Dear readers, I should have included a reminder that I will not publish a newsletter Tuesday evening / Wednesday. I will be attending funeral services and visiting with the family of a dear friend who passed over the weekend.
It’s guns. The more we have, the more innocent people die. Guns are for killing. Automatic weapons are for killing people. Australia and New Zealand removed automatic weapons from their countries and their democracies continue without this mayhem. We should have the same right to live without fear. We need to end this now
Jan 24, 2023·edited Jan 24, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Adaline, To repeal the 2nd Amendment, one needs to make the case. As one example, borrowing from Robert, one could argue that Heller, which relies solely on the Amendment’s second clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” was wrongly decided. As Robert has posted, one need only review the 4th Amendment to recognize our Founders intended the word “people” to designate the collective and “persons” to designate the individual.
The 2nd Amendment bases the right to keep and bear arms on the necessary existence of a "well regulated militia". Someone here will be able to cite those court decisions that eviscerated that relationship but the restoration is one key to resolving the problem. The other, as Robert says, is removal of high volume magazines and high velocity ammunition from the civilian market. Even a Congress as benighted as ours should be able to see beyond their campaign bank accounts to the need for action.
Dave, I reply with some context regarding the Second Amendment’s deliberate weak syntax and ambiguity, a bit I hope you find useful.
While the initial clause “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is sufficiently clear, the second clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be abridged,” at first sight, might read like an innocuous obfuscation of the full text’s intent. However, based upon my understanding, this confusion is by design. Needing something in 1789 to hold the people of the country together under a strong national government, James Madison drafted a deliberately weak and ambiguous Second Amendment that delivered a vague gesture of the idea of the importance of state Militia. Focused solely on his desire to unite the states under a strong national government, Madison, I understand, never imagined how his virtually meaningless text would play directly into the current crisis of gun violence in this country nor how future generations would be held hostage to white rural and ex-urban voters, whose votes a major party would fear it would lose were it to support any meaningful firearm restrictions.
Thanks Barbara Jo. I'm familiar with that argument in respect of Madison's intent when he wrote the Amendment but, being in this case devoted to the text of the Amendment, it appears to be the single strongest option for implementing reasonable and arguably Constitutional regulation on the possession and use of firearms. Even something as simple as requiring weapons to be kept at the local Guard Armory and checked out for use when and as needed, would slow down the rate of gun related death and might even deter some people from taking their own lives. The lessons in responsible gun care and maintenance that would be part of the well regulated training almost necessarily result in less random and irresponsible discharge of guns.
In this, as in many things, like balancing the budget, I question sometimes the seriousness of Congress in their desire to make positive changes as opposed to having ready-made campaign talking and fundraising points.
I value your opinion and appreciate you taking time to further inform the conversation.
Dave, I, too truly appreciate your contributions to virtually every conversation. As for gun safety, I particularly appreciate your thoughts relative to common sense regulations.
Hope, For some context, I would note the National Guard started as a loose collection of colonial Militias dating back to 1636, when the Massachusetts Bay colony created the colonies’ first Militia.
Indeed, Barbara. I appreciated your knowledge of all this. I suppose that the current Guard which belongs to states loosely overseen by Federal government is a reflection of that.
We don’t need to get rid of it. We only need it interpreted by a Supreme Court who’s agenda is the wellbeing of the American people and not, as is currently the case, fear and right wing religious fanaticism. As Robert keeps saying: we need to expand the court.
Here is why we cannot rescind or even amend the Second Amendment. There are dark forces pushing to bring about a Convention of States (search the term) that would open up the Constitution to extreme interests rewriting the Constitution and rescinding/amending many essential of the Constitutional amendments.
Jan 24, 2023·edited Jan 24, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Robert, congratulations on your new grandchild!
I'm going to write something unpopular. If Democrats impose a litmus test on their candidates and electeds, they can paint some of those worthy people in a corner. I will start by saying that I would like to see very strict gun safety laws in line with the best ones internationally. Even more urgently, I want to save our democracy and start to establish bipartisanship.
The newly elected Democrat in my semi-rural district won by less than a 1% advantage. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez ran as a blue collar Democrat and flipped our district against 49:1 odds, denying office to an extreme MAGA candidate. Her position on assault weapons was startling at first. She said she would not ban assault weapons but wants to raise the age of owning one to 21 instead of 18. If she had said she wanted an assault weapons ban, our member of congress would be Joe Kent.
I believe that Marie Perez is following the wisdom of successful politicians like Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn't bring a bill to the floor unless she knew she had the votes to pass it. There is a lot more work to do before we can pass strong, research-based gun safety laws. Much of that work is getting Democrats and true moderates elected. Until we do so we won't achieve gun safety or complete putting down the ongoing coup being mounted by the extreme right in our country.
We cannot tie the hands of candidates and electeds who represent the people in their district by hearing the plurality of their constituents who may have views that differ from what is best for our nation in the long run. Only by doing so can they reliably garner a plurality of votes. This argues against adopting political litmus tests.
I ask all who respond to this post to keep in mind that I want strong gun safety laws and believe that imposing litmus tests is counterproductive to achieving that goal.
Hi, Gary. Thanks for your thoughtful, well-reasoned post. It is hard to disagree with your approach, but I do. I understand the "gun safety" approach, and I agree with Jon M below that politics is the art of the possible. But, I for one, have had enough. I am at a point where I do not care what is reasonable or possible or politically necessary. I hope you can understand why people have lost patience.
And I think we should be honest: A ban on assault weapons will happen when we suffer a tragedy so unimaginable that everyone in America will rise up to demand action. I will not speculate what such a tragedy will look like, but it is (sadly) easy to imagine such scenarios. On January 6th, we were within minutes of the capture of members of Congress and the Vice President by a violent mob. We would have an entirely different view of that event if members of Congress had been taken hostage. So, too, with gun violence. It will one day scar America so deeply that we will act. But why are we incapable of seeing that inevitability and acting before then?
Robert, let me make clear that I would support an assault-weapons ban, as I did the last one, but let's realize that it's not likely to be a panacea, by any means. It will do more good if it were to be one that would outlaw semi-automatic rifles for civilians, but Glock pistols in standard trim have a 17-shot magazine, and can do tremendous damage. So the good of a ban will be limited What really needs to change is our whole attitude toward guns. I sometimes say that if you don't realize that the Framers of the Constitution believed that we have the God-given right to walk around with more firepower than the King's best battalion in 1776, then you don't get it. Sadly, the cynicism that you probably see in that remark is all too necessary. Tens of millions of Americans either have that attitude or are afraid to stand up against it. And with more guns in the US than people, it will take decades--literally--to make a dent in the danger. Unless, as with smoking, we can change society's basic attitude, and enact that change into law.
