jump to navigation

No Rational Argument (NRA) June 19, 2016

Posted by rogerhollander in Arms, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

AN UNINTENDED GIFT TO THE BLOOD SUCKING ARMS INDUSTRY CONTROLLED NRA AND THEIR MINDLESS FOLLOWERS WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GUN CONTROL AND GUN ABOLITION or BETWEEN A MILITIA AND AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN

6-17-16-slave-patrols

IT TOOK SEVEN MINUTES TO BUY THIS ASSAULT RIFLE IN THE U.S. June 16, 2016

Posted by rogerhollander in Arms, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

download

Roger’s note: I cannot remember how many times I have written the phrase “truly frightening” in this space.  Here we go again.  “Get your automatic assault weapon capable of mowing down hundreds in a split second.  Get it before the government bans all guns and before Obama himself breaks into your sacred home and not only takes away your arsenal but also your wife and firstborn.”

How many thousands of Americans are armed to repeat the Orlando massacre.

How many millions (billions?) of dollars in sales by the arms industry that writes NRA propaganda.

An informative article here, but concentrating on “fear and hate” misses the point that nearly all terrorist acts, domestically and internationally, are the direct product of the United States warring in Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.) and the U.S. sponsored Israeli genocidal acts towards the Palestinian peoples.

 

A day after Orlando shooting, a similar gun to one Omar Mateen used is promoted as gun of the week

 

PHILADELPHIA — Seven minutes. That’s how long it took me to buy an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle like the one used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

Seven minutes. From the moment I handed the salesperson my driver’s licence to the moment I passed my background check.

It likely will take more time than that during the forthcoming round of vigils to respectfully read the names of the more than 100 people who were killed or injured.

It’s obscene.

Surprising to some, perhaps, though it shouldn’t be, not at this point in our bloody, hate-filled history.

If it weren’t so easy to get a gun in this country, the 29-year-old gunman who went on a shooting rampage in a popular gay nightclub in Orlando on Sunday wouldn’t have been able to buy the weapon he used to kill 49 people and injure 53.

If it weren’t so easy to get a gun in this country, another gunman who came before him wouldn’t have been able to use the same kind of firearm to kill elementary-school children in Newtown, Conn.

If it weren’t so appallingly easy to get a gun in this country, it wouldn’t be easy for the next gunman to deliver the kind of carnage that’s as much a part of this country as the American flag.

And there will undoubtedly be a next one.

This has been said, but bears repeating and repeating and repeating some more.

If nothing changed after children were slaughtered in their school, do any of us really believe anything will change after the deaths of people so many fear and loathe simply for trying to live their truths?

The gunman was apparently enraged over seeing a same-sex couple kiss. Think about that. Love enraged him. Love made him kill.

But I try not to think about any of that as I drive over to the gun shop in Philadelphia. I need to come up with some plausible story, I think. What if I’m asked why, a day after this massacre, I want to buy a nearly identical type of gun used to slaughter people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

I consider my options:

I’m a woman who wants a rifle for safety reasons.

I’m a gun enthusiast with a soft spot for military-style rifles.

I’m a card-carrying member of the NRA who is afraid the government will be coming for my guns.

Turns out I don’t need a story. The AR-15 is on display in the window of the gun shop. It is being promoted as the gun of the week.

What will it take to buy one, I ask the sales guy.

Do I have identification? Yes.

Am I a U.S. citizen? Yes.

“Bingo,” the friendly gun shop sales guy said. “All we have to do is fill paperwork out.”

I’ve filled out more paperwork at the doctor’s office for a routine checkup than I did Monday afternoon.

I felt a little squeamish about not telling him who I was and what I was trying to do, but this wasn’t about them; they weren’t doing anything illegal. The truth is that I could have bought the gun as easily in any gun shop in Pennsylvania. I just didn’t realize how easily.

Go to a licensed gun store. Fill out about a page and a half of forms. Wait (if that’s really the right word for it) for an instant background check, and then pay the man. I told the guy I was on a budget, so I got an AR-15 for $759.99. God bless America.

