You Can Have My Gun...

Do you remember the campaign rally where John McCain was finally forced to confront the escalation of the hateful rhetoric that seemed to plague his campaign? In the weeks after Sarah Palin was named the VP candidate, certain bad seeds began to whip the reactionary crowds into frenzied mobs, and there was some shady invective being tossed about. McCain had to reassure an old biddy that Obama did indeed love his country, and that he wasn’t a Muslim, nor was he a terrorist. I remember feeling the bad juju in the air, and there was a period when I felt a palpable fear that the future president would be attacked, and maybe even killed. Fortunately a combination of effective security and cooler heads prevailed, and our man was sworn in without incident (other than a John Roberts gaffe during the administration of the oath).

I realized at that time that there was a sizable minority in this nation that would never accept the legitimacy of his ascension. Granted the same thing applied during the Bush terms, but I don’t ever remember any reporting of credible threats against his life. The man just didn’t inspire as much hatred among the groups likely to engage in politically-minded violence. He was an anti-tax, flag-waving Christian. And he never made the extreme right worry that he would take away their guns. Obama, on the other hand, had few qualms about stating his support for gun control. He even publicly expressed his support for the handgun ban in DC (overturned recently by the Federal Supreme Court).

Within the past few months firearms purchases have spiked dramatically. Some of this increase has been due to a growing wave of gun smuggling flowing from the United States to Mexico, a nation currently in the midst of chaos caused by violent drug wars. But I believe that political paranoia and insecurity in-country is the driving force behind the bulk of this activity. For some reason, it seems that there will always be a segment of society that believes that the Democratic Party seeks to eliminate the Second Amendment Rights ensured by the government. No amount of logical reasoning or patient explanation seems to allay the fears of this group. They trend toward the extreme. And because they think that knock on the door could come at any time, they stockpile weapons and ammunition.

Such appears to have been the case with 22-year old Richard Poplawski. A dishonorably discharged Marine, Poplawski killed three police officers who responded to a domestic dispute call early this past Saturday morning. Apparently his mother (who he lived with) got into an argument with him after his cat pissed on the floor. After mama called the 5-0, Poplawski donned his bulletproof vest, brandished his illegally acquired AK-47, and waited for his moment of confrontation. Those cops never had a chance. And to add to the senseless tragedy of this event, there seems to have been evidence that Poplawski was insane, despite the denials of his friends and family. He also carried a record which included disorderly conduct and protection from abuse orders.

No doubt there will be additional information about the sad life of Richard Poplawski filtering out into the media in the coming week, and during what is sure to be a highly publicized criminal case involving capital crimes. A quick internet search reveals possible ties to a Neo Nazi white supremacist group called Stormfront. If you want to have a look at that stuff… do your own research. But you don’t have to track down the Aryan brotherhood to hear alarmist wingnuts sound the clarion call. Just tune into any number of conservative hack radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, and/or Glenn Beck. They are not at all shy about provoking hate to advance their own selfish aims in their sick games. Unfortunately, they aren’t about to be held accountable for unsettling the deeply disturbed... people like Richard Poplawski. I think we’re going to see a lot more of this stuff over the next couple of years.

The Supreme Court Decides: Guns and the Death Penalty.

It's been hard to turn on the television or radio this past week without hearing news about the recent Supreme Court decisions. Its ruling regarding the liabilities associated with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill has turned into a relatively minor story next to the relatively Earth-shaking results of cases regarding gun ownership and the death penalty. We really shouldn't be that surprised about that. After all it's been almost twenty years since someone piloted the tanker into Bligh Reef and dumped its noxious cargo into Prince William Sound off the coast of Alaska. Because the federal government (under the watch of former oil baron and president George Bush) moved so slowly in response, this incident is commonly considered the worst man-made environmental disaster in history.

Unfortunately this isn't the time to rank order the blows that man has struck against Mother Nature. It appears that we have bigger fish to fry nowadays. So the Exxon corporation is officially done feeding out cash to the victims of their actions. Let's talk about guns! But before we get to the true American obsession, we can have a word or two about child rape. This past Wednesday, the nation's highest court reviewed the death penalty laws in that most gentle of all Southern states- Louisiana. There two men had been convicted of raping children, and subsequently sentenced to death. The court decision was narrow, with a 5-4 majority saying that capital punishment is not appropriate in a crime wherein the victim does not die.