The outrages we've faced make us want to say, "never again," like after the Holocaust. What happened afterwards all over the world? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Assad in Syria, Putin's atrocities and his mad war against all democracies, at more local levels the evils of drug cartels, organized crime, white collar criminals who lay off thousands and take home $80M in yearly pay, and many more such instances. Someone wrote below that she felt Sandy Hook was that deeply scarring event that would bring change. I felt that way also. And here we are.
I think you can see what's coming. I want to see a groundswell of citizens demanding stronger gun laws (I'm beyond wanting gun safety and would be fine with well-enforced bans and believe the 2nd Amendment is about arming militias, not individual citizens).
How will we get there? This may look like it's going off topic, but it may help establish a framework. As a retired psychotherapist, there were many times I wanted to go straight for the core issue of people whose lives were stalled in repeated self-defeats. I knew better because doing so can move them to quit therapy or go into life-threatening crisis or dig themselves deeper into the same hole.
I'm reminded of Dr. Marsha Linehan's teaching on the intersection between thinking mind and feeling mind. Where they overlap, there's wise mind. She invented and researched Dialectical Behavior Therapy for treating people who were chronically suicidal and parasuicidal. Practiced by a whole clinic as she designed it, the therapy team didactically teaches distress tolerance skills, emotion regulation skills, social skills, and more. Individual and group therapy and didactic classes work together. Therapists in the team support and consult with each other if they get overwhelmed.
DBT and other good psychotherapies treat many aspects of the presenting issues concurrently. We try to contain the worst acting out while reducing tension and resolving pieces of the core problem, if there is one core problem, until the client starts experiencing a fundamental change and that becomes their new path. Some people may not be able to make that change, but we help them live the best life they can. I'm not coming at this from a great emotional distance. My mother became chronically homeless because of her mental illness and despite us trying to help.
So what does all of this have to do with preventing mass murders by people with assault rifles?
I don't believe that one single approach will change the tide. I do believe we need to re-establish bipartisanship and build trust among more progressives and conservatives. Tying the hands of all of our representatives with a litmus test will limit their options for achieving those goals.
With your other readers, I offer condolences for the loss of your friend and appreciate your sitting shiva with their loved ones.
We need to stop shielding gun manufacturers from being responsible for their product. We do not shield cars & look at the safety features that have been created. If a toy kills a child, it gets recalled.
Politics is also the law of the loud. Republicans have demonstrated superiority in volume and mind-grabbing messaging. We Democrats are too complacent, too polite, too "bipartisan" to go on the attack like the MAGA crowd.
Witness what has happened to hyper-local politics. The loud MAGA's show up and loudly intimidate public-servant volunteers (looking at you, city councils and school boards). We don't care enough to leave our cozy homes at night to attend these meetings as a counter-message.
Just being honest about how we got here and what we need to do to change policy (aka ATTEND LOCAL MEETINGS IN PERSON).
I guess that’s why Democrats did so poorly in Michigan in November. Yes, local engagement is important, if not vital (I am an elected Town Meeting Member and elected Library Trustee in my town), but let’s not buy into the omnipotence of evil.
Nicholas Kristoff has a column in today's NYT which offers good alternatives: Foremost, ban the type of bullets that make a horrific wound. They were never meant to be accessible for non-military use. Second, ban multiple round magazines. Require the same minimum age requirements, training in weapons use for any gun purchase, and extensive background checks, as are required by police officers. (Get it? Make it seem like joining the company of the brave protector!) Offer a buy-back program for ARs and hand guns. Emphasize the use of rifles for both hunting and home protection, on the grounds of keeping small arms away from children. Add a strong tax onto gun purchases. Make gun manufacturers hold liability insurance. And more. His point is well-taken: Do not make the guns illegal. It is too impossible, but make public safety work-arounds, an inch at a time. He likened it to the anti-smoking campaign, which required small but effective regulations rather than removing cigarettes altogether. Any pol running for office could select one or more of these points and please most constituents. Disarmament by a thousand cuts!
That is a tough call and very worthy of discussion. My belief is that basic litmus tests, tenants or stated beliefs, are important. How else do you know who you are voting for? A room full of Kyrsten Sinema clones is not helpful for her constituents or the party.
Jan 24, 2023·edited Jan 24, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
A litmus test is an absolute, all-or-nothing choice regardless of circumstances. You'll find exceptions like the one I've cited above. What do I watch? Does my elected stay true to almost all of the positions on which they ran? (Everyone needs to be able to evolve and change their mind, but what's the overall weight of their legislative votes?) Are they corruptly funded or funded by the grass roots? Do they sometimes lead instead of putting their finger to the wind to make all decisions according to polling of their constituents? These are some of the ways you can know.
Gary, I reside in your district and celebrate the election of Marie Perez with you. I even agree that a more comprehensive approach to gun legislation would have doomed her candidacy, but with regards to changing the age for selective gun purchases, the apparent shooters in Monterrey Park and Half Moon Bay were 72 and 67 respectively. Raising the age would be a clear nonstarter for effective gun control legislation.
We can always point to cases where a piece of legislation wouldn't have helped. At the moment, in our district, Marie's position is an incremental one. Other districts that are more progressive can have their representatives take a stronger position.
BTW, this isn't just on the shoulders of Marie or another elected. Citizens need to keep speaking up and challenging the beliefs of those who oppose what we want.
If you want to move forward where you can, though, I don't believe it's wise to push the hardest at someone's point of strongest resistance. That builds their resistance toward anything else.
The shooters in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay are serious outliers. The vast majority of mass murderers with automatic weapons have been under the age of 20. So, I disagree with you that raising the age for buying/owning an automatic weapon would be a non-starter.
Most of us are old enough to remember when smoking cigarettes was viewed as normal and for some it was "cool". In fact, it was (and still, sadly is) glorified in films. Telling Americans that smoking was suicidal and stupid was deemed a fools errand. But we did it. It took a long time but we did it. Now, smoking is viewed with disdain - as just plain stupid. It is prohibited in most spaces.
If someone were to enter your home now and say "do you mind if I smoke?" I suspect your response would be like mine. Tobacco kills. We banished it. WMDs kill. We can banish WMDs, too.
Remember the TV ads by the Marlboro man speaking with a device held to his throat? Remember the pictures of smokers lungs.? It was a long hard campaign. There were mighty forces in opposition. Many people rebelled and tried to smoke in restaurants anyway. But we still prevailed. We changed how tobacco was viewed. We saved millions of lives. We can do the same thing with WMDs.
