Guns, Freedom, And the Man in the Middle

     Six mass shootings already, and we're barely into February. Promises to be one Hell of a year. Prompts me to wonder how many more child-size coffins will we bury between this evening and the night the ball drops once again on Time's Square. But as with all things human, that's going to be largely up to us.

     Like millions of other Americans, I watched the recent Senate hearing on gun violence as it unfolded on morning television. Moving from left to right we had Representative Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark. Either by design or fortuitous fate, in the center, in full dress uniform, James W. Johnson, Baltimore County Chief of Police. Bringing up the far right--both literally and metaphorically--Gayle Trott, representing some obscure think tank the purpose of which, I'm told, is to get more women interested in conservative politics--this despite the well-known position Ms. Trott has taken against--yes, that's against--the violence against women act. (Go figure!) And on the far right of my television screen, Wayne LaPierre, current figurehead of the NRA and puppet voice for the gun manufacturers of America. Each and all facing a Senate panel representing the gamut of political opinion on our current debate on the role guns of every type will, or, will not, have in our future.

     Well, there we have it. The entire spectrum of opinions on the role guns, and what kind of guns and how many bullets, and, you know.... all the other issues that become involved in this debate; are going to play in our society.

     That morning it occurred to me that I was watching something much more significant, of much greater and far reaching consequence than a debate on gun control, or even the second amendment, or the presumed by the gun lobby right to carry an assault weapon of mass destruction with a hundred round clip. All those are surface issues.

      This is a debate about the future; a debate about who we are as a people; and, more, what kind of society we are choosing, and we do choose, to move toward. For the decisions on policy we make today are the ways we project our values into the future. Our decisions, personal and political, betray what kind of society we want to create for our children's, children's, children.

     Moving from left to right, there were Gabby and Mark Giffords, gun owners, well respected members of their community, themselves victimized by the mentally deranged lunatic with a semi-automatic weapon and high capacity magazine clips. In the center, the representative of law and order, reason, freedom, and responsibility, Chief Johnson. And on the far right, the voices of paranoia run amok; Gayle Trott and Wayne LaPierre, whose only purpose was to convince us that we are rapidly moving toward anarchy; a society Ms. Trott vividly described in her fictional tirade about a mother being attacked in her home, defending her babies with an assault rifle. Women of America, meet Ms. Rambo.

    These are two radically different views of the future. One, represented by the Giffords, a responsible society where people may, if they so choose, own such weapons as are necessary to defend their homes. A society governed by law, represented by Chief  Johnson. And a society of anarchy, chaos, death and destruction; everyone for him or herself; apocalypse now suburban style represented by the radical fringe of the NRA personified by Ms. Trott and Mr. LaPierre.

     So it would seem we have a choice between two visions of the future: one a vision of responsible gun ownership, law and order; and one of anarchy born of a paranoia based upon a survivalist militia mentality. Which will we choose?

     Chief Johnson and the Giffords illustrate the more responsible choice. Yes to responsible gun ownership; yes to universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole; yes to the ban on all assault weapons of mass destruction that do not belong in the hands of untrained, inexperienced civilians; yes to the ban on high capacity magazines; yes to law and order and a civil society. No to paranoid militia movements who are convinced they need weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves against their own democratically elected government.

     The gun debate is not so much about guns as it is a debate about what kind of society we are going to have, or not have, and, more, how we are going to choose to live together in community. As such it represents both peril and opportunity. We have the opportunity to choose wisely, to decide what kind of weapon a citizen may reasonably be said to require for the defense of his or her home and family.

     Or we have the choice offered us by the militia/survivalist movement represented my Ms. Rambo and Mr. LaPierre, along with the extremist wing of the NRA. Arm yourself to the teeth with the deadliest weapons of mass destruction you can get your hands on for the coming war of all against all.

     And we need to decide which side we're on; and work to make the vision of our larger society a reality. I prefer the vision offered by Chief Johnson and the Giffords.

     Someone should tell the Ms. Trott, Mr. LaPierre, and /the survivalist fringe of the NRA that we are no longer living in Tombstone. Through the rule of law, we are attempting to choose something better.

The Jawbone



    

    

From Cigarettes to Bullets: Congratulations to the Marketing Department

     Send congratulations to the marketing gurus for upping their game; they've managed to move up the ladder. They couldn't be satisfied with figuring out more creative ways to market cigarettes, otherwise known as "coffin nails," to children and teens. They've decided to up the ante and go for bullets."Now there's something with real marketing appeal! Bet we'll make a fortune off this gig!"

     This morning's New York Times carries an investigative article revealing how gun manufacturers, always in cahoots with the most radical fringe of the NRA, you know, that branch of an otherwise respectable organization that thinks it's perfectly acceptable to put an Uzi in the hands of a twelve year old and send her off to middle school with instructions to, "Remember sweetie, if you see a bad man with a gun, remember to squeeze rather than pull." But I digress. The article reveals how the gun manufacturers have chosen to market their wares to teens. According to the article, one ad even portrays a fifteen year old girl holding an assault rifle implying how great it would be to wake up Christmas morning to find good old Santa had brought you one of these!  

     This, when, as Nicholas Kristoff pointed out in his New York Times article of December 16, that Americans between the ages of five and fourteen are thirteen times, yea, thirteen times more likely to be killed with a firearm than their counterparts in countries. The only exception is countries where there is all out war. And as Ezra Kline of Newsweek pointed out only a couple of days before in his article, fifteen of the last twenty-five mass shootings in the US involved assault weapons.

     The NRAs answer is more guns, and better mental health care. Okay, so better mental health care is a winning idea. Certainly a most needed improvement for our society. But how would we work this out? I mean, are we all supposed to be watching one another now? Which brings me to the question, "Where do you draw the line between thinking your neighbor a bit odd and reporting him or her to the local constabulary as a potential mass murderer?"

     Just the other day my local paper carried yet another letter to the editor in favor of arming teachers so that "violence will be answered by violence." The couple had been on one of those evangelical mission trips to Guatemala and were praising the presence of armed troops in the streets on every corner. They felt much safer and hoped for the day that the US would catch up with Guatemala by arming teachers. So lets just turn our schools into free fire zones.

     News flash. The troops in the streets of Guatemala are not there to protect the citizens but to suppress and intimidate citizens on behalf of the government. Great. So these yahoos want to turn the US into a third world dictatorship. That will solve a lot of our problems.

     Senator Feinstein has proposed a bill banning assault weapons. Unlike the previous bill that has already expired, the Feinstein bill gets specific and bans more than one hundred types of these weapons of mass destruction. It's worthy of our support.

     Limit the guns. Limit the slaughter of the innocents.

The Jawbone.