Pedro Reyes says being Mexican is like living in an apartment where an upstairs neighbor has a leaking swimming pool.
“Just what is leaking,” says Reyes, “is hundreds of thousands of guns.”
He wants people to think about the availability of guns in the United States, and the impact that has in Mexico.
At the University of South Florida in Tampa, he recently held a series of workshops and a performance, using theater to encourage a discussion about guns. It’s called “Legislative Theater,” a style of performance pioneered in Latin America in the 1960s to influence social change.
In Tampa, Reyes called his project “The Amendment to the Amendment.” Specifically, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. Reyes asks his actors and the audience to consider if there are possible changes that might improve the amendment
Reyes believes art should address social issues like gun violence, even when they’re difficult and controversial. “We have to be allowed to ask questions,” he says. “If you are not allowed to ask questions, you are not free.”
Reyes also addresses the issue of gun violence in another way, by using guns themselves. His first project began in 2007 in the Mexican city of Culiacan. As part of a campaign to curb shootings, the city collected 1,527 guns. He used them to create art.
“Those 1,527 guns were melted and made into the same number of shovels,” he says. “So for every gun now, there’s a shovel. And with every shovel, we planted a tree.”
Now Reyes is working on a new project. It is one that transforms guns into something more musical.
An exhibition of the work is on display at the University of South Florida’s Contemporary Art Museum. It’s called “Disarm,” and consists of guns that have been turned into musical instruments.
“Duck Dynasty” stars Phil and Si Robertson have bigger game in their sights.
“It ain’t gun control we need, it’s sin control,” Si Robertson, one of the stars of the hit A&E reality series, told Men’s Journal in a recent interview.
“Self-control,” corrected his elder brother, Phil, the leader of the duck-call selling clan from West Monroe, Louisiana.
Either way, the brothers and Phil’s sons, Willie, Jase and Jep, are hoping to use their new found fame to spread the gospel of religion and political conservatism — subjects that get played down on “Duck Dynasty.”
The elder Robertsons credit divine intervention for both the success fo the show and of their company, Duck Commander.
“We’re trying to infuse a little good into a culture in which gentleness, patience, kindness, self-control, love, joy and peace have become abnormal,” Phil Robertson told the magazine.
Though much of the appeal of the show — which drew a network record 11.8 million viewers for its fourth season premiere — surrounds their goofy antics, the family hit the Christian speaking circuit over the summer. Evangelist Rick Warren’s church even hosted a “Ducky Dynasty” day in July.
Willie Robertson revealed on Fox News a month later that GOP leaders had been courting him for a political run, based on the clan’s emphasis on family values.
“I go out into America and I am literally navigating a minefield. Godliness has become abnormal,” Phil Robertson told Men’s Journal
The shooting happened yesterday but already, Harry Reid is shutting down Senate action on gun control.
“We don’t have the votes. I hope to get them, but we don’t have them now,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday when asked if the Senate would revisit a bill to tighten background checks after Monday’s shootings. The Senate rejected a similar measure in April.
That measure failed by five votes — Reid switched his “yes” vote to “no” in a procedural move that permits him to bring the proposal up again. On Tuesday, Reid said that he might consider revisiting a separate, limited bill that would exclusively address mental health issues.
“Anything we can do to focus attention on the senseless killings that take place,” Reid said. “That’s something we will look at.”
On Monday, the tone of frustration with Congress’ inaction on gun legislation came from the very top, as President Barack Obama deplored that “we are confronting yet another mass shooting.”
“We’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that we can to try to prevent them,” he added.
Obama made no mention of another push in Congress — and White House press secretary Jay Carney added to the impression of congressional stalemate at his briefing not long afterward.
“We will continue to work to take action to reduce gun violence in this country through executive action, and hopefully Congress will take action to reduce gun violence as well,” Carney told reporters.
The Senate’s refusal to do the right thing yesterday and approve extended background checks rubbed many Americans the wrong way. After all, 90% of the American people wanted this amendment passed. But republicans successfully killed the measure, choosing instead to cater to the demands of the NRA.
Expressing her disappointment is Gabby Giffords, herself a victim of gun violence when she was shot in the head by a crazed gunman. Giffords spoke out in an op-ed in today’s New York Times.
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.
