A Nation Clinging to Guns

In 1993, when Bill Clinton took office, the country was emerging from a recession. No one was buying cars, Detroit and the housing market were on life support, computer sales were dragging bottom. And what was the most profitable and fastest growing business sector at that time? Firearms.

Amendment II

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.

In perspective, there are Second Amendment Democrats as well as the higher profile bumper sticker patriot gun rights zealots. All of whom, for various reasons, believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Obama appears to be one of them, if for no other reason than respect for the document and the wisdoms of those who wrote it. The wording of the Amendment is slightly confusing, but the courts have consistently upheld the interpretation that what is meant is that individual ownership of arms are a requisite to a forming a militia. Most would be more comfortable with some more detail, but the subject seems so fraught with emotion that argument becomes futile, quickly. And the question of to what purpose one would form a militia is sadly equivocal as well. What is difficult to envision is a situation in our future that would crystallize the intent of the Amendment into clarity.

The era in which firearms were a practical necessity is substantially and thankfully over as of the end of the 19th century. They are possessed now for what most honestly amounts to a hybrid of sport, nostalgia and primordial anxiety.

The nation has a long history of love/hate with firearms. In seeming disregard of the Second Amendment, keeping and bearing have been infringed many times and in many ways, most sensibly. Wyatt Earp is said to have cleaned up Dodge City with the aid of a ban on carrying firearms in the city. The Civilian Marksmanship Program was formed in 1916 by Congressional act, to promote firearms skills in the general public in case of the need for their military service. These are exemplar of competing objectives. As a nation we seem to want to defend ourselves but cannot decide on just the right amount of readiness for that defense.

There are a multitude of local ordinances and federal constraints on purchase and possession and millions of retired U.S. Military surplus firearms have been "shredded" to prevent them from reaching the public. The BATF exists because of the public interest that weapons be regulated in some fashion. It does amuse me that the government should have a branch that regulates all my particular vices save one.

But it was the Clinton move to ban assault weapons that got the public excited in 93. People were afraid that Clinton would curtail their access to military style weapons. Staggering numbers of cheap Russian and Chinese military surplus semi-automatic weapons from the dissolving Iron Curtain countries were being dumped into this country in response to a yawning unmet demand. Men, and women, of all degree were three deep at the display case for months, until the Assault Weapons ban was finalized and watered down to prohibit bayonets and limit ammunition capacity.

Fine historical pieces, as you might guess, were not what was selling in 1993. Nor are they what is selling today as millions of Americans fall prey to their nightmares once again. I suspect it is a national frenzy, but for proof I went to a regional gun "show". The local gun dealers are sold out of everything that costs less than $1500 and can be loaded with more than five rounds of ammunition. The local gun show, where you can buy and sell, had thousands in attendance instead of the usual couple of hundred.

Americans seem to be preparing for some undefinable war. This even as an Obama administration, going forward, makes the prospect of real shooting war far less likely than at any time since Eisenhower. The Constitution, which the guarantee of possession of arms is intended to defend, is more likely to be upheld by Obama, the Constitutional Scholar, than by any President in modern history including FDR. If you doubt that, then pay attention to his statements on separation of church and state, abortion and gun rights. There is fine ethical construction in what he has to say on these issues. But, either you take him at his word or you do not. Personally, I have never known a man to do such thorough thinking and then go back on his word. You think it through in order to be able to keep your word. So if some conflict of a nature so immense that it requires American militias to form is not eminent, then for what purpose do these throngs seek the means of self defense?

Why exactly do we seem to need these firearms? A gun will not insure that you do not lose your job to an international merger or international competition. A gun will not get you a raise. A gun will not prevent crime, it will give you a split second opportunity to make a life and death decision about killing or being killed in the progress of a crime. General prosperity prevents crime. A gun will not prescribe to government a program to eliminate crime, corruption, drugs, homelessness, pornography or pedophilia. A gun will not educate your children, save the environment or foster temperance. The only effective weapon for achieving sophisticated political goals is words. If words fail, then there are guns. Use of guns, weapons of any kind, are the definition of chaos. The road to chaos is swift. The road back is nigh impossible.

