When I announced my plans to move to Alabama to complete and advanced degree in education, I was met with a fair amount of ribbing from my professional educator colleagues. The obvious ones came first, such as the line that “they really don’t believe in education in Alabama,” and “the math scores in Alabama dropped because they started making the children wear shoes.” Ok, I can take good spirited jest. But other friends gave sincere looks and asked if I had a Mother Theresa complex, as if pursuing education in Alabama was akin to laboring in the slums of Calcutta. They pointed to news stories about potential governor candidates idiotically seeking to ban the use of any language other than English on drivers’ exams and license applications, despite the fact that doing so would forfeit millions in federal highway funds. In summary, they pointed out that they were willing to give George Wallace a pass because of the passage of time, “but what has Alabama done lately?” Well, of course they did win the NCAA Football Championship, but that is hardly a testament to intellect or a socially progressive environment. I took the ribbing in stride, mustered hope and convinced myself that if my belief in improving the quality of education was strong and true, what better place to apply my labors than areas that appeared to have the greatest need.
Today, an article hit the news that would try the patience and faith of the most stalwart:
CBS News) -- Alabama Republican Governor Robert Bentley said in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day message Monday that he does not consider Americans who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior to be his brothers and sisters. ------------And in a brilliant rhetorical flourish, he declared: -------- "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters," he continued. "So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother." http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=118271
Now I have no problem with a man of faith taking on the challenges of public service in a democratic society. The demands of such office no doubt require courage and a bit of divine inspiration, particularly in these financially troubled and morally challenging times. The “fly” in the veritable ointment is that there just happens to be a substantial segment of the citizenry of Alabama who are not fundamentalist Christians; and the oath of office, as well as the Constitutions of the United States and Alabama call upon elected officials to apply and enforce the laws giving equal protection to ALL people in the State.
The American Atheists president and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League representative expressed dismay over the new Governor’s remarks. After all, the Establishment Clause of the Constitution should give pause to a reasonably intelligent person in such office seeking to use the Governor’s “bully pulpit” to proselytize a particular brand of religion. But perhaps, as was the case with Ms. O’Donnell who unsuccessfully ran for the US Senate, the new Alabama Governor never took the time to actually read the document that he has sworn to uphold. Fair enough, a little on the job training may be in order. A bright guy ought to be able to pick it up as he goes, right?
But then the new Governor was asked about his duty to represent all the people of Alabama. His odd response lines up with the likes of “some of my best friends are colored people” as he asserts that he will be “color blind.” After all, no one had raised the race issue in the questioning. So why did the Governor feel the need to assure people that he would not discriminate on the basis of color? And did he not even register that the immediate problem with his remarks was about religious intolerance and not race? Makes one kinda wonder what gears were creaking in his head, doesn’t it?
So I guess all I can now say is….Roll up my sleeves, and move over Mother Theresa, we’ve got a LOT of mess to clean up around here. Let’s just hope this brain eating virus disease is not contagious!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Requiem for Dr. King
On this day of memoriam for the slain civil rights leader, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a time of reflection and perspective seems appropriate. Looking about at the seemingly pervasive culture of incivility and self-indulgent divisiveness today, it is difficult to see a way forward towards a more humane society. When even the suggestion that all people in the United States should have access to basic and affordable health care brings a chorus of derision, how can one hope for restoration of a social contract that affords liberty to all while protecting the most vulnerable? When education is touted as the key to global competitiveness and the future, teachers are being demonized by the top Education official of the land, and funding is doled out to the privileged at the expense of large numbers of children denied adequate resources for educational opportunity, what realistic hope can we see for that golden future? Yet Dr. King saw a world and a society that was at least as divided and in which the soil for growing a verdant future seemed even more barren, and he did not despair. He acted.
