I’m enjoying a clever book called “Gumption: Relighting the Torch of Freedom with America's Gutsiest Troublemakers” by actor Nick Offerman of Parks and Recreation fame. It’s been an enjoyable read. As was bound to happen, I disagree with many things he states in the book, a fact that I tried to simply overlook, trying to enhance my reading pleasure by leaving out matters not central to the theme.
There’s much to be criticised in the chapter regarding James Madison’s figure and other things, but as I said, most of the stuff can be simply overlooked because the author does not really try to be academic and very serious about it. It’s really a standard recount of Madison’s personality and work, without an ounce of critical thinking or curious skepticism. He just relays the establishment-sanctioned recount of the man - and that’s fine, as I said, there’s no academic intent in the book, rather, it’s meant as entertainment. But the problem is that there was one instance where Nick did not really write about it in a humorous way, but in a more serious manner, and paid so much attention to the issue that I felt the section needed replying. The issue I’m talking about is the segment about the Second Amendment said chapter. I’ll just quote segments and go through the issues one by one:
The 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.” Okay. This one has proven to be a regular can of worms. Let’s just break it down. I think guns are an awfully nifty piece of engineering, and I have seen a great many examples of beautiful handwork in both the metal and wood surfaces on firearms of all sorts. Further, I support the wild-game hunter much as I support the fisherman (or -woman). Beyond that use, I’m afraid the angry defenders of this amendment lose me.
Yes, that has in fact proven to be just that. The introduction is very telling of what is to come. Gun prohibitionists -as do most prohibitionists, mutatis mutandi- does not say they are against ALL guns. “That would be extremist”, they are probably thinking, “one has to be reasonable”. As if “being reasonable” meant believing that “the right thing” lies always in the middle ground, the average. But no, the middle ground between genocide and not killing any peaceful person is not “the right thing”, nor reasonable. The reasonable thing to do is one of both extremes, namely not killing any peaceful person. The reasonable thing between stealing and not stealing is not “stealing half”, or “stealing but then returning what’s been stolen”. The reasonable thing is one of the extremes, namely not stealing anything, full stop. The middle ground is not always, nor even usually, “the right thing”.
The preface to the part about “to keep and bear arms” makes reference to “a well-regulated militia” as the prerequisite to the second part. In other words, our civilians, as members of the militia who had been fiercely and proudly defending our country from the British and the French, as well as the indigenous peoples from whom we had just brutally stolen “our” land, should keep their black-powder weapons at the ready, in case we need to form up the militia once again, should we be invaded by such an enemy.
This is clearly wrong. The Second Amendment clearly states that to keep and bear arms is a right of the people, not of the “well regulated militia”. I’ll quote that again: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Can that be any more unambiguous? It doesn’t say “the right of the militia”, nor “the right of the Government”, nor “the right of some people”, nor anything else.
I want to state at this point that I agree with the bit about the US Government stealing other people’s lands, though I would also say that most land that Nick would regard as “stolen” was in fact unoccupied, unowned, and thus could not be stolen, as it belonged to no one.
Unfortunately for the gun enthusiasts, this amendment is simply rendered moot by two undeniable factors. It was written in a time when we (a) were potentially in danger of a foreign military invasion...
This is not enough justification to infringe upon the rights of the people. This right comes directly from the right to private property. You have the right to do as you please with what you own, and if you make a weapon, you can keep it and use it as you please, as long as you’re not using it to damage (use) another person’s property or body.
That aside, the idea behind the Second Amendment was to avoid the need of a standing military for defence. It’s clear that the USA does not really need the armed forces it has today. There is no defensive use for that much military power. But I’m not conceding the point, no. If there is a well-armed and large militia (that is, able civilians), the need for a standing army decreases (and maybe disappears altogether), and that means the State has less power to oppress and abuse, and less incentive to go to an aggressive war. Also, the fact that there’s no foreseeable threat is not a basis for eliminating the amendment. First, this fact is just circumstantial. Circumstances can change, and the may come a time when there is a real danger of invasion. If the amendment was repealed and then circumstances changed so as to make the -now nonexistent- amendment an imperative again even in the mind of Nick and other gun prohibitionists, people would not be nearly as prepared. And no, the amendment would likely not be reinstated in time, that would be crazy to even suggest, given the quickness of congressional activity in this matters. Second, this militia acts as a deterrent against direct invasion, as I have already implied, so stealing (or as some like to say it, confiscating) most guns held by civilians would remove this deterrent, making an invasion more likely. True, it’s not necessarily the biggest deterrent nowadays, but it’s one nonetheless. And maybe the other deterrents are not necessary and could be dispensed with.