One of the most effective means we have of reducing the addiction to such things is product liability. Manufacturers reduce their risks by making their products safer. Unfortunately, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that was signed into law in 2005 provides gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers immunity from lawsuits. Repeal of that law should be a top priority.
I heartily agree with this approach. It will effectively end the manufacture and sale of new assault weapons in the US. And I would extend the ban to retailers and advertisers. That would end the gun industry in the US.
Your reference to the Marlboro man makes me think of the proposition to show pictures of gun damaged bodies. With next of kin permission, this, like Emmett Till’s open casket, could add a dose of much needed reality to the discussion.
Then we need to start showing pictures of the victims and the crime scenes, something the media have long resisted and to which a lot of people are strongly opposed.
Yes, we should. Only with the permission of the relatives, of course.
And there is a way to show the wounds without identifying the person.
The horror of this needless carnage needs to be thrust in the faces of Americans.
We all remember the picture of the little Vietnamese girl - naked with burn marks. And yet of all the thousands of people slaughtered by WMDs, there is no graphic depiction. We hide from it.
Thanks again for a great summary of the current insanity. DeSantis may well be stupid, despite his Ivy League degree. He certainly is ignorant, though much of that would seem to be elective. But this goes way beyond ignorance and stupidity. What he certainly is is disturbed. And, with over 30 years as a mental health practitioner, I use that term advisedly. As such he takes his place among the current rogues gallery of deeply--and flagrantly--disturbed individuals whose psychopathy has given them extraordinary power with weak, fearful and terminally venal copycats, whom they variously and simultaneously manipulate, frighten, motivate and empower.
Charles, this is a critical point, often overlooked or glossed over. There is a strong psychological component to both the MAGA crowd and the crowded field of gun violence perpetrators. The general public know vaguely that something is badly wrong, but lacking any insight into the aberrant course a human mind can take they either throw up their hands ("what can we do?") or retreat to a narrow focus on so-called 2nd Amendment 'rights' (based on a wrongful interpretation) as a simpler way to address an apparently insoluable problem. The US has been under the influence of seriously disturbed people who are nonetheless crafty, skillful manipulators. They have managed to advance a crippling combination of false narratives, lies, and imaginary rights that are based on greed, fear and a lust for power, using the leverage of wealth and pretend piety, and often just plain cheating. The average American just does not want to believe that 'leaders' could be so corrupt, venal and ...disturbed. So much so that they elected Trump and his ilk, and seem ready to live with the likes of Santos. It's beyond ignorant...
how do we educate the public to recognize and call out the warped beliefs and actions of psychopaths? Or are we just critters in a pot of steadily heating water?
This is something I have thought about a lot, particularly over the last 5 years given the boatload of "data" we now have at our disposal in the public arena. I have thought about individuals of this type that I have come across myself, usually as employers back when I was an employee in the arts. Disturbed individuals who rise to positions of power in organizations, get away with very bad behavior, particularly toward employees, and are able to consolidate power and hold onto it for years and years, scattering in their wake a the torsos of people whose lives, careers and/or nervous systems they have destroyed, often with glee. These types are certainly able to find willing accomplices--"mini-me's" you might say--who aid, support and defend them for a wide variety of motives. But then I think there is an entire swath of others who are first-hand witnesses to the bad behavior of these powerful destructive principals. Down deep they are frightened by the unbridled power of these individuals in whose hands their fate--read well-being, job, position, wealth, health, solvency--often rests. They are often weighed down by their own mental health issues. But beyond that I believe the serious psychopathy of the disturbed individuals in positions of power is frightening to them, and this leads to people accepting unacceptable even antisocial or frankly destructive behavior, thus allowing these powerful individuals to accumulate more power and influence. Psychopathology can be frightening to those observing it, particularly at close range. And when these disturbed honchos are in charge, bystanders will make dangerous compromises to maintain safety and shelter their own vulnerable positions. Think of Stalin or Hitler. Plenty of willing accomplices but also plenty of parties too frightened by this combination of power and psychopathy to take a stand for what is right.
Jan 24, 2023·edited Jan 24, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
My older brother and I got our only younger sibling when he was 12 and I was nine and a half. At the time, it was the most exciting thing that had happened to me--and at that time, we'd had three x-country road trips (very exciting!). When she finally came home (she'd been two months premature) the first thing that happened was I got to give her a bottle. My mother sat me down in a comfortable chair, put a surgical mask on me, and gave me the bottle and Miriam. When Miriam finished the bottle and my mother took her, she told me that Miriam would be a lot more fun when she got a little older. Me: "But she IS fun!"
So I can empathize with the 20 month old's desire to hold the new baby.
Postscript: That baby--now a nurse- recently was in charge of getting Fairfax County VA vaccinated.
“When Miriam finished the bottle and my mother took her, she told me that Miriam would be a lot more fun when she got a little older. Me: "But she IS fun!" “
Such a sweet story! 😊
It’s always great to hear/ read such a sweet story.
Thanks for sharing!
My mom said that when my sister was a baby I used to try and pull her out of the crib to play with her. She and I have always been close. Perhaps that has something to do wanting to play with her when she was a baby.
When she was little, I made up a bunch of characters where I'd use my hands to create the characteristic characteristics (Chocolate the Moose, Fang the Snake, Alexander Beetle Bug (fingers served as antenna), Alvin the Alligator (hands for the mouth, fingers for the teeth), etc. I was the one who got the questions about the birds and the bees (also in the case of my niece).
I also made up stories for her, took her on adventures (a 20 mile round trip bicycle ride when she was 9), and taught her to drive.
Congratulations. Our fight is for the future of our children. So we must fight hard. Ron Desantos appears as a lackluster blob to me. Not impressed. The GOP is so desperate for someone other than Trump that he looks good to them. It’s laughable. He barely won his last race. Not impressed.
I note that you wrote "Ron Desantos"--and I hope that was intentional. I believe that conflating Ron DeSantis and George Santos is something that we should promote in order to extend Santos's fraud to DeSantis in the minds of voters. Is that fair? Who cares? DeSantis is not fair in his treatment of people. If he needs to repeat, "I am not George Santos, I am not George Santos," some people will only hear "Ron DeSantis is George Santos."
I've never supported the idea of a litmus test before, as it never struck me that there was a single issue that was a make or break for me. I'm warming to the notion now, as it relates to gun violence.