The Senate voted to move forward on gun control Thursday, clearing the first of what is expected to be many 60-vote hurdles for the legislation.
In a 68-31 vote, the Senate approved a procedural motion that will allow debate on the Democratic measure to being. Sixteen Republicans voted in favor of the motion, while two Democrats — both from states President Obama lost in the 2012 election, voted against it.
The two Democrats were Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). The vote comes nearly four months after 26 people including 20 first-graders were killed by a lone gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
If recent news reports are accurate, then the United States Senate will be discussing gun control measures that will look like John Cleese and the Ministry of Silly Walks: Take one small step, slide. take a giant stride forward, then backtrack a bit before moving forward again.
Whatever it takes.
Yes, the gun deal the Senate is discussing doesn’t include a lot of things that I would like to see including bans on certain firearms and a limit on how much ammunition a person can purchase or use. According to the NRA, this is a good thing and it will protect my Second Amendment rights to carry an arsenal in my back pocket so the Obama Administration doesn’t confiscate my guns in the name of public safety. I get that. But this is a major step forward in what will be a years-long process to bring our gun laws in line with socially responsible behavior and the sense that Newtown changed the debate for good over whether the constitution allows us unlimited personal firepower.
I am cautiously optimistic that we will get a gun bill through the Senate. The House will be a higher hurdle, but enough conservatives can probably feel safe to vote for any compromise bill. If the House votes it down, look for President Obama to pull out all the stops to make it an issue in 2014.
It’s imperfect, but it’s a start. Get a bill passed. It can always be improved later on.
Vice President Biden on Tuesday said GOP lawmakers who are threatening to block a vote on gun legislation are making an “almost mind-boggling” move but said he holds hope that the Republican lawmakers will come around and support a vote.
Fourteen GOP lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have said they would likely move to block a vote on gun legislation out of concerns that the bill — which includes a provision to expand background checks —would infringe on American’s right to bear arms.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced Tuesday that the Senate will vote on Thursday to try to end the GOP filibuster.
“Why don’t people up there understand this?” Biden said in a speech to law enforcement officers in Washington. “What has to happen to break through the consciousness of the people up on (Capitol) Hill?”
The Senate is expected to begin debate on the gun legislation this week. The current version of the Senate gun bill would strengthen current laws on gun trafficking and straw purchasers, increase grants for improvements in school safety as well as expand background checks to nearly every gun purchase.
In what is being described as the toughest gun control laws in the nation, Connecticut lawmakers yesterday agreed that the murder… no, slaughter of kids by crazed lunatics in their state will not be tolerated.
The proposal also called for background checks for private gun sales and a new registry for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a compromise for parents of Newtown victims who had wanted an outright ban on them, while legislators had proposed grandfathering them into the law.
The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales and expansion of Connecticut’s assault weapons ban.
A new state-issued eligibility certificate would also be needed to purchase any rifle, shotgun or ammunition under the legislation. To get the certificate, a buyer would need to be fingerprinted, take a firearms training course and undergo a national criminal background check and involuntary commitment or voluntary admission check.
The deal is “the most comprehensive package in the country because of its breadth,” said Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown.
The NRA and their Republican supporters in Congress will not be happy.
Simply asking that question will not resolve anything but facing and making adequate and lasting changes can lead to actually saving lives.
Most recently, the focus from the media, political leaders, gun rights activists and many others have not been focused on long-term needs or solutions but rather on short-term story lines, misleading voters and pushing policies as well as allowing misunderstandings which have led to surges in firearm sales.
The story of the century would be a day without a death from gun violence or even more so, violent crime.
Sound impossible? We are driven to think that way.
The sales increase of armed weapons proves this. There are many statistics on the amount of weapons in the U.S and the surge in sales but the fact is many guns aren’t registered. However, the increase in background checks shows the surge in sales and a lot is due to the speculation of what may change with new laws or regulations.
Although a majority of gun owners agree with the idea of stronger background checks, many loopholes in laws already in affect allow around 40% of sales to go through without background checks.
If these issues were dealt with, would that resolve the problems at hand? No.
The majority of gun owners were well intentioned weapon purchasers. It was never their plan to allow the weapon to get into the wrong hands, use the weapon in any way other than the way it was first intended and certainly to abide by all laws when purchasing their weapon, ammunition or laws pertaining to either.