In that time, a Black man could be lynched simply for being on the road alone at night. A Black family could be denied public lodging simply because of skin color, as happened to me. The Governor of a State, supported by barricades and police, could stand in the doorway to publicly funded educational institutions reserved for Whites and deny Black youths entry. People did not talk about discrimination in employment based upon race and ethnicity; they simply did it as a matter of common practice. Black people who misunderstood the plain words of US Constitution, and thought that it provided a right to vote in public elections faced potential arrest or worse if they sought to go to the polls. The right of assembly to protest these injustices was a doubtful proposition, at best, that could lead to serious consequences, including death. This was the “America” that Dr. King faced.
He called upon the people of the country to look within and decide whether the society that they were actually living in reflected the kind of society that they aspired to live in. And despite the resistance to change that would undermine unjust privilege and ability to abuse power, the consciousness of the society changed. There was a belief, not in a perfect society, but that the fabric of society had become soiled and tattered. There was a consensus that the country could do better, be better, than it was. The vicious response to freedom and civil rights protesters, especially Whites who went to the South to support civil rights, sparked an awakening that transformed the nation.
Progress and change are not linear processes. There are steps forward and faltering retreats. We believe Human evolution is inexorable, but it is not constant or as persistent as we might like. There will be dissemblers and prevaricators, beyond the pale of honest debate, who seek retreat to the baser levels of humanity. Some will argue that maintaining the right to self defense and protection requires the permission of individuals to carry lethal weapons of indiscriminate and massive destruction in public, and try to wrap that justification in the cloak of patriotic rights. Some, who themselves are descendant from illegal immigrants to North America, would deny basic human and civil treatment of other immigrants who seek only a chance to invest their hard labor in order to build a life for themselves and their families. And there are those who claim the benefit of a nation of laws founded upon a principle of religious freedom and tolerance who would demonize, discriminate against and preach hatred against people because of their religious faith. Government of and for the people cannot do everything, but there are minimal things it must be willing to do to hold faith with its principles and ideals.
The outlook today seems bleaker, perhaps because there is at least some awareness that the vision described by Dr. King is potentially more attainable than ever, though it is at the same time more fragile. When we have made manifest laws and standards that prohibit unjust discrimination against people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, there is a subtle gut wrenching when we see public pronouncements by so-called leaders calling for revival of such base practices. There is, on some level, a fear of going backward into the pit from which we have climbed. We know that such “leaders” make such calls out of greed for privilege and power, not from any sense of integrity or belief in the common welfare. Yet they are listened to and followed nevertheless. Leaders are not rebuked or shunned who publicly advocate violence, directly or through rhetoric, against those who disagree with their agenda. This despite a basic understanding that the society can survive only if a system of change based upon the vote and not the bullet is preserved.
And so, in the wake of the recent attempted assassination and murders in Tucson, we honor the life of Dr. King who was taken from us by the same type of violence that is being condoned and even fomented by purported leaders of government and society. Many of the accepted “conservative” mantras faced by Dr. King have been proven false: Black and White children could not learn together, Catholics and Jews should not be allowed to live among “respectable” White folks, women did not deserve equal say with men on matters of importance, etc. Many of the ideas now being touted by today’s conservatives are equally unfounded: corporations have the same right to participation in the electoral process as human citizens, trillions of dollars can be spent on foreign wars while billions for health care and education at home is too expensive, fundamental rights of speech, privacy and against unnecessary search and seizure must be surrendered to meet some vague and pervasive notion of “national security,” etc.
Perhaps it is time to once again ask the question that Dr. King posed so eloquently. Is this the kind of society that we want to live in and maintain? Can we do better, and if we can, why don’t we? No one ever said that the climb would be easy. But the future is still within our grasp. We must decide whether to stand shoulder to shoulder with others to pull ourselves upward. We must lend our efforts along with those we disagree with on some issues, while agreeing that there is a common desire for all to succeed. Dr. King reminded us of the wisdom of Sir Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Dr. King declared, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." People of good will and honest desire for a better society must do more than rue the decline, they must act.