In this case (a review of Kennedy vs. Louisiana) Justice Anthony Kennedy was the tipping point, and he authored the Majority Opinion. He pointed out that the possible application of the death penalty in these cases might repress the reporting of sexual abuse within families where these crimes have occurred. He also cited the unreliability of testimony from children. Ultimately it was reduced to a question regarding the 8th Amendment- and the Court came down with a judgment stating that such punishments constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" for these particular criminals. While I can understand such sentiments, I'd have to say that I'm unhappy about the ruling. Apparently both Obama and McCain are against it too, as they are both on record as having said so.

Still it is inevitable that conservatives spin this as a blanket condemnation of "liberals", as if all those categorized as such support the rape of children. It won't matter how many within that classification disagree with the ruling. Similarly the GOP and its Kool-Aid drinkers are proclaiming a huge victory in the landmark case that was decided today. For the first time in history the Supreme Court has directly addressed the issue over whether or not the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of individual citizens to "keep and bear arms". It has long been accepted that the framers of the document meant to ensure that militias have access to weaponry.

This judgment (a 5-4 ruling, falling along predictable lines) overturns a law in Washington DC that has prohibited handgun ownership within the city for 32 years. Antonin Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion, specifying that the Constitution forbids "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home". This ultimately gives the lie to the oft-stated right-wing contention that they oppose "activist" justices who legislate from the bench. Clearly this ruling amounts to doing the very thing they claim to hate. But it is still unclear what the true impact of this decision will be, partially because these particular activists (including Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and Alito) have overreached, thus failing to address the specific issues of gun control.

Political Myth Busters.

There are some things that I hear repeated time and again that frustrate me to almost ridiculous lengths. I realize that I am setting myself up for this by choosing to listen to partisan hacks, but I think it's important to expose myself to perspectives and views that I find objectionable. The reality is that many people form their political beliefs by listening to pundits who consider themselves expert analysts. Generally the strategy is to utilize repetition until certain core assertions are accepted as fact regardless of how ludicrous they really are. We have certainly gotten our fill of this approach over the last seven plus years with the Bush administration. Their talking points have been well distributed and utilized.

So anyway, I've decided to mention a few of the more egregious ones. These are examples of claims that really get under my skin and annoy me to no end. They cause me to yell at the radio when there is no one else in the car with me. Sometimes they give me short bursts of energy that get me through an especially sluggish day.

1. The media is controlled by the Left.

Is there anyone who sincerely believes this chestnut nowadays? Simply put, the media is a corporate-run industry. The vast majority of media outlets are owned by huge multinationals who will ultimately manipulate the news to serve themselves. Naturally different sources skew their coverage to relative degrees. But I don't understand why anyone would still insist that the US has a "liberal media"- especially in an age when more people watch FOX News than the other networks, and when it's impossible to find a progressive voice on the radio. Our mainstream choices range from "moderate" to reactionary conservative.

2. The Democrats want to take away guns from lawfully-acting citizens.

This claim is particularly insidious in Western Pennsylvania, due to the high proportion of its inhabitants that are members of the National Rifle Association. Believe me when I tell you that there are a lot of people around here that will consistently vote Republican merely based on the false premise that the GOP will protect their rights to arm themselves with whatever weapons that they so desire. I don't remember the last national Democratic leader that seriously suggested that we curtail gun rights. Yes... once in awhile they will devise some proposal aimed at a half-hearted measure of regulation (usually having to do with assault rifles), but this is almost always lip service, and meant to appeal to an urban population that is legitimately worried about gang violence.

3. Republicans hate homosexuals and have deep convictions regarding social issues that are based in religious faith and family values.

If the conservative leadership truly wanted to outlaw gays and abortion it would have already happened. The GOP put together tremendous consolidated power in the wake of 9-11. They controlled all three branches of the federal government and the majority of the states. The Constitution has never before stopped them from doing things that curtail our civil rights. We are living in a time when our liberties are slowly being eroded. Faith-based conservatism is a sham. Abortion and gay marriage are only national issues because they can be used to manipulate the masses. They are used to muster voter turnout and increase divisiveness. If these issues were resolved, they would no longer be useful for the Republican leadership.

