Bobcat Goldthwait's God Bless America might be one of the last movies you want to watch, but it's probably the first you need to. This strange, bloody and yet unusually funny film is the story of beaten-down 50-something Bobcat-surrogate Frank. Spurned by his 9-year-old daughter, fired for sending flowers, his insomnia is spent channel-surfing the sewer of reality TV with watery eyes and ever-deepening sorrow. At the height of his sadness Frank places a military-issue pistol against the roof of his mouth but never fires. Instead he hears the hysterical fits of a Sweet 16 show starlet on TV, and realizes that there are people more deserving of death.

So he kills her. Drives to her school, approaches her in the parking lot, and blows her blood around. Thus begins the main action of God Bless America: a cross-country killing spree, fueled by a hate of modern society, the psychopathic passions of his accomplice Roxy, and Bobcat Goldthwait's manifesto on what is wrong with the world. Together Frank and Roxy roam the land knocking off the irksome types--arrogant television stars, movie theatre talkers, parking space takers--in self-righteous judgment on society descended into the mud. In the day of mass-after-mass shootings, it's satisfying in a way I'd forgotten gratuitous violence could be.

It's not this gratuitous gore, however, that's most disturbing about God Bless America (although the baby-shooting scene toward the beginning nearly takes the cake). Instead, it's how accurately Goldthwait mirrors modern culture, and what that means. As Frank channel surfs from one mega-hit substitute to another, you realize you know the plot to every show vignette before it plays out: the 16-year-old is going to throw a tantrum over getting the wrong car, classless courtesans will do something disgusting in their brawl. When Frank then delivers his long-winded monologues about how we're just not nice anymore, how we pick on the wrong people, how any and everyone's priorities are so out of order, you start to realize that he's right--or worse, that you've thought the same thing. Suddenly, as Frank clicks back the hammer, in the safety of this pseudo-reality you're glad to see his victims go. What started as a Netflix rental has devolved into your complicity in murder, and one more subscriber to Goldthwait's view of society. Even if portions of it are ripped directly from his standup.

As you can probably tell, God Bless America is not a feel-good movie. Though funny and about America, it isn't particularly happy or patriotic, though on the latter a case could be made for it being the most patriotic film in years. Maybe this movie is Goldthwait exercising some Old Testament judgment on his motherland, chastening those he loves and looking for a return to decency in society. Or maybe God Bless America is just a sophomoric exercise in griping over matters of taste. That's going to be up to the individual, ultimately. But if you can stomach the guns, guts, and gore, I guarantee you'll finish it thinking more than when you began.

With the media focusing on the Senate's failure to expand background checks for guns, I'm focusing on the bright side of this news.

I, for one, am truly relieved that Washington has once again failed to follow the wishes of the American people. I mean, with my sordid past, I would never be able to get a gun under this recently shot down legislation. With a deep enough dive into my life, the government would inevitably come across some of these embarrassingly painful truths -- which would probably disqualify me from gun ownership as well as most other things the Constitution says I can have. Like free speech. And the right to vote if I was a woman.

Let's explore.

8: I used Sun-In for about three summers, which made my normally brown hair the color of fingers after eating Cheetos. This is embarrassing beyond belief and clearly affected my brain function. I can't find any pictures of the years in question, but I'm sure the ATF would have found something to stop me from getting a gun.

7. I posted this picture of myself on the Internet with the caption "Crushing it?" This is obviously the work of a self-absorbed narcissist who can't be trusted with a gun. Or an iPhone.

6. I once wore this for Halloween. They'd probably think I am some sort of a terrorist from the future -- like a dorky Terminator sent back in time to sabotage my own life.

5. They'd come across my first stand-up comedy set on YouTube with a bunch of half-formed jokes -- including one about 9/11 -- which I'm clearly reading from notes. Devastating to my credibility and any background check.

4: The thing is, I wore a puka shell necklace for entirely way too long. Once again, there was no photographic evidence that I could find, but I know it would somehow come up in a database dive and any hope I had for firearms would be out the door.

3. They'd find out that the awesome scar that goes across my head is actually from dunking on a nine foot hoop. And missing the dunk. Eesh.

2. They'd clearly discover this picture I drew of Bo Jackson when I was 10 years old. Note that I wrote "love" and not "from" on the bottom. Disturbing.

