Several weeks ago, the Democratic Party political machine was ramping up for Round 2 of its quest for an assault weapon ban in Congress. I remember Round 1, which was around Christmas/New Year's, in the immediate wake of the Newtown tragedy.
After looking at the manner in which the Obama Administration's political campaign was organised (rather efficiently, might I add), I was struck by the outrage from the left. Many of my friends are in the Democratic Party, and urge me to join from time to time. Quite a few of these individuals own firearms and were generally in agreement with the party line
As well-organised as the campaign was, action didn't follow through within a week, it became old news and was forgotten. After washing us for two weeks in gun control propaganda, the corporate media had new boring stories to dangle in front of our noses for 8 hours at a time, and the public obliged by putting the debate back on the shelf. But I didn't, and neither did my friends in the Democratic Party.
You see, there are millions of firearm owners who are registered Democrats. They aren't even a small minority. In general, they view the question of assault weapons as a serious question of liberty vs. safety. Some tend toward one side or the other of that question, but all are in agreement that there is a basic right to bear firearms protected by the Second Amendment. Their opinions tend to drift slightly over the years, but this basic agreement on a natural right never deviates.
I put together some of their thoughts on the assault weapons ban MSM story Round 1 and realised that in organising a political campaign to prevent future Newtowns, the Democratic Party had omitted several of its long-term policy planks:
1) National healthcare
2) Mental healthcare parity
3) Comprehensive health coverage for all former service members
4) A ban on private prisons
5) Reduction of student:teacher ratios in public education
The first two are slam-dunks. As clunky and difficult as the new federal healthcare legislation may be, it has accomplished the first two, which will go a long way toward reducing the likelihood of future Newtowns. So why not talk it up every day of the week? It's like watching Jason Kidd taking a layup in the early part of Game 5, finishing by getting nervous and bobbling the ball. You know the guy can do way better even though he didn't score a single shot in the tournament. As a friend said, "But hey, he's still on the court."
While the shooter at Newtown wasn't a returning veteran, there is a serious problem with not ensuring that veterans are left untreated. Some may wish to remain untreated. There is no reason that our veterans cannot have a standard of healthcare above and beyond what senators receive. This will also reduce violence in our nation.
The ban on private prisons will help reduce corruption. Americas prisons are a breeding ground for criminals, where the weak are winnowed out at the strong are molded into theives, kidnappers, and murderers for every one of the most notorious gangs in the USA, and that's not counting the foreign gangs that recruit out of our private prisons. Some of the facilities maintained by private contractors are reminiscent of the horrors of the 1930s-1970s ethnic cleansing operations by governments, and it is an absolute shame that we permit it and enourage it on American soil. What's even worse is that we all pay for it out of our tax money.
Finally, mental disorder is preceded by social disorder. An individual mind takes impressions from the world around itself. Often public schooling is the first social order a child sees. If one teacher is expected to deal with 30 five-year-old children at once, how many of those child-to-child interactions are monitored? The gang mentality sets in immediately and power plays are made, frequently without the teacher noticing and being able to advise both parties on their weaknesses and faults. Class sizes larger than 12 are breeding grounds for mental disease and should be considered a public health risk. We could double the number of teachers in our nation instantly through federal expenditure, and it wouldn't cost nearly as much as one year we spent in Afghanistan or Iraq.
The shooters we see are generally children who have gone through some kind of abuse, often at school, and suffer the trauma thereof. Some individuals who have been so abused take the quiet way out and commit suicide. The abuse can be emotional or physical and often sexual. This happens in our military, too. While lawmakers talk about tough anti-bullying laws, how about some serious prevention measures? How about some serious funding?
But most importantly, why aren't the above issues at the center of the progressive battle against gun violence? Why is the focus on an assault weapons ban? Here you have five well-made arrows, two of which have already hit their targets and should be hallmarks of the Obama administration. Instead, the Democrats choose another arrow made of lead and wonder why it can't reach the target. Is ignoring your greatest success your best political strategy? Or is it just that Obama's advisors are so scared of GOP misinformation that they don't want to mention the word "ObamaCare"?
My advice to Obama: Shake it off and talk up your successes more frequently.
Democrats have to realise that the centrists of this country take the Second Amendment the way I take the First. There are many centrists in the Democratic Party that they just won over from the GOP trashing its own these past 16 years. Don't lose them in a fight over assault weapons. Win them over by appealing to their humanity and their decency. Keep them on your side for a generation or two, if you can.
Fighting this battle ain't worth it, especially if Democrats want to stay in the White House beyond 2017.
-----
Then I read this piece by Joe Klein. I'm still a bit steamed at him for calling the centrist position "disgraceful". Joe, if you ever stumble on this, just know that even though I don't own any guns, I do take offence at America's traditional political philosophy being called "disgraceful". Just sayin'.
Now, about them votes in 2016. Are we going to let CNN, MSN, the AP, and others tell we the people what our Constitution and Amendments say regarding freedom and liberty? Or are we going to continue to allow the Supreme Court to continue to equate money with liberty, as in the ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC?
If we want to defend the liberty of gays and lesbians to live unmolested with their chosen life partner and to have that union consecrated by the states they live in, we need to stand up for all liberties at once. If we want to defend the rights of an African-American buying food at a grocery store, we need to stand up for liberty, not just that individual person. If we want to defend our liberty as individual citizens in this great republic to stand up and be heard by our representatives, as enshrined in the First Amendment, we need to stand up for all liberty. And if we're going to make the point that corporate money in elections erodes and limits individual liberty, we have to stand up as one, united for all liberty. Period.
If you're liberal and reading this and say to yourself "but what about the children of Newtown?", then your answer is that the causes of Newtown were not firearms. The causes were people.
Until we are interested in taking care of people and offering healing unconditionally, we will have broken people running around breaking more people. Let's be a nation of people that take care of one another. Only when every one of us can tune out the mainstream media buzz and tune in the suffering, then will we reach out to put a stop it.
Reach into your progressive back pocket and pull out the old humanist values. They still have meaning and they still work. And they still appeal to a majority of Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment