Fw: EdgeLeft: Time to Face The Gun Lobby (David McR}

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 
To: [email protected] 
Cc: Bruce Cronin 
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 hell
out of a terrified civilian population in Gaza, how much attention is
paid to those families? When does FOX News (or, for that matter, CNN
or 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 thePres
Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party. He retired in 1999, and lives in Lower Manhattan
with two feline companions. He is the subject of a dual biography by Martin Duberman, A SavingA Saving 
Remayby Maeoewo
RemnantRemnant, which deals with his life and that of the late Barbara Deming. David can be reached
at [email protected])d

HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis 
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk 
Member, National Writers Union AFL-CIO
www.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 with
this Link:  http://hunterbear.org/a_piece_of__the_scrapbook.htm
And see my reflection ON BEING A MILITANT AND RADICAL
ORGANIZER -- 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 Native
background.)  And see Personal Background Narrative: 
http://hunterbear.org/narrative.htm  (Updated into 2012) 

For the new (11/2011) and expanded/updated
edition of my "Organizer's Book," JACKSON MISSISSIPPI -- 
with a new and substantial introduction by me.
 http://hunterbear.org/jackson.htm