If we can recall this, perhaps we will do honor to Dr. King, not just give lip service.
In that time, a Black man could be lynched simply for being on the road alone at night. A Black family could be denied public lodging simply because of skin color, as happened to me. The Governor of a State, supported by barricades and police, could stand in the doorway to publicly funded educational institutions reserved for Whites and deny Black youths entry. People did not talk about discrimination in employment based upon race and ethnicity; they simply did it as a matter of common practice. Black people who misunderstood the plain words of US Constitution, and thought that it provided a right to vote in public elections faced potential arrest or worse if they sought to go to the polls. The right of assembly to protest these injustices was a doubtful proposition, at best, that could lead to serious consequences, including death. This was the “America” that Dr. King faced.
He called upon the people of the country to look within and decide whether the society that they were actually living in reflected the kind of society that they aspired to live in. And despite the resistance to change that would undermine unjust privilege and ability to abuse power, the consciousness of the society changed. There was a belief, not in a perfect society, but that the fabric of society had become soiled and tattered. There was a consensus that the country could do better, be better, than it was. The vicious response to freedom and civil rights protesters, especially Whites who went to the South to support civil rights, sparked an awakening that transformed the nation.
Progress and change are not linear processes. There are steps forward and faltering retreats. We believe Human evolution is inexorable, but it is not constant or as persistent as we might like. There will be dissemblers and prevaricators, beyond the pale of honest debate, who seek retreat to the baser levels of humanity. Some will argue that maintaining the right to self defense and protection requires the permission of individuals to carry lethal weapons of indiscriminate and massive destruction in public, and try to wrap that justification in the cloak of patriotic rights. Some, who themselves are descendant from illegal immigrants to North America, would deny basic human and civil treatment of other immigrants who seek only a chance to invest their hard labor in order to build a life for themselves and their families. And there are those who claim the benefit of a nation of laws founded upon a principle of religious freedom and tolerance who would demonize, discriminate against and preach hatred against people because of their religious faith. Government of and for the people cannot do everything, but there are minimal things it must be willing to do to hold faith with its principles and ideals.
The outlook today seems bleaker, perhaps because there is at least some awareness that the vision described by Dr. King is potentially more attainable than ever, though it is at the same time more fragile. When we have made manifest laws and standards that prohibit unjust discrimination against people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, there is a subtle gut wrenching when we see public pronouncements by so-called leaders calling for revival of such base practices. There is, on some level, a fear of going backward into the pit from which we have climbed. We know that such “leaders” make such calls out of greed for privilege and power, not from any sense of integrity or belief in the common welfare. Yet they are listened to and followed nevertheless. Leaders are not rebuked or shunned who publicly advocate violence, directly or through rhetoric, against those who disagree with their agenda. This despite a basic understanding that the society can survive only if a system of change based upon the vote and not the bullet is preserved.
And so, in the wake of the recent attempted assassination and murders in Tucson, we honor the life of Dr. King who was taken from us by the same type of violence that is being condoned and even fomented by purported leaders of government and society. Many of the accepted “conservative” mantras faced by Dr. King have been proven false: Black and White children could not learn together, Catholics and Jews should not be allowed to live among “respectable” White folks, women did not deserve equal say with men on matters of importance, etc. Many of the ideas now being touted by today’s conservatives are equally unfounded: corporations have the same right to participation in the electoral process as human citizens, trillions of dollars can be spent on foreign wars while billions for health care and education at home is too expensive, fundamental rights of speech, privacy and against unnecessary search and seizure must be surrendered to meet some vague and pervasive notion of “national security,” etc.
Perhaps it is time to once again ask the question that Dr. King posed so eloquently. Is this the kind of society that we want to live in and maintain? Can we do better, and if we can, why don’t we? No one ever said that the climb would be easy. But the future is still within our grasp. We must decide whether to stand shoulder to shoulder with others to pull ourselves upward. We must lend our efforts along with those we disagree with on some issues, while agreeing that there is a common desire for all to succeed. Dr. King reminded us of the wisdom of Sir Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Dr. King declared, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." People of good will and honest desire for a better society must do more than rue the decline, they must act.
