February 22, 2018--Code-Red Kids: 3:00 am Raw Draft

In less than a week, it's become all about our children. Everyone's children, including those of us who do not have any of our own.

These are the children of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the latest place in America where 14 children and three adults were gunned down on Valentine's Day.

These children have been ubiquitous every day since--on social media, on TV, in the press. Including last night at a town hall meeting in South Florida where calmly they skewered and dismantled their senator, Marco Rubio, as he tried to con and patronize them, attempting to wiggle out of taking responsibility for the fact that the National Rifle Association (NRA) have him on their payroll and thus own him lock, stock, and barrel (to use a weaponized idiom). 

He could only sputter when students asked him to explain and justify this. He couldn't except to say, with unintentional honesty, that they do so because they "buy his agenda." Do they ever. By bankrolling him they are assured he will do their bloody bidding. He had nothing to say when they pointed out that he received $3.3 million in campaign lucre last year, three times what any of the other hundreds in Congress who are on the NRA payroll pocketed. 

They are all of our children because they are as perfect as we imagine ours to be or would want them to be if we had any of our own. In them we see a reflection of ourselves at our imagined best, as we would like to be, hope that we are.

Self-confident, well-mannered, articulate, forceful, passionate, persistent, polite, knowledgeable, just, fair-minded, and eloquent, they invite us to grieve with them and now are calling us, if necessary shaming us, to action. 

Inviting us to support them in saving their lives since as code-red, children who every day of their school lives have lived with the real threat that today, this week, this year the code-red drills they routinely practice, where they learn to hide in the coat closet when there is an actual shooter present in their classroom, will be more than a drill but an imminent threat. 

With respect and without averting there eyes either to us, their parents, their neighbors, their teachers, their so-called leaders, including even the president in the White House, they point their fingers, while not literally doing so, asking, telling us, now that we have demonstrated we are incapable of protecting them, saving their lives and childhoods since we adults have failed at that, they are telling us that they are taking action to save their own lives, that they are taking the lead and invite us to join them. 

"Never again," they chant.

How to put this? To finesse this? 

Though it may be unflattering to acknowledge, their movement seems different because those this time calling us to action are not from working-class backgrounds or, as with Black Lives Matter, not from urban hot spots, but look and feel like they are our imagined best, especially so to the media covering their testimony and mobilization. 

As with most of the reporters and journalists covering them, they come from solidly middle-class backgrounds and, though as diverse as America is, are disproportionately white.

Sorry, in spite of our progress we are still tribal. That is still how it works, hardwired in our DNA. 

They are like the kids we have at home and send in trust to the schools. This is thus personal and as a result may be powerful enough not just to move us but perhaps even succeed in bringing about some long-needed change. 

They are a generation who have been waiting to find reasons to inspire them, to make their lives meaningful, authentic. They are bringing the lie to how they have been stereotyped--as self-indulgent Millennials.  They now have reasons to be inspired--what they have been looking for last week was brought right to their classroom door. 

And they are thus far proving up to the task.

Which in turn, in exactly a week, still bearing raw wounds, is why they wound up in the White House, invited there by President Trump, who actually, following notes written for him by others, actually found the capacity uncharacteristically to "listen." For 70 minutes at least. 

He mostly seemed to listen, and that was both appropriate and welcome, but when he spoke, after their riveting testimony, when he did turn to speak to them and us, all he could offer was to parrot NRA talking points from previous classroom massacres from Columbine, to Sandy Hook, and now to Parkland, Florida. 

What we need to do, he mouthed, is arm classroom teachers so when someone shows up bearing military weapons of mass destruction they will be able to shoot back with their handguns and thereby take control of the situation. They will be armed and prepared how to pause while teaching their current students to shoot back and kill one or more of their former classmates. All this on a teacher's salary.

The students at the White House meeting did not let him get away with this absurdity, respectfully asking if he expected a semi-trained teacher would be able to defend them from fully automatic military-style weapons with, by comparison, a pathetic handgun?

Trump had no answer but to repeat what the NRA has paid him to say. Thirty million dollars in campaign contributions for the 2016 election. 

It of course remains to be seen if these children, which some reminded us they still are, can sustain their effort. They know, as one in effect put it during last night's town hall on CNN, they are just at the beginning of a "5K" race. Though, it made me feel a wave of both emotion and optimism to see another correct him, saying, "No, some of this is a 'sprint,' so let's make it work because our lives are literally at stake."