I spent a good part of yesterday trying to write about the Second Amendment and how the "right to keep and bear arms" is merely an allusion - 2A alludes to the right, but doesn't grant it. The more I researched it, the more I found my argument weakened. But I also found some alarming statistics.
In my research, I found that as of yesterday, we'd experienced 36 mass shootings in 2023 (39 as of today), and 2,672 total gun violence deaths (including accidents, homicides, and suicides), a pace that puts us at about 600 mass shootings and 44,000 deaths for the year. Firearms have recently been reported to be the number one cause of death of children, a grave statistic in its own right. In a country of 333 million people, we possess over 400 million firearms, with more made and distributed every day.
With the high impact of mass shootings, we lose sight of the singular tragedies that occur over 100 times a day. Those who espouse gun rights blame those who beg for sensible gun legislation and vice versa, as the bodies pile up.
Guns are the common denominator in the 44,000 deaths we'll likely see this year. Access to guns is the problem, and access to weapons of war simply exacerbates it. We must come together and demand common sense gun regulation and enforcement, before it's too late. The arms race must end.
If there's one positive lesson we can take from the ex-president's approach to problem-solving, it's to attack from all angles. It's not enough to just push for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, mental health evaluations, licensing of all gun owners, registration of all firearms, repeal of liability protection for gun manufacturers, monitoring of social media, or even a litmus test. We must do all of those things and more, and we must demand enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. Each year, the lives of over 40,000 of our fellow citizens depend on it.
As a part-time resident and Democratic activist in Florida, we shouldn't underestimate DeSantis' political skills and write off the potency of his future candidacy.
Although DeSantis shares the MAGA right wing agenda with Trump and the "Freedom" Caucus, he isn't stupid when it comes to winning elections.
IMO, DeSantis is more the second coming of Richard Nixon than a crazed, hard right ideological crusader. He's calculating, slimy and dishonest but his base loves what he's doing in Florida.
We need to remember, Republicans across the country love leaders who know how to win while soft pedaling all the right wing dog whistles.
Hi, Merrill. Thanks for sharing your view from Florida. I hear what you are saying. My point is that we should not confuse winning elections in Florida with winning elections in Maine or South Carolina or Idaho or New Jersey. And remember that DeSantis is trailing Trump now and believes that his only path to success is to become more extreme than Trump. That is not a winning strategy. See, e.g., the 2022 midterms.
Jan 24, 2023·edited Jan 24, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
DeSantis may be intelligent, but he is also an uninspired speaker with a whiny voice, charmless, thin-skinned and is easily provoked to show his less than admirable attributes. His scrambling reaches for the furthest right MAGAs in his own state won't necessarily play well in the rest of the country--particularly when the full court press of media attention focuses on him. Florida Man (and MAGA folk) may love him, but I doubt the rest of the country will.
Also, it's easy to win elections when Ronnie can gerrymander the districts to his own advantage...he won't have that same advantage outside of Florida.
According to Texan oral history, back in the 19th century, there was a defense to murder that went "Your honor - he *needed* killin'!" There's a significant number of Texas Republicans who should be thankful they live in the 21st rather than the 19th centuries there.
A friend of mine worked for the Southern Law Poverty Death Penalty project (or similarly named group). When he filed an emergency motion to stay an execution in Mississippi, a federal judge said, "Mr. Patrick, don't you believe that some people deserve to die? I mean, they don't get the names of these defendants from the phone book." Different state, same attitude.
Who yells at you regarding anything!!! Shame on them. Today's newsletter is filled with so much about the work we all must do. Thank you. Some numbskull ( one of my dad's words) from Texas exercised his right to bear arms via the Constitution on LinkedIn. No matter who gave facts, he came back with that peculiar psychosis that seems to be only American. It. Is. His. Right. And the right of every American to own as many guns, rifles, machine guns, killing machines as they so wish. Last night we watched something on Amazon with Kevin Costner and Diane Lane about a couple in Wyoming or Montana who drives to one of the Dakotas to get their grandson. It represents what I call ¨The Deliverance People.¨ How to educate them and bring them into this century is a daunting task. I lived in many states in the U.S. from the time I was a child, and each place I could/can feel the difference. It's in the air. It's in the eyes. My personal tragedy is that my children were born in Houston even though we had planned on moving to San Diego when my first husband graduated from law school. I wonder how differently they would have become as adults had we done that.
Hi, Gailee. Thanks for sharing your story. Overcoming the culture of guns and the ignorance attached to that cult is daunting. But you are fighting the good fight. Keep it up!
As you say, details are still emerging, however, the HMB shooter has been detained alive. He's a 67 year old Asian man. Again, speculation, but there seems to be indications of previous work conflicts. Perhaps, the shooting in Monterey Bay triggered this fellow to finally vent his anger.... tragedy after tragedy, but we can't allow ourselves to be inured to it.
I've had the same thought, re "trigger". I find it interesting that in all three of the mass murders in California this past weekend were Asian shooters killing other Asian people. So, to me, motives for these massacres must differ substantially from so many other massacres in the past decade+.
It has always been about the gun and more importantly the type of gun. A simple fact is if the mass shooters only had a rifle less people would have been killed and injured. No where in the Second Amendment does it state that anyone has a right to an automatic weapon design for military use and today there are millions in circulation and easily accessible by people who should never be near a weapon. The appropriate gun laws would reduce some access to the automatic weapons and possibly provide some safety but in recent mass shootings the shooter acquired the weapon legally and a gun law would not have stopped the mass shooter from obtaining the weapon. Australia got it right when they took the guns away but politics and lobbyist and NRA money make that action impossible in our country. Another Republican lie about “ the good guy with a gun” has proven deadly for many Americans and will continue until everyone says enough is enough.
Dear readers, I should have included a reminder that I will not publish a newsletter Tuesday evening / Wednesday. I will be attending funeral services and visiting with the family of a dear friend who passed over the weekend.
Our condolences go with you.
Peace to you and Jill, and may your friend's memory be a blessing.
It’s guns. The more we have, the more innocent people die. Guns are for killing. Automatic weapons are for killing people. Australia and New Zealand removed automatic weapons from their countries and their democracies continue without this mayhem. We should have the same right to live without fear. We need to end this now
We need to get rid of the 2nd amendment
Adaline, To repeal the 2nd Amendment, one needs to make the case. As one example, borrowing from Robert, one could argue that Heller, which relies solely on the Amendment’s second clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” was wrongly decided. As Robert has posted, one need only review the 4th Amendment to recognize our Founders intended the word “people” to designate the collective and “persons” to designate the individual.
