[BearwWthoutBorders] [SycamoreCanyon] Fw: EdgeLeft: Time to Face The Gun Lobby (David McR}

[David McReynolds]

Very good points, Sameera - some that I hadn't thought of (the problem of
homes with absent mothers). And certainly the embrace of violence in our toys
and TV contributes to a climate in which violence becomes "thinkable".
However, we have always had violence in the arts, going back to the Greek
plays, to Shakespeare's
Hamlet and Macbeth, etc.

There is no single simple action but I hope Obama has set himself on a path
to action. The members of NRA should realize that we are not talking about
taking guns away from people who have them. And while we can debate the
meaning of the Second Amendment, there is nothing in it which forbids the
licensing of such deadly weapons.

We could easily ban the production and sale of semi-automatic and automatic
weapons without taking
away the rights of any gun owner to either the simple
weapons that might be needed for self-defense, or the rifles for hunting.

There is, in the "gun culture", a kind of paranoia - a fear
that Obama is going to take away our guns. Regulation on the sale of guns
is very different from banning them.
And to say it is time for the gun shows to close up is hardly the same as
saying the shops that sell rifles and handguns should be closed.

We need to look at these issues without thinking that any single action
will "solve our problems" or the excuse that because any single action
won't solve the problems, therefore we should not be taking any actions.
The NRA can be beaten and for the sake of our safety it needs to be.

David McReynolds

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Sameera V. Thurmond <sameera at knology.net>wrote:

