From Their Cold, Dead Hands

I have a fondness for Charlton Heston, the actor.  Not because of the parts he played in epic, blockbuster films like Ben Hur and The Greatest Story Ever Told, but because of his roles in "smaller" films.  I particularly enjoyed his portrayal of Cardinal Richelieu in Richard Lester's Musketeer movies.  I'm a fan of his work in Soylent Green.  I like what he did in Touch of Evil.

I've never been impressed by the statement he made at a meeting of the NRA in 2000, from which the title to this post is derived. to the effect that "the government" (Al Gore was mentioned specifically) could take his gun, but only "from his cold, dead hands."  

The gun-taking government that certain of us gun owners fear so viscerally does not exist, and it isn't likely it ever will in our Great Republic.  It is in the nature of a boogeyman.  Realistically speaking the most the government may do, depending on who makes the law, is restrict the sale of certain guns and amounts of ammunition, at least to certain persons.  If we want to reasonably assess the claims of those who fear the Second Amendment is at risk, then, it's more appropriate that we acknowledge that guns will not be taken away.  Guns won't be confiscated.  There's no reason to think that is threatened.

I don't think that's even suggested by anyone likely to exercise any kind of political influence or power.  What is actually feared, and what may actually be possible if not probable, is that "the government" will prevent people from acquiring certain guns (assault rifles, AR-15s) and magazines which allow one to shoot those guns many times without reloading.  That is hardly a ban on firearms.

This is what should be considered as the latest mass shooting/killing in our Glorious Union, which took place in Lewiston, Maine, brings the issue of gun control, however briefly, to mind once more (then to be ignored until the next one).  Apparently, the shooter used the mass shooter's weapon of choice, the AR-15.  Regulating such weapons doesn't entail the wholesale confiscation of firearms, and wouldn't impose significant limitations on who may own and acquire guns, but would amount only to the regulation of the sale of firearms which were made to inflict death and harm on a large scale and are being used for that purpose on people who pose no threat as they go about their lives.

The "cold, dead hands" we should be concerned about aren't those of a hypothetical gun owner whose gun is being taken away by the government, but the hands of those men, women and children who are killed by guns.  It's clear enough that the cold, dead hands of those killed by people wielding guns outnumber the hands of those, dead or alive, who are not criminals and have suffered the confiscation of their guns by government.  The argument that honoring the Second Amendment means guns cannot be regulated perpetuates a false dichotomy, and presumes that the right to bear arms is absolute, which no sensible person can maintain.

What we must decide is how willing we are to tolerate the violence, harm and death which takes place when the acquisition of such weapons is allowed.