The Obsolescence Of The 2nd Amendment

Postscript 2

At the risk of further pummeling a mare that’s already been bludgeoned to death, I offer further elaboration on the preceding Postscript.

To review: In the 18th century, a “well-regulated militia” meant a group of white male citizens who–in their capacity of serving the government–were accorded the right to “keep and bear” muskets.  (There is question as to the degree to which “keeping” X entailed OWNING X; as opposed to being equipped with X on a contingency basis.  Meanwhile, “bearing” something simply means wielding it.)  Approved members were beholden to the State in order to ensure the State’s security; and, in that vain, responded to the orders of the state’s governor…and, as the occasion warranted, President. 

As I discussed, such men were subject to inspection by army personnel to ensure they were up to the task, and that their equipment was well maintained.  They were provided with flints, bayonets, power, and even footwear–as needed–to ensure they were adequately equipped to fulfill their charge.

All this was at the pleasure of the State.  It had nothing to do with concerns about burglary; and it was certainly not a prescription for armed bands of marauders claiming “militia” status; nor was it a license for (lethal) vigilante justice.

So why did southern politicians lobby so vociferously for an amendment that ensured white, landowning men would be equipped to serve in their capacity as militiamen?  The two primary reasons were slave patrols and the ability to fight off Native Americans.  (The need for slave patrols was most famously emphasized by Patrick Henry; but it was a concern for ALL politicians south of the Mason-Dixon line.)  Today, BOTH of those purposes are categorically obsolete.

To be clear: Slave patrols were a priority at the time the Amendment-in-question was drafted; which is why the Fugitive Slave Act was passed in early 1793—less than 14 months after the Bill of Rights was ratified. **  Fugitive Slave laws mandated that wayward slaves were hunted down and returned to their owners.  During this ignominious period in American history, who was charged with catching escaped slaves?  The MILITIAS (in conjunction with Federal Marshals).  Slave patrols were officially commissioned by the states, which is why military-style training facilities were established—most notably: the Arsenal at Lexington, Virginia (spearheaded by John Thomas Lewis Preston in 1836) followed by the Citadel and Arsenal Academies in South Carolina (in 1842). ***

State militias also served as local police forces.  That has ALSO been rendered obsolete, as municipal police departments were established starting in the 1850’s (then the FBI in the 1930’s).

In sum: We live in a much different world than the one with which the Framers were contending.

Bear in mind, at the time, standing / professional armies were seen as a potential threat to the Republic.  This sentiment was virtually unanimous; and was forcefully articulated by Madison in 1788 during the Virginia ratifying convention.  Consequently, a well-regulated civilian militia was necessary.  Here, “well-regulated” meant “subjected to government oversight” and “sufficiently equipped”.  After all, if the militias existed to serve the State, then the State had to MAINTAIN those militias.  And if (white, male) civilians were to be charged with this responsibility, then—naturally—they needed to be armed.

Militias as a means of staging a coup, you say?  Let’s leave aside, for a moment, the (outrageous) delusion that a battalion of civilians who’ve stockpiled rifles in their basements would somehow prevail over the entire U.S. armed forces; and consider the notion that a “well-regulated militia” was REALLY intended to overthrow the U.S. government…should the need to do so arise.  But wait.  If the Founders were so concerned about the State being overthrown by a standing / professional army, then obviously they were not eager to create an ALTERNATE means by which the State could be overthrown by force of arms. (!)  The point of resorting to a civilian militia was to have something that would NOT be capable of overthrowing the State.

In a democratic country, it’s not an un-armed populace that leaves itself open to tyranny; it’s a populace that doesn’t know how to vote wisely.  Ammo-paths are under the bizarre impression that political dysfunction is ameliorated by firing bullets rather than by enacting better laws.  Indeed, they seem to miss the point of, well, representative democracy: To elect—then pressure—public servants to pass better legislation.

Susceptibility to tyranny stems from a deterioration in the integrity of the demos.  Such a woeful condition is not precluded by ensuring everyone is packing heat.  In a civil society, rights are protected by promoting certain public policies, not by lethal force.  This is, after all, how participatory democracy works.