> **
> *I am responding to writings that precede mine below.  You can read them
> if you wish to get a sense of where I'm coming from.  I always like to read
> David McReynold's writings.  *
> **
> **
> *It's late; so I don't have the stamina to expound on every principle
> outlined below in either David or Hunter's proposition---all well stated
> points.  Instead I'd like to add something.  Someone referred to our
> continual involvement in war for the past 20 years and how this fact
> probably gives rise to aggression and violence on our own shores.  This
> makes a lot of sense but certainly the violence that our youth learn is not
> all attributable to foreign wars.  Television has made a strong
> contribution to the hypersexuality and hyperviolence.  Throw in the video
> games which are even more violent and we have the making of children whose
> sense of values, morés and desensitization to violence/killings who are
> carrying around a psychic overload of violence---by the time they are seven
> years old (maybe sooner).  The newspapers play a major role in this, too,
> but I'm not suggesting that 7-year olds are reading the newspaper but they
> do hear their parents discussing electronic media's focus on the most
> heinous crimes.  What they don't read, they hear on television.  The most
> horrific crimes are flashed on television daily.  Movies are a subject all
> by themselves.  Imbedded in all the violent news and game playing is the
> sense of power to control, to take a life and play out the damaged or
> mis-guided ego.  *
> **
> *Another frame of reference is the adolescent behavior of our congress
> people because instead of working together toward some shared points, they
> would rather take a position of "their way or the highway!"  This is
> another form and practice of control.  The youth are not learning
> compromise; they're learning the winner-takes-all approach!  This serves to
> reinforce what TV and video games have already taught them about taking out
> the enemy, no matter awry the definition of 'eneny' is their minds.  *
> **
> *We were once a nation that--until recently--rated first in education,
> innovation and prosperity and until we learn that we have lost that status
> and confront those domestic issues that have changed our role, there is
> no need to continue lamenting with that "woe is us" attitude!!.  The only
> segment of our population that keeps coming out on top are corporations
> which make billions irrespective of how the nation itself is socially
> imploding.  That the quality of education has descended makes no difference
> to the corporations; that citizens are indiscriminately being gunned by
> those who were products of their productions, (assault rifles, video games
> etc.) is of little value because in NO WAY are corporations impacted!!
> After we bury those tender children in Newtown, CT, we'll go buy our
> cigarettes, movies for home entertainment, liquor, we'll continue to buy
> more things that we want but don't really need and then we'll probably
> charge them on a credit card that exercises a 19% rate.  Corporations lose
> nothing!      *
> **
> *BUT we do look to government to bring about changes---some of those
> folks looking for change are the very ones who said we don't need
> government.  They spend too much.  Perhaps it does......but at least they
> spend it on its citizens.  Corporations provide little to soften the
> harshness of lives when we are under psychological stress.  The provide
> little redeeming value when we most need a break!  Corporations have played
> a big role in contributing to the NRA's coffers.  After all they
> manufacture the guns and if one believes that human lives outweigh the
> profit motive, one is sorely mistaken.  Remember how wealthy individuals
> place their money in offshore accounts to keep from paying their fair share
> to help the nation's economy?*
> **
> *Albeit, I'm no fan of the NRA but our cultural/social regression cannot
> be placed entirely on the NRA.  Were problems that simple to be placed at
> the door of one singular entity.  My generation has brought about change
> whereby we can see the consequences.  Case in point: during the seventies,
> I was one of those women who said women should burn their bras and if they
> so desired, should go out into the world and advance themselves instead
> being tethered to cooking and cleaning.  Well, my views about women and
> personal development haven't changed but I didn't have the vision to see
> that absent mothers would impact the rearing of our children.  It was these
> years in which mothers imbibed children with constructive social values.
> For those women who were out making a mark on the world, their children
> were coming home to an empty house making decisions about what to do
> because mother wasn't home to guide them in decisions.  TV was an answer
> but look at what was on TV: the same violence being perpetrated now.  We
> are still developing as human beings; so we don't have all the answers but
> we at least need to slow down and honestly look at what contronts us on a
> social level.  Instead of having those with concentrated wealth use us as
> pawns, we need to take control.  Evolution is with us no matter how much we
> resist, i.e., change will always occur.  We can't avoid change but we can
> step in and parlay it to our advantage as a nation.  If the 5- and 6- year
> olds who were gunned down don't awaken a sense of shared values---no matter
> what our race, ethnicity or financial status---then our demise is written
> on the wall.  AND MAY GOD PROTECT US FROM OUR OWN STUPIDITY!!*
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David McReynolds <davidmcreynolds7 at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [SycamoreCanyon] Fw: EdgeLeft: Time to Face The Gun Lobby
> (David McR}
>
> *For reasons unknown (who can fathom the mind of a computer) the final
> paragraph of my own piece (which follows the comments by Hunter) are cutoff. No matter - I'm sending this to the Edge Left list because I think a
> dialogue is important.  Hunter has long since earned the stripes to argue
> his case. That said, here is my response to Hunter's note.
>
> The NRA is indeed a gun lobby, though it counts among its members a number
> of liberals and radicals, including Hunter.
> In 2012 the NRA contributed $3 million to candidates - 96% of whom were
> Republican. Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America
> rushed out a statement putting the blame for yesterday's tragic shooting
> squarely on the gun control lobby!
>
> His logic? "Gun control supporters have the blood of little children
> on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to ensure that
> no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown School
> where  the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency
> of getting rid of gun bans in school zones". One wonders why Mr. Pratt didn't
> go a step further and urge that if only the children themselves had guns
> the tragedy would have been averted? (The real tragedy is that the NRA
> crowd will feel that Mr. Pratt's post was entirely logical).
>
> When I had a child I loved fire works - the whole shebang from fire crackers
> to sparklers to rockets. I built little villages out of cardboard, and
> put them in front of my parents' home and then blew them up with fire
> crackers. Alas, the great war came, and  fireworks were banned. Still, in
> my hunger for them, I wrote their outlets in Ohio and asked for whatever
> old catalogs they had. I got those catalogs, and my vision of peace was
> to see the return of fire crackers.
>
> Well, that return never came. At least not in California or New York. Too
> many children had lost a finger or an eye. But guns are not fire crackers.
> They are designed to kill - animals of all kinds including humans. We all
> must grit our teeth and, as I had to in
> regard to fire crackers, realize that the great gun shows must be a thing
> of the past. The worship of guns must become a memory.
>
> I did not write that guns be outlawed - only that they be registered. I
> did argue that automatic weapons be outlawed. I did argue that it should
> be illegal to carry a a concealed weapon. Nothing that I wrote suggested
> it would be illegal for people to go to shooting galleries. And while I
> admit that I would not hunt deer, that is easy for me to say - I can buy
> my meat in the market, and let others do the killing. As long as people
> eat meat, as I do, they have to accept the right of people to hunt animals,
> provided only they are going to eat them. (I am disgusted at the idea of killing
> any animal "for sport").
>
> Hunter and I are in full agreement that a society committed to war will
> find bullets will hit some of us far from battle. We are in agreement
> that the use of drugs is not the way to solve this problem.
> And I'd say - and suspect Hunter would agree with me - that to think gunviolence is a product of insanity
> is a weak reed. Most of those who are mentally ill are not violent. And,
> sadly, most of those who order troops into battle are not mentally ill.
>
> I'm not sure Hunter and I are that far apart. I've had my say on the
> Second Amendment, I've read it with care.  I think the Supreme Court's
> decision on it was wrong. Remember, the Supreme Court once ruled that
> slaves were property. Laws change and I think in time my legal view will be
> that of the majority.
>
> In the meantime, this will be a long hard battle - expect no help from
> the President, who will only choose battles he can win. It will take
> years, letters to the editor, demonstrations, and, crucially, making it a
> key matter in choosing those we send to Congress.
>
> Meanwhile I know that under the present laws more women will be killed
> despite restraining orders on their boy friends and husbands. And I know -
> statistics bear me out - that in homes where there are guns, the danger of
> being killed by a gun are much higher than in homes without a gun.
>
> David McReynolds
> *
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Hunter Gray <hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org
> > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> **
>>  *NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR:*
>> **
>> *When David McReynolds, a good friend with whom I agree on a great many
>> matters, writes his always provocative Edge Left column, I send it around.
>> On this one, I disagree head on with David on his attack on what he sees as
>> "the gun lobby" -- and his efforts to demonize the NRA -- as well as his
>> obvious but erroneous belief that firearms are "the problem" in shooting
>> tragedies.  I don't see a "Gun Lobby" but the NRA numbers at least four
>> million people in this country, most of whom are interested in hunting,
>> shooting sports, sensible self-defense. (I've been an NRA member since I
>> was 15 years old -- a Life Member for most of my life.) All of these NRA
>> members, and a vast throng of non-members, see the Second Amendment as an
>> important component of the overall Bill of Rights.  So does the USSC which,
>> in its two relatively recent decisions, conclusively clarified the Second
>> as a full member of the Bill.*
>> **
>> *I do agree strongly with David on the effects of virtually endless war
>> -- much of this televised daily.  A 20 year old in this country has watched
>> War on TV for more than half his life.*
>> **
>> *Another factor in these tragedies may lie in the increasing use of
>> psychiatric drugs, often on children and adolescents, in lieu of bona fide
>> counseling -- and in-depth psychiatric analysis.*
>> **
>> *Personally, I am not interested at this point in getting into yet
>> another gun control debate.  However, last July I posted these comments on
>> our several discussion lists.  They address the matter of endless War and
>> its role in sometimes spiking domestic violence.*
>> **
>> *I received two favorable comments on this from the Redbadbear list.  No
>> one else commented anywhere.*
>> **
>> **
>>  *"I've been speaking and writing of those socio-economic causal matters
>> and necessary reforms  since my first piece challenging gun control
>> advocates in 1974 -- and discussing the primary causes of crime as racism
