Props

Thank you, Dan Bernstein, for having the stones to speak an ugly truth out loud on the radio. You had the temerity to say “We want this. We vote for this.”

I have never, ever heard those words spoken out loud.

As you said, a vote for a Republican is a vote for dead kids. Republicans are complicit. And indefensible. In light of all the complexities that surround gun violence, it is remarkable we can draw a line back to a single political party and its unswerving, unwavering support of all things gun.

It also happens to be the same political party given to anointing itself as the 'defenders of the sanctity of life' via their plans to revoke Roe v. Wade--even as they enable previously-unseen numbers of guns to find a home here.

This is on you, Republicans. First, last and always. May it not be long before you and your loved ones know the terror of those children in Uvalde, Texas.

God damn you all.

Violating the Second Amendment

Advocating for gun control legislation is like iceberg spotting in the tropics. One rarely appears, and when it does it quickly dissolves in a sea of warm water.

Case in point, the brave folk of San Jose, California voted to require gun owners to carry liability insurance. Given the carnage and public expense incurred by firearms, this is a highly-logical idea. It's only fair that those who help enable it pay for it, right?

This isn't the comprehensive national policy that requiring gun manufacturers to assume liability would be, but it's a start.

Ignoring the subsequent lawsuit and gun owner's predictable whining about their Second Amendment rights being violated, let's take a look at the bill.

In that sad and timid way we have of tip-toeing around gun owners, the law would “encourage” same to purchase trigger locks, gun safes and participate in gun safety classes. The actual liability would cover death, injury and property damage emanating from accidental use of the weapon.

No definition on what constitutes accidental use was given.

Lost or stolen weapons would remain the responsibility of the gun owner until they were reported lost or stolen. Naturally, gun owners who don't buy-in won't lose their guns or face criminal charges.

And yet, there's the lawsuit. And the whining.

Sigh.

The American exceptionalism many of us grew-up with no longer exists. Countries all over the world surpass us in dozens of metrics. Access to affordable healthcare. Infant mortality. Life expectancy. Per capita income. Access to higher education. It goes on and on.

For those of you with a need to cry “We're number-one!”, take heart in the fact that America remains the most heavily-armed developed nation in the world. Take heart in the fact there are 120 guns for every 100 people.

If the NRA is correct that more guns = more safety, we must also be the safest. Right?

Wrong. 

According to data on Wikipedia, it's true the United States can't touch places like Mexico and El Salvador and Venezuela when it comes to per-capita homicide-by-firearms rate. But rest assured the U.S. runs rings around virtually every country in Europe. Japan. And Australia.

And presumably unstable places like Cambodia. Pakistan. And Ghana.

This despite the heightened safety and security offered by our guns. Doesn't add up, does it? Someone is—to be as diplomatic as possible—not right. And it ain't the numbers on Wikipedia.

Gun advocates and the NRA are preaching the same gospel they've always preached, which is the gospel of fear. Fear of minorities. Fear of women. Fear of political incontinence.

(Which, for those of you not versed in the finer points of aging physiologies, is the loss of control.) 

So many boogeymen. 

So yes. Get a gun. Get a gun when a pandemic settles in over a nation. Get a gun when Black people protest. Get a gun when Democrats are elected. Get a gun when someone who already has uses it as intended—which, it must be said, is to kill.

We'll shoot our way out of this.

I get what we think we're shooting our way out of, but what are we shooting our way to?

That's what I want to know.

Adulting

How do you wrap your brain around parents who are alleged to have not only gifted their emotionally-troubled son with an early Christmas present of a handgun, but gave him full and unrestricted access even after he showed signs of intending to do harm with it?

I mean...how? What the fuck?

Your kid's teacher finds him shopping for ammo on his phone and they're the bad guy? Another teacher finds a disturbing note—accompanied by an equally-disturbing drawing—and they're what? Radicalized socialists intruding on your son's privacy? Second Amendment rights? First Amendment rights? All of the above?

Given your uninvolvement, I'm shocked you visited the school when summoned. In the most towering example of not-my-kid we have ever been unfortunate-enough to witness, you refused to intervene and schedule counseling, much less take a peek at his backpack. What right would that have violated, Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley?

You even resisted the request to remove your child from school. I'm thinking that as taxpayers, you were determined that your son receive every cent of every tax dollar you paid to support his public school.

Wondering: do you seek life advice from Alex Jones? Do you remain perturbed that last year's attempt to assassinate Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer failed? And finally, Trump didn't really lose, did he?

Can I get your thoughts on COVID vaccines?

That's right. I'm accusing you of being Trumpers. Because the stupidity you repeatedly showed in this tiny week-long window is staggering. And frankly, only a Trumper is capable of it.

Word is that you left Oxford “for your own safety.” It's a shame your son's victims didn't have that option, isn't it? If it isn't bad enough we have the NRA writing our nation's gun policy—such as it is—we have “parents” like you doing everything but engraving invitations to their kids to slaughter their classmates.

It's not easy being green—or Trump—is it?

I can't wait to hear your justification. Ditto that of your son. In a world that truly valued life (nope—overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't count), the three of you would rot in prison.

