"Just like anyone else": Why the T Party is really the I Party.

Latest Injustice Party line: the President and his family deserve no more protection than the rest of us.

Just like other people? Hmmmm, I haven't seen anyone else targeted by certain groups as a "traitor," accused of all sorts of crimes, and railed against by opposition like this since. . . ever. Yep, he and his family are no higher profile than anyone else. Just as Reagan wasn't. Or Kennedy. Or TR. Or Garfield. Or Mckinley. Not to mention Lincoln. Did I miss anyone?  Those were completely random acts that just happened to target a U.S. president, b/c they are just like everyone else.  The Obama family will need protection forever and probably more than most b/c of the hatred spewed by people who cannot seem to get their head around the fact that they live in a democracy and sometimes they will LOSE elections and therefore lose out on legislation and policies they'd prefer. These people do not understand that vituperative and unfounded accusations do not gain in credence just by being shouted over and over again, that failure to be able to understand that the President does not have the power to do more than 1/2 the things he's been accused of doing simply reveals their ignorance of the checks and balances within the Constitution.

I will no longer stand by and let ignorant people post their ignorance and injustice without contest. Yes, reasonable people recognize and ignore the ignorant--but what also happens is that the lack of response encourages the ignorant. I recognize that I'm fighting a losing battle--if my goal is to convince the ignorant of their own ignorance. It is not. It is simply to force them to shut up on whatever specific rant they are on--which they do. When they cannot respond to my logical contradiction of their position, they simply start a new line of attack. I've been experimenting since Sandy Hook, and it's a consistent response: when you cannot muster evidence to defend your position, abandon it and start something new.

Ignorance is not stupidity--Ignorance is curable. But it will remain to be seen if the I Party chooses to remedy its own ignorance.

OK, so from now on, I will refuse to recognize the miscarriage of history that the alleged "Tea Party" continues to perpetuate. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. I'm pretty sure every single member of the so-called Tea Party has the right to vote--and, therefore, has access to representation. It is an insult to our founders, to the men and women who stood up against the injustice of taxation without representation, to use that label for a group who suffers NONE of the injustice alleged. Who cares what they call themselves when the FACTS are against them? 

NRA strategy: Blame everyone else and ignore the Big White Elephant in the Middle of the Room.

I cannot believe that the NRA took the stance it has taken since Sandy Hook. It's like a gift to advocates of gun control.

One of the most common characteristics, apparently, of mass shooters, is their habit of blaming everyone else while accepting no responsibility for themselves. This, according to a leading expert on gun violence and mass shooters.

Had the NRA come out and admitted that perhaps its rigidity has, in fact, made it easy for children and other innocents to be fatal victims of gun violence, I might have thought there was hope for working with the NRA. But now, it has made it clear that "reason" is not within the NRA's own vocabulary.

Let's add to this the fact that I have taken the fight to FB where I have now heard rigid gun advocates saying there is a government conspiracy to overthrow the American civilian population, that the English people, press, and government are all liars, and that the issue is about crime, not guns (b/c being the victim of a crime without a gun is so much worse than being shot dead while being the victim of a crime committed by someone with a gun, I guess).

I am committed to researching everything I hear (and I'm good at it). I'm committed to listening to the arguments of those who oppose me and responding with reasonable, substantive arguments that are grounded in evidence. I'll continue to do this.

I have always resisted the characterization of gun lobbyists as "gun toting nuts." But the paranoia I have seen among acquaintances is beginning to make me wonder, as is their inability to be reasonable in the face of evidence with which they do not agree. When I am faced with evidence that contradicts my beliefs, my instinct is to question my beliefs--"Oh, wow, I didn't know that!" Then I take a step back and examine the evidence. Probably the most striking thing I've discovered is how quickly that evidence generally falls apart. I've found "facts" that were drawn selectively from source--where the rest of the facts contradicts what the selective evidence implies. I've found data from old sources that has clearly been addressed by other sources--and yet, that data has not been updated to address its own weaknesses.

I'm looking for someone on the other side to say, "Yes, but. . ." and then to articulate to me their assumptions. I do this all the time--I can concede a point without losing faith that my basic assumptions are still well founded.

I remember a student who used to ask me--when I told them that there was no "right" answer, "So we can just give our opinion, right?" I used to explain that even one's opinion should be grounded in evidence. It was important to me to get students to examine their own assumptions, to get past all the stuff those assumptions lead them to accept and to question the rational basis of the assumptions that they hold.

Here's what I want to know: do you really believe that the price of protecting American freedom is the current level of gun violence? Do you believe it is better that all our children and loved ones--not to mention ourselves--risk dying during a crime committed today, so that the government of this country cannot one day use our "defenselessness" against us?

