Lyrics: Red Crayons, by Bill McIver

Below are the lyrics to the song "Red Crayons" by Bill McIver, guitarist and songwriter.

You can go HERE to hear the song and purchase it.  I hope you will.  As stated on his page:

All proceeds from online sales of "Red Crayons" will be donated to the non-profit group "Sandy Hook Promise," which is trying to bring about sensible gun legislation in the United States.

Thank you, Bill, for supporting common sense gun legislation.


Red Crayons 
written by Bill McIver © 2012, All rights reserved 


Armed with innocence, armed with crayons 
Blunt-tip scissors in small hands 
Cut construction paper and paste 
Will something be constructed or will it be waste? 

Little jackets on hooks, drawings on walls 
Empty metal jackets lay heavy in the halls 
Books are unread behind closed doors 
Empty magazines are spread on the floors 

Fight baby tooth and nail to hold that glock 
Shout “arm the teachers” nevermind the chalk 
Let no gun or slug be thought restricted 
If I loved a drug as much you'd call me addicted 

Fill malls and cinemas and schools with police 
Slow creep of the State’s ok so you can keep a piece 
Fill the holsters, sword the sheaths 
True freedom and safety means we’re armed to the teeth 

Can’t yell fire in a theater but I can say what’s strange 
I can drink a beer these days without a password exchange 
My wife she can vote now and there are no slaves 
Have you seen the flag? Hell, even it has changed 

“War is hell” is what was heard in my father’s day 
Don’t even have to look outside the USA 
Where a score and ten die from guns each day 
From Anchorage to Aberdeen from Maine to LA 

We'll never know what Dolly heard from James 
But don’t you find it odd and ain’t it strange? 
That bullets find the children but the 2nd finds no change 
So Johnny gets his rocks off at the range 

There are far more bullets than crayons in the stores 
Bullets and crayons strew the floor 
The only action’s with a gun, there’s inaction in the Halls 
Crayons and bullet holes mark the walls 

All these fuckers dress in black and attack kids in schools 
An unregulated militia who are we kidding with no rules 
You say every arm and sleeve despite all this wrong 
I came in here with my sleeves rolled up to sing this song 

Sales of bullets shoot through the roof 
People draw conclusions and offer proofs 
Children, well children will draw what they see 
They’ve sold out of red at the crayon factory 

Oregon Is Taking A Decisive Step In Protecting Women Against Domestic Violence Shootings

(UPDATED -- See below)

Guns and domestic violence go hand-in-hand.  Here in Oregon, 55-71% of domestic violence murder victims are shot, and 44% of women murdered with guns in the United States were killed by a current or former intimate partner.

And yet, Oregon is one of the states with most lax gun laws regarding protecting women from domestic violence shootings.  Here in Oregon, convicted stalkers can still keep their guns, as can those who have a restraining order.  And though a felony domestic assault can stop a husband from owning a gun if he abuses his spouse, boyfriends and domestic partners with misdemeanor domestic assault convictions don't count; they can still own a gun.

This issue touches me personally.  I have one friend whose abusive husband held a gun to her head, execution-style, and threatened to kill her.  Another friend lost her sister in a shooting by an abusive husband.  And there are other cases that I don't mention due to privacy of the victims.

Here are just a few recent cases of domestic violence shootings in Oregon so far this year.:

• January 25, Oregon City, Oregon -- 55-year old Timothy Oliver Moffatt's wife had a restraining order again him after harassment and assault. But he followed her in his car, then shot her multiple times before shooting himself.  Both were in critical condition.
•  April 23, Portland, Oregon -- Police responded to find that 57-year old John Grant Coffey shot his wife to death during a domestic disturbance.
• May 20, Medford, Oregon -- 28-year-old Charles Perowski shot and killed his 30-year-old wife, Jessica Thompson, before he turning the gun on himself in a suicide.  Their 12 year old daughter and 9 year old son were in the home.
• June 6, Gresham, Oregon -- 44-year old Gerardo Gomez Ventura shot and killed his wife.
• June 9, Sandy, Oregon -- 29-year-old Stephen Burlison threatened his girlfriend with a gun.  The woman's father pulled out a gun of his own.  Burlison fled, fired a bb gun at the pair, then was in a chase with police, firing at them, before being captured.

And many more make headlines every week around the nation.  How many of these cases could have been prevented if the state had done a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of violent spouses and partners?

Now Oregon has taken a step in preventing domestic violence shootings.