Here's hoping.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse

What follows is a conversation that might have taken place in the Rittenhouse home on the night of August 25^th, 2020. Not knowing Kyle Rittenhouse or his mom, it is extremely unlikely I was there to record the conversation verbatim.

Kyle: “Mom?”

Mom: “Yes?”

Kyle: “I'm going out.”

Mom: “Oh. Where're you going?”

Kyle: “Kenosha.”

Mom: “Okay. What's going on up there?”

Kyle: “People are rioting after a recent police shooting. I thought I'd grab my AR-15 and assist in bringing law and order to a troubled community and in so doing, protect America.”

Mom: “Okay, honey. You know where it is?”

Kyle: “No.”

Mom: “That's because you never put it back where it belongs. Can you start to work on that?”

Kyle: (sighs) “Yeeesssss.”

Mom: “It's in the hall closet. You have ammunition?”

Kyle: (pause) “No.”

Mom: (sighs) “How old are you?”

Kyle: (exasperatedly) “Moommm...”

Mom: “There's a new carton of shells on the workbench in the garage. You know where that is?”

(Kyle sighs)

A door slams.

Mom: (under her breath) “The world was gonna end if he didn't get that dad-gum gun for Christmas. And now that he has it, he doesn't know where it is half the time. Lord almighty.”

A door opens and closes. Kyle re-enters the room.

Kyle: “Okay, mom. I'm going.”

Mom: “Okay, honey. You all set?”

Kyle: “Locked and loaded.”

Mom: “Be careful! Home by midnight!”

Kyle: (resignedly) “Okay.”

 

And so it was that seventeen year-old Kyle Rittenhouse set out and made the drive from Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin. Stuffed with right-wing propaganda, young Rittenhouse (the very definition of a cop wanna-be) was going to patrol the streets of Kenosha just like a real, live cop.

Except he wasn't one.

If you're keeping score at home, Rittenhouse was prohibited from possessing a firearm in the state of Wisconsin, much less parading down the street with one in an urban fire zone. In the most unassailable example of white privilege I can imagine, Rittenhouse was reportedly welcomed by the law enforcement on-site.

Can you imagine had he been Black?

Strolling through that socioeconomic divide, Rittenhouse attracted the consternation of various onlookers. Despite Rittenhouse's claims that he was there in a quote-unquote medical capacity, the sight of a white guy carrying an assault rifle sent an unmistakable message to those around him.

Can you say vigilante?

As they always do, the presence of a gun exacerbated the situation. Inflamed it. Escalated it. If you're even a moderately-literate person, you know none of those words are good things in the middle of an already-volatile civic uprising.

Rightly concerned that Rittenhouse was there to administer right-wing justice, several onlookers attempted to take his gun away. Rittenhouse reacted to this self-created drama by killing two of them.

Naturally, he claimed self-defense.

“They were trying to take away my assault rifle which had no business being there in the first place!” remains the fullest, most-complete version of his would-be testimony.

With conspiracy and pre-meditation difficult to prove, I'm hoping Rittenhouse gets hit with two counts of second-degree murder. Whatever pity I feel for him is in having a mom as clueless as she was spineless, and existing in a void of sound parental guidance. 

Consequently, he fell prey to propaganda that led him to believe he could achieve the status he craved by possessing a gun. Guess you know better now, don't you Kyle? And if you don't—all the more reason to keep you behind bars for a long, long time.

You took two things that night you can't ever give back.

But that really isn't important, is it? What's really important is that a gun could be put into your hands—above all else. Because if one couldn't, we would be a lawless, heathen civilization at the mercy of bad guys with guns. (Not to mention naive, not-so-bright guys that think they're cops.)

Yeah. 

God bless America.

 

Roger Benitez

Like you, my sleep is often compromised by fears that America's law-abiding gun owners are having their right to bear arms thoughtlessly and needlessly trampled upon by overcautious state legislatures who persist in the idea that the way to combat America's gun violence epidemic is to limit their availability.

That's just silly, right?

But thanks to the actions of the great and good Roger Benitez (a U.S. District Judge in San Diego), I might sleep a little better tonight.

You see, Benitez overturned a thirty year-old ban on assault weapons in California, meaning that the sad, the angry and the fearful who must feather their nests with as many guns as they are capable of purchasing will be able to do so.

Capriciously likening assault weapons to Swiss army knives, Benitez writes “...the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle.”

Exactly what battle are you referring to, Rog? The one right-wing militias collectively masturbate over in which they slaughter any demographic not male, white and Republican?

(It should be noted, gentlemen, that Ann Colter, Kellyanne Conway and Laura Ingraham will be unavailable for repopulation efforts owing to their age.)

You don't have to listen very hard to hear echoes of the former President's speech from January 6^th, do you? It's another lightly-coded reference to destroying a democracy Republicans have no chance of competing in and replacing it with a totalitarian dictatorship as quickly as possible.

Add to it the fact his ruling was issued on National Gun Violence Awareness Day and the whole thing really begins to smell. You also don't have to listen very hard to hear the “Nyah nyah!” emanating from the mouths of oppressed California gun-owners, either.

