Feel-Good Laws

Today the Senate is considering a series of proposals to deal with guns, ammunition and the purchasing of same.  The only new constraint that seems to have a chance of passage is the expansion of background checks for the purchase of guns … particularly over the Internet ... see: Washington Post Story. 

This legislation is obviously in response to the slaughter of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut over four months ago by Adam Lanza, an emotionally disturbed teenage loner.  One sponsor of these new restrictions, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has even admitted that these new constraints would not have stopped the Newtown massacre.  And, it is possible that this new legislation might also infringe on some Constitutional rights of Americans … see: Policy Mic Story. (And if you want to see what I think are the real issues coming out of Newtown killings are, please reference: Assault Weapons).

So why pass such laws?  It seems to me that it all has to do with our politicians trying to strike poses that demonstrate their heart-felt concerns … however rushed and inconclusive.  I think the appropriate term for such legislation might be “feel-good laws.”  They end up treating the symptoms and not the disease.  To me, the road to despotism is paved with thousands upon thousands of such feel-good laws.  My reasoning is, after these laws are passed (and, too often, not enforced), lawmakers strut around as though they have fixed things  … at least in the eyes of the voters … and push the real problem(s) to a back burner … until the next time such a heinous act occurs.  

To me, this all seems so vacuous, futile ... and dangerous.

Afterward: The expanded-background-check legislation failed yesterday in the Senate to the indignant consternation of President Obama and the Morning Joe cast.  Although this specific restriction might have had some merit, what is not generally being discussed is that it was an amendment to the larger gun law that included many more controversial items (assault weapon ban, large ammunition clips ban, etc.).  It would seem to me that, even had the expanded-background-check amendment passed muster, the omnibus bill never had a chance. Thus, this specific issue, in my mind, is moot ... and all the heated rhetoric surrounding yesterday's Senate rejection vote is phony and a public-relations stunt ... designed for political purpose ... and not to save "one child's life."  Perhaps this specific constraint can be introduced and passed as a stand-alone law?  Wouldn't that be special ...