GUNSENSE

A GOOD DAY FOR NONVIOLENCE IN ARKANSAS

Wednesday, August 14, 2013. A good day for nonviolence in the state of Arkansas. A good day to realize that many of our citizens understand the long view that sees that more guns in circulation, without adequate controls, without serious and sustained instruction, can never provide a lasting solution to violence.

A good day for nonviolence because it was on Wednesday that Representative Charlie Collins announced that he would be running for Lieutenant Governor, and on that same day, we learned that every college and university in the state had said no to Act 226, the legislation Collins sponsored to put guns on our campuses.

But that's not all. It was a good day for nonviolence because the Clarksville school district learned on Wednesday that The Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies had upheld Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's original decision to prohibit the school district from arming its faculty in K-12. Dr. David Hopkins, Superintendent of the Clarksville School District and the one who engineered the plan to bring guns into his schools, is not surprisingly a former instructor for the NRA. As Charlie Collins and Asa Hutchinson, both loyal disciples of the NRA, run for the two highest offices in Arkansas, we can expect this gun lobby, and others as well, to have a sizable presence in our state. But on Wednesday, August 14, 2013, the powerful gun lobbies and their destructive message of fear and paranoia felt the kind of resistance, the dedication to peaceful solutions to our problems, that have long characterized Arkansas schools at all levels and in every sphere.

And finally, we learned on Wednesday that on Thursday, August 15—the day that I am composing this celebratory piece—six African-American pastors will gather to address gun violence and to urge Senators Pryor and Boozman to change their votes against life-saving background checks.

As I said, Wednesday, August 14, 2013, a good day in Arkansas for nonviolence and reasonable solutions—solutions, I would add, that arose from the broadest spectrum of our citizenry. So a consensus emerged on that day—and we will work to insure its survival in the coming days when it will surely be tested—that arming our teachers is a hasty and dangerous response to an unclear and undefined threat and that we can as a community develop creative and compassionate solutions to violence that enoble us all. Many have shown us the path to do so—Gandhi and King, of course, spring to mind as well as the founders of our major religious traditions.

What emerged finally on Wednesday was the notion that the moment we forget our essentially human capacities, the moment we abandon our creativity and forsake our compassion, we make ourselves more vulnerable to violence, the very disease that all of us are working to cure.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013, then, a very good day in Arkansas, and one that we will remember as the future unfolds, and the gun lobbies escalate their campaigns in our state for the 2014 elections.

 

Posted with Blogsy

BREAKING NEWS: ARKANSAS COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES UNANIMOUSLY SAY 'NO' TO GUNS ON CAMPUS

In a forceful and decisive show of unanimity against Arkansas Act 226, sponsored by Representative Charlie Collins and which would have allowed faculty & staff with concealed-carry licenses to bring their guns on campus, every public and private college and university in the state of Arkansas has voted to opt out of the law.

To see the complete list of schools opting out of this legislation, see our Facebook page, Arkansans Against Guns on Campus.

This is significant for three reasons.

1. The college and university boards that voted this legislation down represent the broadest demographics in the state.From public schools to private schools, from large state universities to smaller community colleges, Arkansans directly affected by Act 226 have spoken out against the legislative actions of the radical gun lobbies and the legislators they sponsor.
2. The unanimous decision to opt out of Act 226 provides clear evidence that the powerful gun lobbies can be successfully resisted. While Arkansans have no centralized and well funded gun-control lobby to match the prowess of organizations like the NRA, we have developed smaller and dedicated organizations, blogs, Twitter feeds, and Facebook pages that united overnight around this common cause. These actions should provide hope for the future, as we move forward committed to maintaining the safe campuses that have long distinguished Arkansas higher education.
3. It is also our sincere hope that the legislators who sponsored this bill will realize that top-down legislation of this sort, in the face of stringent public opposition by the afffected constituencies, creates an unnecessary divisiveness within the state.Arkansas, like many states in the region, confronts complex and genuinely partisan issues. To force our institutions of higher education to consider every year an Act that they have resisted from the beginning, and now resisted unanimously, is a waste both of our resources and our time.

We hope, in fact, that our successful resistance to Act 226 will serve as a model to other institutions who face similar legislation.

Lucrative PAC's, well-oiled DC lobbies, wealthy contributors from outside of the state whose children will most likely not attend our schools—these forces represent substantial opponents, but Arkansas has now joined the ranks of those similarly under-funded coalitions and organizations around the country—and there are many of them, and their numbers are growing—that have relied on the will of the people to craft a voice in opposition to gun violence.

