#874 – Dick Bernard: Craziness around….

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

PRE-NOTE: I had completed the entirety of the below post on April 16, but decided to hold off publishing till after Easter. Recent events, particularly in the Nevada ranch situation, make this a timely post. The overnight Just Above Sunset has a good summary on the current state of affairs.
The recent incidents in Nevada (the rancher refusing to pay rent on public land), and Kansas (the gunman who hates Jews and blacks who killed three white Christians bring back some happenings and thoughts from a while back. (Anyone interested in a longer post about the meaning of the above, here’s a useful link.)
There’s always been the crazies around.
The first one I paid serious attention to was a guy named Gordon Kahl who told the national government to go to hell, and ended up dead in 1983. His particular road to infamy covered only a few months in 1983, when he got in a shootout somewhere between the tiny towns of Heaton and Medina ND, killed a policeman and escaped, to live on for a few months till he met his own end.
I suppose the box score favored Kahl: three lawmen dead, and himself. But in the end it doesn’t make any difference. He was dead, too, only to be followed by new generations of deluded crazies destined for the same fate.
Kahl interested me because he came to national notoriety as a farmer somewhere outside Heaton ND in 1983. “Back in the day” Heaton was a hamlet seven miles or so west of Sykeston, where I graduated from HS in 1958, and the place where my Dad and Mom banked. Even then, Heaton was all but non-existent, and Sykeston was not much bigger, but for me, the word “Heaton” made Kahl noteworthy.
These days, of course, the first and greatest amendment to the U.S. Constitution is considered by some to be the 2nd amendment, to keep and bear arms. We’re at the stage, now, where every citizen is always vulnerable to somebody packing heat, who’ll shoot you on purpose, or kill you accidentally. It makes no difference if you have your own arsenal. Usually, the element of surprise prevails.
There is a big problem, however, for those who, these days, think they are above the Law, and can act with impunity whenever and wherever they wish, especially with their arms.
In 1983, not that long ago, really, communications and intelligence were primitive compared with today. It was still a paper world, and help was still a phone call away, and bad guys (and gals too) could more easily blend in out in some woods somewhere, and possibly not be found. Evidence gathering and analysis were also pretty primitive.
There is also a fatal flaw in the argument of the gun rights promoters: if you actually use that gun to kill someone you run the risk of being tried for homicide. This is another set of laws not likely to ever be repealed.
Recently I’ve been re-listening to a Willie Nelson CD, which includes the ballad of the Red-Headed Stranger, who goes free after he kills a woman who was, it is said, trying to steal his recently deceased wife’s horse. Execution preceded Charges and a Trial….
Of course, Red Headed Stranger is just a ballad, but in the days of the wild west, probably not very far-fetched.
In the end, the rancher will lose his case and, probably his ranch as well. It will just take a while. He’ll have his 15 minutes of fame, and his fan club will be on to other supposed outrages.
As for the guy in Kansas, well, he was after Jews and he killed Christians, but in the end it will make no difference. He won’t be going free.
We are a country which is an imperfect community, but it is a community, and community is where Rule of Law still means something, imperfect as it is and will always likely be.
POSTNOTE:
These days the public “conversation” seems dominated by people on the ideological fringes. Makes no difference who’s position is “winning” at the time, all is lost if there is no conversation towards reaching common ground. And even then, making positive change is never easy….
My great friend, Peter Barus, sent a link and a comment about this a couple of days ago. It seems to relate to the above, if you’re interested.
April 15, 2015
Peter: Uncharacteristically I send this link.
The writer and those he cites are, I think, experienced, active pioneers in new ways of being and living in community. His focus is on culture as the basis of societal conduct. Like Howard Richards, he is saying, can’t change behaviors without changing the cultural rules.
He comes close to, but falls just short of, explicitly distinguishing two aspects I think hold the best hope for human survival in these late times.
One is “in here/out here,” which refers to effective performance. If one wants to play a game or hold a conversation – or change the world – it works to be “out here,” among other players. “In here” is (even neurologically, or especially so) less likely to produce anything but re-runs.
The other is “way-of-being-and-acting” as correlate of “our occurring worlds.” That is, we behave according to our lights. Seeing is believing. To change behaviors, I must see the world differently. We have access to this through the ways in which we speak about life.
We experience life through language, and through language we can make substantive changes to our own perceptions, and hence our own behaviors.
What sort of language? That’s the intriguing part, and the article contains a good many examples, but you have to pick most of them out for yourself.
Love
Peter

#748 – Dick Bernard: Two American Flags. What does the "United" in United States of America mean?

