Category Archives: Uncategorized

Misused Words and Terms

Leave a reply

I was driving my truck home from work last week, listening to National Public Radio, and a story came on about the recent Kansas shooting. It’s absolutely tragic and coming in the wake of the its alleged perpetrator being served a protection order over domestic violence, says a lot about American male entitlement, but something else stuck out at me. Aside from even moderately socially conscious broadcasters like NPR often having a hard time breaking through issues regarding patriarchy, it’s also difficult for them to talk comprehensively about guns.

IMG_3094Left to right: .45ACP, 9mm Lugar, .22LR

A commentator in this case referred to the individual, who murdered three others, being armed with a rifle and “High Caliber handgun.” That sounded rather sensational, so upon getting home, I fired up the internet and checked. Apparently this pistol in question was a .40 Glock. In other words, an entirely average caliber, known for being especially popular among police departments. Here’s the thing. Calling something high caliber is a relative term. Caliber refers only to bullet diameter and can easily mislead. For instance, a .22 cartridge is typically used only for target shooting or small game, yet many military rifles are chambered in the comparatively robust .223. Though only imperceptibly wider, the latter cartridge is longer, containing a bigger powder charge. Or look at .38 Special and .357 Magnum. Same diameter, but a .357 is significantly more powerful. Yet, none of these could be reasonably called high caliber.

To elaborate, in the US, .40 is an extremely common caliber, as are .45, 9mm, and .38 Special. Anything much smaller would be unusual among handguns designed for self defense. An example: I stand 5’9” high. That makes me fairly average among American men, but when I travel in central or northern Europe, most everyone towers over me. The situation becomes reversed when spending time in Latin America. Therefore, when I am carrying my 9mm in the US, I am an average sized individual with an average sized gun. In Nicaragua, however, people just as correctly call me tall. Context remains everything.

Another term the media likes to throw around is “High Powered.” To accurately call a gun high powered, it should be something more than typical, like the famed .50 Desert Eagle pistol, or Barrett long range .416 rifle. Still misleading. I feel like my .50 black powder rifle is pretty high powered, yet it requires a long time to load and never tops the lists of dangerous firearms that should be banned. There’s no international standard with any of this. Just another term useful for raising people’s blood pressure instead of facilitating comprehension.

IMG_3099A six-shooter .38 Special S&W revolver. At one time, High Capacity

Then take “High Capacity.” The gun used in Kansas likely used a standard fifteen round magazine. Over the last thirty-plus years, that number has become increasingly common, to the point where one might call a classic 1911 style .45 pistol with its seven round magazine, Low Capacity. Back in the late 19th century, a rifle like my K98 Mauser’s five bolt-action shots was considered high capacity, but after a few decades, it became overshadowed by newcomers like the AK-47’s thirty rounds magazine. Terminology must adjust with technology over time or looses all meaning.

IMG_3101K98 Mauser carbine with maximum capacity clip. Also once High Capacity

There’s not necessarily anything wrong with words like high caliber, high power or high capacity. The problem lies in how such terms are manipulated, out of ignorance and to inspire fear. Just as the right wing media twists inaccurate information about various issues, keeping listeners frightened into supporting the status quo, supposedly more responsible news outlets do the same thing in furtherance of their own agendas. It’s important to stay aware. The way words are used can set minds free, or just as easily hobble them.

Bloomberg’s Class Warfare

6 Replies

images

I recently received an e.mail from the billionaire Wall Street financier, and former New York city mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Well, it was actually his pet project, Everytown for Gun Safety, a national gun control organization. As a socialist, I’m highly skeptical of most any agenda pushed by front groups for the ultra-wealthy, (Bloomberg being only one of many billionaires on their advisory board) and this was no exception. At any rate, their communication was promoting a new video by the comedian Rachel Dratch. Here is her written introduction:

Unknown

I can think of a lot of things that don’t go well with drinking alcohol: Calling your ex. Performing heart surgery. Knitting. A loaded firearm. We can all agree that mixing that stuff with alcohol makes for a pretty dangerous cocktail. That’s why I was shocked to learn that you can legally carry a loaded gun in places that serve alcohol in 49 out of 50 states. Who thought this was a good idea?! And it’s just one of the crazy gun laws the NRA has fought for in statehouses across the country. The good news is, there’s something people like you and me can do about it: Check out the video I made about “What Could Go Wrong?” when guns and alcohol mix. Then, sign up to get involved to stop the gun lobby from pushing their extreme laws in your community. I spent my comedy career on Saturday Night Live doing some pretty ridiculous stuff. But “let’s allow guns in bars” is the kind of idea that’s too ridiculous to make up. And it’s being pushed by the same extremists who want guns in mental institutions, day care centers, and in the hands of felons and domestic abusers. It’s going to take people like you and me — sane, reasonable people — standing up to these reckless laws in our neighborhoods, cities, and states, if we want to keep our families safe.

