It is worth remembering that the Boston Tea Party of 1773, which was one of the sparks leading up to the American Revolution, was as much a reaction against the corporate greed of the British East India Tea Company—the most powerful corporate monopoly of its time—as it was against overreach by the British monarchy.

Yesterday, the Senate keeled over in front of their corporate masters, represented by the NRA, despite overwhelming public support for the tiny steps toward sensible gun policy. How can anyone make a coherent argument that criminals or crazy people should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a weapon of mass destruction without getting a background check? And yet the Senate balked at this simple and sensible little step, just two days after the Boston marathon bombing.

You need a license to cut hair or drive a car. We have a long list of behaviors that are subject to government regulation. Why can’t the federal government take even the slightest step toward sanity around gun control? Assault weapons are far more dangerous than a barber’s shears and shavers.

My conservative friend Ted Cartselos thinks gun control will happen state-by-state, as it did in Connecticut. But Connecticut is a liberal, northern state, still reeling from the Newtown tragedy. I can’t see that happening in, say, Mississippi.

Let me state clearly: I am not opposed to gun ownership per se. In the rural community where I live, most of my neighbors—good, friendly, caring people—have guns. But there’s a big difference between a hunting rifle or a personal-protection pistol and an assault weapon that has no defensive purpose.

Voters will remember this betrayal. We, the people, have the right to walk down the street or go to school or shopping mall without some lunatic coming after us with an assault rifle. Let’s invoke the spirit of our wise revolutionaries from 200 years ago and say no to corporate intersts and their government bootblacks that trample on our rights.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

This is very personal to me; my son’s college is about a mile from Copley Square.

He was fine, but he and a group of friends decided to walk home (several miles) rather than take the train as usual.

9/11 was also very personal. I was one connection removed from at least two people who were killed, and it took me two frantic weeks to find out that my ex-housemate from my Brooklyn days, who was at that time living just two blocks from the WTC, was all right.

But what made me want to write tonight was not those deep personal connections. It was a question by my friend @PeterShankman, founder of HARO, about how he can talk about this sort of random violence to his daughter, due to be born in a few days.

My answer, I admit, talked around his question rather than going straight for the center. I wrote:

We explained to our young kids (now 20 and 25) why we were bringing them to protest various wars and injustices and environmental atrocities, and to talk of the importance of NOT accepting evil, that we could always do SOMETHING and whether it worked or not was less important than that we did not turn a blind eye.

Interestingly enough, they both have been involved in social justice work quite a bit. My daughter defended a nerdy male classmate against bullies when she was six, and my son was also six when he organized a children’s fundraiser for Save the Mountain, the environmental group my wife and I started that actually did save our local mountain. I was and still am very proud of them.

I do feel that one of the things we did right as parents is to inculcate our kids both with a sense of social justice and with the knowledge that they can actually have an impact. These were lessons I got from my own mother, the late Gloria Yoshida; as a young mom in New York City, she was one of the white volunteers civil rights groups could call upon to find out if that “already rented” apartment was REALLY rented, or if it was only off the market if a black family came to look at it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail