Stop Lying to yourself About Being That “Good Guy With A Gun” by STEVE MARMEL

Gun interests WANT criminals to have guns

The gun lobby worked diligently to defeat background checks so that criminals and drug cartels have ready access to guns. Individual gun proponents, in their turn, lobby to extend concealed carry into cities, thousands of miles away from where they live. With concealed carry, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot teen age boys when their music is too loud. They can respond to the theft of a briefcase by killing the thief. If they see a suspicious African-American boy with a can of ice tea and a bag of Skittles, they can kill him on site. These are rights gun proponents assiduously work for.

Then if a shooting occurs, they assume the shooter wasn't a "legal" gun owner. Yet they oppose background checks. The NRA lobbied to defeat universal background checks, so that there will be no distinction between legal and illegal gun owners. Some who pretended to be for background checks celebrated their defeat. The defeat also provided an opportunity for them to blame Americans for daring to exercise their free speech rights in calling for an assault weapons ban. The gun forces despise free speech, which is why the gun lobby has worked to impose gag rules around the nation to make it illegal to speak out against gun proliferation, document gun violence, or engage in research on guns. Stopping background checks enables them to pretend shootings are carried out by "illegal guns owners," when the absence of universal background checks, licensing, and registration means there is no real distinction between a legal and an illegal gun owner. Gun proponents have worked hard to ensure felons can simply purchase firearms at gun shows, online, or through private parties. That is the situation they want. The right of those with felonies or those without felonies to kill at will is more important than our right to life.

Meanwhile, gun proponents wring their hands over voluntary buy back programs in cities. The idea that some people would by their own choice give up their guns is for gun zealots, a travesty. They laments the fact that a few guns wont' be put to proper use, that is in shootouts in cities like mine, where they destroy property and kill bystanders. Guns are designed to kill. The idea that people might not choose to no longer own guns disgusts them. Buy backs are entirely voluntary, but they disgust gun proponents. Gun violence, however, does not concern gun proponents. Human life isn't worth considering, especially it is people of color, women, and children who are victims of gun violence. Our lives are completely insignificant in comparison to the gun zealots desire to see as many guns in circulation on city streets, where they are used for maximum lethality.

Even war mongers have the capacity to express sorrow at the life of soldiers killed in foreign exploits. But when it comes to victims of the domestic war wrought by gun policy, proponents can't even pretend to express any concern about victims. Villainization of the Sandyhook families exemplifies that best of all. Anyone who actually feels anything at the loss of life due to violence is deemed "too emotional" to have credence in the gun debate. If I object to shootouts in front of my house and express concern over danger to my life, I'm called "too emotional." "Rational" people don't care who dies. All they care about is making sure as many guns as possible are out and about on city streets. Guns matter more than human life to these people. Whether we live or die is entirely inconsequential. They give more thought to their morning cup of coffee. So when we work to reform gun policy, we are up against some of the most powerful corporate interests in the nation and their supporters for whom human life is trivial. This makes our struggle daunting, but all the more important.

When Men Hate Women: Femicide in Ciudad Juarez

The border area between El Paso, TX and Ciudad Juarez is the site of the most prolific wave of serial killing in modern history. Juarez exemplifies just how deadly misogyny is. Lest you think this is something that can be blamed entirely on Mexico, understand this is a border area where people travel back and forth. The killers might just as easily be Americans as Mexicans, or even both.

Edit: Some sources say up to 4000 women have been killed. This entry is courtesy of Squinch:

"Lecturing" as a sexist trope

When I point out that referring to 95% of women as "disgusting" as hateful, I'm accused of lecturing. When another member responds with personal insults, a juror notes that my lectures are tiresome and that I even lecture the administrators by raising a point in ATA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109 Countless others raise issues in ATA, and men who have raised similar concerns about pro-gun proliferation talking points are not accused of "lecturing."

How many times have feminists and women more broadly been accused of lecturing when they make a point? Men are able to say whatever they want and are confronted on the content of their posts. Women's concerns are dismissed as "lecturing" for even having the nerve to voice their views because clearly those making that charge think we have no right to express ourselves. So observers out there, the next time you accuse a woman of lecturing, be aware that we know what you really mean is "You're a woman and you need to keep your mouth shut." This will come as no surprise to those who make such comments, since they know full well what they mean. The fact that a few other women make this same charge changes nothing because there is a great deal of internalized sexism and misogyny.

Lastly, imagine what would happen if someone called "disgusting" the behavior or any group of people on the planet other than women? We all know the answer to that.

Why we need public education

OMG

Levin dropping key provision from military rape bill

That provision would have put review of rape cases in the hands of a an independent judicial office rather than the commanding officer of the rape victim. This makes it impossible to effectively prosecute rape in the military, and the armed forces will continue to attract sexual predators. I urge EVERYONE to call Carl Levin's office today to protest this decision.

Levin's phone: (202) 224-6221
Select the option to speak with his staffer so that their office is flooded with public opinion on how serious this is. I pointed out that it is not only a key issue for those in the military, but as a party with a majority female electorate, it looks extremely bad that they not take rape seriously. This action only serves to protect rapists and it angers women in particular since so have been assaulted during their lives, while rates in the military are double the civilian population. Men too are subject to higher levels of sexual assault in the military than in the civilian population. The military attracts sexual predators who operate unchecked.

Bloomberg Asks Donors to Shut Wallets Over Senators’ Gun Votes

I need to keep this one

24 Reasons Why George R.R. Martin Is The Biggest Troll In Literature Right Now