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

At the end of this post is the link to President Obama’s talk on the importance and implications of the Martin/Zimmerman case, and other links and comments.
*
July 6, enroute from Sykeston to Jamestown ND, I saw a huge American flag to the right, and a sign leading to Historic Ft. Seward just above Jamestown. I decided to stop and take a look.
(click on photos to enlarge)

Ft. Seward, near Jamestown ND, July 6, 2013

Ft. Seward, near Jamestown ND, July 6, 2013


Ft. Seward, it turns out, was a short-lived obscure post Civil War encampment, largely built to secure the westward expansion of settlement through Dakota Territory. A YouTube video claims Gen. Custer was there before Little Big Horn. Maybe so, though he embarked from Ft. Abraham Lincoln in what is now Mandan ND area in 1876.
Nonetheless, the Stars and Stripes very impressively fly over the James River valley, with the substantial help of the constant North Dakota wind.
Much devotion is given our national banner. We pledge allegiance to “the flag of the United States of America“.
These dis-united days in our Republic, I sometimes think a more appropriate description might be the “dis-jointed state of Americans”. Even the term “balkanized” is too tame, since we are a society that has become fragmented almost door-by-door over infinite topics, the most recent highly publicized one being the case of State of Florida vs George Zimmerman.
We are, basically, very good, and very caring people. But we can, and do, these days tend to fragment ourselves by our selection of what information to let in and keep out of our seeing and hearing.
We make our case on what we believe, and associate only with others with similar beliefs, others beliefs be damned.
On a societal level, many can and do “State-shop” to find out where they have the most rights and least responsibilities. More of us have the financial means to personalize our selections than perhaps any society in human history, including our own U.S. society of the not too distant past.
We reverence winning, with little concern for those who lose, and the winners get stronger and more dominant every day….
In the process we have come to possess, in my opinion, a very dangerous luxury which in time will come to destroy us if not monitored and adjusted. We are less and less a “society”, a “United States” than a society of individuals. We don’t have to talk with or listen to anybody who doesn’t agree with us. We can attempt to legislate our personal opinion (called a “win”) in the short window of opportunity available; but the temporary win leads to potential for a later loss.
Earlier today, a friend and I talked a bit about the “olden days” in which we lived, before even television, before telephone converations were private.
People were much the same, then as now, but did not possess the dubious luxury available to too many now: of “winning” their notions of a perfect world, unaccountable to others not as fortunate as themselves.
Where from here? Here’s an alternate view visioned by some unknown person at a past time.
About 20 miles before Ft. Seward on that same July 6, I decided to take a short side trip in tiny Pingree ND, a place where my family had lived for a single year, 1942-43.
On the side of a deserted building, there, was the project of somebody, sometime, expressing an ideal that we might well pay more attention to. It is a stylized American flag – the second flag referred to in the subject of this blog. I took a photo, note the text:
Pingree ND July 6, 2013

Pingree ND July 6, 2013


Since its beginning in 2009, I’ve captioned this blog, “Thoughts Towards a Better World”.
The photo of the flag with a message captures the spirit of that thought nicely.
Additional Notes:
In the matter dominating the air in recent weeks, Florida v. Zimmerman, today came a very interesting description of how Abraham Lincoln viewed “stand your ground” in 1838, 175 years ago, long before he even thought of becoming U.S. President. (What he said is in the last couple of paragraphs, but the entire article is well worth reading in context with the present day.)
Also, today, President Obama spoke from the heart about the need for a national conversation on the issue. The video of his remarks is here. An editorial about the Presidents remarks from the New York Times is here. Lots of the comments from anonymous types are as revealing as they are troubling. Racism is alive and well in our society.
My personal thoughts on Martin/Zimmerman filed on July 15, 2013, here.
Comments:
from Shirley, July 20, 2013: Morgan Freeman – I agree! (link here)
from Dick, in response to Shirley: Good one. And it’s even true! http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/blackhistory.asp
One of many best lines in the Presidents talk was the reference to his daughters and their generation (which would be my grandkids generation). By and large, the kids get it far better than we ever will.
Unfortunately, I doubt we’ll ever reach the ideal posed by Morgan, who’s an immensely successful black man.
We have an entire history as a country to deal with. We were founded as a state that depended on slavery.
But, we march on, by bits and pieces. Thanks much.
Here’s a very long and excellent column about the President’s Talk, yesterday.
from Jeff, July 20:
The cult of individualism in the large sense (not the one referred to by right wing moral majority types) is a major factor in our nations changes.
You know that sociologists have studied the lack of communal civic engagement, i.e. the decline of bowling leagues, neighborhood groups, organizations like Elks, Kiwanis, etc.
I believe that conservative 1% and the ethos of the supreme court’s conservative majority supports dis-unity and balkanization in its reverence for states rights, and individualism(selective of course).
This is expressed thru the decline in societal spending on public education at all levels. I honestly believe this is if not expressed but implied in the entire Conservative political movement from the 60’s thru to today. (Maybe demography will eventually override it, maybe the current Republican tea party etc is the final “stand your ground” act of this before a different peopled nation overcomes it.)
Basically in the past 20th century there were two places where all people commingled and had to “put up ” with each other. The first was the armed services which thru the draft put everyone together. The second is/was the public school system.
The Draft was done away with more by the left, the public school system is being starved by the right.
from Mike, July 20:
Your comments are often thought provoking and always interesting. I’m not surprised the state’s case was poorly presented. In trying a case, the attorney must believe in the justice of his case. Did the Assistant DA trying the case really believe his cause was just? We can’t read his mind, but we look at how his argument was presented.
The case was in Florida, after all.
From Dick, in response to Mike:
I think the Florida folks did what they could. I spent a career representing people, and a constant was second-guessing oneself, and being second-guessed. It is an imperfect deal, but the best we’ve got.
From Bruce, July 20:
I’ve just finished reading Ann Petry’s, The Street. I’m not sure why I choose to read it, but I was on my way out of town and needed some reading material to distract me from our worldly condition. It was written in 1946 and it’s about racism in America. I wasn’t thinking about the Zimmerman trial or the “Stand your Ground” laws at the time I saw the book on the shelf in our downstairs hallway. I remember buying it several years ago and not having read it, so I decided to try it out. What a surprise. Take all the crap of the Zimmerman trial, “Stand your Ground”, and Obama’s off the cuff, candid talk on race, and forget about it and read this novel.
For those who think racism in America has improved since the time Petry wrote this novel, think again. I think Obama should read this book before he talks about racial progress. What we’ve done as a society is disconnect racism from the over-riding American Values. We’ve separated it from materialism and competition for material wealth which provides power to dominate. We default to the position that in America everyone regardless of race, etc. should have the opportunity to achieve material success. So we create civil right laws, fight wars to make sure the right to opportunity is achievable. We don’t question the underlying cause of racism in America, which is the quest for materialism that is supported by the free market place, and places everyone in competition for material success. I think that should have been the conversation that Obama should have started with his gifted rhetorical skills. To put it bluntly, it’s the economic system of capitalism and the free market place that the president supports that is responsible for how we treat each other.
The Street, along with The Great Gatsby, and Howard Zinn’s, The Peoples history of America, should be on everyone’s reading list. The President’s message was for those who want to feel good. It wasn’t based in truth. It obscured the truth.