In theory, the Second Amendment is emblematic of the American compulsion in resistance to tyranny. Resistance to tyranny is a fine sentiment. It has adherents in all shades of the political spectrum. The political act of last resort is to take up arms and throw off your oppressor. It has a romance that rings deep into the heart and soul of a free people. As history clearly shows though, your oppressor is as likely to be on the political right as on the political left. Authoritarianism has no political affiliation. It is simply a product of weak and evil, mostly greedy stupid, men in whom the social and political skill required to govern is lacking.

As I walk through the gun show I hear a seller holding forth to a crowd on why the Democrats will take their guns. Democrats, he says, are afraid of your right to own guns. An onlooker suggests the time worn solution, "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands."

The THEY that will pry the gun from the cold dead hands appears not too well defined, unless the tyranny that is to be resisted is the tyranny of your neighbors. Democracy does have that aspect. If a majority of one resolves a vote, then they are imposing on the minority but for one. Democratic to 51% can mean tyrannical to 49%. But we are fortunate in that regard. As the gun seller, above, fails to consider, we have the Constitution, Bill of Rights and courts to prevent the unreasonable subjugation of any minority, even of one person. Defending that high scholarship of governing is what the Second Amendment is intend to accomplish, if haphazardly. Imagine the agonies of the Founders over whether or not to canonize a resort to the chaos of war in order to accomplish and maintain a more orderly and just society? That is what they did. And it is arguable whether the time for that guarantee of a last resort has or will soon pass.

Might not the political spectrum be circular instead of a linear dead end left and right? If authoritarian regimes know no political preference, it is rather likely that resistance to authoritarianism is what the extreme right and left have most in common. THEY are some foe of ancestral dread that will subjugate, confine and torture the most dear of our aspirations, liberty. The union, meeting point of this political circle is in chaos. Unfortunate that we cannot so well examine our own fears that we should have to realize them in order to define them.

In the mean time, guns are a symbol, little more, although more dangerous to family and friends than criminals or imagined despots. By far most will sit in the corner of a closet, unused, for the lifetimes of those new buyers just as they have the lifetimes of previous buyers. It is the mercies of competent government that keeps them there.

Comments

[molonlabe]

"The era in which firearms were a practical necessity is substantially and thankfully over as of the end of the 19th century. They are possessed now for what most honestly amounts to a hybrid of sport, nostalgia and primordial anxiety."

What a ridiculous statement. Do anti-gunners simply ignore the fact that various studies have shown that firearms are used between 80,000 - 2.5 million times per year in self defense, or are they legitimately ignorant?

Crime is exacerbated by socioeconomic disparities. Not inanimate objects. Don't believe me?

"While overall homicide levels in the United States have fluctuated minimally in
recent years, those involving young victims and perpetrators"particularly young
black males"have surged.

From 2002 to 2007, the number of homicides involving black male juveniles as
victims rose by 31% and as perpetrators by 43%. In terms of gun killings
involving this same population subgroup, the increases were even more
pronounced: 54% for young black male victims and 47% for young black male
perpetrators."

http://www.jfox.neu.edu/Documents/Fox%20Swatt%20Homicide%20Report%20Dec%2029%202008.pdf

Seems like the only one clinging to anything is Mr. Herrington and his militia argument and the idea that personal protection is an "antiquated" belief.

Why are we so afraid to address the social problems associated with crime?

[Sneaky]

It turns out my initial comment is far exceeding the limits of these comments (says I'm 750-ish words over, in fact). Stephen, do you have an email that we can contact you at so we can share our thoughts with you? If you don't want to provide it here, please contact me at [e-mail], since I would really like to share my thoughts with you on this subject (the email not spam - it's one of the five "ProtectionPack Anonymous Email Addresses" that Earthlink Web Mail provides so that users can avoid programs designed to fish for email addresses; my main email will receive it, and will be what I would reply from).

Thanks, and have a great night.

[josephk2171]

Actually a more accurate statement would be, "The politicians of this nation have a love/hate relationship with guns". Either for or against, gun rights are a hot button issue, but even with recent supreme court decisions, the far left in this country are still bound and determined to insure that I cannot protect my family or myself if I need to. As for Barry O, it seems he is far more centrist and even right leaning than all the rabid libs were hoping for, that is except for gun control. Oh well, gun rights hosed Clinton in '94, and it could do the same to the "One", so here hoping!

[45acp1911]

Some of the comments here discuss the futility of taking on the government specifically the military. While I disagree with that sentiment I think our most immediate threat would be as a result of a far more devastating terrorist attack and the resulting chaos.

I haven"t read anyone discussing the potential breakdown of law and order after a nuke, biologic or chemical attack on the country.

Far too many people will likely take advantage of the inability of local governments to maintain order. Think New Orleans and Katrina. Local law enforcement will probably be a greater threat to us than the military. They will attempt to disarm law-abiding people before worrying about criminals. We"re easier to coerce, intimidate and control.

But, we will need the ability to protect ourselves and property from looters and roving gangs of thugs looking to make a profit from the chaos.

[djkrlsn]

I know I have brought up the role of firearms in emergency/natural disaster situation in some of Helmke's blogs--but what is amazing to me are gun control supporters that grudgingly admit the point and then immediately turn around and insist that you have to be sworn law enforcement to keep an eye out for your neighbors or to defend your own home

[45acp1911]

The Second Amendment is not that difficult. Check out: http://daveinnevada.blogtownhall.com/

Seems fairly clear to me.

What isn't so clear to a lot of people are gun owners motivations for owning guns. I would venture that (aside from all the familiar reasons; self defense, restraint against gov tyranny, etc.) every gun owner has his own reasons.

I have several reasons for owning guns: I admire the craftsmanship and ingenuity of the designs; I enjoy target shooting; the collectibles value - they are better than stocks (S&W is down but not my Smith & Wessons or Colts); I just like em; and because I can.

I've owned guns since I was 14. I can't imagine not owning them now.

[athensguy]

Why do I have to be a "second amendment" supporter only? The constitution itself does not provide a legal way for the government to ban the possession of any item, and that includes guns and drugs. Every law that bans possession of something is unconstitutional.

[HisXLNC]

In perspective, there are Second Amendment Democrats as well as the higher profile bumper sticker patriot gun rights zealots. All of whom, for various reasons, believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Obama appears to be one of them..."

Which Obama? Definitely not the one that will soon be president. He didn't sign the amicus brief in DC vs Heller. He chose Eric Holder, a man who still believes the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than an individual right.

"The Constitution, which the guarantee of possession of arms is intended to defend, is more likely to be upheld by Obama, the Constitutional Scholar, than by any President in modern history including FDR. If you doubt that, then pay attention to his statements on separation of church and state, abortion and gun rights."

I think that's why people are running out to buy guns. They are paying attention to his statements on gun rights rather than the empty promises of his apologists.

"As the gun seller, above, fails to consider, we have the Constitution, Bill of Rights and courts to prevent the unreasonable subjugation of any minority, even of one person."

Chicago, Washington DC, New York City, and the entire state of California have seemed to miss that memo.They seem to operate on something other than The Constitution.

[Stephen Herrington - Huffpost Blogger]

Your points, HisXLNC, are the current state of the argument. Whether you can believe that Obama will be a President for all the people is between you and Obama. Clearly the interest of all the people rests in part in the wording of Amendment II and the assumption of its importance, it being just after Amendment I. Not being the Federal government, and all law not expressly reserved to the Federal government being the concern of States, California, et. al., are acting in a grey area that has historic precedent for being just that.

Many here seem to have presumed I argue against "gun rights". Many things have conspired to cast doubt in the minds of the public as to the wisdom of Amendment II. Begining with the mail order Cancano that killed JFK and extending through Columbine, doubts about freedom to keep and bear have grown. A summary dismissal of those doubts adds further cause to the consternation of citizens that are already stoking a cultural and historic resentment with little consideration to the consequences of a success in prohibition of private ownership.

Here, and many seem to have missed it, is the key, "And it is arguable whether the time for that guarantee of a last resort has or will soon pass."

