The Obsolescence Of The 2nd Amendment

Postscript 1

As it happens, I received more than an iota of push-back to the preceding essay.  (Imagine my surprise.)  Of course, what else might one expect from a brigade of skittish American super-patriots yearning to feel like “real men” by packing heat (and who’s literacy is inadequate to comprehend the single sentence of which the 2nd Amendment is comprised)?

Why the obduracy with which some Americans misinterpret such a simple statement?  Why the epidemic of gun fetishism that is so unique to the United States of America?  From what I’ve been able to gather, firearms serve as prosthetics for masculinity…even as they are wielded under other pretenses.  Behold the enticing prospect of being someone prepared to boldly met out vigilante justice in the perilous hell-scape that is the American heartland.  Why guns?  American lore has glorified the gun-toting paladin–quick on the draw and ready to hit his target for the next cinematic set-piece.  For those taken in by this fever dream, these accoutrements of over-compensation have been rendered symbols of star-spangled manhood.

This enthralling fantasy is realized by imagining oneself engaging in some harrowing feat of derring-do…while brandishing a firearm, of course.  (Special-ops gear is a nice added touch.  Flag-waving is optional.)  These shiny, metallic prosthetics are as pitiable as they are militaristic.  It is this peculiar fetish that serves as the primary psychical fulcrum by which some unwittingly misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.  And it explains why certain parties are DETERMINED to misinterpret it.

As is generally the case with gnawing insecurity, overcompensation is made manifest by displays of swaggering fatuity, whereby the man feels the need to telegraph his manliness by emulating the latest action star.  The key is to employ a trendy surrogate for valor without actually having to do anything valorous.

The comedy of insecure (mostly white) men mistaking their pusillanimity for gumption is a kind of self-parody.  It brings to mind hapless adolescents lashing out against a bewildering world in self-destructive ways.  After all, it is not uncommon for someone who easily feels intimidated to react by trying to intimidate others.  It is no secret that the bully is typically the most insecure kid on the playground. *

Any man with imperiled masculinity is invited to partake in such cos-play–which, he supposes, might salvage his wavering self-esteem (that is: insofar as he manages to convince himself that–by engaging in this daffy masquerade–he is taking a bold stand for “freedom”).  The idea–it seems–is that, having cast himself in a titillating cinematic set-piece, the raft of festering anxiety about his man-hood might be magically eradicated. 

Thus the gun-fetishist imagines himself to be that swaggering cowboy–or that bad-ass military commando–over which he fawned as a young lad.  His hope is that such contrived braggadocio will somehow magically ameliorate his gnawing insecurities.

Pursuant to my disquisition on the 2nd Amendment, there remained the question of why I did not address gang-related gun-violence amongst ethnic minorities in urban neighborhoods.   This is, indeed, a very important issue; yet has little relation to misrepresentations of the U.S. Constitution.  Such violence occurs due to a confluence of two things.  First: Mostly black and Latino youth in impoverished neighborhoods who have become embroiled in gang activity–largely as a matter of course.  Second: The proliferation of–and ubiquitous easy access to–guns.  Those involved in such activities do not use the 2nd Amendment as justification for “bearing arms”.

The problem in such cases is not psychical insecurity; it is socio-economic insecurity.  That is to say, the circumstance is not one of IMAGINED danger; it is one of ACTUAL danger.  Moreover, for wayward youth in inner cities with limited options, the bearing of arms oftentimes stems from a (perceived) need for street-cred.  Ironically, though, the demand to be armed with a gun ends up serving as a catalyst for aggression as much as it does a deterrent to aggression.  Of course, the same is the case for ANYONE in ANY situation who opts to brandish a firearm in a potentially dangerous encounter.  The chances of being shot always INCREASE when one introduces a gun into the equation.

In sum: We are dealing with a situation of GENUINE desperation amongst poor ethnic minorities in urban settings–that is: those who find themselves in a predicament that rarely exists for the legions of (white, middle-class) “gun rights” advocates.  For when disenfranchised youth “pack heat” in rough neighborhoods, they are being (tragically) pragmatic rather than (needlessly) neurotic.  More to the point: For such youth, there is no pretense that the decision has anything to do with a document that white men–who’d enslaved some of their ancestors–drafted centuries ago.