>> and cultural ethnocentrism, economic deprivation, urban congestion and, in
>> that context, interpersonal and value alienation.  [A constructive answer
>> to the growing problem of youth gang violence in today's inner cities would
>> be reinstatement of the old Neighborhood Youth Corps -- with a strong
>> public works employment dimension.]*
>> **
>> *And I again add this: *
>>  **
>> *What we never hear is sensible  and depthy conjecture about the
>> domestic psychiatric effects of this country's involvement in many years of
>> wars -- proliferating and endless wars -- which have gone on
>> ever expansively since 9/11.  The cost in lives has obviously been
>> astronomical and the horrors of technology -- e.g., 120 people, or
>> more, killed by a single explosion -- have been televised consistently to
>> the four directions.  If developing psychotics, sometimes inflamed by
>> personal economic vicissitudes,  see human life as "cheap," it shouldn't be
>> surprising to see these mass tragedies sprouting and gushing blood across
>> the U.S."*
>> **
>> **
>> *Expansion of mental health outreach and treatment -- with educational
>> campaigns directed at parents and educators and designed to pick up danger
>> signs early on.*
>> **
>> *Not everything violence and crime-wise can be prevented, of course.
>> Massive as is the Aurora tragedy, the one in Norway a couple of  years
>> ago -- in a relatively "ordered" society -- saw about 70 people killed.*
>> **
>> *HUNTER GRAY*
>> **
>> **
>> *From:* David McReynolds <davidmcreynolds7 at gmail.com>
>>  *To:* debsforumdiscussion at googlegroups.com
>> *Cc:* Bruce Cronin <bcronin60 at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2012 11:39 PM
>> *Subject:* EdgeLeft: Time to Face The Gun Lobby
>>
>> *EdgeLeft:* Time to Face the Gun Lobby, by David McReynolds
>>
>> (EdgeLeft is an occasional column by David McReynolds. It may be
>> reprinted and
>> used without further permission)
>>
>> It is time to take on the gun lobby. Or, to put it another way, how
>> many mass killings does it take for us to finally recognize the NRA
>> as a greater threat to the security and safety of our children than
>> any reasonable law restricting ownership of guns?
>>
>> One can anticipate a lobbyist from NRA suggesting that if only
>> the children had been armed with hand guns the killing would not
>> have taken place. But in the land of reason, let us look at the
>> issues and a possible solution.
>>
>> First, those of us who have no problems about gun control should
>> pause and realize that our friends in other states view the matter
>> differently. In New York City what do I need a gun for? But if
>> I live in North Dakota,  Nevada,  Utah, or any of those states
>> where hunting is an attraction, and where many families have rifles,
>> gun ownership is viewed very differently.
>>
>> New Yorkers might feel the need for a gun if they have a small shop
>> and fear robbery, but they are not likely to go target shooting, and
>> certainly won't be walking around with the gun on their person.
>>
>> So let's accept the fact that in a country which reaches from Hawaii
>> to Alaska, from Florida to Seattle, there will be a range of views on
>> guns, and on how frequently one is likely to use them.
>>
>> Second, the Second Amendment, doesn't this settle the debate?
>> No - this appeal to the constitution is the weakest of all the points
>> used by the NRA. If one reads the second amendment it refers
>> to the possession of guns in the context of an "orderly militia". In
>> short, it was meant to protect the *states* against too much power
>> and possible military action by the federal government.
>>
>> Most families in colonial times did not own guns. The guns they had
>> took a long time to load, fire, and reload. Except for the fact the
>> Native Americans were often frightened by the flash and noise of
>> a gun, the man who was trained in firing arrows was about on an
>> equal ground. Arrows had two advantages, they were silent
>> and when discharged they didn't reveal their location by a puff of
>> smoke.
>>
>> The founding fathers were not even dealing with  revolvers - those
>> didn't enter the gun trade until 1814, long after the Constitution had
>> been written. Nor were the founding fathers dealing with semi-automatic
>> or automatic firearms. They were dealing with a primitive musket, which
>> could fire only one shot, and required some time and skill to reload.
>>
>> But the Constitution did contain other wordings which were later changed.
>> It allocated the electoral strength of Southern States by giving the
>> slave
>> population a percentage of the vote. An indirect endorsement of
>> of slavery. And of course the Constitution did not grant the right of
>> women
>> to vote. The Constitution is a living document, it has changed greatly
>> over
>> the years, sometimes through amendments, but just as often by actions of
>> the courts. Segregation was not struck down by an act of Congress, but
>> by the Supreme Court.
>>
>> So the Constitution and its Second Amendment is a very weak reed on
>> which to base the entire power of the National Rifle Association. And it
>> grows still weaker when we realize that many other items of daily use,
>> such as automobiles, require both training and a license before we are
>> permitted to use them.
>>
>> But if we sweep away the Second Amendment  - or give it a more
>> reasonable interpretation - where does that leave us? It would mean
>> that anyone who wants a gun could buy one, if they had a license for
>> it, and that such a license would certify they were of sound mind.
>> No one, in short, is going to take away the hunting rifle from the
>> hunter - but he or she will have to register it. And there would be
>> reasonable limits on the kinds of guns that could be had. Hunters do
>> not need automatic rifles and they would not be for sale. Rifles for
>> hunting, and revolvers - with a license - for personal protection, but
>> not to be carried on one's person.
>>
>> Let's face the reality that this would still leave something like over
>> a hundred million guns in the hands of the population. Trying to
