Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWords and Bullets
The "debate" about guns has clogged up the dialogue about a safe society, and I'm wondering what we can do about that.
Last week's Supreme Court ruling, which overturned Washington, D.C.'s gun ban and reinterpreted the tortuously worded 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" -- as referring to individual rather than collective armed self-defense, has stoked the "debate," of course. It has emboldened the gun-rights true believers, but managed only vaguely to acknowledge the larger context of America's spreading culture of violence, about which we remain officially clueless.
I'm willing to concede two points to the gun owners: One, the bureaucracy of gun control stirs up the same resentment and defiance that Prohibition did and such legislation applied too broadly and indiscriminately is likely unworkable; and two, the key to safety is empowerment, both collective and individual.
As one anonymous writer put it in response to a recent column of mine: "An Armed Person Is A Citizen; An Unarmed Person Is A Subject." To this I would say, sir, there are no subject-wimps or agents of the king participating in this dialogue. But I would add that empowerment is a function of inner calmness and courage; those who feel they must be armed to be empowered are not empowered.
And here we get at the essence of the clog. America's gun subculture affects to be participating in the dialogue, but is in fact merely advancing an agenda. For instance, one of the lurid, attention-grabbing signs that pro-gun demonstrators waved last week on the steps of the Supreme Court declared: "More guns equals less crime."
This is not a serious comment on crime or violence, but it's a hell of a distraction -- on the order of the "vigil" held by gun-rights advocates outside Columbine High School shortly after the massacre there, while President Clinton was inside meeting with students. According to news reports at the time, they held up bright yellow signs reading "Gun Control Kills Kids" and "We Will Never Give Up Our Guns," seemingly oblivious to the deep inappropriateness of such a political intrusion on the process of mourning and healing.
The message they in fact communicated, and which the country has taken to heart, is that they have no shame. They will stop at nothing, will manipulate any tragedy, in their defense of the right to bear arms, and any difficulties and complexities caused by such a right are not open to discussion.
It doesn't matter, for instance, that a gun in the house is more likely to be used on a relative (or oneself) than an intruder; that petty arguments (even between law-abiding citizens) frequently turn into unspeakable tragedies when a gun is involved; that in a country saturated with some 200 million firearms, anyone can get one for any reason whatsoever; that the nation's police chiefs and most law-enforcement personnel support gun bans such as the one the Supreme Court just overturned; and that gun laws do reduce gun homicide rates. None of this matters because the right to bear arms supercedes, if necessary, the right of Americans to live in peace and safety.
Because that last point cannot be stated overtly, many gun-rights proponents advocate a cover alternative for maintaining peace and safety: Let Americans carry concealed weapons! After every high-profile gun tragedy, I get press releases pointing out that if just one victim had been armed, the killer could have been stopped. "More guns equals less crime."
That there might be complex consequences to a society of armed high school students, armed teachers, armed churchgoers, armed shoppers -- armed 4-year-olds? -- apparently doesn't matter. Such a society would no longer be based on trust. If we reach that point, I guess the debate's over and they win.
But not even Antonin Scalia is that crazy. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he wrote for the majority. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
All this said, I return to the crying need in this country for a dialogue and soul-searching about who we are. The "debate" over gun control really has only one side, those who are against it. Their passionate faith in guns to protect them is not matched by opponents who just as passionately despise guns and want them all confiscated.
Our passion is for an end to violence and the building of a culture of trust, part of which includes sensible and workable gun laws. It includes much more than this as well. And such a project will take everyone, including those who vehemently disagree with some of the points I've made in this column. This is what I mean by dialogue, and the time to begin is now.
Like bullets, words can be used to wound. But they can also be used to transform. There's a reason why the First Amendment precedes the Second.
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.
© 2004 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
18 Comments so far
Show AllYep, time for some Carlin again . . .
"And now they're thinking about banning toy guns . . . BUT THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THE FUCKIN' REAL ONES!!"
tobiasaurusrex July 4th, 2008 1:04 am
I have to agree wholeheartedly with your postings. Excellent posts.
"*The Battle of Trenton, with sneaking across the Delaware on a supposed cease fire day, was guerrilla warfare,"
Thats how we beat them.
blackfeather7 July 4th, 2008 2:31 am
Terrific.....style with a capital S.
"I gone so far left I'm standing back to back with with Bubba. I guess we kinda got each other's backs."
I'm still rolling on the floor. May you all have a happy and safe Forth!
God Bless America and all who serve her.
We have a government that violates its own constitution, commits crimes against humanity, violates international laws in starting wars, and arrests people trying to practice the First Amendment... and you want to make yourself as helpless as possible by losing the Second? You are an enemy of the people, and a friend of tyranny.