Besides irresponsibly asserting that anyone actually desires arming mental patients or violent abusers, Dratch handily distorts consuming alcohol with a far from universal end result: murderous-drunkenness. It’s a bizarre oversimplification to imagine having casual drinks turns average people into staggering menaces who can’t be trusted with knitting needles or would shoot up a bar Wild West style given the opportunity. Nobody would survive a happy hour if that were true. Also, the worst likely scenario involving knitting and drinking is a tacky scarf. People don’t down several beers and then immediately jab craft tools into their eyeballs. Given that people are far more likely to drink themselves to death than be fatally shot, it might seem alcohol is the more relevant social problem.

The set up Dratch implies, is that guns will turn bars into homicide scenes over minor disagreements. Subtract the guns, no more problem. However, as she admits, most states allow properly licensed persons to legally carry concealed firearm in such establishments already. Therefore, her fear isn’t some hypothetical worry. It’s something we can examine the facts on.

Bureau of Justice statistics conveniently arrange criminal acts, so that a breakdown can be viewed covering violent incidents within restaurants, bars and nightclubs. Interestingly, the yearly average for 2004-08 was 4.4% of total. About the same as visiting a neighbors residence or the sidewalk in front of your own. However, far less than inside your home (17.6%) and in school or on school property (13%). These numbers include all violence, not just involving guns. In other words, despite bars potentially containing alcohol and firearms, they are still much safer than individual residences or schools. The school point is significant, because while homes often pair both alcohol and guns, schools should be relatively spared from drinking and are often considered gun-free zones. In other words, social violence  remains foremost a social issue– not a gun, knife or tools-of-violence issue. This needs to be stressed, because gun control arguments easily play into simplified causation scenarios, obscuring complex societal problems.

Unknown-1

The video heavily reinforces gun-owner stereotypes. Dratch cheerfully hams it up, portraying a harried suburban mother who takes her family out to a restaurant. There, her children are horrified, seeing rifles propped against the bar and casually resting near white men wearing baseball-caps and clean flanels. Climax arrives when a shotgun is accidentally knocked over, though it fails to discharge. Curiously, the video doesn’t even address Dratch’s stated concern: that concealed weapons make bars violent, instead humorously suggesting unconcealed long guns will cause accidents. There are no statistics available regarding accidental firearm deaths in bars, but I suspect it is greatly infrequent.

Unknown-2

It’s understandable some people fear guns in places that serve alcohol. Of course, people do get drunk and make poor life choices. Indeed, the father of a dear friend of mine was shot and paralyzed years ago, following a bar altercation. As for myself, I’ve carried a gun hundreds of times in divebars, nightclubs or upscale lounges. In those circumstances, I elect against drinking excessively. Everyone that I know who carries, exercises similar judgment. The low rate of bar violence, compared to other locations, implies this is common restraint.

But why carry in a bar if they’re so safe? Well, fatality statistics don’t tell the whole story. I remember one of the Portland Pink Pistols telling me years ago, about encountering several men savagely beating another outside a gay club. Simply the sight of his gun was enough to halt the assault. Another good friend of mine was nearly stabbed to death by racial skinheads while walking home from a Portland bar. Also, people employed in the service industry tend to work odd hours and carry cash. Circumstances like that attract predators who might be further encouraged if people leaving bars were known as vulnerable targets.

Everytown for Gun Safety is an organization representing interests of the notorious wealthiest 1%. People who don’t work long hours earning tips or catch the last bus home at dark transit stops. Social elites dwelling in gated communities with private security, who know 911 would always respond in emergencies. Most Americans don’t possess that assurance and for some, a concealed pistol might be the worst case ticket home to their families. A percentage are even baseball-cap-wearing white men, but that is hardly universal. Indeed, people from every background rely on guns for protection. I know, because many share it with me, often laughing that because of stereotypes, they would never tell friends, family or co-workers. American’s don’t need rich men like Bloomberg proclaiming simplified solutions for very real problems. Reducing the number of places marginalized populations can exercise self defense is simply regressive class warfare.

