The Second Amendment is Not a Suicide Pact

Sadly, the stupidity has taken hold in a genuinely frightening way, preventing even our elected legislators and appointed adjudicators from speaking honestly about so many issues. In the Sotomayor confirmation hearings today, we saw this, from a woman who grew up in a hardscrabble Bronx neighborhood that lost many of it's sons and daughters to pointless violence:
"I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans," Sotomayor told Leahy, adding that one of her godchildren is a member of the National Rifle Association and she has friends who hunt.Show of hands. How many people think that's actually her honest thoughts around guns in America? How many think THATS the thing she'd choose to say when asked about the Second Amendment? We have reached a tipping point, where not a single government figure is allowed to tell the truth about important issues anymore. Can someone tell me how all this hiding from the facts and refusing to even have a conversation about the real-world issues and their non-imaginary impacts on neighborhoods and families all over the country is a sustainable path?
Look, here's the hard truth about gun ownership in America. First, it's in the Constitution. As much as firearms opponents want to try to create some kind of fuzziness around that, and they do make a valiant effort, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a hard phrase to obfuscate. Is it valid, or valuable now, today, in twenty-first century America? Of course not. It is a deeply embedded evil built into the very fabric of our national heritage, and the bloodshed just goes on and on. To get to something approximating common-sense gun ownership laws, you will HAVE to change the Constitution. But here's the thing. It's not just in the Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights. And if you open the door to tampering with that, there is NO reason to believe it will all just stop there. A free press, as poor a job as they have done recently, is a pesky thing that most authoritarian governments do not allow. Speech can be re-defined. Assembly more tightly controlled. As much as we have seen the American Constitution trampled upon over the last decade, to allow people to begin to tamper with the core principles is to open a Pandora's Box of authoritarian and plutocratic activism, something we've seen far too much of already.
But to leave things as they are is a horrorshow of blood and loss, wasting our best along with our society's detritus, breaking families and hearts even as no higher purpose is served, and nothing of value is accomplished beyond the profits of the weapons industry. We cannot allow the status quo to be the future. We cannot continue to watch our children and brothers take the lives of their neighbors so casually, and then rot away in a prison cell for a moment's sick anger.
It's easy to reach the conclusion that there is no way out of this conundrum. And, for all that, I have no solution to offer. A solution, if there is one, would not look like an assault weapons ban or a law against high capacity magazines. It would be something that greatly reduced the number and availability of handguns, particularly in places like the inner city where the murder rates are unacceptably high. There would be regional, emergency legislation that, while unlikely to have an immediate impact, would begin to make guns more scarce, more expensive, and more difficult to for children to get and use casually. But it doesn't really matter. Because we have created a system where the only people that matter, the only people who have within their grasp the power to make a difference, to try to save some lives over time, the people who ASKED for the responsibility to deal with our society's hard problems are afraid to even have the conversation. Are AFRAID to even start a dialog with the phrase "what are we going to do about gun violence in our communities". The brave men and women who are asking this question, who are demanding answers, are written off as leftists, pacifists, unamerican hippies who are not "serious". And the people who are considered serious are AFRAID to say to the very constituency that elected them "I need you to help me develop a solution". They are more protective of their reputation in Washington then they are of the children back home.
Let's be honest. They will never have to try to decide whether to risk taking a gun to school, or risk leaving it home. They will never learn to not just flinch at the pop-pop-pop-pop of a drive by but to find good cover, and take care of their friends under fire. They live in nice, safe neighborhoods and will never have to try to understand the loss of a daughter caught by a stray round, or a son who just didn't have the strength and support to say no to the gang.
When you're scared, a gun is a very easy thing to reach for. I've done it. But when you're scared to talk ABOUT guns in America, it is enough to offer platitudes to the people who perpetuate the violence without ever suffering from it. The Alabama Senator, the Michigan Congressman, the Florida Governor will never lose a child to gun violence. They will never have to lie awake in the depths of the night, sobbing, wondering why god has taken their daughter, or what could have led their son to a life sentence. Like so much in our world, the difference between where we are and where we need to go is courage, and sadly, once again, courage is sorely lacking...
10 Comments:
Like so much in our world, the difference between where we are and where we need to go is courage, and sadly, once again, courage is sorely lacking...
They take the money, mikey.
1) Parrot right-wing lying points, 2) collect way more than $200, 3) pass go, and 4) around the board you go.
~
'S a fact, Thunder. But they're also in a unique position to make a difference. All it takes is courage.
Never saw a day that wasn't a very good day to die...
Maybe your birthday, mikey?
On the other hand, a gravestone with the same frickin day at both ends is kind of sublime....
You lay out the dilemma nicely. The other 9 of the BoR should not need to be sacrificed in order to simplify the 2nd.
OTO tentacle, many of the Amendments are just that; amendments to parts of the Constitution and indeed, the BoR. Maybe a courageous, clever lawmaker could...
Oh what the fuck am I saying? How many of those do we have?
How many think THATS the thing she'd choose to say when asked about the Second Amendment? We have reached a tipping point, where not a single government figure is allowed to tell the truth about important issues anymore.
It's the usual SCOTUS Doublespeak. The bureaucrat/politician/judge makes a clever suggestion that she's AWARE of the issue, and so the herd, or most of 'em then believe her to be a 2nd Amendment supporter, even though she probably isn't (tho' the 2nd Amendment in wrong paws--ie Ted Nugent sorts of paws--or Cho--not exactly holy). What do the eggheads call that? Framing or something. She's framed the issue, without taking a stance on it.
Even some on left--like Alex cockburn-- have argued that Ms Sotomayer's really quite conservative, and not opposed to a few police-state tactics, with a few PC-like aspects . She's generally pro-business, and pro-bureaucracy--a Demopublican ala Billy Clinton, and LBJ-- or Kid Obama for that matter.
Yeah. When these are the people who are carrying the fire for a Liberal agenda, Mr. Overton's work is pretty much done here...
To get to something approximating common-sense gun ownership laws, you will HAVE to change the Constitution.
I don't agree with this. Various weapons have been prohibited for home use.
I guess the question is what happens when you get to a de facto "no weapons allowed" state.
But Bubba, history provides its own proof for the assertion.
If you believe legislation like NFA or the assault weapons ban or the Brady Bill are effective in curbing gun violence in American communities, you have the problem of noting that, in fact, they have not been. More "gun control" legislation at the margins can't make a difference.
Tell me of a singe effective law curbing firearms that has been passed by congress or states and survived constitutional challenge.
The simple, hard truth is the laws you can pass aren't effective, and the laws that would be effective you can't pass. You NEED to change the constitution, but the question then becomes what kind of society would we have at the end of a series of constitutional amendments?
The only effective solution is to make guns less available and more expensive. You have to legislate supply. Otherwise, it's just all kabuki theater and guilt assuagement...
mikey
But I still can't buy surface-to-air missiles. It's a very large margin.
Apart from that, manufacturer liability has been shielded by a specific law, I think. There's one to mess with.
I wonder if eventually there'll be a home gunsmithing industry like in Waziristan where they make AK-47 knock-offs.
But surface to air missiles aren't what's killing people. Liability might actually be a good path to raise the cost of handguns which would reduce availability. Provided you can find some judges with the courage to award and others to uphold.
If we could get to the point where making your own weapons was necessary to acquire them, we will have effectively solved the problem.
...sharpening my pointed stick as we speak...
Post a Comment
<< Home