Email List
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lock and Load and Lost in Tucson Today: What's the Matter with My Arizona?
TUCSON, Arizona--I was 8-years-old in Tucson when I first had a firearm pressed into my hands at a summer camp, and I locked and loaded and fired.
I thought about that strange first gun experience when I heard the initial confusing news reports of the shooting of US Rep. Gabby Giffords and 17 other Arizonans at a Safeway supermarket on the northwest side of town I have frequented often. I immediately headed for the university hospital.
On the drive over, I was reminded by a Tucson friend that it has been less than a year since Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer made her state one of three in the nation to allow citizens to possess concealed weapons without a permit for those over the age of 21.
The alleged Tucson shooter is 22. According to the New York Times, "a witness to the shootings and a former emergency room doctor who now works at a hospice. 'I think it was a semiautomatic, and he must have got off 20 rounds.'"
A nine-year-old bystander has been listed among six confirmed dead; 12 others, including the beloved Rep. Giffords, are in critical condition.
One of the dead is federal Judge John Roll, who had received death threats over an immigrant rights case.
I don't believe this tragedy should be reduced to a debate over the disturbed shooter's motives.
But how on earth can we even have a discussion on decent gun control laws when guns and the gun lobby are woven into the fabric of life for those of us who grew up in Arizona?
I cut my political teeth as a 17-year-old intern with legendary Arizona US Rep. Mo Udall, who defied liberal Democrats with his opposition to gun control. Udall told a Harvard crowd during his presidential campaign 1976: "I don't claim total courage; I don't claim total wisdom."
In my 40-year relationship with this state, I have never witnessed such overt hatred on the level that has been spewed by politicians and talking heads over the past year or so. Earlier this spring, many of us warned of a tipping point of violence in Arizona--and around the nation.
When I first opened the New York Times this morning, I read about Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne's obsessive and near witch-hunt of the Tucson Unified School District's Ethnic Studies Program.
What's the matter with my Arizona, where I grew up as a redneck transplant from the southern Illinois in 1970s, and have continued to visit my family?
"As I write," says long-time author and social critic Gregory McNamee in Tucson, "it is not clear whether Representative Gabrielle Giffords has been killed or has survived being shot, along with at least a dozen and perhaps as many as twenty other victims." McNamee adds:
"What is clear to me, at this chaotic moment, is that no one should be surprised by this turn of events. The bullets that were fired in Tucson this morning are the logical extension of every bit of partisan hatred that came spewing out during the last election, in which Gabrielle Giffords---a centrist, representing well and faithfully a centrist district---was vilified and demonized as a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a job-killer, a traitor, and more.Anyone who uttered such words or paid for them to be uttered has his or her name etched on those bullets.
With what we have seen today, the rest of us must declare that we will tolerate no more lies, no more hatred, no more violence---and that never again will we spend a single dollar on the wares sold by those who perpetrate them.
If not now, when?"
Now in Arizona--and the nation--do we have the courage and wisdom to deal with our gun laws? To stop the hatred from finding its all-too-easy expression through the barrel of the gun?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




90 Comments so far
Show AllI find it interesting that so many people "defend" the 2nd Amendment with such vigor like was the most important part ofthe Constitution which says alot. Tony
I did not single you out and make a point of not doing so and it is not just on this thread but can be seen here on CD as well as other sites. Maybe I'm just prejudiced but any kind of weapon is a no-no for me. there is nothing material on this planet worth my killing someone for and death is just another door. The Constitution is not just the Bill of Rights but also has in there "Life, Liberty, nd the Pursuit of Happiness" which is difficult to do with everybody running around with a gun. Law enforcement was supposed to be the buffer and protector of the people but even that has been perverted. Tony
After reading Chris Hedges book "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning", I have to respect people that choose non-violence as a social force for change. While myself and Hedges are not pacifists, I think violence is incredibly destructive to the soul.
I respect your decision to not have a weapon, but I also don't discount the need for self-defense in certain situations.
Law enforcement was never about protection of the people by the way, it was about protecting Capital and Capitalism from the people. The history of law enforcement started by breaking strikes and killing workers on behalf of corporations.
"The history of law enforcement started by breaking strikes and killing workers on behalf of corporations."
Do, please, inform yourself by reading this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_criminal_justice
Interesting article. But I was referring to the U.S. And this quote, from your link, supports what I was saying:
"In 1905, the Pennsylvania State Police became the first state police agency established in the United States, as recommended by Theodore Roosevelt's Anthracite Strike Commission and Governor Samuel Pennypacker."
Note the phrase "Strike Commission". This occurred after years of class warfare waged by corporations and police. Also, I am referring to the funding, direction and organization of state police, on behalf of corporations, against workers.