If we can recall this, perhaps we will do honor to Dr. King, not just give lip service.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
An Environment Under Fire
Today in the news, a story recounted a man in Michigan who shot and killed his two young children and wife, then took his own life. He was found in his car in a parking lot with weapons presumably used to kill his family and then himself. There was no history of criminal behavior or even official reports of domestic violence. There was some indication of financial difficulties and a potential impending divorce. This follows on the heels of the shooting massacre in Tucson that garnered national attention because a Congresswoman and a Federal Judge were shot, along with bystanders in a calculated rampage by a young man with a semi-automatic assault weapon with high capacity ammunition clips that he easily obtained despite a history of anti-social behavior.
Unfortunately, the majority of the public seems too shortsighted, self centered and egotistical to look beyond the surface and consider implications. The common belief is that: “I would never do anything like that, so it is not necessary to consider that such tragedies happen or why they happen –conditions that make them more likely rather than less likely.” Because the individualist thinks that he or she is totally responsible with guns at all time, the belief is that guns should be readily available to everyone under all circumstances. In truth, most people do not really know or understand [or perhaps even care] what depression can do to a person. If an analogy is needed, consider the mudslides being experienced in Brazil and Haiti. The landscape was denuded so the conditions were ripe for disaster in the event of a heavy rain. No one person takes responsibility; it is just the deteriorated environment that everyone accepts. In the same way, the widespread possession of handguns creates an environment that makes disaster more likely when a bad spell occurs.
It is doubtful that we will or even should know the intimate details that led this man to crisis and the murder of his children and spouse. What is evident, however, is that most of these tragedies do involve shootings. It is conceivable that he might have strangled or stabbed the victims, but shooting was apparently more convenient and the method of choice. But the knee-jerk reaction is to blame the man as a “madman” which is also too convenient. It is true that he is to blame, but to fail to ask whether the ubiquitous presence of firearms made the event more likely and more feasible is socially irresponsible.
There are two directions that the debate can go. In the first instance, the basic position is that having firearms in the possession of so many people and so readily available is a social norm that is more important than the thousands of deaths each year from events like this family in Michigan and the massacre in Tucson. In this case, we rationalize the actions of the shooter and crazy and ignore the conditions that facilitated the event. The second direction is to question what type of society we want to live in and whether conditions that facilitate, if not promote, gun violence are socially acceptable. In this case, we seek to balance the freedom to own guns for legitimate sporting and true defense protection against the danger to society that having too many guns so readily available will result in too many deaths from abuse of those rights. In my view, carrying a gun around just in case someone might offend you is not legitimate protection need. The first argument seems to hold sway in the US, despite the weekly or daily deaths that result from the permissive and indiscriminate possession and use of handguns.
Thus, it is hard to accept as sincere the expressions of dismay or even surprise that such deaths occur. It would be like expressing surprise that a person who walks in a snake pit gets bitten by a snake. The death would be regrettable, but in no way should it seem surprising that the result flowed from the conditions. We buy into phony arguments and rationalizations. We make false and insincere expressions of sadness and regret, knowing that the conditions that facilitated the tragedy are ones we would fight to maintain despite also knowing that such tragedies will be repeated.