A Name for an AK

1 Reply

IMG_2738Several years ago, my friend Ann encouraged me to order an AK-47 parts kit. She had been building them in her garage for some time, in fact, I’d written an article about the process for my old gun politics ‘zine AGCR. Soon enough it showed up. A decommissioned Romanian rifle with the stamped receiver cut in sections. It reeked of cosmoline. A capital letter G stood out boldly, engraved on the rear sight block.

For me, that was a bonus. It stood for Garda, a special section of the Romanian military created as a citizens militia. Nicolae Ceauşescu, the longtime dictator, originally founded it in response to Soviet Russian crackdowns on freedom movements throughout Eastern Bloc countries during the late ‘60s. This put Romania in an uncomfortable position, wholeheartedly accepted by neither side during the late Cold War. The Garda persisted, conscripted mostly among young people and issued AK-47 rifles, ostensibly providing a loyal armed force to maintain civil order in times of crisis.

Over time, Romania became an increasingly bitter country, wracked with economic troubles and autocratic rule. Then in 1989, as other Communist states folded through relatively peaceful transfers of power, Ceausescu’s regime hung on. The Garda proved reluctant to fire against their own neighbors and significant numbers turned on the government. Weapons intended for entrenching a totalitarian ruling class instead took part in tearing it down. Little wonder I thrilled at holding such a piece of history.

Ann and I pressed out its barrel, then removed the stock and other components, before fabricating a replacement receiver from sheet metal. We installed a new trigger group, pistol style grip and muzzle compensator. After much grinding and welding, it functioned reliably at last. The old Romanian AK had turned into a US legal semi-auto firearm. Around then, Ann informed me that every home built rifle needs a name.

I pondered this. It was early autumn of 2011, and while commercial fishing in the Gulf of Alaska over the summer, repercussions after the Arab Spring democratic uprisings played out over our deck speakers via satellite radio. One by one, repressive governments collapsed, from Libya to Egypt, shaken by a mix of mass demonstrations and in other cases, armed resistance. Just as enormous halibut succumbed under our sharp knives, dictators like Gaddafi and Mubarak fell from power.

Of particular interest was Tunisia, where the unrest began. My shipmate Anissa, came from a Tunisian family, and together we learned how it started, after a street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire to protest unjust treatment by government agents. Just two weeks following his sacrifice, Ben Ali, the national leader for over two decades, was forced into exile.

Inspired by these events, movements against authority spread, eventually to the US just as fishing season ended. Like others in my fleet, I proudly joined the domestic occupation movement, personally waving a Tunisian flag in solidarity with their cause. The choice seemed obvious. I named my immigrant AK-47 Bouazizi.IMG_2648

Recently, I took the final steps toward dedicating it. After years with the name simply painted on a standard wooden stock, I carved a custom one from oak. The traditional ones are quite short, designed for soldiers wearing cold weather gear, so I cut this one almost two inches longer, making it more comfortable to shoulder. On one side, I engraved the name in Arabic letters, and on the other, using Old German script. Then across the top, I added Tunisia’s crescent and star. With metal shavings and glue, I inlaid the patterns, then sanded everything flush once it dried, creating a nice faded effect. A couple layers of stain and lacquer later, I screwed it solidly in place. Complete at last.IMG_2646

My rifle memorializes historic stands against tyranny and injustice across continents, cultures– and the power of common people to throw off oppressors. It will be many years before the true course of Romanian and Tunisian destinies play out, but brave people who took incredible chances to forge it for themselves should never be forgotten. I am honored to commemorate one of them. Mohamed Bouazizi didn’t die in vain.

Cascadia and the NRA

6 Replies

IMG_2865One of the side benefits to joining the NRA (see my embarrassed confession in a previous weblog post) was the offer of a free duffle bag. Who doesn’t need a way to carry more stuff around? At any rate, it showed up the other day, a cute mini-duffel that looks like it might make a decent range bag or handle enough gear for an overnight. The only glaring problem was its logo. This leftist certainly wasn’t going to be caught with N-R-A in giant white letters on his luggage! The only question was, which patch to sew over it?