If so, all I ask is that you examine those assumptions. How realistic is your assumption that an armed civilian population could overthrow a government committed against us? How realistic is your assumption that an unarmed civilian population cannot stand up against its government? Look at the world as it is today for your answers, b/c the evidence from the 18th century does you no good--the world is too different. Draw your conclusion, then explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion--and I will listen with an open mind. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong--it's not an uncommon experience for me, after all. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may arrive at the conclusion you have. But I need you to explain it to me in rational terms, to use evidence that is meaningful--or at the very least, to let me know where you have made a leap of faith. I can honor that, even if I do not agree with that. I can respect you for that, even if I will not defer to you because of it. I do not want to demonize my enemy because that always ends badly for everyone involved. Be my friend, and help me understand.

We the People and the 2nd Amendment: Why we really are much better than this.

For the first time in recent memory, I am taking a stand and not backing down even though I'm scared.

I know many people who own and use guns responsibly. I know many people who own and use guns responsibly and also believe that we need much stricter gun control.

But I also know that among the many, many, many, many, many gun owners who consider themselves law-abiding citizens will be more than a few who decide that this "assault" on their 2nd Amendment rights constitutes an act of war. In their complete inability to understand that democracy is about NOT using violence to solve our deepest, most painful conflicts, some of these few will decide it is time to take action into their own hands. These are people who do not understand that living in a democracy ultimately means, giving up your own deepest beliefs when the majority is against you. It means letting go of slavery when the will of the nation decides it is wrong--letting go peacefully, because the exact thing you value most, if you are a true patriot, is the precious right of each of us to vote our conscience and the precious responsibility of each of us to abide by the outcome of that vote.

I suspect there are people in this country--maybe even in my neighborhood--who will see an argument like this and decide that their enemies need to be silenced. And this is what is scary.

I cannot be afraid any longer. The secret of a successful bully is to intimidate his or her victim into silence, to make them fear that retribution for standing up for themselves will be much worse than the assaults and threats they already suffer.

The gun lobby knows this. The people who defend their 2nd Amendment rights benefit from the implied threat of violence their access to  guns gives them. They do not have to say anything. They can be smug in their "superior" position. They can be silent, relying on the echo of grim jokes about prying guns from cold, dead hands.

But I am not powerless. I am empowered. I am empowered by the knowledge that the instant one of them uses a gun, and not a vote, to defend a position, that person has destroyed the illusion of their patriotism, of their commitment to the Constitution. And in that same moment, they have exposed their complete  misunderstanding of the power of that Amendment.

Because, in a democracy, We the People, ARE the government. Our collective will is the law of the land. If we, as a government, arrive at the decision that the 2nd Amendment has a different meaning than some ascribe to it, then this decision becomes the law of the land. If, through the democratic process, we arrive at the conclusion that assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and/or handguns, and the ammunition for such weapons, need to go, then there are only two choices: As an American, you submit to that decision even if you vow to continue to speak against it in the hope of one day overturning it. Or, if you cannot accept a democratically derived decision, you have the freedom to surrender your citizenship and find a place where your vision and understanding are shared.

What you do not have any right to do is to challenge, with arms, a decision of the American people arrived at through the democratic process. You do not have the right, in a democracy, to assert yourself with violence against the collective will. You cannot claim any higher moral ground, any "better" understanding, any "right" interpretation of our Constitution. It takes meaning only from what We the People ascribe to it. Our Constitution has been interpreted from the earliest days. We express our views through word and writing and the way we spend our money, and then we trust in the process. If we do not trust in the process--the process of government for, by, and of the People--we are betraying our Constitution.

In the age of Jefferson as well as the age of Lincoln, the majority of Americans understood this. They understood that you cannot choose to live in America and decline to honor the Constitution, decline to accept the Will of the People, however distasteful that Will may be to you. They understood you cannot claim one inch of American soil as yours while refusing to honor the Constitution.

Embedded in the 2nd Amendment is the premise that the vigilance of the people is essential to protecting our democracy. It is a premise acknowledged--no, embraced--by our founders. Our vigilance means an active participation in the democratic process. It means tolerating continuous dissent and accepting views radically different from our own and promising ourselves and one another that--above all--our differences will be resolved peacefully. This does not preclude anger and frustration and bitter arguments. It does not preclude the ugliness of uncivil debate (although I'd like to think we are better than that, too). It should preclude dishonesty and intentional obfuscation of the truth, but as that is dependent on the moral character of each individual, we can only hope for better than that.

What each of us must bring to the debate is, first and foremost, the willingness to accept that democracy involves responsibilities as well as rights. And there is more: democracy requires each of us to question the information provided to us, especially the information provided by like-minded people. It requires us to sift through the evidence to the best of our own ability, and to reach our own conclusions. It demands that we accept that others may have different goals from us. It expects each of us to find the courage to submit to what we cannot always understand. Democracy is simply an act of faith, submission to the Will of the People. If you can't live with that, you aren't much of an American to begin with.







Or, more likely