NRA finally meets its match: Why Richard Martinez should have them shaking

[DonViejo]

NRA's trick is to silence critics by claiming politics disrespects victims. But Richard Martinez can't be silenced

KATIE MCDONOUGH

Richard Martinez’s son Christopher was among the six college students murdered this weekend in Isla Vista, California. It’s impossible to fathom the grief that Martinez must be experiencing right now, and the simple fact that he is upright and mobile is an act of tremendous courage. Which is precisely what makes everything else that he has done in the days since he lost his son all the more astounding.

From his first public statement — a blistering and emotional indictment of “craven” politicians who refuse to act on even moderate gun reform — to the tribute to Christopher he delivered Tuesday before a crowd of thousands, Martinez has been willing to show his raw and devastating grief to the world. He has made himself the gnarled and anguished face of our broken system — the lives that it takes and the lives that it ruins. His vulnerability and righteous, focused anger is unlike anything we’ve seen in response to a mass shooting.

And it should scare the shit out of the National Rifle Association, the gun lobby and the cowardly politicians who use these deadly weapons as literal and figurative political props.

It isn’t just the force of Martinez’s emotions or political conviction that make him powerful. He is currently shouldering the unimaginable grief of being yet another parent who has lost yet another child in yet another mass shooting. He has seen this happen before, he knows the political script that’s already playing out. He has listened as gun apologists — time and again — urge the nation not to “politicize” a national tragedy out of respect for the families, and then watched them turn on these same families in order to protect our deadly — and immensely profitable — culture of guns. And he’s using it. All of it.

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/29/nra_finally_meets_its_match_why_richard_martinez_should_have_them_shaking/

[hlthe2b]

1. Yes, he's seen what happened to parents from Columbine to Newcastle who speak out against guns, what

was done to Gabby Giffords. He's seen the ugly attitudes of vehement gunner so unapologetically voiced by the ugly teabagger poiser plumber, "your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights" Samuel Wurzelbacher. He's seen the sick response of open carry activists terrorizing children and adult patrons with their AR15s in restaurants. He's seen the sick tactics of NRA and its even more extreme sister organizations.

He knows what he is getting into. I an only hope the need to honor his son's memory will give him the strength to endure the hateful attacks underway.

[aikoaiko]

2. His raw emotions are formidable. They are real and I respect that.

But I doubt he will be the messiah the gun restrictionist side is hoping for.

I think the biggest issue will be his early statements where he doesn't appear to blame the shooter. "Not one more" is an impossible goal. "Do something" is not an agenda.

The grief, anguish, and sorrow appears to sustain political action from parents for a little over 1 year. Its not that the pain isn't there, its just that it takes its toll on them. And their families need them back.

You could see it happen with the Sandy Hook parents.

[Fred Sanders]

4. "Not one more" is a worthy goal, "doing something" has never been done, so the goal is just fine.

The Sandy Hook parents have never given up as you allude to, it is the politicians fearful of the NRA that have given up
and they need yet more kicks in the butt to do the overwhelming will of Americans on sensible gun controls, as shown by poll after poll after poll.

[HangOnKids]

9. Keep telling yourself that.

Counting down the minutes that you are proven wrong.

[HangOnKids]

14. Good Luck To You

Counting down....

[billh58]

73. Well, that was a short

count down...

[billh58]

31. Welcome back.

What took you so long?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. close

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This guy is clearly a gun troll.

The review was completed at Thu May 29, 2014, 11:38 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "Other factors" excusing the killing as not serious.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide it and Alert MIRt.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah, but this particular post isn't hideable.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I choose not to hide it as it's the opinion of the poster.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT

[flamin lib]

8. Really?

http://www2.sandyhookpromise.org/

https://www.momsdemandaction.org/

https://act.everytown.org/act/notonemore?source=ggnp_CK-MSNBC&utm_source=gg&utm_medium=_p_&utm_campaign=CK-MSNBC&gclid=CIaOhKPX0b4CFaYF7AodDWoAuA

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/about/gabrielle-giffords/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/our-history

And the list keeps growing.

[aikoaiko]

16. Most of the victims or family of victims are dropping off.

You don't see Sandy Hook parents staging press releases anymore.

Sara Brady stopped participating long ago and now the small professional staff are paid to make press releases.

MDA was never really populated by Sandy Hook parents and if Bloomberg didn't step in to provide money they would be going away.

Every town doesn't do anything except maintain a website.

I will say that Gabby Giffords did put together a good organization and built funding sources, but she doesn't show up much anymore and they just spent and lost big in GA. I expect they'll hire more professional staff to do the heavy lifting,

[flamin lib]

20. First they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they attack you and then you win. Ghandi

I get updates on action items from Sandy Hook and from Gifford's and from Every town almost weekly.

The gun lobby has finally got ligitamate opposition and opposition with funding.

The times they are a changing. Dylan

[aikoaiko]

24. Gandhi was right about that working -- sometimes.

I'm glad those emails are coming, but do you really think it is the victims or family of victims that are writing them?

My comments were about the grieving father, Mr. Martinez.

The times are changing but overall they have been changing for lessening restrictions.


Still I encourage you to donate all that you can. I think Gabby has about 8 -10 millions dollars on hand.

Mere dues provides the NRA with over 75 million every year and that doesn't even count the legislative action side.

[HangOnKids]

27. I hope you have sweet dreams about that $75 million

Whatever floats your gu...err boat!

[SwankyXomb]

38. Since when is being paid

to promote mass murder a good thing?

[aikoaiko]

41. Is this a rhetorical question?

Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about?

[CTyankee]

49. NRA money in politics is thwarting the will of most Americans who poll overwhelmingly

FOR gun control. Do you think that is sustainable forever?

[aikoaiko]

51. I think the pendulum can swing again, but I don't the pendulum will find equililbrium

[CTyankee]

56. political systems that don't respond to the will of the people have historically bad outcomes

for those in power. Eventually, we know what happens...haven't we seen this movie before in the vast sweep of history?

It will be interesting to watch our own sweep of history when the next president (a Democrat) gets another 8 years and the almost certain opportunity to appoint enough SCOTUS and other federal judges to add to the number of justices favoring a reversal of Heller, perhaps even getting a reversal of the "money is speech" decision, thereby limiting how much NRA money can influence our federal lawmakers. I hope so.

[aikoaiko]

60. Yes, but gun control doesn't seem that important to the majority

I acknowledge that it polls well, but when asked to list priorities its way down the list.

That's why the failure of post-Sandy Hook was met with a 'meh" instead of massive protests.

[CTyankee]

66. We just haven't outnumbered them in Congress yet, due to the NRA money

stranglehold and the 60 vote "majority" idea in the Senate. Let's get back to the real majority -- I mean actual, mathematically -- and you've got a different story...no more thumb on the scale with the 60 vote crap.

I can tell you my personal experience with gun violence in my own family. The shooting that killed my niece was something my brother never got over. He was never very politically active but after her shocking death at age 24, he just went into his own world...and drank. A series of strokes finally killed him at age 62. Since that happened I have learned that many marriages where there is the loss of a child often fail. Grief over such a wretched loss tears apart people's lives. It does not surprise me that the Sandy Hook families experience problems the rest of us never have to deal with.

As for the polling among people who do not take action even tho they favor gun control, they vote on many different issues in their lives, if they have no personal stake as I do. They are beset with their own personal economic situation, wages kept miserably low, unions being diminished, voter ID crushing their political participation, education suffering...anything and everything to keep them down and out of the political picture. Plus, they are multi-focused and the gun enthusiasts are single focused. Liberals have many issues they have high interest in: just look at DU's rich forums and groups...what a widely diverse little universe we have here, so typical of the liberal progressive!

It is no surprise to me that a small but fanatical minority on the gun issue currently prevails in our sick political system. Time, demographic change, and the possibility that more of the 99% have a shot at a better future are the keys to getting lots of changes in our political system, gun control INCLUDED.

[billh58]

74. +100

the future of meaningful gun control is improving and growing on a daily basis as more and more Americans discover how they've been lied to and deceived by the right-wing gun lobby and its apologists. The phony message of "protecting the Constitution" is actually a smoke and mirrors game of hiding behind the Second Amendment while buying political influence for profits and greed.

The American people are saying enough.

[CTyankee]

89. And while we are at it, why is it OK for Congress to prevent a government study of the issue?

Is it verboten now just to STUDY the gun violence problem in this country?

How does the insanity of such an effort ---"no, you can't even LOOK at the issue!" make any sense?

[klook]

91. Similar to the ALEC-backed push to hide what's in fracking fluid

... if they can quash objective study and analysis, the gun lobby can continue to say their opposition is exaggerating or imagining the problem.

