I am proposing a grassroots viral public safety awareness meme campaign to alert the population to the urgent need for everyone to secure your firearms. New federal gun safety legislation may prove helpful in this area, eventually, but a viral meme campaign we can do today, now.
The rest of this diary is a personal note in the form of an apology.
Let me begin by apologizing to everyone, especially to TomP and Scott Wooledge, whose harsh characterization of my comments several days ago, caused me to deeply ponder my words and the sentiments I have expressed in here, most especially because I have been a big fan of both TomP's and especially Scott Wooledge's diaries for almost two years, even though I only joined Daily Kos several weeks ago. My comments centered around a somewhat cold assessment that these deaths are the price we pay for our freedom. I do believe there is a price we pay for our liberties and freedoms, and sometimes that price is death, and even death of children, but this tragedy was avoidable, if his mother had safely secured her firearms. This sort of a tragedy need not be the price we pay for our freedom. We can do something preventative, that may not stop all incidents, but we can surely reduce the frequency, which, as Obama mentioned in his speech, seems to be growing at an alarming rate.
Over the course of these last few days, I also expressed a resolute support for the 2nd Amendment. However, I was not clear about the fact that I was very much in support of gun legislation for things like background checks, and even a mandatory training certification program for, at the very least, a few basic things, like how to safely store firearms to prevent them from being used the way they were in this horrific tragedy. I am also not necessarily against an Assault Rifle ban legislation like that which was enacted under the Clinton Administration. I am explaining and stressing this here, upfront, because in a series of comments several days ago, my support of such legislation only became evident after a commenter questioned me. As they say, I buried the lead, because I was stressing my support of the 2nd Amendment, which made me appear like I was some NRA Ultra Right Wingnut troll, which is pretty much what some people called me. TomP and Scott called me a far worse term, which you will forgive me if I do not repeat it. Someone else informed me that my views were consistent of 98% of the members of this site, but that the way I had expressed it, appeared as if I was "all over the map" or that I was "inconsistent." Please know that my feelings on these details have not changed, I was just very poor at expressing myself. I do apologize. But let me explain what I feel was the real reason why in the context of the Five Stages of Grief.
It was during these comments that someone suggested I post my views in a diary to see how the rest of the community felt about my perspective and not "hide my views in the comments of some diary," but I declined at the time because I felt that my views were already expressed, and I had nothing new to add to the discussion. I also did not want to upset people any further. And, these are all true. I did not come here to fight. Two people HR'd my very first comment on this topic, and no comment nor explanation was given, and although after reading the rules on HR's and feeling that these were wrongfully given HR's, I understood that people were upset. I understood that people were lashing out at me, because they were grieving and my initial callous perspective about the nature of this world being dangerous, made me a worthy target for their anger. I also explained that I declined to post a diary with my initial views because given the 2 HR's I got from my first comment, I felt it would be safe to assume that I would get a ton of HR's leading to an "autoban." I was mocked for sharing that I was wrongfully HR'd. But, let me be clear, it was not the "autoban" that I was fearing, not really, because I was already fairly resigned to not comment here anymore. Don't get me wrong, I have no intentions of not reading Daily Kos. I am a fan, because I have learned so much from this community these past two years that I will never stop reading.
But, that is not where the story ends, but rather, that is where it began.
I would like to explain my initial comments, but from a more empathetic perspective, namely, the Five Stages of Grief:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
I actually had posted these five in a comment, suggesting to someone that their anger towards me was misplaced, and that they were experiencing the five stages of grief. I post this because as I reflect upon the evolution of my emotional reaction over the past few days, this is what I was going through. Now, maybe those people who were attacking me were also experiencing these stages, but what became clear to me was that I, myself, absolutely was.
At first, I was in denial.
In confession, I could not watch any TV program about the event. I could not watch any video. I could barely read any article about it, not for days. I read a brief report of a 3rd Grade child being interviewed because they were eye witnesses, and I had to stop reading, because the notion of a 3rd grade child being used as an eye witness to such a tragedy was too horrific for me to contemplate. Fortunately, I do not own a TV, so avoiding the onslaught of media coverage was easy.