Wow! Thanks for remembering the argument that I made months ago! Very impressive!
The 2nd Amendment bases the right to keep and bear arms on the necessary existence of a "well regulated militia". Someone here will be able to cite those court decisions that eviscerated that relationship but the restoration is one key to resolving the problem. The other, as Robert says, is removal of high volume magazines and high velocity ammunition from the civilian market. Even a Congress as benighted as ours should be able to see beyond their campaign bank accounts to the need for action.
Dave, I reply with some context regarding the Second Amendment’s deliberate weak syntax and ambiguity, a bit I hope you find useful.
While the initial clause “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is sufficiently clear, the second clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be abridged,” at first sight, might read like an innocuous obfuscation of the full text’s intent. However, based upon my understanding, this confusion is by design. Needing something in 1789 to hold the people of the country together under a strong national government, James Madison drafted a deliberately weak and ambiguous Second Amendment that delivered a vague gesture of the idea of the importance of state Militia. Focused solely on his desire to unite the states under a strong national government, Madison, I understand, never imagined how his virtually meaningless text would play directly into the current crisis of gun violence in this country nor how future generations would be held hostage to white rural and ex-urban voters, whose votes a major party would fear it would lose were it to support any meaningful firearm restrictions.
Thanks Barbara Jo. I'm familiar with that argument in respect of Madison's intent when he wrote the Amendment but, being in this case devoted to the text of the Amendment, it appears to be the single strongest option for implementing reasonable and arguably Constitutional regulation on the possession and use of firearms. Even something as simple as requiring weapons to be kept at the local Guard Armory and checked out for use when and as needed, would slow down the rate of gun related death and might even deter some people from taking their own lives. The lessons in responsible gun care and maintenance that would be part of the well regulated training almost necessarily result in less random and irresponsible discharge of guns.
In this, as in many things, like balancing the budget, I question sometimes the seriousness of Congress in their desire to make positive changes as opposed to having ready-made campaign talking and fundraising points.
I value your opinion and appreciate you taking time to further inform the conversation.
Dave, I, too truly appreciate your contributions to virtually every conversation. As for gun safety, I particularly appreciate your thoughts relative to common sense regulations.
And that militia was appointed by the government years ago: The National Guard. Why does no one get this?
Hope, For some context, I would note the National Guard started as a loose collection of colonial Militias dating back to 1636, when the Massachusetts Bay colony created the colonies’ first Militia.
Indeed, Barbara. I appreciated your knowledge of all this. I suppose that the current Guard which belongs to states loosely overseen by Federal government is a reflection of that.
We don’t need to get rid of it. We only need it interpreted by a Supreme Court who’s agenda is the wellbeing of the American people and not, as is currently the case, fear and right wing religious fanaticism. As Robert keeps saying: we need to expand the court.
Here is why we cannot rescind or even amend the Second Amendment. There are dark forces pushing to bring about a Convention of States (search the term) that would open up the Constitution to extreme interests rewriting the Constitution and rescinding/amending many essential of the Constitutional amendments.
https://www.businessinsider.com/constitutional-convention-conservatives-republicans-constitution-supreme-court-2022-7
This is critical and part of the ongoing coup.
How about just correcting the interpretation back to the sanity that existed - at least we thought it did - prior to Heller in 2008?
Congratulations on the baby and I have no doubt that even your newborn granddaughter could out-maneuver McCarthy--
LOL!
Robert, congratulations on your new grandchild!
I'm going to write something unpopular. If Democrats impose a litmus test on their candidates and electeds, they can paint some of those worthy people in a corner. I will start by saying that I would like to see very strict gun safety laws in line with the best ones internationally. Even more urgently, I want to save our democracy and start to establish bipartisanship.
The newly elected Democrat in my semi-rural district won by less than a 1% advantage. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez ran as a blue collar Democrat and flipped our district against 49:1 odds, denying office to an extreme MAGA candidate. Her position on assault weapons was startling at first. She said she would not ban assault weapons but wants to raise the age of owning one to 21 instead of 18. If she had said she wanted an assault weapons ban, our member of congress would be Joe Kent.
I believe that Marie Perez is following the wisdom of successful politicians like Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn't bring a bill to the floor unless she knew she had the votes to pass it. There is a lot more work to do before we can pass strong, research-based gun safety laws. Much of that work is getting Democrats and true moderates elected. Until we do so we won't achieve gun safety or complete putting down the ongoing coup being mounted by the extreme right in our country.
We cannot tie the hands of candidates and electeds who represent the people in their district by hearing the plurality of their constituents who may have views that differ from what is best for our nation in the long run. Only by doing so can they reliably garner a plurality of votes. This argues against adopting political litmus tests.
I ask all who respond to this post to keep in mind that I want strong gun safety laws and believe that imposing litmus tests is counterproductive to achieving that goal.
Hi, Gary. Thanks for your thoughtful, well-reasoned post. It is hard to disagree with your approach, but I do. I understand the "gun safety" approach, and I agree with Jon M below that politics is the art of the possible. But, I for one, have had enough. I am at a point where I do not care what is reasonable or possible or politically necessary. I hope you can understand why people have lost patience.
And I think we should be honest: A ban on assault weapons will happen when we suffer a tragedy so unimaginable that everyone in America will rise up to demand action. I will not speculate what such a tragedy will look like, but it is (sadly) easy to imagine such scenarios. On January 6th, we were within minutes of the capture of members of Congress and the Vice President by a violent mob. We would have an entirely different view of that event if members of Congress had been taken hostage. So, too, with gun violence. It will one day scar America so deeply that we will act. But why are we incapable of seeing that inevitability and acting before then?
Robert, let me make clear that I would support an assault-weapons ban, as I did the last one, but let's realize that it's not likely to be a panacea, by any means. It will do more good if it were to be one that would outlaw semi-automatic rifles for civilians, but Glock pistols in standard trim have a 17-shot magazine, and can do tremendous damage. So the good of a ban will be limited What really needs to change is our whole attitude toward guns. I sometimes say that if you don't realize that the Framers of the Constitution believed that we have the God-given right to walk around with more firepower than the King's best battalion in 1776, then you don't get it. Sadly, the cynicism that you probably see in that remark is all too necessary. Tens of millions of Americans either have that attitude or are afraid to stand up against it. And with more guns in the US than people, it will take decades--literally--to make a dent in the danger. Unless, as with smoking, we can change society's basic attitude, and enact that change into law.
