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.

To Coventry

kw: firearms, opinion, exile, sensibility

I intended to write this about eight hours ago. No matter. The President has announced his proposals for curbing gun violence, I don't yet know what they are, and I don't really care anyway. I wrote a few days ago of my beliefs regarding the ownership of guns. Larger issues are at stake here.

Let us first recall that Timothy McVeigh did not need a gun to destroy the Murrah Building in OKC, killing 168 people, including 19 small children, and injuring 800 or more, including 450 children. Thus, while we need to address problems with pathological gun ownership and use, we need even more to address human psychology in very practical ways. As I see it, there are three kinds of persons whose presence society cannot safely abide.

Firstly, consider why we do not permit 6-year-olds to carry pistols. There would be carnage aplenty, in schools and homes both. Six-year-olds have too little impulse control. A 20- or 30-year-old with the impulse control of a normal 6-year-old must be prevented from even handling a weapon. Period…at least in civil society.

But Tim McVeigh had, and Adam Lanza has, good impulse control. Neither one flew off the handle, nor fell prey to some instant rage. What they did required intelligence and planning. In another setting, either one would have been a good project manager. They both were under the influence of ideas we call deranged. For their sake, as for that of private assassins in general, the problem is the ideas. This is a second kind of person: patient and thoughtful, yet influenced by an intolerable idea—as intolerable to them as it is to us, but in different ways. They exemplify the proverb: Beware the wrath of a patient man.

The third kind is the most starkly evil, yet the hardest to deal with: People who unshakingly believe they have the right to decide for others. In particular, they believe they must decide for others, at the expense of the others' right to decide. This is my definition of a psychopath. It also happens to aptly define nearly all members of Congress (both houses and all parties) after a term or two in office, if not from the very start. This is the best reason there is for having term limits! It also describes many preachers, pastors, and church officials from Popes down to the lowliest priest. To my observation, the only Pope not afflicted with this deadly curse was John Paul II. It describes bullying classroom teachers. It describes a great many people in authority, those who exemplify "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". Of American Presidents, only George Washington was clear on this principle and took steps to escape its influence. In the pre-Medieval church, no man could be confirmed as an Elder who was known to desire it. Church leaders in some places would go so far as to ask a talented brother if he wished to be an Elder. Only if he refused, three times on three successive occasions, would they practically force him into eldership (of course there were ways to game the system, but it was better then letting every ambitious bully run the churches). There is a caveat here. Restricting guns from these evil ones will have no effect. They do not need guns to destroy lives. Society in general would be better off without their presence. I call these the Controllers.

Even if we agree to deal with all three kinds of persons, what are we to do? None of them fits the moniker "mentally ill". No provision that the President or Congress is likely to propose touches any of them. Yet they are the clearest and most present dangers. Yet they are very hard to identify.

Lack of impulse control is the easiest to detect. Just watch how a person deals with frustration. Give someone just the tiniest bit of deadline pressure, and see what they do. Road rage is a classic symptom. My father tells of a fighter pilot he knew. He says the man was constantly on hair trigger. He could snatch flies from the air. No enemy fighter even got close to shooting him down. But if you surprised him, he'd snatch your hand so quickly you didn't see him move. Then, with an effort, he would usually quiet himself to ask what was going on. Usually. Sometimes he'd knock you out instead. Dad wonders what became of him after the war. He was totally unfit for civil society. But he was very, very useful in wartime! Such people need careful management and to be directed into vocations that need their particular talents.

The planners are tougher to detect, maybe impossible, at present. In the future, who knows? Our poorest science is psychology. Will it become better? Genuinely effective "profiling" may one day help. Even harder: determining a planner's obsession and then effectively replacing it with a more constructive one (Oh, they're still gonna be obsessed. That's what makes a good project manager).

Toughest of all: What do we do with Controllers? Do they have a use we can take advantage of? Can their energies be directed in less destructive directions? I firmly believe they must be kept from the reins of power. Yet, doesn't that make me a kind of Controller also? And Controllers require power to be happy. That is why so many work their way into positions of authority, over businesses, churches, schools, and governments. Do we have a right to deny their right to the pursuit of happiness?

I have an analogy. In the film Key Largo, starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauran Bacall, and Edward G. Robinson, the hero says to the villain Rocko, "I know what you want." Rocko replies, "Oh, yeah? What??" "More. You want more." Rocko exclaims, "Yeah! I want MORE." He is already rich, but he wants more. Our genuine needs may be rather modest, but our wants are infinite. Why is America a consumer culture? Because of the universal desire for more, More, MORE! Finite Nature conspires to deny us complete fulfillment of our infinite desires.