I finally watched Obama's speech on YouTube, but only after waiting 3 days. This was cathartic and finally made me able to even contemplate the reality of the event. I listened to Greg Dworkin (on Daily Kos Radio), who is a Doctor from Newton CT, speak of his home town from an insiders view, and his solemn mood struck deep cords. I had to stop listening several times, because something in the tone of his voice caused me so much pain and grief that I wanted to run and hide my head in the sand. And that was exactly what I had said to people they were doing on Daily Kos when they were attacking me. And now I was the one doing it. I love listening to Daily Kos Radio, and I found myself avoiding it, but then missing it. I had to listen. I could not run away. It was during Greg Dworkin's talking, and my bouts of apparent emotional aversion, that I realized, I was in denial. And upon deeper prolonged reflection, I realized that I was going through all of those five stages. Me. Not others. Me. (Maybe other people too, but definitely me.)
Please understand, I decided to comment here on this subject in the first place because I was afraid of a retaliation to this tragedy wherein people would push for an all out ban of all firearms. Some of my Republican friends have been telling me over and over for four years that Obama had an agenda to ban all firearms. And when people quote statistics of murders from firearms in countries like the UK compared to the USA, I interpret this to mean that they want to completely repeal the Right to Bear Arms (RTBA) in this nation. However, several commenters made it clear to me that the repeal of Right to Bear Arms was not what most of the people here on Daily Kos were advocating, although some people clearly are. And as I patiently read and read, I realized that he was right. And, after listening to Obama's speech, it appeared to me that Obama was not advocating for this, either. And, RTBA is the line in the sand for me. Now, I know there are people in here who do advocate for complete banning, and so, respectfully, with sensitivity and empathy, let me speak for a moment on my view of this.
Someone recommended I review the 2nd Amendment text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
David Waldman on Daily Kos Radio discussed the history of the SCOTUS interpretations on this text, and that it changed in 1975 or thereabouts, and whilst I have a very high degree of respect for Waldman, (which is why I love his radio show), especially his views on filibuster reform, about which he completely swayed my opinion, however on this subject, I had a different perspective. Waldman mentioned the transitory nature of SCOTUS interpretations of text, suggesting that we could overturn the current interpretation, if we had 5 SCOTUS who merely said so. Waldman stressed that he felt "A well regulated Militia" was the main or defining clause of the text, and not the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" clause. I respectfully challenge that assessment. Yes, one can construe that text to mean that it was intended merely to preserve the A "well regulated Militia," but if that were the case, then the text would have explicitly stressed the right to form a "well regulated Militia" not the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
I have mentioned here on Daily Kos in my initial comments that our founding fathers (ie: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.) included the 2nd Amendment because they felt it was a necessary right to preserve our freedoms from the tyranny of a government ... of any government, and I expressed the need for tempered prudent distrust of a governing body, but let me be clear that this was only with respect to entrusting any government to disarm the populace, this was NOT with respect to entrusting the government for things like SINGLE PAYER Healthcare Insurance, or Social Services, or taxing the wealthy and investing in our infrastructure and education, etc. This "healthy prudent distrust" was solely with respect to the need to honor the spirit of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, which leads me to Waldman's commentary. Waldman suggests that the sentence is grammatically poorly written, and as such, the intent is open to debate. And, I can see why one might say this, but if one considers the context within which this was written, namely, that they had just finished fighting to reject the tyranny by the Monarchy of England, I think the meaning of the text is clear and proper, for their era, given the context, and that there is no doubt about the intent.
During the American Revolution the need for the colonialists to secure firearms and ammunition became a costly and problematic endeavor, and this hindered and limited military abilities.
One of the chronic problems facing the states throughout most of the American Revolution was a shortage of ammunition.
Hence, after we had secured our independence, the founding fathers stressed the importance the individual's Right to Bear Arms, and they provided the reasoning for this right was that it was "necessary to the security of a free State" so that, when needed to right tyranny, a "well regulated Militia" could be formed. But, the clause that defines the "right" in plain terms is self contained. What is the right?