4. The Democrats are causing our reliance on foreign energy by blocking drilling in ANWAR.

This is another cynical smokescreen. Believe me- if we had significant oil resources left in America, we would have already tapped them. Anyone with any true power- the oil industry, energy companies, national politicians, foreign policy experts- knows that ANWAR would (at best) take care of our fuel needs for 3-6 months. It's not worth the investment. This is simply used as a distraction from the real problem- a dependence on fossil fuels, and the effect it has on our foreign policy. The discussion needs to go far beyond domestic expansion of drilling... we need to confront our government's destructive resistance to embracing a new energy paradigm. The only way to do this is to elect leaders that have little or no connection to the oil industry. Good luck with that.

5. George Bush's War in Iraq has been a failure.

This all depends upon your personal perspective. If you mean that the five plus years of occupation and invasion are an immense drain on the public resources, and a distraction from the truly pressing and urgent issues of our times- then you are entirely correct. But if you look at it from the point-of-view of Dubya and his cronies... well, it's worked out exactly as they have planned. The NeoCons have achieved their goal of having a radically-increased military presence in the Middle East for an indefinite period. The energy companies and military-industrial complex are reaping insane profits off of subsidies and no-bid contracts, and all of that money has been taxpayer dollars redistributed from social programs that the Far Right has been trying to eliminate for years. How is that not an unqualified success? Dubya has served his only true constituency in an exemplary fashion.

The "Right" to Bear Arms.

One of the most commonly expressed fears emanating from the radical right is that the government will one day take away the guns of lawful citizens. While regulations concerning guns have historically been rather mild, Republican politicians have been able to harness the anxieties of sportsmen and other collectors of firearms in order to defeat their opponents. Organizations like the NRA continue to invest significant funds in lobbying efforts, and any perceived limitations on gun ownership are fought with often disproportionate zeal. Despite the fact that no one with any political power has seriously suggested outlawing the possession of firearms, reactionaries paste provocative messages to the bumpers of their automobiles that dare functionaries to disarm them.

All of this furor naturally results from various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Often the exact words of this document are edited or misquoted by those with extreme positions on the issue. For the sake of exactitude, I quote this portion of the Bill of Rights in its entirety:

"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."

That certainly seems straightforward, doesn't it? Yet like any other construct of human language, it can be analyzed and interpreted in multiple ways. Does it mean that arms are necessary for the proper functioning of a militia? That seems true beyond doubt. But do those words preceding the comma limit (in any way) the clause that follows? Or were individuals meant to "keep and bear arms" apart from their participation in a militia? And what exactly does "shall not be infringed" entail?

At the time the Constitution was written, it was actually expected that free white men would always be armed for the purpose of "public defense". If you listen to the words of the founding fathers, it seems pretty clear that they included this protection as a way to ensure that the federal government would not be able to exercise unchallenged power. Obviously our ancestors were concerned about preserving their civil liberties against any foreseeable threat. This was a direct outgrowth of arguments in the wake of Shay's Rebellion. Anti-federalists were fearful that the creation of a standing army might lead to a form of military dictatorship. They insisted that James Madison include a specific acknowledgment (as an amendment to the new Constitution) that citizens were entitled to protect themselves against tyranny.

Unfortunately for modern commentators, the historical debate at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment involved matters of state security- not individual self-defense. So it's not altogether clear what the founders' intentions would have been regarding a person's desire to accumulate weaponry for its own sake. This right seems more appropriately to be drawn from common criminal law tradition. It's quite clear that restrictions on gun ownership have existed since the very formation of the United States. The South prohibited African-Americans from possessing firearms for the first 100 years of the nation's existence. Additionally, early decisions throughout the country affirmed the state governments' powers to regulate the concealment of weapons.

