.
All I do is talk and write... in my own places.
Clearly not a Broomhandle Mauser.
That is a school with an assigned police officer---Who either ran away from the terrorists or failed to follow them into the school.
When only criminals are armed...
Obama affects change.
David said: "I don't own a gun. Don't much like guns and the chance I would ever need one is very small. But I'm not interested in prohibiting other citizens from armed self protection if they choose"
I am pretty much in the same boat, and strongly agree. I do not have anything against others who choose to exercise the basic human rights in the Second Amendment by owning firearms.
I choose not to own a gun. That is my choice. Unlike Obama's political allies, though, I do not choose to force my choice on others.
They say if you have no facts use emotion, I guess OFA is big on emotion.
You can believe that hardly anyone's against expanded background checks. You can believe that Congress didn't pass expanded background checks because it was motivated by "politics". But believing both these things at once is... difficult.
This is the pivot to jobs, n'est pas?
Or was that the puppy.
Watched O'Reilly tonight and he had Kirsten Powers and some other woman pundit on about the Oklahoma murder.
O'Reilly was a little off camber as usual - he really needs to take a little more time to be briefed on his facts before he goes on camera - but Powers was simply amazing. She is like a split personality with two pundits in one and from polar opposite factions. Tonight she was total loony left that it was all the fault of "the gun culture," and if the kids had not had a gun, it would not have happened, and she was not going to even listen to anything else. Just amazing.
While I sympathize with your decidedly heart rending loss, your target of retribution is misguided and your assessment of a solution is mistaken.
Your son was killed by two murders whom, like so many others, made every effort to circumvent every law that impeded their desires for violence. They were aided by friends whom helped them in their despicable deeds. They were further aided by inattentive parents. What law will alleviate those circumstances ? How does the punishment and penalization of millions of innocent Americans prevent the actions of these two murders ?
Quite frankly Mr. Mauser gun control laws ,as is true of other laws, do not prevent people from committing a crime. Criminals are not concerned about their actions being illegal. Were that not the case, 99% of the crimes perpetrated with firearms would not occur. Further, the institution of some gun control statutes are directly responsible for some of the carnage that you wish to prevent. For instance, the recent Sandy Hook shootings offer an example of the foolishness of some gun control law. Your gun control law stripped those people of the right and means to defend themselves. Your gun control presented no such impediment to the perpetrator. Your gun control left those folks unarmed and unprotected, left them to the mercy of the criminal for 20 minutes while they waited for the government to protect and rescue them. 20 minutes that they spent dying because of your gun control. Gun control that you want to expand. What is needed isn't gun control. What is needed is criminal control and punishment.
The tragedy here is that you and the rest of the gun control crowd want to punish those whom have not and do not perpetrate the crimes that you purport to seek to prevent. Gun control, in general, is a fraud. Criminals aren't concerned in the least about your gun control laws, nor, are they likely to ever be.
In the Oklahoma case we also have the point that Althouse made in another post below - that these perpetrators were driving a truck that would have done perfectly well for the intended purpose of killing Mr. Lane, yet no one calls for motor vehicles to be banned.
In fact, there has been a number of people killed with motor vehicles recently, most apparently by elderly drivers getting confused or suffering medical problems, but also some that seem to be in the deliberate thrill killing variety, and some of these drivers have even been charged with multiple murders, or attempted murder, with "weapons of mass destruction."
(That last sticks in my craw, since the same media ballyhooing this, claims that our military never could find any "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, but that is off on another tangent.)
"Obama's Organizing for Action Exploits..."
Does exploitation fatigue ever set in? Can you really keep people all wee-wee'd up for a decade, through two presidential elections into getting a successor anointed?
The really annoying thing about OFA is Obama will doubtless be its chairperson and will draw a seven-figure salary from it - or more likely, no salary at all, but it'll pay for his house, his jet, etc. It'll be a parking place for his zillion-bux-a-year speaking fees (although the idea that anyone would _pay_ to hear him talk is bizarre, but lots of people will), and various other income that will not be taxed (after all, taxes are only for the little people and "nonpatriotic" billionaires).
"On April 20th, 1999, my beautiful and bright 15-year-old son was killed by two teenagers with guns in the library of Columbine High School -- one of 12 innocent kids who lost their lives for no reason at all."
-- I'm going to sound like an ass, but I'm going to say something: They did not lose their lives for no reason. The reason is simple: Two people with problems were ignored by the system, the school, the teachers, their parents, and every other check on young people. Guns may have been what they used, but what enabled them was a systemic failure of their local schools, communities and governments to provide the security, help and protection required.
Those murders happened BECAUSE of something; it was not an unforeseeable tragedy caused by two kids waking up one day and finding the gun fairy had left a little something under their pillow.
Just like in pretty much every other mass shooting: The government failed to protect its citizens from obviously dangerous people who made no attempt to hide that fact. Mere enforcement of existing laws and watching for red flags could have prevented the tragedy at Columbine.
Though the blame ultimately rests with those who pulled the trigger, it is foolish to try and blame whatever it was they were pulling.
Every time gun control comes up in Colorado, Tom Mauser gets interviewed by the local press. His tune hasn't changed since the Columbine shooting.
This past year we've had one of the survivors, Evan Todd, start to speak up for the right of citizens to be able to defend themselves. He doesn't get as much coverage.
There is not one dictator in the world that did not use events to drum up excuses to ban guns.
Look at Hitler in 1933. Or Vladimir Lenin after 1917 revolution.
China, as a rule, always has banned guns from peasants.
Castro did to.
Idi Amen, Pol Pot, Mugabe, etc.. every one of them has. And every one of the used crime as an excuse.
The issue with background checks is not the checks themselves, but the data that goes with the checks. Each background check comes with a BATF form 4473, which lists the buyer with all information about address, description, SSN, etc, and the serial number and description of the gun. This paper information is kept with the FFL dealer until he goes out of business or 20 years. If he goes out of business (or the BATF revokes his FFL, at their whim, without reason) all records go directly to the BATF.
Current Federal law prevents the BATF from compiling this information into an electronic database, but the paper is there, and one small change in law, and gun registration is complete, without any need to ask any gun owner anything. The paper trail already exists. It's just a matter of scanning it in.
That is, except for the "gun show loophole". Private sales have no paper trail, and therefore can put unregistered guns in people's hands. If the Federal Government "closes the gun show loophole", it is tantamount to universal registration of all new or used guns from that point, happening with a single small administrative change to laws, letting the BATF compile an electronic list of gun purchases, no doubt stapled to a farm bill or something.
If only there was an assault weapons ban, this tragedy would have never happened!
Oh wait, gun control failed to do anything to prevent this tragedy. The federal AWB was in effect in 1999.
Post a Comment