The professor was generous enough to grant some time on December 8 for an interview to provide expertise on the subject of constitutional law and the history of the ever controversial Second Amendment. A conversation via Skype revealed and explained fascinating truths behind American gun culture.

Insurrectionist Theory

“Throughout the history of the republic, until about 1960, as a matter of law, the right to bear arms was a collective right and not an individual right,” said Professor Bogus. He explained that the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy as a crucial moment in gun rights history, noting that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a mail-order ad in American Rifleman, an official publication of the National Rifle association. “Afterward,” said Professor Bogus, “there was a fear of significant gun regulation. The NRA was overtaken by right-wing political extremists.”

Of course, this version of history does not compute with the lofty rhetoric commonly used to espouse the right to bear arms as promoted by the NRA. Rather, one hears broad and abstract statements about the how the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all Americans. For example, according to the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition website,

“… our very liberty is in jeopardy at the hands of misinformed, and/or over zealous anti-gun legislators who don’t understand or respect the systems put in place through the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Let’s not forget this; without the 2nd Amendment, the entire Constitution is nothing but unenforceable words on paper. The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that separates us from every other country that has confiscated the privately-owned firearms of the public – turning them into ‘subjects’ as opposed to ‘citizens’.”

Relatively new, this interpretation of the language of the second amendment is referred to as “insurrectionist theory,” and has been developed, in no small part, through NRA grant funding. In The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, a 1998 publication in the UC Davis Law Review, Professor Bogus writes that, “insurrectionist theory is premised on the idea that the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry is to be prepared to fight the government itself.” But, in this self-contradicting concept, the wise framers of the constitution, whose foundation for American democracy is praised for its unique freedoms, expresses enough mistrust to require the need for citizens to arm themselves with sufficient deadly force and vehemently contested regulation to risk unparalleled levels of collateral damage. The Hidden History points out that insurrectionist theory would have one believe that all of the other Constitutional components designed to prevent the abuse of government power are insufficient and the ultimate guarantee of freedom comes from the barrel of a gun.

Well Regulated Slave Patrols

The popular, contemporary association, however, of armed individuals being the thin, lead line standing between liberty tyranny is not supported by the history of the “founding fathers.” Furthermore, it ignores the very language of the :

“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.”

When asked whether individual citizens can be considered the de facto Militia necessary to the security of a free State, Professor Bogus said, “Not according to the framers. Militia is defined in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8. There was a concern at the Virginia Constitutional Convention by George Mason and Patrick Henry, in 1788, that if congress declared, they could disarm the militia. There was a large dispute over what militia ought to be. There was talk of every white male able body. Madison wrote the second amendment to solve that problem, irrespective of congress.” Professor Bogus is, of course, correct. Notwithstanding the lack of an immutable definition of who actually composes a militia, well regulated or no, the article in the main body of the Constitution gives Congress power over the militia.

And, according to Bogus, at the time, state militias had only one job: controlling slave insurrections.

By the middle of the 18th century, in the South, militias and slave patrols had become synonymous. In Virginia, by the time the delegates convened to debate ratification of the evolving Constitution in 1788, over 40 percent of the population were non-white slaves. For all intents and purposes, the “well regulated militia” was a vast, industrial police system. Therefore, by that logic, the founding fathers’ intent by writing into the document delineating the supreme law of the land language that spoke of an armed militia as necessary to the security of a free state was, in practical terms, to preserve slavery. “Even during the revolution,” said Bogus, “the south refused to commit state militia because of slave insurrections.”

It was not principally Heller

When asked whether the primary shift in contemporary public opinion was the Supreme Court Decision laid out in D.C. vs. Heller, Professor Bogus said, “It was not principally Heller. They (the NRA, the gun manufacturing lobby) sold the view that guns signify freedom and the fear that people may need to go to war with their own government. Heller is the fruit of the long campaign to sell these views. Heller made it the law of the land. The culture here is a greater obstacle.”

To what culture does he refer? Is it the culture that flies the flag of the armed minuteman, but ignores the armed slave owner? Is it the culture that places its trust in the men in government who cry loudest that government cannot be trusted? Is it the culture that creates a campaign to stamp out every single cause of gun violence except for the guns? Or, is it the culture that calls itself the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, but only if the provisions of the doctrine that enable those ideals it holds in such high regard – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – are held at gunpoint?