No need for a concealed carry permit. No mandatory training, though the guys did give me a coupon for a free day pass for a local gun range. No need for even a moment to at least consider how gross all of this felt as relatives of the dead were still being notified.

To be fair, there was an extra 10 or 15 minutes or so of chit-chat inside the gun store before I walked out with a cardboard box with the words Smith & Wesson emblazoned on it, and an attagirl for thinking ahead and buying the most popular rifle in the country before there’s a run on the gun from nervous gun owners who fear a ban on them.

“Yeah, because it was about the gun, not Islamic terrorism, right?” a man buying a gun offered, unsolicited.

Here we go, I thought.

The fact is, what shattered so many lives in the early hours Sunday was about many things.

Homophobia, first and foremost.

Radicalism — the American gunman claimed allegiance to Daesh, also known as ISIS and ISIL, and praised the Boston Marathon bombers. Even if that’s not true, the radicals won’t have a problem with that.

Mental illness.

And yes, guns. Insane, nonsensical access to guns. So pick whatever reason or narrative matches your politics or agenda.

Have at it, because the truth is that while they all play a part, what’s really destroying this country is fear and hate. A festering fear and hate that we better think about when it’s time to vote for our next president, because the fear and hate is not all coming from the outside. It’s not all from some unnamed foreign bogeyman. Increasingly it’s from within, from down the street, the next state over, the next potential leader of this country.

As I walked to my car with my brand-new gun, I wasn’t sure what to do with it. I didn’t want it, but I also didn’t want it in anyone else’s hands either.

So I drove to the Philadelphia Police Department’s Sixth District, where I seemed to stump more than a few officers when I explained who I was and what I wanted to do. Have you ever tried to turn in a gun in this city? Spoiler alert: It takes longer than it does to buy a gun.

As an officer prepared the paperwork, I noticed a sign that hung on one of the walls.

United We Stand, it read.

My God, I thought, what a lie.

We are more divided every single day, and yet our answer to that is to meet fear and hate with more fear and hate and then expect a different outcome. To be shocked at the world we live in, left to do little else but hold vigils.

While we’re mourning the dead, let us mourn the national loss of humanity that is to blame for this world we have created.

And let us take more than seven minutes to do it.

 

 

Obama in Charleston July 12, 2015

Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, History, Race, Racism, Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Roger’s note: I found this article to be particularly insightful with respect to the underlying and cynical political underpinnings in the rhetoric and strategy of the snake oil salesman who is the president of the United States.

Based as it is in the concept of “grace,” President Obama’s eulogy on June 26, 2015, for the Reverend Clementa Pinckney, pastor of the Emanuel AME Methodist Church, was framed to be moving . But at the same time it was crafted not to rock the ship of state by steering it safely through the troubled political waters of the controversial issues raised by the murders of the Reverend Pinckney and eight of his parishioners. Moving yet politically safe is the keynote of the eulogy.

In this respect the eulogy follows the rhetorical pattern of other speeches Obama has given in the past, most notably the 2008 Philadelphia speech on race. The pattern of these speeches is one in which Obama touches on key issues—poverty, race, gun violence, etc—and then does not propose concrete policy initiatives to deal with the issues, even as a way of educating the public on the specific route to justice we should be taking, no matter what the political obstacles. Instead, he offers us consolation and, of course, his trademark “hope.” That is, he sentimentalizes the issues: “…an open heart,” the president tells us at the end of the eulogy, “That, more than any particular policy or analysis, is what’s called upon right now, I think.” So while earlier in the speech he insists that “To settle for symbolic gestures without following up with the hard work of more lasting change — that’s how we lose our way again,” the eulogy, devoid of any policy recommendations to follow, is no more than a symbolic gesture.

In the case of the murders at Emanuel, the president offers us the consolation and hope of “grace,” which he tells us “according to the Christian tradition [cannot be] earned.” In point of fact, the president is wrong here. It is only a segment of the Christian tradition, the Protestant tradition, in which grace cannot be earned. For the 76.7 million Catholics in the U.S. (a significant number of whom are Black) grace must be earned, through penance. And Catholics, of course, are the first Christians. How significantly different would the eulogy have been had Obama pursued this avenue to grace? For, indeed, there is much actual penance in the form of restorative justice that the United States needs to do.