Benitez lapses into de-rigueur conservative criticism, stating that the ban has not eliminated mass shootings nor prevented attacks on law enforcement officers. I'm not sure the latter was the reason for enacting it, but I'm positive that making it harder for assault weapons to find their way into human hands was at the ban's heart.

And we won't ever know how many assault weapons didn't find homes because of it, will we?

Judge? Let me explain something to you: the ban is like the motion sensor in your backyard or the dead bolt lock on your front door. Neither is guaranteed to prevent a break-in or theft, but to deter would-be criminals. Which is why they're called deterrents.

Look at it this way: locked cars and locked homes are routinely broken into. Given locks failure at eliminating property crime, should we remove them?

Of course not.

Automotive brakes (even those enhanced with ABS) have likewise failed to eliminate vehicular collisions. Do we call them failures too, throw up our hands and say to hell with them?

Of course not.

Because we will never know how many incidents didn't happen because of their presence.

(OMG. Am I really employing reason to address a (presumed) Republican? And does that mean I get 'idiot' tattooed on my forehead?)

Like a coal mine fire, it's easy to overlook the still-simmering rage Republicans harbor over their “lost” election. (If Democrats are as good at stealing elections as Republicans are at gerrymandering and button-pushing, why didn't Democrats steal the House and Senate, as well?)

Given to herd behavior, the Republican electorate surrenders to groupthink even faster than they absorb the latest round of propaganda splashed all over Fox News. Their craven puppetmasters are a cornered felon, who understand it's either kill or die. Prison is not an option.

I once yearned for post-pandemic relief, yet it seems the pandemic and its stressors are fated to give way to a struggle between those who wish to preserve democracy and those who wish to crush it.

I'm so glad I'm not twenty-one.

The End of an Error?

 As we collectively crave a return to normalcy, one indication we're nearing that ideal is—ironically—one we don't want to acknowledge: mass shootings. Unless you manufacture and/or sell guns, ammunition or are in the emergency medical supplies field, mass shooting are something most of us turn away from.

What we should keep in mind is that most of us is different from all of us.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association see mass shootings as an inevitable byproduct of their rigid and inflexible support of the Second Amendment. Their support is a black and white, all or nothing gambit.

To his credit, President Biden has taken the first step in what is sure to be the most contentious trip of his presidency. He has announced several executive orders which chip away at the iceberg which threatens our already fragile notion of safety.

If there's a twitchier band of people than those who constitute the NRA, I would love to see them. The mere rumor of even benign gun control measures inevitably lapse into the hysteria of “Clinton/Obama/Biden's gonna take away your guns!”  And the gun crowd falls for it every. Single. Time.

Democrat's biggest mistake has always been their attempts to mollify these un-mollify-able folk. Nay, it is impossible. The gun crowd are a car alarm set on maximum sensitivity in a crowded urban area.

Yes, it's going to go off a lot.

Yet as we quickly learn to ignore that car alarm, we rarely do so with the gun crowd. And we need to. Now. They have established themselves as people in strident and unwavering opposition of anything that doesn't facilitate a complete and unregulated torrent of guns into the United States.

They are the customer who is never happy. And as the sentient portion of our society Democrats need to understand that. We need to let them stew in their paranoia and cower in the dark recesses of their fear. It is what they want, and if I'm going to be brutally honest, likely all they're capable of.

As Democrats, we need to stop appeasing them, couching our legislation with wording like “common-sense” to avoid waking the sleeping dog. Trump never worried about offending Democrats. We should learn from that.

The unmitigated slaughter of U.S. citizens taking place before our eyes is the result of the NRA and Republicans dictating gun policy. They have single-handedly enabled a nation with more guns than people. It's certainly noteworthy how this condition undermines the gun crowd's number-one contention that the more guns we have, the safer we'll be.

Really? Is that what we're seeing?

However much I'd love to see the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons declared illegal (as they have been in more-civilized nations where public safety isn't determined by an industry trade association), this is unlikely to happen.

More effective would be to strip away the immunity gun manufacturers and gun sellers enjoy. In a nation driven by money, the loss of same provides a very powerful incentive.

Let's make them liable for the destruction and the trauma their products inflict on Americans in the same way cigarette manufacturers were made liable for the toxic effects of their products.

Let's face it: the gun trade and their Republican hand-maidens have won the gun battle and profited handsomely. Wildly. And exorbitantly. After decades of unfettered government-sponsored largesse, it is time for them to bear the weight of consequence.

Ted Talks

Poor Ted Cruz. He just never gets a rest.

After abandoning his freezing and electricity-free electorate to frolick in the sunny—and not freezing—Caribbean last month, poor Ted now has to contend with libtards and their ongoing desire for gun control.

Sigh. It never ends.

"Can't I just restrict voting to wealthy white people, gift what's left of the country to the one-percent, outlaw any and all media not named 'Fox' and have the rest of you shut the fuck up? Is that too much to ask?"

Yes, Ted's rancor was on full display yesterday when he was asked to comment on the Boulder, Colorado shootings. Said the great man: “...and every time there's a shooting we play this ridiculous theater where this committee gets together and proposes a bunch of...laws...that would do nothing to stop these murders.