...and (b) were wielding muzzle-loading guns that an expert could fire perhaps five times a minute if he or she was very nimble. In other words, this amendment was penned when the revolver was still several decades away from ready availability, let alone the massacre machine that is the automatic weapon.
This is also not a valid argument. Clearly so. If the intention is to have a populace aptly armed to combat an invading force, it’s obvious that those weapons should not be the weapons available at the time of the amendment being passed. How could people defend against tanks with muskets? And that’s not mentioning airplanes, missiles, and other weapons, present or future. The part of “a well regulated militia” is cited as the basis for the Government to have a standing army. Why does the musket argument not apply to that part as well? It’s in the same sentence, for christ’s sake! How inconsistent can you be?
The rather loud machismo of the NRA (methinks the lady doth protest too much?) on the topic of assault weapons seems like yet another antiquated, fear-based position that is being slowly eroded by a more genteel attitude of decency and compassion. It’s worth noting that I don’t see a lot of people who aren’t white hollering about needing their guns to protect themselves. Which brings me to a theory.
First, “assault weapon” is a very ambiguous term. It’s usually used to refer to a weapon of war, designed for military use. But a Colt 1911 was designed that way, and almost no one calls it an “assault weapon”. Therefore it’s an empty term, much like “neoliberalism”, “social justice”, “social right”, “political left”, “political right”, and others of the ilk. Second, what’s genteel, decent and compassionate about stealing people’s property? What’s genteel, decent and compassionate about forcing people into being unarmed and unable to defend themselves against any aggressor? Third, that you don’t see a lot of people who aren’t white hollering about needing their guns to protect themselves does not mean that the few who do that don’t count or don’t have a right to their property, as anyone else.
Human beings are not simple. We are, in fact, quite complicated. In recent American history, we have engaged in such contradictions as owning slaves, while declaring all people to have equal rights, while heading to church to pray for peace and tranquility, while dropping bombs on Middle Eastern nations to secure the oil we need to fuel our vehicles in order to drive to church. We’re a mess, and we have to count ourselves as part of the whole, because we’re all complicit. So when I think about that time that we established our nation and economy while indulging in the unthinkable brutality of slavery, and then we also actively exterminated the Native American tribes across the continent because they stood in the way of our real estate plans, and then we freed the slaves and didn’t manage to wipe out all the indigenous people, in fact we made them and every other race besides white people our “equals” as citizens, at least on paper, so they could come over to our houses and look us in the eye if they so choose, I can then understand why we’re scared. It gives me fear as well to imagine the recompense that might be visited upon us, should the suppressed rage of all the victims of the Manifest Destiny be brought to bear upon our doorsteps. It makes us cry with secret terror that we want our mommies or our guns, or both.
Those are all bad things that I would rather not had happened, but that were done by other people. You can’t blame one person for another’s crime. This collectivism is really stupid. I’m not to blame for the crimes my father may have committed. To say that a whole race, nation, or whatever group of people is responsible for the wrongdoing of some of them is ludicrous, even more to say that they are responsible for the wrongdoings of long-dead people. I’m always astonished to see people like Nick say this, and then turn around and claim that “not all muslims are terrorists so they should not be discriminated against as if they were all terrorists”. This is again a huge inconsistency that begs to ask if the person uttering both things actually thinks or is merely a braindead zombie. Yes slavery is abhorrent. Yes, the unprovoked killing of other people is horrible. If it was up to me, the “founding fathers” would all be in jail (or worse) for their crimes. There is no valid excuse for their behavior. But that doesn’t mean that “white people” are collectively responsible. It’s just intellectual laziness or outright malevolence, to not look for and blame the actual perpetrators, but instead simply blame some general and blurry group, blaming innocent people for the crimes of others. That’s clearly not genteel, nor decent, nor compassionate, it’s plainly crazy.
But then here’s this other point of view: When unspeakable violence is enacted upon innocents, say, in a school or movie theater, and the survivors and the families of the victims, in the throes of pain and anguish, want to ask, “Why did this happen?,” “How did this happen?,” and “What can we do to prevent this from happening again?,” and one of the areas upon which they (still we) focus their scrutiny is that of the highly efficient weapons of warfare that are casually available to us citizens of the United States, then we frightened gun lovers have the chance to be human and say, “Okay, this is a horrible tragedy. Let’s open up a conversation here.” Instead, I’m surmising, out of fear, we throw up our defenses and behave in a very confrontational way toward such a conversation, citing the Second Amendment as the ultimate protection of our rights, no matter how ridiculously murderous the firearm, which, unfortunately, makes us look like total dicks.
