Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

There will be consequences

Expand Messages
  • Julienne
    A Senate in the Gun Lobby s Grip By Gabrielle Giffords SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      A Senate in the Gun Lobby's Grip
      By Gabrielle Giffords

      SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that
      fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy
      Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of
      bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must
      feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into
      closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love
      would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

      On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked
      common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals
      and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly
      firearms -- a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in
      Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many
      communities to count.

      Some of the senators who voted against the background-check
      amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were
      murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no
      have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being
      shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years
      ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me,
      6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents --
      who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks.
      And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

      I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we're
      going to hear: vague platitudes like "tough vote" and "complicated
      issue." I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the
      State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated
      issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was
      neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear
      and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like
      the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle
      spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside
      spending. Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings
      are clear: I'm furious. I will not rest until we have righted the
      wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so
      we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your
      children safe. We cannot allow the status quo -- desperately
      protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by
      spreading fear and misinformation -- to go on.

      I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about
      the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to
      stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You've lost
      my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators'
      e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I'm asking citizens to go
      to their offices and say: You've disappointed me, and there will be
      consequences.

      People have told me that I'm courageous, but I have seen greater
      courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we
      dedicated a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot
      in the head and saw the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran
      toward me as I lay bleeding. Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot
      him, and then Gabe died. His body lay on the pavement in front of the
      Safeway for hours.

      I have thought a lot about why Gabe ran toward me when he could have
      run away. Service was part of his life, but it was also his job. The
      senators who voted against background checks for online and gun-show
      sales, and those who voted against checks to screen out would-be gun
      buyers with mental illness, failed to do their job.

      They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered
      by moderates from each party, and then they looked over their
      shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby -- and brought shame on
      themselves and our government itself by choosing to do nothing.

      They will try to hide their decision behind grand talk, behind
      willfully false accounts of what the bill might have done -- trust
      me, I know how politicians talk when they want to distract you -- but
      their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest. I say
      misplaced, because to preserve their dignity and their legacy, they
      should have heeded the voices of their constituents. They should have
      honored the legacy of the thousands of victims of gun violence and
      their families, who have begged for action, not because it would
      bring their loved ones back, but so that others might be spared their agony.

      This defeat is only the latest chapter of what I've always known
      would be a long, hard haul. Our democracy's history is littered with
      names we neither remember nor celebrate -- people who stood in the
      way of progress while protecting the powerful. On Wednesday, a number
      of senators voted to join that list.

      Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the
      Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure
      we have a different Congress, one that puts communities' interests
      ahead of the gun lobby's. To do nothing while others are in danger is
      not the American way.





      Paid for by Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC; not authorized
      by any candidate or candidate's committee.

      "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil". -Thomas Mann
    • Don Zimmerman
      ... DWZ: Liberals need to learn that a national election is a package deal in which voting a straight Democratic ticket is absolutely necessary to insure
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...> wrote:

        > A Senate in the Gun Lobby's Grip
        > By Gabrielle Giffords
        >
        > SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that
        > fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy
        > Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of
        > bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must
        > feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into
        > closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love
        > would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.


        DWZ:
        Liberals need to learn that a national election is a "package deal" in which voting a straight Democratic ticket is absolutely necessary to insure progressive legislation. Any notion that it is OK to vote for a Republican candidate for Congress because of some special issue, or because of the desirable personal characteristics of that particular candidate, is self-defeating.

        I would go so far to say that it is a kind of vanity the part of the person making such a decision, as if he or she is saying: "Look at me! I am doing the right thing!" But unfortunately, the "right thing" in this case promotes failure of the progressive platform. The same reasoning applies to third-party candidates. A vote for the Green Party, this or that extremely progressive party, or whatever, is one wasted liberal vote. Let the right-wingers create their third parties. We need solidarity of the left! This is the message that should be spread far and wide in social media in the next election.

        Best regards,

        Donald W. Zimmerman
        Vancouver, BC, Canada
        dwzimm@...
        http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      • GOUILLOU Philippe
        In evolutionary psychology, how can we explain that some people are so willing to give up all they have to protect themselves to a leader having already enough
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 22, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          In evolutionary psychology, how can we explain that some people are so willing to give up all they have to protect themselves to a leader having already enough shown that he is not following the rules (here: the Constitution) and that he will not hesitate to use his power against these very same people?

          Historically, Yuri Bezmenov has detailed 30 years ago the process used to obtain this from people. But what is the evolutionary explanation? What are the triggers engaged? Is that just submission to the Big Man?

          Philippe

          Le 19 avr. 2013 à 18:19, Don Zimmerman a écrit :

          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...> wrote:
          >
          >> A Senate in the Gun Lobby's Grip
          >> By Gabrielle Giffords
          >>
          >> SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that
          >> fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy
          >> Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of
          >> bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must
          >> feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into
          >> closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love
          >> would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.
          >
          >
          > DWZ:
          > Liberals need to learn that a national election is a "package deal" in which voting a straight Democratic ticket is absolutely necessary to insure progressive legislation. Any notion that it is OK to vote for a Republican candidate for Congress because of some special issue, or because of the desirable personal characteristics of that particular candidate, is self-defeating.
          >
          > I would go so far to say that it is a kind of vanity the part of the person making such a decision, as if he or she is saying: "Look at me! I am doing the right thing!" But unfortunately, the "right thing" in this case promotes failure of the progressive platform. The same reasoning applies to third-party candidates. A vote for the Green Party, this or that extremely progressive party, or whatever, is one wasted liberal vote. Let the right-wingers create their third parties. We need solidarity of the left! This is the message that should be spread far and wide in social media in the next election.
          >
          > Best regards,
          >
          > Donald W. Zimmerman
          > Vancouver, BC, Canada
          > dwzimm@...
          > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Don Zimmerman
          ... DWZ: Perhaps the powerful influence of ideology and the inclination to follow a great leader (actual or mythical) is an unfortunate side effect of the
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 22, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, GOUILLOU Philippe <pg@...> wrote:

            > In evolutionary psychology, how can we explain that some people are so willing to give up all they have to protect themselves to a leader having already enough shown that he is not following the rules (here: the Constitution) and that he will not hesitate to use his power against these very same people?
            >
            > Historically, Yuri Bezmenov has detailed 30 years ago the process used to obtain this from people. But what is the evolutionary explanation? What are the triggers engaged? Is that just submission to the Big Man?


            DWZ:
            Perhaps the powerful influence of ideology and the inclination to follow a great leader (actual or mythical) is an unfortunate "side effect" of the process of human socialization. Human beings have been highly successful in constructing a culture that promotes their well being in many ways, but at the same time, the advanced cognitive processes that make it possible can "go astray" and result in a cultural pathology. With knowledge and science also comes superstition. With society and cooperation also comes blind and senseless following of the leader. With language and thought comes the ability to construct fantasy and mistake it for reality.

            At any rate, I would be inclined to seek the explanation in the recent explosion of human society and culture, rather than in biological natural selection in the remote past, although perhaps both elements contribute to some degree. Certainly these issues are of great concern to psychologists, evolutionary and otherwise.

            Best regards,

            Donald W. Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.