Three days. 10 mass shootings. More than 50 victims. US sees worst weekend of 2023. (msn.com)
I'm going to try to condense an 8300 word, 16 page paper I wrote into a blog post.
The "Second Amendment" is the commonest excuse gun-toters use as what they believe is the basis of their right to tote guns.
"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."
The gun-toters think this is about guns. It is not. Guns are never mentioned. It's about security (of the states against over-reach by the federal government, and of the Union against outside intrusion), and the mechanism of that security is militias. Further, the background regarding militias and their intended purpose(s) is contained in Federalist Paper #29, which addresses who can join a militia (Caucasian men between 18 and 45), how they are to obtain the "Arms" in question (the federal government is to supply them), how they are to be trained (by the federal government), how often (twice a year), and who will be their direct officers (appointed by the states). It is also noted repeatedly that militia members are people from the locality, and they know and trust each other, and everyone else knows and trusts them.
In the late 18th C, "Arms" meant muskets. Today, for the purpose of resisting over-reach by the federal government, or to join the Union in its efforts to confront outside invaders, "Arms" means whatever the "enemy" has. That means grenades, bazookas, flame-throwers, tanks, fighter jets, surface-to-air missiles, aircraft carriers, submarines, and nuclear weapons. But since every one of those is illegal for civilians to have, even if they claim they'll just hang on to them until they have to join a militia, then there is no "Second Amendment." It hasn't been formally repealed, but it no longer has any practical meaning. It's been gutted and made a useless anachronism.
And as for who can join a militia, apart from the race, gender, and age, we're talking about each other, not about loners, misfits, criminals, and people with what are loosely called "mental problems." But that's who commits all these mass murders.
If you haven't seen the old (at this point) Michael Moore movie, "Bowling for Columbine," you should. Near the end Moore is interviewing Charlton Heston, who was then either president or celebrity spokesperson for the NRA. Moore points out to Heston that the rate of gun ownership is about the same in Canada as it is in the USA, but the rate of gun crime is much higher in this country. He asks Heston ("they'll have to pry my guns out of my cold, dead hands") why that is. Or, to put it more bluntly, WTF is wrong with us? Heston had no answer. Well, something is wrong with us. And it has been for a really long time. "Bowling for Columbine" was released in 2002, and it was already a well-established fact back then.
And since the orange man told everyone it was right, proper, and "god" damn patriotic to honor your rage, and go out and do something about it, the rate of various crimes -- many or most of them with guns -- has exploded.
Nobody needs his or her own personal gun. They're dangerous. That's their one and only purpose. We regulate and restrict ownership of much less dangerous, and much more generally useful, things, like cars, more than we regulate guns. And that's because legislators are bought and owned by the NRA. Do you know that Marco Rubio gets vastly more money from the NRA than he gets from his salary (which comes from our tax dollars)? Who do you think his constituents are?
So, what? Guns are fun? They make you feel secure? When was the last time you used a gun to protect yourself, or to protect anyone else? And your possession of it is at the risk that someone in your house gets mad at someone else in your house, or someone gets depressed, or your house gets burgled, and your gun(s) get(s) stolen. It's really not worth the fun, or the story you tell yourself about how big and tough you are now.
When my father died at the end of 2016, we found out he had a handgun. I brought it to the BP police, and asked them to destroy it. Please get rid of your gun(s). Once someone steals it/them, from a home invasion, or because you left it in your unlocked car (you think I'm kidding, right), it/they become everyone's problem. You don't have the right to do that to everyone else. Nothing -- not the "Second Amendment" or anything else -- gives you that right.
Well ranted, Fred! I really don't understand how we can reconcile the notion of popularizing gun ownership with the fear that every parent in the country has of sending their children to school. I wish the only danger was bullies! Unfortunately, the police and their unions support gun ownership, too, even though it makes their jobs that much dangerous and every interaction they have with the public is an "armed" confrontation. No wonder they feel "threatened." It seems that they won't change their position until they are made responsible for every shooting that occurs. I'm also glad you mentioned cars-of course, if one of our cars develops a life threatening condition, the manufacture is held liable-why isn't that the case with guns, too?