Approximately six weeks ago, I was using the internet for its intended purpose: arguing with strangers about social policy issues while simultaneously binge-watching the latest Netflix series and shopping for the best online deals for boxer-briefs. During my bandwidth frenzy the social media debate in which I was engaged turned to the issue of gun laws. It must have been in the recent aftermath of one or another mass shooting. With the frequency of such occurrences, I cannot recall which one.

I made a comment concerning the relative ease of purchasing a firearm and was met with a strong opposing statement about how difficult it is to buy a gun. I believe I had said that peanut butter is too dangerous to bring on to school property, but certain lawmakers want to allow concealed firearms. I followed that up with something comparing the simplicity of buying a gun to that of buying peanut butter. Admittedly, this was not my best case argument to date. But, I was testing an angle. I decided to try an experiment.

Opening yet another browser window on my laptop, now hot to the touch due to the number of running applications, I typed into Google, “buy a gun online.” I clicked the first response that popped up. Six and a half minutes later, I had located a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, completed the background questionnaire, and been approved. I requested a hold for delivery to a nearby gun shop for pick up within six days. I also checked to see how long it would take to buy peanut butter online. For the record, ordering peanut butter for in-store pickup was quicker and easier by a good two or three minutes.

Also, for the record, I had no intention of actually purchasing a firearm. Nor do I plan on owning a gun. I rely heavily on statistics for most decisions and the numbers point to a much higher probability of something irreparably traumatic occurring to me or someone for whom I care than of requiring such a device for protection. I feel no need to repeat the statistics that have been accurately expressed ad nauseum by other sources. Suffice it to say, they all strongly suggest that more guns result in more shootings.

It was after I went through the online registration with the site that acted as the broker for my gun purchase that never was, that I started to receive the almost daily promotional e-mails from Gallery of Guns, a site that prices and deals in firearms. I had gone through something that called itself  the Gun Genie. The primary address for the operation is in Prescott, Arizona. Yet, I also noticed a secondary address in Greensboro, North Carolina. I have no knowledge of Arizona. I did, however, live in Greensboro, North Carolina for six years. I went to college there. And, I cannot say that I am at all surprised that such an operation would exist in Greensboro.

But I digress. Below are some of the highlights from the e-mails that I have been  receiving.

Then there was a bit of a shock when I was offered aan opportunity to enter for a chance to win not one, but two guns. Mind you, these are not just any guns. The Jericho 9mm is a nearly indestructible, polymer sidearm; and the Tavor is a unique, bullpup design, with a similar barrel-length and muzzle velocity to an AR-15 assault rifle. However, the configuration allows it to be more compact and maneuverable in close-combat situations. You know, like close-combat deer hunting and close-combat target shooting. Both are Israeli-design and versions are used by the Israeli military. I will be sure to let you all know more about their design characteristics if I win the “Great Gun Giveaway.”The last promotional e-mail is the real class-act. One might think that the day following the November 27 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood siege, in which a gunman killed three and wounded four over the course of a six hour standoff, it would be in good taste to refrain from sending advertisements for military-style firearms. However, one would be wrong to think so. Advertised as a special for this weekend only, the ever popular AR-15 type weapon, touted here as the best gun for WSHF/WROL (without forward assist). If you do not know (I had to look it up) that stands for “when shit hits the fan,” and “without rule of law.” So, I suppose this is the one you would want to buy if you found yourself trapped by police after invading a women’s health facility and opening fire on unarmed, innocent civilians.

I cannot pinpoint exactly what to take away from my own story. I suppose the issue worthy of discussion is this: If guns are tools of either survival or of sport, why are they being marketed so hard. As soon as I provided one single point of contact, I have been bombarded with a barrage of marketing that has showed me a glimpse of the culture of the firearms market. These are instruments designed to maximize the efficiency with which a human being can cause life threatening injury or death to another living thing. When there are cries of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people and discussions of responsible gun owners, limiting access to convicted felons, or (the most recent scapegoat) the mentally ill, it holds even less weight than before I became aware of all the savings, deals, promotions, and shameless advertising tactics for tactical weapons.

This experience has further validated my suspicions of an industry and a culture that speaks out of both sides of its mouth when it promotes rights and responsibilities and then acts in such a sensational and classless manner, offering deals on AR-15 rifles the day after a national gun-related tragedy. And, as for the “Great Gun Giveaway,” yes, they have indeed given it away. But not just the gun. They gave away the whole scam.

