Let's get real. The only way to protect oneself from gun violence is to get rid of the guns. The suggested ways of stopping gun violence include background checks, increased mental help, reduced magazine size and swat teams in every school.

Because there are over 300 million guns in the United States, these suggestions will not stop a mass killer. If a mentally deranged person wants to get a gun, there are plenty around. Most murders are not mass killings but one-on- one and there are some other steps we can take to reduce that number.

1. Fifty percent of the people involved in violent crimes do not have a high school diploma. Another forty percent have no college hours. Based on these numbers, if high school students go on to college the murder rate will drop by ninety percent. Ending poverty and improving the schools will ensure that every student is ready for college.

2. Another step we can take is to require an annual gun registration fee. This will reduce the number of guns in private hands.

3. Killing has become entertainment in the movies, on television and in video games. Assigning an x-rated label on this type of entertainment would start to drive the killing-is-ok mentality from the nation. To stop the mass killings, America will have to create a gun free society.

The profile of a mass killer is so diverse, it is almost impossible to know who the future killers are. To prevent another mass murder like the one that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut where twenty children and six adults were killed, we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  

Another way to rid the country of guns would to be to get a court ruling that only the militia has the right to bear arms, which I think is the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. We can become a gun free society if we focus more on what we are capable of and less on what we are afraid of.

Elie Parker

San Leandro, CA

What was it that made watching the ceremonies of President Obama’s second inauguration more satisfying than even the thrilling spectacle of four years ago?

Certainly, part of it was its occurring the same day as the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday and amid the month-long commemoration of the Emancipation Proclamation— underscoring the direct line of descent from black Americans’ longtime freedom struggle to the present.

Certainly, part of it was also savoring Obama’s success in making history the second time around— knowing that he had endured the extraordinary test of staunching a wrenching economic crisis; extricating the United States from the Bush administration’s tragic misadventure in Iraq; maneuvering around the obstructionist tactics of the Congressional Republicans; and beating back the fat-cat power grab the atrocious Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which approved unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns, was supposed to further.

Part of it was, knowing that albeit the operational genius of the president and his campaign staff, the credit for his victory doesn’t wholly belong to them. To borrow a phrase, they didn’t build that by themselves. They had help from the multiracial, multicultural coalition of voters that enabled the Democrats to keep control of the White House and the Senate.

Barack Obama has been wreathed in “making history” since he gained the presidency of the Harvard Law Review 23-years-ago. But voluminous evidence exists that the foundation for his current history-making lies in the astutely-waged, post-1960s political gamesmanship of the Democratic Party’s most sustaining voting bloc: African-American voters.

That point was driven home most recently by a report the Pew Research Center released in late December. Its title tells the tale: “The Growing Electoral Clout of Blacks Is Driven by Turnout, Not Demographics.”

The study’s preliminary analysis of the 129 million votes cast November 6 indicates that blacks not only voted at a substantially higher rate than Hispanic-American and Asian-American voters— who also voted massively for Obama— but may have voted at a higher rate than Whites as well.

If so, it would be a “first” in the history of the presidential-election vote. But the mere fact that it’s a possibility underscores several powerful recent developments about the political participation of black voters and other voters of color.

For one thing, even as blacks’ population growth and, therefore, growth in eligible voters has been leveling off, their rates of turning out to vote have increased markedly. In 2008 that rate hit a high-water mark of 65.2 percent— a rise of five percentage points from 2004. By contrast, whites turned out to vote that year at a rate of 66.1 percent, a percentage point lower than their 2004 showing.

  Of course, Obama’s candidacy was partly responsible for blacks’ march to the polls. But, in fact, their turnout for presidential elections had been climbing sharply since 1996. That means that even before the Obama candidacy, the black electorate was on a path to maximizing its voting potential.

The importance of these facts and trends is that this past November President Obama won the support of 93 percent of black voters; 73 percent of Asian-American voters; 71 percent of Hispanic-American voters; and the majority of votes from women as a group and the 18-to-29 voting bloc. That support, along with gaining 39 percent of white voters, gave him a 4.7 million popular-vote margin and the 332-to-206 Electoral College margin over Mitt Romney.

To try to blunt these groups’ rising voting power, Republican Party officials— whose efforts at using voter-identification measures to limit the electoral power of blacks and other Democratic-leaning voters clearly backfired in November— are now boosting a variety of legislative schemes in such states as Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Those measures seek to split up the state’s total Electoral-College votes according to which presidential candidate wins what congressional districts in that state. Only Maine and Nebraska do it that way now. If such a scheme, which favors rural— and thus, overwhelmingly Republican— districts over the more heavily-populated, diverse and Democratic- leaning urban districts, had been in place in November, it would have enabled Romney to eke out a win over Obama.

