God of Guns

Reposted from Foreign Policy In Focus

Americans worship guns. We stockpile nuclear weapons, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on conventional weapons, and we keep handguns under our pillows. Not me, you might say: never touched a gun, never will. But you can still be part of the religion without visiting the church. Consider all the video games that involve shooting. And all the movies that center around gunfights in the same way that medieval paintings focus on the life of Jesus. And all the plastic guns our kids have. Then there's our $2,000 annual per-capita share of the Pentagon budget -- that's a hefty contribution to the collection plate.

We use all manner of spurious rationales to justify our gun theology. It's a dangerous world out there, we say, and even though we spend as much on weaponry as the rest of the world combined, we need still more. At home, gun advocates hold up the Constitution's Second Amendment: "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" -- even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the amendment protects only the rights of state militias, not individuals, to bear arms.

It's bad enough that we're awash in guns in the United States. But we also evangelize. We sell guns as aggressively overseas as a preacher hands out leaflets on a street corner. At Foreign Policy In Focus, we've published many articles on rising U.S. arms exports. But this week, FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan reports on an equally insidious problem: our exports of handguns. Consider the case of Mexico, where guns are fueling an epidemic of violence and death. "According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, more than 90% of guns seized after shootings or police raids in Mexico or at the border can be traced back to the United States," Berrigan writes. "Last year alone, 2,455 weapons traces concluded that the guns had been purchased in the United States."

I'm writing this from South Korea, where the citizens frankly think that we are all militant fundamentalists when it comes to guns. In South Korea, gun control laws are about as strict as they get. "When a gun is found on the street here," my friend here tells me, "it becomes the focus of national attention." That might change, of course. It wasn't long ago that bread was an unusual food here -- that is, until the United States flooded the market with wheat beginning in the 1950s as a food assistance program that also just happened to help out U.S. agribusiness. If American suppliers and the unregulated market have their way, South Koreans will someday enjoy all the privileges of gun ownership -- including the privilege of getting shot by accident on the street, by lunatics in crowded suburban malls, or by suicidal loners on school campuses.

Berrigan's column generated a load of anti-gun control responses, several of which suggested that a disarmed population would lead directly to tyranny and even genocide. South Koreans would be surprised to learn of this correlation, since they overthrew tyranny and today live in a democracy, all without guns. I, too, was surprised to learn that bullets, not ballots, are the cornerstone of U.S. democracy. The Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was necessary for the stability of their society. Today, we scoff at this "primitive" belief though we cling to our guns as surely as the Aztecs clung to their obsidian knives. Michael Moore chronicled this obsession in his film Bowling for Columbine. Lars von Trier lampooned it in the brilliant film, Dear Wendy.

Documentaries and satire are fine and dandy. But who will have the courage to stand up to bullies with guns -- whether it's the National Rifle Association or the Pentagon -- and get them to, in the words of Andy Partridge and the band XTC, "melt the guns, never more to fire them; melt the guns, never more desire them"?

Who will finally be able to convince Americans that the god of guns is the god that failed?

Subscribe to FPIF's World Beat here.

Comments

[Sneaky]

(Round 5 - Someone doesn't like me much)

"...even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the amendment protects only the rights of state militias, not individuals, to bear arms."

Wait, what? Citations, please? I can't find evidence of even one ruling that protects "rights of state militias", so please, share with the class.

"Consider the case of Mexico, where guns are fueling an epidemic of violence and death."

That's funny, I thought it was dirty politics and drug cartels, combined with the so-called War on Drugs in the United States that provides one heck of a cash cow for anyone willing to run drugs across the Mexico/US border. Silly me.

"South Koreans would be surprised to learn of this correlation, since they overthrew tyranny and today live in a democracy, all without guns."

They also live without the concept of inalienable human rights, too, but who's counting?

Ladies and gents, this is what happens when someone with an emotionally-charged agenda gets their mitts on incomplete information. Please, support better education. We'll all benefit from it.

[Thirdpower]

SEOUL, South Korea " North Korea is building a new missile launch site capable of firing an even longer-range missile than the country has tested in the past, South Korea's defense minister said Tuesday.

Seems the South Koreans think it's a good idea to cling to their guns as well.

[Thirdpower]

Michael Moore "chronicled" the "obsession" through selective editing, dishonesty, and flat out lying.

In Mexico, the violence is being fueled by competing drug cartels and corrupt politicians. How is it that the Mexican Army is being curtailed by criminals using handguns. Isn't it more likely that many of the criminals are using actual military firearms sold to them (or taken by) the soldiers and Mexican Gov't?

They're not buying M-16's and grenades at US gun shows.

