Home | About | Donate

Millennial Organizers Want to See An Intersectional Understanding Of Gun Violence


Millennial Organizers Want to See An Intersectional Understanding Of Gun Violence

Martha Durkee-Neuman

Each generation carries its own revolution. For years, gun violence has dramatically impacted communities around the United States and a movement for gun violence prevention has emerged to respond. Now, as we reel and rebuild from the results of the election, it is the time for a new generation of organizers to metamorph this movement into one that is intersectional, inclusive and diverse.


This is so important and intergenerational as well.


Much of the gun violence prevention movement has responded by supporting and promoting an Islamophobic campaign, the No Fly No Buy legislation, which would prevent individuals who are on the FBI terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons. This list unfairly and indiscriminately targets innocent Muslim Americans. This campaign is bigoted and reductive and only fuels the hate that inspires attacks such as in Paris, Beirut, San Bernardino, and other cities.

Umm, I don't think so. People who kill other people aren't motivated by whether or not someone on the FBI terrorist watch list can buy a weapon. Maybe you should look more towards religious zeal and other associated mental illnesses.


Exactly the sort of surreal hypocrisy that has Trump leading the Nation to Edge City..Blue collar..working class..old school liberals like me...we despise the savage hypocrisy and civil liberties eroding nightmare that is "Anti-Gun" and the anti 2nd amendment front.

First..if you're going to claim 'human life' or even the truly disingenuous meme of a year or so ago that guns are actually 'a healthcare issue' then you really ought to 'start at the top of the threat matrix'. To claim 'saving lives' while starting at 'number 40 on th elist of threats' is really telling. You want to save lives? Start with environmentalism. ALL LIFE is now threatened and yet that would require real actual 'change' on your part...nope.

The anti 2nd amendment people are also in fact consumed with the very emotions they claim to be above...hate..fear..prejudice. You know next to nothing and quote a few stats and here we go.

You have labored to make me a criminal simply because of something I bought years ago that is now unpopular. Period. You seek to take the property and liberty of others. And the poor? They are the ones most impacted by the anti-gunners..because they are targeted more by police and their rights are harder to retain and to re-acquire after false or 'problematic' arrests.

I will not only NOT give up my 2nd amendment rights..but nor will I support the New Left in its OTHER causes as long as the 2nd amendment is a target.

Get off the nanny state rhetoric and the unbelievable "private/public sector partnership" PC corpie lingo. The article above is a masterpiece of two-faced corpie/doogooder speak which in fact means......nothing.


I never heard anyone claim guns are a healthcare issue, and I don't know who you're counting and lecturing as "anti 2nd amendment." Shooting is an undeniable health issue in the US; too. damn. many of us. get. shot. and maimed or killed. And there's nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment except that it's out of date. We have a standing army, making a "well-regulated militia" ridiculous and a virtually unregulated 1/3 of the nation armed to the teeth of all the rest of us — and carrying those arms around just to scare us — an absolute horror. Get off your own high horse and listen to those who want to build a future (and I'm more likely your generation than theirs, before you start trying to intimidate me). It's not already over for them.


Here we go again, the 2nd amend. is threatened. Any mention of gun safety and the whining begins. "My rights my rights". Reminds me of bakery owners who deny gay customers, claiming it infringes on their religious rights. The lack of logic is no different.

First, I understand American English, contemporary all the way back to Medieval, so I know what the 2nd really says. That SCOTUS chose to disregard grammatical meaning (syntax has meaning, not just words) does make it legal, but not because of what the 2nd actually states, but because of "activists judges" bought and paid for.

Just do not claim that the prevalence of guns has nothing to do with the prevalence of gun deaths, or the almost unique to us, mass shooting, which now is a favored American Tradition, has nothing to do with the availability of AR-15s.

In the USA, you are more likely to be shot by a toddler than attacked by some "terrorist".

So having a gun lock law so your kid can't accidentally shoot another kid in the head would be an intrusive law? How about charging parents of said kid? (Oh no, too sad a story to hold PARENTS responsible for their very own and other children's safety).

How about removing guns from any person charged with physical abuse of a family member? (Men who own guns and abuse their wives dramatically increase the chance of killing said wives with guns.)

We have insurance for homes, cars and human bodies, but we do not need it for gun ownership ?--if that does not reflect the fucking insanity, the power of the gun manufacturers/lobby/NRA then I do not know what does.


And yes, I have shot guns, from 22 pistol to 12 gauge, and 30-06 and M-16 (pre '86). Have nothing against safe gun ownership and use, just the insanity of repeating acts that increase death of innocent people.