From this article, two quotes stand out:
CLASS WARFARE FROM ABOVE, 1865-1920
http://www.allshookdown.com/newhistory/CH08.htm
"At this time police in northern and southern cities began their long record of violence against striking workers. In the generation after the Civil War, employers demanded and received governmental permission and encouragement to use deadly violence to put down labor protests. Frequently, this involved the right of employers to use the police power of states against their striking workers. In some cases, companies hired private police who were armed and could make arrests. In other cases, privately-employed convicts under armed guard were housed on company property."
and
"Cavalry were provided by armed formations such as the Pennsylvania State Police who drove their horses directly into groups of unionists who were meeting to discuss union matters. These police also attacked leaders among the working people with clubs and weapons. It was not at all unusual for police to fire into crowds of strikers and leave many dead or wounded. Infantry forces were provided by State Police, sheriff's deputies, militias, National Guard, and volunteers recruited from among local businessmen, corporation staff employees, university students, and other middle-class persons. Their principal goal was to overwhelm the enemy, i.e., the striking working people."
Oppression by the owner--feudal or capitalist/statist--has existed for several millenia in differnt guises. That is no different from the present, as you call it, "age [of] overt fascism." The relative Liberty and Freedom many of us enjoy today is due to our somewhat hidden energy slaves that allow us to converse via computer instead of working a field or similar manual endeavor to make one's way.
What we fail to have is a functional culture and thus we have a dysfunctional society. This discussion is on today's Arnold essay regarding Wikileaks.
1877, the year of the Great Strike. There's a very good book about it. Functional societies are self-policing due to their healthy cultures. Police are the creation of a dysfunctional society destabilized from within by Envy and Greed because the culture was no longer healthy enough to restrain those forces of Human Nature--those that gain Power utilize police to keep those at bay demanding a return to the equitible balance existing before/that ought to exist. Resource depletion mandates and will enforce without mercy a change in our currently dysfunctional culture. And climate chaos will provide further discipline. If we can restigmatize Greed and Envy, relegate them to taboo status, then we'll have an opportunity to form a functional society requiring very few regulators.
Dysfunctional society, co-dependent a mental illness. At some point dysfunctional may evolve into a malfunctional society.
Maybe feudal rents?
USA? Native American Indian Police, Uncle Tomahawks.
Federal Marshalls and Brinks Dectectives circa 1850's cattle Baron resistance.
Thats why autos are considered deadly weapons, especially when operated by a drunk.
"Life, Liberty, [a]nd the Pursuit of Happiness"
This resides in the Declaration of Independence. I guess that's one reason why the 1787 constitution was read aloud in congress.
What I find interesting is all the people here who openly support Arizona's concealed firearms carry laws. I have nothing against responsible gun ownership, and I have nothing against licensed concealed carry laws. What I have issues with is the belief that if we let each and every person carry a concealed weapon that we won't have gun violence.
I know that there are people who carry guns, whether legally or not, and that they are out in public far more than we think. What I don't want is to live in a society that thinks nothing of half or more of the people sitting in a movie theater having firearms on their person. Or going into a crowded shopping mall during the holiday season and wondering how many are "packing heat".
To think that arguing for the right to openly carry firearms at public political gatherings like the teabagger's did all during the last presidential campaign doesn't play into the inevitable gun violence is just not thinking properly.
Of all the industrialized nations of the world, we have the highest gun violence rate by far. There are many factors that go into this, but one of them, a very uncomfortable one for those who argue for the right to openly carry, is the all too easy access to a firearm.
We could institute a few simple common sense gun laws that would help bring some sanity back to the issue. One of them would be if we actually held gun owners responsible for the carnage that their firearms actually cause. I know it wouldn't have helped in this particular case, but all too often those who cause such damage with firarms get them from "law abiding gun owners". Maybe a simple start to defuse this whole gun debate would be to require all firearms sales to go through a licensed gun dealer who conducts the requisite criminal background check - no more private sales.
Something else we can do is put pressure on private businesses and entities to ban guns on their premises. The Second Amendment says that the GOVERNMENT can not make any laws barring the right to carry - it says nothing about a shopping mall from putting in their own ban on having guns on the premises. For those who oppose guns in public, withhold your business from those businesses or organizations that allow guns on their premises.
And for those here who support Arizona's carry laws, would you vocally support the janitorial or maintenance staff at your child's elementary school carrying the type of weapon this shooter used?
"The Second Amendment says that the GOVERNMENT can not make any laws barring the right to carry - it says nothing about a shopping mall from putting in their own ban on having guns on the premises."
I live in the city and spend little of my time on the private property of shopping malls, so your proposal won't help me much.
Actually, with its clear reference to "well regulated militias" the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted again and again as NOT barring commonsense laws regulating the ownership and use of guns.