The 2013 gun safety bill suffered a serious blow when a bipartisan background check amendment failed to receive the 60-vote threshold needed to break a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
Opponents of the amendment argued that: the expanded check system would result in a "national registry of gun owners;" the legislation would impose a "burden" on those buying and selling guns; and the amendment was a useless step that would "achieve little." These arguments require comment.
With regard to the "national gun registry" argument, I note the amendment language explicitly prohibited such a step. Nevertheless, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, advanced this propaganda despite polls indicating most NRA members did not share his view.
The claim the amendment would place a "burden on gun buyers and sellers" would be laughable were the issue not so serious. In the United States, we own nearly 10 times more guns per capita than the world average. Whether legally or illegally, Americans have almost unlimited access to firearms and will never have a "burden" when it comes to buying and selling guns.
Finally, even if the legislation would only "achieve little," wouldn't it have been worthwhile? If only one life would be saved by the amendment, should it not have been passed? This argument against the amendment is both cynical and callous.
To paraphrase a saying, "dogma is doing what we are told no matter what is right; morality is doing what is right regardless of what we are told."
The senators who voted against the amendment have clearly followed the path of "dogma."
Don Steiner
Schenectady