I am just going to post succinctly about this insecurity provoking issue, (*so-let's-not-talk-directly-about-it, NOT) thereby participating in issuing the call we must all heed.
I participate in this call to greater public discourse by weaving in other sources, where the seemingly complex reality of gun control is being called forth. Consider deeply that unless active participative consideration is not only given rather is equally acted on through meaningful dialog, we will only continue to get handed the watered-down version of unsatisfactory amendments to vote on, reflecting our vacancy in the great discourse. A vacancy exploited by every member of Congress insecure about how to keep their job in the next election cycle. I call on us all to get conscious about the collective reality of responsibility lack to nourish an all too often fragile nature of democracy, when we don't show up locally in our communities, at the state level and on the national level to participate in responsible dialog! Making a leap in imagination: can we be robustly proud again of being free without beating our chests in front of one another in the process of working out differences around this issue?
Consider this portrayal of the public profile, on the subject of gun control:
"...major problem with the American conversation on guns is that too often the many factions that exist are represented as two simplified camps: liberals, who want to completely ban guns, and conservatives, who want all guns legal, and believe everyone should carry one (if not several!)."
Is it an accurate portrayal? In either direction, how so?
If we actively commit to participating in responsively conscious communication on gun control, consider that conversation skills do risk revealing the many ways guilt and lack of confidence project. Yet, by participating consider too that we each can reveal active abilities at intelligent minds and hearts as our responses intersect in clear, grounded communication again.
I ask the middle majority and the fringe liberal majority, can we also assert the courage to take leadership responsibilities by mentoring confidence about discussing intense issues that must be worked out among us? I know we are not ALL only prone to unconscious judgmental reactionism in our capacities for meaningful forms of communication and inter-personal dialog. I know we still have pockets of observation, listening, and inquiry-based communication skills that we all need and can put to put to work for the greater good on this issue about HOW we are going to live more responsibly with the dangerous responsibilities of gun ownership.
Consider as you begin your commitment to dialog, how does it look and sound as we begin to flesh out our assumptions on either side of the issue(s)? Are any of those perspectives of assumption truly accurate? "Most people seem to be somewhere in the middle: they agree that there should be a protected right to own certain guns, but also that we need to have a critical discussion about what “guns” really means, and what legal steps we might take to lessen the chance of unwanted shootings." How accurate or inaccurate are our assumptions about this conversation proceeding constructively/cohesively in the arcing commitment to respect and safety about differences?
For example, do we really only "believe the discussion on gun control is nothing more than a discussion on gun laws?"
After differences are established and rebutted appropriately, what happens next in the national conversation?
I ask the middle majority and the fringe liberal majority, can we also assert the courage to take leadership responsibilities by mentoring confidence about discussing intense issues that must be worked out among us? I know we are not ALL only prone to unconscious judgmental reactionism in our capacities for meaningful forms of communication and inter-personal dialog. I know we still have pockets of observation, listening, and inquiry-based communication skills that we all need and can put to put to work for the greater good on this issue about HOW we are going to live more responsibly with the dangerous responsibilities of gun ownership.
Consider as you begin your commitment to dialog, how does it look and sound as we begin to flesh out our assumptions on either side of the issue(s)? Are any of those perspectives of assumption truly accurate? "Most people seem to be somewhere in the middle: they agree that there should be a protected right to own certain guns, but also that we need to have a critical discussion about what “guns” really means, and what legal steps we might take to lessen the chance of unwanted shootings." How accurate or inaccurate are our assumptions about this conversation proceeding constructively/cohesively in the arcing commitment to respect and safety about differences?
For example, do we really only "believe the discussion on gun control is nothing more than a discussion on gun laws?"
After differences are established and rebutted appropriately, what happens next in the national conversation?
The voices of everyday heroines & heros whose lives are busy in their responsibility trenches are required in these civic discourses, if a greater reality of guilt-free and confidently assertive democratic responsibility is truly desired. Keeping in mind that we find democracy in its finest, most active truth everyday, on the street-level forms of interactive and communicative exchanges of inter-personal, open negotiation.
So what's your position about gun control, and how do you think we ought to proceed from here to reach that?
Remember, we don't have to compete to open a conversation about strong issues, and we don't have to make a decision because we start talking with each other, especially where we differ passionately. Yet through conversation, let us keep faith that we can arrive at a collective decision solidly reflective of our commitment to dialog in ways that make us proud of our efforts with one another. Efforts that include conscious recognition that having disagreements along the way is truly expected, because we have not lost ability to trust in ourselves and one another as capable of arriving at a wholly reflective set of choices we agree to now. Just as actively communicating allows us to bring our skillful abilities to disagree peacefully and respectfully_ we enter these conversations conscious that disagreements are part of the enriching reality of even reaching toward agreement with one another, because mutual commitment to our collective responsibilities of refueling our beloved, collectively participative definition of Democracy is at the center of our national commitment to keep negotiating with one another.
*The quotes I found reasonable to pull from as I framed this post, are located under the CC attribute on this blog: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/07/three-problems-with-american-debate-on.html
No comments:
Post a Comment