Guns, the 2nd Amendment & Demagoguery

(editors note: after Trump's recent suggestion that Hillary Clinton "wants to abolish" the 2nd Amendment and how "the 2nd Amendment people" might be able to stop her, I found a 2013 gun essay that my local paper would not publish in spite of its relevance. There have been many other shootings since then, and now with Trump's most recent threat - I thought it worth posting.)

Reflections on Riflery

           There’s been another assault rifle shooting at an Atlanta-area elementary school, but thankfully nobody was killed. This may seem like an odd time to reflect positively on my relationship with guns but it’s time for some serious reflection. 

          I got my first BB gun when I was about 10 and my father gave me my first real rifle when I was 12. It was a Marlin .22 caliber semi-automatic Model 60 with a 14-round tubular magazine. My dad would take me target shooting and I would go “plinking” at cans and bottles in the woods with my friends. In the fall, my brother and I would go squirrel hunting in the Blue Ridge. That rifle brought me a great deal of enjoyment. I spent several summers of my adolescence teaching NRA sponsored riflery courses as a camp counselor, and I took great pride in teaching my campers important safety practices, basic gun knowledge and good marksmanship. Like many reasonable Americans, I like guns and I enjoy shooting.

          Since those days however, I have noticed an unfortunate trend in our national relationship with guns in which Americans have become less informed and consequently more afraid of guns than ever before. Over that same time, I have also noticed a national drift towards the far right during which the 2^nd Amendment has been aggressively promoted and irrational fears of government gun confiscation have increased. While I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and the right of self-defense, today’s conversation about guns has taken on a disturbing tone, especially since the Newtown massacre. 

          Though widely criticized, the NRA’s suggestion of armed security personnel at schools seems reasonable to me. I grew up with school security guards in Northern Virginia and never once found them to be threatening. But let’s not forget that the school security guards at Columbine were impotent to prevent that slaughter. Background checks would not have stopped the Newtown massacre and they won’t stop those who purchase guns from the trunk of a car. Nearly every “solution” suggested has been shown to be insufficient in one case or another. But are these good reasons to oppose the passage of reasonable gun laws? No. 

          Because of the speed of the mass shootings, magazine capacity has naturally become a focus of discussion, but if you can’t hit your target with 10 shots, you probably shouldn’t even own a gun – or at least you need some serious target practice.  As for those who read the 2^nd Amendment as a protection against a tyrannous government, they should reconsider whether a whole closet full of assault rifles could stand a chance against the massive arsenal of any government. Fully automatic weaponry and much heavier arms are not doing the job for the Syrian resistance for example.  And if we think we can rely on the protection of those with “concealed carry” permits, unless they are required to pass a stringent yearly marksmanship test, their engagement with a mass shooter is more likely to increase the bloodshed rather than drop the killer. Precise accuracy with a pistol is a difficult skill to master requiring regular practice. 

According to political scientist Robert Spitzer, it wasn’t until the 1970’s that the NRA became so aggressively focused on lobbying and ritually evoking the boogeyman of government gun confiscation. There is even video evidence of LaPierre doing a flip-flop on the issue of background checks that the NRA once favored. The NRA’s nefarious and inordinate influence was obvious when the GOP Senate (along with some skulking blue-dog Dems) demonstrated their submission in rejecting a reasonable expansion of background checks for gun purchases. 

          Perhaps it was their political fear of the NRA or maybe they were really convinced by the NRA’s disinformation campaigns such as their claim that “80% of police say background checks will have no effect on violent crime” a claim which has since been challenged by police and academics alike. The NRA relies a bit too heavily on the logical fallacy of the “slippery slope” thus scaring many gun owners into blind opposition to common sense gun law reform.

So as a gun enthusiast, I’ve had mixed feelings about the gun debate – that is, until I heard a pro-gun heckler interrupt Neil Heslin as he spoke about his son Jesse’s death at Newtown. As Heslin reviewed the heart-wrenching experience, someone shouted “the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed...my rights” and the first word that popped into my mind was “nutcase.” Of course, “insensitive,” or “ignorant,” “uncivil” or even “unbalanced” could apply, but nutcase seems to fit the best.  When I heard this, I found myself asking: what kind of person would do that to a grieving father?  