#746 – Dick Bernard: The George Zimmerman case: An Action with Consequences, for Zimmerman, (and perhaps, even, Possibilility for something positive.)

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

UPDATE: This post, reposted on the Woodbury Patch, has thus far attracted 29 comments pro and con.
*
For anyone interested in a much longer summary of news after the George Zimmerman verdict Saturday, here is an interesting recap of reactions entitled “Insufficient Justice”.
Yesterday, my friend, Greg, a retired Prosecutor, asked me if I was surprised by the verdict in the Trayvon Martin death by gunshot last February.
I said “yes” – I had thought George Zimmerman would at minimum have gotten some ‘slap on the wrist’ punishment. After all, he’d killed an unarmed person who, it turned out, was minding his own business.
I asked Greg the same question back – was he surprised? “Not at all”, he said. He lived a career with the reality that prosecutors face every day in our system: the issue of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Personally, I think there is some significant “silver” – a glimmer of hope – beyond the dark cloud of what was a legal murder of an innocent teenager in Florida 16 months ago.
We are a TV ‘soundbite’ nation where news comes our ways in those annoying crawlers on the TV screen or equivalent; or in very short snippets of news reports repeated over and over and over. Or Twitter feeds….
This blog, at this point 198 words, is too long for most citizens.
You’ve come this far: give me 400 more words of your time.
1. We’ll likely never know how Mr. Zimmerman really feels now, many months after he chose to pull his weapon and kill Trayvon Martin. Without that weapon, that night, he probably wouldn’t have engaged Martin; or if he did, the result at worst would have been what usually happens in a normal fight. All the gun accomplished was to destroy two lives: the young man who was killed that night; and the successful (and legal) perpetrator who will now be used for awhile by those who feel he helped their cause; but who inevitably will be discarded, becoming a nobody, if anything less attractive to a potential employer.
I do wonder how he really feels…we’ll likely never know that.
2. There is an opportunity presented, here, for a deep national conversation, person-to-person, town-by-town, about many things.
Is Florida a safer place because of the gun laws that spawned the Trayvon Martin killing? Will the incident encourage people to move to Florida?
Is the marketing of fear that increases gun sales solely a benefit to the gun industry? After all, it is hard to imagine that vigilante gun owners will be much encouraged by the very real life sentence given Mr. Zimmerman in the wake of the incident in Sanford FL. He is free, but how free is he, really?
3. Will this tragic incident encourage more talk about the down-side of increasing attempts to increase “states” and “individual” “rights” (as opposed to acknowledging the positive role of a responsible (and responsive) federal government and citizens who are as aware of their responsibility to society at large as to their rights as individuals?

We like to pretend we don’t need government: that government gets in the way, particularly the farther away it is.
Is this so? Recently I did a 850 mile roundtrip to reunion places I was visiting in North Dakota. In my summary blog piece about the trip I chose to focus on Interstate 94, which began construction the very year I started college in 1958.
We Americans live on these highways.
In my trip I traveled:
550 miles on Interstate 94, the granddaddy of Federal projects
154 miles on U.S. 52 and 281
140 miles on N.D. and MN State Highways
a tiny handful miles on county roads and city streets.
You can guess which roads were least desirable. There’s reason I chose the Federal highways whenever possible.
I don’t need to explain any more.
Let’s talk.

#743 – Dick Bernard: Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

If you don’t know the names in the subject line, this isn’t for you.
If you think this is about legislated gun control, it’s not….
For the last few days the trial has droned on in Sanford FL. About the only time I’ve actually seen it is at the gym, where the silent images pass by on the screen as I exercise, with some closed captioning.
At some early point the trial will go to the Jury, and a decision will be rendered.
I keep thinking of the guy I saw during the heat of the gun control debate at the Minnesota State Legislature on February 21, 2013.
(click to enlarge)

Minnesota State Capitol February 21, 2013

Minnesota State Capitol February 21, 2013


Of course, the guys point was not to pull his weapon and shoot somebody.
His point was, “don’t mess with my right to carry this thing around”.
He wasn’t terribly impressive, or impressing for that matter.
Like all the rest of us, he waited patiently to get into the hearing. I noticed later that his weapon was featured in a newspaper story. The gun became the story.
What I thought about, that day, was what would be the implications for him had somebody hassled him, and he had pulled out the gun and fired, and either hit his target, or missed and hit something else, maybe even just the wall of the Capitol building.
What would that Minnesota State Patrol officer the done – the one you can see perhaps six feet behind the guy with the gun.
Where would his power be then? Or would his gun give him any power at all; rather would it give him grief?
So, in Sanford, Florida, today, George Zimmerman is on trial for killing someone whose only offense, apparently, was that he looked suspicious that evening in February, 2012. Florida
law seems to mitigate in Zimmerman’s defense, but then there is the matter of killing somebody, Martin, who turned out to unarmed, and who would not have been dangerous had not Zimmerman took it upon himself to be the lawman of record in his complex.
The man with the gun won in Sanford that night in 2012; and it is possible that he will in court as well.
But if he prevails, what will he “win”?
Worst case, had he been unarmed, and doing everything identically that night, he would have been beat up, like happens every day in intemperate fights between angry humans.
That gun, whether he wins or loses in court, solved nothing for him.
As a gun solves nothing for the folks who think it is important to have their own private arsenal to defend against whoever it is they think they’ll have to defend themselves against.
Here’s that photo from February 21 again.
What would that guy have won, that day, if he’d found it necessary, by his own definition, to use that weapon?
Minnesota State Capitol February 21, 2013

Minnesota State Capitol February 21, 2013


Full disclosure: I qualified as expert with an M-1 in the Army, I don’t own a gun, never have, never will, I didn’t think gun control (getting rid of guns) was a practical or possible resolution to the gun issue, though I favored stronger regulation of weapons, particularly background checks and registration of all weapons.

#721 – Dick Bernard: Drones, etc. Todays President Obama speech on U.S. Security Policy

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

UPDATE 4 p.m. CDT: Here are the printed remarks given by President Obama today. Apparently there was no live video.
*
On occasion – this is one of those occasions – I deliberately do a post before some kind of major action which can be anticipated.
This morning, perhaps even as I write (9:40 a.m. CDT), the President is already speaking about Drones and other things related to National Security.
But, at this writing, I have no idea what President Obama is going to say on the issue of Drones, Terrorism, etc., except that I believe it will be important, and I will watch it in its entirety today. The White House website will likely carry the address live, and it will be archived, uncluttered by chatter by pundits or news media interpretation.
I’ve written a few times about Drones. All of the links which mention the word “Drones” are here. The December 13 & 20, 2011, postings drew particular “fire” from people who I’d usually consider allies: folks in the Peace Community. The post and the comments say what they say.
I’ve noticed that President Obama has, in past months, challenged the U.S. Congress to establish policy on use of Drones.
My guess is that he will again do so today.

But it is not in the best political interest of Congress to take unto itself its Constitutional responsibility of Declaring War, or acting on such policies as when, whether or how to use such weapons as Drones. (Constitution of U.S.001, see Article I Sec 8)
Easier it is to blame the President at the time; or to use the President as cover (it depends on whether the President at the time is my party, or yours).
Personally, I would eliminate War. But since eliminating War is not a reasonable possibility, perhaps I’d agree with changing the rules of engagement to fighting war like they did in the good old days: down and dirty, hand-to-hand and very, very personal combat.
In my bookshelf is a volume I found in a box at my ND Grandparents home some years ago. It is ambitiously entitled “Famous and Decisive Battles of the World. The Essence of History for 2500 Years” by Brig Gen Charles King copyright J. C. McCurdy 1899. I wrote about this book June 5, 2012, including a list of the 52 battles, culminating, naturally, with the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Of course, we’re no longer in those good old days when people trudged around with primitive cannons and did not have airplanes or huge megaton bombs…or drones, or cellphones, or computer technology.
We take for granted high-tech in our own daily lives.
Why should warfare be any different?
The rules of engagement have changed.
Listen to the Presidents speech, but most important, make your voice be heard with policy makers you elect.