Donald A. McEachin, a Virginia Democratic state legislator, interviewed about such measures by the Washington Post, called them “sore-loser bills.”

Progressive advocacy groups must now do some doubling-down of their own on these policies straight from the tawdry playbook of the Jim Crow South. They must mobilize to defeat these anti-democracy measures and intensify efforts to increase both the registration of new voters among white progressives and Americans of color— and to ensure that they turn out at the polls in coming elections in ever-increasing numbers.

History is repeating itself, yes. The forces of progress need to make sure that for today’s neo-racists, in 2014 and 2016 as in 2012, history repeats itself not only as farce, but also as defeat.

Lee A. Daniels is a journalist based in New York City who was most recently Founding Editor of TheDefendersOnline.com. His book, “Last Chance: The Political Threat to Black America” was published in 2008.

By the age of 12 Laura Miller had read “Pygmalion” and nearly all of George Bernard Shaw’s plays. The inspiration for the perennially popular musical “My Fair Lady” “Pygmalion” is considered a challenging read even for adults. Miller, who is now a senior editor for the online literary magazine Salon, recalls Shaw’s sophisticated writing was well beyond her understanding.

Nevertheless, she read his plays because the little set of green paperbacks happened to be around the house, left over from her father’s college days. Although she learned little about the underpinnings of the British class system, Miller credits reading the plays with 

getting her into the habit of searching for understanding in the pages of challenging books.

A recently published study supports the connection between having books in the home and a child’s increased academic achievement. The scholarly journal, “Research in Social Stratification and Mobility,” found that just having books around the house (the more, the better) is correlated with how many years of schooling a child will complete.”

Miller shares thoughts on the advantages of books in the home in her Salon post titled “Book owners have smarter kids.” In the article she declares that the books in your house matter more to your child’s academic success than your education or income. Miller writes:

 The study (authored by M.D.R. Evans, Jonathan Kelley, Joanna Sikorac and Donald J. Treimand) looked at samples from 27 nations, and according to its abstract, found that growing up in a household with 500 or more books is “as great an advantage as having university-educated rather than unschooled parents, and twice the advantage of having a professional rather than an unskilled father.”

Children with as few as 25 books in the family household completed on average two more years of schooling than children raised in homes without any books.

According to USA Today, another study, to be published later this year in the journal Reading Psychology, found that simply giving low-income children 12 books (of their own choosing) on the first day of summer vacation “may be as effective as summer school” in preventing “summer slide” — the degree to which lower-income students slip behind their more affluent peers academically every year.

Perhaps the most intriguing part of the USA Today article comes at the very end, where one Chicago schoolteacher tells the reporter that the importance of getting books into the house “seems so simple, but parents see it differently.” They’re as “excited” as their kids are when the books come in the door. It’s not that the parents are hostile or even indifferent to books. Most likely, books and reading feel like the privilege and practice of an unfamiliar world: a resource that’s out there somewhere, but not entirely accessible.

If you happen to be comfortable in bookstores or libraries— if you’ve been to them many times before and know what to expect, what you want and where to find it, or if you know whom and how to ask and feel entitled to bother the staff with your questions— it can be difficult to appreciate how intimidating these institutions of print culture can seem to someone who has little or no acquaintance with them.

Furthermore, a single parent working two minimum-wage jobs to keep food on the table may not have the time or energy to make a special trip between shifts. One of the biggest success stories in children’s book publishing, after all, is the Little Golden Books: racks of inexpensive kids’ books cleverly placed near the registers in five-and-dime stores, where the harried working-class parents of the 1940s could pick them up on impulse while running other errands.

Lastly, poor parents may feel that they just can’t afford books. Of course, you don’t have to buy a book to read it, but the act of giving someone a book of his or her own has an undeniable, totemic power.

As much as we love libraries, there is something in possessing a book that’s significantly different from borrowing it, especially for a child. You can write your name in it and keep it always.

It transforms you into the kind of person who owns books, a member of the club, as well as part of a family that has them around the house. You’re no longer just a visitor to the realm of the written word: You’ve got a passport.

Of local note, each year the main branch of Enoch Pratt Library holds a three-day book sale in November. The highlight of this annual event is on Sunday, when you can bring your own box and put as many books as you want and can carry out for 3 dollars. It’s a great way to help fill your home with books- for less than the cost of a Happy Meal.

Jayne Matthews-Hopson is a Mom, an education writer and grade school development manager who believes education matters because “only the educated are free.”

