After the 2012 slaughter of 20 schoolchildren and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, we assumed America had reached a watershed moment, when at last society would address the crisis of gun violence.
We were mistaken.
After Sandy Hook, we heard craven politicians utter the usual “Now is not the time” and “Let’s not politicize the tragedy.” Families were left with their unbearable grief as the news cycle moved on. Until the next slaughter. And the next. No congressional action was taken after the 2016 massacre at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub (49 dead, 58 wounded) or last fall’s carnage at a Las Vegas concert (58 dead, 500 wounded). All we got were more thoughts and prayers.
That is, until last week’s Valentine’s Day massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. After the deaths of 17 students and several teachers who died shielding them, we may have reached a tipping point.
The gun lobby and its toadies in Congress messed with the wrong kids.
Since the tragedy, students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have taken to the streets and the airwaves, expressing their outrage. They even borrowed a phrase from post-Holocaust Jewry, dubbing their movement #NeverAgain. They have planned a March 14 school walkout and a March 24 “March for Our Lives” across the country.
RELATED: Helping ‘outcast’ kids avoid the violent path is our imperative
We applaud the eloquence and courage of these teenagers, and hope they may lead their flat-footed elders to enact the tough gun regulations a majority of Americans want. A brand new Quinnipiac poll shows support for universal background checks at 97 percent and an assault weapons ban at 67 percent.
Naturally, the pushback has begun. Already we hear the tired refrain that any gun regulation is a slippery slope toward eroding the Second Amendment.
We thus urge gun-rights supporters to consider the other side of that slope. It is slippery all right — slippery from the blood of Sandy Hook, Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas and every mass shooting that might have been prevented had we acted.
The time is now. The intransigence of the National Rifle Association and its congressional allies must end.
Why are we, a Jewish newspaper, weighing in on this subject? Aside from the fact that it could be any one of our kids, who step into harm’s way every time they set foot in school, it raises a question that is profoundly moral, and thus profoundly Jewish: If pikuach nefesh — saving a life — is one of the strictest Jewish commandments, is it not incumbent upon us as a community, and as a nation, to put the saving of lives first? It surely towers over the perceived right to own a military-grade weapon capable of mass slaughter.
We join with the extraordinary students of Parkland, Florida, and others across the country, and demand sensible gun safety laws now. No more excuses.
I’m heartened to see that kids are speaking truth to power. Mind you, I’m also amused to see politicians sitting atop a pile of NRA lobbying cash accusing these kids of being paid shills…
According to OpenSecrets.org, the NRA donated less than $1 million to Federal political campaigns in the 2016 election cycle. The NRA’s importance stems from its hold over 2nd Amendment voters who mostly support republicans. Senator Marco Rubio R-FL recieved less than $10,000 from the NRA. His “piles of lobbying cash” came mostly from wealthy individuals either directly or through various PACs. Rubio’s largest contributors were probably billionaires Paul Singer (hedge funds) and a retired billionaire car dealer. Their interests were (1) tax cuts and (2) support for Israel.
The kids in Florida remind me of the young people who helped drive Lyndon Johnson out of the 1968 presidential race over his Viet Nam war policy. Good luck to them.
Here’s another source for funding (old, but not that old): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html. Opensecrets is one source, but doesn’t have complete numbers, as discussed in the NYT article.
Short memory. Nazi Germany’s gun laws led to the Holocaust. The 13 American colonies would have lost the war for independence. Instead add Israeli-style security, ban SSRI drugs for minors like Canada and parts of Europe have, clean house at the FBI for suppressing info on imminent threats, and above all, reach out to the angry and depressed with love and give them hope. Teach them they are loved by God and not mere biophysical machines.
You insult the memory of my relatives who were gassed at Belzec or died in a nearby ghetto. The German military rolled over France in a few weeks and you think the the Jews of occupied Europe could have held out against the Germans if only they had had a few guns and rifles at home? In 1936, France probably had the best military in Europe and could have crushed the Germans when they reoccupied the Rhineland, but by 1940 it was too late. I suggest that you read the first few chapters of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, especially pages 59-62. Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to relive it.
I apologize for any offense – none was intended. I overgeneralized. I meant to say gun control may have been a contributing factor in making the Nazis’ job easier. The founding fathers believed that a well-armed citizenry was a deterrent to tyranny. The Bill of Rights is full of the wisdom of history lessons learned. Do you really believe they got 9 of the 10 right, but goofed up on the second one?
“The founding fathers believed that a well-armed citizenry was a deterrent to tyranny.” This is neither 1787 nor Nazi Germany. This is 2018, and we have teenagers and others killing hundreds on an alarmingly regular basis using military-grade weapons that “the founding fathers” could not possibly have predicted; indeed, to ensure their availability is the very job of the NRA. Surely you can make a distinction between these things; I call BS on your first argument. And what are you going to do, anyway? Stand up to the equipment of the United States military? That makes you sound like a paranoid lunatic, Rambo. To answer your closing question: Maybe, maybe not, but I believe it has been grossly misinterpreted by the Supreme Court.
