Remember when all those six year old kids were shot and killed while at school in Connecticut? Remember how that was going to change everything? Remember the outrage and the horror and how finally the government would get its shit in order and do something about gun violence?

And remember how the National Rifle Association said that horror and outrage was just an emotional response to a tragedy and people would quickly forget.\?

The NRA was right. They were right when they said the outrage and horror was an emotional response — because you’re supposed to be fucking emotional when a couple dozen six year old boys and girls are slaughtered. If you don’t have an emotional response to children being shot 150 times in five minutes then you’re some sort of fucking Terminator.

This is Tom Latham, my Congressman – I wrote him, I called him

And the NRA was right when they said people would forget. Congress has basically abandoned the assault-style weapons ban. Admittedly, that legislation wouldn’t do much good — but it would do any harm. Even a little good is better than no harm. Congress is facing a difficult struggle to pass a watered down universal background check, and might not even be able to pass a straw buyer law. Despite the overwhelming support of the public, Congress may just stand around with its thumb up its collective ass. Again.

And you know why? Because Congress is scared of the NRA and they’re not scared of you. Because the NRA is leaning on Congress and you’re not. Because the NRA is speaking directly to the people who’ll vote on the legislation and you’re not.

This is Tom Harkin, one of my Senators – I called him, I wrote him

Oh, you’re answering polls and saying you want effective legislation passed. You’re on Facebook sharing articles on gun violence and ‘liking’ photographs insulting the NRA. But who gives a rat’s ass about that? You’re not calling or writing your Congressional representatives and telling them that your vote in the next election depends on their vote on commonsense gun safety legislation.

Don’t blame Congress if this legislation fails. Blame your ownself. You can have an impact, but only if you’re willing to take a few minutes and do something. And folks, it really only takes a few minutes.

If you don’t know who your representatives are, you can get that information here. The most effective way to reach your representative is write an actual letter. Like on paper. With an inkpen. Put it in an envelope and mail it. Seriously. That shit gets read. And it carries weight. But if writing a letter cuts too deeply into your day, use the telephone. A phone call is the second most effective approach. Email? Not very effective at all. And those mass email petitions are almost totally worthless.

This is what you do: give them your actual name. Tell them your zip code, so they can be sure you live in their district (if you can’t vote for or against them, they’re not going to care what your opinion is). Clearly identify the specific issue you’re contacting them about, let them know you feel strongly, and let them know your vote is on the line.

This is Chuck Grassley, one of my Senators – I wrote him, I called him

We get the government we deserve, sad to say. So for fuck’s sake, people, do something. Write your legislators. Call their offices. It won’t take long and it won’t cost much money.

Do it even if you don’t think it will do any good. One of my legislators is Chuck Grassley, as big an asshole as you’ll ever meet. He’s opposed to even the most reasonable limits on firearms, and there’s nothing I can say that will change his vote. I wrote him anyway. I called his office anyway. Because if this jerk is purporting to represent me, then I’m damned well going to make my positions clear to him.

My other congressional representatives both support sensible gun safety measures. So I called and wrote telling them how much I appreciate their efforts and they can count on my vote and my support. They like hearing that.

Here’s the thing: we don’t have to get every vote. We just need to get enough votes. We just need to convince a few moderate Democrats and Republicans that they don’t have to kiss the NRA’s ass. But they’re not going to act unless we do.

First, a confession. I’d originally planned to write about my ambivalence regarding the ‘assault-style weapons’ ban. I don’t believe banning those weapons would have any real effect — certainly not on crime in general, and probably not on mass killings.

I may be ambivalent about the proposed legislation, but I’m NOT ambivalent about the way it’s been dropped by Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader. If the legislation had been given a vote and failed, I wouldn’t be upset. If it had succeeded, I wouldn’t be upset. But to refuse to even offer it up for a vote? That upsets me.

Harry Reid – Senate Majority Leader, Coward

Here, according to Politico.com, is the reason:

Reid’s decision highlights the tightrope walked by the majority leader in governing the gun control issue. Trapped between the White House and rank-and-file Democrats who support broad gun control legislation following the shootings last December in Newtown, Conn., Reid must also be mindful of red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 who favor gun rights.

Why? Why must he be mindful of red-state Democrats up for re-election? Shouldn’t he be mindful of the citizenry they’re supposed to represent? The most recent ABC News–Washington Post poll found 57% of the nation supports the proposed ban. The University of Connecticut–Hartford Courant poll had the very same result. Quinnipiac found 54% supported the ban, and Pew found 56%. Hell, even a recent poll in Texas (which revealed 39% of those polled want to see President Obama impeached) showed 49% support for an assault-style weapons ban.