The gloss that the Supreme Court has layered on the Second Amendment to turn a provision initially intended to enable militia to be formed to protect against a foreign threat, when a national army was not fully established or readily available, into a supposed right of every person to own and carry automatic weapons in public is fait accompli. Despite its lunacy and historical inaccuracy, it has passed into the normative culture of US society. The question that we all should now consider is whether to continue to follow an irrational dogma or to consider the implications of too many guns. Having shotguns in the hands of licensed hunters for use during regulated seasons in regulated areas for purposes of duck and pheasant hunting is not the same as carrying a Glock 19 in an urban parking lot. That is a dangerously silly false equivalency. Yet preserving the former is used as an excuse for the latter. And the gun lobby is not even consistent in its lunacy. By its simplistic logic, there is no reason why every individual ought not to be able to own and carry incendiary grenades or even nuclear devices if they could be miniaturized so that a person could carry them. Yet the NRA would probably [note the uncertainty] that permitting such conceal and carry freedom would not be a good idea.
It is time, if there is a sincere concern about the recent shooting injuries and death, to start thinking about what can be done to begin the process of disarmament of the country. The cold war mentality that says that there are crooks and robbers out there with guns, so I must be armed, is a false goal. It leads to the next step of saying that the crook has a bigger gun, so I need a more powerful weapon, until everyone is armed with weapons they do not need for purposes that they will never face. And thus we find ourselves in the veritable “snake pit” in which the present of so many guns creates a danger in and of itself. When someone loses a temper, it becomes easier to take a gun than to just punch a fist into a wall or some other relatively harmless method of letting off steam. When that anger is directed toward a specific person, the potential of a shooting then becomes far more likely than if there were no guns readily lying about. That is the environment that we now have. The challenge is whether we want it to continue and to worsen, or do we want it to get better and less lethal.
Unfortunately, the majority of the public seems too shortsighted, self centered and egotistical to look beyond the surface and consider implications. The common belief is that: “I would never do anything like that, so it is not necessary to consider that such tragedies happen or why they happen –conditions that make them more likely rather than less likely.” Because the individualist thinks that he or she is totally responsible with guns at all time, the belief is that guns should be readily available to everyone under all circumstances. In truth, most people do not really know or understand [or perhaps even care] what depression can do to a person. If an analogy is needed, consider the mudslides being experienced in Brazil and Haiti. The landscape was denuded so the conditions were ripe for disaster in the event of a heavy rain. No one person takes responsibility; it is just the deteriorated environment that everyone accepts. In the same way, the widespread possession of handguns creates an environment that makes disaster more likely when a bad spell occurs.
It is doubtful that we will or even should know the intimate details that led this man to crisis and the murder of his children and spouse. What is evident, however, is that most of these tragedies do involve shootings. It is conceivable that he might have strangled or stabbed the victims, but shooting was apparently more convenient and the method of choice. But the knee-jerk reaction is to blame the man as a “madman” which is also too convenient. It is true that he is to blame, but to fail to ask whether the ubiquitous presence of firearms made the event more likely and more feasible is socially irresponsible.
There are two directions that the debate can go. In the first instance, the basic position is that having firearms in the possession of so many people and so readily available is a social norm that is more important than the thousands of deaths each year from events like this family in Michigan and the massacre in Tucson. In this case, we rationalize the actions of the shooter and crazy and ignore the conditions that facilitated the event. The second direction is to question what type of society we want to live in and whether conditions that facilitate, if not promote, gun violence are socially acceptable. In this case, we seek to balance the freedom to own guns for legitimate sporting and true defense protection against the danger to society that having too many guns so readily available will result in too many deaths from abuse of those rights. In my view, carrying a gun around just in case someone might offend you is not legitimate protection need. The first argument seems to hold sway in the US, despite the weekly or daily deaths that result from the permissive and indiscriminate possession and use of handguns.
Thus, it is hard to accept as sincere the expressions of dismay or even surprise that such deaths occur. It would be like expressing surprise that a person who walks in a snake pit gets bitten by a snake. The death would be regrettable, but in no way should it seem surprising that the result flowed from the conditions. We buy into phony arguments and rationalizations. We make false and insincere expressions of sadness and regret, knowing that the conditions that facilitated the tragedy are ones we would fight to maintain despite also knowing that such tragedies will be repeated.
