I posted this to a conservative sf/f author’s website today. They have talked many times about feeling “othered” in the sf/f community because they’re conservative, even though they’re LGBTQA affirming (including writing many books about LGBTQA/gender-queer romances, etc). I’m posting it here, too, for those conservatives who have been saying today “But, I didn’t vote for Trump because of his racism/sexism/homophobia!”
“People like me, moderate liberals who would like to compromise across the gap, are scared this morning. And, I think, rightfully so….
I wasn’t sure I was going to write this to you, but in the interest of understanding, I thought I should. I’ve been a fan of your work for a long time, and I know, you, personally, support LGBTQA folks. I know, through your blog here, that you’re conservative, and really, that doesn’t bug me much since I grew up in New England and so I’m a more middle of the road Democrat and I think that compromise is a good thing.
That being said, and I know you’ve felt backlash from this, is that the “conservative” party leaders that are now in power, have, for years, actively been against the basic civil rights of LGBTQA people. It’s written into the party platform. And, while I wish more conservatives like you were in power, they’re not. Conservatives that want to compromise have been basically run out. The unfortunate side effect, though, is that if you do openly support the party, you’ll be seen with suspicion. I truly believe that groups are not monoliths, and that we need to remember that not all of the individuals in the group support everything about the GOP, etc., but I hope that you understand that there are so many people terrified that their civil rights are going to fly out the window in the next year, that they are seeing the monolith, not the individuals.”
In another post in another forum, I also said:
If you don’t want to be labeled as such, prove it. Put your leaders feet to the fire about racism, sexism, and homophobia. Get other folks who voted for Trump to tell their congresspeople to make sure that all people’s civil rights are important, not just white people’s rights (and yes, that includes Muslims and transgender people). Prove to me that you actually will hold them accountable and that they are actually following Jesus, who fed the poor, helped the sick, and other marginalized people. Because, what you’re seeing today is the real fear of people worried that their families will be spit up, people deported, etc.You may have had anger at the establishment, but what cost will the anti-establishment anger have? We don’t know yet…
The pragmatist in me wants to believe that the Constitution will do it’s magick and keep things from being colossally bad. I want to have hope that there will be so much in-fighting in Congress that none of Trump’s campaign promises will get done.
Honestly, I’d rather not have to be wary (or fearful) of half of my fellow Americans. I want to be able to feel as if this country is still the “Home of the Free and Land of the Brave” still. But today, I just can’t feel that way.
Again, if you’re a Trump supporter or conservative, as I said earlier, I invite you to prove me wrong. If you want me to believe you, then show me that you truly believe that EVERYONE deserves to have their civil rights respected. Show me that you’ll be holding your congresspeople accountable to ensure freedom and justice for ALL, not just white cis-gendered, Christian heterosexuals. If you truly believe that you’re not a bigot, then prove it by making sure my civil rights (and those of Muslims, immigrants, people of color, LGBTQA people, Mexicans, and others) aren’t left to a popular vote, but guaranteed by law.
Your anger at the establishment is valid, heck, I have it, too. But right now, as I said earlier, what cost will it have?
Do you see the numbers in the first row? Believe me, these are not statistics where it’s good that USA is #1. Also, do you see who’s #2? Yemen? They have a quarter of the guns in their population than the US. See the homicides by guns by the rest of the top ten? The ones that are listed total to just under 300 homicides. That’s around 2.5% of the total homicides that happen in US. In other words, about 97.5% of homicides that happen in the top gun owning countries in the world happen here, in the United States of America.
37% of the people polled lived in a house that had a gun in it, and 24% actually own them. Out of those people, it’s primarily men, and primarily white people. So, really, if you’re going to worry about someone shooting you, it’s more likely to be a white person, and most likely male. (Gallup has a similar poll you can read here.)