I’m not suggesting the majority is always correct. Clearly, they’re not. Nor do I believe legislators should always do what the majority of their constituents want. Legislators should vote their own conscience, even if it goes against the will of their constituents. But I am suggesting they should vote on the issues their constituents think are important.

They want a vote on the proposed weapons ban.

Bushmaster .223

Refusing to bring the proposed legislation to the Senate floor for a vote is, in my opinion, an act of cowardice. It’s not about representing the citizenry; it’s about political expediency. It’s about wanting to stay in office. It’s about putting their personal considerations before those of the people they’re supposed to represent.

#

So, why am I ambivalent about the legislation itself? I wrote something about the topic back in December, so forgive me if I partly repeat myself. Basically, I don’t see any evidence that banning the 157 assault-style weapons listed in the law will have an impact on mass killing.

Since the first assault-style weapons ban was put into place in 1994, there have been 44 mass killings (see the note below). Relatively few of those involved assault-style weapons. I don’t think there’s much doubt that, given a choice, mass killers would prefer to use assault-style weapons — but the sad fact is, folks who are intent on committing mass murder will use whatever weapons they can get their hands on. Mass killers don’t choose assault-style weapons because they’re better at killing people — they’re not. They choose those weapons because they fit in with the Mass Killer Aesthetic. They look scary.

Anders Behring Breivik, poster boy for the Mass Murder Aesthetic

That’s the same reason mass killers (and especially the younger ones) tend to dress in similar ways — camouflage or all-black tactical outfits. These guys plan these crimes in advance, including how they’re going to dress. They make deliberate fashion-based decisions. They know how mass killers are supposed to look. Popular culture has taught us the elements of Mass Killer Fashion. Assault-style weapons are the weapons of choice because they complete the look. But in the end, the most common weapons used by mass killers since 1994 has been the semi-automatic pistol with a high capacity magazine.

You want to pass a law that will have a real and measurable effect on mass killings? Pass the universal background check. Pass the ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. And give the BATF enough funding and personnel to do its job. That will make a difference.

In any event, when the public wants these measures enacted, the refusal to bring them to the floor of Congress for a vote is an act of political cowardice. Harry Reid should be ashamed of himself. He should have to explain to the families of the victims of the Newtown School murders why he’s failing to put the legislation to a vote.

But I’m willing to bet he doesn’t have the balls to do that either.

Nathan Van Wilkins – not a mass killer

Editorial note: How do we define a mass killing? It’s generally defined as one in which at least four people unknown to the shooter were killed. This, of course, excludes all those mass killings in which family members or ‘loved ones’ were among those killed. It also excludes failed attempts at mass murder. For example, in January of this year Nathan Van Wilkins opened fire in downtown Tuscaloosa, Alabama with an AK-47 variant; 17 people were injured, but nobody died, so this incident is only a mass shooting, not a mass killing.

Yesterday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed ban of some assault-style weapons, Senator Lindsey Graham conjured up the NRA’s most popular nightmare scenario. He asked Attorney General Eric Holder to imagine:

[A] lawless environment where you have a natural disaster or some catastrophic event and those things, unfortunately, do happen. And law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods. Can you envision a situation where if your home happens to be in the cross-hairs of this group that a better self-defense weapon may be a semiautomatic AR-15 versus a double-barrel shotgun?

Holder politely pointed out that his example posed a purely a hypothetical situation. To which Graham replied:

Well, I’m afraid that world does exist. I think it existed in New Orleans, to some exist in Long Island, it could exist tomorrow if there’s a cyber attack against the country and the power grid goes down and the dams are released and chemical plants are discharges…

Graham may think it existed, but he’s wrong. No, it didn’t happen on Long Island after Hurricane Sandy. And no, it didn’t happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. There was looting of commercial areas during each of those natural disasters, to be sure. Grocery stores and convenience stores were hard hit, as were shops selling electronic goods. Gun shops were also looted, as were stores selling high-end sneakers.

But armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods targeting individual homes? Nope, just didn’t happen.  

Senator Lindsey Graham crushing an imaginary zombie’s skull

Could it happen? Sure, anything is possible. IF the power grid goes down and IF the dams burst and IF all the chemical and nuclear plants all go haywire and IF society totally collapses, then after every downtown shop and store has been looted, and after every strip mall has been looted, and after every suburban corner convenience store has been looted, then I suppose armed mobs might start roaming neighborhoods and invading individual homes. But that’s a scenario from a zombie apocalypse, not a logical basis for implementing public policy.

Nevertheless, that’s the argument the NRA keeps making and so it’s the argument offered by Lindsey Graham and other Republicans. Compare Graham’s comments to those of Wayne LaPierre:

After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.