I’d recently gotten some Cascadia liberation patches from cascadianow.org and selected one for cover up duty. It wasn’t hard to choose. I used the rainbow gay pride version of the classic tri-color, superimposed with a Douglas fir tree. One could hardly imagine a better counter against socially regressive messages from the NRA. However, it’s not as oppositional as some suppose.

IMG_2866A major intellectual thinker behind the modern Cascadian successionist movement was the writer Ernest Callenbach (1929-2012). In 1975, this Berkely professor published a book called Ecotopia, concerning his vision for the Pacific Northwest breaking away from the US and forming an independent nation. As the title suggests, this new country focused on bringing ecological balance back to the bio-region, with a great deal of economic equality and various other progressive values as well.

However, Callenbach didn’t buy into, what at the time, was a relatively new crusade among liberals, that of gun control. In his imagined society, the military was largely replaced by militia units and citizens were expected to form the bulk of self defense forces. Firearms abounded, but as with the examples of Switzerland, Israel and Canada, greater social equality translated into low interpersonal violence, despite their availability.

Ecotopia

Several years ago, I corresponded with Callenbach in the course of a book review for my old ‘zine AGCR, and questioned him on that front. He explained that he came from rural Pennsylvania and grew up in countryside where everyone had firearms and there was little crime, so for him, it never made sense to blame guns, and carried that idea into his writing.

In the end, I thank the NRA for their bag, but am proud it now represents a much more noble ideal. That the citizens of Cascadia should be free to choose their own destiny, whether it remains part of the greater US or not, with equality and respect for all. Armed or unarmed. Gay or straight. Douglas fir or Pacific red cedar.

Country,Hip-Hop and the NRA Lifestyle

1 Reply

One feature of the NRA’s regular magazine, America’s First Freedom, is a column called “NRA Country.” It highlights contemporary country music artists who adhere to the so-called, “NRA lifestyle.” No, I didn’t know what that means either. Fortunately, they provide a definition on their internet page. It more or less boils down to being patriotic, respecting the military and, naturally, supporting the 2nd Amendment, while showing background photos of exclusively White people waving flags or engaging in sporting activities. In other words, it portrayed a carefully cherrypicked version of America.

This is no accident. A curious aspects of the NRA is how doggedly it reinforces its own stereotypes. That causes problem for everyone who takes the right to be armed seriously. A hazard often encountered defending gun rights is how enmeshed the 2nd Amendment has become with regressive social politics. Of course, the NRA bears major guilt for this because of their strict party line Republican support and non-firearm related conservative causes.

You might think, when linking themselves to a subject like modern musical acts, the NRA might relax a little bit, but no. Only country music. Well, why not tweak perceptions and include other styles? There are Americans musicians from rockabilly to electronic noise who enjoy shooting. Why not, say, hip-hop?

An obvious reason is that firearms are lyrical staples among gangsta rappers, which in some people’s minds IS hip-hop, and the NRA would dislike association with a sub-group known for celebrating gun use while drug dealing or amidst gang warfare. However, is country music really much better? The artists they feature may be clean cut, but as a genre, country isn’t all ballads about hound dogs and pickup trucks.

images

(above) Move along, just karaoke murder music, folks

Take two prominent examples. Even a mainstream singer like Dwight Yoakum wrote a song called “Buenas Noches from a Lonely Room” which approvingly describes stalking an unfaithful lover and shooting her in the head. Then there’s Garth Brooks, whose upbeat song “Papa Loved Mama” tells the story of a truck driver who murders his wife for cheating on him. In NRA country, is it morally worse to kill a person you love or just someone who owes you drug money?

IMG_2793

As far as I can tell, the NRA doesn’t necessarily pick artists who write songs about guns, only those whose image appears consistent with the “NRA lifestyle.” That shouldn’t disqualify rappers. (1) Take, for instance, the Mississippi artist David Banner, who previously put on shows for US troops, (Respecting the Military, CHECK), testified before Congress about controversial subjects in hip-hop music, (Patriotism, CHECK) and is also a gun owner. (2A CHECK!!!)

Banner has been quoted, saying “…I love guns . . . because I don’t plan on doing anything but protecting myself with my gun. My thing is that I don’t want anybody to be able to tell me that I can’t protect myself.” (2) Now, Banner isn’t seeking out endorsements from the US firearms establishment, but there have been other rappers who did.

