The oft-quoted Rifleman’s Creed has a nugget of real-world wisdom in its juvenile crudeness. Using the term “rifle,” or alternately “weapon,” is a way to place a firearm firmly in the context of “tool,” and avoids the enormous rhetorical baggage that the word “gun” has to endure. I’d go so far as to say that lumping the term in with genitalia (as the creed does) is probably a good fit, if based only on the emotional response that discussing either in public will get you.

Because the fact is, the topic of “gun rights” vs “gun control” generates so much polarizing irrationality, it might as well be removed from the public arena for the next generation until people can learn to speak to each other on the topic, rather than at each other. Seriously. Nothing’s going to happen, and – for now, at least – that may well be a good thing, as it seems likely that anything that could happen would be trouble.

I am generally leery of gun control laws for a variety of reasons; practically speaking, there’s no unifying problem that merits a one-size-fits-all-policy. Governor Shumlin’s excuse in avoiding the topic that the only meaningful way to approach the issue would be from the federal level is, from this standpoint, 100% bass-ackwards. What might be called for in New York City, is certainly not called for in my childhood town of Paint Lick, Kentucky.

But I’m leery for other reasons as well. First, there is a cultural reality, here. Guns are an ingrained part of the culture of much of the country; they are prized, collected, built, displayed, named, and are passed down as totems of family and regional heritage. Whether or not any one of us embrace this cultural component is irrelevent; it is real, and merits a degree of respect and, yes, even deference. It is a passive cultural component after all, not an “active” one that dictates how we treat each other, and that may conflict with basic human rights.

The “right to bear” is recognized as a right by a clear majority, because that majority grew up with the expectation of that right. It is, yes, a “manifestation” of the “right to self-defense” (which few would argue against), but also straddles the “right to private property.”

Which brings us right up to crazed-irrationality side one. Let’s look at that “right to private property.” Is it an absolute right? Is it ever infringed upon?

Don’t like that one? Let’s get closer to home, then: how about the right to free speech? There is no more fundamental human right than that, and I don’t think any would argue that it has remained absolute or sacrosanct. Many of us would debate whether or not the restrictions that have been enacted are reasonable, or even moral. Some in recent years seem draconian – but none of us would argue against, for example, the classic “yelling fire in a crowded theater” restriction.

The keywords here are “argue,” and “debate.” We are capable of that with questions of public policy, and those things we regard as our rights. Sure, we get heated, but we can have those exchanges. We can discuss whether a little security here is worth a little infringement there – or, maybe more frequently, how to manage policy when one person’s fundamental right of free speech would seem to inhibit another person’s fundamental right of free speech. It is the fact that we CAN have these debates that defines us as a civilization, rather than a bunch of warring clans.

But the most vocal on the gun-rights side seem persistently incapable of engaging in such debates. By refusing to engage in a policy discussion about when, where, and under what circumstances this fundamental right of self-defense can be managed, they elevate it to (dare I say it) some sort of unique, “special” right. The only right that can’t be discussed. Even more sacred than the right to free speech.

And the key word there, in case you missed it, is sacred. As in, an article of faith. Like they have in churches.

And I don’t know about you, but I’m generally against mixing church and state.

Okay, now – take that in. Breathe deep. Feels good, don’t it, GMD-ers? Enjoy it, because here is where I pull the band-aid off and put crazed-irrationality side two under the microscope. And yes, I may well mix more metaphors before I’m done.

To see why the gun control side is just as wacky and impenetrable, I need point no further than Burlington, and the June 3 meeting of Burlington’s Charter Change Committee, chronicled by kestrel. Buried within the meeting minutes is a thesis statement that, while rarely (well, not that rarely) spoken aloud by advocates, so plainly informs their advocacy (emphasis added):

[Vince] Brennan asked about the gun manufacturing business, Century Arms, in Franklin County and the jobs it provides. [Marie] Adams said it’s a moral question, and do we really need that type of business?  Shouldn’t we try to develop other industries in that area?

There it is, unchallenged, and plain: the problem with guns is that they are immoral.. They are an evil. Inherently. Not a tool. Not a manufactured mechanism of metal. An evil.

With that one statement, the lines of debate are drawn between good and evil, right and wrong, darkness and light.

And against evil, there must be no quarter given. Nor can you attempt to “understand” evil, because in doing so, you validate it – and become tainted by it.

Kind of a debate killer right there, don’t you think?

If you think this was an unfortunate turn of phrase indicative of nothing, you’re kidding yourself. As one example, consider the ill-conceived eye-roller of an anthology series “Gun,” which followed the passage of a single firearm through many lives – chronicling it’s destrictive wake as if it were the demon in the Denzel Washington clunker Fallen, diabolically and murderously hopping from body to body.

I, for one, have a difficult time granting a spiritual component to a tool as a precondition of debate.

Or to return to the comparison of a discussion on the right to free speech, I am a lot more open to having a debate with someone else on the necessity of limitations placed on the “right to free speech” within public policy if I feel they agree that there is a right to free speech, than I am debating with someone who refuses to recognize such a right even exists. Ugh.