It doesn’t matter that this “hellish world” didn’t exist. The NRA wants you to believe it did in the hope that 1) you’ll buy more guns and 2) you’ll buy still more guns.

What Lindsey Graham wants you to believe could happen in your neighborhood

It’s all about fear, isn’t it. Fear that somebody somewhere wants what you have, and is willing — even eager — to take it by violence. Fear that a segment of the population is just waiting and hoping for some sort of disaster to strike so they can take your stuff. Research has shown that fear of social disorder is related to fear of dark-skinned people, so basically the fear Graham and the NRA want you to experience is the fear that minorities will come to a white neighborhood and fuck things up.

What’s more likely to happen in your neighborhood

Here’s a true thing: civil disorder following a sporting event takes place more often than civil disorder after a natural disaster. The photograph above was taken in 2011, in Vancouver, British Columbia after the Canucks lost the seventh game of the Stanley Cup to the Bruins. This was in Canada, people. This happened in the most civil and polite nation on the entire fucking planet. Almost a hundred and twenty people were arrested during and after the riot — nearly three times the number of people arrested following Hurricane Sandy.

There are, in my opinion, some valid arguments to be made against the assault-style weapons ban. But self-defense and home protection in the event of civil disorder isn’t one of them.

You want to deter people from breaking into your home? You want to keep your family safe from intruders? Buy a dog with a loud bark. Better yet, go to the local animal shelter and adopt one. A dog will offer more protection and be more reliable than an firearm. And it will love you without reservation. Ain’t no gun will do that.

Just a quick (at least I hope it’s quick) note. You can’t do any research into the gun rights movement without coming across this quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

It’s repeated often — on placards, on right wing political cartoons, on posters, on t-shirts, on baseball caps, on coffee mugs and mouse pads. And like so many of the things claimed by gun rights advocates, it’s inaccurate and misleading.

That first line is sometimes given the following scholarly attribution:

Thomas Jefferson Papers, pg 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

It looks good, doesn’t it. But it just ain’t so. A scholar named Julian P. Boyd (not C.J. Boyd) did, in fact, edit the collected Jefferson papers — but the alleged quotation is a fraud. It doesn’t exist in Boyd’s Thomas Jefferson Papers.

In fact, it doesn’t exist anywhere except in the minds of gun rights advocates. There’s absolutely nothing to indicate Jefferson ever said or wrote that line. It’s not in any of his personal correspondence, not in any of his diaries, not in any of his speeches, not in any of his notes. Nor has that line ever been cited in any law journal by any Constitutional scholar.

Thomas Jefferson just flat out didn’t say it, no matter how many baseball caps claim he did.

However, Jefferson did write that second line. In fact, he wrote it three times. It was included in his various drafts of the proposed Constitution of Virginia.

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (From the first draft)
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]” (From the second draft)
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].” (From the third draft)

Let me first point out that while the line was included in each of Jefferson’s three drafts, it wasn’t included in the final draft. The line was dropped in the version adopted by the Virginia Constitutional convention.

But also note the term freeman. It’s usually written as free man when presented by gun rights advocates, but the two terms aren’t synonymous. At the time Jefferson wrote those words, freeman had a specific meaning in law. A freeman was, first and foremost, literally a man. Women couldn’t be freemen. A freeman wasn’t just any man, but a man who was “free of all debt, owing nothing to anyone except God Himself.”

It’s necessary to understand that a lot of people arrived in the American colonies as indentured servants. It’s estimated that in the 18th and 19th centuries, about 80% of immigrants to the colonies were redemptioners. Indenture wasn’t considered a social stigma; it was simply a way for people to pay their way to the new world, also learn a skill or trade, and maybe earn a meager wage while they were at it. After their period of indenture was finished, redemptioners were free to go where they wanted and to use their training to fend for themselves.

But being free didn’t make them freemen. After a sort of probationary period–generally a year or two–a man could be considered a freeman only if he owned real property (such as land or a building) or if he had sufficient wealth for taxation. Only freeman were permitted to vote. In many communities, only freemen could become members of a church (common folk could attend, but not be members).

When Jefferson talked about freemen, he wasn’t talking about common folks. He was talking about the Colonial version of landed gentry. That’s why he considered including the provision that freemen could use arms within his own lands or tenements. (it’s also worth noting that ‘tenement’ also has a specific legal meaning — basically it refers to real property a person holds or controls for somebody else).

What Jefferson was basically saying was that men who owned property shouldn’t be prohibited from using firearms on their own property or on the property they control for another person.

But that doesn’t look quite as catchy on a baseball cap.