The senator from Connecticut just said the folks on the other side of the aisle have no solutions. Well, the senator from Connecticut knows that is false. And he knows that's false because Senator Grassley and I together introduced legislation Grassley-Cruz targeted at violent criminals. Targeted at felons. Targeted at fugitives. Targeted at those with serious mental disease.

To stop them from getting firearms. To put them in prison when they try to illegally buy guns.

What happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away gun from law-abiding citizens because that's their political objective. But what they propose not only does it not reduce crime it makes it worse.”

Ah, Ted. Wonderful words. Mind if we take a look under the hood at that get-tough legislation you and Senator Grassley propose?

Now, you said it would “...stop 'them' from getting firearms”, by which I assume you to mean violent criminals, felons, fugitives and the like.

But on closer inspection, that's not quite right. Let's take a look at how your bill would inhibit “straw” purchases (gun shop and gun show sales where a person with a clean record buys a gun for a person with a record).

According to your bill, such a purchase would only be prohibited if a prosecutor could prove the purchaser knew the recipient either had a record or intended to use the gun in the commission of a crime.

Wait. What's that sound? Oh! It's violent criminals, felons and fugitives laughing—hard!

Seriously, Ted? So how are things in Shirley Templeland, anyway? Here in Illinois, our gang-bangers and would-be felons are just a tad more-wily than your incisive Texas intellect assumes.

Prosecutor: You knew he had a record!

Straw buyer: No. Honest.

Prosecutor: But you knew what he was planning to do with the gun!

Straw buyer. No sir.

Prosecutor. Umm. Well...no further questions your honor.

That's showing 'em, Ted! You're just a real ass-kicker, aren't you?

Okay. Moving on, let's examine the rest of your comments. 

Unlike Democrats, who only seek to fulfill their political agenda, you go ahead and push the time-honored NRA panic button when you reiterate the same tired, threadbare rhetoric Republicans have always reiterated when you say Democrats only want to take guns away from law-abiding gun-owners.

Ted? Be amazingly and strenuously specific and tell me the legislation and the section where Democrats propose this. Please. 'Cause I'd love to see it.

Fact is, you can't. Because it's never been their intent. It exists only in your overstimulated and fevered imagination. But it's a proven pathway to achieving your (ahem) political objective, isn't it?

Finally, please tell me—in excruciating detail—how mandating deeper and more-thorough background checks and outlawing assault weapons is going to make our gun problem worse.

I know you said it would, but you didn't say how it would. Please, Ted. A little detail if you don't mind.

I can wait. 

In an odd kind of way, I'm kind of grateful the whole Trump thing happened. All that swagger and all that adrenaline has gone straight to your head. It has emboldened you and stripped you. Your contempt and your greed and the once-unfathomable depths of your stupidity are now on display for all to see.

It is said that beauty is only skin deep. But ugly goes all the way to the bone, doesn't it?

Remembering

I was still young. Alive in my excited youth, full of sensation and eagerness and anticipation. I was fresh out of college and had yet to experience the repeated beat-downs of economic downturns and jobs that turned on the whim of share price valuation-obssessed CFOs.

A buddy and I were enjoying a late-night snack at McDonald's, back when their french fries were still fried in beef fat and were amongst the best in the land. Flipping through the radio, we became aware of something unusual: every rock station in town (which, counting oldies stations, numbered at that time about a dozen) was playing Beatles' songs.

Only a decade after their messy break-up, it wasn't at all unusual to hear their music on a couple of stations simultaneously. But a dozen? Still naive in the ways of mass-market media, we looked at each other, confused.

Then it hit us: something bad had happened.

There was a chill.

Brian Epstein had already passed. George Martin's passing wouldn't provoke this type of tribute. What else could it be?

A few seconds on the unmodulated side of the frequency spectrum (in other words, one of those AM all-news-all-the-time stations) told us what we didn't want to hear: John was dead.

The horrors of the Lennon's return from a recording studio and their fatal encounter with a deeply disturbed young man unfolded over the radio and I fell into a deep, morose silence.

An emotionally rugged childhood had been made bearable by the light of the Beatles, and the fact that one of them was dead was inconceivable. Like the the one ten years earlier that maintained they no longer existed.

Had I been alone, I would have cried.

In succeeding weeks an avalanche of stories and tributes and remembrances came pouring out. Far and away the most-chilling of them was a photograph in Time magazine of Lennon signing an autograph for the man who would kill him.

A brave, funny and sometimes acerbic soul had been shattered. One of the most-unflinching, plaintive, authentic and unvarnished voices in rock music had been stilled.

Listen sometime to the Beatles' cover of the Miracles' You Really Got a Hold on Me. Or You Can't Do That. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). Or Across the Universe, Mother, Jealous Guy and Instant Karma.

The voice never faltered. Only our widespread embrace of firearms did.

 

Yay!

My unbridled derision of the NRA should be well-known to readers of The Square Peg. Asked to choose the single most-destructive entity in America, I would place it second, only after right-wing conservatism.