The conflation of gun registration with universal gun confiscation is a prime example of the rhetorical tools the gun lobby uses to promote their agenda -- which of course is ultimately about enhancing the profitability of the weapons and ammunition industry. As noted elsewhere, An estimated 20% of gun owners possess 65% of the nation's guns, according to a Harvard University survey published in 2007.

Keeping that customer base buying more is the way to keep the weapons industry growing.

(FYI - Fracking fluid reference)

[flamin lib]

42. Really?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/05/28/newtown-dad-writes-open-letter-to-calif-shooting-victims-father/

[aikoaiko]

43. If that is meaningful action to you, then I'm happy for you.

[flamin lib]

44. No, you said they all went away and that is wishful thinking bullshit. nt

[aikoaiko]

45. I said they were "dropping off"

I will admit that Mark Barden has not dropped off the pursuit of gun control.

[flamin lib]

50. Leave no nit un picked! nt

[CTyankee]

55. The Congress has stood in the way of the will of the people on gun control.

What happens to political systems when this is the case? What does history teach us?

[tosh]

94. What you don't seem to understand...

is the ripple effect of each and every shooting.

Each and every victim of any kind of shooting has family and friends who see things differently from that point on.

It is not a contest or a game that is "won or lost".

Individuals and groups that so value their "2a rights" have wasted precious time in which they could have/should have been working toward a solution to these gun related deaths and tragedies. Instead they are trying to advance their "causes".

Sooner than you think, they will be left out of the discussion altogether.

Americans are fed up and will work on solutions without them.

Many, many, many of us don't give a flying hoot about your "2a rights" and the ripples keep spreading.

The organizations of which you speak understand this.

[aikoaiko]

97. I've heard this type of argument before

"If you don't do something now, something worse will happen legislatively."

It shouldn't be a game, but unfortunately most of the main players on both sides act as if it is.

There is never a lasting truce or compromise. Each side is always pushing for more restrictions or less. Beginning around 1968 the pro-restrictionist side prevailed for 25 years, and then after 1994 and 20 years forward the anti-restrictionist side gained ground. And here we are.

Its a game of Red Queen: each side has to run as fast as they can just to maintain their current status.

Who knows when the pendulum will swing and in what direction. And yes, lives and civil liberties are at stake.

[Crabby Appleton]

87. I Agree nt

[Fred Sanders]

3. A righteous man with a righteous cause and a firm grasp on politicial realities IS a great force.

The NRA and all the apologists that will viciously attack anyone merely even mentioning background checks for starters will have a hard time with this righteous man with a cause. But they will, it is all they have, they are waiting for the opening.....they are evil people, they will do evil things as is in their nature.

[blue neen]

76. Beautifully stated.

[JJChambers]

6. The problem he will run into is that half the people in this massacre were killed by a blade

Not by a gun. If Newtown couldn't bring about gun control, I seriously doubt anything will happen with this case.

[flamin lib]

10. And how many were injured with a gun? nt

[HangOnKids]

11. Please take it to another site

You have barfed enough all over this board.

[etherealtruth]

21. We have a couple here right now .... they will get bored and go away

How much effort or intellect does it take to write 'guns good" (and various iterations ) over and over.

* I am not talking about folk that are gun advocates that participate on the board on a multitude of subjects and hold liberal positions on a variety of subjects. I am talking about the folk that here solely to extoll the virtues of guns

[Logical]

37. I think he will not stay long! nt

[Hekate]

30. It makes JJ uncomfortable, so we need to change the subject.

My statement is not performance art.

[Logical]

33. Drop that BS, no sane gun owner says a knife is as easy to mass murder.....

With as a gun.

You expose your true goal more every week.

[valerief]

40. I wish we could ban gun apologists. nt

[northoftheborder]

62. I find "ignore" very satisfying

[valerief]

72. I do, too. However, every year or so I clear out all my Ignores, so now I have to

build it back up again.

[villager]

53. Which tells us how easily, and quickly, he was able to double his "kill total"

n/t

[hack89]

7. The politicians will screw it up

instead of crafting a limited legislation package that they know has wide public support, they will not miss the opportunity to propose every pet gun control measure they can. They will screw it up like they did post Sandy Hook.


Richard Martinez's grief and anger will be wasted.

[flamin lib]

13. The legislation after Sandy Hook was filibustered by

a minority of Republicans.