Things are about to change, thanks to Oregon Senate Bill 525.  This bill has been passed in both the Senate and the House, with bi-partisan support passing the House 51-8, and now goes to the Governor, who is expected to sign it.  It is modeled after the recently-passed California "Gun Violence Restraining Order" law.



What does the bill do? This bill will prohibit possession of a firearm or ammunition by a person with a restraining order protecting intimate partners or children of intimate partners, or people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes against family members.  

And since restraining orders are temporary, so too is the prohibition of gun ownership in those cases.  If they clear their name, their rights are restored.

The NRA, and the GOP leadership they pay, oppose these measures.  They prefer to keep arming the abusers.  Any gun sale is a good one to them.  Follow the money.  This, despite the fact that 68% of GOP voters support these laws, as well as 71% of women.

But I guess it's not surprising that the gun lobby would be out of touch.  They've been supportive of the abusers for years.  

The NRA and the Gun Owners of America have said such laws "stigmatize" those poor, violent, gun-owning wife-beaters. We wouldn't want that, would we?  I mean, the right of a wife-beater to own a gun must surely trump the lives and welfare of their wives, right?

Consider also the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), the "no compromise" gun lobby in Oregon, which opposes the bill because people with restraining orders haven't yet been convicted of a crime and have only been charged through "assumptions."  Nevermind that a judge weighed the evidence and deemed that person dangerous enough to tell them to keep their distance.

But then, OFF has never been one to respect women.  Consider, for instance, a recent post to the OFF Facebook page, describing the female representatives of Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence as "prostitutes of the anti-gun movement" as well as "Stepford Wives," "zombies," and "robots."  (see screencapture above, left).

And in another OFF Facebook posting, they described female members of Ceasefire Oregon as "Bloomberg whores" as well as "liars" belonging to a "coven."  (see screencapture at right)

These sexist, arrogant, and crude attempts to belittle women are part and parcel of the gun rights movement.  

I'm happy, at least, that Oregon legislators have seen past it and done what is right to create a safer environment for Oregon women.  Now, we need to extend that to the rest of the nation!

Ceasefire Oregon would like to thank the thoughtful legislators who voted for this bill.  Now, on to the Governor!

UPDATE (6/18/15):  Governor Brown has now signed the bill in to law!  Our thanks go out to the Governor and all the legislators and volunteers who made it happen.  Domestic violence victims throughout Oregon will be safer now.  The bill goes into effect January 1, 2016.

Addendum (6/19/15):  Get the statistics and facts on domestic violence, here:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/domestic-intimate-partner-violence-fast-facts/

The Pro-Gun, *Pro-Criminal* Response to Oregon's Background Check Bill

(UPDATED -- See below)


Back on May 11, Oregon's new background check bill (SB941) was signed by the Governor.  At last, every gun purchase and transfer in Oregon must require a background check, including private sales.  

No longer will felons, the dangerously mentally-ill, wife-beaters, minors, or any other prohibited person be able to purchase a gun simply by answering an ad, meeting someone in a parking lot, and paying cash, with no background check.  The seller, too, will be held accountable, and will no longer be able to simply claim ignorance.

Prior to that, according to a report put out by Everytown for Gun Safety, of the people seeking guns in unlicensed, online sales in Oregon, 1 in 18 were barred from owning guns by state or federal law. At this rate, unlicensed sellers in these markets could transfer 1,360 guns to criminals each year.

But the pro-gun forces did their darndest to make sure that the criminals could keep getting away with it!  They employed every trick they could, including false claims that this would lead to gun confiscation and registration and lying about the intent of the bill.  They are now going out of their way to tell the world that they will openly defy the law or, in the case of a few sheriffs and commissioners, refuse to enforce the law.

In short, they are pro-criminal.

That's right.  Pro-gun advocates are pro-criminal and want to break the law. 

Don't believe me?  See it in their own words...

The extremist Oregon Firearms Federation, headed by Kevin Starrett, has worked for many years to undermine background checks, attempting to weaken them by writing bills to remove the State Police from monitoring them, and thinks they are no different than gun registration.  So you can imagine Starrett's outrage when SB941 passed.  After the bill was signed by the Governor, Starrett wrote in an alert to his followers (bolding included), 

"We urge you to defy this sinister attack on your rights. We urge you to refuse to comply." ... "My friends, this battle has only just begun. Don't despair. Subvert." 

And his most recent missive to his followers, ended with, "Be prepared to defy."