Which isn't bad for an industry trade association which modestly refers to itself as a non-profit organization seeking only to promote gun safety. Awww. Isn't that touching? If the NRA is promoting gun safety, all of us need a bulletproof vest—now.

That's because more than anything, the NRA is wildly expert at stoking fear and in turn, gun sales. Which is kind of odd for something claiming to be a non-profit interested in gun safety.

Also odd is the influence this little non-profit holds over Republican senators and representatives. I mean, how is it a little non-profit amasses the millions and millions of dollars necessary to finance campaigns for gun-friendly candidates?

Definitely something that makes you go “Hmmmm.”

As recent suits filed by state's attorneys in New York and in the District of Columbia show, the NRA has been a very profitable non-profit. Enough that CEO Wayne (spit) LaPierre (spit) has created a cool seventeen-million dollar golden parachute for himself in case the heat ever gets to be too much.

And by heat, I'm not referring to the multiple and extravagant trips to the Bahamas funded by NRA donors, either.

Under LaPierre's tutelage, the NRA has gone from a twenty-eight million-dollar surplus in 2015 to thirty-six million-dollar deficit just three years later. It should be obvious Democrats aren't the only ones who know a little something about deficit spending!

That's a sixty-four million-dollar swing, people. Also obvious it that a whole lot of money is coming from somewhere. Gosh. I wonder where?

The twin suits allege that the NRA is a fraud. That it is a for-profit political action committee that routinely flouts the conventions which bind non-profits.

Admittedly, calling the NRA a fraud is akin to describing Jeffrey Dahmer as anti-social. But it's a start. And a great one.

The toxic, wretched embarrassment that is the NRA needs to be ground underfoot like a cigarette butt. While current president Carolyn (spit) Meadows (spit) accuses New York State's Attorney Letitia James of being a—gasp!—political opportunist, one can only wonder what the United States would look like were it not for thirty years of mo' guns is mo' better gun policy.

It may require sex toys, but I pray Ms. James and Mr. Racine are able to fuck the NRA up its pasty white ass.

How Functional Societies Do Gun Control

Apologies, all. I'm using this post to try and sort out something I don't understand. It's kind of a stream-of-consciousness thing that will hopefully yield an answer. So bear with me as I write myself to clarity!

On the night of April 18th, a domestic dispute in a small town in Nova Scotia spiraled wildly out of control when a man attempted to kill his longtime girlfriend. She escaped, but the gunman killed two other people on the property.

Afterwards, he roamed through the region in a car made to approximate the appearance of a police cruiser. He used it to pull over motorists at random and execute them.

After a collision disabled the faux police car, he stole another vehicle and continued his rampage. By the time the gunman was fatally shot by police he had murdered twenty-two people and set fire to numerous cars and buildings.

Now, this is where I get confused. Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, announced Friday that effective immediately, it is unlawful to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in Canada.

I mean, how can he just do that? Isn't he afraid of blow-back from Canada's law-abiding gun-owners? Isn't he worried about being castigated by those members of Canada's parliament whose campaigns are financed by the gun lobby?

And what of the NRA? When are those sorry-ass paranoids going to insert themselves into the conversation and howl until Trudeau reverses his order?

Wait. The NRA doesn't exist in Canada.

Holy crap, Batman!

So that means when a gun with no reason for existing beyond the confines of a battlefield does, and is used for the wholesale murder of innocent citizens, people who value other people's lives can simply outlaw that weapon for the betterment of society at large!

This as opposed to struggling with a noxious and corrupt trade association masquerading as a gun safety group.

How radical.

Two Things

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo is my new hero. 

Finally, there's someone in law enforcement calling out the NRA and their “Guns for Everyone” policies as well as the spineless Republican sycophants who enact them.

It's about time.

For reasons that are thoroughly lost on me, the balance of law enforcement apparently feels that criminals and psychopaths armed with automatic weaponry is a good thing. Maybe they enjoy the high-octane shoot-outs that result. I don't know.

But if I'm a cop, I want to be the only guy on the street with a gun.

But that's just me.

At any rate, thank you Chief Acevedo for injecting some front-line perspective into America's ludicrous gun debate.

After delaying the start of an impeachment inquiry, Democrats now want to ram one through Congress before presidential campaigns get serious. Which is why they're allowing the offal in the Trump administration to ignore subpoenas without fear of reprisal.

Great start.

Democrats need to win the war of public opinion, and rushing through an inquiry between Thanksgiving and Christmas ain't the way to do it.

Allow me to make a sports analogy: in a short series the Republicans are going to win.

They'll pound the floor with their fists and threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue. The brain-damaged folk who buy into Trump and watch Fox News will pump their fists with per-pubescent glee.

A short, noisy, concentrated burst of denial plays into Trump's hands—it's a Twitter-length tantrum to keep the base riled-up and supporting their martyr.

But in a long one? Those ADHD attention spans will wander. The intensity will wane. Or merely become tiresome. Like a child throwing a tantrum, they inevitably tire. Which clears the floor for a reasoned, fact-based inquiry.