[hack89]

17. There was no filibuster. Harry Reid agreed to a 60 vote threshold for each measure

the votes simply were not there, even among the Democrats.

A wrenching national search for solutions to the violence that left 20 children dead in Newtown, Conn., all but ended Wednesday after the Senate defeated several measures to expand gun control. In rapid succession, a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks for gun buyers, a ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity gun magazines all failed to get the 60 votes needed under an agreement between both parties. Senators also turned back Republican proposals to expand permission to carry concealed weapons and to focus law enforcement efforts on prosecuting gun crimes.

The action on Wednesday was initially supposed to be only the first series of votes in a debate to take days if not weeks. But as the measures’ chances faded this week, Senate leaders decided to rush the process, reaching a bipartisan agreement to hold nine votes in succession, each with a 60-vote threshold for passage.

Using the 60-vote hurdle so early in the process allowed Democrats to prevent the passage of an amendment mandating that any state with a concealed-weapons law, no matter how rigorous, would have to recognize the concealed-weapons permit of residents from any other state. The amendment received 57 votes in favor, including those of 12 Democrats, and 43 votes against.

The bipartisan measure, which had appeared to have a strong chance of passage, received 55 votes before Mr. Reid changed his vote to “no” to preserve the parliamentary right to bring the measure up again. Four Republicans voted “yes”: Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, a co-author of the legislation; John McCain of Arizona; Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois; and Susan Collins of Maine. An equal number of Democrats voted “no”: Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. All are from states that Mr. Obama lost by wide margins last fall, and all but Ms. Heitkamp face difficult re-election campaigns in 2014.

The assault weapons vote was 40 in favor and 60 against. The magazine ban fell with 46 in favor and 54 against.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/senate-obama-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[etherealtruth]

18. we can see it in our little microcosm (DU)

Richard Martinez is resonating ... along with the other groups have have picked up steam ... I look to the patterns here. When we see new members sign up to a reportedly liberal site solely to extoll the virtues of "gun rights" (ineloquently and inarticulately), but staying on task, no interest in posting on any other subject, no real political opinions expressed .... just the task at hand... "no limits on guns" ... "any attempts to discuss gun violence = bad"

There really does appear to be a slowly moving sea change, I am finding more and more folk that are "apolitical" or have had no opinions, now thinking more and more about this ... and expressing an interest.

none of our enumerated rights are absolute, most of them have considerable limits.

Sadly, Mr. Martinez' poignant pleas are helping change the discourse

[Brigid]

19. "My son is dead.

There is nothing you could do to me that is worse than that."

I think this article is right: Mr. Martinez is something new in the gun control battle. I think he felt the way he expressed for a while -- and then the worst happened. I'm hoping this might finally turn the corner on getting effective gun control legislation in this country.

[MisterP]

22. the NRA already laid into Malala Yousafzai and Gabby Giffords

that should've driven out all their membership and got them kicked off everything but the Political Cesspool--but like with Santorum saying Protestants weren't Christian or Coulter mocking 9-11 widows IOKIYAR (IOKIYAC?)
they're in the public eye because they 1) protect big profit or 2) buttress a system that protects big profit

[jtuck004]

23. Probably should quit making movies glorifying teen murder like Hunger Games too. n/t

[mac56]

26. What?

Are you serious? Or maybe you forgot your sarcasm icon?

People all over the world see those movies. Hardly any of them shoot people up like we do in this country.

[jtuck004]

29. Damn right I'm serious. Our culture is broken. We learn our culture partly from the stories we are

told, and today many of those come from movies and television. That is why we rate violence on tv shows and movies and forbid kids from seeing this shit. If it had no effect, there would be no need for a rating system, eh?

Try reading through murderers interviews, or even just those who assault others, especially the younger ones. One would have to be blind or an anti-knowledge Teabagger to miss or ignore the reality of thousands of interview of kids watching violent games over and over an then hurting people. Those cases are documented in police departments all over the country.

And how many people who have seen it have the unique intersection of serious psychological problems and a daddy who can keep you in BMWs and guns?

The argument above would be like saying everyone who smokes cigarettes must die early because cigarettes kill, yet we know it is only a fraction of smokers who actually do, so they must not be as dangerous.

Every movie or book or person doesn't influence everyone, but to ignore the possibility is just one more reason we keep murdering each other.

[LadyHawkAZ]

47. Violence can be found in PG movies,

cartoon violence in G rated. Nudity is PG-13 and up.