Right. Curiously avoiding the blatant fact that all those places are so-called “gun-free zones”, places where the prohibitionist dream has been actually enacted. What has that brought? Death, massacres, pain. People not being able to defend themselves against a psycho. Well done, gun prohibitionists. Pat your “genteel, compassionate” backs while the families of the dead mourn. So, why did this happen? Because there are crazy people who for one reason or another want to kill innocents, and they will do so with whatever they have at hand, be it grenades and guns, knives or even a pointy piece of metal anyone can make. Also, homemade guns exist and are not very difficult to make. The black market also exists, and it supplies most criminals with weapons and other prohibited stuff. The problem is the psycho, not the object he happens to use, which could be anything from a gun to his bare hands. So prohibition does not work, because you cannot prohibit everything that can be made into a weapon, and even if you do, people who want to break the law don’t follow prohibitions. Is that notion so hard to grasp? Next, how did this happen? Simple: the attacker had weapons, and the victims not. The victims were defenseless against the aggressor. And when someone with weapons fights against someone that has worse or no weapons, the aggressor wins. Finally, what can we do to prevent this from happening again? Nothing. There is no way to avoid some people from hurting others. The attacker always has the element of surprise, he can choose the moment of the attack, the place, the targets, the weapon, etc. He can choose those in a way he sees there is no one to stop him from doing some damage. So, what can we do? There is no use in trying to deceive ourselves into a false feeling of security. In reality all we can do is try and mitigate the damage crazy people can do. And the best way to minimize that damage is to have everyone willing and able armed, so they can react to an aggression and effectively neutralizing the perpetrator, preventing him from doing more damage. And this has proven effective where it has been tried.
Clearly, if we could magically remove all the guns from the planet, we as a species would still occasionally want to kill one another. We’re animalistic that way, because, despite having Netflix, we’re animals. Taking away all the guns is not going to stop murder, just like making us remove our shoes at the airport is not going to stop terrorist acts. We may be animals, but we’re exceedingly clever animals, so we’ll find a way to do as we please, despite the law. We always have. If that’s the case, then should we not perhaps try instead to examine the way we treat one another, so the chances that any of us want to shoot up a school are lessened?
This is more like it, despite all the collectivist language. Here Nick is basically conceding the point that prohibition does not work, and that the problem are not things (guns, knives, metal or wooden sticks, baseball bats, etc.), but crazy people.
Finally, haven’t we all learned from action movies and Westerns that the ultimate hero is the one who needs no gun? True grit, real bravery, is exemplified by an openhanded confrontation, rendering the handshake or the embrace the ultimate method of laying waste to evil.
Yeah, try to pull that one off against a gun-toting psycho who has already killed 10 kids in the last minutes. You’d just prove Darwin right. One thing is being brave, and another one is being not stupid. Confronting a gun-wielding mass murderer requires a big amount of bravery and courage, even if you have an AK-47 and he only has a Colt 1911. You’re putting yourself in harm’s way, against someone who is possibly better trained, probably more mentally prepared for this situation than yourself. That requires balls even with better equipment. It’s just idiotic to say that using a gun to defend oneself is tantamount to cowardice.
If our foreign policy sees us engaging in nefarious and shameful and often just openly bullying practices to strong-arm other nations into giving us what we want, should we then be surprised when radical extremist factions of those nations fly planes into our buildings or commit other acts of retaliatory violence? And is the most effective method by which we might bring about the cessation of their hatred of us really to go and “kill them right back,” an eye for an eye, Hatfield-and-McCoy style? If the bravest protagonist is the one who lays down his or her weapon, then doesn’t our desperate clinging to our guns make us cowards?
Well, this is an obvious red herring. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or gun rights in general. Nick is just embarrassing himself here. Maybe it is because in his collectivist viewpoint, bombing innocents in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan is the same as shooting a psychopath who is trying to murder innocent people in a school. Ridiculous.
So the standard arguments against weapon rights (and not just guns) are far from bulletproof. In fact they fall to pieces upon the slightest examination. They come mostly from capricious interpretation of an old text, outright lies, morally bankrupt collectivism, and misunderstood compassion. Nick Offerman has said that he likes the libertarian attitude of "whatever I do in my [property], if I'm not hurting anybody or [damaging] anybody's property, you can go fuck yourself". What's the difference between that and having a gun? As long as the gun owner is not hurting anybody nor damaging anybody's property, there's no reason for you to go and steal his gun(s), so you can go and fuck yourself.