O.F.F. took a leading roll in contacting county commissioners, lying to them about the intent of the bill, and leading them to put out statements against the bill.  Starrett's own sister, Mary Starrett, is a county commissioner as well, and has urged her Facebook followers to contact their commissioners and tell them not to fund background checks in their county:

We wouldn't want our elected officials to actually fund the laws they are in charge of funding, would we?  Oh, wait, failing to fund enforcement of a law would be a breach of their oath, wouldn't it?  Mary and these other commissioners might want to go back and take another look at that oath.  Quoting from that oath:

.... I will endeavor to secure economical expenditure of public funds sufficient in amount to afford efficient and economical administration of government in the county for which I have been appointed ....

Commissioners don't make the laws (that's the job of legislators) nor determine if they are constitutional (that's the job of judges).  Their oath demands that they find ways to fully fund them.  That's it.  It's all for show, though.  Funds for enforcing this law don't go through county commissioners, as far as I'm aware.

A few rural sheriffs have also come out as insurrectionists, saying they won't enforce the new law.  Again, these pro-gun sheriffs are openly saying they will break their oath of office, just as they did when the last federal background check bill was being considered.  

Grant County sheriff Glenn Palmer is one of those.  During testimony for the bill, he openly stated, 

"I have no intention of enforcing this law.  State law allows me to use discretion on misdemeanors and I plan to use it every step of the way."

Sheriff Palmer seems to forget that the second offense for a gun seller who fails to get a background check for the sale is a felony, not a misdemeanor.  In any case, he swore an oath to enforce the laws of his state.  Sheriffs don't make the laws (that's the job of legislators) nor determine if they are constitutional (that's the job of judges).  Their oath demands that they enforce them.  That's it.

Some of these pro-gun forces, including O.F.F. and the equally-extreme militia group known as the Oath Keepers, have organized a rally against the bill at the State Capitol in Salem, on May 30.  In fact, they have even named it the "I Will Not Comply Demonstration."  That's right: they are stating that they won't comply with the law.  In other words, they would rather be criminals.  HERE is the Oath Keeper announcement for it.  HERE is the Facebook page for the event.  From the Facebook page text:

"Salem law says NON CHL people must open carry with an unloaded gun. we will not be in the capitol building, so no worries there. I Wont be checking your guns, so do what you think befits an i won't comply rally!" [sic]

Another pro-gun militia group, the "Sipsey Street Irregulars," sent a letter to Oregon legislators before the bill was passed.  In that letter, they stated, 

'Again I ask, how many of us are you willing to see dead to enforce your "benevolent" will upon us? Understand in advance, if you wish to enforce such a law, you will have to kill us. FOR WE WILL NOT COMPLY. We will greet it with the same tactic that we used to nullify every such law passed since Sandy Hook -- armed civil disobedience.'

So much for being "law abiding" gun owners!  It's not too surprising, though, since militia groups, including the Oath Keepers, have a long history of actual crimes and conspiracies.

Feeling vindictive toward the legislators who supported the bill, O.F.F. and some of their followers have now started petitions to recall some of the legislators who sponsored SB941, namely Val Hoyle (who had previously been given an "A" rating by O.F.F.) and Chuck Riley.  The petitions are being advertised by a handful of gun shops and hawked for signatures by their paid employees.  Given the fringe nature of these pro-gunners, and the fact that 79-90% of Oregonians supported the bill, they haven't a prayer of succeeding in a recall.  But vengeance is a virtue to these guys.

To all of these pro-gun advocates, I can simply say this:  We are a nation of laws, passed by duly-elected representatives of the people and interpreted by judges.  You have to follow these laws whether you agree with them or not.  Armed insurrection is illegal and specifically ruled out in the Constitution that you claim to hold dear.  If you don't like the laws, you can either elect officials who agree with you and will work to change them, or you can challenge the laws in a judicial court.  That's the nature of our representational democracy and the checks and balances called for in our Constitution.  You can either follow these laws... or be criminals yourselves.

UPDATE (6/1/15):  I mentioned above that there was now a vindictive recall effort being waged by the pro-gun forces against SB941 sponsor, Val Hoyle.  Well, it turns out that the petitions are being signed under questionable methods.   According to an article, the petitions are being improperly circulated.

The complaint says that investigators hired by Our Oregon found that recall petitions were improperly circulated at four gun stores in Hoyle's district. The group charged that employees helped gather signatures and should have registered with the state as paid petitioners. In addition, petitions were often left unsupervised, meaning that some people could have signed them without being witnessed by a canvasser, the complaint says.