THAT regrettable gun-culture–highly problematic as it is–is rather beside the point when it comes to assaying misapprehensions about the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding the pathology addressed in the preceding essay, we are concerned with an entirely different phenomenon–one that generally emerges amongst conservative white men.  The salient factors in THOSE cases are quite different from gang-related gun-violence.

At the risk of flogging a steed that is already deceased, let’s recapitulate the appraisal.  We can then move on to new points that buttress my thesis.

In the final analysis, it is clear that some combination of ignorance (of history) and insecurity is behind the proliferation of myths about the 2nd Amendment–things that are not salient factors for inner-city youths enveloped in gang activity.

As discussed in the preceding essay, the affectation known as “machismo” (a yearning to exhibit masculinity by men who are nervous about the perceived status of their man-hood) stems from deep-seated psychical insecurities; not from realistic concerns about safety.  (The same neuroses are at play with the bombastic false pride characteristic of super-patriotism.)  It makes sense, then, that gun-fetishists imagine that they need lethal firearms to be safe in what they see as a threatening world…even when the most threatening thing in their life is often their own militant disposition.  Naturally, it is they who end up resorting to specious appeals to a chimerical “right to bear arms”.

And what of “arms”?  What range of weaponry does this encompass?  At the time that the Amendment-in-question was composed, “arms” referred to muskets—which were manually loaded.  The term now encompasses not on arquebuses, but AK-47s; so are we to suppose that the provision applies to such devices.

The question naturally arises: Where does the applicability end?

Suppose, for a moment, that there is no end.  Using that logic, we must allow “arms” to include rocket launchers and fighter jets.  Indeed, taken to the extreme, “arms” includes NUCLEAR arms. ****

With this in mind, we are forced to concede that a line must be drawn…somewhere…short of affording anyone anywhere the license to stockpile nuclear warheads of their own volition.  Yet the moment we concede this point, we realize that said line can be placed anywhere beyond an 18th-century, flintlock rifle.  In other words: Somewhere between pistols and ICBMs.

By what criteria shall such a line be drawn?  The ultimate standard is the safety and security of the citizenry (viz. the “Free State”).  This vaunted ideal seems to be historically salient; and Constitutionally mandated.  So let’s grant that the safety and security of the citizenry (“the general welfare”, per the Constitution’s preamble) is the ideal to which we aspire.

In the early days of the Republic, a civilian militia had to be equipped with arms (in order to fulfill its charge)…toward that very end.  Today, as the need for a civilian militia no longer exists, allowing for the proliferation of guns has proven to be diametrically opposed to that end.  (Higher availability of guns correlates with higher casualties.)  Hence conditions for the specified right no longer attain.  In other words, the 4th-cum-2nd Amendment is not relevant anymore.  Consequently, the provisions germane thereto are moot.

Another matter remains worth broaching.  When challenged on the credence of his chronic apprehension-verging-on-paranoia, the gun-fetishist will typically concoct an outrageous scenario that, it turns out, exists only in his imagination.  In other words, to justify his perceived “need” to arm himself, he is apt to posit a slew of melodramatic hypotheticals; then insist every responsible citizen be prepared should those hypotheticals ever become a reality.

Consequently, it has become routine for gun-fetishists to conjecture menacing encounters in which–they presume–ANYONE would wish they had a gun at the ready.  The idea is that the gun will be wielded to engage in some sort of spectacular shoot-out with imagined perpetrators.  The perilous episode is assumed to culminate in a triumphant conclusion: a grand finale in which the “good guys”–having adeptly availed themselves of their trusty fire-arms–prevail; and the “bad guys” are defeated.  Thanks to the former being armed, the latter are stopped before they can wreak havoc on society.

This “just so” story serves a purpose.  The dastardly villains are vanquished, we are notified, EXPLICITLY due to the fact that the “good guys” were exercising their “right” to bear arms.  This fortuitous exigency is a godsend for which we all have the 2nd Amendment to thank.  The “catch”, of course, is that–no matter the nature of the confrontation–the end-game is murder.  But never mind that.  Any hypothetical predicament shall be resolved with lethal force.  Film at 11.

The key here, of course, is that all those imaginary scenarios require one to be armed with a lethal weapon…just like the hero in an action-packed Hollywood production.  Never mind that such things almost never play out–as such–in the real world.

