Isn’t calling the families who have lost precious loved one’s to random senseless gun violence - ‘props’ - a declaration that they are wrong and improperly involved in the gun violence debate on Capital Hill and on TV?
Who does Rand Paul think he is?
If a ‘prop’ is “an object used during a performance” then Obama is using these ‘non-feeling, senseless objects’ in a political performance and nothing more.
Is it that these grieving parents are on the political stage ‘only’ because Obama put them there - as ‘objects’?
Are they dupes? Are they fools? Are they supposed to bow to Rand Paul’s cold-hearted and cruel view of the world that some Americans have more right to buying and selling guns without a back-ground check and thirty round clips more than a six year old kid has a right to life?
The more we hear from Rand Paul, the more most Americans should not be able to bear him.
No thanks Kentucky. Is this the best you can do?
What a cold insensitive human being to utter such a thing.
It is an apt description. These people are used solely to provoke an emotional response. In the entire country, they are among the least-qualified people to make a rational decision on gun control policy.
You’ve summed it up pretty well.
Yes.
They are being exploited by a politician who is using their tragedy to try to achieve a political victory.
This is a false equivalence. These are not mutually exclusive.
True, but since it is a political victory that they want, also, the exploitation is kind of mutual. It’s more of an alliance than an exploitation; they’re on the same side.
He’s welcome to say what ever the hell he likes. If I was a parent of a child killed I’d want my voice heard and I’d hope the rest of America was listening, at least for a little while.
Walking into ‘they’re props’ is a political minefield/suicide, but to each his own.
That’s a bold statement. So should rape victims have no voice when discussing rape laws? Blacks should keep quiet about lynching and civil rights issues? Gays stay out of the SSM discussion?
Public policy decisions should be made by the most rational, informed people. Appeals to emotion are meant to bypass such things. These people are only used as tools to appeal to emotion. They have no special rational knowledge about the issue, just emotional ties to tug at heart strings.
So yes, they’re props to try to stir up a frenzy to capitalize on the hysteria after these sorts of incidents. They deserve no special status as experts on public policy.
I’d say that outside the gun issue. I mean, I wouldn’t want FAA decisions on the future of air travel to be determined by the hysterical crying family members of someone who just died in a plane crash either.
Nobody has suggested that the relatives of gunned-down kinds should be determining gun control policy or law. But their experience is unquestionably pertinent, relevant , topical evidence which ought to be heard, considered and taken into by those whose job it is to determine that policy. Hence the relevance of their testimony.
Can anybody come up with a coherent defence of Paul’s comments?
Oh please. What new information are they bringing to the gun debate? “Hmm, I wonder how I’d feel if my kid got shot. I don’t know. I guess I’ll listen to someone else who it happened to and see how they reacted”, right.
These people have no special knowledge, their experience sucks but anyone can already know that it sucks. To trot them out is to make an emotional plea and it’s stupid to pretend otherwise. Manipulation via emotional plea may coincidentally result in good public policy, but in general it’s not a way of trying to win you over rationally.
I don’t know what Rand says, the OP doesn’t make much of a good case for anything. I don’t know if they were treated respectfully or not. I’m just saying it’s ridiculous to pretend that they have some special knowledge, that having them weep on camera is going to add any substance to the debate.
Did I say they should have no voice? No. I said it is apt to describe them as props when they are doing nothing other than standing next to a politician giving a speech.
Yes, rape victims standing next to a politician giving a speech about rape laws are being used as props. Blacks standing next to a politician giving a speech about civil rights are props. Gay standing next to a politician giving a speech about gay rights are props. Need I go on?
These people are all welcome to their “voice” however they want. When they’re standing up there mute and immobile, used simply to provoke an emotional response, they’re props.
Regarding the 2nd part of my quoted post, I stand by it. People who are strong supporters of any given issue (especially controversial ones) are the last ones you should listen to. They are most likely to distort the facts to support their opinions, most likely to ignore contrary evidence, most likely to be guided by their emotions rather than the facts, and most likely to dismiss the need to compromise or understand the position of the other side. Parents whose children were brutally killed just a few months ago are not going to the the voice of reason, rationality and moderation in this debate.
Of course, everyone has a right to talk to their elected reps. So I guess it depends on what’s actually in the bills. Not everyone is invited to Washington to lobby Senators from other states.
Is there anything in these bills that would have prevented the Newtown monster from killing anyone? He stole the firearms. That’s already illegal. He murdered his mother. That’s already illegal. He shot his way into the school. That’s illegal. The shooting started at 0930 and ended between 0946 and 0949. The monster committed suicide after seeing that the police had arrived.
Harry Reid’s bill would have made it a felony if a firearm owner didn’t report to AG Eric Holder within 24 hours that their firearm had been stolen. Is that why the Newtown families were there? Or did they want a bill that would actually have prevented the mentally ill mosters from obtaining a firearm in the first place? The monsters mother couldn’t report her firearms stolen because she was his first victim.
*S.649
Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013
SEC. 123. LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING.
(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end–
`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.'.*
To make a decision, that’s true. However, it seems important to me that they can be heard by people who actually make the decision, so that the latter can grasp the real consequences of this decision.
That would apply to many other issues : death penalty, decision to wage a war, road traffic regulations, etc…
Why is it not an apt description to describe the President of the United States and all the trappings that goes with it as “props” for the parents who want to be seen and heard.
Who set the default on being factual on this to Rand Paul?
The President and the slaughtered children’s parents and siblings have been strongly advocating that the Senate allow an up or down vote and then a bill goes to the House for the same thing. So why are these parents ‘least-qualified’ to make such a demand.
Why would anyone defend the coward politicians in the Senate that will not allow a simple majority vote so they can be placed on record where they stand?
What kind of expert does one have to be to want a vote on a Bill?
I’ll try to remember this “people as props is shameful” argument the next time I’m asked to give someone who’s been in the army a standing ovation for no reason.
I agree with your assessment of Rand Paul, however I do not agree that what he says is factual.
It would be just as ‘factual’ to call the President a prop for the families.
My view us that ‘props’ is improper for either, because they are in agreement on what needs to be done. The parents and the President are not putting on a performance acting out something in which they do not believe.