Groups like the NRA, and a lot of our media, are quick to say that these shooters are somehow “mentally disturbed” or whatnot. That, actually, is crap. Don’t believe me? Ok, here’s what an NIH study concluded:
“Our brief review suggests that connections between mental illness and gun violence are less causal and more complex than current US public opinion and legislative action allow. US gun rights advocates are fond of the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people do.” The findings cited earlier in this article suggest that neither guns nor people exist in isolation from social or historical influences. A growing body of data reveals that US gun crime happens when guns and people come together in particular, destructive ways. That is to say, gun violence in all its forms has a social context, and that context is not something that “mental illness” can describe nor that mental health practitioners can be expected to address in isolation.”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Like any other historical document, it’s necessary to consider the context in which this was written, which, if you know your history, was 1789, six years after the end of the Revolutionary War. 50,000 Americans died trying to create this new country, and they wanted to make sure that they would be able to defend themselves in our country’s infancy. This amendment was, at it’s heart, a way the Founding Fathers believed they could ensure what was written in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
There was a need at the time to keep a civilian militia because, until the Declaration of Independence, the war, and the institution of the the Constitution, the United States of America didn’t have the actual authority to keep the military together (and, really, the population wasn’t big enough at the time to maintain a fully standing army until Constitution said they could get the cash to make one). The 2nd Amendment was to clarify that the government could create such a military, which is what I, and some scholars, believe they were actually doing with the amendment. But, what’s unfortunate, is that it was poorly worded, and like all historical documents became a victim of interpretation (aka the worst game of telephone ever).
Now, the funny thing is, we don’t need that type Militia anymore, since we have a standing military and our needs have changed. The United States is 239 years old and has become something much different than the Founding Fathers ever dreamed. The funny thing is, the Constitution has provisions for this:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution…”
The Constitution has never meant to be a static document. We are meant to change it with the times. We are meant to adapt and change the Constitution as our country changes. We are clinging to a document that, while still functionally useful, needs to change to reflect the times we live in. We cling to certain aspects of the Constitution, like the 2nd Amendment, as if it was Holy Writ. As if the Bill of Rights was, like the Gospels, Divine Decree.
It’s not. It’s a document, written by men, who believed that we could have freedoms while treating people equally (well, at the time, just white men, but that’s another long post). There is nothing denying us the ability to change and pass gun regulation that will save lives. There’s nothing saying we can’t rewrite parts of the Constitution to keep up with the times. We have the ability to change things. It’s what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do.
My Dad, who’s a Vietnam Veteran and a hunter, had hunting rifles in our house (safely) and taught me how to shoot a hunting rifle when I was a teenager. Granted, I was pretty crap at it, but I know what it feels like and I know how to be safe around guns. My Dad was in the military, so I know that he knows how to safely deal with and store guns. My wife knows how to use a bear rifle from when she went to the Arctic for NASA. Most of the rest of my family, particularly most of the men, are either in (or have been in) the military and/or hunt. I actually watch the biathlon in the Winter Olympics because I think it’s a interesting sport to watch (and dude, shooting in the cold and snow on skis? Hardcore).
I’m ok that guns exist. I’m not interested in owning one. If I had to use one to hunt, I’d do it (although, I’d probably have my wife do that, since I’m a pretty crap shot). I’m not against people owning guns.
What I am against is the lack of gun control and the fact that guns are pretty easy to get in this country. I’m also against the fact that an organization has such a hold on lawmakers that any reasonable gun control laws can never be passed. I’m against using the Constitution as an instrument of entitlement and a way to not take responsibility for the epidemic of gun violence in America.
I mean, seriously, the UK, where my wife is from, has strict gun control laws and yet there isn’t a lack of ownership or hunting there. Also note, that the UK is not in the top 10 gun owning countries and they’re doing just fine. The sky hasn’t fallen. Anarchy isn’t happening there. Oh, and, hey, gun violence is a rarity in the UK! Heck, it’s rare in pretty much every other country in the world.
Except the United States of America.
The sad thing is, we are quite capable of fixing it within the bounds of our Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.