I’m a Republican. I’m a Mother. I’m for Stricter Gun Control Laws.

Even if universal background checks wouldn't have stopped Newtown tragedy, why do nothing?

The gun control debate rages, in our homes, on the news and in Congress. I don’t understand why. I don’t understand why there is any debate at all. I don’t understand why anyone who is a living, loving human being could argue against stronger gun laws in this country. And I’m a Republican! But I’m a human being first and a mother who has held a child in her arms. A healthy child, thank God, but I can imagine what it might feel like to hold one whose life is ebbing from their body, a victim of gun violence.

Don’t misunderstand, I’m informed enough to know that even the most strict gun laws would not have prevented Sandy Hook. Those guns were purchased legally and registered properly. In the hands of a mentally deranged individual, however, they allowed for a devastating killing spree. No law on the books or anything currently proposed by either side of the aisle would have changed the outcome in Newtown, Connecticut last December. Even Democratic proposals to tighten laws concerning firearm sales to mentally ill people wouldn’t have changed that terrible day, although one could argue that, despite Nancy Lanza’s lack of mental illness history, she had to have had a screw loose to keep weapons in the home of a mentally ill child. And to have taught him how to use them seems to confirm that he wasn’t the only one needing some serious counseling. Hindsight, yes, but illustration that stricter gun laws wouldn’t have made a difference.

So what do we do? Nothing? Of course not. What harm is there in universal background checks or mandatory registration? I’m all for upholding the Constitution, which clearly protects a citizen’s right to bear arms, but where does it say anything in there about background checks or registration? Nowhere. Your car has to be registered; why not a gun? You need a background check to get a job, so why not one to qualify for your right to own a gun? Am I missing something here? It all just seems like common sense.

The Democrats removed the ban of semiautomatic rifles from their pending legislation, ostensibly, to make it more palatable to the other side. Really? Why would anyone object to a ban on a weapon that’s sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time? Unless you’re Tony Montana, a hand gun, a perfectly legal weapon, should be enough to protect your house and home, providing it’s registered and you’ve passed a background check showing you are legally allowed to own a firearm. Isn’t that the very least we can do?

In March, three Republican senators sent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a letter stating their intent to filibuster gun control legislation. In part it reads, “(We will) oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.” Those three senators have since been joined by 10 additional Republican senators, and Republican aides predict additional support for the filibuster.

So, if I’m getting this right, Republicans think that the laws we have are adequate, that the gun control legislation proposed wouldn’t stop a tragedy like Sandy Hook anyway, so why not leave good enough alone. Is that good enough?