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.

Duck and Cover, Again

Some of us may remember Bert the Turtle, pictured above.  He cheerfully urged students of our schools to "duck and cover" in case of nuclear attack during the early days of the Cold War.  That consisted of diving under desks and covering heads with arms.  Thus, the effects of nuclear explosions were avoided, Bert (and presumably his creators) told us.  Perhaps some of the flying shards of glass and debris which might have resulted would have been blocked by desks and arms, but it's unlikely that incineration would have been avoided in any significant sense, and if anyone survived radiation would have served to eliminate them despite Bert's wise recommendation.  

But perhaps ducking and covering would be more effective against bullets than against ICBMs carrying nuclear warheads.  Clearly, the possibility of students being shot by someone carrying one firearm or another (it seems semi-automatic rifles are the most popular weapons of choice currently) is far greater than was (is?) the possibility of nuclear war.  Perhaps we should bring back the Duck and Cover drills, and it's to be hoped improve on them, this time in an effort to foil people who use guns to kill other people.  Guns, as we know, don't kill people.  But it seems undeniable that some people who have guns do kill others, particularly here and now.  People use guns to kill people.

A Renaissance of Duck and Cover drills or something similar is probably all, and likely more, than can be expected in response to the most recent mass murder.  Fantasies of owning guns to prevent the tyranny of government aren't what inspire objections to gun control or an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment.  It is, very simply, a question of money.  As long as money can be made manufacturing and selling guns here in our Glorious Union, the so-called gun control debate will continue to be meaningless and unproductive.  That people, even children, are shot has become part of the cost of doing business.

It's possible that technology soon may allow each of use to manufacture our own cheap firearms, in which case profits from making and selling guns will diminish.  Then the politicians who are mere shills for the gun and ammunition industries may be less inclined to do their bidding.  But in that case we'll all have guns, men, women and children, or easy access to them, and control won't be a practical possibility.  

But perhaps that's the goal, ultimately, of those who admit of no restriction to the ownership and possession of firearms.  They look forward to the day all will have guns, or perhaps when all must have guns.

The Return of Zardoz (Guns Galore)

 

I last addressed the totemic status of guns in our Glorious Republic a few years ago.  Another massacre, another gun control "debate" (such as it is).  It's time for the floating head of Zardoz to appear once more and thunder its message, so dear to so many, that the gun is good.  As for the penis, it's self-evidently evil here in God's favorite country, but also self-evidently indulged regardless, particularly by those who claim most loudly that it's evil.  Much, I suppose, could be made of our quasi-religious belief in the sanctity of guns and our fascination with sex--our repressive horror of it and nervous exultation in it.  But it's a tiresome train of thought I won't board.

 

But our strange, compulsive regard for guns is interesting in itself, as it admits of no limits.  There are those who feel that we have the right to own (and carry) as many as we like, of whatever kind we like. Nobody seems to be struck by the oddness of the fact that the most recent killer had so very many guns, and even explosives.  The concern expressed is how he accumulated them without triggering some kind of warning.  But what kind of person would want to have so many?  He wasn't a collector, clearly.  Is it plausible to claim that he felt they were required for self-defense?  Only if he was an exceedingly fearful man, surely.  Also, it seems clear enough that defense wasn't his concern.  Is an interpretation of the Second Amendment which countenances having so many guns a reasonable one?

 

Where does the right to arms end, or does it end?  Do we have the legal right to arms of any kind?  Artillery?  Surface to air or surface to surface missiles?  Tanks?

 

Reductio ad absurdum sometimes is considered an inappropriate argument, but seems to me entirely appropriate when confronted with a belief in an absolute, unrestricted right.  One might say that there are particular arms which most cannot afford to have or maintain or possess, but still have the right to have under the Constitution.  What one claims to have the right to under the Second Amendment impacts the reasonableness on one's interpretation of it. 

 

One need only admit that there are limitations on rights provided by the Constitution to admit that such rights are appropriate when they're reasonable.  As Constitutional rights are subject to limitation and have been throughout our history, there is no reason to contend that the right to possess arms is without limitation.  What constitutes reasonable limitations then becomes a topic of debate.  This seems to be a debate the more avid proponents of the Second Amendment would rather avoid.

 

The reason for this may well be that there is no reasonable way to support the claim that people should have the right to own as many arms as they want, own automatic or semi-automatic weapons, own devices which allow them to use weapons as if they were automatic, carry about weapons with them whenever they wish, etc.   Beyond the more fantastic claims made by those who think the government is out to get them, or who think they must protect themselves from harm in a restaurant or store, there is little on which they can rely.  Fear doesn't go well with reason, and instead dispenses with it.  Fear seeks absolutes.  Fear relies on absolutes.