[jbritt]

Even if all the governments in all the world somehow confiscated every gun in existence and destroyed them all, an enterprising amateur machinist with less than $5000 worth of equipment could manufacture military quality small arms and easily recoup their investment with one sale. This would be illegal, but I am sure everyone is well aware that there is no shortage of criminals and such lucrative business would certainly tempt at least a few people. Guns will not go away until something else comes along that is an even better weapon rendering them obsolete. Ranting about it will not make things better. If you really want to make things better, educate people about guns so that they are used safely and responsibly, allow citizens to own and carry guns as a deterrent to criminals wishing to attack them and most importantly treat the social and psychological problems that cause people to gravitate towards a life of crime and prevent them from even wanting to use a gun to harm anyone. I know that is a tall order especially the last item, but no one said it would be easy

[jbritt]

The statement that South Koreans "overthrew tyranny and today live in a democracy, all without guns" is ludicrous. Are you really trying to tell me that they live in a democracy today because when the dictatorship to the north invaded they repelled the armed invaders with words and diplomacy? Wow, I bet all of the South Koreans and Americans that took up arms and fought and died for the freedom of South Korea really wish they had known that all they had to do was tell the invading army to leave. Guns are here and they are not leaving.

[jbritt]

The Supreme Court may have ruled that 2A protected state militias in the past, but on June 26, 2008 they ruled that the second amendment protected an individual right so there goes that argument. That's to mention that even if you accept that it only protects the rights of state militias the Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" so that by granting this right to militias it is an indirectly granted to a significant portion of the citizen population anyway. So many guns used in Mexico are traced back to the US because Mexico has very strict laws regarding civilian ownership of guns so it is just easier to buy them in the US and smuggle them back down to Mexico. This does not point to a need for greater gun control in the US. It does point to two other facts. First, we need to better secure our borders to stop the illegal trade in arms, drugs and everything else. Second, obviously the strict gun controls do not make Mexico any safer or even nominally reduce the number of firearms. This is because of the old truth that gun control laws only disarm the law-abiding and very marginally affect the criminals whose misuse of guns is the cause of the laws.

[carrieanna]

I'll agree that guns have been overglamorized with tv, movies and videogames. I personally dislike playing shoot 'em up games and avoid them, sticking with less destructive types of action games. So much of our culture is rooted in the idealization of James Bond, Bonnie and Clyde and various wild west gunslingers.

I considered the pros and cons of carrying a concealed weapon and decided I didn't want the responsbility and didn't feel my personal safety was at issue enough to warrant that kind of action. However, I still feel strongly that the people should retain power against the threat of a tyrranical government. Unfortunately, for the past few hundred years, that means citizens having the freedom to arm themselves. I often consider that our nation would not have been formed without our ability to rise up against the might of the British and guns were instrumental.

However, as with any other modern issue, I think education is paramount. Teaching gun safety to minors is a good step. Perhaps even more reality videos detailing the aftermath of human vs human gun violence...much in the way that we watch the horrific videos of car crashes in driving school or the anti-drunk-driving guys use the mangled cars as warnings. But this can be done without buying into the "scary world" vision that local news seems to perpetuate.

[djkrlsn]

I fully support your right to choose whether or not to carry concealed--just so long as you don't try to deny other people the same choice,

[Ohio9]

"Berrigan's column generated a load of anti-gun control responses, several of which suggested that a disarmed population would lead directly to tyranny and even genocide. South Koreans would be surprised to learn of this correlation, since they overthrew tyranny and today live in a democracy, all without guns."

Oh really? How did South Korea fend off the North Korean invasion? It wasn't with words or anti-gun slogans. It by men with guns....and a little help from us (also men with guns). Of course, if Korea had a significantly armed populance like we do, they might not have needed over 30,000 Americans to die fighting for their freedom.

More recently, the Genocide in Rwanda was ended not by anti-gun slogans or speeches, but by an armed rebel group. What were they armed with? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't swords or spears.

[podwich]

"...even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the amendment protects only the rights of state militias, not individuals, to bear arms."

There was quite recently a landmark decision in the Supreme Court that specifically recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, according to the Second Amendment.

[RDixon]

* clap clap clap*

Are you , perchance, related to Stephen Glass?

The last time I read an article like that, it was authored by Mr. Glass.

[Berettasskeeter]

Well, someone who lives elsewhere telling us how to live our lives.
America, North, Central, and South, was settled with the gun and the plow. Our Founders realized that the only true guarantor of freedom was, and is, the ability to resist a tyrannical government. I know, I know, you'll say, "how can we resist a modern army". But consider, many members of our armed services would also resist any orders to violate their Constitutional oaths. A poll taken over 10 years ago showed that our services would, in large measure, not respond to illegal orders, and that leads me to believe many of them would actually join in any popular uprising. Their power, combined with civilian resistance, would make it very difficult for a tyrannical government to gain and hold such power over the populace.
Semper fi

[HisXLNC]

"how can we resist a modern army?"