Undeterred by the implausibility of his musings, the gun-fetishist is obliged to keep speculating: “But what happens if…” followed by some hair-raising situation that is unlikely to ever occur.  “You’ll sure as heck wish you had a gun THEN,” warns the self-proclaimed champion of “gun rights”.  The punch-line is delivered after having painted a lurid picture of some menacing kerfuffle–a hypothetical predicament that he insists we should all be worried about.  “And THAT is why we need the 2nd Amendment.”  Q.E.D.

Hence: With an ample dose of delusion, insecurity is transmogrified into gallantry.  By picturing oneself in any of these imaginary scenarios, one’s low self-esteem can be passed off as bravado–as one’s fears are washed away by a flourish of ass-kicking.  This gratifying psychical perk explains why gun-fetishists really, really, really don’t like being called out as gun-fetishists.  For it exposes their neurosis, thereby depriving them of their starring role as the stentorian defender of law and order.

The psychology here is relatively straight-forward.  In order to compensate for a raft of (suppressed) insecurities, the gun-fetishist imputes to himself a nascent valor…which will be demonstrated the moment he gets to prove himself in this made-for-TV set-piece.  He is only able to convince himself that this (ersatz) valor is REAL by conjuring an array of dangerous situations that, he supposes, he could find himself in any day of the week.  That way, he is always prepared to “save the day” with his trusty firearm.  Every day, he can wake up convinced that he is asserting his ordained role as super-patriot–just as any “real man” should.  Who could possibly argue with such a noble aspiration?

In reality, no such (immanent) danger is forthcoming…for the vast majority of people living in a civil society.  The comically-contrived scenarios (requisite for this foreboding illusion to attain) turn out to be highly improbable…even for many of those living in higher-crime areas.  Indeed, such hypothetical predicaments are no more likely than, say, a lightning strike between one’s eyes.  But no matter.  For the gun-fetishist FEELS LIKE he’s ready to come to the rescue…that is, so long as he has his trusty fire-arm on hand. 

This delusive impression can be tremendously gratifying; for the gun-slinging paladin can revel in the belief that he his protecting himself and his kin…simply by being armed.  So far as he’s concerned, that wonderfully exhilarating sensation (of being a “real man”) is ultimately all that matters.

And so it is plain to see that this charade is predicated on festering neuroticism that has been blithely disguised as some stalwart “patriotism”.  The problem, though, is that one must suppose a phantom menace may be lurking around every corner…or, at least, on the perimeter of one’s own property.  In these daffy hypotheticals, petty thieves who sneak into one’s domicile to pilfer expensive jewelry (or pricy consumer goods or whatever else) shall be re-imagined as fiendish intruders hell-bent on massacring the entire family.  The only way one might protect one’s cowering brood from these criminals, the thinking goes, is by KILLING them…just as it happened in [insert favorite action movie here].  We’re all better off with guns, because someone else somewhere “out there” might have them too.  Gotta be ready to fight fire with fire!  (And, meanwhile, presume that everyone is a crack shot.)

What are the implications here?  Some teen misfits–who’s only designs are run-of-the-mill burglary–can be re-cast as a murderous posse that can only be stopped with lethal force (read: with FIREPOWER).  It’s as if murder were somehow the optimal resolution to any and every conceivable confrontation with (potentially illicit) interlopers.  Just like in the movies.

By fancying that such a predicament may be immanent, those with low self-esteem can style themselves as heroes-in-waiting…if only in their own minds.  The prospect of being someone who has helped vanquish the world’s (perceived) “bad guys” is tremendously appealing for men have few other ways to prove their man-hood.  In the meantime, they can bide their time shooting at paper targets…in preparation for that glorious moment of fame that awaits them.

And so we hear outlandish hypotheticals whenever an argument for “gun rights” arises.  In proffering such ominous dilemmas, any sense of social responsibility is transmogrified into a hankering to participate in vigilante justice.  Confabulating these “just so” scenarios affords the gun-fetishist a rationalization for his obsession–enabling him to pass his fetish off as a civic duty.  No longer does his gnawing insecurity seem to undermine his masculinity; for an insecurity can be re-purposed as an opportunity to flaunt the kind of tough-guy image for which he pines.  It may be an image he has adapted from first-person shooter video-games and cinematic gun-fights, but so be it.  (The same psychical mechanisms are at work with the typical playground bully.)