#707 – Dick Bernard: The Gun Issue. It's time….

/0 Comments/in , /by

UPDATES at end of post.
For other posts on the issue, simply place the word “guns” in the search box.
There have also been many comments to the same post at Woodbury Patch here
This mornings Minneapolis Star Tribune had a very powerful full page pictorial editorial on the Gun Issue. Here’s the article, and below is a photo of the actual full page spread.
(click to enlarge)

Editorial, page 2 of OpEx, Minneapolis Star Tribune April 7, 2013

Editorial, page 2 of OpEx, Minneapolis Star Tribune April 7, 2013


Tonight, CBS 60 Minutes had two segments featuring the Newtown parents, whose children were killed in the massacre on December 14. The segments are accessible here, and are well worth watching.
We are urging our lawmakers to do the serious and courageous work of tightening control of firearms in this country. If people wish to own guns, then they need to accept more responsibility, especially if they wish to own weapons that can only be described as war combat weapons.
Most all the talk I hear from the “Gun” side is “Rights”. It is within the role of our legislators to talk very seriously about “Responsibility” of gun owners as well. Our society has many laws which in one way or another mandate responsibility. Guns are a major area shamefully under-regulated (in our opinion). Too many in the gun-owner population do not well regulate (take responsbility) for themselves. Responsibility does not mean more guns in more places. (Even the most cursory reading of the 2nd amendment notes the words “well regulate” in the very first sentence.) We should not accept a new “wild west” mentality in the 21st century.
If you’re Minnesotan, here’s a current list of lawmaker contact information: Minnesota Lawmakers 2013
UPDATES/COMMENTS:
from Phyllis: April 9: I work at a golf course during the summer months…..Every spring all of us employees are required to go through a criminal background check along with a credit check. And, this is only for a part time summer job at a golf course!!! I have no problem with either of these background checks, but we have people who are so against having criminal background checks before purchasing a gun which would save lives! My “liberty” is that I want to feel safe…..
from Paul: April 9: I find the arguments NRA and others almost laughable – except for the incredible tragedy of excessive gun violence in this country. Notice, I said “this country” because in this we are truly unique in the world. “WE ARE NUMBER ONE! YAY!”
But I suppose they do have a point there when it comes to the slippery slope. After all, those of us who are old enough remember when it was possible to buy and own a personal automobile. Of course, that was before laws like speed limits, seat belt requirements and drivers licenses were enacted prior to the confiscation and outlawing of all personal car ownership. Ah, I remember those early days. I loved my cars. And how stupid those laws were. When cars laws were passed, there were still speeders and drivers without licenses who did not wear their seat belts.
And, of course the same thing has happened since the first gun control laws outlawing personal ownership of submachine guns, bazookas, rocket launchers, grenades, atomic bombs, etc.. We have had so many guns confiscated since that. Now almost no one has one.
Oops, what am I saying? That didn’t happen at all, did it. Duh!
From Judy: I posted your gun comments on my FB page. (I’m on a mission).
From Jeff: The conspiracy of a solid majority of know nothings in the USA, combined with the power of profit (gun/ammunition companies and their lobby the NRA and the right wing media) , and
The long and steadfast tradition of American exceptionalism continue to fight the overwhelming popular support for common sense gun responsibility laws.
Over the weekend, and I am not sure where, I read that the USA is basically one of 3 countries in the world with a right to gun ownership like that in the 2nd Amendment, there are
A handful of other Latin America countries with some sort of similar right in their constitution… if anyone else read the same article or post maybe they can cite it? I am not sure where
I read it.
From Tom, April 9: Dick-When I had a student drop the “I’ve got rights” argument on me, I would hand him/her a dictionary and ask him to find the word “rights” and keep his finger in that page. Then I would ask him/her to find the word “responsibility”. Then I would ask “which comes first”?”

#694 – Dick Bernard: Guns, yet again.