1. I once fought an innocent animal. She won, but that's beside the point.

Now, I know everyone else has equally embarrassing skeletons in their closets. But I can only imagine what relics Wayne LaPierre -- and 46 senators -- have hidden away and are afraid of being uncovered. I can't think of any other reasons for them to be holding up this incredibly logical legislation. Please leave any tips in the comments below.

Facebook reportedly shut down the page of a Pennsylvania firearms store that was giving away semi-automatic weapons in support of the Second Amendment.

Erik Lowry, owner of Pittsburgh Tactical Firearms in McKeesport, Pa., claims his store's Facebook page was shut down following an AR-15 giveaway launched earlier this year, according to ABC's WTAE Pittsburgh. On Friday, he received a message from Facebook informing him the page was deactivated, but he received no further explanation.

Back in February, Pittsburgh Tactical Firearms made headlines when the store gave away hundreds of rounds of ammunition, dozens of high-capacity magazine clips and an AR-15 assault weapon. Prospective contestants had to "like" the Facebook page and share with friends to be entered in the contest.

Lowry explained to radio station NewsRadio 1020 KDKA that an AR-15 could come in handy for customers to "defend themselves from a tyrannical government," a right provided by the Second Amendment.

It began as a Christmas contest, but many later construed it to be a protest of President Barack Obama's push for gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Dec. 14, Lowry previously told The Huffington Post.

The owner, who claims his business is losing thousands of dollars each day because of the alleged blockade, thinks misinformation regarding the giveaway is to blame for Facebook shutting down his page.

“People were thinking if you won, I was just going to send a gun to your front door. It just doesn't work that way,” he told WTAE, saying that winners had to to pass background checks. “If you win a firearm from us, you come to the store, and as long as you pass a background check, you walk out with your gun.”

News platform Vocativ recently contacted the social network about gun giveaways within the Facebook community. A spokesman for the social network said that, since such pages can be considered ads, they are in violation of the site's terms. Vocativ provided Facebook with the names of multiple stores participating in such contests, and the pages were subsequently removed.

"Our Ad Guidelines prohibit promotion of the sale of weapons and the Ad Guidelines apply to Pages with commercial content on them,” a Facebook rep said. “Ads may not promote the sale or use of weapons, ammunition, or explosives.”

Still, Lowry is angry about what happened.

"This kind of censorship is unconstitutional," he told The Blaze regarding Facebook shutting down his page. He plans to reach out to the National Rifle Association (NRA) for legal council.

Facebook could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.

The right to bear arms all started with our forefathers. They said to use them to protect ourselves.

Today we have developed automatic and all kinds of crazy guns that our forefathers, if they were still alive, would not be okay with. Personally, I prefer to use non-lethal weapons. A gun is fine, but let's talk about the bullet.

What actually kills? Is it the person? Is it the gun? No, it's the bullet. Today, it doesn't have to be lead. It can be a chemical. It can be a projectile with pepper inside. You may be familiar, but salt is a common tool used to shoot and scare animals. We can drop an elephant with one shot from a dart gun -- drop an elephant to his knees!

Given that knowledge, America needs to start getting away from the traditional bullet. No doubt about it, no questions asked -- you get shot with a bullet, you're dead. Dead is forever, gone. So let me be clear: I am all for protecting my family, myself -- I want my mother to protect herself, but I'd rather America develop a non-lethal way to do it.

Over the past 40 years, I've interviewed several hundred killers, fugitives, and criminals -- thousands of men who used guns in the commission of their crime. When I shared my views on non-lethal weapons, 99.9 percent of them agreed they don't intend to kill their victims. From Crips and Bloods to The Hells Angels and all gangs in between, none of the members I've talked to are proud to attend a funeral or to have to tell a friend's mother their child is dead. I tell them there is a way to force your opponents into submission and it doesn't have to be lethal -- you can dance all over him without dancing on his grave.

With as far as we've come in America, the gun laws we enforce bring us back to the Wild West. If you're not a hunter, there is no need to have bullets within city limits. There are options from the manufacturers to drop a man that comes within 35-40 ft., even if he has bullets, you will take him down. Some might say using a non-lethal weapon is like "like taking a knife to a gun fight," but even if you have gun vs. gun, the winner is the guy who draws first. The more aggressive guy, real or non-lethal weapons, if you draw first, you stay alive -- bottom line.