[athensguy]

Obama has already shown his disrespect for the constitution with his response to the question on legalization of marijuana.

[45acp1911]

You say: "Many here seem to have presumed I argue against "gun rights". Many things have conspired to cast doubt in the minds of the public as to the wisdom of Amendment II. Begining with the mail order Cancano that killed JFK . . ."

A Carcano Mannlicher rifle didn"t kill JFK. It is a commonly held belief that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK (or LBJ had it done, take your pick) with a Carcano Mannlicher rifle. This is one of the reasons people don"t understand guns, gun ownership and gun owners. You can"t simply invoke the Kennedy assassination. That was an aberration. LHO was a NUT. Most law-abiding gun owners are not.

There are armed, violent, evil, mean, wicked, nasty and bad people out there and as long as they are out there we need to be able to defend against them.

Let"s say, for the sake of argument, that the Second was repealed, it wouldn"t matter because the right to self defense is an inherent right. And, if and attempt was made to repeal the Second (or if it was repealed), I would say that would be a great reason for its existence.

Another common mistake is to think that the order of the amendments indicates their importance. Not so. They are all equally important.

The Second Amendment is not that difficult. Check out: http://daveinnevada.blogtownhall.com/

[ThePharoahsApprentice]

Here's my case...

Customer pulls gun, stops robbery
http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?S=7565465

Shopper pulls gun, stops robbery cold
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59503

Doctor uses Gun to Stop Robbery in Restaurant
http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_072208WAB_restaurant_robbery_KC.810a4e71.html

Woman Stops Robbery With Own Gun
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2936266/detail.html

Gun store owner pulls gun, foils robbery
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07262/818763-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml

Homeowner shoots burglar
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=83885

Homeowner Shoots Intruder Attempting to Break In
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=9408092&nav=menu69_2_9

Homeowner Shoots Break-in Suspect in Head
http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/33637599.html

Clearwater homeowner shoots intruder
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6112c8a1-3020-4138-a396-9ae2f0b290c6

84-year-old man wounds intruder
http://www.sunherald.com/pageone/story/711027.html

Oakland man shoots would-be burglar
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_9535098?source=most_viewed

Cross Hill Woman Comes Home, Kills Intruder
http://www.wspa.com/midatlantic/spa/news.apx.-content-articles-SPA-2008-01-15-0040.html

Homeowner shoots at armed burglary suspect
http://www.eyeoutforyou.com/news/local/12388781.html

Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/labels/trespassing.html

Case Closed

[EmilyU]

The reason for the rush to buy firearms has nothing to do with the recession It has to do with Obama and the DNC clearly stating that they intend to ban the sales of many types of firearms.

[twogunmojo]

for tommy mac: sorry for any misunderstanding...there are those of us who post here regularly and we can come off a bit hard at times thanks mostly to people like mr. herrington and shedances who have special insight the rest of us are not privy too..... we defend first...then ask questions...do i need a full auto rifle....no..but a baretta with 3 shot capability would be nice...do i need a short barreled entry gun...no...but a model 1100 with about a 14 inch barrel would be the hit of the party at the next cookout/shootout my friends have...i myself would support more registration and regulation in return for being allowed to carry any gun i wish...anytime i want...anywhere i want...but the anti-gun people are not about compromise..they are all about confiscation...i will go mr. herrington one better..as late as 1988 we carried our rifles and shotguns to high school with us for the express purpose of going hunting with our teachers after school....we also wore our knives on our hips and had a smoking area for students who like to take a drag or two after lunch....times change....rights shouldn't

[OdinsEye]

Firearms were not uncommon in my schools either. And every boy had a knife. Never had a problem either.

[glockman]

*yawn*....now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and clean my Rock River .223/5.56 NATO, and my .40 cal. Glock 27, and my 45. ACP Glock 21, and my Beretta 92 FS 9mm (stainless, of course), and my Taurus M66 .357 mag., and my FNH SPR1 .308 cal. sniper rifle, and my H&K MP5 A3 (with three round burst), and my Kahr K9 9mm, and my S&W 642 Airweight .38 cal., and my Benelli Super90 12 ga., and my, well, you get the point....