What, exactly, drives all the misapprehensions about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?  In a word: Propaganda.  Let’s look at three (utterly inane) shibboleths that have become popular in the past half-century.

ONE:  If we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.  This statement is merely a tautology.  If we outlaw bank robbery, then only bank robbers will rob banks.  Shall we conclude from this that it is pointless to prohibit heists?  Those determined to have guns are not deterred from acquiring them.  If anything, their motivation to acquire guns is AUGMENTED.

TWO:  The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  Applying this logic to the nuclear arms race has put mankind on the brink of extinction.  Counter-armament is not the best response to armament…lest one desires a positive feedback loop.  Antagonism rarely de-escalates a hostile situation.  Obviously, if there is an active mass shooter who cares nothing about dying, incapacitating him is the only solution.  But most criminals are seeking to save their own hides.  When their goal is something other than murder, introducing guns into the equation makes everyone LESS safe.

THREE:  Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people.  Similarly, pencils don’t mis-spell words, PEOPLE mis-spell words.  But pencils aren’t designed to mis-spell words.  To wit: A pencil is not realizing its potential by botching language.  A pencil is designed to make markings on paper.  That’s it.  Insofar as it can do this, a pencil has fulfilled its purpose—AS a pencil.  Many things with a pro-social raison d’etre can also, unfortunately, play a role in casualties—that is: in the event of a mishap.  Be that as it may, pools aren’t designed to drown people; cars aren’t designed to run people over; and butter knives aren’t designed to gouge people’s eyes out.  The designated utility of such things justifies their existence, in spite of the fact that their existence may lead to injuries—or even fatalities—should someone conduct themselves irresponsibly.

By contrast, guns are designed to deploy lethal force.  One can murder a person by jabbing a pencil into their carotid artery; but that’s not what pencils are made for.  (Their existence is justified by a different utility.)  Using a pencil as a puncturing tool exploits its physical features in ways that have nothing to do with its designated purpose.  The same goes for incompetent swimmers drowning in pools, pedestrians killed by reckless drivers, and diners blinded by errant butter knives.  To outlaw aquatic recreation, automobiles, and silverware would be to miss the point.

Not so with guns.

Some gun-rights advocates question the efficacy of mitigating the circulation of firearms—pointing to urban centers that have implemented gun-control measures yet still have a surfeit of gun violence.  Such advocates fail to realize that unless such measures are taken EVERYWHERE, then guns can wind up ANYWHERE.  Clearly, guns used in criminal acts are acquired in places where guns are readily available.  Implementing such a policy in only some places is like have a designated non-peeing section in a swimming pool.

When it comes to assessing the results of robust gun-mitigation measures, far better case-studies would be Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and—most strikingly of all—Japan.  The verdict is conclusive: such measures WORK.

The peculiar role of guns in American lore is the semiotic fulcrum for what can only be described as a zany incarnation of hyper-nationalism.  In addition to a litany of vapid perorations about (some farcical version of) “the Constitution”, the toting of firearms marks this uniquely American pathology.  Such hijinks are lent an air of legitimacy by propounding a farcical version of the 2nd Amendment.  The result is (what sociologists refer to as) super-patriotism, wherein a firearm serves as a signifier for, well, some obtuse conception of “patriotism”.

This ersatz virtue is–effectively–a WASP-oriented cult movement characterized by maudlin pageantry. It also involves exhibitions of machismo–as participants fashion themselves as swaggering buccaneers, ready to met out vigilante justice as the occasion arises. Their machismo is enabled by (what amounts to) a prosthetic for masculinity.

So what of amassing a personal arsenal?  When it comes to the mobilization of private militias today, we see gun-fetishists trying to ameliorate their insecurities with ever more purchases—as if stockpiling lethal weapons might serve as a proxy for the machismo they so ardently crave.  Hence the mere prospect of being deprived of their beloved firearms makes them feel emasculated.  For not only would that be like depriving a child of the safety blanket to which he so ardently clings; it would be taking away their prosthesis for masculinity.

The gun-fetishist’s self-image as an intrepid paladin depends on his ability to brandish armaments; and even exhibit them as an overt signifier of his status as a super-patriot.  As for fashioning himself a valiant hero, he resorts to laughably puerile platitudes like “The only thing that can stop a BAD guy with a gun is a GOOD guy with a gun.”  Gadzooks!

