"You might find my recent Op Ed refreshing..The comment seemed a little "cut and paste", so he (or more likely an intern) is probably leaving similar comments around the gunblogosphere; but he includes a link to an editorial published in yesterdays Philadelphia Daily News, where he states that he believes the supreme court was right in their decision, and that he supports the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns (then why is he a Ceasefire member?):
I'M A CARD-carrying Democrat. Moreover, as a former co-chairman of Philadelphia Against Drugs, Guns and Violence, I abhor guns and the carnage they create.
While working with Operation Ceasefire, I helped to promote a program that promises a mandatory five years tacked onto a defendant's sentence when the defendant uses a gun in the commission of a crime.
Rally after rally and march after march, we would talk about the need to put down guns and "stop the violence" - but let me be clear, at no point did I believe that restricting an individual's rights to own a gun would improve the situation in the communities hardest hit by drug-related gun violence."
Gun ruling shines spotlight on real problems
Because I don't know what the archive policy of the Inquirer is (many newspaper websites take articles down periodically), I'm going to reproduce it in its entirety here:
"Gun ruling shines spotlight on real problems
By CHARLES A. WILLIAMS III
I'M A CARD-carrying Democrat. Moreover, as a former co-chairman of Philadelphia Against Drugs, Guns and Violence, I abhor guns and the carnage they create.
While working with Operation Ceasefire, I helped to promote a program that promises a mandatory five years tacked onto a defendant's sentence when the defendant uses a gun in the commission of a crime.
Rally after rally and march after march, we would talk about the need to put down guns and "stop the violence" - but let me be clear, at no point did I believe that restricting an individual's rights to own a gun would improve the situation in the communities hardest hit by drug-related gun violence.
So, when the Supreme Court ruled last week that the rights of a U.S. citizen to own a gun for hunting and personal protection could not be infringed upon, thereby making Washington's gun law illegal, I wasn't the least bit upset.
I never felt so good about a decision rendered by the court's conservative majority. I never thought that I would agree with Associate Justices Scalia or Thomas. (I generally despise the two, on the basis of their legal renderings.)
But Thursday's ruling makes perfect sense to this Democrat. (Alito and Roberts were spot on as well.)
The court's conservative majority decided to ignore the liberals who believe that the only way to make our communities safer is to impose further gun restrictions on law-abiding Americans.
Essentially, the court upheld the Second Amendment, which is contained within the U.S.
Constitution, as . . . well . . .
constitutional.
In my opinion, the National Rifle Association has always been right (pun intended) on this issue. Wrong on most others, but right on this one.
And this ruling will force liberals to focus on the real reasons for gun violence.
At some point, liberals and anti-gun folks will have to realize that it is failing families, schools and communities that lead to drug-related gun violence, not guns purchased by law-abiding citizens.
Even if you examine straw purchases, the impact is infinitesimal when compared with the impact of poor education, absentee fathers and a community lacking a moral focus and appropriate priorities. All of these things lead a young person to make the wrong choices, which is at the heart of our gun violence problem in urban America.
By the way, the same can be said for this silly public-relations hoax that we call gun "buyback" programs. What a waste of time, energy and effort. There is no research to demonstrate that such programs lead to even a slight decrease in gun violence.
So, why do we do them? We do them because it allows incompetent politicians to feel as though they're doing something. They want to be able to go back to their under-informed constituents and say, Hey! Look at me. I'm doing something about the 400 murders, on average, in Philadelphia yearly, or the five or six gunshot victims a day! When they really aren't.
To add insult to injury, these ineffective buyback programs are usually supported by the very radio stations that are responsible for playing rap songs glorifying drug-dealing, homicide and gunplay. Hypocrisy, thy name is . . .
These are the kinds of things you won't hear from Al Sharpton's mouth. These are the words of truth, which many, though unwisely, choose to ignore.
IN OTHER WORDS, guns don't kill people - misguided, unloved, disconnected, uneducated, angry youth kill people. Youth without mentors and role models kill people.
So, those liberals who purport to really want to end senseless gun violence should focus on changing that unfortunate reality - instead of U.S. gun laws. * "
Dr. Chuck, you're right, I DO appreciate what you've said there; only taking issue on two small points:
1. When you say you disagree with the NRA on most issues, I'd wager you're wrong; you just don't know what the NRA really is, says, or does, "on most issues".I couldn't agree with you more on the second statement. That is exactly and succinctly correct (though I might also add a few categories of offender to the list).
2. You used a specific phrase - "I abhor guns and the carnage they create" - however later you (correctly) contradict yourself by saying, "IN OTHER WORDS, guns don't kill people - misguided, unloved, disconnected, uneducated, angry youth kill people. Youth without mentors and role models kill people."
The problem is you still used the foolish construction "I abhor guns, and the carnage they create"
Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of creating anything, causing anything, doing anything; without the will of a person behind them.
There is no such thing as "gun violence", there is only "people violence" and "nature violence" (excuse the poor grammatical construction there).
Now as to the rest, although I suspect we disagree on the relative role and level personal responsibility involved in the violence that people commit; the solutions are substantially the same.
It is far cheaper, more efficient, and more humane, to stop someone from becoming a criminal in the first place; rather than to attempt (usually futilely) to clean up the mess left afterwards.
How do you stop people from becoming criminals?
Raise your children right.
Teach them strong morals, and values, and respect. Make them work for everything they get, and really earn it; so that they may also earn self respect.
Give them positive mentoring, positive examples, and positive role models.
Impress upon them the meaning of consequence. Make them understand that every action has a consequence, no matter the intention. Show them the negative examples of those who do not understand, or appreciate this.
Teach them the law of unintended consequences.
Teach them to evaluate risk, and reward.
Teach them to value what they have, and what they dream of.
Teach them to value themselves, those around them, and their communities.
Teach them to learn, and to think, and to analyze; and then to teach themselves and others.
No, this isn't perfect. Some people will try and fail; and some won't even try.
Yes, it depends on parents and schools to do the right thing.
Yes, there are some who will go ahead and be bad anyway, because it's easier, or because they don't care, or because they like it...
Yes, those who DO cross the line need to be punished, and society needs to be protected from them (if we can ever figure out how to do either effectively, short of long incarceration or execution, please let me know).
..But it's the only chance we've got, and it's what we should all be doing; at the very least with our own kids.
If we aren't teaching our kids to be better, stronger, safer, and smarter, what the hell are we doing?