[Chuckbutcher]

Panic buying is a silly thing to do, but then I also own the arms the Obama campaign caved to the Brady Bunch on, so-called assault weapons. A cosmetic driven ban on arms that figure in less than 2% of criminal firearm usage is 'respect for the Constitution'? I sincerely backed Obama with the caveate that I was quite willing to see them in Court.

Considering the right's propensity to support a plutocratic agenda and mutilate the Constitution I am always somewhat astonished to hear a claim of leftism from an authoritarian agenda backer regarding the 2nd Amendment. You behave as though the Government created the Rights enumberated in the Bill of Rights which is directly counter to the history of the document and as though your semantically proven tilt on the issue puts you in some other camp.

[SuperChargerHeaven]

Guns will not go away...that being said, the militia part of the second amendment gets overlooked way too much. It was obvious the founders wanted gun owners to protect. So why not require a military service period for gun owners? They learn everything about safety and responsibility, while serving the country and learning other ways to defend themselves. This could be one of several classifications for owners, each classification requiring a different license, and standards. Collectors could have guns, as many as they want, but with firing pins removed. Carriers and users, the hunters, shooters, etc. would be required to serve in the military. Sport shooters would be required to maybe leave weapons at the ranges. No one should be told they cannot have something, but the more dangerous and likely to kill an item is the more regulations and oversight the sale and usage needs to be.

[djkrlsn]

The abiltiy to protect yourself, your family and your community are all interrelated responsibilties, and the fact that the need to defend any of the 3 can come without warning makes your proposal for storage without firing pins or at some facility other than your residence no better than the Washington DC laws that got thrown out. Do I oppose military service similar to the Swiss or the Israeli model--no, and in fact it may very well be a good idea (and I definitely support the Swiss model were every male from 18 to 60 has an M14 or FN FAL or equivilent in his possession along with preferably a 45). Do I support regular firearm safety and handling classes starting in 5th or 6th grade through graduation--absolutely, but in my book part of the pleasure of collecting firearms is in the shooting.

[EmilyU]

Maybe we should require military service before being allowed to vote? Or a college degree before practicing free speech?

The bottom line is the militia phrase in the Second Amendment is NOT a restriction on who can possess, what kind of arms can be possessed, or why they can be possessed.

[SimJack]

Why? Why not should be the question. Security, protection, self reliance. Your thoughts or intentions will not keep me from potential harm when someone breaks into my house or tries to assault me or my family. Neither will law enforcement. Your words will not kill game that will feed my family for months and provide a far healthier meal than I could obtain with supermarket meat. If you wish to rid our country of something substantially more harmful and do something constructive, then endeavor to prevent our kids from being exposed to kids high fructose corn syrup, caffeine, the toxic cocktail of chemical compounds found in processed foods (JFC, doesn't anyone in this country know how to prepare fresh food anymore?). No wonder young people today are experiencing record setting levels of obesity, diabetes, autism, ADHD and other psychological disorders. Overlay water quality/air quality maps onto chronic disease incidence maps. It will provide a far more shocking picture of the negative impact these factors have on overall quality of life in America than that associated with the existence of guns in our society. Sure, keep the background checks and waiting periods in place, but on a list of 1 to 10 high priority issues that confront this country right now, gun control isn't one of them. Perhaps you should find another more worthwhile cause to 'cling' to.

[tjboyo]

Criminals will always be able to get firearms. You may want to just lay down and die when confronted with a gun weilding criminal, but I want to shoot back. Wait ! I have an idea, lets absolve everyone of any personal responsibility for their actions and blame all our troubles on something else; say an inanimate object like a baseball bat or lead pipe. It takes a person to fire a gun and I can guarentee you the bad guys won't hesitate.

[Chavez08]

"Criminals will always be able to get firearms." - Exactly right. Hey, let's disarm all the citizens and announce to the thugs over TV broadcast that the citizens that have houses full of electronics, jewels cash and are guaranteed not to have weapons.

No lessons in human nature need to be learned HERE!