We all yearn to be heroes in our own story.  When one has low self-esteem, one is apt to grasp onto any narrative that makes this wish come true.  In this case, the protagonist is a gun-toting paladin…ready to swoop in and save the day…just like in the movies.  When it comes to insecure men, overcompensation manifests in various ways–be it plain ol’ misogyny or flag-waving bluster or daffy sartorial accoutrements.  “After all, the commandos on TV engage in open carry, so I should too.”

Basking in his own (manufactured) machismo, the 2nd-Amendment warrior brandishes his lethal accoutrement–thoroughly convinced that braggadocio is the loftiest form of civic-mindedness.  But in order to fancy himself as a valiant mercenary stud-muffin, he is obliged frame everything according to a sophomoric trope: REAL American patriots pack heat, because REAL American patriots are ready to kick ass.  Such delusive thinking invariably involves a cartoon version of masculinity.

The irony is that, in their earnest attempts to exhibit toughness, gun fetishists only end up showcasing their insecurities.

In an interview with the American Psychological Association, the clinical psychologist, Hector Torres noted that a “limited understanding of what it is to be male may lead us to aggression… By having a limited scope of coping mechanisms, we go very quickly to explosion and aggression.”  In other words: Insecurity often manifests as hostility.  In the context of faux masculinity, this typically translates to overwrought exhibitions of machismo.

And so it goes: A gun serves as a totem for the swashbuckling tough-guy: an identity that self-styled super-patriots so desperately covet.  What sort of men are taken in by these shenanigans?  The kind of men who feel threatened by, say, assertive women; or who feel emasculated by the promotion of gender equality.  Such men are convinced that militarist pretensions is the hallmark of being a “real man.”

Of course, the roots of gun-fetishism aren’t entirely about masculinity issues.  There are other insecurities that “packing heat” may ameliorate.  After all, a gun is not just a proxy for masculinity; it is a symbol of self-reliance (which can also be a tremendous source of gratification).  For some, firing–or just knowing one is ABLE to fire–a gun can be exhilarating.  It offers a “rush” to those who hanker for a surge of dopamine, and are bereft of other options.

In this sense, carrying a fire-arm serves as a kind of narcotic–conferring the same kind of sensation we experienced as children wielding toy weapons (from medieval swords to futuristic laser-guns).  Most children grow up; but some insist on playing make-believe into adulthood.  (It is no coincidence that gun-toting super-patriots engage in a kind of cos-play.  Their makeshift tough-guy ensemble typically comes with an array of rugged-looking sartorial accoutrements–each of which is lifted from the latest hair-raising film involving some dashing lead kicking ass.

The notion that self-reliance is somehow predicated on being able to KILL other people is so preposterous as to elicit both a cringe and a chuckle.  There’s a reason Henry David Thoreau did not include any firearms in his essay, “Where I Lived And What I Lived For”.  (Walden didn’t have an armory.)

Those clamoring to rationalize their gun-fetishism are inclined to concoct fantastical “just so” predicaments, designed to prompt the need for a gun-wielding hero (themselves) to swoop in and save the day.  The problem is that such scenarios are so outlandish as to be comical.  (Most are of the variety: “What if someone breaks into my home, and I fear for the life of my family?!?”)

Should such a scenario ever materialize, the thinking goes, it would warrant having firearms in one’s home.  Not so. Even if the proposed event occurred, it does not justify keeping / bearing arms.  Wielding a gun would actually make the imagined predicament WORSE.  After all, things often go sideways in panicked encounters; especially when guns are involved.  In concocting their titillating hypotheticals, those who obsess over “personal security” tend to confuse the pragmatic for the cinematic.

Short of mimicking some laughably-contrived scene out of an action movie (where the protagonist—always a crack shot—prevails in a hail of bullets), a plausible scenario has never been suggested wherein someone would be justified in having a gun; let alone killing intruders, who are generally not looking to commit murder.  Should robbers be armed, they will be apt to resort to lethal force only if they feel threatened.  Introducing guns into the equation—and thus the threat of death—invariably escalates what was already a tense situation; putting one—and one’s family—in MORE danger, not less.  To wit: The likelihood that a family member dies is HIGHER if one keeps / bears arms.  The dream of subduing the situation in a shoot-out (where the only casualties are villains) is far-fetched.  (That; and petty thieves don’t deserve the death penalty.)