Regardless of the subjectivity found in the varying opinions regarding the "right to bear arms", it is clear that the American people have tolerated some level of gun regulation ever since the 2nd Amendment was written. It's a shame that we have entered an age in which people feel the necessity to assume black-and-white positions on almost every important social issue. It's frankly ludicrous to suggest that we have an unalienable right to possess any type of arm, in any place, and at any time. Try employing that logic when entering a school, an airport, or a government building- I doubt your decision to carry a handgun will be defended by general public opinion. Yet on the other hand, I don't hear many people express a desire to see private gun ownership eliminated altogether. So I have a hard time figuring out why people consider this a divisive political issue in the first place. Can't we incorporate a bit of nuance into our approach?

Gun Ownership.

Ever since I became a homeowner I've had an increasing number of conversations about the great American preoccupation- guns. I didn't have a lot of experience shooting firearms growing up. My father was most assuredly not a hunter, and the prospect of participating in that activity was something that just never came up. I did shoot skeet when I was a little kid, and if I remember correctly, I was pretty good at it. I also recall taking target practice with a rifle, but don't ask me for any specifics. Once in college a friend of mine took me out into back-country private property, and he shot a tweety bird. I lost interest almost immediately when I saw its little crushed head.

So I have to say I have no real affinity for guns. I've always lived in the city, and guns seem like a poor match when it comes to urban living. When I used to be a doorman at a bar in Oakland, there used to be occasional handgun discharges on the corner. Once I smelled cordite after hearing the distinct telltale popping of a gun being fired. Another time I was denied exit from my apartment because a crazy sniper had commenced taking shots from a nearby high-rise. Fortunately, I've never been specifically targeted. When I was a kid (and a budding vandal), a pissed-off man pulled up alongside our little group of ne'er-do-wells and leveled a pistol at us, but we didn't take the threat very seriously. Ultimately I'd have to characterize my position on gun ownership as historically neutral.

Of course I'm quite aware of the 2nd Amendment and its interpretations. I know that many citizens consider their guns an entitlement bequeathed directly from "almighty God". I've heard the argument that the founding fathers wanted to ensure that they had the opportunity to protect themselves from an overzealous and controlling federal government. Others are outspoken about their right to bear arms in order to protect their family and their property. While I can understand these perspectives, none of them have been compelling enough for me to decide to purchase my own gun.

I don't believe that any compassionate "god" specifically countenances the employment of Smith and Wesson. It's quite clear that the people that wrote our constitution were more interested in seeing the formation of localized and organized militias- rather than hordes of gun-toting, pissed-off poor people. It's hard for me to believe that anyone with sense would think that they could hold off the combined forces of the US government with their own personal arsenal. That's clearly a losing battle- just look at what happened to Randy Weaver, the Move cult in Philadelphia, or David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. And things have changed dramatically since the "War on Terror" began. Even if our nation's leaders were still interested in seeing private individuals with RPG's and dirty bombs, the idea that you could resist the might of "the man" is ludicrous.

So that leaves the sole reason-based rationale for gun ownership- protecting property and family. Anyone who would risk his life on the odds of getting the drop on a home invader, merely to keep said invader from taking private property, should re-examine his priorities. It hardly seems worth it. But the idea of defending the wellbeing of one's family is (at the very least) emotionally resonant. If there is a good chance that you will have to protect a family member's life, then owning and learning how to operate a firearm might prove to be important. What are the scenarios that you have imagined that could put you in that type of position?

Are you envisioning a period of societal breakdown, and rampaging desperate mobs with little to lose? Do you want to safeguard your stockpiles of dried food and water? Or do you live in a dangerous neighborhood where violent behavior approaches the routine? Maybe you have an occupation that regularly inspires hatred in others. There are situations in which it might be appropriate to arm yourself. Even so, it's not a decision to make without thinking long and hard about it. Perhaps there is an ounce of prevention that could forestall your pound of cure. If there is a variable you can change to make your existence inherently safer, then it seems wise to make that choice.

How do you think the possession of a firearm will affect your thinking when you are in circumstances of danger? It could be that you'll overlook viable alternatives, and escalate needlessly to the most extreme response. Regardless, I don't think sloganeering is a wise approach to the issue. A nuanced, thoughtful approach is definitely in order. People DO KILL people... often with guns.