Under Rhode Island law, domestic abuse includes dating partners as well as married and co-habitating couples. Federal law does not include dating partners. Also, under Federal law, there is no mechanism defined for actually removing guns from the homes of domestic abusers, but there is under Rhode Island law.

Under Rhode Island law § 11-47-5 (b) “…no person convicted of an offense punishable as a felony offense…shall purchase, own, carry, transport or having in his or her possession any firearm, for a period of two years following the conviction.” Often a domestic abuser will plead down their offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, which has the effect of leaving guns in the possession of abusers.

The upshot of this legal maze of federal and state law is that guns too often remain in the hands of domestic abusers, and the statistics on the intersection of guns and domestic abuse are stark. According the the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, (RICAGV) between 2001 and 2012 more than 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun and abused women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun.

According to the Center for American Progress and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “of the 67 female homicide victims in Rhode Island from 2003 to 2012, 27 were the result of a domestic violence incident.”

A study from the Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, “Batterers’ Use of Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners,” domestic abusers use their guns in many ways as a form of threat. Abusers may threaten to shoot their victim or a person or pet the victim cares about. Abusers may clean, hold, load or even fire a gun during an argument with the victim, driving home their threat without the use of words.

Most gun advocates will agree that guns need to be in the hands of responsible gun owners, not criminals. To that end, the RICAGV is backing legislation that will close the maze of legal loopholes surrounding gun ownership and domestic abuse. The changes in RI § 11-47-5(b) being suggested would:

1. Reduce the sentence from felony to misdemeanor, thereby forcing domestic abusers to lose the right to their guns,
2. Increase the ban on possessing firearms from 2 years to lifetime, since domestic abusers are typically repeat offenders and can easily “wait out” a two year restriction, and
3. Include a clause that would allow persons who have expunged their records, thereby demonstrating that they have reformed themselves, to have their right to firearms reinstated.

A form of this legislation passed the Rhode Island Senate last year unanimously, but died in committee in the House. This year it is hoped that the House has the leadership to pass this common sense legislation out of committee and bring it to the floor for a full vote. Like the legislation that seeks to close the loophole allowing guns in schools, this should be an easy win for gun safety advocates in Rhode Island.

On Thursday night the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence and the Religious Coalition for a Violence-Free Rhode Island held its second annual Sandy Hook memorial and vigil, A Voice for Victims, at the First Unitarian Church of Providence. In addition to speakers such as Lisa Pagano, Wendy Bowen and Gladys Brown, who have all lost families and friends to gun violence, speakers included Providence mayor-elect Jorge Elorza, Central Falls Mayor James Diossa, Providence Commissioner of Public Safety Steven Paré, Rabbi Sarah Mack of the Greater Rhode Island Board of Rabbis and the Reverend Don Anderson, of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches.

The 250 attendees was about double the number who attended last year’s No More Silence vigil. The program ran a little long at 75 minutes, and was heavy on political, religious and law enforcement speakers. The most moving talks were given by those who lives were impacted by gun violence, those who lost loved ones and whose worlds were turned upside down in the time it takes for a trigger to be squeezed.

Coalition President Jerry Belair emceed the event, noting that this was just one of 197 similar events taking place across the country. Belair said that there have been 99 new gun laws passed in 37 states, adding that, “Massachusetts has the lowest gun death rate in the nation because they passed common sense gun control laws that work.”

Lisa Pagano is the executive director of the Lt. Jim Pagano Foundation.  Jim Pagano was shot by his next door neighbor in Cranston, after an argument over an errant tennis ball. The neighbor was upset that the children playing outside during a birthday party allowed the tennis ball to hit his car while they were playing. “What could have been a simple neighborhood dispute,” said Lisa Pagano, “turned deadly because a gun was in the wrong hands.”

“I will never forget that fateful afternoon,” said Gladys Brown, whose son Michael was shot in 2009 at the age of 33, leaving behind two children, “when two Pawtucket police detectives knocked on my door with the most shocking and heartbreaking news a mother could bear…”

Wendy Bowen was a teacher at a Newtown Middle School when a gunman killed 20 students and six teachers next door at Sandy Hook Elementary. She was in lock down with her class, the majority being regular students with some mainstreamed special needs students mixed in, communicating by text message with the outside world as sirens and helicopters filled the air. “Along the way I learned from my sister that the principal of Sandy Hook, a colleague and friend that I knew well, had died along with many children. This was hard for me to hear and not cry, but I could not fall apart in front of my students…”

Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Paré spoke briefly about passing wise laws that make it more difficult for guns to get into the wrong hands.