The gloss that the Supreme Court has layered on the Second Amendment to turn a provision initially intended to enable militia to be formed to protect against a foreign threat, when a national army was not fully established or readily available, into a supposed right of every person to own and carry automatic weapons in public is fait accompli. Despite its lunacy and historical inaccuracy, it has passed into the normative culture of US society. The question that we all should now consider is whether to continue to follow an irrational dogma or to consider the implications of too many guns. Having shotguns in the hands of licensed hunters for use during regulated seasons in regulated areas for purposes of duck and pheasant hunting is not the same as carrying a Glock 19 in an urban parking lot. That is a dangerously silly false equivalency. Yet preserving the former is used as an excuse for the latter. And the gun lobby is not even consistent in its lunacy. By its simplistic logic, there is no reason why every individual ought not to be able to own and carry incendiary grenades or even nuclear devices if they could be miniaturized so that a person could carry them. Yet the NRA would probably [note the uncertainty] that permitting such conceal and carry freedom would not be a good idea.
It is time, if there is a sincere concern about the recent shooting injuries and death, to start thinking about what can be done to begin the process of disarmament of the country. The cold war mentality that says that there are crooks and robbers out there with guns, so I must be armed, is a false goal. It leads to the next step of saying that the crook has a bigger gun, so I need a more powerful weapon, until everyone is armed with weapons they do not need for purposes that they will never face. And thus we find ourselves in the veritable “snake pit” in which the present of so many guns creates a danger in and of itself. When someone loses a temper, it becomes easier to take a gun than to just punch a fist into a wall or some other relatively harmless method of letting off steam. When that anger is directed toward a specific person, the potential of a shooting then becomes far more likely than if there were no guns readily lying about. That is the environment that we now have. The challenge is whether we want it to continue and to worsen, or do we want it to get better and less lethal.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition
How deep we have sunken. One respondent to an article criticizing the incredibly high number of automatic assault weapons in the hands of US citizens, claimed that guns are not the problem, just crazy people and evil murderers. He claims that gun regulation deprives us of "our freedoms." Under his logic, anyone is a "dumbass" who advocates reasonable safety regulation. There is no reason to encroach on our "freedoms." No reason for preventing food manufacturers from putting rat poison in food, no reason why pilots should be licensed or regulated [anyone should be able to fly any plane they want to anywhere they wish, right?] and no reason to limit semi-automatic assault weapons in peaceful rally sites where there are young children.
I do not see anyone advocating elimination of gun ownership, just reasonable regulation of who can purchase and how they can be stored and used. The historical facts surrounding the Second Amendment only call for a regulated militia, not for individual ownership of guns with a right of individuals to carry concealed weapons in crowded pubic areas in time of peace. Yet folks as crazy as Loughner have a knee jerk reaction any time someone mentions the idea that maybe we don't need assault weapons in Safeway parking lots. Some of those folks argue that everyone at the Meet Your Congresswoman event should have been armed and opened fire. [Loughner would probably have been killed, along with a couple hundred other people in the crossfire.]
The idea of "common welfare" suggests that we create as a society areas or zones where certain conduct is prohibited for the benefit and safety of all. If I go to a gun range, I can expect to see guns and maybe get shot. If I wander in the woods during deer hunting season, I assume some risk. But I should not have to expect danger from Glock 19 pistols at the local Safeway. I do not think it unreasonable to require that, if you own a gun, you must be responsible for it and have it inspected and accounted for each year just like cars and emission certification. Then if a gun is missing, it will be known. The owner would bear responsibility for not securing the gun against loss or theft. I do not think it unreasonable to require trigger locks to prevent accidental injury by children. Most gun accidents come from children playing with unattended weapons. The problem is that extremist gun ownership advocates attack even the most reasonable protections. They demand the right to misuse of weapons, in the name of protecting gun ownership. That seems absurd. Does my right to own a car include a right to be reckless and to run down anyone I choose? Of course not. And it is hard to imagine that even the founding fathers would have contemplated the Second Amendment as authorizing the use of guns for people to walk into town meetings and start shooting everyone in sight. All perspective is lost.