The bible says, "The meek shall inherit the earth," not the weak. I don't know what the solution for gun control is, but I see a few areas that need reinforcement.

Right now everyone is finally realizing that the gun permit renewal process doesn't happen very often. I think the process should be enforced on a yearly basis. I've also noticed a correlation between the random acts of gun violence and the narcotics related to depression. The gunman is in treatment or has sought out treatment for psychiatric issues. How can we know someone has a mental health issue and still allow them to acquire guns? There has to be some sort of federal association doctors can report patients to, when prescribed certain medications, that would prohibit them from access to guns. We see all kinds of commercials on TV talking about side effects from common prescribed drugs -- why don't we start exposing the mental disorders that come from other kinds of drugs that lead to killings. If a gun permit holder goes on any of the "danger" drugs, why aren't we doing something about it? A federal committee would be responsible for revoking their license and repossession of the firearm immediately.

In most states, most crime convictions require you to turn in your firearms to police until a verdict is reached. There should not be an issue taking guns away from someone taking 10 pills of anti-depressants daily -- the hell we're not. When the doctor puts a mental health hold on someone -- he's treating them for a serious condition. We need to open our eyes America. The postman delivering ammunition to a young guy in the city, he knows what could happen. Unless he's some sort of survivalist, there is no reason to stock up on ammunition -- there's no reason not to report it.

You know I had a cop tell me the other day, "I'm not a smoker, but because of you I carry around a pack of Marlboros now just in case." For those unfamiliar with our show, he's saying you get farther and more information being nice. That gives me hope. You got Johnny "light-in-the-head" Appleseed, wielding a butter knife, there's no need to shoot to kill and cops in several states are using non-lethal weapons more frequently. SWAT in Denver use pepperballs. It's encouraging to know they can learn from us as much as we learn from their example.

Let's get the lead out.

CONCORD, N.H. -- Ralph Demicco has watched the surveillance footage of a man shopping around his store, leaning on the counter and calmly chatting with the clerk before buying the gun he used to take his own life later that day. The man was one of three people, who in the span of a week purchased firearms from Demicco's gun shop and used them to commit suicide.

"I was devastated," Demicco recalled. "At the time, I remember saying over and over, `I just can't believe it.'"

Former Sen. Al D'Amato (R-N.Y.) had some harsh remarks for lawmakers who voted against a gun-buyer background check bill earlier this week, saying he thinks "you've got to be a jackass" to not support background checks.

At an event for Republican Dina DeGiorgio, who is running for town supervisor in North Hempstead, New York, D'Amato said he was disappointed in his party over the vote, Patch reports.

"By the way, I'm a Republican. I'm not always very proud of what our party has been doing, particularly lately on the national level," D'Amato said. "I think you've got to be a jackass to be voting against background checks for people buying guns."

D'Amato publicly expressed support for the background check bill on April 15, warning opponents they were making a "tragic mistake" by not supporting the measure.

“My colleagues who vote against those provisions I think are making a terrible, tragic mistake and are bending to the pressure of the NRA," D'Amato said in an interview with Fox News. "I’m a conservative — I believe a person should have a right to own a weapon, but I also think there can and should be background checks.”

Editorials from newspapers nationwide criticized those who voted against the measure, calling them "shameful" and "cowardly." The background check amendment, which failed 54 to 46, is supported by 90 percent of Americans.

Click here for a list of the Twitter handles of all of the senators who voted no on the measure, excluding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who voted against the amendment on procedural grounds.

Click here for more, and watch a video of D'Amato's remarks above via Port Washington Patch.

CORRECTION: DeGiorgio was initially identified as a Democrat. She is a former Democrat who is now running as a Republican.

Even the most cynical amongst us were stunned when the U.S. Senate voted down a watered down, bipartisan, partial background check for gun purchases that's supported by some 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members. The image of the president flanked by a grieving mother and a congresswoman who was shot in the head brought me and many others to tears.

