The most divisive amendment

 kw: book reviews, nonfiction, firearms, weapons training, second amendment

Dan Baum is an unlikely gun guy. As he describes himself in Gun Guys: A Road Trip, he is a liberal Democrat, a Jew, and a bemused spectator caught in the middle of the gun rights debate. Were it not for a chance occurrence when he was seven, at a summer camp, he might never have discovered his inner Gun Guy. The campers were taken to a gun range and taught basic gun etiquette, and then each had a chance to shoot five .22 rifle bullets at a target. The other boys' targets showed a wide scatter of shots; some targets were untouched. All of Dan's shots were in the central "black", including a couple at dead center. The instructor breathed a far-from-grudging, "Nice shootin', Tex."

This was 1961. Things were about the same as they had been in 1955, when I first shot a .22 rifle at a YMCA camp. As I recall, all my shots were on the paper target, but none were near the center. Still, I was a better shot than many of the boys. In my case, that was as far as it went. In Dan's case, the camp was long, and he was able to continue to learn shooting.

Away from camp, he led the ordinary life of a middle-class Jew. Year after year at the camp, his marksmanship skills grew, as did his general love for handling guns and enjoying caring for them. At home, he had to be satisfied with toy guns and friends who would play military or police games. He was in college when he bought a "real gun".

Fast-forward a number of years. Dan decided to get into gun culture, to learn how people with various backgrounds relate to guns and gun use. His interest was a mingling of personal curiosity and journalistic interest. He performed open carry for a time, then obtained a concealed carry permit (in his state at the time, reciprocal agreements meant he could carry his concealed handgun in a number of other states). He visited gun shows, gun shops (a great many of those were out of business), and participated in NRA and other online forums and in-person conferences.

He reports that he was well received almost everywhere. People were often puzzled that a Jewish Democrat could be a "gun nut", but were typically willing to impart knowledge and expertise. The big exception was the "cachers", as he calls them: the men (and the occasional woman) who expect anarchy to break out (some are licking their lips over the prospect), who buy large amounts of firearms and ammunition and bury them here and there, to make it harder for "someone" to steal the artillery or rob them of it. They hated Dan from the instant any of them became aware of him, and vilified him at every opportunity, nearly always behind the screen of an online avatar or anonymous account.

I'll leave it to you to read the rest. He had many good experiences, some awkward ones, and a few that terrified him. Guns and gun rights are the second-most polarizing issue in America today.

I have a few thoughts I'll pass along. Firstly, while it is true that the Second Amendment does not limit the right of American citizens to own firearms (even military weapons including a great many the Founding Fathers had no idea would be invented); it does begin with that pesky "militia" clause. Here is the text, 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.

I find it interesting that there are several slight versions of this that were ratified by various US states in 1791. The above version was ratified by Delaware. The different versions have variations in presence or absence of the commas, and in capitalization, but the words are all exactly the same. The number of words written about these 27 words is comparable to the number of words written about the doctrine of the Trinity. I'll just add my two sen worth (a sen is 1/100 of a Japanese yen) thus: What part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand? People such as the "cachers", in particular, are the opposite of well regulated.

Further, it has been said, "The Second Amendment is there in case the government violates the First Amendment." There is a little ground to reach this conclusion based on some things written by the Founders, but the breadth of opinion on such an idea among them was very great, and I think this fact is expressed in the very ambiguity of the Second Amendment. 

Let's chase a rabbit, just a bit: Your rights to free speech are being stomped on, right now, by a coalition (conspiracy, to some) of Left-wing politicians, social media companies, and the "mainstream media". It doesn't matter whether you favor the Donkey or the Elephant. Can anything you might do because of the existence of the Second Amendment correct the situation? This coalition/conspiracy consists of a few hundred thousand people. Y'gonna kill 'em all? If you do shoot someone while "defending your rights", and police are sent to arrest you, will you continue the killing? 

Have you learned the lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge? The futility of taking on an army that is able and willing to spend millions, or if need be, billions, to overcome you? How big a private militia can your raise, in order to destroy the "tyrants"? Take a look at the Wagner Group. They had a better chance than most to take on the army of Russia. They were driven into exile and their leader was assassinated. Ho Hum. Putin enjoys another serving of caviar. And the US Army is several times as powerful as the Russian Army.

I have never owned a gun. I prefer archery. I am a Christian, but not an anti-gun Christian (see Luke 22:36). Should anarchy increase, I may find a compelling reason to obtain one or more firearms, and to make sure my wife and I are properly trained to use them. But I like coalition-building, forging strong friendships, numerous friendships, meaningful and useful friendships. I'll leave it there.