THE RIGHT: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and
THE NECESSITY: "the security of a free State"
NOTE #1: I am not going to argue to defend this point any more than I have herein. So any comments regarding this, I will not respond to. In fact, please do not be surprised if I do not respond to any comments at all. It has already taken too much from me these past few days to comment here at all. If you want to refute this, I will read your words, I promise. Just as I have listened to Waldman's and will continue to listen to Waldman's. Maybe you will sway me. I don't think you will, but I will listen with an open mind. I will listen and I will ponder your words deeply. I promise.
NOTE #2: Some people here have said that individuals with firearms could not be used to defend against a despot ruler imposing a tyranny, because the ruler would have weapons like Nuclear bombs. But (a) the need for an armed populace is as a deterrent because I do not feel a despot ruler would attempt a full-on tyranny upon an armed populace, and (b) a resistance against tyranny would be largely gorilla warfare (with parts of the military presumably siding with the resistance) in all cities and counties across the nation, and a Nuclear Bomb cannot be used against gorilla warfare (this would be akin to using a sledge hammer the size of a mountain to kill a tic embedded into your forearm.) Now, again, I am not going to argue this point, because I am not here to fight, and I don't have the energy. I am too sad. Whether or not an armed populace actually is a sufficient deterrent against a truly despot tyranny is anybody's guess. Whatever your or my view on this subject is, is all hypothetical speculation. If you refute this assessment, I hear you. You do not believe it is. I get it. However, I do with all my heart believe it is. But, no, I cannot prove it. I don't think it can be proven, not in concrete irrefutable terms. And, I would respectfully suggest that any historical comparisons (and some were given) are still not proof, they are merely anecdotal, because past cultures are not the USA culture, and even our own past "circa American Independence" culture, is not what it was post independence. So, if someone wishes to refute this, I will read your proof, but I will not respond, nor challenge your views. I promise that I will read them and ponder your words and reasoning. Yes, I am open to a change of heart on this, and so I repeat, I do sincerely promise that I will read your words and ponder long and hard, and if your reasoning is sound and compelling, maybe I will change my position. Maybe. I sincerely don't think so, but I am open to the possibility, and so I will listen with patient consideration. But again, I will not argue this, nor even respond at all. I am sorry. I just can't. I am not here to argue with anyone and the words expressed to me over the past few days here have hurt me far more than I might have shown. Or maybe the horrific tragedy hurt me. I don't know. I can't really tell the difference today. I am not saying that I was victimized here. I willingly knowingly posted comments that I knew were challenging. I own that. And even though the HR's seemed abusive. I accept them. But, none-the-less. I am not as thick skinned maybe as some of you are. Maybe that comes with time. I am not feeling it today. I am posting this diary for two reasons only: (1) to propose a meme awareness campaign to help avoid such a horrific tragedy again, and (2) to apologize because my own emotional state of denial, expressed in a spirit of callous detachment, unnecessarily upset people and I am sorry for that. That served no good. I am not here to fight. Maybe certain traumatic experiences from my own youth played a role in my callous detachment, which might some say is a self-defense mechanism in order to help to deal with experiences that are too painful or scarring. I don't know, not fully. But, I am sorry. Please forgive me.
NOTE #3: Regarding the clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" ... I think this clause provides a mandate for regulatory legislation for a certification process that ensures that people know the proper manner to handle and store forearms. We do this with Drivers Licenses, why could we not do this with firearms. We would not be infringing on any law abiding citizens right to bear arms. Any law abiding citizen who passes the relatively simple test certifying that they know how to handle and store firearms.
As a side note, some people might mince words (and several commenters have done this with me) and say that the way that the King of England was treating the colonies was not tyranny. And, if that is your assertion, I submit to you the words of Thomas Jefferson:
from Declaration of Independence
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And last, but not the least, to all of the survivors and victims of this horrific tragedy, I am sorry. I am so so sorry for your loss. And may your loved ones Rest in Peace.