Trayvon

Everything about the Trayvon Martin story is horrible. Right now, I am most upset about the number of people expressing sympathy for George Zimmerman and such blatant scorn for Trayvon Martin. (For the purposes of this post, I'm not talking about the jury or the legal facts and agruments of this case. That is a different subject.) I understand the people who truly do not want to take sides due to the fact that they do not have first hand knowledge of the situation. I don't agree with them, but their position is logical, so I won't argue with them.

As for the people who are "pleased" with the verdict or otherwise support Zimmerman over Trayvon? Or a weird subset of these people who are irritated with those of us who want justice for Trayvon (i.e. the people who are clueless about their own white privilege and racist mindset)? I'm not even sure where to start. George Zimmerman is one of the least likeable defendants I have ever seen. I cannot find one instance where he expresses any remorse* for ending the life of a child. Even if Trayvon had been the aggressor, wouldn't a normal human being be distraught that he had killed a 17 year old?

Let's look at what we do know, and compare the two people in this case:

Trayvon: A child. Walking home from the store. Approached by a stranger wielding a gun and asking questions. Fights. Gets shot and dies. His life is finished at the age of 17.

Zimmerman: An adult. Sees a child who looks suspicious to Zimmerman. Calls 911. Is told to stay put.  Confronts Trayvon. Fights. Shoots Trayvon. Found not guilty of any crime, gets to live among us and keep his gun.

Seems to me that Trayvon Martin did exactly what almost anyone in his situation would have done. And it also seems like Zimmerman did exactly what an overzealous, racist gun-nut would have done.

We know for a fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. By all accounts, there is nothing to suggest that Trayvon did anything wrong until confronted by Zimmerman, which I personally assume was a natural fight response (as opposed to a flight response, which is not a great option when directly confronted with a gun). How, as a spectator to this case, does anyone side with Zimmerman?

The racism surrounding this entire story is unbearable.

*If you can find an example of Zimmerman expressing remorse for his actions, please send me the link or post it in the comments.

This week's winners: criminals, the gun industry, anti-government fear-mongers

          

President Obama says it better than I can say it, so before you read my post, you might want to just save yourself some trouble and watch the video above.

The POTUS is angry, angrier than we've ever seen him during the last four years. I'm angry too, for the exact same reasons. I've been planning a post on expanded background checks, but today is the real kicker.

A majority of Senators voted for the Manchin-Toomey Amendment to the Firearms Bill and 90 percent of Americans support the measure. The sponsors of the amendment, one Democrat and one Republican, are both gun owners and have "A" ratings from the NRA. But somehow, this was not enough to make a law that would move us an inch toward reduced gun violence. We have a mile to go, and we can't even move an inch.

Who won today? Criminals who cannot pass background checks. The gun industry, interested in selling more guns and more powerful guns that can shoot expensive ammunition more quickly. Anti-government fear-mongers. To be succinct: anyone who profits (financially, politically or intangibly) from more criminals people buying guns or simply the idea that anyone should be able to buy a gun.

I have many, many thoughts on this subject but in light of today's vote and Monday's bombing in Boston, I do not have the emotional strength to explore these in a coherent fashion tonight. I will fight again tomorrow, and I hope you will, too.

I leave you with one thought for today: think of a reason to reject expansion of background checks that is not also a reason to scrap the whole background check system entirely. Every "reason" I've heard so far (infringing on 2nd Amendment rights, it's too expensive, hurts law-abiding gun owners, etc.) seems to be a reason to get rid of all background checks, which is extremely scary and dumb. That's not a very polite thing for me to say, but I'm done with being polite when it comes to this subject.

Guns and the Constitution

A lot of hardcore gun enthusiasts keep clinging to their expert interpretation of the Second Amendment. I have two main points to make:

1. If you're so hellbent on the fact that the Second Amendment needs to be interpreted literally or "as is," then...can I join your well regulated Militia?

2. Are you as super passionate about the 14th Amendment, and its validity and wisdom in its current state, as you are about the Second Amendment? Because the 14th Amendment implies that I, a woman, do not have the right to vote. And I have a huge problem with that, as do most women, and then you really are going to need those assault weapons to protect yourself from us poking your eyes out with our stilettos.

Once again, I'm not saying that the extreme gun-lovers of America don't have any valid points in this argument. I'm saying their overall reasoning is shoddy.

And, on a positive note, I am loving the small but growing voice of the gun owners who want to reform and improve gun control. Their voice is the most valuable of all.

The NRA must be stopped

It's been a long while since I've posted. Call it an election hangover. I think most of us needed a break from politicking, no matter how much or how little we were involved this year. But the end to this break is long overdue. We're back, y'all!

I just went to post something to Facebook and then remembered that I started this blog for a specific purpose, and that is to stop inciting useless fights consisting of poorly-reasoned five-word arguments on a social network and post at least a paragraph or two to make a real point and start a real conversation. Even if no one visits the blog but me.

The National Rifle Association, God bless them, has gone off the deep end. Liberals have always been wary of the NRA, since the ushering in of the "New Guard" of their leadership, but personally I just didn't know what to make of them. My feelings toward them, not individual members but the leadership and organization as a whole, were those of general dislike. In light of the Sandy Hook school shootings, however, their statements have dropped to a whole new level of evil. Yes, evil. 

Read this NPR article: NRA Says White House Has 'Agenda To Attack The Second Amendment" 

Hey NRA: how about you spin Biden's gun control talks as, oh I don't know, "White House Has 'Agenda To Prevent Innocent People From Being Murdered As They Go About Their Daily Lives'," you horrible, paranoid fear-mongers.

For extra good measure read the original press release from the NRA: Statement From the National Rifle Association of America Regarding Today's White House Task Force Meeting

As one of the commenters on the NPR website pointed out, one of the highlights of the press release is the quote, "...we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions [emphasis HTBB] to members of Congress of both parties..." Are you trying to buy off Congressmen, NRA?

Dear NRA leaders: how would you explain your positions to the parents of each of the children killed at Sandy Hook? The Aurora, Colorado theater shooting? The Sikh temple in Wisconsin? Virginia Tech? Columbine High School? 

We, liberals, are just asking for background checks, limits on assault rifles, and investigations when some nobody buys 8,000 high-capacity magazines at one time. 

NRA: we're coming after you with sound reasoning and smart policies. Thanks for the ammo.