Here’s the full video from the event:

Correction: An earlier version of this piece mistakenly implied that the entirety of Wendy Bowen’s class was special needs students. This has been corrected.

Support Steve Ahlquist!

Mark Barden, whose seven year old son Daniel was murdered along with nineteen classmates and six teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, spoke at the first annual fundraiser for the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence last night in Barrington. A self described guitarist and dad, Barden didn’t think much about gun violence before the tragedy that took his son’s life.

“I wasn’t engaged. I didn’t know about this. I didn’t think it could happen.”

There’s barely a dry eye in the room while Barden speaks. His story is heartbreaking. He passes around a picture of his children, and I can’t look at it for too long before I pass it along. It’s overwhelming. Daniel was Barden’s youngest, a bright and kind kid who should be starting second grade and turning nine this year.

“I’m not proud to say it changed my life,” says Barden, “Now that I know what I know, I wish I had been engaged…”

Representative David Cicilline began the evening, describing a Congress that responds with unconcern towards horrific news stories of gun violence. Every shooting, says Cicilline makes us think that “this will be the moment” when common sense gun laws can be passed, but nothing, not the murder of twenty children, not even the shooting of one of their own, Representative Gabby Giffords, can move an apathetic Congress to action. “The only way to make progress on this issue,” says Cicilline, “is through organizations like this.”

This is the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, which started as a response to the Newtown shootings as an offshoot of Moms Demand Action, but quickly snowballed into a statewide coalition of thirty groups and 30,000 members. The coalition is still growing, with more groups showing interest every month. This is a coalition dedicated to passing common sense gun legislation favored my a majority of voters, not repealing the Second Amendment.

Even as violent crime overall continues to drop, gun violence and deaths from guns remain pretty constant, with about 32,000 victims each year. Smart laws that keep guns out of the wrong hands will help to stem the tide. “We have the responsibility and the ability to reduce gun violence considerably,” said Cicilline.

Po Murray is a mother and a resident of Newtown. She helped to found the Newtown Action Alliance. Her neighbor was the killer who entered Sandy Hook Elementary and shot Mark Barden’s son, along with 19 other children. Needless to say, her community is still healing, and may never be fully whole. Newtown was once considered to be one of the safest cities in the United States. “If a horrific mass shooting can occur in my town,” says Murray, “it can happen anywhere.”

“The NRA (National Rifle Association) puts gun company profits ahead of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” says Murray, adding that Wayne LaPierre, the president of the NRA, “enraged us” when he declared that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

“My daughter (Natalie) asked, “How do we know who the bad guys are?’” says Mark Barden, “My son James asked if there’s anything we can do to save another family from this.”

To honor his son’s memory, Barden did the only thing he could do. Get engaged.

“We worked hard and closed the pessimism gap,” says Murray, making Connecticut second in the nation for gun safety laws as a result of their efforts. “We are hoping that Rhode Island will join Connecticut and Massachusetts for a safer New England.”

I have a gun problem. And so do you. I have a love of guns, but you probably don’t. I don’t own a single gun, but you might.

When my father died, he left me nothing but a broken down truck and a beautiful gun-safe full of guns in the far off land of Las Vegas, Nevada. I was off to Afghanistan when he died, and I was back from war when I chose not to accept my uniquely American inheritance. Only in America would such an inheritance be possible – or more importantly – applauded by many. I passed.

My father’s slow death was a tragic and fucked up experience for me, but it ended up being a special parting gift from my father. In dying, he inadvertently prepared me for the incredible bullshit on the horizon. Dad withered slowly over the course of many months, and yet he did miraculously get the timing right; I happened to be stationed in the deserts of California, not far from my old man – close enough that we could spend his last days together. His death was a final lesson, and I think Dad would be happy to have his son say that he died teaching him a lesson – even if that lesson was to do something entirely different with my life.

