The Obsolescence Of The 2nd Amendment

Postscript 3

As we’ve seen, apologists for gun-fetishism routinely recite shibboleths as if they were pearls of wisdom—as with “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  To see if this is a valid point, re-apply the logic in another context, and see if it still holds water.  “Nuclear bombs don’t incinerate cities, people incinerate cities.”  In both cases, it only takes a person to pull the trigger (press a button) to bring about the result.  The key difference between Glocks and WMDs is the extent of the damage.  The underlying (specious) logic of the rationalization is the same.  (Imagine suggesting that more nation-States stockpiling more nuclear weapons MITIGATED the danger of nuclear war.)

So to properly assess this position, it is important to unpack the rhetoric. There are four primary mistakes that are made when mis-interpreting the 2nd Amendment.

The first: Ignoring the occurrence of certain words in a sentence. In this case, the words that are ignored are “well-regulated” (addressing the matter of gun regulation) and “militia” (addressing the context within which the “arms” were to be kept). The way gun-fetishists read the Amendment-in-question, one would think these words did not exist.

The second: Disregarding inter-textuality within the broader document. The third: Discounting antecedent documents. And the fourth: Failing to take into account relevant events that inform the motivations for the Amendment. Let’s look at each in turn.

• Eliding the conditional clause, as if the predicate existed in isolation:  It was during the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788 that Madison settled on the final wording of the Amendment-in-question.  In order to get the statement to say what they want it to say, revisionists are forced to pretend that the phrase, “the right to bear arms” existed in a vacuum. *
• Eliding the intra-textual context:  This involves refusing to recognize how the Amendment-in-question relates to the (pre-existing) statements made in the main body of the Constitution.  Ignoring how an amendment pertains to THAT WHICH IS BEING AMENDED is an elementary mistake.   The relevant passages occur in Article I.  Section 8 endowed Congress with the power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia…in the service of the United States.”  As there was no charter for a professional / standing army at the time, this specification was needed. Then, Section 15 stated that Congress shall have the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”  It is this “militia” that the Amendment was referencing when it addressed the matter of equipage.  (In doing so, the Amendment did not say: “Forget all the things we said about the militia in Article I.”) For further intertextuality vis a vis the main body of the Constitution, see Footnote 35.
• Eliding the historical context vis a vis documentation:  In formulating the measure, the point of departure was the charter that preceded the U.S. Constitution: the Articles of the Confederation.  How did that document address the means by which the security of the new Republic was to be effected?  “[Each] state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”  Recall that the Articles of the Confederation were transplanted by the Constitution because the former wasn’t arrogating ENOUGH control to the Federal government.  Another guide to the thinking on the matter was George Mason’s statement in the Virginia Constitution (discussed in Footnote 19). We might also look at documentation that came long after, and how it was forced to contend with precedent. Note, for example, the Dick Act (discussed in Footnote 38).
• Eliding the historical context vis a vis events:  George Washington’s handling of Shays’ Rebellion (beforehand) and the Whiskey Rebellion (afterwards) shows the issue that was addressed by the Amendment-in-question.  Moreover, those two incidents provide an illustration of its raison d’être (i.e. the State mobilizing a civilian militia to quash insurrections).  In 1787, Washington mobilized the 4th Division of the Massachusetts militia to put down an armed rebellion in Springfield.  This not only showed the need for a well-regulated militia (in lieu of a standing / professional army), it set a precedent that was reflected in the drafting of the Amendment-in-question two years later.  AFTER the Amendment was drafted, the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania occurred.  In 1794, Washington invoked the “Militia Act” (which had been passed in 1792), requiring able-bodied, white men to report for duty (under the command of Major James McFarlane).  Why?  “To ensure the security of a free State.” He thus provided a demonstration of the Amendment’s ACTUAL APPLICATION.

But never mind any of that.  With a bit of hermeneutic chicanery, revisionists interpret what is a very straight-forward statement as an invitation to arm oneself with as many lethal weapons as one wants, at one’s own discretion, for one’s own purposes…even if that purpose is to stage a coup (that is: undertake the very action the Amendment was designed to PREVENT.

This spurious interpretation is proffered heedless of any concern for effecting the security of the State; and without regard to a well-regulated civilian militia.

Recall that the point was to preclude future tyranny by not having a standing / professional army; the point was not to provide a way to respond to a potential (hypothetical) tyranny were it to emerge at some point in the future. ** Why civilian militias?  Because, in lieu of a standing / professional army, something was needed “the ensure the security of a free State”.  Having militias regulated by the State was the most viable alternative.

Disregarding the conditional clause of this sentence has become somewhat of an art-form.  Even when it is obliquely recognized, it is recognized in myopic ways. Take, for instance, a popular t-shirt that reads, “I am the militia.” The shirt acknowledges the existence of PART of the clause (while still ignoring the meaning of the word, “militia”).  Leaving aside the definition of “militia”, the obvious retort to this ornery profession is simple: “Well, then, are you WELL-REGULATED?”

It is worth recapitulating that the Articles of the Confederation (operative during the 1780’s) were replaced by the Constitution in order to “form a more perfect union”—upgrading the confederation of sovereign states to a bona fide Republic.  The point was to create a more robust government at the FEDERAL level.  That was, after all, the original “Federalism”—a cause spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton.  The deficiency of the mere “confederation” of sovereign states was soon laid bare, making it clear that more centralized coordination was warranted in order to facilitate the commonweal; and—to this end—that a civilian militia would be necessary to ensure the security of the free State (qua Republic).