We should have no doubts that the killings of the Reverend Pinckney and the eight parishioners of the Emanuel AME Methodist Church on June 17, 2015, are part of the ongoing history of lynching of Black people in the U.S. In the present, these wanton killings of Black adults and children have most often been carried out by the police acting in the name of the law: Amadou Diallo, Yvette Smith, Eric Garner, Eleanor Bumpurs, Michael Brown, Tarika Wilson, Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, to name but a few. But they have also been carried out by white vigilantes as in the present case, where Cynthia Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lance, DePayne Middleton-Doctor, Tywanza Sanders, Daniel L. Simmons, Sr., poeticsimperialismSharonda Coleman-Singleton, and Myra Thompson were lynched alongside Clementa Pinckney. Recently as well, there have been others: James Byrd, Jr., tied to a pickup truck and dragged to death in Texas in 1998 by white racists, comes to mind; and, preceding the recent murders by police in several U.S. cities and by Dylann Roof in Charleston, the lynching of Trayvon Martin by vigilante George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012, stands out. But these few names only represent the multitude of Black lynchings, past and present.

Yet I have not heard any official or mainstream media commentary refer to the AME murders, or any of the killings I’ve referenced, as part of an ongoing history of “lynching?” Nor, while mentioning the history of racial violence in the most general terms, did the president reflect on this specific history in his eulogy. Why not? The reason would seem to be that the U.S. is continually in denial of its own continuing violent history, a denial that acknowledges this history but very generally, almost abstractly, distancing it from us as a way of not coming to grips with it in the present, a denial that works against real reform.

In his eulogy, President Obama referred to slavery as “our original sin.” An implicit effect of Obama’s equating the national “original sin” with slavery is that it reinforces the classic black/white binary. While this binary serves to emphasize a key strain of U.S. history, it simultaneously serves to erase other key components of a continuing history of imperial and colonial violence. In fact, our original sin was not slavery but Native American genocide and the theft of Native land.   This genocidal theft was the very ground of slavery, both literally and figuratively. But the U.S. does not want or cannot afford to admit that it is a settler colony.

In addition to Native genocide and continued colonialism in Indian country under the regime of federal Indian law, in addition to the legacy of slavery and the fact that 150 years after the Civil War Blacks along with Native Americans remain at the bottom of the economic ladder, the U. S. has continued to deny, under the myth of American exceptionalism, which informs all the president’s speeches, its colonial-imperial past and present in Latin America and the Middle East. If we are going to speak in religious terms, as the president chose to do in Charleston, the U.S. has a multitude of “sins” for which to atone both at home and abroad, where it continues to violate international law with undeclared drone warfare that is killing civilians like those who were murdered in church in Charleston.

Perhaps, then, if we followed the Catholic Christian tradition, in which there is also a strong tradition of action for social justice, we might do “penance,” and thereby earn our grace, by fighting for actual policy initiatives: gun control, reparations in the form of economic development for the official theft of labor and land owed the Black and Native communities, the end of deportations for undocumented workers, a living wage, permanent voting rights, equal pay for women, and total LGBTI equality under the Constitution. The implementation of such policies, indeed placing them at the top of the national political agenda, would go a long way to ending the psychological and social conditions that continue to foster lynching in the U.S, conditions that devalue not only Black lives but the lives of other marginalized people of all races, ethnicities, and sexual identities.

This tradition of action for social justice is also a part of the tradition of the Black Protestant Church, which the president references in the eulogy. In that Church this tradition is represented not only by Clementa Pinckney but by such ministers as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whom presidential candidate Obama jettisoned in his Philadelphia speech by taking out of context Wright’s just criticism of the United States’ history of violence at home and abroad; that is, by erasing Wright’s taking exception with American exceptionalism.