February 20, 2018--Children Must Lead Us

The biblical citation, Isaiah 11:6, says, 

"The wolf . . . shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

The classmates of the very little children murdered five years ago, twenty 1st and 2nd graders in the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, could not lead us. They were too young to find the words.

But the much older high school children who are the survivors of yet another school massacre, this time at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL can--they have found their voice and are attempting to lead us. 

We will do well to follow. 

They have already begun to plan a school boycott and a massive march on Washington for March 24th, "March for Our Lives." And they have been speaking out eloquently on all our media outlets with the savvy of people much older than they. 

Their suffering is prematurely making them wise.

Here in the words of one organizer, 18-year-old Emma Gonzalez, is the heart of the matter-

All these [students and their families] should be home grieving. But instead we are up here, standing together, because if all our government and president can do is send "thoughts and prayers," then it is time for victims to be the change that we need to see.

She demanded to know where the "common sense" is in our gun laws and identified members of Congress who have accepted money and donations from the NRA.

She also directly criticized Donald Trump who tweeted a call for action on mental health, not gun controls, while criticism him for overturning an Obama-era law that made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.

She ended by saying that "If the president wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was 'a terrible tragedy,' I'm going to ask him how much money he received from the NRA."

The answer is--in 2016 more than $30 million. And, while I'm at it, $3.3 million to pay-to-play Florida senator Marco Rubio, who said it's "too soon" after the shooting to talk about gun control.

And so as not to be duped by our commander-in-chief who doesn't care at all but who may be trying to find a way to horn in on the students' passion as yet another way to distract us from his failings and felonies, Parkland students are tweeting--

Morgan Williams wrote--

Oh my god. 17 Of MY CLASSMATES AND FRIENDS ARE GONE AND YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO MAKE THIS ABOUT RUSSIA???!! HAVE A DAMN HEART. You can keep all your fake and meaningless "thoughts and prayers."

Aly Sheehy tweeted--

17 of my classmates are gone. That's 17 futures, 17 children, and 17 friends stolen. But it always has to be about you. How silly of me to forget.

March 24th--mark it on your calendar--Washington, DC.

June 22, 2106--Who's Afraid of the NRA?

Who's afraid of the NRA? Pretty much every Republican member of Congress--House and Senate--and a smattering of craven Democrats.

And what are they afraid of? Simple--they fear that if they vote for even modest restrictions on assault weapons the NRA will "primary" them--run and fund someone against them who hews slavishly to the NRA line.

Why is the NRA threat so powerful that almost all Republicans in lock step will resist any piece of legislation that the leadership of the NRA perceives to be against its own self interest? Not the legislator's, not the nation's, not even the vast majority of NRA members.

This is less clear since between 70 and 80 percent of NRA members actually support stronger background checks and restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition. Ideal weapon systems to commit mass murder as in Orlando 10 days ago.

One would think that if an incumbent voted for some modest limitations, such as the ones voted down by the Senate this week, it would please the vast majority of his or her constituents.

Thus, I remain puzzled. It seems like an easy choice--vote to restrict, even forbid the sale of weapons to anyone on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists and easily get reelected.

But, among others, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, robotically following the NRA-GOP talking points, when urging senators to vote against four modest pieces of legislation that would restrict the sale of weapons to potential terrorists, said that to approve any bill would be tantamount to voting to deal with symptoms and not the cause. The cause in this case fighting ISIS since the Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando shooters all said they committed mass murder in support of the Islamic State.

This would be like McConnell saying we shouldn't treat the symptoms of cancer but should focus solely on its cure. Ignoring the obvious--do both, as we do, at the same time.

The NRA funds various PAC groups and the campaigns of individual members of Congress as a way to assure its agenda continues to have congressional protection--the unrestricted sale of all forms of weapon systems. Even to criminals and possible terrorists. Their perverse logic--if even these common sense restrictions were enacted into law they will be followed immediately by Democrats and President Obama moving to eliminate the Second Amendment.

Of course this is preposterous. But there you have it.

I have one suggestion--former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg has spent tens of millions of dollars to support gun control legislation. Thus far this has been ineffective. Why not a change of strategy--offer to fund on a two-for-one basis any money deployed by the NRA leadership to stop all forms of anti-gun legislation and to fund primary opponents of members of Congress who are targeted (pardon the metaphor) during primary season?

The NRA itself plus organizations and individuals that fund efforts to defeat gun control legislation and candidates who vote in favor of these restrictions spend about $37 million a year. Bloomberg, whose net worth is $44.6 billion, could easily come up with $75 million annually until sensible legislation is approved and signed into law.