This happened because money has near-complete control of our political system. The NRA outspent the Brady Center to Control Gun Violence by 73 to 1 last year. As Gabby Giffords said in her brilliant New York Times op-ed, senators betrayed the people because of a deep fear of the NRA unseating them from office. The NRA has that power because they have and spend real political money.

We all need to ask ourselves what it's going to actually take to win the issues we care about. what will it take to get activists and philanthropists supporting every issue to get off the hamster wheel, and face reality: we have to change the play. We have to either coalesce around this issue of money in politics corruption, or we will lose every other issue. Period. We must channel the dismay felt by 90 percent of Americans into a massive new movement to take on the real problem with American politics.

Until now, there has been confusion about what we need to coalesce around, and deep cynicism that any reform can be achieved. That is starting to change. Activists in Albany, New York are edging closer to an important statewide campaign finance reform victory. Last week, some 500 people dressed as $100 bills ran K Street to the U.S. Capitol, and saw the Tea Party standing shoulder to shoulder with Bold Progressives against money in politics corruption. (Funny video worth watching)

Anti-corruption advocates have gotten off the hamster wheel, and are building something extraordinary that creates the same kind of fear in senators as the NRA; that advocates transformative reforms like the American Anti-Corruption Act; that is backed by a broad swath of Americans left, right and center; and that sets the table for real change when the next political crisis occurs.

The Kyoto Protocol expired on January 1. No climate treaty was achieved, and the world went back to emitting greenhouses gases with abandon. Last month, the Monsanto Protection Act passed, preventing the courts from protecting consumers from dangerous food. Before that, the fiscal cliff bill passed with a $500 million gift to drug giant Amgen. U.S. banks are still too big to fail and raking in record profits while poverty is the highest it's been in 50 years. Nearly 50 million Americans are living in poverty: that's $23,000 a year or less for a family of four. Crony capitalism is driving up the deficit, and Congress is trapped in partisan gridlock that makes the most common sense decisions impossible. I have enough examples to write a book.

I don't know why every advocate and donor is not putting 50 percent of his/her time and money into this issue. Philanthropy invests some billion dollars a year in environmental causes while money in politics reformers fight over scraps --- while fighting a problem that's like a massive asteroid hurtling towards earth. Eventually it will decimate our democracy, and with it our nation's future. There is no perfect political strategy to save us from the asteroid, but new ones are emerging, along with new leadership and energy from influential people who have finally experienced their light bulb moment. If enough of us have that moment. If enough of us wake up and shift our priorities, resources and talent to this issue, we will achieve the critical mass required to deflect the asteroid and save the republic.

We're seeing glimmers of sanity emerge almost daily. This week, beer magnate and National Rifle Association lifetime member Adolphus Busch stepped down, saying in a public letter to the NRA, "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

Vast majorities of Americans want to get money out of politics. We are more united than we are divided. If we can learn to find points of unity -- rather than let our leaders exploit areas of disagreement -- we can and will force those leaders to change campaign finance and elections or pack their bags. The power is in our hands.

The backlash over a tweet by Nate Bell, the Republican Arkansas state representative who jabbed "cowering" "Boston liberals" on gun control in the midst of a citywide manhunt for the second Boston bombing suspect, flared on Friday with a New England lawmaker calling for his resignation.

New Hampshire state Rep. Peter Sullivan (D), who has strong ties to Arkansas, made the suggestion in a letter obtained by the Arkansas Times:

Bell's comments are deeply offensive to those of us who live in the Greater Boston area. We have family members and friends who are being terrorized by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The people of Boston have shown remarkable courage. patience, and humanity during a time of tragedy. To see an elected official use the pain and suffering of our neighbors turned into an opportunity for partisan grandstanding is beyond insensitive, it is barbaric.

Rep. Bell should do the right thing and consider resigning his seat.

(Read more on Sullivan from the Arkansas Times.)

Bell's original tweet suggested that Bostonians locked down in their houses on Friday would have felt more comfortable with the type of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that many had supported banning in gun control legislation that failed this week.

I wonder how many Boston liberals spent the night cowering in their homes wishing they had an AR-15 with a hi-capacity magazine? #2A

— Nate Bell (@NateBell4AR) April 19, 2013

Bell had earlier attempted to back away from the comment, saying he was only expressing "frustration" over gun control efforts supported by many Democrats.