In the eulogy, Obama develops his meditation on grace by first noting , with admiration bordering on awe, that the families of the fallen forgave the killer at his arraignment hearing: “The alleged killer could have never anticipated the way the families of the fallen would respond when they saw him in court — in the midst of unspeakable grief, with words of forgiveness. He couldn’t imagine that.”

In contrast to Obama’s praise for this act of forgiveness, on the June 24, 2015, Michelangelo Signorile satellite radio show on Serius XM Progress, two days before Obama’s eulogy, Mark Thompson—Black activist, minister, and host of his own show Make It Plain on the same channel—commented skeptically on the time and place of this expression of forgiveness: “What I as a Christian minister can’t understand and what no other Christian minister I know can understand is how you announce forgiveness less than 48 hours after your loved ones have been taken out by Dylann Roof…. it is humanly impossible with all the stages of grief that have been codified and studied ad nauseam…to make that kind of statement credibly that soon.”

Moreover, Thompson pointed out, to make the statement of forgiveness at a “bond hearing” is particularly inappropriate “because that opens the door for legal maneuvering on the part of his counsel.” Thus for Thompson, and he is not alone in this, the time and place of this expression of forgiveness by the bereaved, not forgiveness itself, suggests that the event “was orchestrated, staged and choreographed” in order to suppress potential aggressive protests by the Black community of Charleston, of the kind that had just taken place in Ferguson and Baltimore over the police lynchings of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray (and Thompson made it plain in this interview that he understands these killings, along with those in Charleston and the others I have referenced, as part of the continuing history of lynching): “Nikki Haley,” Thompson remarks, “gets up there and says we’re not like Baltimore…which was insulting to the people of Baltimore, maybe you didn’t have that because people are still in shock, maybe you didn’t have that because you all choreographed, you made a phone call and said to some relatives you all need to come down to this bond hearing and say forgive this man,” though, Thompson notes, “I’m not saying I know that’s what happened but… we just really do not understand how that came to be, the timing of it, highly, highly, highly inappropriate….”

The timing, Thompson suggests, also served to present a comforting , indeed subservient, image of Black people to the nation: “It’s also part of the subjugation of our people…some people cannot feel comfortable in America unless we as Black people are always in this passive and submissive role….” The immediate expression of forgiveness by the families of those murdered at Emmanuel AME , then, is the perfect emotional antidote to the anger of the protestors in Ferguson and Baltimore and in fact to all the acts of Black resistance that are a crucial part of American history and of which the Emmanuel AME and the Black Church as a whole are a part. This act of forgiveness might remind some of us of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s antebellum bestseller Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which presented a sentimental picture of a forgiving Christian Black populace in a U.S. caught up the in the antebellum violence of slavery and of Black and white abolitionist resistance to and rebellion against this “peculiar institution.”

This is exactly the comforting picture that Obama’s eulogy presents with its theme of forgiveness through unearned grace. At the end of the eulogy, Obama sang, in fine voice, quite movingly, Amazing Grace, and once again we might be reminded of the sentimental power of Stowe’s novel, even as we understand its hallucinatory vision of race relations in the United States.

Social critic Jon Stewart got to the heart of our continuing hallucination about the conjuncture of race and violence, when, a day after the Emanuel lynchings, he spoke about them on The Daily Show:

“I honestly have nothing other than just sadness once again that we have to peer into the abyss of the depraved violence that we do to each other and the nexus of a just gaping racial wound that will not heal, yet we pretend doesn’t exist. And I’m confident, though, that by acknowledging it, by staring into that and seeing it for what it is, we still won’t do jack s—. Yeah. That’s us….And we’re going to keep pretending like, ‘I don’t get it. What happened? This one guy lost his mind.’ But we are steeped in that culture in this country and we refuse to recognize it, and I cannot believe how hard people are working to discount it.”

Obama’s eulogy does the hard work of denial by at once “acknowledging” the continuing U.S. history of racist violence against Blacks (though he is careful not to call this continuing violence by the name of “lynching”), by “staring into that and seeing it for what it is,” but in the same breath denying this history by sentimentalizing it and turning policy into morality, most pointedly in the moment when he speaks about gun violence:

“For too long, we’ve been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation…. The vast majority of Americans — the majority of gun owners — want to do something about this. We see that now. (Applause.) And I’m convinced that by acknowledging the pain and loss of others, even as we respect the traditions and ways of life that make up this beloved country — by making the moral choice to change, we express God’s grace.”