Quite simply, it is time to stop the duplicity. If Loughner was deranged and mentally unstable, then why was he able to easily purchase a Glock 19 and large magazines for $500 locally? If he is the sort that should NOT be able to own and use such weapons freely and easily, then it is clear that the existing regulations are not working. If guns should be allowed "for legitimate" sporting purposes, what "sport" involves use of an automatic assault weapon in a supermarket parking lot? The "justifications" for rampant gun toting have risen to the level of the absurd, at the same time that the death rate from guns in the United States is THOUSANDS times higher than other developed countries. If we are not to restrict gun toting, should not all buildings and public establishments be equipped with metal detectors so that at least everyone will be alerted to the fact that a gunman is present?
There are no easy answers, but putting more guns on the streets clearly is NOT an answer. Like nuclear arms reduction, the survival of our society calls for disarmament. There is a need to reduce gun ownership and restrict areas and ways in which guns can be stored and used. Perhaps then public servants will only need to fear free speech expressions against them in the form of heckling, and not from the burst of an assault weapon.
I do not see anyone advocating elimination of gun ownership, just reasonable regulation of who can purchase and how they can be stored and used. The historical facts surrounding the Second Amendment only call for a regulated militia, not for individual ownership of guns with a right of individuals to carry concealed weapons in crowded pubic areas in time of peace. Yet folks as crazy as Loughner have a knee jerk reaction any time someone mentions the idea that maybe we don't need assault weapons in Safeway parking lots. Some of those folks argue that everyone at the Meet Your Congresswoman event should have been armed and opened fire. [Loughner would probably have been killed, along with a couple hundred other people in the crossfire.]
The idea of "common welfare" suggests that we create as a society areas or zones where certain conduct is prohibited for the benefit and safety of all. If I go to a gun range, I can expect to see guns and maybe get shot. If I wander in the woods during deer hunting season, I assume some risk. But I should not have to expect danger from Glock 19 pistols at the local Safeway. I do not think it unreasonable to require that, if you own a gun, you must be responsible for it and have it inspected and accounted for each year just like cars and emission certification. Then if a gun is missing, it will be known. The owner would bear responsibility for not securing the gun against loss or theft. I do not think it unreasonable to require trigger locks to prevent accidental injury by children. Most gun accidents come from children playing with unattended weapons. The problem is that extremist gun ownership advocates attack even the most reasonable protections. They demand the right to misuse of weapons, in the name of protecting gun ownership. That seems absurd. Does my right to own a car include a right to be reckless and to run down anyone I choose? Of course not. And it is hard to imagine that even the founding fathers would have contemplated the Second Amendment as authorizing the use of guns for people to walk into town meetings and start shooting everyone in sight. All perspective is lost.
Quite simply, it is time to stop the duplicity. If Loughner was deranged and mentally unstable, then why was he able to easily purchase a Glock 19 and large magazines for $500 locally? If he is the sort that should NOT be able to own and use such weapons freely and easily, then it is clear that the existing regulations are not working. If guns should be allowed "for legitimate" sporting purposes, what "sport" involves use of an automatic assault weapon in a supermarket parking lot? The "justifications" for rampant gun toting have risen to the level of the absurd, at the same time that the death rate from guns in the United States is THOUSANDS times higher than other developed countries. If we are not to restrict gun toting, should not all buildings and public establishments be equipped with metal detectors so that at least everyone will be alerted to the fact that a gunman is present?
There are no easy answers, but putting more guns on the streets clearly is NOT an answer. Like nuclear arms reduction, the survival of our society calls for disarmament. There is a need to reduce gun ownership and restrict areas and ways in which guns can be stored and used. Perhaps then public servants will only need to fear free speech expressions against them in the form of heckling, and not from the burst of an assault weapon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)