>> seize control of these would mean a modest civil war. So let's assume
>> that in some states lots of people will have guns and in some states
>> very few - but we have another modest means of control. Ammunition.
>> As the great English comedian Eddie Izzard has said, "guns don't kill
>> people, bullets do". The production and sale of bullets can be sharply
>> controlled.
>>
>> This leaves us with the problem of the mass shootings which have
>> struck such terror (and horror) to our hearts. I'm afraid gun control
>> won't deal with this. Gun control can help, they can sharply limit the
>> number of battered women who are shot dead by their boyfriends.
>> Such controls can help lower the murder rate in urban areas. But
>> the kind of mass murder we have just seen occurred on an even larger
>> scale in Norway, where 92 people were killed in a mass murder spree
>> last year. (Worth noting that the killer was not a Muslim, but a right
>> winger who targeted left wing youth).
>>
>> Such mass killings will continue to occur and to cope with them we
>> have to look at our modern society, do some serious examination
>> of the pathology of such killings, and not try to think we can deal with
>> them either by new laws or some new and extended security program.
>>
>> There is a final comment I would make, with some hesitation, as it
>> might seem I was making light of the  suffering in Connecticut following
>> this most recent killing spree. It is to ask us to note that every TV
>> station
>> made this the top news all day today and I assume it will still be the
>> top news tomorrow.
>>
>> But what attention is paid if  a village in Afghanistan is hit "by
>> error" by
>> an American drone? Or, as happened, a wedding party is blown to
>> smithereens? Does that make the evening news? Is it more than a
>> passing item? When Israel jets, purchased with US funds, bomb hellout of
>> a terrified civilian population in Gaza, how much attention ispaid to those
>> families? When does FOX News (or, for that matter, CNNor MSNBC) interview
>> the stricken families?To mention one thing is not to minimize the other.
>> But it is to suggest that in a world where the US is complicit in so much
>> massive violence, we should not be too stunned when the pathology of such
>> mass killing surfaces here at home.(David McReynolds was on the staff of
>> the War Resisters League for 39 years, and twice thePresPresidential
>> candidate of the Socialist Party. He retired in 1999, and lives in Lower
>> Manhattanwith two feline companions. He is the subject of a dual biography
>> by Martin Duberman, A SavingA Saving Remayby MaeoewoRemnantRemnant, which
>> deals with his life and that of the late Barbara Deming. David can be
>> reachedat davidmcreynolds7 at gmail.com)d
>>
>> HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis
>> Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Member, National Writers Union
>> AFL-CIOwww.hunterbear.org (much social justice material)   I have always
>> lived and worked in the Borderlands.   Key pieces from our big Jackson
>> Mississippi Movement scrapbook.  Three consecutive and full pages beginning
>> withthis Link:  http://hunterbear.org/a_piece_of__the_scrapbook.htmAndsee my reflection ON BEING A MILITANT AND RADICALORGANIZER -- AND AN
>> EFFECTIVE ONE:http://crmvet.org/comm/hunter1.htm   The Stormy Adoption
>> of an Indian Child [My Father]:
>> http://hunterbear.org/James%20and%20Salter%20and%20Dad.htm(Expanded in
>> Fall 2012. Photos. Material on our Nativebackground.)  And see Personal
>> Background Narrative: http://hunterbear.org/narrative.htm  (Updated into
>> 2012)   For the new (11/2011) and expanded/updatededition of my
>> "Organizer's Book," JACKSON MISSISSIPPI -- with a new and substantial
>> introduction by me. http://hunterbear.org/jackson.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __._,_.___
>>   Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SycamoreCanyon/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZnNrZTFlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2MTkxNjQ0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRtc2dJZAM0MzAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1NTU3MzQ4Mg--?act=reply&messageNum=4301> Reply
>> to sender
>> <hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%3A%20EdgeLeft%3A%20Time%20to%20Face%20The%20Gun%20Lobby%20%20%28David%20McR%7D> Reply
>> to group
>> <SycamoreCanyon at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fw%3A%20EdgeLeft%3A%20Time%20to%20Face%20The%20Gun%20Lobby%20%20%28David%20McR%7D> Start
>> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SycamoreCanyon/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNmthYWtjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2MTkxNjQ0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNTU1NzM0ODI-> Messages
>> in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SycamoreCanyon/message/4301;_ylc=X3oDMTM1dDd0cGRyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2MTkxNjQ0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRtc2dJZAM0MzAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NTU3MzQ4MgR0cGNJZAM0MzAx>(1)
>> Recent Activity:
>>
>>
>> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SycamoreCanyon;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbGF2MG1oBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2MTkxNjQ0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNTU1NzM0ODI->
>> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYzcxYTNzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE2MTkxNjQ0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NTU3MzQ4Mg-->
>> Switch to: Text-Only<SycamoreCanyon-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
>> Daily Digest<SycamoreCanyon-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
>> Unsubscribe<SycamoreCanyon-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
>> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> • Send us Feedback
>> <ygroupsnotifications at yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1>
>>  .
>>
>> __,_._,___
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/bearwithoutborders/attachments/20121217/f36e7778/attachment-0001.html>