0.00
(0 votes)
You must login to vote
|
|
|
"Crimson Hands"
Our eyes go wide with disbelief
As we watch a D.C. mom stare back
With moist eyes and trembling lips
Her face
From beaded brow to slackened jowl
Is puffy with tears and twisted in grief
As she speaks through sobs
'Why we dyin' for freedom in Iraq?'
She wails
'We ain't got no freedom here
'Where my baby's freedom?
'While she layin' in the groun'.'
We see a young man move in close
Slender and well groomed with an angry stare
And pull his mama's head to his chest
The hanky comes quickly to her eyes
As her ample weight heaves upon his breast
'This the Extreme Court'
He says
'This Extreme racist Court
'Jus' who they think is dyin'?'
He croaks
'How diff'rent things would be
'If instead of us the dyin' folks was white.'
We see him draw her close in a tight embrace
'Who would do this to their mama?'
He asks
Resting his cheek on her silvered hair
As in silence they sway together for a time
'They think this a joke'
She cries as she raises up
And puts the hanky down
'They ain't been livin' here
'My baby's blood is on they hands
'It ain't never comin' off'
'While they thesselves is hangin' roun'.'
----
This scene has not yet taken place. But it is going to happen, hundreds--maybe thousands--of times, in the not-too-distant future. We are certainly less proud of our Caucasian roots since the D.C. vs Heller decision--a case brought before the Supreme Court by a local security guard with the backing of a few wealthy libertarians who decided that the market price for their own narrow view of the world would be paid for in blood by the lives of others. And yet it couldn't have happened without racism at the highest levels of government. . .the only logical explanation for this brutal 5--4 decision(1).
The Roberts Court Justices are too bright to have missed seeing the racial implications of what they've done. First of all, the plaintiff in the case is white. . .in a black majority city. Fact is, it's black on black crime that's causing the overwhelming majority of the deaths. So the clear signal, then, coming from the Supreme Court is that as long as it's blacks killing blacks, it's okay to hand down a decision that puts tens of thousands more guns on the streets. It's also notable that Clarence Thomas, the High Court's only black Justice, voted among the dissenters. So if a D.C. mom who has lost her little angel to gun violence sees racism in this decision by the Roberts Court, I can't imagine what you'd be able to say to her that could even begin to change her mind.
We have every confidence that there are folks, 140 years after Lincoln, who are able to gaze upon the deepest kind of human torment--the senseless killing of an innocent child--and find lurking somewhere in the darkest recesses of their blackened hearts, a secret smile. Think about it, Mr. LaPierre of the NRA. You made no effort to camouflage your wide toothy grin as you called the decision a "magnificent victory." We're amazed you can sleep at night. Were it not for Bush appointees Roberts and Alito--approved by democrats like Dianne Feinstein on the Senate Judiciary Committee and confirmed by democrats in the Senate--the case for overturning D.C.s handgun ban would have resulted in a lopsided 3--6 defeat. Instead, more blood on the hands of those who. . .well, you know who you are. Meanwhile, the tired old arguments--and the deaths--will continue unabated.
I have a right, you say
Fine, we reply
Maybe when all is said and done, it's really not all about you
I need to protect my home, you say
Fine, we reply
Who's going to be there around the clock to protect your kids?
My guns will be locked up, you say
Fine, we reply
Maybe you think burglars are going to give you advance notice before "dropping by"
I'm law abiding, you say
Fine, we reply
So's everyone else until the first time they go out and kill or maim someone
Guns don't kill--people do, you say
Fine, we reply
But guns sure as hell do facilitate the process
We might get invaded from within the government, you say
Fine, we reply
The government has Cruise missiles. You think that little pop gun is going to help save you?
I'm part of a well regulated militia, you say
Fine, we reply
Why haven't we seen you in Iraq?
Enforce the existing laws, you say
Fine, we reply.
Maybe you think you have powers superior to those of law enforcement
Maybe you think "Il Papa" LaPierre has given you permission to play God. ["Fritzwilliam"]
----
(1) Through all the Courts--Rehnquist, Burger, Warren et. al., for more than 200 years, none has interpreted the Second Amendment to mean the "individual" right to confront his or her neighbor in a civilian dispute over life, limb and/or property (otherwise known as self defense). Why? Because constitutional law scholars know that the framers had to be careful. Slavery was in full flower. And as anyone who reads history knows, slave rebellions were commonplace. Enter John Adams and the Second Amendment--a mere 27 hastily written words designed to placate plantation states like Virginia by assuring them that the state militias would not be disarmed as a back-door way of abolishing slavery.(*) Now the Roberts Court has said, "Oh, yes, the founders meant the right of 'individuals' all along." Funny. I wonder if this means a judicial break with the historical record of the republic, or, to go along with that, an official denial of the racist truth in our country's storied (but not terribly unique) past.
(*) "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false. Instead, the 'well-regulated militias' cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections." [John Payton, President, NAACP Legal Defense Fund]
-------
Copyright (c) 2008 F. William Bracy
All rights reserved
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
"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."
------
Fritzwilliam
|
Issue Two--Skidding on Oil