This is vintage Obama: the problem of gun violence is at once articulated and solved in a virtual reality where the “vast majority of Americans—the majority of gun owners, expressing “God’s grace” make “the moral choice to change.” No policy needed; the “something” that “the vast majority of Americans…want to do” about gun violence is not specified, precisely because there is no consensus on the issue. It follows that if one does not voice an actual policy on guns, there are no hard choices of the kind, for example, that Australia (another frontier colonial state) made in instituting rigorous gun laws in 1996 after a lone gunman, Martin Bryant, went on a shooting rampage that left 35 people dead and 23 wounded in Tasmania. Indeed, Obama has cited Australia’s response to this massacre favorably in the past. Here, however, within the scope of God’s grace, the U.S. can apparently have its political cake and eat it too “by acknowledging the pain and loss of others, even as we respect the traditions and ways of life that make up this beloved country.” We can, it appears, control guns without disturbing “the traditions and ways of life” of gun owners. This is magical thinking, which clearly ignores the NRA and its vast lobbying power.

If the audience hasn’t been moved by this sentimental appeal, and apparently it has been if the applause the appeal calls forth is any indication, then the president’s invocation of “this beloved country” functions rhetorically to conjure his imaginary consensus.

At worst, one might be tempted to think that Obama’s eulogy was cynical in its turn away from policy, that is, from the major political form of accountability, to a sentimentality that mimics the precipitous act of forgiveness of the bereaved in Charleston. As Mark Thompson points out such acts of forgiveness, if they are to come at all, typically come at the sentencing hearing after the trial has been concluded. But there has been no trial as yet, not simply of the killer but of the country from which the killer emerged, from us: no testimony, no rigorous analysis of the evidence, no accountability, no verdict, no punishment or “penance” if you will.

We can be certain that the killer will be put on trial and a verdict rendered in due time. But it is highly doubtful, given our powers of denial, that the country has the will to face its own day of judgment.

Eric Cheyfitz is Ernest I. White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters at Cornell University. He is the author of The Poetics of Imperialism.

Merry Christmas and Bang, You’re Dead December 12, 2014

Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence, Humor.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Google_ChromeScreenSnapz005

Nation Debates Extremely Complex Issue of Children Firing Military Weapons August 31, 2014

Posted by rogerhollander in Children, Gun Control/Violence, Humor.
Tags: , , , , ,
2 comments

Roger’s note: Last week a nine year old girl from New Jersey was on vacation with her family in Arizona where she was taken to a gun range (the Last Stop shooting range) by her parents where she was given a Uzi sub-machine gun to fire at a target.  Something went wrong, probably with the weapon’s recoil, and she occidentally shot and killed the instructor at her side.  Unlike the article below, I am not making this up.

 

AUGUST 28, 2014

BY ANDY BOROWITZ
download

CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/GETTY
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Across the United States on Wednesday, a heated national debate began on the extremely complex issue of children firing military weapons.

“Every now and then, the nation debates an issue that is so complicated and tricky it defies easy answers,” says pollster Davis Logsdon. “Letting small children fire automatic weapons is such an issue.”

Logsdon says that the thorny controversy is reminiscent of another ongoing national debate, about whether it is a good idea to load a car with dynamite and drive it into a tree.

“Many Americans think it’s a terrible idea, but others believe that with the correct supervision, it’s perfectly fine,” he says. “Who’s to say who’s right?”

Similar, he says, is the national debate about using a flamethrower indoors. “There has been a long and contentious national conversation about this,” he says. “It’s another tough one.”

Much like the long-running national debates about jumping off a roof, licking electrical sockets, and gargling with thumbtacks, the vexing question of whether children should fire military weapons does not appear headed for a swift resolution.