The irony here is twofold: One is endangering oneself and one’s family even as one deigns to “protect” them; while one ends up exacerbating gun-violence overall by supporting pro-gun legislation.

So what’s the alternative?  Leave the robbers alone; and call the police.  Yes, the culprits may get away (for the time being); but nobody dies.  Meanwhile, if the perpetrator’s agenda is assassination (a scenario that is highly unlikely), then keeping a Glock in a lockbox is hardly going to resolve the issue.  Real life is not like prime-time dramas; as Reality tends not to hew to the choreography one envisions ex ante.

It should go without saying that no well-adjusted person yearns for killing power; especially not when living in a civil society.  But for those seeking existential ballast, imagining that they are SURVIVING in some sort of verging apocalypse has an allure.  As mentioned, entertaining these illusions enables gun fetishists to be the star of their own, personal action movie: a matinee that plays on constant repeat in their own minds.

“But we must have the right to protect ourselves!”  Such contrived neuroses often have a racial component–as exemplified by skittish white suburbanites who dread the scourge of colored folk infiltrating their pristine neighborhoods.  This “enemy at the gates” perception of the world does not stem merely from concerns about hordes of depraved ethnic minorities sullying magnificently homogenized suburban enclaves.  It is about maintaining real estate values.  As is usually the case, a siege mentality translates to militancy…which naturally leads to a hankering for lethal weapons.

Yet “safety” is the ostensive justification–a paranoia that leads such people to believe that “I need guns to protect my home; and keep my family safe!”  Of course, no SANE denizen of American suburbia finds the need to keep a Glock handy in a nightstand…on the off-chance an intruder may one day arrive to massacre the entire household.  And nobody who’s read the 2nd Amendment with open eyes would imagine it had any relevance to such (outlandish) hypotheticals.

A chronic sense of anxiety invariably stems from this siege mentality (what, in America, has become a collective neurosis). It seems that, morning ’til night, gun-fetishists are haunted by a nagging feeling that the enemy is at the gates–both literal and metaphorical.  (So we need to be prepped for battle!)

The right-wing propaganda machine has convinced an astounding number of Americans that anyone who questions the wisdom of profligate “gun rights” is—ipso facto—threatening to deprive you of your “freedom”.  The regulation of firearms is not REALLY about public safety, you see; it is about the American Gestapo coming for you!

So we hear zany things like “The Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment” and “A person’s right to bear arms is what prevents tyranny”: all of it based on garbled thinking.  First: The suggestion that free speech is predicated on the ability to use lethal force at one’s own discretion is bonkers.  Second: The notion that one prevents tyranny by amassing an armory of automatic weapons in one’s own back yard is also bonkers.  To contend that EITHER is what the drafters of the Bill Of Rights really meant is just plain silly.

It’s no wonder the conservative Supreme Court Justice, Warren Burger—an avid hunter—denounced the gun-lobby’s narrative as “a fraud on the American people.”  And it comes as no surprise that, behind closed doors, even the heads of the NRA refer to their most avid members as a bunch of “wackos”, “hillbillies”, “idiots”, and “fruitcakes”. *

At the end of the day, an abiding obsession with GUN rights trumps any concern for HUMAN rights.  Packing heat is not a civic act, let alone an act of humanity; rather, it is an attempt to burnish one’s own self image…and, the hope is, to forge a sense of camaraderie with fellow travelers in this big, dangerous world.  This neurosis quickly translates to ideology…and eventually to cult-like activity.  (Militia groups are often RELIGIOUS in some way.)   The first step in addressing this collective pathology is debunking myths about the 2nd Amendment.  The next step is disabusing ourselves of the star-spangled semiotics of super-patriotism–wherein men are moved to fashion themselves as modern-day buccaneers.