Nations that found it "easy" to pass gun control legislation:
Ottoman Turkey, 1915-1917; state murdered: Armenians - 1.25 million
Soviet Union, 1929-1945; state murdered: political opponents, farming communities - 20 million
Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-1945: Political opponents, Jews, Gypsies, critics, "examples" - 20 million
China, Nationalist, 1927-1949; state murdered: political opponents, army conscripts, others - 10 million
China, Red 1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976; state murdered: political opponents, rural populations, enemies of the state - 30 million (estimated up to 35)
Guatemala, 1960-1981; state murdered: Mayans & other Indigenous, political enemies - 150,000
Uganda 1971-1979; state murdered: Christians, political enemies - 300,000
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979; state murdered: educated persons, political enemies - 2 million
Rwanda 1994; state murdered: state murdered: Tutsi people - 800,000
pundit July 4th, 2008 4:41 am
Re weapons and bullets. In 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, there were no cartridges. There were muzzle loaders using powder and a separate ball. The founding fathers did not envision rapid fire AK 47's when this amendment was written.
The muzzleloaders that the Minutemen had were assaultweapons of the day. They were technically advanced, and faster loading than the outdated British military's weapons. This helped to build their nickname "Minutemen", or ready in a minute. Yes, a person wielding an AK and a number of 40 round magazines would be a good modern comparison to the US revolutionaries' equipment. It is in full agreement with their intentions: that the authority of the citizen not be diminished either through pen or sword.
Wake up sheeple, only dictators and criminals want you disarmed.
*The Battle of Trenton, with sneaking across the Delaware on a supposed cease fire day, was guerrilla warfare, don't doubt it. The famous painting - where George Washington is in full powdered wig, dress ensemble, with bleached and starched whites - is innacurate.
I don't like guns and personally choose not to own one. That is my right. I grew up in a hunting family. My relatives hunt and they eat what they shoot. Many or the people I know own guns. That is their right. I think all guns should be required to be insured so that if a weapon harms property (around here people shoot at stop signs) or a person, the insurance would pay damages.
Gun control is a dead issue for a while at least. I'm glad that this election should be free of NRA rantings. They won.
"An Armed Person Is A Citizen; An Unarmed Person Is A Subject"
Thats just romantic nonsense and people ought to be called out on it. My take on the whole gun debate is summed up with an observation about a completely unrelated 'right':
Just because you have the right to smoke cigarettes doesn't mean I have to die of secondhand smoke.
Guns kill large numbers of people in this country, maim many thousands more. They are dangerous, as dangerous as cigarettes. There is no unlimited right to own a gun in this country, Scalia himself said so. Its reasonable to pass and enforce laws that promote gun safety for the vast majority of Americans who dont own guns yet find their lives become MUCH less safe just to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of those who do. As far as I'm concerned: you own a gun, you own a militia, you own the regulations that constitute that regulated militia, which ought to include numerous regulations designed to keep your gun from going off in my face.
tobiasaurusrex said: "England banned handguns nationally about six years ago." Which affected 0.1% of the population, since England already had strict gun laws. Move to England, tobiasaurusrex, and your chance of dying of a gunshot wound will go down by a factor of 40.
"Gee, what if all those Jews in Germany had owned firearms…."
Based on reliable sources, initially, pretty much the same outcome. The Jews of Europe thought they were being re-located, not exterminated. Many, who fought in WWI for the kaiser or emperor, trusted their government. The lesson here is....
I'm not trying to foster paranoia however it does point out the wisdom of our founding fathers who envisioned a government of the people, for the people, and by the people and 3 branches of government to keep an eye on each other ( the founding fathers understood the corrupting influence of power). We have steadily given away our rights and our power to special interests and corporations ( a corporation is an individual how???). Unfortunatly it will take a true crisis to wake Americans from their consumer based intoxication (the opiate of the American peoples is consumerism). Only after much suffering will the problems begin to be addressed.
While I admire the sentiments expressed by Mr. Koehler, I respect the realistic pragmatism expressed by blackfeather7 much more.
Perhaps if we live through today we can survive to work for a better tomorrow, one in which we posess a government of, by, and for the people instead of a pack of criminals for hire.
We do not now live in a world where "trust" exists.
We do not have a government of, by and for the people. We have a criminal oligarch of global proportions, intent on removing citizen rights on a global scale, as expressed in our founding precepts.
To try to pretend that removal of the citizens right to bear firearms would somehow change the criminal realities of the world we live in for the better, is as futile as it is misleading.