Hi, Robert,
The outrages we've faced make us want to say, "never again," like after the Holocaust. What happened afterwards all over the world? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Assad in Syria, Putin's atrocities and his mad war against all democracies, at more local levels the evils of drug cartels, organized crime, white collar criminals who lay off thousands and take home $80M in yearly pay, and many more such instances. Someone wrote below that she felt Sandy Hook was that deeply scarring event that would bring change. I felt that way also. And here we are.
I think you can see what's coming. I want to see a groundswell of citizens demanding stronger gun laws (I'm beyond wanting gun safety and would be fine with well-enforced bans and believe the 2nd Amendment is about arming militias, not individual citizens).
How will we get there? This may look like it's going off topic, but it may help establish a framework. As a retired psychotherapist, there were many times I wanted to go straight for the core issue of people whose lives were stalled in repeated self-defeats. I knew better because doing so can move them to quit therapy or go into life-threatening crisis or dig themselves deeper into the same hole.
I'm reminded of Dr. Marsha Linehan's teaching on the intersection between thinking mind and feeling mind. Where they overlap, there's wise mind. She invented and researched Dialectical Behavior Therapy for treating people who were chronically suicidal and parasuicidal. Practiced by a whole clinic as she designed it, the therapy team didactically teaches distress tolerance skills, emotion regulation skills, social skills, and more. Individual and group therapy and didactic classes work together. Therapists in the team support and consult with each other if they get overwhelmed.
DBT and other good psychotherapies treat many aspects of the presenting issues concurrently. We try to contain the worst acting out while reducing tension and resolving pieces of the core problem, if there is one core problem, until the client starts experiencing a fundamental change and that becomes their new path. Some people may not be able to make that change, but we help them live the best life they can. I'm not coming at this from a great emotional distance. My mother became chronically homeless because of her mental illness and despite us trying to help.
So what does all of this have to do with preventing mass murders by people with assault rifles?
I don't believe that one single approach will change the tide. I do believe we need to re-establish bipartisanship and build trust among more progressives and conservatives. Tying the hands of all of our representatives with a litmus test will limit their options for achieving those goals.
With your other readers, I offer condolences for the loss of your friend and appreciate your sitting shiva with their loved ones.
Gary, this is a beautiful essay. Maybe that's what Congress needs....a week long psychotherapy session. Ha!
"In your dreams, Fleischman"
I thought Sandy Hook was unimaginable.
We need to stop shielding gun manufacturers from being responsible for their product. We do not shield cars & look at the safety features that have been created. If a toy kills a child, it gets recalled.
Politics is the art of the possible, bitter as that pill may be.
Politics is also the law of the loud. Republicans have demonstrated superiority in volume and mind-grabbing messaging. We Democrats are too complacent, too polite, too "bipartisan" to go on the attack like the MAGA crowd.
Witness what has happened to hyper-local politics. The loud MAGA's show up and loudly intimidate public-servant volunteers (looking at you, city councils and school boards). We don't care enough to leave our cozy homes at night to attend these meetings as a counter-message.
Just being honest about how we got here and what we need to do to change policy (aka ATTEND LOCAL MEETINGS IN PERSON).
I guess that’s why Democrats did so poorly in Michigan in November. Yes, local engagement is important, if not vital (I am an elected Town Meeting Member and elected Library Trustee in my town), but let’s not buy into the omnipotence of evil.
Nicholas Kristoff has a column in today's NYT which offers good alternatives: Foremost, ban the type of bullets that make a horrific wound. They were never meant to be accessible for non-military use. Second, ban multiple round magazines. Require the same minimum age requirements, training in weapons use for any gun purchase, and extensive background checks, as are required by police officers. (Get it? Make it seem like joining the company of the brave protector!) Offer a buy-back program for ARs and hand guns. Emphasize the use of rifles for both hunting and home protection, on the grounds of keeping small arms away from children. Add a strong tax onto gun purchases. Make gun manufacturers hold liability insurance. And more. His point is well-taken: Do not make the guns illegal. It is too impossible, but make public safety work-arounds, an inch at a time. He likened it to the anti-smoking campaign, which required small but effective regulations rather than removing cigarettes altogether. Any pol running for office could select one or more of these points and please most constituents. Disarmament by a thousand cuts!
Yes!
I am in PDX and was horrified by Kent, so I get it.
That is a tough call and very worthy of discussion. My belief is that basic litmus tests, tenants or stated beliefs, are important. How else do you know who you are voting for? A room full of Kyrsten Sinema clones is not helpful for her constituents or the party.
A litmus test is an absolute, all-or-nothing choice regardless of circumstances. You'll find exceptions like the one I've cited above. What do I watch? Does my elected stay true to almost all of the positions on which they ran? (Everyone needs to be able to evolve and change their mind, but what's the overall weight of their legislative votes?) Are they corruptly funded or funded by the grass roots? Do they sometimes lead instead of putting their finger to the wind to make all decisions according to polling of their constituents? These are some of the ways you can know.
Gary, I reside in your district and celebrate the election of Marie Perez with you. I even agree that a more comprehensive approach to gun legislation would have doomed her candidacy, but with regards to changing the age for selective gun purchases, the apparent shooters in Monterrey Park and Half Moon Bay were 72 and 67 respectively. Raising the age would be a clear nonstarter for effective gun control legislation.
Hi neighbor:
We can always point to cases where a piece of legislation wouldn't have helped. At the moment, in our district, Marie's position is an incremental one. Other districts that are more progressive can have their representatives take a stronger position.
BTW, this isn't just on the shoulders of Marie or another elected. Citizens need to keep speaking up and challenging the beliefs of those who oppose what we want.
If you want to move forward where you can, though, I don't believe it's wise to push the hardest at someone's point of strongest resistance. That builds their resistance toward anything else.
Maybe the minimum age should be 75.
I contributed happily to Marie Perez's campaign and was elated when she won. The is a true, traditional Democrat.. We need more like her.
Oh gosh, Jon, then you'll run into the problem of dementia paranoia. I'm almost guessing that is what happened to the shooter in So Cal..
Thank you!
The shooters in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay are serious outliers. The vast majority of mass murderers with automatic weapons have been under the age of 20. So, I disagree with you that raising the age for buying/owning an automatic weapon would be a non-starter.
Most of us are old enough to remember when smoking cigarettes was viewed as normal and for some it was "cool". In fact, it was (and still, sadly is) glorified in films. Telling Americans that smoking was suicidal and stupid was deemed a fools errand. But we did it. It took a long time but we did it. Now, smoking is viewed with disdain - as just plain stupid. It is prohibited in most spaces.
