Pajama Pundits

I've had an America Online account since 1993. I've kept it since broadband became available in my neighborhood for two reasons, a way to access the internet from anywhere there's a phone line, and this one little message board I got addicted to - originally called something like "How Important Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?" It's now simply called "The Gun Control Debate" and has been relegated to AOL's unmonitored (and relatively unsupported) section.

Over the years, various AOL monitors tried to keep the board "on topic" preventing forays into side issues. Always difficult, that proved impossible after September 11, 2001.

One of the reasons topic control was difficult is that a person's stance on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is sort of a litmus test revealing the process used to formulate political and social opinions.

It was discouraging to find out that so many people didn't have a process beyond 'whatever my friends think, I'll think', never bothering to even try to figure out whether the position had merit or from what ideological plant it bloomed.

Beyond those, I learned that many came to a conclusion then formulated reasons and twisted facts (or manufactured them) to support that conclusion - Humpty Dumpty thinkers. These people exist in every hue of the ideological rainbow and they annoy the hell out of me.

The rare individual is the one that looks at facts first and then comes to a conclusion without being influenced by ideology.

Most of us, being human, are a hybrid of the three processes. Regardless of that, we can and should expect better of those we elect to represent us. I consider it their job to use that rare process of considering facts before coming to a conclusion that something should or should not be law.

Today I am again disappointed in too many of our legislators, though I am enjoying watching my Democrat husband yelling at Democrat Senators and the fact that my Democrat brother is in wholehearted agreement with me concerning Senate Bill 397. Passing it will not harm the ability of citizens to bring valid suits against gun manufacturers. For a Democrat, who is also a lawyer with product liability experience, that's a pretty strong endorsement.

I have to wonder if some of them (including a few of the Republicans) have read the bill. My husband thinks they have and their ignorance suggests that passing a reading comprehension test should be a requirement to run for office.

As Eric from Classical Values puts it:

I'm getting a bit tired of opponents of this bill saying that it would protect manufacturers and gun dealers against ordinary negligence actions.

In fact, the bill specifically preserves the right to sue when a seller or manufacturer is negligent or in violation of laws governing the sale of firearms.

One has to wonder if the real objection some of the pontificating Senators have is that it also states as a Finding that "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that it "...protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

Perhaps they also object to this stated purpose:

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

The Brady Bunch and VPC are screeching.

Now, go read the rest of Eric's post and find out why it's the fault of the South that crimes with guns happen in New York. And then wonder why I want to add a logic test to my husband's reading comprehension test.