After whatever training the Marine Corps and Navy hefted on me and fellows, I’d scurry away as fast as I could from my temporary home in Twenty-Nine Palms, California, hopping in a cheap rental car and roaring the solemn 3 1/2 hour drive across old Route 66,  and then on upwards to Las Vegas. I think I made this drive over a dozen times in the months leading up to the end, listening to satellite radio, chatting with far away friends, and crying. I’d pull in to my father’s rental home, a cheap spot in a a deeply Hispanic side of town. (There’s a Sinaloa chicken joint nearby that I highly recommend to you.) I parked next to his busted, camouflaged International Scout II, which sat alongside a neglected motor home once-purposed to take his best friends to the drag races.

Dad kept his friends close. Close enough that he gave a few of them the combination to his gun safe, for emergencies’ sake.

Now, this is Las Vegas. This is a place full of vice, and full of shifty real-world friends.

So, just weeks before my Dad died, he had a pistol stolen from him. It was a nice one,  a 9mm Glock that was relatively new to his arsenal and which he was especially prideful to own. I was present at the moment he realized it was missing. He was skeletal at this time, and had gotten up to show me something in his safe that I ought to know was important (I think it was paperwork.) At that point, he realized something was amiss, shuffled around a few things, and then suddenly shuffled around everything. He was afraid, exasperated, and finally heartbroken.

I was incapable of doing a damn thing, which meant that I said something like “its okay.” It wasn’t. My dad was right that it wasn’t. The whole fucking point of the safe, and of friends, and the guns, was to be safe, and to protect loved ones. Whoever fucking stole his gun obviously didn’t get the point. But, that’s not what my dad said. He collapsed on the bed after a few hours of grief. His grief wasn’t that life was ending for him, since he was a fighter and certainly not willing to admit that at the time, but was instead grieved that there were only a few choice friends who could have stolen that damned gun, and all of them were well-loved. But were they trustworthy? No. There was at least one that was an addict, maybe more. At least one that could have stolen it. How did he know? Because the gun was gone.

It is difficult for me when I talk to my friends, acquaintances and strangers about their firearms. Often I don’t tell them my father’s story, but when I do, it is because they are new to owning guns. They are usually happy to get their first, but at a loss as to how to deal with the seriousness of owning weaponry. They buy into the many responsible ways to mitigate the danger, as my father did. My father, for all his faults, was a reasonable gun owner. On the other hand, many friends initially just chuck their new AR-15 in a closet, hopefully with some kind of locking mechanism, and hope for the best. My dad did this for nearly 20 years and never had a problem. Ironically, even after doing the right thing and getting the safe, he still had that handgun stolen.

The firearms in question never came into my possession, nor were they even technically willed to me. I wasn’t up for owning them in the first place. But even if I was, the laws and paperwork would have likely been too byzantine for me to have navigated them. I often wonder whether it would have been worth getting the gun safe, just to give it to a friend who could use it. I wonder even more, after having seen a few people shot in Afghanistan, whether it is that 9mm Glock, and not any tens of thousand of others, that was picked up in a Nevada pawnshop and used to put a hole in some child somewhere. I often wonder whether or not anyone takes their rights seriously, anymore. I wonder whether culture, and not commerce or law, can make a difference to make these many tragedies less likely.

I’m a Second Amendment guy. I’m a First Amendment guy. Worthless statements, but worthy in action. I do not use the 2nd Amendment (I will not own a gun,) but I support the rights of others to own guns. I’d just rather they didn’t. I do use the greatest invention of the previous millenium – the right to speak and be heard freely. I am far more proud to be a loud-mouth, than a gun owner. As someone who has spent far more time wondering what to do about a bullet-wound than what to do with a gun, I wonder whether or not people are ever going to fight nearly as hard for healing and prevention.

Submitting to the majority is not the American way of life. For those who hate guns, more power to you.

In retrospect, I probably should have completely ignored it. In the future I will refrain from being baited into such pointless exercises. Maybe it was exhaustion or simply my own lack of self control, but I foolishly engaged in the dialogue and was so shocked by this person’s incapacity for civil discourse that I had to share it.

As a disclaimer, I am a progressive political operative. I make no attempt to hide the fact that I prioritize people over profits. However, I am far from radical. I tend to work within the system and, while my progressive values and personal integrity prevent me from keeping still and silent when I feel strongly about an issue, I make every attempt to accept opinions that differ from mine.