Back in 1995, a crew called Smif-N-Wessun released their first fill length record to warm reviews and, soon enough, a cease-and-desist letter from the lawyers of firearms manufacturer, Smith and Wesson. Interviewed ten years later, Tekomin Williams, from the group, still sounded bitter.

images-1

“That just let you know, even in this day and time, or that day and time, hip-hop’s still not appreciated in some places. . . If anything, they should have supported us, as many guns as they got floatin’ in the hood or they sellin’ to us. If anything, they should have been our number one sponsor. You know what that could have done for their sales?”

Perhaps a spotlight from the NRA’s magazine might have been just the thing to smooth over their legal dispute. However, we’ll never know, as long as the NRA continues to portray itself as an institution supporting only right wing politics and White music.

 

  1. Colt Ford, a country singer/rapper who the NRA has, in fact, featured, doesn’t count.
  2. Rodrigo Boscunan and Christian Pearce. Enter the Babylon System: Unpacking Gun Culture from Samuel Colt to 50 Cent. Random House Canada, 2007. p. 141.
  3. Ibid. 33.

Cats and Gun Safety: An Interview

1 Reply

IMG_2532As someone who began writing about gun politics in the ‘zine community over ten years ago, I was always curious if anyone else might eventually take a similar path. Despite the great quantity of political topics covered by ‘zinesters, it was rare to find more than a passing mention of firearms in any context, pro or con. Then almost three years ago, I came across a thin, glossy pamphlet titled How to Talk to Your Cat About Gun Safety. The cover was reminiscent of AGCR #4 (The Cute Issue) from 2009, and I bought it immediately.

784288-R1-029-13_014An outtake from the cover shoot session, with Other Cat (RIP 1/5/16)
and a Springfield X D subcompact 9mm

This proved to be a delightful satiric work, published by the “American Association of Patriots” and packed with pun-laced advice for armed cat owners. Beside helpful tips on safety, it also provided insight into the types of enemies felines might confront, from houseold intruders, to United Nations personnel and troublesome ghosts.

784288-R1-017-7_008This outtake featuring Mortgage Cat and X D

I soon passed it on to another person who appreciated both firearms and felines, but recently a friend gave me a new copy. My attention regained, I decided to discover more about the enigmatic AAP. After much work convincing them my weblog has no connection with the Communist Party or ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), a representative finally agreed to answer some questions:

What’s your publishing background? Was Cat Safety a first? Do you have other plans ?

The How to Talk to Your Cat… guides are currently a collaboration between myself and my grandfather Josiah, the founder of the American Association of Patriots. How to Talk to your Cat About Gun Safety was the first one I worked on with him, but he has been writing and publishing since his first brochure in 1974, Protecting Your Cats From the Viet-Cong Menace.

There are three publications currently in print: How to Talk to Your Cat about Gun Safety, Evolution, and Abstinence. We are also excited to announce that this fall, the patriots at Random House, the same company that publishes Bill O’Reilly’s books, will be publishing a full-length compilation of How to Talk to Your Cat… guides, including never before seen topics like Satanism and Post-Apocalyptic Survival.

Do the cats pictured belong to AAP members?

The two cats pictured in How to Talk to Your Cat Evolution are our own, and the one on the cover of Abstinence belongs to a close friend, who happily to let us borrow their feline for promoting such a noble cause. The other cats are all from the internet.

What is the AAP political stance regarding firearms?

The debate over the right to bear arms is not just a philosophical argument – in this era of constant government overreach by Barack Hussein Nobama, a well-armed citizenry is essential to keeping our government from sliding further into tyranny. Today it might be the freedom to own guns, but tomorrow it could be something far worse, like the freedom to own cats! George Washington understood this, Abraham Lincoln understood it, and Ronald Reagan understood it. America is the greatest country in the world, and it is essential that citizens be allowed to own guns without regulation in order to protect themselves from the government.

Thanks for your time. Good luck with those other projects!

O2A & the NRA

Leave a reply

IMG_2494

Let me get right to the point. I never thought this day would come, but last month I joined the NRA. It’s something I’ve proudly refused to do for years, so my reversal deserves an explanation. Let’s take a deep breath together, this is hard for me too.