With a majority of plainly amoral Republicans in the Senate, winning the war of public opinion is the only way to permanently delete the Trump virus.

Just Six? Really?

Hello. And a happy National Ink and Toner Day to you, too.

(Yep. That's a thing.)

Isn't it interesting that it took just six deaths for government agencies to spring into action, issuing edicts while our elected representation demands that the Food and Drug Administration ban e-cigarettes until conclusive studies can be performed?

Yes, vaping (which last time I checked was a highly-voluntary activity) has certainly captured the attention and ire of the nation. 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, 39,773 people died via a gun in 2017. A similar number died last year, with figures for 2019 expected to be even higher.

I'd like to respectfully submit that getting shot (with the exception of self-inflicted wounds) is a highly-involuntary activity.  

And as of 6:36 AM CDT, nobody is doing a damn thing.

Which is certainly interesting.

It's Time

I'm trying to gauge the pathos in a year with 298 mass shootings, especially when only 247 days of that year have passed. Any idiot capable of inhaling and exhaling without a prompt could see it for the horror it is.

But there are special kinds of idiots aligned with the NRA, and one of the most prominent is Mitch McConnell.

The witless lap dog of Donald Trump, the senator from Kentucky resembles not so much a freely-elected representative to the United States Senate, but actor Lincoln Perry's Stephin Fetchit character, a bumbling, eternally fearful man terrified of upsetting the boss man.

Like Perry's character, McConnell is scared shitless of his boss. That's why he makes no statements without first clearing them with the Trump-whore.

After Wal-Mart grew a pair and decided to apply even a moderate amount of pressure to the gun-control brake pedal by refusing to sell ammunition for assault weapons and hand guns, Mitch couldn't comment. “Oh no. I have to check and see with the boss first.”

Translated, this means I need to know what he thinks before I know what I think.

Of course the NRA, in its time-honored myopic fashion, lambasted Wal-Mart for caving to the so-called gun control 'elites' and potentially compromising the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Gosh.

Is there anyone among us—anyone at all—who believes that tens of thousands should be fatally shot or wounded every year in service of the Second Amendment?

That's what I thought.

The NRA opposes each and every piece of gun-control legislation, no matter how sensible or respectful it is of “law-abiding” gun owners. The NRA's vocabulary consists of but a single word: no.

And for decades, we have accepted that.

What we have to show for our compliance is a country with more guns than people. A country where the paranoid, the disenfranchised and the mentally ill can amass weapons stores capable of hideous acts of mass murder. A country where anyone is able to buy any kind of gun they want because anything less is a violation of the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

It's time for the rest of us to land a gut punch to the NRA.

In the early-nineteen-eighties, when drunk driving became a recognized social problem, legislators didn't hem and haw about pending legislation, fearful of reprisals from liquor manufacturers and their lobbyists.

No. They went ahead and did the morally-responsible thing. In the face of a mounting public slaughter, they increased awareness of the toxic effects of drinking and driving and dramatically increased the penalties for those who continued to violate drunk driving statutes.

No one gave a second thought to the impact on “law-abiding” drinkers. Simply put, the greater good was served.

That isn't the case with gun violence. The NRA has made it crystal clear they are comfortable with any amount of collateral damage, so long as the rights of “law-abiding” gun owners are protected.

I cannot overstate this: the NRA refuses any and all efforts at gun reform. In other words, they are okay with Odessa and El Paso and Dayton and Gilroy. You get that, right?

This is why Democrats need to stop playing nice. They need to stop being respectful of “law-abiding” gun owners and act on the realities of 2019 America.

America is a shooting gallery. A place where anyone—no matter the state of their mental health or personal inclinations—can buy an assault weapon and wage war on whoever happens to be around.

And again—the NRA is fine with that.

Can't get laid? Got fired? Spouse got custody of the kids? Thanks to the NRA, you can go out and purchase an assault weapon and seek (real or imagined) revenge with no more effort than squeezing a trigger.

And again—the NRA is fine with that.

Is it okay with you?

Representatives and Senators are refereed to as elected representation because they are elected to represent people from a specific geographic area. It is presumed they will act on the wishes of that electorate. And yet, I don't recall the electorate expressing a preference for inaction on gun control in a very, very long time, if ever.

And yet that is exactly what we have.

A two-thirds majority has consistently desired stronger gun-control legislation and deeper background checks in the face of our mounting carnage. But the NRA's hold on Republicans is stronger than ours.

Let's be clear: if you vote Republican, you are endorsing gun violence.

Vote Democrat, and perhaps one of these options might see the light of day:

Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. When gun manufacturers are held accountable for the carnage they enable, I'm guessing they'll develop a sudden interest in developing safer weapons and meeting gun-safety activists half-way than hiding behind the sneering petulance of the NRA.

Tax guns and ammunition the way we do alcohol and tobacco. We now understand the latter two are responsible for an inordinate amount of public expense due to the destructive and easily abused nature of these products.

Guns are no different. Let users pay for the carnage that goes hand in hand with our over-abundance of firearms.

Let's mount a gun buyback. This would be hideously expensive due to a quarter-century of Republican largesse, but it was hugely successful in Australia, and as a result suicides and fatal domestic disputes dropped dramatically.

Of course, Australia isn't burdened by the likes of the NRA, who would no doubt oppose a drop in suicides and fatal domestic disputes.

We've done it the Republican (er, NRA) way. This is what we have as a result. We really need to try something different, like steering around the iceberg.

Republicans prefer an 'A' from the National Rifle Association over your safety and your entirely-reasonable desire not to die while attending a concert, a festival, school, church or work. Or while sitting on your porch, in a parked car or while waiting for a bus.

We can cut off the head of the gun monster and begin to work back towards making America a safer place to live.

Or we can vote Republican.

There Is No Lie I'm Too Ashamed to Tell

“Hate has no place in our country.”

In between the rallies and the tweets wherein he provokes precisely that, Donald Trump had the gall to put on his sincere face, stand in front of TV cameras and say this in the wake of another racially-motivated mass killing.

Aside from his base, who is he kidding? The Trump-whore has built his presidency on the exploitation of hate.

If hate didn't have a place in our country, Donald Trump would not be president.

And another thing. I hate to go all caps on you, but for those of you rightly disturbed by the fact that we can be shot anywhere at any time (even if we're a hundred-eighty degrees removed from dealing Oxycontin on dank ghetto street corners), know this:

AS LONG AS THE NRA IS WRITING OUR GUN POLICY THIS IS HOW IT'S GOING TO BE.

Think about it. We not only have a president stoking hatred, but a trade group doing everything in its considerable power to put a gun into the hands of every would-be hater out there. It is, after all, good for business.

For their immediate and formidable ability to wreak domestic terror, I'm more concerned about Donald Trump and the NRA than Kim Jong-un and Iran.

Together they are a duo only Republicans deserve. 

If only Republicans were the only ones to suffer.

A Government Free to Govern

In countries that don't enjoy the benefit of a trade organization writing its gun policies, their higher callings, their better natures are free to be acted upon when a random, violent threat to its citizenry is uncovered.

When such threats are revealed in the United States of America, instead of acting upon those concerns, we must first wring our hands and wonder how acting upon that concern will displease that trade organization and rile its addled membership.

Which is certainly interesting for a country that spends as much on defense as we do.

See for yourself what life is like without the NRA:

https://youtu.be/IV4jr7J4cPE

Aurora

In the wake of our latest mass shooting (I forget whether it's number 39 or 43 or even 45—keeping up with them is a full-time job), much of the local media is asking a curious question: why did the shooter (Gary Martin) have a gun?

I can answer that question: this is America.

America's gun policy (or rather the lack of one) is set by a trade association. Like any business organization, the National Rifle Association is bent on ensuring that the maximum number of guns are available to the widest-possible body of consumers.

It's just that simple. It's business.

Unlike other trade associations, the NRA has been spectacularly successful in blocking change that might inhibit—in any way—the availability and consumption of the products it advocates for. Even when that product is used for for things far less-innocent than going squirrel-hunting with grandpa.

(I should mention that the NRA did allow President Trump to sign into law legislation that will soon make bump stock illegal. So there's that.)

But even when a gun-owner's permit is recalled because of a felony conviction (as was Martin's), there's an amazingly naive policy in place that requests that the newly-denied owner turn over their gun to law enforcement or someone with a valid permit.

Yep. You read that right. Want to guess the rate of compliance?

(Hey—can you excuse me for a minute? I have to go to my local police department and confess I was speeding in a school zone last week. Be right back.)

OK. So yes, this is why Gary Martin had a gun. A better question to ask in 2019 America is why wouldn't Gary Martin have a gun?

Gun permits aside, in our warped take on democracy guns are available to everyone. No questions asked. And they should be. Just ask the NRA. They fight tooth and nail every day for just this kind of access.

So yeah. Another five innocent people are dead. Dads, brothers, sons, uncles, neighbors, friends. But who really cares? In the face of advancing market share, five people (or should I say five more people) are just not that important.

And even when they are, our elected representation is afraid of alienating the NRA and falling prey to their soft on crime slander. Come on. Face it: like every other gun out there, Gary Martin's prevented a lot of crime.

Right?

To the silent majority who are troubled by this, I will say the country we make today is the one we must live in tomorrow. Think about that.

Again?

What's left to say?

A noisy, selfish minority has brought carnage and mayhem to our streets. Fear into our homes. And terror into our hearts.

We are bleeding sorrow.

If this minority had recently crossed our borders, our president would be on the verge of a cardiovascular episode. He'd be apoplectic. The keypad on his phone would have fused from heated and incessant Tweeting.

But they didn't. This minority is a home-grown terrorist group. Ironically, it is also a reliable source of Republican funding.

The same party that wants to criminalize women for seeking abortions stubbornly refuses to curtail, much less acknowledge, these terrorist's leading role in our ongoing national tragedy.

If you can make that add up, would you please let me know what kind of calculator you're using?

Think about it: can you even imagine the law enforcement response to a organization that flooded our nation with firearms in the manner of the NRA? Much less if that organization were composed of Middle-Easterners or African-Americans or Latinos?

