Gun Control Campaign Go Too Far?

Avatar for cmkristy
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Gun Control Campaign Go Too Far?
8
Tue, 04-30-2013 - 12:49pm

Nearly six months after the devastating shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the victims' families and gun-control supporters everywhere are still working to pass stricter laws to help protect our children. 

The most recent advocate is the Brooklyn, NY design firm Guts and Glory that created the site They Don't Work for You. Here they've published a series of shocking and provocative images pairing victims of Sandy Hook and other gun-related tragedies with the senators who voted against the extended firearms background check bill a few weeks ago. The images also include contact information for each senator.

Take a look at some of the controversial images here- http://www.ivillage.com/they-dont-work-you-gun-control-campaign/6-a-534544

What do you think? Do the ads go too far?

 photo snowsiggy.png

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Wed, 05-01-2013 - 11:47am
They Don't Work For You Gun Control Ad
They Don't Work For You Gun Control Ad
 They Don't Work For You Gun Control Ad

   They Don't Work For You Gun Control Ad

Like this? Want more?
Sign up for Pregnancy & Newborn

They Don't Work For You Gun Control Ad


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Wed, 05-01-2013 - 11:51am

I like the campaign.  I wrote down the Representatives from my state and will not be voting for them.  I thank the families of the victims of Sandy Hook for doing what I have not done.  They are very kind to give a da*m about the rest of us when they've lost everything.

image

Erica Lafferty

Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican from New Hampshire is now seeing the ills of taking an ideological vote. She was confronted by Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung. As reported in Huffington Post:

“You had mentioned that day you voted, owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm,” Lafferty said, during a town hall in Warren, N.H. “I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn’t more important than that.”

Ayotte told Lafferty she was sorry for her loss but did not directly answer the question.

“I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook, I understand that’s what drove this whole discussion — all of us want to make sure that doesn’t happen again,” she said.

Lafferty stormed out after the exchange, according to NBC News, saying she “had had enough.”

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 05-03-2013 - 11:13pm

OTOH, maybe it was just a poor knee-jerk piece of legislation.

I find it hard to believe, but I agree with this piece from the Heritage Foundation:

"Those concerned with privacy of mental health information — patients, psychotherapists, professional associations, and all Americans concerned about mental health — should stand guard against attempts to weaken existing privacy protection for the mental health information of individuals. The Department of HHS has the role under HIPAA of issuing regulations to protect medical privacy in part because it is institutionally attuned to protecting the interests in mental health care about which the U.S. Supreme Court spoke inJaffreeand can adjust those regulations as appropriate.

The STM gun control legislation eliminates any HIPAA privacy protection for mental health records in connection with the NICS system, leaving only what privacy protection the Attorney General cares to provide. The STM legislation says that information collected under the law by Attorney General Eric Holder to help him enforce the prohibition on firearms possession by mental defectives or people committed to mental institutions “shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).”

Perhaps some will claim that rendering the HIPAA privacy rules inapplicable to state and federal records submitted for NICS has no effect on legal protection for the privacy of mental health records. But if the STM wipe-out of HIPAA does not have an effect, then there is no need for Congress to do it. And if the STM wipe-out of HIPAA does, in fact, decrease privacy protection for the mentally ill, then Congress should not do it, and should preserve existing privacy protection. Either way, Congress should not displace the HIPAA regulations completely with respect to the NICS."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 05-05-2013 - 12:03am

Disgusting.  Liberals using these poor children as props and wedges in their disingenuous campaign to attack the rights of honest, law-abiding Americans.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Mon, 05-06-2013 - 9:59pm

I'd hate to trivialize the gun control issue to a liberal vs conservative, Republican ideology vs Democratic ideology oversimplification. I think the issue transcends party lines. The OP even points out both D and R legislators as bad guys for voting against gun control. Ds and Rs probably opposed for different reasons, but that speaks more to the short comings of the bill's proposals than to ideological disagreements.

I acknowledge that the principles which will emerge as decent legislation will appeal to both Rep and Dem ideology, but I suspect that all Americans believe in keeping innocents free from harm from guns and bullets. I also suspect that all Americans believe in the Constitution and freedom. What is "Constitutional" and what establishes "Freedom" differ from person to person.

How much freedom should be compromised in order to preserve safety is murky, so I repeat, it does not seem like a simple Dem vs Rep issue to me. It transcends party lines.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 05-08-2013 - 12:31am

  Of course it goes too far.  The DEM end game is to cripple the citizens right to bare arms.  It is a emotional appeal that has worked in the past.  So the DEMs are using it.  With the urban population who have almost no access to guns it strikes the cord of fear.  But it is a disaster for the future of the country.  Voting against a bad bill makes sense.  The problem is these bills get kneejerk appeal until later.  The Dems know that if anything else happens it will be a dead issue so they are pushing it hard.

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 05-10-2013 - 10:54pm

>>The DEM end game is to cripple the citizens right to bare arms. <<

Well, no. The DEM end game is to protect citizens from gun violence. The murky part is how far does the permit/right to shoot other people go.

>>It is a emotional appeal that has worked in the past.<<

Really? It has worked?! Then why does the NRA have all the power?

>>Voting against a bad bill makes sense. <<

I'm right there with ya on that one.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 05-11-2013 - 4:33am

Well, no. The DEM end game is to protect citizens from gun violence.

Then why are the Dems pushing a bill that won't do a thing to protect citizens from gun violence?  And doing it with lies?

The murky part is how far does the permit/right to shoot other people go.

It's defined quite clearly in the law statues, and this bill ignores reality in order to set up the framework for a government database of gun owners.


>>It is a emotional appeal that has worked in the past.<<

Really? It has worked?! Then why does the NRA have all the power?

The NRA doesn't have any power...except the power of facts and common sense....and the Constitution.  People associate themselves with the NRA because they believe in it's message and good work.