“Like the issue of whether you should sneak up behind a bear and jab it with a hot poker, this won’t be settled any time soon,” he says.

An Opportunity to Survive: Someone Has Made A Bulletproof Blanket For Your Kids Because This Is What We’ve Come To June 10, 2014

Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Roger’s note: I am reminded of the drop drills we had when I was in elementary school in the immediate post WWII years.  In case of atomic attack, the teacher would yell “DROP!” and we would dive under our desks.  This surely would have protected us from an atomic blast.  Security is not a matter of weapons or bullet proof accessories, but rather a just social and economic system.  Of course, fear mongering is good and profitable  for enterprising capitalists such as the one described here.  So, hurry, get your bullet proof blanket today, supplies are limited!  And pick up your automatic weapon and rounds while you’re at it!

When will they ever learn?

 

by Abby Zimet

An Oklahoma podiatrist has designed the Bodyguard Blanket, a bulletproof pad offering “an extra layer of protection” against “90% of all weapons that have been used in school shootings in the United States.” In their soft-focus, schmaltzy-music-festooned video, kids romp on “just an ordinary day” until – dark music for “when seconds count” – they dutifully strap on their blankets and hunch on the floor under some capitalist’s wet dream of a money-making scheme because that’s all the kids will have thanks to gutless politicians who’ve failed to do anything else to protect them against our national lunacy, and no this is not The Onion.

Comments

  • Things to bring on your first day of school:

    #2 pencils
    3 ring binder
    loose leaf notebook paper
    blue or black ink pen
    backpack
    lunch money
    bullet proof blanket
    bullet proof helmet
    Gun (if you’re a good kid…that way you can kill bad kids)
    a conformist attitude
    manners
    a battle plan
    bullet proof vest

    Lesson of the day: The pledge of Allegiance and American exceptionalism

    • …and be sure to wear clean underwear, just in case.
      …and make sure you hug Mommy before leaving for the school bus.
      …and feed the dog because you never know when or if you will be coming back home.

  • Looks like WE are back to ‘duck-and-cover’. This time the enemy is us.
    By the time the kids are in second grade they will have PTSD.

Trayvon Martin Nativity Display At Claremont United Methodist Church Urges Us Not To Forget Gun Violence Victims December 28, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence, Racism, Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Roger’s note: I am not that big on organized Christianity or the nativity myth, but there are some few who call themselves Christian who actually do reflect the ethic of love and peace.  And I am big on remembering Trayvon Martin and the institutionalized racism and gun industry that were responsible for his murder as much as the fool Zimmerman.

 

Posted: 12/27/2013 1:41 pm EST  |  Updated: 12/27/2013 6:02 pm EST Huff Post

Trayvon Martin hasn’t been forgotten at Claremont United Methodist Church in Claremont, Cali.– in fact, he appears front and center in their Nativity display. He serves as a bloody and tragic reminder of the dangers of gun violence and racial privilege in today’s America, reports David Allen of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

Amongst the traditional holy family, Martin sits hunched over in his iconic black hoodie, blood pouring from his chest and pooling at his feet, reports Patch.com. The title of the scene, “A Child is Born, a Son is Given,” is outlined within the blood and evokes themes of both Christmas and Easter, according to artist John Zachary, who has been creating thought-provoking displays since 2007.

tm

Zachary told Allen in an interview that the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who fatally shot the unarmed teenager in 2012, “struck him as a worthy subject for Christmas comment.”

“There is no better time to reflect on gun violence than advent, when we celebrate the birth of Jesus,” says a sign at the church.. “Jesus was born into a state of total vulnerability as an innocent, unarmed child during a time of great violence much like Trayvon Martin.”

As families gather together at Christmas to celebrate, Zachary hopes to get them to think long and hard about their own blessings and privileges. He told Allen that many Christmas traditions of gifts reflect “privilege, and there’s a lot of people who don’t have that privilege. Maybe I should do something that’s provocative, that’s more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.”

trayvon
Artist John Zachary

This isn’t the first time that the church has used the Nativity as an opportunity to remind people about issues of social justice and inequality, which probably would have been of great concern to Jesus himself. Past displays have included Jesus and Mary as a homeless couple struggling to feed their newborn child, as Iraqi refugees next to U.S. soldiers, as immigrants from Mexico stopped by the wall at the border, among others. In 2011, Zachary’s Nativity display was of the outlines of three couples, two of them same-sex, gathering under the banner “Christ Is Born.”