Our society treats violence in media as more normal than breasts.

That being said, I think the media treatment is a case of art imitating life (or in this case culture) rather than the other way around.

[jtuck004]

82. Oh, absolutely. And the media is a show, a circus. We should all know better than

to give it the credibility we do, but perhaps we prefer being fooled to living in our painful reality, or taking on the challenge to change it.

“Through TV and moving pictures a child may see more violence in thirty minutes than the average adult experiences in a lifetime. What children see on the screen is violence as an almost casual commonplace of daily living. Violence becomes the fundamental principle of society, the natural law of humanity. Killing is as common as taking a walk, a gun more natural than an umbrella. Children learn to take pride in force and violence and to feel ashamed of ordinary sympathy. They are encouraged to forget that people have feelings.”

Psychiatrist Fredric Wertham

I'm not blaming it on any media by itself because most of us see that stuff and don't turn all Rambo on strangers. There are likely several factors, and included in that is an impaired thinking, or perhaps even a pathology.

There are too many loose guns, but I grew up in homes where guns were piled in the corner, and it hasn't been until the last few years that a younger and perhaps more fearful generation has started picking them up and killing multiple total strangers with such frequency. We should also not ignore that this kind of stuff has been happening in neighborhoods with low incomes, especially where there people of color, for some time, yet it seems that unless white kids get gunned down nobody gets all that upset. So perhaps there is an element of racism as well, which perhaps explains the fear which drives the accumulation of guns in the first place. We start to stray from his responsibility, but if he really was sick those who must solve this HAVE to look elsewhere it would seem.

Since he is gone we may never really know why it went this way, but here is a kid who, perhaps, really wasn't shown the love and attention one would think. On the other hand, by virtue of profits on movies, one of which glorified teenagers murdering each other for the entertainment of the 1%, he was kept in BMWs, guns, and pizza.

What more could a kid want?

What gets me the most is that we ignore the very real needs of people who need medical assistance for their heads. There are huge numbers of mentally impaired people in prison, where we seem to prefer them instead of treatment.

And instead of paying them to help us solve these problems, we pay psychologists to learn how to more effectively torture other human beings...

"Dr. Bruce Jessen, a senior military psychologist with offices in Spokane, had a key role in expanding the controversial use of torture against enemy combatants, according to a report released Thursday by U.S. Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain, ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee."

Here.

No wonder we have mass killings.

[mac56]

48. Really?

Movies are why a fucking psychopath was able to get his hands on easily-acquired weaponry and slaughter innocents?

Movies?

Not unrestricted access to weapons? Not a lack of meaningful background checks?

Movies? The same movies that are seen all over the world in countries where virtually no gun deaths take place?

Your contortionist skills would put a gymnast to shame.

[former9thward]

64. We do not have "unrestricted access to weapons".

CA has one of the stronger background checks in the U.S. Your attempts to throw out strawmen fail.

[mac56]

68. Did anything restrict the asshole in Santa Barbara from getting his hands on guns and ammo?

Clearly not.

Nice attempt, though.

[former9thward]

69. What law do you propose that would have stopped him?

If you want to ban guns, just say it.

[mac56]

71. No way, chum. Not going there.

I've already resigned myself to the understanding that trigger-humpers run the show, and nothing is ever going to change.

IOW, we are all supremely fucked.

[Duckhunter935]

77. They can't

you ever notice that when asked a straight simple question, they never can answer it because they do not have an answer.

[jtuck004]

80. Nice story. Do you write fiction for a living? Notice that the character starts as a "psychopath".

Then it suddenly moves to advocacy with a bunch of the supporting story missing. According to your narrative the kid was sick. A psychopath. If he was sick there is no point in hypothetical which posit him as rational, and I won't waste my time. One could, by ignoring the available evidence which appears to point to that, but, much like the little kids at the short table lift their shrill little voices in a hearty round of name-calling and mud slinging, it's always easier to be attracted by the shiny things. But it really doesn't make things all better. And they are annoying.

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
-John Kenneth Galbraith

If he was a psychopath, which the chronicle above states, (which I doubt in total - I think it was another disorder, and he was very, pathologically, a little afraid and a little dead inside - like a dog who has been left out in the yard for years with little to no human contact) it gives short shrift to that most likely proximal cause. Such a lack of empathy indicates one might use any available weapon, and, indeed, he used a knife and at least one gun. We have bankers who also display that extreme lack of empathy, like psychopaths, who may well be responsible for the deaths of at least scores of people via suicide and heart failure and family murder from desperation according to CDC, Census, and Justice and police department reports. , - one has to wonder if the extreme lack of empathy qualifies them as psychopaths too? If so, we are probably fucking lucky this kid didn't take up accounting. But I digress...