So you see my problem with diving in, here. It’s not that I’m feeling cynical or unwilling to discuss the topic. There are people of good will on the two sides. There are people with good information on the two sides. There are people who passionately want to do what’s right on the two sides.

And, of course, there are more than two sides.

It’s just that – for now and for the forseeable future – the arena of debate looks like a mosh pit full-to-bursting with hot and cold running reactionaries.

(There – told you I’d do that again).

With everybody entering the arena of debate as a reactionary, the only changes in policy that could emerge from that arena are likely to be, well… reactionary changes. Coming from the hippocratic approach of “first do no harm,” maybe it’s best, then, that nothing happen at all for now.

Long time GMD Front Pager Julie Waters passed away this afternoon. I came back to write a few words that will be totally inadequate, and I imagine the other folks here will write their own diaries as well (and although I’m not a publisher/contributor any more, I’d like to suggest those that are consider re-promoting some of Julie’s best stuff from over the years this week).

In 2006 I was making as much noise as I possibly could to put Peter Welch into office, rather than GOP candidate Martha Rainville. At that point, I couldn’t really muster up enough noise to amount to much, though.

Then I, like virtually everyone else in Vermont, read the story about how a lowly blogger had noticed that Rainville’s web site had material plagiarized from other websites. Sure, the Rainville campaign had already made a string of self-sabotaging blunders, but this particular gaffe was bigger, louder, and more costly. The Rainville campaign never recovered.

I knew then that I had to pull this “Julie Waters” person onto Green Mountain Daily. Thankfully, she was quick to sign on – and it turned out we’d already met back when I was Field Director for the Clavelle campaign, and had recruited her wife Cyndi to be a volunteer.

The first time I saw Julie back in, I guess, 2004, she was playing guitar on an outdoor stage in Bellows Falls. I remember what struck me at the time (other than how well she was playing) was how focused she was on what she was doing. Some guitarists in venues like that are flailing around, talking to the crowd, making jokes, whatever – and that’s fine – but Julie seemed to have all her focus trained on every note.

Julie focused on many things: guitar, banjo, blogging, photography, teaching, programming – and making the world a better place. She could have laser-like focused intensity at times, whether it was while skewering a political target, promoting a cause, or just being funny. It was extraordinary how Julie could express herself with fluency in so many media: words, music, photos, probably others.

It was the highest honor and privilege to work with, and get to know her.

It’s hard for me to know what kind of send-off Julie would’ve appreciated. I’ve known her for several years now… hung with her at the barbecues, went to her wedding reception… but never really got to know her well. I guess the distance between Washington and Windham Counties was a bit too much for that. There was a time when she stood ready to take the helm of GMD, until it turned out I wasn’t leaving, and then when I did leave, I knew she was too sick to be pulled into it to that degree – of course I was assuming she would get better, as probably everyone was.

Her not being here anymore is going to seem very unreal for a long time, probably forever. Before my retirement from GMD, I’d written several memorials on this site, some to people I’ve known, worked with or liked – but I never ever imagined I’d be writing one like this.

Julie was a special person. She was talented, funny, brash, smart, challenging, inspired, inspiring and very very very good (and for those who know me, you know that last word is what I consider to be the highest praise there is).

Rest in Peace, Julie. We love you, and you will be missed and remembered.

And you made a difference. You left the world a little better than it was when you got here, and better than it would’ve been if you hadn’t shown up.

And that is what it’s all about, isn’t it?

Bravo.

GMDers are a besieged lot, constantly dealing as we are with injury, heroic medical intervention, financial cataclysm, violent assaults and unpronounceable debilitating illness (you know who you are…). As such, when it’s time to turn over the keys, it depends a lot on who’s conscious and lucid at the moment.

It’s appropriate, then, that the new Publisher is a publishing team made up of my two co-founders (Jack McCullough and kestrel9000) and mataliandy, who is very nearly a co-founder, being that she started participating from a very early moment. This is the crew that will keep the lights on, as well as handle all the stalkers (nah, who am I kidding… they’ll still come after me). It’s a team with expertise in politics, technology, law, online media in two states, radio, and includes current or former Democratic County Chairs from two Vermont counties.

It’s a great team, and added with the other front pagers and contributing editors, they could very well take over the state. Better stay on their good side.

Thanks for the memories, folks. I’m off to renew some dog licenses and take some minutes. No doubt I’ll pop in for snotty comments or Star Trek quotes from time to time.

Just a quick note to all – I managed to pull out my run for Montpelier City Clerk by a mere 5%: 1204 to 1086.

I’ll get on here tomorrow for a more formal farewell, as I retire from partisan warriorship into nonpartisan, apoliticality – but I wanted to let folks know. Thanks for the support.

Just a quick note, and then I’ll leave you all with your regularly scheduled programming. A few of us will be informally getting together Wednesday February 29th, downstairs at NECI’s Main Street Grill in Montpelier between 5:00pm and 6:00pm (more or less) in support of my run for Montpelier City Clerk. There will be drinks, chatter, a passing of the hat, and with any luck a few legislators as well (including GMD pal and Chittenden Senator Philip Baruth).

Feel free to stop in. I’d love to see folks.