Oh, the gall. The audacity. The sheer effrontery! Those Baltimore Ravens have some nerve making it to the Super Bowl after tormenting me all season. How did they do it? Oh, let me count the ways.

Let’s see, there were those six losses during the regular season. Two were blowout losses, to the Houston Texans and the Denver Broncos.

Three were close losses to the Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers and Washington Redskins. One was a meaningless season-ending loss to the Cincinnati Bengals.The Ravens won 10 regular season games, enough for them to win the American Football Conference North Division title. Oh, they tried to blow it, but the Steelers and Bengals were simply too accommodating.

Three of the victories— over the Bengals, Oakland Raiders and New York Giants—  were blowouts. The other seven victories were skin-of-the-teeth affairs that made me almost lose what’s left of my hair.

The game that stands out most among those is the one that left me with the sneaking suspicion that these 2012 Ravens— with all their deficiencies— just might make it to the Super Bowl.

That was the game against the San Diego Chargers. Remember that one?

The Chargers gave the Ravens a smack around pretty much the entire game, but still led by only three in the closing moments. That’s when, on fourth and 29 from deep in Ravens territory, Ray Rice caught a pass for about two yards and then ran 27 for the first down.

If I live to be 247 years old I will never figure out how that happened. I have been a professional football fan for 50 years. (Got my start watching National Football League games and games from the old American Football League.) I’ve never seen a pro team convert a fourth down and 29.

 A team that can do that, I concluded, could probably do just about anything. And I’ll be darned if that isn’t what those underdog Ravens did.

With about 37 seconds left in the playoff game against the Broncos, the Ravens were on their own 30-yard line and trailed 35-28. All the Broncos had to do was prevent the Ravens from throwing a deep pass for 37 measly seconds.

Didn’t happen. Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco heaved a 70-yard touchdown pass to receiver Jakobi Jones. The extra point tied the score and the Ravens won in overtime.

That victory was a surprise. Peyton Manning, the Broncos quarterback, had beaten the Ravens in, I believe, nine consecutive games, probably because he had a knack for reading the Ravens defense the way a Phi Beta Kappa could read a grade school primer.

Manning’s knack helped neither him nor his team. These 2012 Ravens seemed like a team on a mission and, by now, we all know what that mission is— Ray Lewis’ last ride to the Super Bowl.

Number 52 tore his triceps muscle in the game against the Dallas Cowboys and was thought to be out for the season. Then the Ravens— and the rest of us— learned this would be Lewis’ last season.

 Just when we thought we had seen the last of him, there was number 52 again, taking the field against the Irsay Colts in the first playoff game and leading the team in tackles.

He did his last dance in M&T Stadium and then took that famous victory lap. Football “experts” swore we had seen the last of him, that the Broncos would dispatch the Ravens the next week.

However, Lewis and his teammates had other plans, as the Broncos soon learned. So did the New England Patriots, who fell to the Ravens in the AFC championship game.

Now number 52 leads his Ravens into the Super Bowl for his last run. I have no idea how it’ll turn out, but I know I’m hoping for an ending Hollywood couldn’t match.

Four years ago, President Obama made history by becoming the first black president in the history of the United States. I would like to think that even those who did not support his candidacy were proud of what the American people demonstrated— that anything is possible within our system of government. Play by the rules, work hard, present a compelling agenda and the American people will respond.

Obama was by far a much better candidate than John McCain and presented a more inspiring vision for America.

McCain had much more substance, but an inability to speak directly to the American people.

Four years later, “Hope and Change” has turned in to “I Hope He Changes.”  This is a common sentiment running through the black community. They were disappointed in the total silence of the Obama Administration on issues such as the high unemployment rate within the black community, the lack of engagement within the continent of Africa, and the seeming lack of attention paid to domestic issues.

I will remind you that blacks gave Obama 96 percent of their vote in 2008 and thus far have little to show for it. Homosexuals (two percent of the electorate has seen tangible results from Obama— repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; the push to recognize homosexual marriage, etc.), illegals have seen tangible results from Obama (the push for amnesty, the Dream Act, etc.), but blacks have seen and heard speeches—“get out of bed, put your marching shoes on and stop complaining.”

So, the question I have been pondering is this: Which is more important to the black community— someone who makes them feel good (Obama) or someone who secures tangible legislation to address their concerns?

Psychologically speaking, no one can make you feel good if you don’t already feel good about yourself. No one can make you feel loved if you don’t already love yourself. You never hear homosexuals or illegals speaking in terms of Obama making them feel good. They want something specific or they are willing to withhold their support.

I think there is strong consensus within the black community that the unemployment rate is at epidemic proportions and would not be tolerated within other communities. But we have shown no willingness to do anything about it other than complain.