But, in the dead of night, when my smart phone chimed with unwarranted vitriol, spewed from a complete stranger who, like any well practiced bully, picks a fight by finding sensitive pressure points, I took the bait.

Here is the actual Facebook Messenger conversation. I added some personal commentary and removed the name of the individual to maintain privacy. I also blurred the photograph. However, everything else is copied, unedited, as it occurred.

Senate Bill 2318 would impose a 10% supplemental excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be distributed to city, town, or municipal police chiefs (or the highest ranking municipal official) for the purpose of grant funding of nonprofit organizations whose mission includes a commitment to reducing crime and violence.

Committee Vice Chairman Walter Felag (D-Bristol, Tiverton, Warren) made it clear he had little respect for the bill and it’s sponsor when he repeatedly said that every senator is entitled to a hearing of his or her bill, but that doesn’t mean anyone at the table supports it. He also chastised Senator Goldin, in absentia, for leaving the hearing after explaining the bill, in spite of the fact that half of the members of his own committee were absent to work on budget issues.

Out in force was the usual shoot ‘em if ya got ‘em crowd, including 2nd Amendment Coalition lobbyist and unemployment insurance attorney Frank Saccoccio, NRA lobbyist Darin Goens, talk-show radio host Daria Bruno, Cranston Mayor Allan Fung and relentlessly obnoxious member of the tin-foil hat press, Dan Bidondi.

Saccoccio started his testimony by positing that the most important part of any legislation is the language that is not there. I’m no lawyer but I am fairly certain that the most important part of legislative language is, more often than not, the language that is there. However, Saccoccio chose to focus on a list of hypothetical scenarios having nothing to do with the actual bill or its potential merits.

“What if the police chief chose to give the money to an organization that spent 10% on a billboard and 90% on administrative costs and taxpayers’ money was wasted? What if, in a state with such high unemployment, gun dealers were forced to go out of business because everyone purchased their guns in Massachusetts?”

Well, I suppose the displaced workers could go to work for the nonprofits who are spending so much money on their staff. But, unfortunately, logic did not have a seat at this table, in spite of the many vacant chairs.

NRA lobbyist, Goens, said that he’s seen, “literally thousands,” of gun control bills and that “this was in the top five of the worst he’d ever seen.” I, myself, am a lobbyist. I understand the craft. Hyperbole is not usually the friend of the lobbyist. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Goens has used this very phrase on literally hundreds of the literally thousands of gun bills against which the NRA stands. He then went on to give the not-so-subtle impression that, even though he represents the NRA and not the gun manufacturers (wink, nudge), if the bill passed, gun manufacturers might just stop selling guns and ammo to security or law enforcement in Rhode Island. I wonder if he submitted written testimony or a ransom note.

Fung testified that he was the only candidate to stand up for Rhode Islander’s second amendment rights. He’s Alan Fung and he approves this message. Lock, Stock and Daria Bruno went so far as to call the bill blatantly racist because it disenfranchises poor people of color who most need guns for self-defense. I know. I’m dry heaving too. And Bidondi … well, he just yelled from the gallery at anyone who testified in favor of the bill.

And we few … we happy few. We band of brothers (and sisters) who testified in favor of the bill were raked over the coals by the members of the committee. We were cross-examined as if we were proposing a bill to seize and sacrifice the first born child of every family. Or tax their guns.

Senator David Bates (R-Barrington, Bristol), showing blatant disrespect for his fellow Senator Goldin, asked her whether we should have a knife tax too? Senator Goldin kept her composure. I would have pointed out that nobody has, to my knowledge, assassinated a president from a grassy knoll by throwing knives. Also, one very rarely hears of a drive-by knifing.

Providence Mayoral Candidate Brett Smiley, (for whose campaign, in the spirit of full disclosure, I consult) was questioned by Senator Edward O’Neill (I-Lincoln, North Providence, North Smithfield) about  whether Rhode Island should start taxing alcohol too? (Nobody tell Representative Malik he said that!) O’Neill went on to ask why legal gun purchases should be taxed when it is stolen guns that result in gun crimes. Smiley answered that every gun begins as a legal sale. Gun manufacturers do not manufacture guns for illegal sale. By taxing at the point of sale, funds could be collected. The point that Senator O’Neill refused to acknowledge was that funding streams for violent crime prevention was very difficult to come by if one only taxed stolen guns.

