Monday, July 03, 2006
Sue Kelly Opposes Gun Safety
The subject of guns and gun control is always good for creating controversy. However, reasonable folks will agree that gun safety is important and should be a high priority. Well, based on her vote last week, it looks like Sue Kelly is coming down on the side of the UNreasonable.
There was a vote last week in Congress on an amendment to overturn a previously passed legislation that requires safety trigger locks on all handguns sold in America. Thanks in part to Sue, the amendment passed. This ridiculous proposal was introduced by Republican Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado. Her reasoning for overturning the existing gun safety law is below:
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave a Colorado Republican, argued that the added cost of the trigger locks is passed on to gun owners and that they "do not stop accidental shootings."
Now let me take apart the sheer stupidity of Rep. Musgrave's reasoning. First, a trigger lock costs anywhere between five and ten dollars. I found this trigger lock on sale for $4.95. Considering that handguns generally cost at least a few hundred dollars, a five dollar trigger lock is a miniscule expense, especially considering the fact that it prevents children from discharging the weapon should the owner carelessly leave it laying around the home. Second, trigger safety locks DO prevent accidental shootings. That is what they are made for. They prevent anyone without a key for the lock, CHILDREN especially, from finding the gun, showing it to their friends and accidentally shooting someone. Does this make sense Rep. Musgrave?
So, why would Sue Kelly vote for this insane legislation? (Hint: follow the money) Well, anyone with internet access can easily find the reason by doing just a little searching. However, I saved you the time and did the legwork myself. The National Rifle Association is always a big behind the scenes player when it comes to this type of legislation. Now looking at campaign contributions made to Kelly, we can find that the NRA contributed $2,000 to Kelly in just this election cycle and over the past five election cycles kicked in over $17,000 to Sue's campaign coffers. So again, why would Sue vote for this insane legislation? I'd suggest that the answer has to do with money and lots of it. Namely, over $17,000 in campaign contributions. Sell-Out Sue strikes again.
Sue does something that makes no sense from the point of view of her constituents, or the general public. And we find the explanation in her big-time PAC donors, in this case the NRA.
Pattern? Yes, because we've seen the same kind of betrayal of the public interest in her votes for credit companies (big-time donors)and against consumers; for oil companies (big-time donors) and against consumers; for the beer and tobacco companies (big-time donors) and against the public.
In fact, about the only time we know of that Sue didn't support her PAC donors was the time this blog noted two weeks ago, when she betrayed a labor donor (the Air Traffic Controllers PAC), because in that case the Republican Party decided (as usual) to be anti-labor.