The attendant attitude can be summarized thus: “Don’t want an AR-15?!  What are you, a pussy?!”  As usual, the braggadocio is nothing more than compensation for some short-coming.  (In the midst of his self-ingratiating bluster, the gun-fetishist is reticent to admit that the only gun a real man needs is the one between his legs.)  For those addled with presentiment, brandishing a lethal weapon is a surefire way to pretend one is a freedom fighter–prepared to heed the call of duty (as soon as he can find his holster).  So far as this self-styled super-patriot is concerned, anyone who neglects this sacred call is–ipso facto–a pansy.  For to NOT play along in this charade MUST be deemed an obsequious dereliction of American patriotism.  (The only alternative is that his OWN patriotism is an illusion.)

The notion that more guns proliferating in society leads to more public safety is downright bonkers.  For self-defense, you say?  In the late 18th century, a firearm could deploy two rounds per minute–three if one was extremely expedient at re-loading.  This limited a gun’s utility to a battlefield or to hunting game (and to duals).  Clearly, the Framers did not have in mind the ability to fire a gun multiple times during an altercation in a domestic context (e.g. to ward off burglars).  Needing only ONE SHOT to use in an encounter with intruders / assailants is the stuff of farce, even if everyone with a gun were expert marksmen.  (Consider the time between shots.  After half a minute has elapsed, whatever situation warranted lethal force would have developed past the point of relevance.  By the time one would have re-packed the musket with gun-powder, presumably in a panic, the pivotal moment would have likely come and gone.)  Hence, at the time the Amendment-in-question was drafted, such a purpose would not have made any sense. **

We find, then, that there is an ample dose of delusion endemic to the gun-fetishist’s fever dream.  For these are the same men–mostly middle-class, white men living in rural areas–who imagine that if they ever opted to mobilize a coterie of their gun-toting brethren, they could take on the full might of the U.S. armed forces…and presumably overthrow the federal government.  They are prepared to undertake this quixotic venture whenever they see fit.  When might that be?  Well, the moment said coterie decides that the government is being insufficiently deferential to their demands.  So they imagine–against all evidence–that the license to wage war against the U.S. military has something to do with the 2nd Amendment…which, in reality, was drafted to PREVENT such an occurrence.

Hence a measure undertaken to preclude insurrection is taken as an open invitation to stage a coup.  Duty to the State is construed as duty to oneself; and an individual right is born from the aether.

How can we be so sure the 2nd Amendment was written to SUPPRESS insurrections, not to FACILITATE them?  Well, if we were to conjecture–against all evidence, and against all common sense–that the recognition of a “well-regulated militia” was to ensure disgruntled civilians could stage a coup at their own discretion, we would be forced to suppose that, on March 3, 1807, Thomas Jefferson signed into law the Insurrection Act to COUNTERMAND the very thing that said Amendment was put in place to ENABLE.

Of course, that would make no sense. ***

Clearly, the Act was consummate with 2nd Amendment; and vice versa.  Indeed, the “security of a Free State” is precisely what the Act was designed to protect.  Given that there was no standing army, invoking a “well-regulated militia” (comprised of white, male civilians…who were already equipped with their own arms) was pivotal.  At no point did “We want to make sure civilians can overthrow the government” enter Jefferson’s mind.  On the contrary, the “Insurrection Act” was passed to make sure civilians COULDN’T overthrow the government.  To wit: It was a measure that was perfectly in keeping with the 2nd Amendment.

Such legislation illustrated the spirit behind the 2nd Amendment; which was clearly apprehended at the time.  To wit: Such legislation was understood to be in keeping with that Amendment.  Otherwise, there would have been strident dissent in the form of: “Well, what about the 2nd Amendment?!” whenever such legislation was deliberated upon.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 also illustrates the role of said “militias”.  Passed just over 15 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, this legislation gave the FEDERAL government the right to deputize civilians who were serving in state militias (specified at the time as “land and naval forces”) in order to put down (not facilitate) insurrections—that is: to serve at the pleasure of the State.  (This was an update to the so-called “Calling Forth” Act of 1792, which also pertained to “militias”, as the term was used in the Constitution.  That legislation was drafted just 4 months after the Bill of Rights was ratified.)  But wait?  Would service to the Federal government take precedence over service to state-level militias?  Yes.  In 1861, a stipulation was added to the Insurrection Act, clarifying that the Federal government could use local militias against state governments in cases where the latter tried to contravene the former.  To suppose that “well-regulated militia” had something to do with enabling a coup is therefore bonkers.