Remember a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus once said, “If Obama was white we would be marching on the White House.” So, why should any person take the black community seriously when there is no fear of retribution?  Was it not LBJ who said, “Better to be feared than to be loved?”

However, I am curious as to how we can have one standard for a black president and another one for a white one?  Should we not be marching on the White House regardless of color, if black unemployment is double digits? Should we not be marching on the White House when more than 500 blacks have been killed in Chicago (and many of them young children) and a sitting president barely mentions it publicly? Should we not be marching on the White House when our president is rebuilding countries all over the world, while ours is falling apart?

I, like most Americans, was thrilled to see a black person elected president. But, I can’t get a job based on a feeling, I can’t get a student loan because I feel good, I can’t prevent crime from happening because I feel good. At some point, you must take away the emotional (feeling good) and replace that with something tangible (legislation).

Our presidents represent the whole of the United States, but sometimes, different groups need special attention based on their unique needs. This is one area where Obama has been grossly derelict. But, again, what are blacks prepared to do to get him to act? Thus far, the answer has been absolutely nothing.

So, in a kind of weird way, Obama has made it much easier for future white presidents to ignore blacks, regardless of party. For example, we know the next president will be white, so what happens when he doesn’t do something blacks think he should and his response is, “You didn’t ask Obama for this, so why should I do it for you?” This is strictly a hypothetical question, but I can guarantee that future presidents and their staffs will at least think these thoughts. How does the black community deal with this question?

This is the problem blacks have created for themselves by giving Obama a pass on many issues simply because he is black. We must become more politically sophisticated and less emotional. Despite the historic nature of his presidency, his lack of a real relationship with the black community remains a mystery.

Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm. He can be reached through his website: www.raynardjackson.com.

Better Sleeping Habits Promote Academic Success for Teens

Parents and teachers intuitively know that getting the proper amount of sleep can contribute to academic success. One justification for this conclusion is easily understood. A student who can’t stay awake in class is in effect “absent” for the lesson. However, there are some less obvious reasons why kids who routinely get a good night’s rest tend to do better in school.

“Sleep is food for the brain” says the National Sleep Foundation (NSF). “Sleepiness can make it hard to get along with your family and friends and hurt your scores on school exams, on the court or on the field.” As anyone who has tried but failed to stay awake in class will attest “a brain that is hungry for sleep will get it, even when you don’t expect it.”

Somewhere, Malcolm X’s ghost must be giggling hysterically. His hated, much-maligned house slaves have been dissed again, this time in the Quentin Tartantino movie “Django Unchained.”

Samuel L. Jackson plays the role of Stephen, the head house slave on Massa Calvin Candie’s Mississippi plantation. And no more villainous portrayal of a house slave has ever graced the silver screen.

Jackson’s Stephen is equal parts menacing, obsequious, conniving and manipulative. When escaped slave turned bounty hunter Django— played by Jamie Foxx— shows up at the plantation to rescue his wife, it’s Stephen who gleefully reveals Django’s true intentions to Candie.

In one scene, it is Stephen, not Candie, who has Django’s wife Broomhilda (no kidding; you have to see the movie to understand) put in the hot box to punish her for an escape attempt. It’s Candie who has to order Stephen to remove Broomhilda from the hot box.

 For those black folks who have been on their anti-house slave high horse for years—  hey, you know who you are— prepare to have a house-slave-hating field day if you watch “Django Unchained.” Just be advised that historical facts don’t support your state of high dudgeon.

 The Emancipation Proclamation, which set our nation on the path to the end of slavery, was signed 150 years ago this month. This year we should resolve to teach our children the story of our collective history. The past century and a half offers countless tales of bravery and sacrifice to inspire the next generation. Only by sharing our history will we be able to continue our progress over the next 150 years.

President Lincoln’s wartime proclamation in 1863 read that “all persons held as slaves” in rebel states, “are, and henceforward shall be free.” This was a noble idea and certainly a brave gesture. But any astute observer at the time would know that it was more aspiration than policy.

The Emancipation Proclamation applied to 3.1 million slaves, but only freed about 70,000 right away. The rest, like my grandmother’s grandparents, would have to wait until the union army advanced south to end the war. It took another seven years for the Fifteenth Amendment to grant African Americans the right to vote. And even then, Jim Crow laws and threats of violence kept many people of color away from the polls. 

Before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Frederick Douglass urged patience to his followers. “Lincoln may be slow,” he said, “but he will take no step backward.” Since then, the civil rights movement has seen many slow periods of buildup spiked by sudden crescendos of passion that sparked great change. We have struggled at times to keep this nation moving forward, but we have also committed, like Lincoln, to never move backward.