Sharon Rhodes-Wickett, lead pastor at the church, told Allen that she finds this year’s scene difficult to look at, due to its violence. “It’s hard to look at a young man who’s shot and bleeding to death,” she said. “But even though I’m uncomfortable, that’s the point. We have to take a look at the violence.”

Response to the display has been surprisingly muted. “I thought this would be more controversial, but I come to find out people don’t really like people getting shot,” Zachary told Allen. “They may not agree what to do about it, but they agree it’s a bad thing.”

Rhodes-Wickett said that her congregation is progressive, and that “Most people like something that makes us think and makes us search our hearts.”

sign

Also on HuffPost:

Guns Are Cool September 17, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

 

 

by Abby Zimet

One more time: A guy – an unstable veteran who drank alot, suffered from anger management and other ill-defined mental issues, and “had a gun at all times” – killed at least 12 people at a D.C. Navy yard. There have been so many mass shootings in this country, and this country alone, that there are currently several battling definitions for mass shootings. If one uses the FBI definition – a spree in which four or more people are killed in one location – there have been six mass shootings in the past nine months and 20 during Obama’s presidency. If you broaden the definition to include people killed or wounded in the spree, as the folks at the database Guns Are Cool have reasonably done, the number comes to 250 in 2013, or almost one a day. Yes. Almost one a day. You can scroll down them. Scroll and scroll. While details are still emerging on this latest travesty, we do know a few things: that gun freaks should shut up already with their crap about how none of this would have happened if there had been more guns at the Navy yard – a notion Chris Hayes obliterates right quick – and that the body count in this country is well past obscene. Obama called the shooting “a cowardly act.” You wanna see a cowardly act? Congress persistently, unfathomably, unconscionably failing to halt the bloodshed.

“Guns don’t kill people. Nothing kills people. People don’t die. Stop saying words.” – spoof NRA tweet.

How Much Did It Cost to Block a Gun Control Bill That 91% of Americans Support? This Much. May 14, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Democracy, Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

 

A National Receipt from the 45 senators who blocked gun control, and who received $8,165,490 from the NRA and other gun-toting advocates. From Demand Action.

Adolphus Busch IV Resigns From NRA After Gun Control Defeat In Senate April 19, 2013

Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

 

Roger’s note: this article makes it crystal clear that it is the arms and munition manufacturers who are behind the sleazebag LaPierre and the blood-tainted US Senators who enable the massacres we now witness on a regular basis.

WASHINGTON — Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, “I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable.”

The resignation, first reported by KSDK, came a day after the Senate rejected a series of amendments to a gun control bill, including a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for gun sales. The NRA had vigorously opposed all those measures.

“The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established,” wrote Busch. “Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.”

Reached for comment on Busch’s resignation, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told The Huffington Post, “We disagree with his characterization, but we wish him all the best.”

Busch joined the pro-gun organization in 1975 and has spoken before of his love of hunting. But the NRA has moved in a direction that Busch would not follow. “One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners,” he wrote.

Busch told Keene, “It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA.” He singled out the gun lobby’s reversal of its 1999 position in favor of universal background checks, as well as its opposition to an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. “I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision,” he wrote.

“Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as ‘reasonable’?” Busch wrote, referring to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.

At that time, LaPierre said the NRA believed that universal background checks were a “reasonable” choice. The group even took out ads in major newspapers that read, “We believe it’s reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops.”

One week after that hearing, LaPierre rolled out the same argument that he would use 14 years later to attack President Barack Obama’s gun safety proposals — namely, that until the government prosecutes more background check violations, there is no point in expanding them.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated incorrectly that Adolphus Busch IV had resigned his membership on the NRA board. Busch was not a member of the board.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 285 other followers