You see, opposing the NRA has been my most effective tool in a over decade of pro-2nd Amendment activism, from publishing my old ‘zine American Gun Culture Report, to conducting firearm training among communities not comfortable with mainstream US gun politics. I remember one incident in particular, while tabling for AGCR at an anti-war rally. A middle-aged woman approached, and after scanning my materials, scowled, asking:
“Is this something to do with the NRA?”
I replied: “Absolutely not!”
At this, the woman grinned and proved very receptive, engaging in friendly conversation, despite our differences.

I can’t even count the number of times disowning association with the NRA created an immediate icebreaker, paving ways for calm discussion among groups traditionally considered hostile to pro-gun politics. Why would I want to join a group that, by it’s association with regressive right-wing politics, has sorely tainted the basic human right of self defense?IMG_2498

It really wasn’t their free duffle bag with membership.

The thing is, I’d like to provide a more comprehensive critique of the NRA, especially as dialogue over American gun politics heats up during this election cycle. It’s a lot easier to do if they’re sending a regular magazine to my house. However, I wanted to make sure the NRA understood I wasn’t a typical subscriber, so I wrote OBAMA VOTER on my check in block letters.

If it makes anyone feel better, the same day I renewed both my ACLU and Amnesty International memberships, besides signing up for e-mail updates from the Violence Policy Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. As things get interesting, I want to have all perspectives available. IMG_2499

Violence Policy Center and .50 cal

Leave a reply

In the past, this weblog has often provided a critique of right-wing gun culture, but it’s important that gun control groups receive examination too. We need to be smart about it though. While 2nd Amendment supporters often cynically dismiss their opposition as “gun grabbers” with contempt for freedom and liberty, the reality is much more nuanced.

 

That acknowledged, it’s sometimes amazing to see how gun control organizations twist facts to make it fit their designs. For instance, I recently spent time scrutinizing the Violence Policy Center’s webside, and was struck by massively skewed information regarding .50 caliber long range rifles. It’s an easy target for them to criticize. After all, such large firearms appear particularly intimidating, have little hunting application and are unsuitable for use in urban areas during peacetime.

Unknown

A .50 cal. rifle. The most terrifying looking gun to actually hurt so few.

The VPC vividly speculates about their dramatic potential to cause mayhem, everything from shooting down helicopters to destroying airports and other sensitive infrastructure. In their scenarios, terrorists and mass murderers could hardly want a more effective weapon of mass killing. The website quotes an NRA official claiming “that .50 calibers have not been used in crimes” and then drops a list of forty-six instances between 1989 and 2013 to disprove his statement.

It looks quite sensational, but lets examine more closely. Presumably, the NRA’s statement was intended to mean, ‘.50 cal. rifles are not used in murders.’ However, if that was their criteria, VPC’s list would shrink to just one or two documented examples in the US. Talk about deflating. To pad it out, they use techniques that would not be out of place among climate change deniers or tobacco industry scientists.

The foremost is guilt by association. Most of their examples involve people who were arrested, and afterward, officers happened to find a completely legal rifle in their dwelling. It’s incredible to suggest that, per several cases, marijuana growers and dealers should make a role of individuals who allegedly used these firearms in violent crimes. One might as well claim scooters are criminally dangerous, and then instead of listing fatality statistics, cite pot smokers with Vespas simply parked in their driveway as evidence.

Another tactic is sheer speculation. The VPC would like to number all four ATF agents killed during the notorious 1993 Waco siege as .50 cal. victims, since the defenders apparently possessed some of these rifles. However, I have found no evidence to suggest those were the guilty weapons, any more than the rest of the Branch Davidian’s arsenal, which included illegal machine guns.

Next, the VPC roved further afield. They count three Mexicans murdered during the narco-cartel civil war in recent years, as well as a 2006 attempt by Columbian FARC rebels to buy .50 cal. rifles and helicopters from the US, but why stop there? Large caliber firearms are used by revolutionaries globally, so shouldn’t African Boko Haram and Afghan Taliban victims be included? Presumably, when killings cross the line from individual acts to criminal syndicates or paramilitaries, public opinion ceases imagining they could be seriously hampered by gun controls. Of course, arms that fire the Soviet large bore equivalent of 12.7mm are popular among insurgent groups the world over and .50 cal. rifles are only one of many such weapons available. The inclusion of just Mexico and Columbia is a puzzling way to enlarge the list.