          This was not a patriotic outcry, it was a selfish and paranoid incivility. 

           The NRA might want to reconsider pressing for mental health checks when their promotion of paranoia about gun confiscation and a “Big Brother” tyranny might actually disqualify them from gun ownership. This paranoia takes a chilling turn if you look at the dozens of YouTube  videos about the Newtown shooting “hoax” that was meant to initiate mass gun confiscation. That’s a dangerous level of irrationality and conspiracy paranoia. 

          In fact, the exact wording of the recently rejected bill specifically disallows any such confiscation. And, can we really take such hysterical claims seriously when our Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed an individual right to bear arms? President Obama has repeatedly affirmed the 2^nd Amendment and gun owners can and do openly carry and even attend political rallies with their rifles shouldered. Fearing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment in this context reveals the depth of paranoia in the minds of some gun owners. 

The biggest threat here may not be the random mass shooting, but rather the minority of fanatical, gullible gun owners who resist facts, believe NRA disinformation and belligerently refuse compromise, who selfishly shout about their rights as parents grieve the slaughter of their children, and who seem willing to believe almost anything to justify their paranoia. 

Perhaps it’s time for the majority of reasonable NRA members to exercise some real courage and leave the NRA to form a new, more respectable gun organization:
the Rational Rifle Association.

Political Spectrum Shift?

          A media commonplace these days is to repeat how "divided" America is between the political left and the right, and the implicit and explicit message of conservatives is that we have drifted dangerously left of center, especially now with the democratic socialism enthusiastically embraced by the Millennials who supported Bernie Sanders. 
           Some might even consider his proposals of universal healthcare and education as "extreme" - but only if viewed myopically. If we use the developed world as our standard, such public benefits are the rule rather than the exception yet we Americans accept, and some of us even defend this sad state of affairs. And most countries that provide such benefits are not totalitarian states contrary to the sloganeering of the ill-informed. 
          I would argue that we are not left of center but far, far right of center with an unprecedented and well-funded push to continue to push us further to the right. Certain "news" networks can rarely get through a day without the constant and hypnotic repetition of the word "liberal" as well as web chat rooms are full of other demonizations ("libtard," "demoncrat," "liberal scum") that indicate we are most certainly *not* left of center. 
           And then there is right-wing talk radio (some "shock jocks" or "hate radio") where additional invective is used to roil the anger of working folk by millionaire celebrities who are less interested in the welfare of their audience than the income from their ratings.
          According today's increasingly dogmatic political tests, President Nixon was a screaming socialist, calling for national health-care, making connections with Communist China, starting the Environmental Protection Agency and even exercising strong executive authority by issuing a freeze on price increases to stem inflation. As a teen being raised by a single mother after my father died, I can remember feeling grateful that the President seemed to care about ordinary, struggling families. 
          Nixon is only one example, but there are others in terms of policy and legislation. In most ways, America is being pushed aggressively rightward: the prison-industrial complex has made us the jailers of the world, the militarization of police, the erosion of women's rights and an irrational xenophobia are just some examples. We're so far off center that the nominee of a major political party can be supported by white supremecists and retain (if not increase) his credibility with a rabidly devoted base.
          This base is rightfully angry about "globalization" but they need to understand that the "neo-liberal" economic model is a misnamed and does not reflect democratic liberal values at all - it only represents massive accumulation by the few and massive debt for the the rest of us. Unfortunately, the dust kicked up in anger any time the word "liberal" is used prevents some hard working Americans from seeing that the real culprit is greed not liberal social and economic values. 
          For a final check, look at the era of the "Greatest Generation" with much higher corporate taxes, socialized education in the GI Bill, the Interstate highway system, public schools, public hospitals and public libraries. Instead of these public services, today's conservatives speak of a "depleted" military with complete amnesia over the parting warning from President Eisenhower about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. 
          Maybe a first step toward arresting our rightward course might be to start discussing changes in public perception of the political spectrum. After that, we should re-define "globalization" so it is focused on people and our planet rather than the entitled corporate "person" whose appetite for profit will never be sated.