ReplyDeleteOh, well....we're probably singing to the choir, mate!
I'm ranting, yes. But I'm not the only one. My children are in their 40s, but my grandchildren are preschoolers. I have to worry about this, and about my children, and about my grandchildren, and about myself, and about you, for as long as I live.
DeleteI'm not interested in holding gun manufacturers responsible. When a car damages or kills someone, it's a design flaw. When a gun damages or kills someone, that's the point. That's why someone acquired it. Guns have no other purpose. I'm interested in holding electeds responsible.
Please vote. And vote smart, and in the interest of all of us.
By the way, I'm trying to find a lawyer who will help me enact a plan. I want to demand that the "Second Amendment" be honored, and that I be given, by the government, a tank, a fighter jet, and nuclear weapons. And trained in the use of them, so I can join a militia, as the "Second Amendment" specifies. I want to back the government into a corner in which it will either have to give me what no one wants me to have (and which I don't want), or repeal the "Amendment" that supposedly allows me to have this stuff which no one wants me to have.
DeleteThe fact is that we have had militias in this country. The largest and best organized one, that was armed as the federal government was armed (and stood the only real chance to win, which is what militias are supposed to do) was the CSA. And we defeated it, as we have defeated all of them. And crippled the vast majority of them by preventing them from being armed enough to challenge the federal government. The fact is that no one wants militias to succeed. We just have to stop playing this infantile game that accomplishes nothing except doing random and disorganized damage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHey Fred and readers- I deleted my cynical and sour previous post in response to Fred's more hopeful and positive one...I am sorry that I was so discouraging...the truth is that I feel both hopeful and sometimes I also feel like nothing's going to work in our country...but the hopeful path leads to courage and faith and belief in others, and the other despairing path only leads to fear and destruction...I am choosing hope today-thanks Fred, for letting me post here.
ReplyDeleteI didn't read your comment as cynical. I read it as frustrated and filled with doubt, to which you are more than entitled. We do seem to be making very tiny elements of progress (at the cost of a lot of people), but I want more.
DeleteLet me restate my imagined (I haven't met an organization or a lawyer courageous enough to try this with me) plan. In psychiatry, we sometimes talk about "going with the resistance." A different and more colloquial, and mischievous-sounding, way to put it is "reverse psychology." The seemingly direct way of making the argument is to point out the damage done by guns in civilian hands, and how those guns in civilian hands are not consistent with the "Second Amendment," and suggesting, or even demanding, that the "Amendment" be repealed. And that's certainly my first reflex. But because, as you said, I would have little or no chance of success, I thought of approaching this the other way around. We have a "Second Amendment." Sort of. So I want to argue for the satisfaction of what the "Second Amendment" guarantees. It guarantees me the uninfringed right to "keep and bear Arms," so I can join a militia, and Federalist Paper #29, which underlies the "Amendment," says the purpose of the militia is that I can join my state in protecting itself from over-reach by the federal government, and the militia and I can join the federal government in protecting the Union from outside invaders. Either way, the militia, and I, have to be armed as the federal government, or outside invaders, are armed. The Federalist Paper also says the government has to give me the arms I need, and train me in the use of them. So I want the federal government to give me a tank, a fighter jet, surface-to-air missiles, possibly a submarine or aircraft carrier, and nuclear weapons. That's what fulfills the "Second Amendment." I want the federal government to finish painting itself into a corner, where it either has to be good for the "Second Amendment," or repeal it (since it and the states have already made it meaningless and impotent, by outlawing the "Arms" I need to be an effective member of a militia, for the purpose militias are stated to have. And if I find a lawyer with a pair, you can join me, and we can get lots lf other people, each and all of whom want tanks, fighter jets, surface-to-air missiles, submarines or aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons, and training in their use. There was a case back in the '30s, and it made it to the Supreme Court, and it was called US vs Miller. One of Miller's arguments why he shouldn't have to register his gun was the cost of registration. If the cost of registration was considered possibly an infringement, then certain the cost of a tank, etc, is an infringement.