In short, out of all Americans killed by guns in the last 24 years, virtually none can be attributed to .50 cal. rifles, hardly making them the threat VPC hyperbole implies. In a social debate that can become so emotional, distorting facts only serve to make it more difficult finding common ground and reaching actual solutions to violence.

Bernie Sanders and Gun Control

3 Replies

I’ve never put much stock in presidential elections. As a socialist, the idea of choosing between different capitalist factions always seemed unappealing. While both Democrats and Republicans perpetuate boom-and-bust corporate economic cycles, it’s hard taking solace that one side might generously allow same-sex spousal benefits to the NSA agents conducting mass wiretaps. Historically, I’ve simply voted for whichever candidate suited my ideals best.

That meant Ralph Nader in 1996 and again in 2000. By 2004 I switched over to the Socialist Party favorite Walt Brown, but 2008 presented a dilemma. Barack Obama was clearly a status quo apparatchik, yet the conservative hysteria opposing him demanded pushback. I don’t think I changed, but it seemed perhaps America had. Could a person of color bearing a non-European name be electable? I wanted to take part in the experiment.

Both eyes stayed open though. An introduction I wrote for the Winter 2009 issue of my old ‘zine, American Gun Culture Report concluded: “I offer President Obama a hearty AGCR congratulations; although while the euphoria surrounding his election is undeniably intoxicating, let’s remember Democrats have let us down before and will do so again.” Obama verified this over his two terms by keeping a firm hand on the establishment tiller. Financial institutions remained too massive to fail, while secretive domestic surveillance chugged away unchecked and drones carried out extrajudicial assassinations against US citizens. The middle class continued its long decline as wealthy elements prospered.

So, did I learn any lessons? Will my 2016 vote go to some third party also-ran? Again, I don’t think I’ve changed, but just maybe America has. Bernie Sanders is not a completely radical candidate and already disappoints many leftists, first attracted by his embrace of the term socialism. A closer look explains why. His position on Israeli apartheid remains relatively uncritical, and given the number of votes cast in a lengthy political career, it’s not hard finding other exceptions to the progressive trend.

The gun issue for Sanders was always interesting and will probably become more so. While representing Vermont, a state with lax regulations, he has showed little motivation toward greater gun control. Votes landed on both sides; against the 1993 Brady Bill background checks, for the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, then against holding gun manufacturers liable for operator misuse in 2005. Realistically, his record slightly favors gun rights, but for their official letter grade regarding him, the NRA awarded Sanders an F. Indeed, this says more about the NRA, which clearly feels burned after the only election where they supported him.

This occurred back in 1990, when Sanders ran against an anti-gun Republican. NRA strategists thought he might be easily dislodged, once the suitably chastened GOP produced a better material. In Vermont, that day never came. With all fairness, C+ makes more sense.

Sanders campaigns about big picture problems, most importantly wealth disparity, but that’s not all voters care about. He long ago realized Vermonters valued 2nd Amendment freedoms, and in a state with low gun violence, saw no reason for moving against a popular issue. Any personal feelings about arms took a distant back seat.

For example, last August I attended a large Sanders rally in Portland. He spoke extensively about poverty, racial injustice, unaccountable corporate monopolies, abuse of state power and the for-profit prison system. Compared with such major social concerns, firearms rightly warranted no mention. It can’t be denied, his speeches are sheer electricity.

Unprecedented success gained by Sanders in the Democratic primary has thrown status quo candidates into crisis. His stance on economic issues are undeniably popular, finding traction even when addressing audiences considered hostile territory for leftists. Among the current competition, mainly Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, gun control is the only area they might appear more progressive by comparison.

This presents a great opportunity for Sanders to own the issue. What other Democrats see as weakness, could prove viability on a national level, plus boosting his case for economic equality. Sanders should highlight his moderate voting record, regarding firearms, as simply reflecting mainstream American values and demonstrate economic inequality as the real cause of violence. This drives home the importance of leveling American economic systems, reassures potentially sympathetic conservative voters and exposes other Democratic candidates clinging to short sighted gun ban solutions.

However, recent high profile shooting spurred calls for increased gun control and instead, Sanders joined the bandwagon with other Democrats. Advisors presumably tell Sanders, to win the primary he must toe party lines, but that’s where establishment candidates hold advantage. For a candidate hoping to ride a wave of credibility to the White House, the issue that should propel him, may instead become Sanders’ anchor.