Of Pedicures, Pistols and Presidents

So I'm reading the New York Times at the local nail salon while getting a pedicure, when a front-page article titled "Power to Build Border Fence is Above U.S. Law" grabs my attention. And maybe it's the way the attendant is massaging my leg with warm water, or the late-afternoon sunlight is reaching into the near-empty storefront, but I relax and start free-associating, and before I know it I'm having an epiphany about why ardent gun rights advocates shouldn't support the Bush administration. Let me lay out my case:

Point #1: The Supreme Court is currently considering D.C. v. Heller, a case that requires considering whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals or groups to bear arms, being that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and all. Citizens who support the former view generally contend that the Founding Fathers wanted citizens to be able to fight off an over-weaning central government, should it ever come to that. Or, as a friend's husband once memorably said in explaining his large private gun collection, "I want to be ready when the shooting starts."

Point #2: I've found, at least anecdotally, that these same people are generally fans of our weapons-friendly president and his firearms-friendly, if firearms-challenged, VP. Yet this Chief Executive has done more to concentrate power centrally in a single branch of government than any other in our history. Through hundreds of signing statements, he's made clear his intention to interpret the laws passed by the legislative branch any way he wants to; he and his minions unilaterally decided that the FISA law didn't need to be obeyed; at his request, his lawyers determined that the Geneva Convention was quaint, extraordinary rendition wasn't so extraordinary and torture could be performed at the executive's whim.

Now, according to this piece in the New York Times, Michael Chertoff, a member of Bush's cabinet, claims the authority granted by 2005's Republican Congress to "ignore any laws that stand in the way of building a border fence. Any laws at all." Last week, the Times' Adam Liptak reports, "Mr. Chertoff issued waivers suspending more than 30 laws he said could interfere with 'the expeditious construction of barriers' in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas." According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, Liptak notes, this delegation of power is unprecedented.

Which brings me to Point #3: The same people who lobby assiduously for less gun control should be concerned about reining in the metastasizing powers of this central government, shouldn't they? If people feel moved to buy guns because they may need to defend themselves against their government in the future -- even if they think the threat of terrorists or future landscapers crossing the border is the greatest risk facing our country -- they have to be deeply disturbed about the power this government has slowly been accruing over the last seven years. Fresh reasons for outrage pop up in the news on an almost daily basis. We voters probably won't know the extent of this administration's power grab for years to come.

So are Second Amendment-inspired gun rights advocates up in arms -- sorry, couldn't get to the end without throwing that in -- about the Bush administration's belief in an all-powerful, centralized government? I'm curious.

Comments

[45superman]

Plenty of ardent advocates of the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms have ZERO affection for "The Decider's" administration (because, as you correctly point out, the Bush administration might be THE MOST authoritarian in our nation's history).

Besides, Bush has really been no staunch friend of gun owners--even those who aren't worried about freedom issues beyond guns--his promise to sign a renewed ban on so-called "assault weapons" is a case in point.

Unfortunately, the Democrats continue to nominate presidential candidates who openly disparage gun rights, pushing many gun rights advocates into the Republican camp.

If the Democrats had the wit to stop doing that, the benefits would be huge--the percentage of voters who vote for a candidate solely because that candidate advocates more draconian gun laws is tiny, but the percentage of voters who vote against such a candidate is quite significant. Dropping the hostility to gun rights would therefore gain the Democrats VASTLY more votes than it would cost them.

When will they learn?

[curledup]

I had precisely the same epiphany last fall while picking up wind-downed branches from my yard. Free association of his sort can apparently occur during repetitive, invigorating (if back-pain inducing) physical activity as well as during pedis. I hear you, sister!

[akhmed]

Are you not aware of Libertarians? They're not big Bush supporters.

[AnninCA]

I wonder how many campus killings it will take to get some reasonable gun control laws in. Obama's stand depends on which state he's in, so I'm not too hopeful he cares about this issue.

I'm so, so past ready!

[Willbill]

We have thousands of “Reasonable gun control” laws on the books now, and they don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals or nut cases that are disposed to go on shooting sprees. More gun control will not change this. So how many more campus killing must there be before school administrators will allow those of us with carry permits to defend ourselves as we are allowed to do everywhere else?

[EbonBear]

Not everyone who is pro-gun rights is also conservative. I count myself as very much in favour of the right to keep and bear arms (albeit with a few sensible restrictions) but loathe pretty much everything the Bush admin stands for (unprovoked war, casual criminality, corruption, etc, etc). Kaming firearms illegal won't stop people who don't obey the law anyway. Banning all handguns from private citizens hasn't made any difference to the level of gun crime here (England) and there are several nations with fairly liberal attitudes toward gun ownership without the crime problem (i.e. Switzerland). Logical deduction says that it is not the guns which are causing the crime but somethign in the culture.

Incidently, among the "sensible restrictions" I mentioned should be mandatory basic safety testing. Just basic safety stuff like not sticking your weapon in your waistband, not looking down the barrel. That can be done relatively cheaply without bothing law-abiding gun owners too much and would cut down on the roughly 1000 dead and goodness knows how many injured each year through unsafe handling of firearms.

[1will]

Very few gun owners buy firearms out of worry of a tyrannical Federal government. Most gun owners buy guns for defense, hunting or target shooting. As it is usually the Democratic Party that favors any and all gun laws they see I doubt gun owners will abandon the Bush Administration.
Since the two contenders for the Democratic Presidental Nomination are both anti gun I doubt that gun owners will embrace the Left. Of course the test will be whether or not the "Blue Dog" Democrats who ran as pro gun candidates keep their promises to support the 2nd Amendment or if they cave to Pelosi when the Dems control the House, Senate and White House.

[AndyBitMeAgain]

And yet, you big strong conservatives wet your diapers every time some pathetic "terrorist
conspiracy" is unveiled by the Homeland Security Republican Retirement-on-Job brigade
to justify its miserable existence.

"Oh, please, wiretap us, photograph us, fingerprint us, take away right to counsel, remove
Habeas rights, stuff us in cages, use your political powers to make us all right-thinking
party members, but puh-leeze keep them Mooslums away - we scared massuh! They done
killed three thousand of us wit de airplanes!". Moo, moo, moo. Get in the chutes, little
dogies.

Meanwhile, 30 or more thousand of us die every year from gun violence, but registering the
damned things or keeping them out of the hands of kids and the insane is an insult to your freedom.

Your kid had her brains blown out on her college campus? That's freedom on the march, pal - buck up!

[Absintheforall]

No, it's not Bush's government that is the imminent threat to our freedom to have and use our firearms: It's the anti-gunner liberals who want to disarm us, take away our hunting traditions, and who deplore our national heritage, that worry us.

[EbonBear]

Your national heritage amounts to shooting each other now?

[Willbill]

No! Our freedom is our national heritage. This includes freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities.