Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, ran into resistance as he strategically used nonviolent tactics to effect change. He addressed this famously in his Letter From Birmingham Jail:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depth…The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
I bring this up because I admit to still being puzzled by folks who excoriate Senator Baruth not just for the content of his withdrawn assault weapons ban, but for his even daring to introduce legislation in the first place without talking about it.
While it surprised me, and I was not convinced it's necessary in Vermont, I still maintain that one way to create space for discussing potential solutions to societal issues is to confront things head on. Create tension, to use MLK's terminology.
I mean, what is negotiating if not putting down markers? You have a house on the market that I really like, but the 200k asking price is too steep. Do I not make a bid? Certainly that's an option, but if I want the house, I offer 150k maybe. You've finally got an interested buyer, so probably you don't ignore me and counter with 175k, and maybe we've got a deal, maybe we dicker over whether the washer and dryer come with, maybe I walk away because I just can't afford that much and was hoping you'd go for less, etc.
Similarly, Phil put out an initial offer that was too much for some people to accept. Perfectly fine for people to disagree passionately with him–that's the crucible for much of what gets made in our republic. So folks rally and put everybody on notice that an ouright ban on new purchases of certain semi-auto weapons is a nonstarter. The Good Senator could've chosen to push on in the hopes that at the very least some increased regulation would be included in a watered down bill, or he could do as he did and say this bill isn't worth it.
Why is that bad? It doesn't stop other legislators from putting out more palatable measures for consideration, like maybe requiring background checks at all gun shows in VT, or whatever. It certainly didn't stop conversation about the extend of our 2nd Amendment/Article 16 rights to keep and bear arms.
The vast majority of introduced bills make it nowhere. Always been that way, and is just a natural part of the process. That doesn't mean you can cavalierly dismiss things like VA's proposed changes to how the state allocates Electoral Votes, or the NM bill that will jail rape victims for “evidence tampering” if they get an abortion. But it's not something wrong in and of itself, even if you disagree with the purpose and wording of the proposals.
As George Washington said when requesting that the First Congress pass a bill to organize the militia: the science of legislation teaches to scrutinize every national institution. In science, failure is good because it means a) you're doing that scrutinizing, and b) you've learned something from the process itself, even if it's that your hypothesis was completely off base.
Here we had components for an experiment: an existing legal template that did appear objectively to do some good at the national level; series of crimes wherein particular weapons were used that might need to be dealt with; a Federal government that suffers from political paralysis; a citizen legislator ready to take a risk at the state level; engaged people willing to push back. I cannot see that as anything other than a Senator and the People of Vermont doing their jobs in a republic.
Tension is good. I'd hate to think we expect our representatives in Montpelier to play it safe instead of sometimes getting out ahead of the rest of us.
ntodd
…after Newtown, I am totally fed up with all the support for THE GUN INDUSTRY’S Right (?) to make massive profits (Wall St.) selling ‘military’ assault weapons. The GUN INDUSTRY, the NRA, and ALL OF CORPORATE AMERIKA will fight any regulations on ‘corporate products’–assault weapons, cars, genetically engineered foods. They have also sold the bill of goods to Americans that owning a ‘military’ assault weapon is as ‘vogue’ as owning any other unnecessary household gadget–sort of a ‘keep up with the Joneses’ marketing campaign.
You don’t need an automatic or semi-automatic rifle or shotgun to hunt deer. In fact, hunters armed with such weapons are not really ‘hunting’ in the true old-fashioned and honored style of hunting; they are simply, as we did in Vietnam, laying down fire (grease), to replace what should be intrinsic to hunting–the stalk, the positioning, and the SINGLE CLEAN SHOOT. All what is part of the ‘sport’ of hunting. In fishing, in Vermont and other states, we have ‘single hook laws’ for salmon and other fishies–An old timer Vermonter once told me in ’76 that he regarded treble hooks as ‘unsportsmanlike’ and akin to using hand grenades for fishing. Assault weapons for hunting are ‘unsportsmanlike’ and detract from the spirit of the climax of the hunt.
Now, as far as home protection, a homeowner with a ‘military’ assault weapon is kind of like a squad of grunts in the Nam surprised and surrounded by Charlie and calling for gunship support before they are all wiped out. You have to have the clip in the assault rifle and one in the chamber and the safety off in order for rapid response. A ‘safe’ home protection gun is an old-fashioned revolver, loaded, with the hammer resting on an empty chamber. Grab it, aim, and pull the trigger. Of course, you have to keep it out of kiddie’s reach, or ‘homeschool’ your child that this is NOT a toy and OFF LIMITS (as in “NO!”) to the kiddie (Gee, PARENTING–what an ‘old-fashioned’ idea). I don’t like all this ‘child-proofing’ shit with trigger locks, locked gun cabinets, or ‘breaking-down’ the weapon. Hell, here comes Mister Home Invader: “Wait, Mister Home Invader, while I unlock the drawer, take the trigger guard off my automatic, shove in the clip, click off the safety, chamber a round…and yes, now I’m ready for you–what’s so funny?”
So, what is sportsmanlike and what is safe? What is needed, and what is unnecessary and overkill?
We need, at the very least, to ‘regulate’ the GUN INDUSTRY’S promotion of ‘military’ assault weapons as just another gun. As ‘just another gun’ that you need to have to be as ‘cool’ as the Joneses. Otherwise, we will soon see a day when revolvers and bolt, lever, or pump action rifles and shotguns will will become high priced ‘novelty’ weapons.
Yeah, and I know the joke you’re gonna make too–“Why not just ban everything, Petey, that isn’t a muzzle-loader?” Well, remember then, for home protection–you can always depend on an ‘old-fashioned’ muzzle loading CANON. Good for 4th of July lawn parties too.
Let the ‘tension’ continue…
just anyone can legally own all of the weapons that are available, but that doesn’t mean there are those who do not possess them. If there is regulation similiar to vehicle registration these weapons would be insured as such. Some would not be able to afford the associated costs:
Not sure the buyers are thinking they are ‘just another gun’ depite the marketing gimmicks all advertizers employ. And if not in compliance if enhanced registration is required or weapon is misused, insurance could be cancelled.
Unless home invasion is done using assault rifles & more than one perp, then what? Stand there & fire away? Yeah right. this is what I mean by ‘outgunned’.
I will say dogs (a bunch-like rotties or dobermans also shepherds) will go a very long way to enhance protection. Though they may not survive a multiple firearm assault, they could prevent one, plus it’s difficult to hit alot of moving targets esp when going for the jugular & a bunch of angry snarling teeth-baring barking dogs. I dare say the home invaders would perhaps pick a different location.
they’re invading in an armored vehicle or tank? I saw The Joker do that in a Batman movie, I think.
…is a bullet-proof ROBOT with a particle beam, like GORT in The Day The Earth Stood Still. And one that can cook and clean too. I’ve always wanted my own GORT. Bring him to parties. To demonstrations. To baseball games. (“Hey, GORT, take care of that guy on second. He’s getting ready to steal.”) And, of course, to the clubs. (Hey, GORT, go ask the blonde over there to dance with me. Use your charm.”) And when the neighbor complains about GORT vaporizing his obnoxious barking dog, I’ll say: “Hey, GORT’S just a ROBOT. ROBOTS do that. You don’t yell at a poor little ROBOT just for playing with his Particle Beam. Look, you made him cry. You should be ashamed. GORT, Tarado Nixo Vapido!” Or something like that.