An illustration of this Act’s application was John F. Kennedy’s deputization of Alabama’s National Guard to countermand the local police in June of 1963.  It did not occur to many that THAT was the 2nd Amendment in action.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 empowered the federal government to commandeer state militias to combat anyone who attempted to violate the civil rights of other citizens.  In other words, the militia was understood to be working at the pleasure of the federal government–with logistics managed at the state level.  This is what President Lyndon Johnson demonstrated almost a century later, when he doubled down on Kennedy’s invocation of the statute.  In March of 1965, when there was civic unrest in Alabama, he used the National Guard OF ALABAMA.  The federal government thus usurped the jurisdiction of the state’s governor, who had defaulted on his duties.

So when private militia groups TODAY invoke the 2nd Amendment to justify their mobilization as a means to keep the State in check, they are effectively inverting the meaning of “militia” as it was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries.  The ONLY meaning of “militia”—as used in the Constitution’s main body—was clearly illustrated with the aforementioned Insurrection Act.

There is an irony here; as the Amendment-in-question was ORIGINALLY intended to address concerns that a militia controlled solely by the federal government would be inadequate to help plantation owners in the event of a slave uprising.  The idea was that each state should have its own contingent so that militiamen could be at the beck and call of local slavers, as the occasion arose.  This point was articulated during the Constitution’s ratification convention in Virginia (primarily by Patrick Henry and George Mason).  Madison was persuaded to include the Amendment in order to mollify Southerners who insisted on being able to use militias at the state level.  Why?  In order to quell slave revolts.

Madison was also interested in the role that militias would play in colonizing North America.  Indeed, the other major concern at the time was the ability to handle Native Americans who resisted the hegemony of white settlers as they moved westward on the frontier.

Hence guns were needed to kill unruly negroes and unruly Indians.  This is a long way from wanting to arm school teachers so that they can get into shoot-outs with mass murders who are wielding AR-15s…presumably in a classroom full of students.  In our ardor to keep guns in circulation, we find ourselves going from one nightmare to another.

(For further legislation that illustrates the meaning of “well-regulated militia”, see the discussion of the Dick Act in Footnote 38 above.)

That leaves us with the matter of judicial developments.  When it comes to relevant juridical exigencies, we often encounter the “But what about D.C. v. Heller?” rejoinder.  This refers to the risible 2008 Supreme Court decision…wherein a cadre of unabashedly right-wing judges countermanded over a century of precedent in a ploy to hold what was theretofore untenable: That the 2nd Amendment leaves some room for individual rights (that is: prerogatives outside the scope of someone serving the State…in a well-regulated militia).  Scalia’s majority opinion was utterly dismaying, as it flouted a century of scholarship–notably: U.S. v. Miller in 1939, a decision that re-affirmed the provisional right as contingent on someone bearing arms in the capacity of a militiaman.

This was a case of Kafka-esque jurisprudence.  In 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger had characterized such an expansionist treatment of the amendment as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud–I repeat the word FRAUD–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”  After the D.C. v. Heller decision, retired Justice John Paul Stevens referred to it as “unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.”

This opprobrious decision joined a list of horrible Supreme Court decisions, starting with Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896…through Korematsu v. U.S. in 1944…to Citizens United v. F.E.C. in 2010.  In a country where corporations are treated as people and money is treated as speech, it is no surprise that a right-leaning court saw fit to tacitly endorse voter suppression (from Giles v. Harris to Shelby County v. Holder)…and, in 2008, to contravene the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment.

It was no secret that Scalia and Thomas were extreme right-wing ideologues who cared nothing about “original intent”, and even less about any notion of common law.  Yet–tellingly–even in his majority opinion, Scalia included the caveat: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”  He felt obliged to point out that the amendment did NOT constitute “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”  In other words, even the author of this outrageous opinion was forced to concede that there was no CATEGORICAL right to bear arms.  The need to hedge in this manner said more about the decision than anything else.