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Recently, it seems, I’m fixated on Guns. Mebbe so. It is an important topic. (Additional recent posts at Feb. 3 and Feb. 19, 2013)
I’m an active blogger; this is #694 since March, 2009.
Put the letters “Guns” in the search box, and up pop 27 blogposts which apparently use the letters “guns” somewhere within their text. I’m not inclined to argue with word search, but, of the references it gives, a half dozen of those posts were not about guns at all (#104, 465, 473, 533, 588, 598); three are by guest writers; seven are post the Newtown CT massacre. There are headings like Binghamton NY, Tucson AZ (Gabby Giffords), Aurora CO, Newtown CT, earlier sites of gun carnage by an individual (there are others I would have written about too).
The reader can decide if I’m fixated on the topic of Guns, or someone with a very rational concern….
February 21, I did make an appearance at the street theatre which was the Gun Hearings at the Minnesota State Senate, in the Hearing Room under the Capitol Rotunda. I wrote and have photos of the event here (scroll to the lower half of that post).
The February 22, Minneapolis Star Tribune, headlined “Groups battle over gun checks” on page B1 (you can read it here). (I notice, in the on-line version of the story, that they used a photo of the same guy I caught a little earlier in line – holstered pistol on right hip….)
Today’s editorial in the STrib was about the Gun issue.
Guns are hot. Deservedly so.
Of course, news in our society is predictable: “if it bleeds, it leads” seems still the mantra. So does conflict, as in “Groups battle over gun checks” (the STrib headline).
I was at the Thursday “battle”, and as best I could determine the only war was over who had the most buttons, and the gun side did win, it appeared. Maybe that’s why the guy is smiling in the photo, sporting his “Self Defense is a Human Right“:
(click to enlarge)
IMG_0552
His button seemed more common than the more pleasant appearing opponents: “Minnesotans Against Being Shot”:
IMG_0548
But my musing on this topic went in a differing direction when I saw the Star Tribune report on the hearing I had just attended.
In Minnesota, it is legal to carry a firearm into the Minnesota State Capitol: “When the legislative session opened in January, there were 523 [licensed permit-holders with right to carry weapons into the capitol]…”As of [February 21] that number had spiked to 723…By comparison, in 2012 there were only 56 new gun-carrying notifications during the entire year.”
 (Star Tribune Feb 22)
There were lots of orderly people in those throngs waiting to get into the hearing on Thursday.
How many of them in the line were packing heat, like the now famous guy in the two photographs, mine and the STrib (see below)? (He seems to have been uniquely public about his right to bear arms.)

In line. Note the holstered handgun

In line. Note the holstered handgun


What if all those 723 authorized to be armed and dangerous were in that line on Thursday, and their collective feelings of needing to defend themselves led to a group need to enforce their right to bear arms, and they did so?
What would happen?
Of course, nobody knows, but whether an organized armed insurrection to take over the State Capitol, or a Keystone Cops caper, the results would not have been pretty…and predictable.
“Self defense” works better in theory than it likely would in fact.
Gun sanity needs to replace the current rush to insanity.
Just my opinion.

#691 – Dick Bernard: Towards a Rational Conversation About Guns, continued

/0 Comments/in , , /by

UPDATE Feb. 24, 2012: Brief comments and photos from today at State Capitol at the end of this post.
February 3 I published a post about Guns. You can find it here, with an important update on February 11. An additional update was published on February 23, here.
Last night came an e-mail announcing hearings at the Minnesota State Capitol Room 15 February 21 and 22. Here are details.
Earlier last evening I had been at a community meeting in St. Paul’s Frogtown (the issue was simple school-community relationships, not guns). Most of us there were strangers to each other. One older man and I struck up a conversation. He had been at the earlier House hearings on Guns, and he was struck by how many angry men were in the room. He felt intimidated. But the experience made him ever more committed to make a difference on this most critical issue. (Frogtown has its own reputation relating to violence, and our meeting was multi-cultural and multi-racial. But the issues that came up were all about building better relationships generally, and not guns at all. I found that interesting.)
Guns in our society do not make for a simple rational conversation. Indeed, after the Feb 3 post, someone named Alex wrote an on-line comment suggesting I wasn’t capable of a rational conversation. I have no idea who “Alex” is – on-line comments are anonymous – so I can’t even engage in conversation with him – or her. I know nothing more than the comment.
So be it.
But I did decide after the post to try to get an idea of what people I know think about the gun issue, and I drafted a brief questionaire to try to find out. Half of the 46 people who received the questions answered the survey – a high percentage return. I bill myself as a “moderate pragmatic Democrat” so that can be a clue as to the people surveyed might be.
The results are at the aforementioned blogpost.
Before you look, I’d suggest you answer, for yourself, the same questions I asked my friends. The questions are below.
And then, get into more conversations with people you know.
We don’t need gun policy to be made by angry men sitting in a hearing room. But that is how it will be if we do not get into action.
The survey questions:
1. Do you (and/or someone else in your own home or dwelling) own a firearm(s) (“guns”)? Yes or No
A. If you answered “Yes”
1. How many firearms are in your home or dwelling?
a. What kind(s)?
b. Where are weapons kept?
c. If you needed the gun for defense right now, how accessible and/or useful would it be to you?
2. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PERSONALLY USED A FIREARM?
a. For what purpose?
2. For everyone:
If you could decide, what would “reasonable regulation” of firearms look like?
3. Have you ever used a gun for self-defense (against a person), and in what manner? Or do you personally know of someone who has (other than in war – or one of those stories heard from your cousin about his neighbor’s dentist’s brother or the like)? Versus, how many people have you been personally acquainted with who were killed by guns (except for war); how many were due to domestic violence?
The group answers are in the Update, accessible here.
They are just opinions of good people.
What is your opinion?
UPDATE February 21, 2013
My visit to the Capitol today was quite brief. The Hearing Room was limited to 40 people, with tickets. There were large numbers of people waiting in line for the overflow areas. In the end, I chatted with some nice people, took a few photos, and came home. Joan Peterson of Duluth is the lady in the photograph below. Her card gives a website of commongunsense.com which looks like a very informative site. She had the ticket to the proceedings, and she’s active in assorted ways, including Domestic Abuse Intervention, the Brady Campaign and Protect Minnesota.
The battle was between the buttons, today. “Minnesotans Against Being Shot” versus “Self-Defense is a Human Right”. At least one guy in line was packing heat. I picked up and am sporting a Minnesotans Against Being Shot, the button of ProtectMn.Org, “working to end gun violence”.
If you favor better regulation of firearms, now is the time to be very active with your elected officials at every level. Good things will come out of activism this year. The issue is on the table, and the NRA can’t control the conversation as they would like.
(click to enlarge photos)