If someone were to enter your home now and say "do you mind if I smoke?" I suspect your response would be like mine. Tobacco kills. We banished it. WMDs kill. We can banish WMDs, too.
Remember the TV ads by the Marlboro man speaking with a device held to his throat? Remember the pictures of smokers lungs.? It was a long hard campaign. There were mighty forces in opposition. Many people rebelled and tried to smoke in restaurants anyway. But we still prevailed. We changed how tobacco was viewed. We saved millions of lives. We can do the same thing with WMDs.
One of the most effective means we have of reducing the addiction to such things is product liability. Manufacturers reduce their risks by making their products safer. Unfortunately, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that was signed into law in 2005 provides gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers immunity from lawsuits. Repeal of that law should be a top priority.
I heartily agree with this approach. It will effectively end the manufacture and sale of new assault weapons in the US. And I would extend the ban to retailers and advertisers. That would end the gun industry in the US.
Your reference to the Marlboro man makes me think of the proposition to show pictures of gun damaged bodies. With next of kin permission, this, like Emmett Till’s open casket, could add a dose of much needed reality to the discussion.
Then we need to start showing pictures of the victims and the crime scenes, something the media have long resisted and to which a lot of people are strongly opposed.
Yes, we should. Only with the permission of the relatives, of course.
And there is a way to show the wounds without identifying the person.
The horror of this needless carnage needs to be thrust in the faces of Americans.
We all remember the picture of the little Vietnamese girl - naked with burn marks. And yet of all the thousands of people slaughtered by WMDs, there is no graphic depiction. We hide from it.
We hide because if we were or are forced to see it, we'll have to respond.
With you 100%.
My favorite take on the gun problem, with which I agree, is the song, "If It Were Up To Me" by Cheryl Wheeler:
Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin
Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
Maybe it's taxes, big business
Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing
If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns
Fantastic. Really does say it all in 36 short lines.
Here's a YouTube of her recording: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=youtube+if+it+were+up+to+me+cheryl+wheeler&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safari_group=9#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:31d0b4ea,vid:Op7agdIFOGY
Thanks again for a great summary of the current insanity. DeSantis may well be stupid, despite his Ivy League degree. He certainly is ignorant, though much of that would seem to be elective. But this goes way beyond ignorance and stupidity. What he certainly is is disturbed. And, with over 30 years as a mental health practitioner, I use that term advisedly. As such he takes his place among the current rogues gallery of deeply--and flagrantly--disturbed individuals whose psychopathy has given them extraordinary power with weak, fearful and terminally venal copycats, whom they variously and simultaneously manipulate, frighten, motivate and empower.
Charles, this is a critical point, often overlooked or glossed over. There is a strong psychological component to both the MAGA crowd and the crowded field of gun violence perpetrators. The general public know vaguely that something is badly wrong, but lacking any insight into the aberrant course a human mind can take they either throw up their hands ("what can we do?") or retreat to a narrow focus on so-called 2nd Amendment 'rights' (based on a wrongful interpretation) as a simpler way to address an apparently insoluable problem. The US has been under the influence of seriously disturbed people who are nonetheless crafty, skillful manipulators. They have managed to advance a crippling combination of false narratives, lies, and imaginary rights that are based on greed, fear and a lust for power, using the leverage of wealth and pretend piety, and often just plain cheating. The average American just does not want to believe that 'leaders' could be so corrupt, venal and ...disturbed. So much so that they elected Trump and his ilk, and seem ready to live with the likes of Santos. It's beyond ignorant...
how do we educate the public to recognize and call out the warped beliefs and actions of psychopaths? Or are we just critters in a pot of steadily heating water?
This is something I have thought about a lot, particularly over the last 5 years given the boatload of "data" we now have at our disposal in the public arena. I have thought about individuals of this type that I have come across myself, usually as employers back when I was an employee in the arts. Disturbed individuals who rise to positions of power in organizations, get away with very bad behavior, particularly toward employees, and are able to consolidate power and hold onto it for years and years, scattering in their wake a the torsos of people whose lives, careers and/or nervous systems they have destroyed, often with glee. These types are certainly able to find willing accomplices--"mini-me's" you might say--who aid, support and defend them for a wide variety of motives. But then I think there is an entire swath of others who are first-hand witnesses to the bad behavior of these powerful destructive principals. Down deep they are frightened by the unbridled power of these individuals in whose hands their fate--read well-being, job, position, wealth, health, solvency--often rests. They are often weighed down by their own mental health issues. But beyond that I believe the serious psychopathy of the disturbed individuals in positions of power is frightening to them, and this leads to people accepting unacceptable even antisocial or frankly destructive behavior, thus allowing these powerful individuals to accumulate more power and influence. Psychopathology can be frightening to those observing it, particularly at close range. And when these disturbed honchos are in charge, bystanders will make dangerous compromises to maintain safety and shelter their own vulnerable positions. Think of Stalin or Hitler. Plenty of willing accomplices but also plenty of parties too frightened by this combination of power and psychopathy to take a stand for what is right.
My older brother and I got our only younger sibling when he was 12 and I was nine and a half. At the time, it was the most exciting thing that had happened to me--and at that time, we'd had three x-country road trips (very exciting!). When she finally came home (she'd been two months premature) the first thing that happened was I got to give her a bottle. My mother sat me down in a comfortable chair, put a surgical mask on me, and gave me the bottle and Miriam. When Miriam finished the bottle and my mother took her, she told me that Miriam would be a lot more fun when she got a little older. Me: "But she IS fun!"
So I can empathize with the 20 month old's desire to hold the new baby.
Postscript: That baby--now a nurse- recently was in charge of getting Fairfax County VA vaccinated.
“When Miriam finished the bottle and my mother took her, she told me that Miriam would be a lot more fun when she got a little older. Me: "But she IS fun!" “
Such a sweet story! 😊
It’s always great to hear/ read such a sweet story.
Thanks for sharing!
My mom said that when my sister was a baby I used to try and pull her out of the crib to play with her. She and I have always been close. Perhaps that has something to do wanting to play with her when she was a baby.
Thanks! We've always been close.
When she was little, I made up a bunch of characters where I'd use my hands to create the characteristic characteristics (Chocolate the Moose, Fang the Snake, Alexander Beetle Bug (fingers served as antenna), Alvin the Alligator (hands for the mouth, fingers for the teeth), etc. I was the one who got the questions about the birds and the bees (also in the case of my niece).
I also made up stories for her, took her on adventures (a 20 mile round trip bicycle ride when she was 9), and taught her to drive.