The extremists on the Supreme Court bench even went so far as to proclaim their heedlessness of history.  In an “obiter dictum”, the court openly admitted (with surprising candor): “Although we have not undertaken an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment…”  No shit.

It comes as little surprise, then, that rather than the usual single dissent, two separate dissents were issued (one by Stephen Breyer, one by John Paul Stevens), each of which were endorsed by R.B. Ginsberg and D. Souter.  Needless to say, both dissents exhibited the erudition of their authors–contrasting starkly with the utter speciousness of the majority opinion.

Alas, the perpetration of judicial fraud was just beginning.  In 2022, with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a new cadre of right-wing judges proffered an outlandish opinion regarding the Sullivan Act of 1911.  There was a perverse irony to this; as the Act-in-question actually CORROBORATED the obsolescence of the 2nd Amendment.  How so?  It was a state-level law enacted in New York that required those applying for a pistol-carrying permit to show “proper cause” (or demonstrate some sort of special need that was independent of upholding the public good) to qualify.  In other words, it was recognized that the 2nd Amendment was inadequate for such license, thereby putting the onus on the applicant to show why carrying a firearm was warranted.  That the court in 2022 expanded the prerogative to bear arms UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT, and purported to do so based upon the spirit of the Sullivan Act, was downright preposterous.  Alas, Orwellian interpretations is the stock in trade of Constitutional revisionists.

History reveals a drastically different precedent.  Looking back to Presser v. Illinois (in 1886), we find that the court opted to disconnect the provisional “right” from membership in a “militia” OF ONE’S OWN MAKING.  The decision made clear that the right was afforded explicitly for the good of the Republic; and pertained to service to the State–whereby a well-regulated militia was something mobilized by the federal government in time of collective need.  (It left it to state governments to regulate guns, which–it was careful to note–needed to be regulated.)  Clearly, the right-in-question was recognized as a contingency, given that the exigency specified in the conditional statement still attained (under certain circumstances).  One could have argued that this exigency existed up until the Second World War (read: the birth of the Pentagon).  In fact, a professional / standing army had clearly been in place since as far back as the First World War, so the conditional clause of the Amendment no longer had purchase.

And so it went: In 1939, the U.S. v. Miller decision linked civilians’ bearing of arms to “the common defense”.  Here, the right was limited to males who were deemed physically capable of serving in that capacity; and were “enrolled for military discipline”.  Incidentally, the necessary arms were to be supplied by the citizens themselves, not by the State…which accounted for the (continued) need for the Amendment.

Then World War II happened.  Thereafter, the Department of War (euphemistically re-branded the Department of Defense) would become a permanent fixture in the Executive Branch, which ensured the Amendment’s condition would remain un-satisfied indefinitely…thereby rendering the predicate null and void.

What the Framers did NOT anticipate is that gun-culture would become a way of life.  There is no way they could have foreseen that “bearing arms” would transmogrify into a uniquely American pathos–a pathos that would abide far beyond the original conception of white men keeping muskets at their homestead for the purpose of ensuring the security of a free State.

And so it has come to pass that there exist swarms of insecure white men–most of them Christian nationalists and right-wing libertarians–who imagine themselves to be swashbucklers-in-the-making.  They aspire to personify certain coveted ideals (masculinity, patriotism) simply by toting a gun and waving a flag.  The enticing prospect of starring in their own action-sequence is difficult to resist–especially when the dream is always (literally) at the tip of one’s fingers.

This pathology is predicated on an illusion, and fueled by a perpetually-stoked neurosis.  In any given (hypothetical) scenario, the imagined adversary could be a wayward burglar or it could be a purportedly overbearing federal government.  It doesn’t matter.  To justify their right to bear arms UNCONDITIONALLY, they need only say one thing–as if it were a magical incantation: “Second Amendment!”  What Second Amendment?  Well, a fictional one in which the condition is elided.