Controllers are those who want something, but in getting it they injure the rights of others. This want must be denied, but how? I suggest setting up a Coventry. To what does Coventry refer? In the English civil war, royalist prisoners of war were sent to the town of Coventry, which was rather remote, making the prisoners easy to hold with a small force. During a rather short period, the prisoners pretty much governed themselves. Over time, this idea led to the notion of exile as "being sent to Coventry". A short time later certain prisoners were "transported" to the American colonies (an ancestor of mine among them), and two centuries later Australia was used for a similar purpose. But the byword is not "sent to Australia" but "sent to Coventry".

We need a Coventry for Controllers. Let them strive to control one another. Use a few of them to control the borders! The hardest task will be keeping those on the outside who must interact with the "Coventry Border Authority" from becoming covert Controllers themselves. It will have to be a rotating job. If we ever develop really smart robots, and can ensure that the robots are incorruptible, they might be the best at this.

There is a danger, of course. It was explored in a few episodes of Star Trek, culminating in the film The Wrath of Khan. You can't run a Coventry on autopilot. It will be an endless burr under society's saddle. But I believe it must be done. Trouble, is, who will do it? Only the Controllers have the will and the ruthlessness. Society will be plagued by the depredations of Controllers for generations to come. We must ponder the implications of this, and consider how we can prepare our offspring, and their offspring, how to deal with it.

A conservative for fewer firearms

kw: politics, firearms, opinion, sensibility

I have had about enough of NRA posturing. They still talk about the right to "hunt", while defending the collecting of huge numbers of weapons whose only possible use is mass murder, by some of the most unstable elements of society. The actual position of many in NRA was most clearly stated by Rush Limbaugh a number of years ago (and probably on several occasions): "The Second Amendment is there in case the government won't keep the First Amendment."

Such a statement advocates armed insurgency against government. How many ways can you spell "Treason"? If it really comes to that, does anyone really expect to come out ahead in a conflict with a government that has at its disposal a military organization of five branches (plus 50 national guard units), each of which can afford to spend millions or even billions in a matter of days?

Hey you, there, you reading this: Did you learn to read after 1993? If so, maybe you never heard of Ruby Ridge, Idaho or Waco, Texas. Look 'em up, or look up Randy Weaver and David Koresh. But maybe you are the defiant type. Maybe you are one of those fellows who say, "They'll only get my gun by prying it out of my cold, dead fingers." Really? There are some entirely humorless fellows out there who are totally up to that challenge. If they think that's what is needed, they'll accomplish it without breaking a sweat.

Not only that. In a martial arts class I was taking half a century ago, a student asked, "What if we are attacked by someone with a dangerous weapon?" The instructor said, "There are no dangerous weapons, just dangerous men. Learn well, and you can neutralize anything." Account for the times; at present I know some dangerous women also. Some people I know wouldn't have to pry the gun out of your "cold, dead fingers", because they'd remove the fingers and the hand before you could squeeze the trigger. And you'd probably not even set eyes on them.

So let's be sensible. There is no legitimate reason for private citizens to own mass murder weapons, period. A weapon for self-defense is one thing. The kind of weapons used by the killer in the Connecticut school, or the one Colorado movie theater, must be eliminated. I equate such weapons with hand grenades. There is a reason you can't get a live hand grenade on eBay or Craigslist. There a similar reason you need a special permit to obtain C-4 or dynamite. We can't have a "hobbyist" accidentally blowing up a city block.

Oh, did you say you like to collect guns? They are not stamps! In my view, weapon collecting ought only to be allowed if the weapons are permanently disabled.

And yes, I am a conservative. I vote about 85% Republican (because about 15% of conservatives are Democrats. I observe deeds, not ideologies). I am the kind of old-fashioned conservative who remembers that environmentalism began as a Republican ideal: conserving a portion of the wilderness; the kind who knows that Liberal used to mean "in favor of more liberty" and used to be a part of the conservative agenda; the kind who thinks the Bible meant it when it said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword", just update "sword" a couple millennia; and the kind who thinks the "insanity defense" should not exist, because of course the killer was probably insane, but we want that kind of insanity eliminated from the gene pool anyway. Now, there's a mixed bag of political ideas, but they used to define "conservative".

I am in favor of a law that allows law enforcement officers who see anything that looks like a mass murder weapon, to confiscate it immediately, with deadly force if necessary. Oh, yeah, outlaw toys that look like that, also. We don't want a cop to take a kid's plastic toy, now, do we?