In light of the scourge of mass-shootings in the past two decades, it bears worth noting: Whereas once it was simply dishonest to pretend that the 2nd Amendment was anything but obsolete, it is now unconscionable.  If we cannot appeal to the intellect to sway proponents of “gun rights” from this odious pathology, perhaps we might try appealing to their sense of decency.

In the meantime, we might remind those who are so hopelessly infatuated with “gun rights” that gun regulation is nothing new.  Contrary to the laughably glamorized depictions found in American pop culture, during the “Old West” epoch, most frontier towns had strict gun laws.  Posted at the entrances to Dodge City, Kansas were signs stating: “The carrying of firearms is strictly prohibited” (as seen in photographs from the 1870’s).  Think of it this way: There would have been far fewer shoot-outs in the iconic American TV series, “Gunsmoke” had its (fictional) marshal, Matt Dillon, enforced Dodge City’s (actual) gun laws.

And so it went: Strict gun control was routine in towns across the Old West.  Nevertheless, the prevalence of Wild West mythology in American folklore ended up tying guns to masculinity.  The valiant cowboy was rendered an archetype of virulent manhood.  Consequently, firearms became a proxy for machismo—which may or may not have been connected to a sense of inadequacy.

A mark of insecurity was thereby passed off as a mark of valor.

It wasn’t long until an epidemic of gun fetishism served as a boon to the gun industry. It stands to reason, then, that the gun lobby subsidizes the propagation of this intoxicating mythos.  The yearning to be a swaggering super-patriot is now satiated by dressing up as a commando and wielding an AR-15.  Propounding this skewed narrative about the 2nd Amendment is stupendously lucrative for gun and ammo manufacturers; as well as for major retailers.  Their strategy follows an age-old formula: Create (the impression of) a sickness, then offer the (purported) cure.  In this case, the message is quite simple: “The enemy is at the gates, so you better be ready to take a stand!  If you’re not armed, then you risk being subjugated by a tyrannical regime at some point in the near future.”

And so it goes: A cartoonish “Wild West” mentality fuels American gun culture.  The irony is that gun fetishists today reject the types of laws that were commonplace on the frontier in the 19th century.  Why?  Well, because—like the dashing cowboys portrayed in “Westerns”—they want to swoop in, guns blazing, and save the day.  They are heroes in the cinematic extravaganza playing in their own minds.  All the while, they long to be heroes in the real world.  This beguiling prospect is only viable, though, if they are packing heat.  The idea is to prevail in a shoot-out.  After all, that’s how the protagonist triumphs over the dastardly villains in action movies.  It’s not the good guy with a lemonade stand that vanquishes the bad guys; it’s the one wielding the gun.

There is nothing valiant about taking the life of other humans.  So to justify their (imagined) need for “self-defense” via lethal means, proponents of “gun rights” are forced to confabulate perilous scenarios that reflect hair-raising scenes from the silver screen…outlandish predicaments in which they suppose they might find themselves.  (A common example: psychopaths lurking in the dark, plotting to break into their homes and slaughter their families.)  Another part of this delusive thinking: Each gun fetishist assumes he’s a crack shot, and will somehow MITIGATE the danger to innocent bystanders by introducing gun-fire into the equation.

Alas.  The fantasy about mowing down antagonists is too enticing for some to resist.  The prospect of doing so is the only way they can fashion themselves as (potentially) heroic figures in the real world.  The gun fetishist fancies himself as some kick-ass paladin—boldly holding the flag because America is so star-spangled fabulous that it allows anyone with a pulse to carry around an AR-15 on the off-chance he’ll find himself defending the Alamo some Tuesday afternoon between doing the laundry and watching the ballgame on TV.  In a world with too much artillery and not enough humanity, perhaps we should aspire to other things.

* * *

{*  Articulated by NRA president Marion Hammer, who was secretly recorded in a meeting convened immediately after the Columbine school shooting in 1999.  It was also admitted in the meeting that gun-toting was a matter of telegraphing machismo.}

{**  The original Fugitive Slave Act would be followed by a revised version in 1850.}

{***  The former is now known as the Virginia Military Institute.  The latter consolidated into the South Carolina Military Academy, and is now the Military College Of South Carolina.}