Such perfidy brings to mind to the cheeky adage: “The only gun a real man needs is the one between his legs.”  So what, then, of men who covet guns?  As it turns out, having fire-power on one’s person is a way to ameliorate feelings of inadequacy (specifically for self-conscious men with wavering self-esteem).  A gnawing insecurity underlies the need to carry a lethal implement to feel safe; or–insofar as it serves as a prosthesis for masculinity–to feel like a “real man”.  Here, we’re talking about the kind of people who felt the need to buy more guns during the corona-virus pandemic in 2020.  (The thinking seemed to be: “More than medicine, we need to be able to kill people!”)

A pre-occupation with the 2nd Amendment amounts to a collective pathology–a pathology that has been engineered by gun / ammo manufacturers in order to drum up business (see the Appendix above).

Indeed, provincial America’s on-going obsession with guns is the result of a savvy business strategy.  It is no secret that epidemic gun-fetishism fuels a booming firearms industry in the U.S.  The NRA’s sole purpose is to bolster the revenue of gun and ammunition manufacturers; not to foster public safety.  (Gun possession puts people in MORE danger, not less.)  Hence the “you need to protect yourself with lethal weapons” narrative is a red herring.  Nobody needs to be able to kill others in order to be safe.  Yet the MIS-IMPRESSION that this might be the case translates to blockbuster sales for the firearms industry.

The operative principle in this on-going ruse is elementary: Create the demand, then a bonanza awaits.  The commonweal be damned.

This perfidious gambit is especially effective in rural areas, where the vigilante mentality tends to have more resonance.  Consequently, the absurd “right to protect yourself” bromide is swallowed hook, line, and sinker by insecure white men in provincial settings.  They construe this god-given license as a proxy for an etherial abstraction referred to as “freedom”.

And so it goes: Across America’s hinterlands, a fabricated hysteria (we live in a dangerous world) drives the “self-defense” mania (so you need to protect yourself with lethal weapons).  Ergo the pathology from which the gun industry profits…at the expense of everyone’s ACTUAL safety.

Once one sees peril everywhere–from one’s own front porch to every Bed, Bath, and Beyond–, it almost seems to make sense that one should arm oneself with a lethal weapon. 

The result of this queer cocktail of machismo and neurosis is an earnest consumer and a highly lucrative arms market.  In other words: fear and avarice.

In sum: American gun-fetishists are little more than dupes of a gun lobby that rhapsodizes about chimerical “2nd Amendment rights”, when–in reality–they couldn’t care less what that Amendment actually says.

Such militancy is a reminder that insecure self-esteem is born of repressed existential distress–be it anxiety or resentment or frustration or just a hankering to play the tough guy in a melodrama that exists only in one’s own mind.  But here’s the thing: Liberty no more depends on one being able to kill others than patriotism depends on unblinking sycophancy.  Alas.  The chance to be the embodiment of “LIBERTY” is hard to resist for those who don’t know the first thing about what actual liberty might be.

*   *   *

{*  Ancillary note: Men do not need to be emasculated in order to avert toxic masculinity (i.e. the pathology of machismo that undergirds gun fetishism).  Well-adjusted men embrace their masculinity just as well-adjusted women embrace their femininity.  The mitigation of sexism does not require the vitiation of gender; it simply entails a judicious treatment of sexual differences, which are perfectly in keeping with an abiding recognition of our common humanity.  The problem with a fixation on the “Mr. Tough Guy” ethos is not a surfeit of masculinity; it’s a dearth of it.}

{**  The kind of shoot-outs we see in cinematic set-pieces from the Old West (wherein guns could be fired multiple times in any given confrontation) involved technology that was not available until almost a century later.  Samuel Colt patented the first revolver in 1836, but that was a crude muzzle-loader.  Smith and Wesson patented the Rollin White design in 1856.  The Colt .45 was first manufactured in 1873.  The notion of every Tom, Dick, and Harry walking around with semi-automatic handguns (with spring-loaded clips) would have seemed outlandish to those who drafted the Amendment-in-question.}

{***  Any subsequent invocation of the Insurrection Act would need to be to uphold–among other things–the 2nd Amendment.  Given the farcical interpretation, though, this would effectively mean: “We are going to use the powers of the federal government to protect your ability to rise up against the federal government.”  How?  “By preventing anyone from rising up against the federal government.”  It’s not only a paradox; it’s a DUAL paradox.}

{****  On the other hand, if we were to employ the logic of gun-fetishists, one might say that nuclear weapons don’t obliterate cities; people obliterate cities.}