A number of gun stores are pushing the petitions, using paid employees who are not registered as petitioners to garner signatures from store patrons.  This is a crime: racketeering.  They are also leaving the petitions unwatched, allowing for the possibility that people may be altering the petitions.  From the complaint:

Oregon elections law is unambiguous. If a person is receiving compensation while circulating a Recall Petition, that person must register with the Secretary of State and meet certain requirements (including passing a background check showing no prior convictions for forgery, fraud or identify theft). The evidence establishes that the Gun Stores and their employees appear to be engaged in paid signature circulation, in violation of Oregon elections law.

The evidence also establishes that the Chief Petitioner and the Recall Committee are not properly supervising circulation of the Recall Petition. The actions of Chief Petitioner Jason Thiesfeld, the Gun Stores and their employees, and the Recall Committee appear to constitute violations of Oregon elections law, Oregon criminal law, and ORI CO. Submission of the Recall Petition sheets discussed above, and petition sheets gathered under similar circumstances, may well constitute false certification under Oregon elections laws, and under Oregon's criminal code. The collective actions of Mr. Thiesfeld, the Recall Committee, the Gun Stores and their employees appear to be a racketeering, in violation of ORICO.

Sounds pretty airtight.  Not that the gun guys care.  As I said above, they are pro-criminal.  What's "racketeering" compared to helping prohibited people continue to buy guns?  

Gee, I wonder why the gun stores are pushing it so hard?  Could it be that they aren't really interested in a recall at all?  Could it be that, instead, their main interest is really just to sell more guns to the tiny minority of citizens who are vindictive, pro-gun extremists?  Hmmmm...

In any case, the named gun stores haven't stopped collecting signatures.  In fact, they've doubled down their efforts with new signs.

UPDATE (6/2/15): Lane County commissioners, led by the Tea Party member Jay Bozievich, recently wrote a resolution denouncing the background check law, siding with criminals and the opinion that prohibited people should continue to be able to buy guns without a background check, and going against their oath of office to fund the law.  From an article:

"Technically, it doesn't change the fact that you're going to have to abide by that law. Now whether or not you fail to do that, we're going to be able to investigate and prosecute your failure to do so, is basically what we're stating. We don't have those resources and we probably will not be prosecuting and investigating people under Senate Bill 941," said commissioner chair, Jay Bozievich.

The resolution passed 4-1. Pete Sorenson was the lone "no" vote.

In response to Commissioner Bozievich, the Executive Director of Ceasefire, Penny Okamoto, responded:

“This is just a way for Republicans to curry favor with Oregon firearms advocates," Penny Okamoto, executive director of Ceasefire Oregon, a non-profit organization that aims to reduce gun violence, said on Wednesday.

“Do they mean to tell me the sheriff won’t prosecute the person who provided a murderer, illegally, with a gun?” Okamoto said.

 
.

 

Victory in Oregon! Universal Background Checks Enacted!

Monday was a tremendous day of success for Oregonians and the gun violence prevention movement!

After a concerted effort this session, we were able to get a bill requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases, including private transfers, through the Oregon Senate, House, and finally, Monday, signed by Governor Brown.

The bill takes effect immediately.  Now, if a gun owner wishes to sell a gun to someone other than

Governor Brown signing Senate Bill 941

immediate family members, the seller and the buyer must appear at a licensed firearms dealer to complete the sale, and, for a small fee, the buyer must pass a standard background check.

With more licensed dealers in the state than there are Starbucks and post offices combined, and an average wait time of only 5 minutes for the background check to be completed, it is a minor inconvenience for gun owners with a very significant gain for public safety.

Prior to this, background checks were only required at gun stores and gun shows in Oregon.  Hundreds are denied by the background checks every month in Oregon, to the tune of around 2000 a year!  Most of these were convicted felons, but some were also due to being adjudicated mentally insane, convicted of domestic violence, had warrants for their arrest, were underage, or were dishonorably discharged.  That's 2000 guns that were not put into the wrong hands.  Background checks work!

But all they needed to do was leave the store, answer a private ad, meet the seller in a parking lot, and then walk away with all the guns they could pay for, no background check required.  At last, we have stopped this gaping loophole!

Oregon now joins both Washington and California to complete the entire west coast in this regard.

Additionally....

-- Senate Bill 941 also calls for law enforcement to be notified whenever a person fails a background check so that they can be held accountable for the attempt.

-- There are exemptions for hunting and for sharing guns at a gun range.