In line. Note the holstered handgun

In line. Note the holstered handgun


IMG_0556
Joan

Joan


Two-sided sign

Two-sided sign


IMG_0555

#684 – Dick Bernard: Towards a rational conversation about guns and need for their regulation….

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

UPDATE February 11, 2013: February 8 I posted a very brief survey to 46 persons on my long standing peace and justice mailing list. The survey was about Guns. Ultimately, 23 responded to the questions, and the entire compilation can be read here: Gun Survey Feb 82013R1. I was surprised both by the number of responses, and the kinds of responses received. This may help the reader clarify his or her own mind about the issue of Guns in our Society, and the survey certainly hi-lites the complexity of the issue needing affirmative resolution. This is an issue that needs both speaking and very active listening with an eye to resolving the issue.
Here is how I summarized my feelings on the issue to my Government representatives: Gun Issue Position Feb 2013
THE ORIGINATING POST.
Today is the holiest of holy days in the United States: Super Bowl XLVII Sunday, where gladiators from Baltimore and San Francisco meet on the field of battle in New Orleans to determine the Champion of the World, at least for today. Then there is the Super Bowl of Super Bowl Ads. Now there’s clamoring for a National Day Off for the day following the Super Bowl….
But then we’re also in the real world: Yesterday’s paper front page lede was about a gang member being convicted for a random act of violence: shooting up the house of a rival, killing a 5 year old in the process. It was the second family member killed in that house. Later in the day, on-line, the same paper had a picture story about President Obama shooting skeet at Camp David…which the NRA mostly ridiculed.
I wish the President hadn’t felt the need to prove he’d actually shot a gun, even in skeet, but, hey, this is America in the year of irrational talk about the need for rational gun regulation.
Additional Post on this specific Topic: here and here.
It happened that the same day a cousin (her Mom and my Mom were first cousins, their parents brothers and sisters) sent a photograph of her Dad, Don Thimmesch, who was among the first 53 highway patrolmen in Iowa (1935). (More here.) And it reminded me of another photo she had sent me some years earlier, of her Mom, Cecilia Thimmesch, who was a national champion marksman with the Rifle.
Best I know, Cecilia is the only National Champion on either side of my family. Hers was a well-earned accomplishment.
Their photos are below:

Don Thimmesch, ca 1935, first class of highway patrol in Iowa


(click on photo to enlarge)

Cecilia Thimmesch, Champion with the Rifle, 1939


Daughter, Carol, is rightly proud of her parents, as she has a right to be.
They were responsible gun users.
If we could go back to those olden days.
But not likely.
As I write, a radical government hater in Alabama is holed up in his survival cellar with a young school child as hostage after shooting the school bus driver last week. In his mind he had some point to make. [Note February 5, 2013: the kidnapper is dead, the child was rescued, yesterday.]
There is no good end to this gun story, as there are seldom good ends to gun stories, unless the gunman comes out of his cave with hands-up before the youngster and the gunman both die.
I suppose the guy thought he could beat the government by being armed and dangerous, having a hostage, and going into his underground shelter.
The moment he took action, he’d lost. And so had his innocent victim.
Yes, we do need to talk about rationale and new gun policies everywhere in this land. A suburban police chief from this area described the problem well, very recently: According to my friend, Greg, who knows the chief personally, here’s what he said: “He told of the progression of weapons his police officers carry. First it was a shotgun in the squad car. Then it became an MP-5. Now his officers carry an AR-15. The reason for the progression to greater and greater firepower? As Scott testified, the changes were necessary to keep pace with what the bad guys are carrying.”
In my opinion the NRA spokespeople can go to hell, at least in their current role as shill for the gun industry.
Where does one start on a “rational conversation”? Maybe how guns were viewed when Donald and Cecilia became noteworthy in Iowa, in the 1930s.