Hillary Clinton was right--"Enough."

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President

September 25, 2014--Willy, Ben, and Me: Ruger SR-762

"Ben told me you're in the market for a 22."

"Not exactly. But I am thinking about it."

"Glad to hear," Willy said with a  broad grin, "To be a real Mainer a man needs to be armed."

"Not armed," I said, "But, you know, for target practice and Rona has a few groundhogs tearing up her perennial bed that I'd like to scare off."

"Scare or shoot?" Ben asked.

"Maybe give 'em a jolt," I said, "I'm not sure I'm into killing them."

"There's no other way," Willy insisted. "They don't scare."

"I suppose we could try to trap them," I thought.

"What's your problem? Jolt 'em, scare 'em, trap 'em, kill 'em. It's all about the same thing."

"I'm not so sure I agree. Though since I'll never get to be a good shot if I try to just wing 'em I'll probably miss or if I do hit 'em I'm as likely to kill 'em as anything."

We went back and forth about this one morning over coffee and then a few days later Willy gave me one of his magazines, "Just to look through" he said. "Don't show this to your New York friends," he whispered, "But this may help you think about what weapon to buy."

He slid an issue of American Rifleman surreptitiously to me across the banquette we shared. As if to hide the transfer from the other diners.

"Not a weapon," I cringed, "A rifle. A 22. You know, not much more than a BB gun. But thanks for this. Though from the cover it looks like it does feature weapons."

There was a closeup picture of something menacing-looking called Heavy Metal--Ruger's Sr-762 replete with a dozen or so bullets scattered about that looked as if they could pierce armor. "Not exactly what the Fourth Amendment is about," I said under my breath while flipping through the pages.

"There he goes again," Ben said with an gesture of exasperation. "If the Founders were writing the Constitution today they'd include semi-automatic and automatic weapons."

There was that "weapons" word again. "I'm not so sure," I said. Wasn't that constitutional provision so the new United States could have a 'well-regulated militia'? Since at the time there wasn't a standing army and so--"

"And so," Willy said, as if to complete my thought, "if necessary men would be called up and they'd have a weapon of their own to bring along with them. To fight the English and Indians and who knows who else."

"But now?" I asked, "We have a standing army, God knows, and a navy and air force and marines. When you join up, they supply the weapons. Guns, tanks, ammunition, everything. You don't show up with your own Rugger SR-762, whatever that is."

"The Ruger's not for that," Willy said, again with his voice lowered.

"What's it for, then?"

We usually avoid discussions of this kind, but I wasn't that morning in the mood for that. I was upset with what was written about and, more, advertised for sale in the American Rifleman, especially after I noticed it's a publication of the NRA, the National Rifle Association.

"Let me read what your magazine has to say about this weapon." I was unusually worked up. For the most part I try to remain calm and rational when having discussions about controversial subjects with Willy and Ben, looking for areas of common ground. For, among other reasons, because I like them. But the Ruger SR-762 was testing my restraint.

I read to them--

Breathe in, breathe out. Squeeze, squeeze, squee (sic)--bang! I rode the recoil back onto the target just in time to catch the contrail from my bullet making a steep right curve toward it and then vanishing, leaving only a gray splatter on the red steel gong. The target was hidden halfway up the face of the opposing hill, across a ravine and 10 to 15 degrees below my position. After what seemed like minutes, the distinct "thud" sound reached my ears, confirming what I had already witnessed: a first round hit at 800 yds.

"So?" Willy wondered.

"So, tell me what this is about--shooting across ravines at targets 800 yards away. That doesn't sound like hunting to me."

"What does it sound like?" Ben asked, sounding genuinely curious about what I had to say.

"It sounds like combat. Maybe even sniping."

Willy and Ben exchanged a glance then lowered their eyes to avoid mine. They remained unusually quiet.

"Look," I said, feeling awkward, "It's good writing. Really good. I'll give you that. But this is not about target practice or hunting or sportsmanship. As I said, it sounds like what the military trains its recruits to do. And take a look at the picture of the Ruger." I held the magazine up to them. "I'm for sure no expert but it looks more like an AK 47 to me than a hunting or target rifle."

"You're not right about that," Willy said. "An AK 47 has--" I cut him off.

"Well, in your magazine," I underscored the your again, "there are ads for AK 47s. Here. Take a look at both weapons. There is a strong resemblance between the two."