This part is simple. At least it should be.
The 2nd Amendment is brought up in a great deal of discussions, arguments and as much as it is a part of this topic, it is also a big part of misguided discussions and a detour from what should be brought to the table in this matter.
There is very little brought up about our responsibilities for our rights and freedoms and the effects of change over time.
You see, it is clear today the person next door, at the office, in the church or at school may be planning something nobody could have imagined or possibly be the victim of the next violent crime. How are we to know? How can society better prepare or better prevent more deaths from these types of crimes?
Does it help when our congress continuously makes every effort to show their unwillingness to work together, compromise or communicate to efficiently get things done for those who elect them?
Does it help when people are looking for an end to gun violence in some way and a leading organization like the NRA comes out and takes no responsibility but instead points their finger at others? Why not accept some responsibility and work together? It is clear many NRA members do not agree with the NRA’s standing.
Does it help when our society is flooded with violence in its gaming and entertainment industry?
Do attacks on Facebook, Twitter and many of the Social Media websites help at all?
It has been made very clear bullying leads to aggressive behavior, violent crime and yes, massive shootings and often ends in suicide. So why add to that? Why attack those speaking out against violent crime and gun violence?
Does any of this help? Obviously not!
A crime very rarely starts at the moment of the attack, shooting, kidnapping, “random” event, or murder/suicide.
Our society has become self-centered and comfortable with shrugging of responsibility, passing the buck and expecting someone else to fix the issue. That is the issue. Our rights and freedoms should never cause others to live in fear. That is not freedom.
The reason gun violence is more an issue of violent crime is because that is what most often leads to it.
Life is very fast paced, more so now as many people must multi-task, never taking time to slow down.
As our economic tensions are high in the U.S., many people are financially over burdened.
Personal lives, finances, work conditions, health conditions and the constant feed of information can leave many people at a constant breaking point.
Emotionally, there are many struggling from childhood through adulthood, just to fit in or keep their private life out of the public eye in fear of rejection.
There is a major ongoing need to unwind in a society that is less willing and sometimes unable to allow that to happen.
As much as someone may be a responsible gun PURCHASER, there are many changing and unknown factors which come into lives leaving many gun owners unaware of how dangerous having a readily available weapon may have become. So many think nothing will ever happen to them to take them to the breaking point but the news tells the other side of that story. Nobody can be foolish enough to say something could never happen to them. That is someone that shouldn’t own a gun.
The only way to actually make our society safer is for everyone to take responsibility for our part. We ALL have a part. The idea of more guns and less regulation is not the answer. That breeds fear and fear breeds crime. This is not one side or the other, a political rival or even a statement for or against gun control.
It will take more than gun control, gun laws or regulations to see this through but isn’t this worth it? Violent crime death does not see race, economic status, neighborhood, political party, age or anything. That has been very evident as we have watched recent deaths in just this year alone.
Understand, this is more than gun violence. It starts before someone picks up a gun so everyone is part of this solution.
NRA, that includes gun control and regulations. Just because it starts before someone picks up a gun doesn’t mean a weapon should be laying there for the wrong person nor should any weapon be there that can commit mass murder because it was available.
We all need to step up.
The parents of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year-old girl gunned down just a week after she sang at the President’s inauguration, will be attending the State of the Union Address as guests of the President and First Lady.
Michelle Obama, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Education Secretary Arne Duncan attended Hadiya’s funeral service this past Saturday to pay their respects to Cleopatra and Nathaniel Pendleton Sr. and console the family amisdt reports out of Chicago of January being its bloodiest month in more than a decade due to gun violence. The President is expected to be re-emphasizing his position on gun control during his address to the country this evening.
Is it just me or is anyone else getting the feeling that there’s more to the Christopher Dorner case than meets the eye?
It was was reported that the ex-marine went cra-cra after being fired in ’08 for misconduct by the LAPD (there’s an oxymoron in there somewhere), accused of falsely claiming his training officer kicked a mentally ill suspect in the course of an arrest.
In 2008? He’s just getting fired up about it 5 years later?
He then goes berserk and kills a cop and two civilians, vows to kill other cops and their families and then goes on the lamb for which he disappears off the face of the earth?? He now has a million dollar reward on his head and a War Drone searching for his ass.