You also disrespect and sweep under the bus the three that were stabbed to death in your rush to get on to the anti-gun rally. <--- and for that reason I won't be reading you any longer. I'm not that cold.

The kid was sick, and everyone missed every opportunity, if there was one, to keep everyone else safe by committing someone who was making threats and ill.

I'm not against the regulation of guns. I am against an ignorant and stupid rush to bring the torches and pitchforks to bear on the monster, the one the crowd has determined is guilty. Most times they are fools, will get other innocent people hurt, and in the process become no better than the psychopath.

Bye.

[mac56]

88. Sad that you won't be reading me or replying anymore.

See you at the movies.

[Logical]

34. FFS, see the 1976 Logan's Run plot. And I shot dozens of my friends....

With cap guns in the 70s.

[jtuck004]

36. You deep thinker you. n/t

[Logical]

39. You got nothing, I understand! nt

[jtuck004]

83. You know, and I say this because I care, there are many brands of decaffeinated coffee

that are just as tasty as the real thing.

bye.

[Logical]

85. Ahhhhh.......nap time? nt

[Swede Atlanta]

25. I wish this man's defiance would make a difference.....

but if Newtown, the Colorado and Florida movie theater shootings and those that occur every other day have not changed minds, nothing will.

The gun crowd care not about life. I'm sure they are the ones opposed to abortion but for the death penalty. They are opposed to any funding for HeadStart and other programs to help those in need. They claim to be "pro-life" but their actions are "pro-death".

They love their guns. Their guns compensate for a feeling of inferiority, for personal inadequacies and take on the form of a god. They claim they love god but given a choice between their gun and their god they would go with the gun.

It is a cult mentality for which there is no known cure.

[get the red out]

28. It tears my soul

Every time I see him on TV and hear him speak. If these gun fanatics can see Mr. Martinez and still only care about their GUNS GUNS GUNS; they are psychopaths.

[Travis_0004]

84. By the same logic, should I give up drinking because of deaths from DUI

I like a beer every now and then. Statistically 28 people are going to be killed today due to DUI's.

If we want to save lives, banning booze would save more lives than banning guns, so why don't we start there?

[Hekate]

32. God bless and God speed, sir

[Logical]

35. I predict nothing will change!!! nt

[jmondine]

46. But the other side has Joe the Plumber

I'm sure his "Your dead kids" comment will generate lots of sympathy, right?

[villager]

52. It's always been sickening how the fetishists, even here, claim empathy for victims "politicizes"

...the latest senseless slaughter, all while they are busy -- before the blood even cools on the sidewalk-- posting their various tortured legal arguments for the ongoing proliferation of war weapons on our streets...

[BeyondGeography]

54. I love the guy

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

This country needs to be screamed at sometimes. His feelings for his son, his only child, are pure and his anger is righteous. His comments about the unredeemed suffering of Sandy Hook have been heartfelt. I don't know what will come of it, but I love him.

[Helen Borg]

57. As usual...

All it takes is one very determined person to change everything. The vast majority of people want this kind of nonsense to end. They just need a catalyst. It could be this parent, I don't know.

[dballance]

58. I think the NRA is quite frightened by the history of MADD. They Should be.

MADD, or "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" had a profound effect on the laws in this country with regard to driving while intoxicated.

It's very difficult to slam a grieving parent whose child has been killed by indiscretion on the part of another person and when that indiscretion is unequivocally supported by a lobby like the NRA.

[Duckhunter935]

78. and still tens of thousands die every year

by that very thing and nobody here says a thing.

[blueridge3210]

79. The difference is that the approach to reduce drunk driving

was targeted towards those who drove while incapacitated. It did not attempt to demonize those who drank responsibly or drove fast cars responsibly. The current approach to gun control, if applied to the DUI issue, would be to attempt to regulate mag wheels, ragtops and alcohol concentration in beverages instead of focusing on the bad actors who operate motor vehicles while intoxicated.

[klook]

92. Gun registration & background checks are hardly analogous

to regulation of the ancillary issues you list.