I think the prospect of armed citizens turning back tyranny is overrated. It can be effective against a half-hearted adversary like England in the 1770s. But it’s not going anywhere against an adversary that will gladly shoot anyone who gets in the way (and shoot their families, and their neighbors). Heck, it didn’t even work for the South, and Abe Lincoln presided over a fairly divided government.
I fully support the right to bear arms, but I think we need to give up on the defense-against-tyranny rationale, and go with self-defense against crime. That’s a persuasive enough rationale in my opinion.
Jhericles Katz-Nelson ‘ But it’s not going anywhere against an adversary that will gladly shoot anyone who gets in the way) and shoot their families,and their neighbors” And yet you would relinquish the tyranny argument ?
I suspect, as you suggest,we go with the self-defense against crime. It would open the flood gates on what one needs to defend oneself. Should we only have revolvers ? I respect your opinion. I simple believe the Gov. would abuse the definition of what weapon is appropriate for self defense. I often wonder why the Gov. is so intent on disarming the public. I do think they may believe a well armed population of one hundred million could pose a serious threat to their collective power. Why else would they care. They have demonstrated time after time their interests are primarily focused on themselves. Last legit poll I read 75 % of Americans are disappointed with Congress and a full 80% want out of this moronic eternal bloody war. As a quick aside ” armed citizens turning back tyranny is overrated ” In 1991 the US entered Kuwait. 1990 the Seals secured the oil port in Kuwait. we have now been engaged for TWENTY SEVEN YEARS. The most sophisticated military in the world has yet to defeat a population primarily armed with small arms and IEDs.. Yeah, I think the Gov. secretly fears US. Cheers
That whole “but the Nazis” thing is a myth. The Nazis actually loosened gun regulations for some and tightened them for others (hmm, wonder who they could have been?).
Israeli-style security? Do you know how hard it is to get a gun in Israel? You want security that tight? Great! I’m totally with you. Of course, if you mean “security” without their tight gun regulations, well, I don’t think you get one without the other.
“mommy, why is Patricia Munro being federal-criminally complicit in ADL & SPLC’s refusal to hire veterans?”
Goal is to stop the carnage, not law #20,001 taking away rights like every law does by FORCE and POWER of GOVT!
It takes people who are on the scene at the time shooter starts.
Whether armed teachers or staff maybe.
For sure those present should throw their shoes, coins, keys, bracelets, purse, books, and throw them fast and with speedy force. Distract the shooter. A book in the eye will surely avoide some persons being shot. Then tackle the shooter, at the ankles, waist, throw him down hard, disarm him, smack his ears and eyes hard to cause maximum pain. Tie his thumbs together with sneaker shoelaces. Call officials on cellphones.
Yes, some innocent sweetheart children will duck and cover and that’s OK. But some will be jockstrap heroes.
And fewer will get shot.
That’s the answer to a shooter situation. School, theater, mall, hotel, church, office, whatever.
Keep in mind, the NRA’s primary funding is not members’ dues, but guns and ammo manufacturers, literally dealers in death. Every tactic the NRA uses, including pivoting to the “should we arm teachers” debate is designed to sell more guns and line the pockets of the death merchants.
Where is J’s outrage by the dismal failure of EVERY agency responsible for safety of our schools?
Why do gun fetishists ALWAYS go to extremes? No one is saying ban all guns and disarm citizens. No one! When you lurch to the extreme (and incorrect) Nazi example you short-circuit the dialogue we must have as a society about implementing sensible, Constitutional gun and ammo restrictions that comport with promoting the general welfare. Arming teachers is insane; forbidding the easy, casual purchase of weapons of war is common sense.
Robyn Raymer – Consider this prior to spewing inane prattle. Congressmen David Cicilline has publicly stated he would support the ban on ALL semi-automatic long guns . No, that doesn’t include “ALL guns” simply the majority. Nancy Pelosi favors all Americans turn in their guns. Her words not mine.” forbidding the easy, casual purchase of weapons of war … ” Really?!
We do not have access to your claim of weapons of war. The AR-15 is not issued to the Military. Hence not a weapon of war. You are poorly informed. ” Constitutional gun and ammo restrictions ” This one I love, your ignorance is stunning. When this was written the general population has access ( if you had the money ) to buy a machine gun ( Gatling gun in 1862 ) Federalist Paper #64. We are currently equal to our Military in rifles and side arms with the exception of FULL AUTO rifles.( Assault weapons ) What is the intent of the Second Amendment Robyn ?
I usually do not resort to ad hominem. I apologize in advance. Your entire post is without substance. Cheers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo-lRh4EEqE&t=1813s