-- People who are dangerously mentally ill can more easily be prevented from purchasing a gun while undergoing treatment for the illness

-- and sellers are held accountable, as well....

From an article:  "The seller of a gun would face a misdemeanor for a first offense, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,250 fine. A second offense would be a felony, with a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine."

Prior to this, the seller could just pretend not to have known that the buyer was prohibited and they would get off with it.  No more excuses!  This is a serious loss for black market gun runners!

Every Republican in the Oregon Senate and House voted against it.  But as I've commented before, numerous polls of Oregonians have shown support for the bill to the tune of 80-90%!! This mirrors numerous national polls, as well, where even 85% of gun owners support the regulation.

So who are the opponents representing??  A tiny fringe of pro-gun advocates?  The money from the NRA?  Aren't our elected leaders of our representational democracy supposed to actually represent the majority of their constituents?

Though this is a tremendous victory, we still have a long way to go.  For instance, there is a bill being considered right now in Oregon to require gun owners with children in the home to lock up their guns.  And there are dangerous bills to oppose, such as a bill that would allow conceal permit holders from very lenient states to have their permits recognized here, where requirements are at least a little more responsible, or a bill that would require schools to provide pro-gun training to kids as young as kindergarten!  We must stay vigilante and not let down our guard!  Shootings and gun crimes continue every day in Oregon.

But for the moment, we must bask in the glory of a job well done. 

We at Ceasefire Oregon would like to thank the legislators who sponsored this bill and helped champion it through the years, such as Floyd Prozanski, Ginny Burdick, and Val Hoyle, the numerous members of the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety coalition, and the many, many volunteers who helped make this happen and who gave passionate testimony.

Together, we will make a new trajectory for our state away from gun violence.


UPDATE (6/4/15):  To see the pro-gun response to this responsible bill, go HERE.

If Only They'd Had Guns To Defend Themselves. Oh, Wait... (Charlie Hebdo re-enactment)

Anytime there's a high-profile shooting in the news, the pro-gun crowd are quick to regurgitate the old myth that if only there were armed civilians carrying concealed handguns, the shooter would have been killed and the tragedy would never have happened.  Valiant vigilante heroes would save the day!

Sadly, this simply isn't the case, as I've blogged on several cases now.  And now a pro-gun group in Texas unintentionally proved my point.

On January 7, radical Islamic terrorists attacked the offices of the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which is known in part for publishing images of Mohammed.  The shooting in the office and in the streets outside killed 12 people and wounded 11 more.  A branch of Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility.  A manhunt ensued after the initial shooting, culminating in a further shooting at a Jewish Kosher market, bringing the number of dead and injured up to 17 dead and 22 injured.  Click HERE for a timeline and relevant article on the incidents.

The world reacted with shock.  There were rallies to condemn the attack, with world leaders marching arm-in-arm with 3.7 million people in Paris and elsewhere in France.  And a "#JeSuisCharlie" movement began, starting on social media.

But what did the pro-gun pundits do?  Naturally, they dragged out the old argument that, in the words of NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," arguing that if only some of those French people had been armed with concealed guns, those heavily armed terrorists with full-auto AK-47s would have been stopped and the whole sordid affair never would have happened!

Naturally, FOX News and their talk shows led the way, setting a tone for the pro-gun folks to parrot, including an appearance by Wayne LaPierre who bizarrely thinks that "we don't have this problem [of mass shootings] in the United States" simply because we have the Second Amendment.  Never mind that mass shootings happen in the U.S. every single week (in fact, I saw another one as I was writing this post -- a murder/suicide at a restaurant in Florida -- and a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol with guns and bombs was stopped today) and are practically unheard of France (or nearly any other industrialized country) and that the rate of mass shootings in America has tripled since 2011!

From a Media Matters article:

On the January 7 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News national security analyst KT McFarland said that one thing that stood out to her about the attack is "that in France they have a very strict gun control policy." Later on Fox's The Five, host Greg Gutfeld said the victims of the attack were "sitting ducks" because the country "has the most powerful gun control in the world, and nobody's armed." On Fox Business Network, Fox's senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said, "One of the reasons these people are dead is because they were sitting ducks. One of the reasons they're sitting ducks is you can't carry a gun in Paris. This would not happen in New York City." On Twitter, frequent Fox guest Donald Trump wrote that the attack occurred "in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world."