Neither can I.

Yet the NRA does. Unfettered. Undisturbed. Untroubled. The NRA has made its position clear: it doesn't care. Not about your life. Not about that of your spouse. And not about those of your children.

What the NRA does care about is maintaining its position as God's chosen moral authority and the country's supreme arbitrator on all things pertaining to the Second Amendment.

Our government is fond of saying it doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Yet we continue to negotiate with the NRA. We bargain in good faith and with well-intentioned empathy for the white-knuckled fear of its constituency.

But the NRA steadfastly refuses any accommodation whatsoever.

It's time to get tough with the NRA.

It's time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.

It's time to realize their absolute refusal to compromise means—and can only mean—one thing. 

Fuck off.

And we have. For such a very, very long time.

We deserve to come and go as we please. To attend movies and go dancing and hear concerts and go to church without the fear of ending up on a slab.

Amendments don't require thuggish, sociopathic businessmen to keep them viable. We must crush the NRA. And we must crush it now.

Nothing less than freedom—real freedom—is at stake.

Guilty!

The Court of Trump has rendered its verdict: guilty!

Shame on you Cecil Rosenthal!

Shame on you David Rosenthal!

Shame on you Irving Younger!

Shame on you Melvin Wax!

Shame on you Rose Mallinger!

Shame on you Bernice Simon!

Shame on you Sylvan Simon!

Shame on you Jerry Rabinowitz!

Shame on you Joyce Fienberg!

Shame on you Richard Gottfried!

Shame on you Daniel Stein!

Shame on you for attending baby-naming services in an unprotected synagogue! Shame on you for your ignorance! Shame on you for your naivete!

Is this a pre-meditated attempt by left-leaning radicals to make the NRA, assault weapons and our president look bad? Is it?

How dare you get in the way of bullets fired by a licensed gun-owner exercising his second-amendment rights!

Let's be clear: the NRA is not the fall guy here. This is on you—one hundred percent.

It was your choice to attend services in an unsecured synagogue knowing the danger. Knowing that malcontents like Robert Bowers—with virtually unrestricted access to assault weapons—lurked somewhere...out there.

You should have had armed guards.

You should have had metal detectors.

You should have had face recognition software, even though it wouldn't have done any good.

You should have been paranoid.

So yes, this is on you. Don't you dare try and pin this on our president, who merely voices the feelings of our downtrodden white majority for political gain.

That is his right.

Maybe this will help you see the light: we don't have a gun problem—we have a security problem.

Maybe next time you will think twice before going out in public without armed guards, bulletproof vests and a cache of assault weapons of your very own.

This is America! Land of the free! 

Don't you understand?

The Misanthrope in Chief

In the Trump Administration's ongoing efforts to ensure it is one day regarded as the least-intelligent and most-vile political entity in the history of mankind, it has dismissed a suit filed by Cody Wilson.

Granted, this doesn't appear unduly hostile. Or particularly dim. Until you learn that Cody Wilson is a gun rights advocate, and in his suit he alleged that the Obama Administration's refusal to grant him the right to post blueprints for printable guns—guns that can be created on 3D printers—on the Internet amounted to a refusal of his right to free expression.

So the Trump Administration awarded Cody his freedom of expression. Even taking into account Trump's puerile obsession with undoing any and every action of the Obama White House, this amounts to incalculable stupidity.

Predictably, the incalculable stupidity doesn't end there. 

Another gun rights activist, David Kopel, weighed in as to why we needn't be concerned that every garden-variety thug in the nation is doing cartwheels at the news they will soon have government-sanctioned access to an unlimited number of untraceable weapons.

In Kopel's words, this won't happen not because crooks are clumsy gymnasts, but because they have a thriving black market from which to acquire their weapons. On planet Kopel, felons, terrorists and drug cartels have little interest in obtaining untraceable, easy-to-conceal (and presumably cheaper) plastic guns.

Yep. He said that.

(Now might be a good time to mention that opioid abuse cuts across all economic, racial and class divides.)

In the war that Donald Trump is waging against his predecessor, it's okay that the nation's citizenry be reduced to collateral damage in the hopes that the Trump-whore is able to sate his insatiable ego.

Going way out on a limb, what do you suppose would happen if someone posted blueprints of Mar-a-Lago and exposed its vulnerabilities? Or if the weaknesses of the Secret Service detail guarding the Trump-whore were chronicled and shared with the World Wide Web?

Think that person would enjoy the same consideration as the brain-damaged, can't-get-laid hater named Cody Wilson? 

Or would that person be perceived as a threat (freedom of expression nonwithstanding)?

The mind reels.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fuck Trump. And fuck the people who voted for him.  

God I Love This Country!

In light of our most-recent NRA-enabled mass shooting (this one in Annapolis, Maryland), I humbly and respectfully submit that this should be the NRA's new tag line:

If You Don't Want to Die, Don't Be Born.

I will also send my most sincere and profound thanks to them for their assistance in ensuring that all Americans, regardless of age, class, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or country of origin, have the right to die at any time in any place for no reason whatsoever.

Go ahead—ask yourself: where would we be without them?