[blueridge3210]

93. No, but attempting to address flash suppressors, magazine capacity, barrel shrouds

bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc. certainly are.

[klook]

95. Agreed - for the most part.

Easy access to high-capacity magazines makes it a lot easier to shoot a bunch of people in a short amount of time. So I'm happy to restrict purchases of those.

Back to the drunk driving analogy, though -- although drunk drivers do occasionally injure and kill people by driving into buildings or into crowds of pedestrians, they're mostly restricted to roads and streets. Malevolent shooters are a lot more mobile. So the scenarios in which they can inflict mayhem are more varied and harder to control. Therefore regulation of weapons and restrictions on their use require a different approach.

On a broader level, I think we all need to take a look at societies where firearm violence is less prevalent and determine how we can be more like them. Allowing everybody to be armed all the time with all the weaponry they want is not the answer. Neither is pretending that we can confiscate every weapon and create a violence-free utopia. I am interested in learning more about real solutions.

[blueridge3210]

96. Real solutions should be the goal.

Most progress was made with the DUI issue by changing the culture regarding impaired driving. My main point was that it was recognized that the problem was not with the law-abiding people regardless of alcohol consumption or type of vehicle they drove. Similarly, more progress can be made regarding firearm violence without attacking law abiding gun owners or trying to ban weapons based on cosmetic features. As 99+% of the lawful gun owners are not causing problems the issue clearly is who has the guns, not which guns are owned. On a side note, these open-carry activists are causing more problems than they are solving; absent a major cultural change, open carry of long guns in non-rural settings is never going to be regarded as normal.

[aikoaiko]

98. You're missing the big difference.

MADD went after drunk driving and not drinking and not driving. There were proponents of interceding when someone was about to do both. That was the indiscretion. Not drinking, per se, and not driving, per se. If they did they would be easy to dismiss.

Likewise, gun control advocates are easy to dismiss or fight when they go after lawful gun ownership.

The NRA does not support criminal activities with guns.

[jollyreaper2112]

59. nothing will come of it

I thought we might have had enough emotional backing after Sandy Hook but the NRA and GOP flunkies shut that shit down. We're not getting change.

[Jefferson23]

61. I hope that is true, his words hit me, they were gut wrenching. Horrific club he now belongs too.

K&R

[sellitman]

63. Nothing will come of it.

Until we take $$ out of politics it will ALWAYS rule. Unfortunately we not only haven't done that the Supreme Court has made it worse.

Gun nuts control everything.

I see no way its going to change. Once Newtown came and went I pretty much resigned myself to the cold facts that mass gun murders are acceptable.

[CincyDem]

70. It's about the "tipping point".

I hope his loss can become the catalytic event the pushes us over the tipping point toward sanity on the "right to life". And I use that term purposeful...why is it that we're more concerned with the right to life of an unborn but we seem to have to commitment to a right to life for Christopher. At what point that the right to carry a gun trump the right to life.

Instead of sitting on the couch for the Dateline interview and trying to stoic - his raw emotion is so powerful.

Please please let this be the tipping point.

[Cha]

75. I got one freaking word for those who claim "politics disrepects victims"

Benghazi.

And, I was thinking the same thing from reading Richard Martinez' heartbreaking words.. the murdering nra has met their match

Thank you, Don

[Mz Pip]

81. Nothing will change.

All the postcards in the world won't matter. NRA enablers need to be voted out of office. Good luck with that.

[LeftFieldMom]

86. Richard Martinez is making a difference

As those that lost loved ones and family members in Aurora, Sandy Hook and every other shooting that has rendered ordinary families filled with bone crushing grief and unabated anger when their voice for change is ignored.

The tide is slowly turning. These voices of anguish are weighing upon the general populous of this country. I think there is a growing fear that anyone's family can be torn apart in a heartbeat. Those that have been impacted like Richard Martinez and his family and countless other families are echoing in a way that builds a powerful if not terrifying narrative that no one is safe.

It may not happen with Martinez's passionate plea, but we can believe his voice along with so many others will move the consensus to change the gun culture we live in now.

[perdita9]

90. The NRA can't handle defense

They really can't. That's why they pushed for so long the idea that "this isn't the time to talk about gun control" every time there was a mass murder.

Well, that's to groups like Moms Demand Action, those days are over. Now, people speak out. Now, people demand solutions.

Soon, the NRA is going to be dealing with the blood they've helped to spill.