I have found a different answer to that question on someone else's blog:

"The US civilian population doesn"t have to be able to defeat the 3rd marine division, we never did. The third marine division isn"t the problem; it"s the people issuing the orders who are. One careful and discreet civilian, who was willing to die to make his point, could be armed with nothing but an average deer rifle and still do all the damage that needs to be done. And since our politicians know this, the existence of 90 million of those deer rifles in civilian hands is a profound restraint on their behavior. They treat us with the respect that comes from knowing that if they don"t, it only takes one gun nut to cut all their ambition short. " - http://freenj.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-people-should-be-armed.html

[Berettasskeeter]

That is very true, as has been proven time and again in history.
Semper fi

[gaebolgaes]

if there were no guns...who would need to call for help..or kill defending themselves.no where in the bible does it ever mention that god used guns.if you call your self a christian..and all you yammer about is guns..then you are a lying hypocrite.god used fire and water. give me a penny book of matches and every gun owner on this planet will run for their lives.

[1will]

It was kind of hard figuring out your post but it seems like you are saying that if there were no guns then no one would need a gun to protect themselves from others.
That's a simplistic statement and wrong. Could you physically protect yourself if 3 men broke into your home? Can the average 130 lb woman defend herself from a 6'2" 230lb abusive ex that wants to beat on her (or worse)? Can an arthritic elder physically defend himself against an ex con that spend the last 5 years pumping iron?
The fact is that the genie is out of the bottle in regards to guns. They are here and will always be here. The only question is do we allow law abiding citizens to own them or just let criminals with their illegal guns prey on the disarmed and innocent (like in DC)?
Let's suppose the Supreme Court decided they were wrong and the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. If the government collected every gun in the US today there would be firearms flowing into the country next week. The only difference would be the criminals would be the only ones armed. It's an old arguement but I have yet to see anyone refute it. When we can stop the flow of illegal aliens, Cocaine, Meth and Heroin from entering the US I'll believe we could keep guns out.

[djkrlsn]

2nd posting--you might do some looking in the Torah about the OBLIGATION to defend innocent life (it is there). Also relevent--Jesus himself said the same thing (no greater love is there than to lay down your life for your brother--that certainly tells me that defending innocent life is acceptable) and in Luke 33--Jesus tells his followers that if they do not have a sword to go and buy one

[CubanVoice]

You're absolutely right. We need gun attitude change, gun culture change and politicians who have them BIG enough to face up to the powerful NRA. I went to 12 years of Catholic school and don't remember ONE mention of God's way found by way of a gun.

[djkrlsn]

Guns are a good way for small statured individuals to defend themselves from larger and stronger individuals. I am guessing that in 12 years of Catholic school that it was pounded into you to protect the innocent from those that would do them harm (I know that the Presbyterian Church I attended emphasized that), but then again--a church organization that came up with the Inquisition and priests like Tomas de Torquemada (confessor to the Isabella of Columbus fame and head of that perversion called the Spanish Inquisition) is probably not the strongest on freedom of concious.

[1will]

You may not own or even have ever touched a gun before but you will no doubt call for a man with a gun to come protect you when you cannot protect yourself. This is not a virtue it is called hypocrisy.
Yes, Americans love our guns. There are approx 80 million gun owners possessing over 270 million guns. As there are approx. 14,000 gun murders in the US (half committed by criminals with illegal guns) it seems the vast majority of our 306 million citizens know how to behave themselves.
On the other hand physicans kill almost 50,000 per year through mistakes. Close to 1 million babies are aborted per year and we kill over twice as many people with our autos than we murder with our guns. Of course guns are used almost 2 million times per year defensively but somehow that fact always gets left out of anti gun columns and rants.
As for American guns ending up in Mexico, perhaps they should secure their border.

[MajorKong]

My guns won't protect me from having my job sent overseas. When I get downsized I'll have to sell my guns to pay the bills.

[Berettasskeeter]

You've said that on numerous posts in the past. You have my symphathy! I presume you are voting for the man who will try to ensure that our government, and therefore our economy, remain one controlled by the people, instead of the Socialist!?
Semper fi

[progunproamerican]

Yes! Finally some logic.

[djkrlsn]

If nothing else, if the Mexicans take control of their northern border to keep gunrunners out, it may very well help keep drugrunners south of the border. In terms of guns and religion--look at the discussions in Talmud Torah--there is an major obligation to defend innocent life, including your own, and firearms are one of the most efficent and effective way of providing that defense. Basic principle--the law abiding should be able to match the criminal in terms of armament, if not in physical ability (a 357 or 9mm makes an arthitic elderly person of small stature reasonably competetive with a far larger and more powerful thug--if the victim is alert, trained and willing to shoot) because in my religous background forcing someone to be a victim to some thug is not a good thing.