Gee, what if all those Jews in Germany had owned firearms....
God Bless the Founding Fathers for their clear understanding that power corrupts and their willingness to provide the citizen with at least some means of personal defense.
Thanks for making me laugh, blackfeather7. Your text is a riot, both in terms of content and ... style.
Kennesaw Georgia, google it
Lobo Gris
Re weapons and bullets. In 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, there were no cartridges. There were muzzle loaders using powder and a separate ball. The founding fathers did not envision rapid fire AK 47's when this amendment was written.
"But I would add that empowerment is a function of inner calmness and courage; those who feel they must be armed to be empowered are not empowered."
Whooee Bob! Now that there is a real noble sentiment. High minded as all git out. I really wisht that I was a good enuf intellectual or christian or buddhist or somthing to live up to that kinda sweet smelling ideals, trouble is I'm just a old oakie transplant to O-re-gon where a person, rich or poor can git a permit to carry if the County High Sheriff can't find no reason not to giv em one. Hell you can even own a AK47 and lots of us good old boys (even us left wing good ole boys) do just that. An you no what? It ain't for hunting squirlls, it's cause none of us don't trust the guvment none. I admit there ain't a lot of lefty gun nuts like me (not near enough far as I can see) Don't git me wrong, I ain't a liberal like Mr. Koehler and Obama and Horrible Hillery and Skull & Bones Kerry and Nancy (Israel first) Pelosi. Hell, I'm so far to the left of this crowd I wouldn't know what to call myself. I gone so far left I'm standing back to back with with Bubba. I guess we kinda got each other's backs. What little history I read though seemed to point out that there weren't no such thing even called "Democracy" until poor people got guns just like the rich people and their goons had.
And when Mr. High Minded Koehler says "That there might be complex consequences to a society of armed high school students, armed teachers, armed churchgoers, armed shoppers — armed 4-year-olds?" I think the "4-year-olds?" part is kinda unfair, some kinda de-bating trick he learnt in his college logical thinking class. I don't know nobody wants little kids packing, certainly not me. In fact, as much as I like my guns, I'd be right pleased if nobody was packing, not the right wing nuts, the left wing nuts, the high school bullies who went on to be cops and marines, the druggies, the Federal govment, other country's govments and, oh yeah, Blackwater. If everybody would give 'em up then maybe we could have that society based on trust, however I'm afraid I just ain't a idealist like Mr, Koehler cause I think that human nature being what it is we'd have to ban knives.
Peace, but keep your powder dry.
Blackfeather7
England banned handguns nationally about six years ago. The crime rate has risen by at least 30%. So, "More guns equal less crime," may be questionable, but it's now been proven that fewer guns equals more crime. Home burglaries, muggings, rape, and handgun violence itself have all increased. Criminals are no longer threatened by the informal militia of armed citizens, and are running amok. The British citizens, promised safety, are now calling for a restoration of firearms rights, and the ability of self defense. They are also strongly urging US citizens not to allow the fraud of "gun control" laws to be passed here.
Don't be lulled by any sweet talker to give up any of your rights. It'll just start off a domino effect.
Lachiem
Steal bullets? Now who would do such a thing? Oh, that's right anybody with an unlicensed weapon. Or, anybody who didn't want to pay ten bucks a round. Maybe we need to reassess the public armory concept.
"such legislation applied too broadly and indiscriminately is likely unworkable;"
That's not what pretty much every other developed natio finds to be the case.
"and two, the key to safety is empowerment, both collective and individual."
No, the key to safety is knowing that random other people on the street are not packing concealable weapons that kill at range and can be used with a moment's notice.
Having said that: as a foreigner it seems to me that the court's decision was correct. What a horrible shame that your founders bequeathed to you such a foolish and short-sighted law as the second amendment. You'll never be free of it.
timebiter
"The 2nd amendment protects the right to bear arms but does it protect the right to have bullets. Mabey that would be the approuch to take, bullet control."
I think you may have something. The technology exists to put 'tracer' technology into ammunition so that it can be tracked to its point of sale.
As a law-abiding gun owner, I have no problems with having my ammunition purchases tracked. Of course there are probably unintended consequences. People might take to stealing ammunition.
Did you hear? Non-lethal guns are going to make the lethal ones obsolete. Then we can happily shoot each other any time we want.
As if when waking from a dream the Supreme Court discovers the Constitution on the night table. Where were they and their advisers when a psychotic monkey was installed as the President?
The 2nd amendment protects the right to bear arms but does it protect the right to have bullets. Mabey that would be the approuch to take, bullet control.