Ben had taken the magazine from me. He was thumbing through it, leaving Willy on his own to deal with cantankerous me.

"If you want to fit in here, or for that matter in most of America, you have to get comfortable with sportsmen and hunters and--"

"I'm quite comfortable with all that," I said to Willy, "My problem is not with them but with these high-powered weapons in the hands of dangerous people. That has nothing to do with hunting and clomping around in the woods."

"Look at this," Ben said, reentering the fray, but smiling.

"What's that?" I was happy to change the subject. I had said my piece.

"An ad for a 22. The sort of rifle you're looking to buy."

"I'm not looking to buy one; I'm thinking about it."

"It's made by Ruger too," Ben said. He passed the magazine back to me.

"Does it have a wooden stock?" I asked. "If I get one--and remember I'm only thinking about it--it has to have a wood stock. I don't want a weapon, I mean a rifle with a cheesy plastic one."

"That one does," Willy joined in. Now he had the magazine and folded it back to the page with the 22 ad. Tussling was over. He was again being helpful.

He read to me--

50 YEARS LATER and the Ruger 10/22 is still "the ultimate in logical design." 

"It's a commemorative issue," Willy added, again turning the magazine to me. "A limited addition. I know you're only thinking, but if you decide to get one, I recommend this one to you." He winked at me. "And it's perfect for getting after Rona's groundhogs."

Ruger SR-762

April 19, 2013--Two Americas

I don't know what to make of my America.

During the past 10 years I've read a lot of American history and am not naive about our Founders' commitment to democracy (in fact, most warned against democracy itself, fearing mob rule); who was included and who wasn't (in various ways women, slaves, the poor, and the propertyless); and, since then, the bumpy, incomplete road to securing rights for all.

I've come to prefer the Declaration of Independence--because of its inclusive vision--to the highly compromised Constitution.

But when 90 percent of the population support something as simple and commonsensical as expanding background checks to include people who buy guns at gun shows or via the Internet, when in spite of this the Senate votes it down, in a somewhat bipartisan way, I despair for my country.

What does representative democracy mean when something that has the support of almost everyone--including a clear majority of Republicans and even NRA members--is soundly defeated?

I can only conclude that it means that a central component of our tripartite government no longer represents us. It represents 7-9 percent of the population who, though ignorant of its original intentions, are fanatically devoted to protecting Second Amendment rights as absolute and sacred.

I know who these folks are. The dead-enders, the paranoid black helicopter crowd. I can look across my lawn here to see one--Dick Morris and his wife whose most recent instant book is The Black Helicopters Are Coming.

They preppers cling, yes they cling, to their assault weapons to defend themselves from their own government. When the black helicopters come for them, they'll be ready to fight back. This is really what it is all about--being prepared to fight the U.S. government. And, of course, to keep weapons manufacturers, who underwrite the worst of the NRA agenda, among the nation's most profitable businesses.

It's their country now, not mine.

If the Sandy Hook parents couldn't mobilize 60 votes in the Senate, what can I do?

I have never felt more powerless. Write letters? To whom? Tweet? Again, to whom? And to what purpose other than attempting to make myself feel better? About something like this, however, it's hard to fool myself that letters and few thousand dollars of campaign contributions will make any difference.

Which of the 46 senators who voted to defeat background checks and who are running for reelection (reelection being the meaning of their lives) is vulnerable? Perhaps only the three Senate Democrats. Wouldn't that be ironic--they'll get knocked off in spite of their cowardly vote and the Republicans as a result will retake control of the Upper House.

It may be close to time to concede that we do indeed live in two Americas. Not red or blue states. That's not fine-grained enough. Look at the 2012 electoral map by county and you will immediately see that by geographic mass almost all of this country is red. The blue parts are mainly concentrated around cities.

So perhaps like black folks who sought relief from segregation by moving north during Jim Crow days, like Eastern European immigrants who clustered on New York's Lower Eastside; and how for other reasons gay people flocked to relatively hospitable cities and, for career reasons, actors found their way to Hollywood and financiers to New York City, maybe it is time for those of us who do not want to have our lives defined by the NRA, weapons manufacturers, so-called right-to-lifers, and antievolutionists, perhaps its time to secede internally--by county, by city, not state as in 1861.

Let's leave to their own devices those fearfully scanning the skies for black helicopters or living in terror of other forms of armageddon. Let's consider decoupling ourselves from their narrative in favor of our own. Maybe it's finally time.