We believe that our successful resistance is part of a larger, growing consensus around the country, and we further feel that our victory here in Arkansas derives in part from the support and advice that we received from organizations in other states that have been struggling against gun violence for years.

Together, we feel confident that our progress will be steady and sure. A consensus has emerged, and we here in Arkansas are happy to be a part of it.

 

Posted with Blogsy

SOCIAL MEDIA & SOCIAL CHANGE: HOW TO STAY AFLOAT IN THE ONE WHILE WORKING FOR THE OTHER

As more and more Americans become involved in working for responsible gun legislation, more and more Americans are becoming involved in using social media for political purposes. Twitter turned seven this summer, and although the numbers are debatable, one site claims that 170 billion tweets have been sent in those seven years. Facebook reported recently that it had 1.11 billion users. Clearly, both forums are growing at a rapid rate and taking their rightful places as powerful lobbying tools.

To use these two social media powerhouses, you only need regular online access. Nothing else. Anyone can participate, and at times, it seems that everyone is lending his or her voice to the conversation. And I mean everyone. Kind of like a Thanksgiving dinner: the crazy, inebriated uncle, the hip, bored teen, the confused and lovable grandmother, the stuffy, censorious cousin who reads important books and tells you about them, and the one-truth wonder who begins his commentary with "all I know is. . . . " You know these folks, and all of them will show up on your Twitter feed and Facebook page.

The gun debate is particularly polarized now, and the cast of characters that you'll meet in the social forums spans the spectrum from angry, drooling insurrectionists to peaced-out idealists. Remember Thanksgiving when they show up. I've listed here four tips for using social media responsibly to accomplish the goals you've set for yourself, even when the embarassing relatives visit your feed.

1. Raising awareness about a problem is the first stage in solving it. If people are not aware of the problem, then you cannot expect a solution. Twitter, with a clear and forceful statistic, raises awareness instantly. If posting statistics represents 90% of your political engagement, you are making a difference. But remember the popular adage: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Your statistics will get attacked, no matter how authoritative the source you use. Opponents to responsible gun legislation have spent a great deal of time and money training their advocates to question, deny, and attack even the most secure numbers. I'm not a professional statistician, so I use reliable sources, and I don't engage the provocateurs. Always remember that those who don't have a dog in your fight are also seeing your numbers, and these numbers will have an effect. And these people are often silent.
2. Twitter and Facebook are not the best forums for debate. Your statistics will get retweets and comments, both supportive and hostile. We've all engaged in the Twitter debate, and some of us are better at it than others. While it's important, at times, to engage those who misrepresent what you have said—the misrepresentation occurs, after all, in a public forum—it's helpful to remember that no one changes their mind because of a Twitter duel. Normally, after the fight is finished, opinions are hardened, accounts blocked. You have limited time and energy to do this. So use both wisely. Arguing with someone who believes that his Second Amendment rights are being infringed by storing his guns in a locked case will only waste your time. And you will only waste his. And both of your blood pressures will rise.
3. Ideas and opinions need space to grow, develop, mature, and make a difference; therefore, blog! The quickest way to make those annoying tweets disappear is to ask their authors to develop their ideas in a blog and send you the link when they're done. Poof! They're gone. Most of the ranters and ravers on Twitter rant and rave because Twitter, with its 140 character limit, lends itself to the worst sort of lazy one-liners. Ask these folks for 1000 words, and they're struck dumb. Developing your ideas in English prose is hard work, after all, and it exposes you to reasonable disagreement, which for hard-liners is unacceptable. You can also write up your opinion on the hot-button topics—the Second Amendment; guns on campus; assault rifles; concealed carry—post it to your blog, and respond to a hostile tweet with the link to what you have to say on the topic. I do this frequently, and it often closes the conversation.
4. Anyone who is tweeting with compassion and tolerance becomes your ally, and conversely those who refuse these qualities deserve them from you. For me, working toward responsible gun legislation belongs to a larger movement that finds its inspiration and goals in the work of the social reformers who have held close to the principles of nonviolence, egalitarianism, and social justice. You will aready have your own models, but for me, they are Gandhi, King, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Dalai Lama. Sister Helen Prejean, specifically her stance on the death penalty, makes my list too. Knowing their biographies has been helpful to me because I learned that reformers of this stripe saw their present struggle in the larger context of creating a more loving and tolerant world. They rarely confused the battle and the war, and this alone kept their spirits strong. They realized that a defeat in one often heralded a more important victory in the other. So when people openly carried assault rifles into Starbucks, for example, they won a battle. But they left a trail of images, a spectacle or an optics, as we say now, that works against them. When the American people, the majority of whom don't understand the need to be armed in a coffee shop, see these images, the war begins to turn in favor of the social reformers. King realized this in Birmingham when he made certain that images of children being water-cannoned went coast-to-coast. Gandhi was also a master of political optics as well, although he was often working with print media, or even the telegraph. But he understood spectacle, and so should we.

I'll close, then, with Gandhi who said, reminding us of the purity and power of a simple social action: "whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." I could have begun my post with that eloquent advice, but then I would have had nothing else to say.

 

Posted with Blogsy

QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE STARBUCKS IN-STORE GUN RALLY ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 9

As you probably know by now, gun advocates are planning a nation-wide, in-store gun rally at Starbucks on Friday, August 9. See the Moms Demand Action page for details. A few thoughts before this day arrives:

1. These open-carry rallies are strictly legal. The gun advocates are breaking no laws.
2. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has traditionally responded, when questioned about his store's gun policies, that he is simply following state and local ordinances. This, of course, is silly. Ask any smoker, who has been banned from smoking near the store. Corporations the size of Starbucks are moral entities as well, and their decisions have an impact on the moral climate that surrounds, nourishes, and creates their clientele. Mr. Schultz knows this, and he is making his decisions accordingly.
3. Starbucks across the country will host gun advocates sporting loaded assault rifles, pistols, shotguns, whatever is permitted in the state. This is done for intimidation. If you would be intimidated by these guns as you and your daughter stop off for a coffee, then don't go to Starbucks on August 9. And even better, sign the petition against Starbucks' gun policies by visiting the page I mentioned above.
4. Having spent the past 8 months campaigning for reasonable gun laws and policies in Arkansas colleges and universities, and having come from a gun culture (read more here), I am confident that most of the folks who show up with their guns at Starbucks are neither Navy Seals nor Army Rangers—whom I'd trust to carry loaded assault rifles into my daughter's bedroom while she sleeps—nor are they highly trained security personnel, nor are they members of your local police force, nor are they designated individuals who carry guns because of the daily, provable, and credible attacks on their lives. Nor are they duck hunters or deer hunters or elk hunters. They are people whose identity has become inexplicably identified with your seeing that they own guns and that they can make you uncomfortable by brandishing them in public places. And that is all they are. Several recent visitors to my Faacebook page, Gunsense, have told me as much. One told me that he loved laying his Sig Sauer 9 mm on the table beside his latte and watching the soccer moms and their daughters scatter. I wonder how Mr. Schultz would respond to that?
5. These Starbucks warriors will tell you, of course, that they are concerned about their Second Amendment rights, that they are being eroded, and that they will struggle mightily to preserve them. Perhaps they are concerned; I don't know. I would suggest, however, that this struggle to preserve our freedoms is not being carried out in Starbucks—this is a mighty and dangerous delusion.
6. I would suggest that this struggle to preserve our basic freedoms is being carried out on a daily basis by our men and women in uniform; I would suggest further that they have done what ought to be done when you take defensive measures seriously: they have joined one of the best training organization in the world—the American military—and part of their training teaches them that openly brandishing firearms in a coffee shop where children and other civilians are present has nothing to do with defending our rights. It has only to do with intimidation, and intimidation never produces long-lasting social change nor enduring freedoms.
7. So if you venture into a Starbucks on Friday, August 9 without your assault rifle, and you happen to see a group of folks who are carrying them openly, and you get that funny feeling in your stomach, ask yourself: when was the last time a member of the American military made you feel that way?

 

Posted with Blogsy

SNARKY AT THE GUNNERS: AN EXORCISM OF SORTS

I'm going to be snarky now because sometimes snarky is all I've got.

Here's how it happens.

First, I read a tweet like, "What is it about 'shall not be infringed' that you lefty #Libtards don't get? #MolonLabe."

The term "libtard" is insensitive, violent, uncaring, and ignorant, but I'm used to it.

Then, I notice other stuff.

The folks who post tweets like these always seem to have have muscled, mythological figures as their avatars, holding an axe high above their heads, which are sometimes helmeted.

There's typically lightning too.

And big pecs.

And bulging calves. And that phrase,

Molon labe?

Really?

These people read Greek now?

Next comes anger.

I cut the Drive-By Truckers up even louder.

I'm listening to "The Three Great Alabama Icons," and I want to go and tell each one of those icons—George Wallace, Bear Bryant, and Ronnie Van Zant—that the South is a lot different now from the one that they left us, and the one they helped to shape.

 

We've made great improvements down here in the South over the last half-century—although conservative legislators are now trying to dismantle a lot of these advances, in my opinion—but it's the gun conversation that's got me worried.

It's inflamed now by fear and ignorance, and that's a dangerous situation because it involves—you guessed it—guns.

So as I said, sometimes snarky is all I've got because snarky is what keeps anger from bursting into hate speech.

But just to give you my field guide to snarkiness, I've gathered together four memes that regularly make the rounds in Twitter conversations about guns in America.

I get snarky just thinking about them.

1. Thomas Jefferson—No one from the 18th century has been more misquoted than Jefferson. In fact, there's a very good website devoted to correcting the practice.
   He never said, for example, that "the beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." No one in the 18th century wrote like that anyway.
   But never mind.
   Across Jefferson's long life, he played many roles, occupied himself in a number of ways, from unrepentant slave-owner to President to political theorist to Francophile-wannabe to debtor, and he wrote in ways that are true to each of those roles. At times, he sounds like a modern-day Libertarian, and at times he sounds like President Obama. Or a museum curator.
   Or a stuffy professor. You can't cherry-pick Jefferson, quote him, and claim him as your kindred spirit for carrying guns into Starbucks. If Jefferson teaches us anything by his example, he teaches us to apply a highly critical attention to those thinkers who came before us and to realize their limitations. The only legitimately Jeffersonian reaction to the current gun crisis is to understand that Jefferson knew nothing about our current weaponry, and that he would be incensed that his opinions are now brought to be bear on this conversation when his opinions were formed over two centuries ago without benefit of our modern data on kill-rates. That specific anger at simplifying a complex opinion is deeply Jeffersonian. Try it out.

2. The Second Amendment—News flash: the Second Amendment is not under attack. The Supreme Court has done nothing but consistently expand the Amendment's powers every time it considers it. And state laws? Concealed carry, with variations, is now the law of the land. We can pack heat in bars, public parks, libraries, churches, yoga centers, yogurt parlors . . . all those places that we are fearful of attack, assault, and invasion. And with SYG laws in place in over half of our states, we have effectively deputized half our population, should they wish to become deputies. Intimidated? Frightened? That's impossible now. We can exercise our Second-Amendment rights with less fear of conviction than ever before in modern history. Especially if we're white, which most of our gun-owners now are. So, win-win, if you're white, and not to worry. The Second Amendment is alive and well, and healthier than it has ever been.
3. The First Amendment—There is not a single right mentioned in the First Amendment that has not been defined, interpreted, and circumscribed, well beyond its literal meaning, whatever that might be. The question with these rights is never the simplistic one I often get—"Have you read the First Amendment, #Libtard?"—but another question that never gets asked: "How do you interpret the language of the Amendment?" I've addressed this issue elsewhere, and it explains my thoughts on learning how to read all over again. Of course, I realize that if my posting threatens members of the gun lobby, I am in imminent danger. I mean, reading is not covered in the Bill of Rights, and so I have no business assuming that my worthy adversaries in the gun lobbies consider learning to read a right they have exercised.
4. Race—Maybe you've wondered why we even have a Second Amendment?
   It's obvious, right?
   Because of the great Second, oppressive governments cannot disarm us, and we can join our state militia, and camp out on the weekends, with guns, and we can drop, and roll, and stand down because when the revolution comes, Ted Nugent and his militia will have to shoot folks, and so we need to be ready to shoot folks.
   And we can buy camo too.
   That's also big. But don't forget this—one of the major reasons that Madison felt compelled to write the Second Amendent had to do with race. Many Southern colonists feared a slave revolt—and why shouldn't they?—and believed that owning weapons was the only way to keep the African-American population, which outnumbered the whites on the plantations, duly enslaved.
   Carl T. Bogus has provided the authoritative treatment of this subject.
   Go read it here.
   Now you see why Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, and the NRA work so diligently to link the ownership of weapons to the fear of debt riots and to brown- and black-skinned folks who, they imply, are constantly in debt or in crime that deserves punishment.
   They're re-activating the racist tradition that envigorates one segment of our gun owners because it gives them the reasons they need to own guns.
   So, race and guns do have a long history in this country.
   And stop already—I know about the Black Panthers.
   And about the African-American involvement with guns. "We will shoot back," as Akineyele Omowale Umoja has titled his history of armed resistance in the Mississippi freedom movement. You might want to read that book too.

 

Posted with Blogsy