"I don't regret the content as much as I regret the timing," Bell told The Associated Press. "I really didn't think about it going to Boston and was generally expressing my personal view of how I would have felt in that situation myself."

The nationwide attention given to Bell's tweet also forced other state lawmakers from both parties to step in and denounce the Republican's message. One of the sharpest responses came from state House Minority Leader Greg Leding (D), who called Bell's remark "tasteless."

"The people of Boston are not cowards. They are patriots," Leding said in a statement issued by state Democratic Party, according to the AP. "No one, including Rep. Bell, should ever infer that the American people are anything other than courageous, and the only words we should be offering to the people of Boston are those of support and of prayer."

Feelings of disappointment and anger overwhelm those of relief or excitement over the Senate's rejection of background check legislation earlier this week, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. That result comes as no surprise, given that the vast majority of Americans continue to favor expanding background checks for those seeking to purchase a firearm.

Asked to choose the word that best described their feelings about the Senate's rejection Wednesday of an amendment to expand background checks, 32 percent of respondents said they were disappointed and 28 percent said they were angry, compared to 17 percent who described themselves as relieved and 6 percent who said they were excited. Another 18 percent said they weren't sure which word best described their feelings.

The poll found that 71 percent continue to favor requiring background checks at gun shows and for online sales, as the Senate agreement would have done, while 17 percent said they were opposed to such checks. Another recent survey on the Senate proposal, conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post, found that 86 percent of respondents said they supported the expanded background checks.

An earlier HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in March found that 73 percent of Americans said they support background checks, which was also on the lower side compared to other public polls on the issue.

In the new HuffPost/YouGov poll, 90 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of independents, and 60 percent of Republicans said that they support background checks.

But among Republicans, the words chosen to best describe their feelings about the bill may provide some insight into why most Republican senators felt comfortable opposing the background check requirement. A combined 39 percent of Republicans said that they were either excited or relieved, while 38 percent said they were disappointed or angry. Twenty-three percent of Republicans said they weren't sure how they felt about the defeat of the amendment.

Both Democrats and independents were more likely to choose negative than positive words to describe their feelings, by a margin of 84 percent to 8 percent for Democrats and 53 percent to 26 percent among independents.

Although most Americans say that they support expanded background checks, the new survey indicates that the issue isn't one Americans are following closely. Only 36 percent said that they have heard a lot about the Senate's rejection of the measure, while 48 percent said they had heard a little and 16 percent said they had heard nothing at all.

And those who were following the developments most closely were slightly less likely to say that they supported expanded background checks. Of those who said they had heard a lot, 67 percent said they favored background checks, compared to 26 percent who opposed, while those who had heard only a little favored them 75 percent to 13 percent. In addition, 31 percent of those following most closely used positive words to describe their feelings about the Senate rejecting the measure, compared to only 22 percent of those who had only heard a little.

The poll was conducted April 17-18 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov's nationally representative opinion polling.

My first reaction on hearing of the Senate's failure to get 60 votes for even modest measures to regulate the flow of guns into the hands of people who shouldn't have them, such as background checks supported by 90 percent of Americans, was to be furious at the spinelessness of the four Senate Democrats who voted against the measure (Mark Begich, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Heidi Heitkamp), as well as the Republicans. And also with Harry Reid, who wouldn't lead the fight on changing the filibuster rule when he had the chance.

The deeper message here is that rural, older, white America occupies one land; younger, urban, increasingly non-white America lives in another. And the dividing line on social issues (not just guns, but also abortion, equal marriage rights, and immigration reform) runs between the two.

Yes, I know: Plenty of people who are rural, older, and white aren't regressives on guns, abortion, equal marriage, and immigration. And plenty who are urban, younger, and non-white are. My point is that if you want to explain what's happening in America on these non-economic issues you have to understand what's happening to the nation demographically -- and why the demographic split is important.

Begich, Baucus, Pryor, and Heitkamp may be Democrats but they're also from rural, older, white America. That land has disproportionate political power in the Senate, and a gerrymandered House -- which may not bode well for immigration reform over the next few months, and suggests continuing battles over "state's rights" to determine who can marry and when human life begins.

