via Text – S.Res.287 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): A resolution condemning the senseless murder and wounding of 18 individuals (sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, students, and teachers) in Roseburg, Oregon, on October 1, 2015. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.
This US Senate Resolution ends with:
[The US Senate] remains committed to reducing the likelihood of this kind of event happening again.
Commitment is good. Has anyone heard Senator Murkowski, Senator Sullivan or any other sponsor of this resolution talk about what the Senate’s commitment might translate to? If there won’t be any action aimed at reducing the likelihood of additional mass shootings, can the Senate really be said to be committed to “reducing the likelihood of this kind of event happening again.”
And if you can’t commit to a specific course of action on a topic, should you be proclaiming commitment on the issue?