Congratulations. Our fight is for the future of our children. So we must fight hard. Ron Desantos appears as a lackluster blob to me. Not impressed. The GOP is so desperate for someone other than Trump that he looks good to them. It’s laughable. He barely won his last race. Not impressed.
Hi Adeline. Thanks for your comment.
I note that you wrote "Ron Desantos"--and I hope that was intentional. I believe that conflating Ron DeSantis and George Santos is something that we should promote in order to extend Santos's fraud to DeSantis in the minds of voters. Is that fair? Who cares? DeSantis is not fair in his treatment of people. If he needs to repeat, "I am not George Santos, I am not George Santos," some people will only hear "Ron DeSantis is George Santos."
Congratulations, Grandma and Grandpa! Cherish every moment!
I've never supported the idea of a litmus test before, as it never struck me that there was a single issue that was a make or break for me. I'm warming to the notion now, as it relates to gun violence.
I spent a good part of yesterday trying to write about the Second Amendment and how the "right to keep and bear arms" is merely an allusion - 2A alludes to the right, but doesn't grant it. The more I researched it, the more I found my argument weakened. But I also found some alarming statistics.
In my research, I found that as of yesterday, we'd experienced 36 mass shootings in 2023 (39 as of today), and 2,672 total gun violence deaths (including accidents, homicides, and suicides), a pace that puts us at about 600 mass shootings and 44,000 deaths for the year. Firearms have recently been reported to be the number one cause of death of children, a grave statistic in its own right. In a country of 333 million people, we possess over 400 million firearms, with more made and distributed every day.
With the high impact of mass shootings, we lose sight of the singular tragedies that occur over 100 times a day. Those who espouse gun rights blame those who beg for sensible gun legislation and vice versa, as the bodies pile up.
Guns are the common denominator in the 44,000 deaths we'll likely see this year. Access to guns is the problem, and access to weapons of war simply exacerbates it. We must come together and demand common sense gun regulation and enforcement, before it's too late. The arms race must end.
If there's one positive lesson we can take from the ex-president's approach to problem-solving, it's to attack from all angles. It's not enough to just push for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, mental health evaluations, licensing of all gun owners, registration of all firearms, repeal of liability protection for gun manufacturers, monitoring of social media, or even a litmus test. We must do all of those things and more, and we must demand enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. Each year, the lives of over 40,000 of our fellow citizens depend on it.
As a part-time resident and Democratic activist in Florida, we shouldn't underestimate DeSantis' political skills and write off the potency of his future candidacy.
Although DeSantis shares the MAGA right wing agenda with Trump and the "Freedom" Caucus, he isn't stupid when it comes to winning elections.
IMO, DeSantis is more the second coming of Richard Nixon than a crazed, hard right ideological crusader. He's calculating, slimy and dishonest but his base loves what he's doing in Florida.
We need to remember, Republicans across the country love leaders who know how to win while soft pedaling all the right wing dog whistles.
Hi, Merrill. Thanks for sharing your view from Florida. I hear what you are saying. My point is that we should not confuse winning elections in Florida with winning elections in Maine or South Carolina or Idaho or New Jersey. And remember that DeSantis is trailing Trump now and believes that his only path to success is to become more extreme than Trump. That is not a winning strategy. See, e.g., the 2022 midterms.
DeSantis may be intelligent, but he is also an uninspired speaker with a whiny voice, charmless, thin-skinned and is easily provoked to show his less than admirable attributes. His scrambling reaches for the furthest right MAGAs in his own state won't necessarily play well in the rest of the country--particularly when the full court press of media attention focuses on him. Florida Man (and MAGA folk) may love him, but I doubt the rest of the country will.
Also, it's easy to win elections when Ronnie can gerrymander the districts to his own advantage...he won't have that same advantage outside of Florida.
According to Texan oral history, back in the 19th century, there was a defense to murder that went "Your honor - he *needed* killin'!" There's a significant number of Texas Republicans who should be thankful they live in the 21st rather than the 19th centuries there.
A friend of mine worked for the Southern Law Poverty Death Penalty project (or similarly named group). When he filed an emergency motion to stay an execution in Mississippi, a federal judge said, "Mr. Patrick, don't you believe that some people deserve to die? I mean, they don't get the names of these defendants from the phone book." Different state, same attitude.
And notice same region.
Who yells at you regarding anything!!! Shame on them. Today's newsletter is filled with so much about the work we all must do. Thank you. Some numbskull ( one of my dad's words) from Texas exercised his right to bear arms via the Constitution on LinkedIn. No matter who gave facts, he came back with that peculiar psychosis that seems to be only American. It. Is. His. Right. And the right of every American to own as many guns, rifles, machine guns, killing machines as they so wish. Last night we watched something on Amazon with Kevin Costner and Diane Lane about a couple in Wyoming or Montana who drives to one of the Dakotas to get their grandson. It represents what I call ¨The Deliverance People.¨ How to educate them and bring them into this century is a daunting task. I lived in many states in the U.S. from the time I was a child, and each place I could/can feel the difference. It's in the air. It's in the eyes. My personal tragedy is that my children were born in Houston even though we had planned on moving to San Diego when my first husband graduated from law school. I wonder how differently they would have become as adults had we done that.
Hi, Gailee. Thanks for sharing your story. Overcoming the culture of guns and the ignorance attached to that cult is daunting. But you are fighting the good fight. Keep it up!
You are so very kind.
As you say, details are still emerging, however, the HMB shooter has been detained alive. He's a 67 year old Asian man. Again, speculation, but there seems to be indications of previous work conflicts. Perhaps, the shooting in Monterey Bay triggered this fellow to finally vent his anger.... tragedy after tragedy, but we can't allow ourselves to be inured to it.
I've had the same thought, re "trigger". I find it interesting that in all three of the mass murders in California this past weekend were Asian shooters killing other Asian people. So, to me, motives for these massacres must differ substantially from so many other massacres in the past decade+.
It has always been about the gun and more importantly the type of gun. A simple fact is if the mass shooters only had a rifle less people would have been killed and injured. No where in the Second Amendment does it state that anyone has a right to an automatic weapon design for military use and today there are millions in circulation and easily accessible by people who should never be near a weapon. The appropriate gun laws would reduce some access to the automatic weapons and possibly provide some safety but in recent mass shootings the shooter acquired the weapon legally and a gun law would not have stopped the mass shooter from obtaining the weapon. Australia got it right when they took the guns away but politics and lobbyist and NRA money make that action impossible in our country. Another Republican lie about “ the good guy with a gun” has proven deadly for many Americans and will continue until everyone says enough is enough.