Over time, though, older, rural, white America is losing ground to a nation becoming ever younger, more urban, and increasingly non-white -- a fact that threatens the former so much that it's in full backlash against the forces of change.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Doctors, psychologists, ethicists and others, along with our society at large, debate whether "the ends justify the means." But nobody debates whether "the means justify the ends." There is no point even looking for an answer to a question that is patently silly. For now, just hold that thought, please.

Medical ethics can be very challenging. There are the difficulties of interpreting "do everything" in desperate situations where heroic effort is on one side of a line, and futility on the other. There are the challenges of doing "no harm," while taking great risks. There are challenges of optimal resource allocations for the greater good. There are challenges related to tradeoffs between beneficial and adverse effects, particularly with high-risk surgical and critical care procedures. In this context, the question of ends justifying means comes up routinely.

Perhaps the most vivid and obvious illustration is any variation on the theme of euthanasia. Those who believe it is the work of medical practice to protect life view all such variants as wrong, if not anathema. If, however, the work of medicine is to preserve dignity, and autonomy -- the case for assisted dying can be made, at least under narrowly-defined circumstances. It can be a case where the ends -- relief from suffering, death with dignity -- might justify the means.

The question has far-ranging implications for the whole field of ethics. One school of thought, for example, is that whatever achieves the greatest good for the greatest number is "right." This is referred to as utilitarianism, and while few real-world ethicists espouse it in pure form, they do invoke its principles.

The extreme contrary view, deontology, stipulates that some things are wrong just because they are wrong -- no matter what effects they exert. Again, the pure practice of this probably doesn't exist, but it informs the "do ends justify the means" debate.

Psychology experiments famously reframe the "ends versus means" debate by presenting a scenario where a great deal of good can be done, such as saving a whole group of people, but only by doing intentional harm -- such as killing an individual.

There are good reasons why the debate endures, and is to some extent insoluble. There may be no single right answer.

But again, no one wrestles with the reciprocal question -- "do the means justify the ends?" -- and with good reason. If you are getting bad outcomes, what point could there possibly be in "justifying" the means that lead to the ends you don't want?

In a world where means are used to justify ends, there might be means to treat the nausea of pregnancy. For those affected by it, those would be welcome means, indeed. And for those with more severe forms of pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, they might even be truly important means.

But, as has in fact proven true in the past, those means might produce serious unintended consequences, in the form of birth defects. In a world that sensibly asks "do ends justify means?" while just as sensibly avoiding "do means justify ends?" the response to this is rather obvious. Doing what seems like a good idea stops being a good idea when it produces bad outcomes. A treatment for pregnancy-related nausea that produces common, serious birth defects would not be justifiable. The abandonment of thalidomide for this purpose demonstrates that this is not just hypothetical. In the real world, bad ends unjustify well-intended means.

And now we come to the reason for this ramble. My hope, if not quite my belief, is that we might constructively look at the vexing issue of gun control through this same lens. We do so, of course, in the immediate aftermath of background checks failing to make it through the Senate.

The roiling debate about the Second Amendment seems to hinge on where one places one's semantic emphasis. Those opposed to any regulation of gun sales emphasize "shall not be infringed." Proponents of gun control emphasize the subordination of that clause to "a well regulated Militia."

I have opinions about this, and you may as well, but since we are unlikely to resolve any differences of opinion about the language of the amendment here and now, let's not try.

Rather, let's consider this: The language of the amendment, however it is interpreted, is about means. Some manner of access to guns for some portion of the citizenry is the means, and something like defense against tyranny and protection of liberty the presumably intended ends.

Clearly, the ends could justify the means. If more guns of all kinds freely accessible to all meant more liberty, more security, less risk of tyranny -- then the means might well be justified, and the fuss would end.

But the means cannot justify bad ends. If the consequences of interpreting the Founders' means one way are ill and unintended, such as the massacre of schoolchildren without better protection of liberty of defense against tyrrany, then the means -- whatever their original intentions -- are subject to reconsideration, no less than thalidomide. It in no way tramples the rights of pregnant women to have their nausea treated when we abandon a drug that causes birth defects. Bad ends, however unintended, unjustify means, however well-intended.

We might better confront the gun control debate with data, gathered in a non-partisan manner, about the ends we are getting. We could make a systematic effort to look for all potential good, and all potential bad, ensuing from the status quo just propagated on the floors of the U.S. Senate. If we don't even look for such data, it implies someone doesn't want to know the ends we are getting, and that is an always ominous sign of ulterior motives and cowardice. We must know the effects of our actions to be qualified judges of our conduct.

Whether ends justify means will remain, in particular contexts, a legitimate and challenging debate for the foreseeable future. But in a world where means justify ends, and unintended consequences don't matter -- the very concept of ethics has met a very mean end already.

-fin

Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-David-L-Katz/114690721876253
http://twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-l-katz-md-mph/7/866/479/

By Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON, April 19 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, moving swiftly after the U.S. Senate rejected a measure to expand background checks for gun buyers, acted on Friday to patch holes in the existing database dealers use to ensure they are not selling weapons to criminals or the mentally ill.

The Health and Human Services Department will issue a formal proposal on Friday to make sure one of its privacy laws does not prevent states from reporting information to the background check system.

"While this background check system is the most efficient and effective way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, it is only as effective as the information that is available to it," an administration official said.

Obama was visibly frustrated after the Senate on Wednesday defeated a bill that would have expanded background checks for guns bought at gun shows and on the Internet.

"Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities," Obama said on Wednesday.

"We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system," he said. The idea was part of a series of executive actions Obama first announced in January.

Health and Human Services will ask for public comment on how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's privacy rule prevents some state agencies from reporting data to the background check system, and how best to remove those barriers.

The rule allows hospitals and agencies to disclose data when it is required by law, but some states did not have explicit laws requiring state agencies to share data from mental health records, said a report last year by the Government Accountability Office, a federal government watchdog.

The GAO found that 17 states had provided very few records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The privacy rule was one issue, but technology problems and limited staff resources were also identified as barriers. (Editing by Philip Barbara)

However tragic the effects of a pressure cooker filled with explosive powder and shrapnel, there is a worse way to use one: cook elected officials to death. That's the effect of the gun-lobby pressure cooker where they turn up the heat until members of Congress wilt into spineless mush.

I learned about kitchen pressure cookers in the '50s. My father, ever adoring of clever innovations and ever despairing about my mother's lack of culinary skills, brought home this newfangled pot with a steam vent on the locking top. Mom, raised in an intellectual New England family whose cook never permitted the children entry to the kitchen, thought cooking meant heating something up. Period. Unfortunately, the new pressure cooker advanced nothing but the speed and thoroughness with which any foods placed in it could be reduced to undifferentiated slime.

You see why I make the analogy with D.C. We have witnessed this wilting process writ large on the national scene with the failure of the Senate to pass any measure that would in any meaningful way reduce the carnage caused by the 100,000,000+ guns Americans possess.

And all because of the pressure cooker into which the gun-industry lobbyists have tossed a fistful of our representatives, weak-minded enough to believe they are defending the Second Amendment or craven enough to pretend that no measure is worth enacting unless it can provide perfect protection from gun violence for all people at all times.

Both excuses for inaction are bogus in the extreme. Certainly the history of gun-control legislation and Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment is extraordinarily complicated, replete with legalistic zigs and zags and even far-fetched justifications rooted in ancient laws of foreign countries, of all things. Fine, play those silly games and acknowledge that England's 1689 Bill of Rights had influence way back then in our own Constitution's provisions. But I thought we fought the Revolutionary War so we could think for ourselves.

The bald truth is that nothing but political cowardice prevents our employing common sense today in enacting updated provisions for conditions beyond the imagining of the Framers. They seem largely to have wanted to ensure that if the Brits had second thoughts about letting the colonies go, the Minutemen would be sufficiently armed to repel them once again. Those dutiful owners of muzzle-loaders were automatically enrolled in the militia, at the ready. My guess is that today's enthusiastic owners of assault rifles probably have scant enthusiasm for shipping out to Afghanistan to try their luck on the battlefield where people actually shoot back at them.

Look, everybody knows that the only people who can define a cogent need for the continuing sale of large-magazine, high-output assault rifles are the managers of the gun-manufacturing companies who fear being fired if they don't meet their revenue targets. Granted, their desire to keep their jobs reflects a valid personal need. But it conflicts with the public's need to keep these fearsome weapons out of the hands of anyone but the military and law-enforcement officers. Smart executives morph their companies away from dying markets all the time, and it's now time for the gun manufacturers to learn how to do that, too.