Here’s a commentary I received from a great friend who’s a school bus driver and lives on rural property in Vermont:
From Peter, February 1, 2013
The Samurai Always Left Their Long Knives at the Door
For some reason it has been slow going, looking at this crazy, bloody couple of months. My school has been locked down for a week now. Some jerk said something scary.
As a school bus driver it kind of struck a nerve when somebody shot a driver in Alabama and (at this writing) is holed up in a bunker with a kidnapped five-year-old. I guess the NRA would say all school bus drivers should be packing now. Among the drivers I know, every one of them would get between a shooter and a student without thinking about it first, and still would not carry a gun on the bus.
Among all the people I know, I can’t think of more than one or two I’d want to be around if they were “carrying.” For myself, if I ever find out somebody’s packing heat, I will explain that this is a problem that precludes whatever purpose brought us into the building, and leave.
Around here people check with the parents of their children’s playmates to see if they have guns in the house, and whether they are safely locked away. Half the kids around here, at a guess, are crack shots with a deer rifle.
As for hunters, almost every hunter I’ve met on my property has been drunk, and has pointed the gun carelessly at me or at their friends or their own feet, heads, whatever. I have zero faith in hunters to be “responsible gun owners.” We lose two or three a year, here, including kids, to accidental shootings. A farmer was shot while driving his tractor, mistaken for a deer. A blueberry-picker was shot, mistaken for a bear. Two died last year when one mistook the other for the deer, and then, seeing his mistake, shot himself. Best friends and long-standing hunting club members. This is in a county it takes about half an hour to cross on dirt roads.
I thought the police were supposed to be the ones with the guns and the training about when to shoot people. Imagine whipping out a Glock 9 in a shopping mall, for any reason. Whom would the cops point their guns at?
I like one idea I’ve heard: gun-owners’ insurance, similar to car insurance. Mandatory and expensive and track-record based. This sort of solution functions like a check-dam, changing the course of change rather than trying to plug the system. We used to call this “trim tabbing.”
The NRA is simply out of control, and should be investigated and drowned in lawsuits and put out of its misery, like the KKK.

#683 – Dick Bernard: The Cost of Fear; the Power of Speaking Out.

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Artists rendition of "Banana clip" automatic rifle seen at a Minneapolis restaurant


Yesterday I was at a local restaurant having a cup of coffee, and writing some letters. It’s a very ordinary activity for me. For some reason, I ‘ve always worked best where there’s some hubbub around.
At the next table, very close by, four men, obviously friends, and probably in their 50s, were conversing about this and that and at some point one of them mentioned that he had been actively thinking about ordering an AR-15, and a gun cabinet to go with it.
The chat went on a short while, then he mentioned the topic had come to the attention of his spouse, and apparently he had changed his mind: she would have nothing to do with the purchase. As he described it, they had an interesting conversation….
If I heard it right, I was listening to one smart man, talking about one powerful woman who had something to say about one important matter: an assault rifle in the home.
The conversation got me thinking in a direction I hadn’t considered before: how much does an AR-15 really cost?
I don’t have a gun, and I don’t plan to have one, and I don’t stop to look at guns in stores or even look at ads about guns. I don’t know the details about todays killing machines.
When I got home I googled AR-15, and there were lots of references.
Succinctly, if you can get the assault rifle (there’s been a run on them – supply and demand), it is not cheap. And that’s just for the weapon.
Plus, a well-equipped AR-15 owner should have a range of accessories to go with the gun, all which cost money; things like the locked cabinet, the ammunition, the gun range, etc., etc.
I also noted a more than subtle paranoid edge to the websites peddling AR-15.
Most merchants sing the praises of their product. These sites were less than welcoming or disclosing. No smiley-faces there.
Any reader can challenge my assertion, simply by doing what I did: google “AR-15 cost”.
So, if I heard this totally decent looking and sounding man correctly, he won’t be getting his new gun, and the family relations will be better, and he’ll have money to spend in more productive ways.
I am not, by the way, anti-weapon. Never have been. I am against the insanity of combat weapons for “self-defense”.
Would this guy lug his AR-15 with him everywhere? If he ever had need for the weapon at home, could he find the key to the cabinet? Would the cabinet be where he needed it to be when he needed it? Would he be thinking clearly when he was squeezing the trigger?
Would his investment prove to a blessing or a curse?
Back home I listened to gun victim and survivor Gabby Giffords brief and extremely powerful testimony to a Senate Committee on the issues of Guns. Her husband Mark Kelly’s testimony as well. And the testimony of NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.
Giffords and Kelly made sense. LaPierre simply “came out with guns blazing” and made no sense at all. He was speaking raw power, bullying behavior, that was all.
I’d recommend support for the Giffords/Kelly brand new website on Americans Responsible For Solutions (they are both gun owners, and not against guns per se).
And another good site to get acquainted with is the Brady Campaign.
There’s no need to be afraid of getting into this conversation. It may even do a lot of good.