SHAME ON ME

 

Writing a piece about the 2nd Amendment is a daunting challenge but that’s what I’ve tasked myself to do. I’ve been chewing on this gristle for a long time. To begin with, gun culture in America is entrenched, it is the norm but it is no surprise that easy access to guns is controversial. Just because it is widely accepted doesn’t mean it is loved by all. Some see it as a step forward in personal security while others see it as a dangerous step back to vigilante justice. The high rate of gun violence can be used to argue both points of view. 

From my view, most of the push back against easy access to guns is based on a moral premise. That argument goes: Access to fire arms correlates directly to frequency of gun violence. Less control over fire arms means more shootings and it is wrong. Gun rights arguments are rooted in historical/traditional and legal terms. Our freedom was won with guns. We can own and carry them legally. Everyone agrees, 16,000 gun fatalities last year is unacceptable but that’s where consensus ends. Gun advocates say, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. We should enforce existing laws and identify potential mass shooters before they kill. More guns in the hands of qualified citizens will be a deterrent to crime. Self protection is a guaranteed right under the constitution.” From the other side I hear, “It’s not rocket science; the simplest, most effective choke point for keeping guns away from dangerous people is by limiting their availability. It works extremely well in other free, developed, democratic countries.”  Two points of view: both convinced they are right. 

Human nature requires of us all that we be right. You can’t serve a worthy purpose if you are mistaken about what is right. But the Greek philosopher Epictetus debunked that myth nearly 2000 years ago. He wrote, and I paraphrase, there is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so. “Right” is whatever we decide. Feeling right is extremely empowering and caving into emotions is preferable to swallowing a bitter though obvious alternative. We find ways to believe the unbelievable, satisfying our need to be right: Human Nature. So both gun rights and gun control advocates are right in their own view and that’s the only view that counts. If we are right, those who disagree must be wrong, right! Epictetus was ahead of his time or we are way behind ours. 

I own guns, have them locked up in a vault. I have long guns, hand guns, semi automatics and I have ammunition for most of them. I keep them clean but haven’t fired one in so long I can’t remember when. I used to hunt. I’m sorry but yes, I killed Bambi. If I needed my guns to protect myself today and I had time to get one out, I would probably use it. But I’m the first to say that I’m poorly qualified to be making decisions about use of lethal force. I’m afraid most gun owners have no better skills than I do and no real preparation to make life and death decisions in a pressurized situation. What is my position on the 2nd Amendment; I would say, the courts have ruled and it is what it is. I should be able to keep my guns. If I wanted to buy another gun I should be able to but tighter control over those transactions will not trouble me. Comparing George Washington and pioneers with their flint lock muskets to social malcontents bearing Glocks and AR-15’s is too big a stretch for me. We abolished slavery and gave women the vote. Times change and the way we address guns should be subject to change as well. 

It seems to me, every time we have a mass shooting, the tide of public opinion shifts a little more to the side of more control rather than fewer restraints. I think over time, as with sexual harassment and LGBT rights, we will reach a tipping point and the traditional “Founding fathers and Boys will be boys-that’s how it’s always been.” mentality will fall out of favor. It doesn’t require consensus, it only has to start the bubble moving.  The argument that a dedicated shooter will always find a way to kill just changes the subject; death by stabbing and strangulation are not a national problem. 

I struggle, trying to find common ground with my 2nd Amendment friends who agree in principle but hold out with a fire arms Domino Theory; if one falls, they all fall. They agree something needs to change but any concession on guns would mark the beginning of the end. So, in the words of Nancy Reagan, “Just say no!” 

I have two stories that relate to the 2nd. Amendment. Back in the days when milk was delivered to our door step, a man noticed extra ice cream in the freezer. Later he discovered his wife was having an affair with the milkman. He was distraught over his wife’s infidelity. He knew he should call them out but he let it go, thinking how much he liked the ice cream. That’s how I see the NRA/gun lobby and the ordinary gun owner. From the top down it’s about the money first and then about a need to protect life and property. The milkman was the gun merchant, the wife the NRA and the man was being bought off with a sweet distraction. It’s no different than religion; keep people feeling threatened and be the source of their salvation. That’s the business plan for selling both religion and deadly weapons. 

Our culture is not homogenous. What is important to Wyoming ranchers is very different from what moves parents in urban neighborhoods. The affluence/poverty gap is too much to address here but certainly a factor in gun violence. A single remedy to cure all ills is not going to satisfy a complex need but then neither is  controlling movement of weapons across state lines. 

The idea that armed rebellion is so much a part of our heritage that citizens will always need the means to fight back agains an oppressive government; romanticized rhetoric. A malicious teenager can do more damage with a computer than an army of minutemen with AR-15’s. The idea of holding out for a year or two, off the grid in Idaho may sound appealing but they’ve been doing that in Alaska for decades and they still need credit cards, a wi-fi connection and hide all you want, a satellite or a drone can find you. The successful way to push back against an oppressive government won’t be with bullets. 

The second story is; when defense lawyers have a weak case the most effective recourse is not to defend their client but in changing the subject, confusing the jury and discrediting the victim. The judicial system has always been about justice in the broad sense. But the people who do the work, the people who follow the rules in that pursuit are dedicated to winning for their client first and let justice find its own balance. It’s what Johnnie Cochran did in 1995, defending O.J. Simpson for the murder of his wife and her friend. Certainly in fact, O.J. killed them but the jury took the bait, ruling not in O.J.’s favor but against the Los Angeles Police Department.

My 2nd Amendment friends will chafe at my observations but still, thinking makes it so. All you have to do is believe. You need to be right and once you feel right it’s truly difficult, nigh impossible to reverse that position. When we have to choose between acting on our feelings or what makes sense, we have a terrible record of bad choices. I’m a gun owner and I take comfort in that liberty. But as long as it’s legal for citizens to buy weapons of war, then sell them from the trunk of their car, something is wrong. If you fool me with Johnnie Cochran tricks once, shame on you. If I fall for it twice, shame on me.