The other prevailing excuse of legislators -- that any given proposed measure won't solve the whole problem -- is a classic example of dishonoring the longtime maxim that "The perfect should not be the enemy of the good." Because there is a glimmer of truth to their assertion, it elicits from all too many a sad nod of understanding and sympathy instead of the outraged demand that they get cracking on enacting all the rest of the measures that will fill the gaps left by whatever they are currently running away from enacting.

Again, let common sense prevail. Nobody expects that perfect safety from gun violence will result from legislation, no matter how many measures and how comprehensive they may be. But nobody believes, either, that an all-out campaign to enact key provisions won't reduce deaths by irresponsible access to guns. Eliminate them totally? Of course not. Reduce them? Unquestionably. And so failure to take these measures means that blood is on the hands of those who might have acted but failed to do so. And so, too, is that blood on the hands of those who make it their business to discourage legislators from doing the right thing.

"Shame on you!" rang from the gallery in the Senate as the background-check measure failed, prompting the eviction of the two women who shouted it. Unfortunately, the Sergeant-at-Arms evicted the wrong parties from the Senate chambers. All 46 of them remained on the floor.

This week in April is a bad one. Even before the tragic events at the Boston Marathon Monday or before the explosion in West, Texas, this week in April was full of tragedy. With a presidential assassination, school shootings, bombings and failed raids, American had been put through the ringer.

Which is part of the reason why I think the failure to pass the gun control measure hit me and many other Americans particularly hard. This measure, which failed by six votes, didn't take away people's guns. It didn't make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire weapons. All it was going to do was expand background checks. That's it. It should have been a no brainer, especially when recent polling shows upwards of 90 percent of Americans support stricter background checks.

This vote happened a day after the six year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, in which 32 people were killed and 17 more were injured, making it the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. The shooter (and I purposely do not use his name) did go through the background checks required of him, but lied on them. He did not disclose he had been court ordered to seek mental healthcare. Someone who had the obvious mental illnesses he had should under no circumstances have been allowed to purchase the weapons and ammunition he did.

Stricter and more expanded background checks (in addition to beefing up our mental healthcare system) would have been a step in the right direction to prevent tragedies like what happened at Virginia Tech again.

This vote also took place three days before the 14th anniversary of the mass shooting at Columbine High School, where 12 students and teachers were killed and 21 more injured. The shooters of that massacre were able to acquire their weaponry with relative ease. This shooting had such an effect on people that even the NRA, at the time, supported instant background checks as a way to save lives.

Oh how times have changed.

The thing that I think disgusts me the most is many of these Senators met with victims of gun violence and their families, including survivors of what happened in Sandy Hook. They looked these people in the eye as they shared stories and pictures of their loved ones who had lost their lives due to gun violence, and yet, could not vote for something the vast majority of Americans (and NRA members) want. It is disgusting, and shows the perverse power the lobbying industry has on our elected representatives. They've shown time and time again that they are not representatives of the people, but representatives of lobbyists and special interest groups.

They underestimate us regular citizens.

They underestimate how angry we are when we see our children dying in their classrooms. They underestimate how heartbroken we are to hear tales from cities of 6-month-olds dying from stray bullets. They underestimate how fed up we are with this system, and they underestimate how much we want gun control.

They also underestimate our ability to remember. We won't forget this. All of the members of the Senate who voted no on this will be up for reelection at some point. I don't care what they do from now until that day comes. I will remember who voted against common sense and I'll let my ballot do the talking for me.

For now what happened is unfortunately just another sad event scarring the week of April 15th. Because while no one lost their lives immediately, our Senators have shown they don't want to do whatever they can to prevent future tragedies, and if we've learned anything this week, it's that there are sick, twisted, individuals who will do whatever they can to harm us. That won't change because of a piece of paper, and unfortunately will never change. However, doing whatever we can to make it harder for people to commit acts of violence should be a priority.

Gun control laws will pass. It's what the people want and it's only a matter of time until the outrage becomes so great that it has to happen. If this Congress won't take the steps to do it, then we'll keep voting until we get one who will.