The overwhelming arguments revolved (and revolved, and revolved) around a premise that this was a tax that punished law abiding citizens, simply executing their second amendment rights, rather than addressing the real issue, which is criminals who steal guns. However, my own testimony addressed the fact that this did not infringe upon anyone’s right to keep and bear arms. It merely requires that those who make the choice to do so also invest in a responsible future. Taxes are not punitive. Taxes are a civic responsibility and an investment in community.

I was given a fair amount of eye rolling when I listed just a few incidents from the past three days, involving a 70-year old Ohio woman accidentally shot by her husband of 50 years; a three year old in Arizona who accidentally shot his 1 ½ year old brother fatally in the head; a 10-year-old in Texas, who accidentally shot his 4-year-old cousin in the leg. All of these tragedies made possible by legally purchased firearms. Perhaps a funding stream, at the discretion of law enforcement leadership, could be dedicated to educating the public on responsible gun ownership. Or, would that too be considered an infringement on one’s right to keep and bear arms?

This bill has, for all intents and purposes, died in committee. But it is an excellent idea. Take the bill out of judiciary and make it a tax issue before finance. Do not control guns. Rather, fund nonviolence at the legal point of sale. Yet, the Dan Bidondi mentality seems to have permeated the General Assembly. The Senate, anyway, did not entertain the potential for trying something different to achieve a better result. Instead they simply cried “Why do you want to punish law abiding citizens? Why do you hate the second amendment?” I, for one, don’t. I want to honor the preamble to the Constitution, which includes the phrase: “promote the general welfare.”

Referring to the crowd that filled the main rotunda under the dome of the Rhode Island State House to advocate for sensible gun control, State Senator Josh Miller said, “This is what a majority looks like… A majority is a wide coalition…” that voted “in Exeter over two to one in favor of people who favor gun legislation.”

Shortly after her election to the Rhode Island House, Representative Linda Finn was contacted by Carl Cunningham Sr., who told her the story of his son, Carl Jr., who was killed the year before. “Carl was shot by a jealous ex-boyfriend of a friend he was visiting,” says Finn, “He wasn’t the intended target, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“By a two to one margin, Rhode Islanders want to ban assault weapons. We have a very small percentage of gun owners in this state, less than 13%. It’s time for us to act, it’s time to do what the majority of Rhode Islanders want us to do, which is to ban assault weapons ban high magazine capacity and get our domestic violence laws in line with Federal laws.”

Nan Heroux calls herself an “accidental activist” motivated by a need to help protect “her grandchildren and yours” as a member of Moms Demand Action.

Teny Gross, Executive Director of the Institute for the Study & Practice of Nonviolence, did not pull any punches yesterday as he spoke to a crowd gathered under the dome of the Rhode Island State House about class, race and gun violence. Guns are the leading cause of death for young black men and it’s the second leading cause of death for young men in general in the United States, according to Gross.

“I’m not a prophet,” said Gross, “but I will make a very sure prediction today. You can take it to Wall St. and bank on it. There will be another Sandy Hook. There will be many more Sandy Hooks in the United States. It is partially, in large part, because of the proclivity and the looseness and the stubbornness of a small group of leaders in the NRA and their local supporters. I recommend to the NRA members that are here: Start thinking about a compromise. This is not about the Second Amendment. No right is absolute.”

Gross had some tough words for Representative Doreen Costa, who at the time was outside the State House at the anti-common sense gun laws rally.

“The one comment from last year that really rings in my head and it was recently reawakened is Representative Costa saying at a hearing that [gun violence] doesn’t happen in Exeter, [gun violence] happens in the inner city. Recently a letter to the newspaper… also said this violence is an inner city problem. Last I checked, the inner city is part of the United States of America and they’re citizens.”

“I have a question,” asked Gross, putting it all out on the table, “Does the gun lobby have a racial problem? Let’s put the elephant right here in the room.”

Not compromising on reasonable gun legislation and refusing to work with law enforcement suggests that, “you think that your children are not dying, it’s other children. Are some Americans worth less if their skin color is darker?… On some streets it’s okay when there’s death and some streets it’s not okay? Some children dying is okay and some children dying is not okay? Tell us? This is an open question.”

“Let’s be honest,” continued Gross, “Sandy Hook got a lot of press partially because it was white kids in a privileged community.”