And another FOX reporter, Emily Miller, repeated the same refrain:

Miller, the chief investigative reporter for Washington, D.C.'s Fox affiliate WTTG, also pushed false information about gun violence, including the claim that "gun-free zones" attract mass killers and that civilians with concealed weapons have stopped mass shootings.

During the January 11 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday, Miller (the former senior opinion editor of the conservative Washington Times who also contributes columns to FoxNews.com) claimed the reason "terrorists don't come here is because of civilian's ownership" of firearms. Miller continued with the confounding argument that terrorists use bombs but not guns in the United States because of civilian gun ownership.

During a January 12 appearance on Fox & Friends, Miller added, "The Second Amendment is what keeps us safer from terrorist attacks because foreigners know we have guns." (Al Qaeda has actually encouraged its followers to exploit loose gun laws in the United States to get weapons without a background check.)

The Media Matters article also exposes a number of false and misleading claims that Miller makes.  (See more, HERE).

Well, a pro-gun group called "The Truth About Guns" decided to test this scenario.  They recreated a

From the re-enactment (source)

mock-up of the Charlie Hebdo offices and took turns playing the two shooters and the office staff, armed with paintball gun versions of the firearms, except that they armed members of the office staff with concealed handguns.  Apparently, they wanted to demonstrate what all those FOX pundits were claiming.

But, try as they might, over and over (12 times, in fact), the result was always the same:  NO lives were saved.

From an article:

No matter how the situation played out, though, one thing remained consistent — if the “armed civilian” confronted the attackers, he or she died. The only time the “armed civilian” survived was when the volunteer playing him ran away at the first sound of gunfire. 

“He started shooting,” volunteer Linda Cruz said, “and I started shooting, and I died” — that is, she was shot by a paintball in a area that the group designated was a “critical hit.”

Another volunteer, Parks Matthew, said he “still got killed, but did better than I thought I would.”

Hmmm.   Funny, that.  That might explain why no mass shooting in America has ever been stopped by an armed citizen who wasn't law enforcement or security.

In fact, in every study that has come out on the topic, the presence of a gun makes a person less safe.  For instance, these studies have found that a gun in the home is at least 22 times more likely to be used to harm someone in the home than to save them, that carrying a concealed gun in public makes the carrier 4.5 times more likely to be killed, that having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide by five fold, and that people living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than those with no gun in a home.

But the pro-gun guys wouldn't let a little thing like statistics or failed mass shooting recreations stop them from trying to play the action-movie hero.  From the article about the Charlie Hebdo recreation:

Another volunteer, Parks Matthew, said he “still got killed, but did better than I thought I would.”

His “death” would not, however, deter him from acting in a situation with an actual hostile shooter. “If I’m in a movie theater and someone pulls a gun, what am I going to do?” he asked.

“I know now I’m not gonna just fall on my kids and protect them, I need to advance on the threat.”

I hope he never finds out.  Chances are, he would die in real life, too.

Hey, here's an idea to keep us safe...  Keep the terrorists from getting guns in the first place!  Oh, um, I guess the conservatives stopped that effort despite Al Qaeda calling for their followers to purchase guns without background checks at gun shows and private sales.  We wouldn't want to squash those vigilante pro-gun daydreams, would we?

The Newtown Shooting: Two Years Later

A message from Ceasefire Oregon:

Two years ago today, twenty first-graders were shot to death at their school in Newtown, Connecticut. Six extraordinarily brave women put their bodies in front of bullets and died attempting to save those little children. Ceasefire Oregon honors those 26 souls and our thoughts and hearts are with their families and the Newtown community.

The Newtown massacre galvanized the nation and changed hearts and minds about the need for responsible gun laws. Make no mistake: that movement is alive and very active today. 

People like you are speaking up and taking a stand. Some of you are calling your legislators, some of you are becoming activists, and some of you are talking to your neighbors about the common sense steps we can take to reduce gun violence. Simple steps like:

• requiring background checks for all guns sales,
• banning gun magazines that hold enough bullets to kill an entire classroom of children, and
• holding gun owners responsible if they carelessly allow others to access their weapons.

The massacre at Newtown is permanently seared into our national psyche but we aren't sitting still. We are speaking up and helping the Newtown families fight for legislative changes so other people won't have to suffer what they have suffered.

It's a tough fight. The opposition might try to harass and intimidate us but we are Newtown Tough and we will fight for our children, our streets, and a responsible way of life. Personally, I can't think of a better way to honor the heroic women who died at Newtown.

Speak up. Take a stand. Join us.

Newtown, you are always in our hearts.