And last Friday, the LAPD announced it would reopen its investigation of Dorner’s firing and his claims…the story’s not all here pilgrims…
Seems like there’s some historical inaccuracies in the movie “Lincoln“ by Steven Spielberg. Political representatives from the state of Connecticut contend that their’s was wrongly characterized in the movie as having three of its four legislative forefathers voting against the 13th Amendment, when in fact the delegation voted overwhelmingly in favor of passing the bill that technically ended slavery in all its forms in the United States of America.
Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat from Connecticut, wrote a scathing letter to Spielberg earlier this week emphasizing that although he is aware of the use of artistic license in the movie business, he was still demanding that the film be corrected before “Lincoln” comes out on DVD.
Guess the difference between license and lying was lost on the movie’s screenwriter.
And on a final good note: Happy Valentine’s Day to my favorite couple, Veronica & Marcus. Their’s is a story of Love lost and found, that never fails to give me hope, warm my heart and lighten my Spirit, stuff of which we all can use more of…♥
Larry Pratt, an advocate for the Gun Industry and Director of Gun Owners of America went on Fox News Sunday today and shot down the idea that background checks would result in less mass murders. Pratt also embraced the NRA’s suggestion that everyone should have a gun, when he said that gun-free zones are not the solution because it tells people with bad intent where to attack.
Larry Pratt
“I think it’s false security that somehow we’re going to stop problems, when there’s really no way to spot these problems,” Pratt said. “Some of the most horrendous mass murders that have happened recently — including the one in Newtown — would not have been stopped by a background check.”
“We’re wasting our time going in that direction when we should be talking about doing away with the gun-free zones, which have been so convenient and such a magnate to those who would come and slaughter lots of people knowing that there’s going to be nobody that’s legally able to defend themselves in these zones.”
“In fact, background checks wouldn’t have stopped most of these mass murders that have occurred… We got to face the reality that we’ve got to empower average people, including teachers and other people in schools to be able to defend themselves.”
This is not the first time Pratt has made these claims. He embraced the NRA’s favorite Congressman Rep Steve Stockman, who introduced a bill to repeal the gun free zone around schools. Stockman, representing Houston, is considered one of the most vocal gun advocates in Congress. In promoting his Safe School Act to end gun free zones, Stockman said;
“Not only have so-called ‘gun-free school zones’ proven to be anything but that, they appear to have placed our children in even greater danger. Co-sponsoring the Safe School Act is the first step toward protecting our children.”
“The time has come to end the deadly experiment of disarming peaceable, law-abiding citizens near schools.”
Steve Stockman and Larry Pratt
Yes, you cannot completely stop mass shootings but sensible gun laws including background checks and regulations on the size of a clip can make a difference. New York has some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation, but the last mass shooting in this state occurred in 1993, twenty years ago, when 35 year old Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island Commuter train and opened fire. He fired 30 rounds, six people died and nineteen were injured.
Gun lovers would say if everyone on that train had a gun, Ferguson would not have killed so many people. That argument in itself makes no sense. One man fired 30 times in a crowded commuter train and killed six people. Imagine how many more would have died if everyone in that car had a gun and started shooting.
Oh, these Republicans and gun lovers have found a new target, a new way to divert attention away from the real problem and point the rest of our attention to the shiny new object – British born, Piers Morgan. Morgan’s crime? Calling for more gun control laws to protect the lives of Americans.
On his CNN Show for December 21st, Morgan had NRA defender and executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt
on for a heated exchange following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school, one calling for more gun control and the other blaming everything and everyone else but guns for the carnage happening regularly in America. The heated debate between Pratt and Morgan escalated, causing Pratt to say, “It seems to me you are morally obtuse. You seem to prefer being a victim to being able to prevail over the criminal element. I don’t know why you want to be the criminal’s friend.”
Morgan fired back, “you’re an unbelievably stupid man aren’t you? You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don’t actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America.”
Well, that exchange between Morgan and Pratt got someone very angry. They went to the White House’s website and started a petition to get Morgan deported. Petitions must receive a total of 25,000 signature to get a response from the White House, but Morgan’s deportation petition is gathering signatures at an unbelievable rate. When I began writing this post, there were 48,129 signatures. When the post was finished some five minutes later, there were 48,900 signatures on the petition.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