Things became more contentious after the Civil War, during Reconstruction.  The clarion call for “states’ rights” was then—as it has always been—a claim to assert the prerogative at the local level to FLOUT civil rights…should those rights be propounded at the federal level (thus undermining precedents preferred by Reactionaries).  (This trope had a legacy.  Note the fear of manumission expressed by Patrick Henry, who sought to sustain “states rights” as a means of maintaining slavery.)  The “states’ rights” shibboleth has never held water; as it is patently antithetical to the spirit of liberal democracy.

An element of being willfully blind is being blind to one’s own blindness.  (Think of this in terms of optics: Imagine a blind man that goes about his daily life refusing to admit that he’s blind.)  Hidebound ideologues only see what they want to see; and are inclined to not see things that they are determined not to see. The message of anyone who dons the aforementioned t-shirt is: “I am my own militia; but don’t regulate me…even though the statement I’m citing clearly stipulates that I be well-regulated.”

As it turns out, it is precisely those who we’d LEAST want to have guns who are those who—invariably—amass the most guns.

With so-called “gun culture”, we are a dealing with a collective neurosis.  In assaying the epidemic of gun-fetishism, Chris Hedges put it well: “The specter of societal collapse…reinforces the gun fetish.  Survivalist cults, infused with white supremacy, paint the scenario of gangs of marauding black and brown people fleeing the chaos of lawless cities and ravaging the countryside.  These hordes of [p.o.c.], the survivalists believe, will only be kept at bay with guns, especially assault-style weapons.”

Hedges’ assessment may over-estimate the racism involved in America’s gun culture. In any case, his focus is on the neurotic thinking underlying America’s epidemic of gun fetishism. He recognizes that we are contending with a collective pathology fueled by widespread insecurity.

The fact of the matter is that, with a gun-acquisition free-for-all, it is the most mentally precarious people who end up with the firearms.  (Here, we assume that—on the whole—well-adjusted, mentally-stable people don’t have an irresistible urge to arm themselves with lethal weapons.)  Hence those most obsessed with guns are often the LAST people we’d want to have them…and the people most likely to get them. A question arises: Is it worth tens of thousands of people dying from gunfire annually so that legions of insecure men can have their AR-15s?

The bottom line: There are tens of thousands of gun-related casualties in the U.S. each year that would not have happened BUT FOR the presence of guns.  Meanwhile, experience in other nations has demonstrated that taking the guns out of the equation (including out of the hands of the so-called “good guys”) does NOT precipitate an increase in crime (nor compromise public safety overall).  So there is a massive down-side to a society being super-saturated with firearms; and virtually no down-side to a society where such lethal weapons are forbidden.

But what of the fight for civil rights in the United States during the post-Jim Crowe era?

Pace the Black Panthers, guns played no role whatsoever in the civil rights movement—a fact emphasized by the role of Martin Luther King Jr.  There is a reason that Frederick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Ann Jacobs, Octavius Catto, Harriet Tubman, W.E.B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Bayard Rustin, and John Lewis never devoted a single minute to promoting “gun rights”.

Nobody ever furthered the cause of racial justice by firing a semi-automatic weapon.

In a civil society, the demos does not forestall—nor can it dismantle—an oligarchic regime with arms.  It does so through the (participatory) democratic process: deliberatively, legislatively, and without violence.  It wasn’t guns that led to the dissolution of Jim Crowe; it was the right to peaceably assemble–that is: to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Policy is changed via the FIRST Amendment, not the Second Amendment.

So what’s left to discuss?  Incontrovertible facts refute the three major claims that are often used to rationalize gun rights.

ONE: For a society to be democratic / civil, it is necessary for the citizenry to be armed with lethal weapons.  Not so.  Quite the contrary.  In fact, the United States is the only nation in the world that makes the (preposterous) claim that democracy / civility is predicated on the proliferation of guns.

TWO: For a society to have freedom of speech, citizens must be armed with lethal weapons.  Not so.  The 1st Amendment is no more predicated on the 2nd Amendment than it is predicated on the granting of fishing licenses. If we look at every other nation that protects free speech, we find that an armed citizenry is not at all required.

THREE: More accessibility to lethal weapons makes a citizenry safer; and reduces crime.  Not so.  Quite the contrary.  In fact, the proliferation of guns makes a citizenry far LESS safe, and it dramatically INCREASES crime—especially violent crime.

How do we know these three things?  Because we have at our disposal actual cases around the world—namely: virtually every civil society on the planet (numerous liberal democracies with free speech); and virtually every country with exceptionally low crime.  NONE of them have an agenda to disseminate guns amongst the general populace. There are no guns circulating amongst the general populace of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore. Not coincidentally, these are four of the places with the lowest incidence of violent crime.

So what of other reasons for gun-ownership—like, say, self-reliance and self-defense? These are, of course, personal matters; not civic matters. But let’s briefly address each of them.

The notion that firearms have something to do with self-reliance is nothing short of preposterous.  Imagine reading Ralph Waldo Emerson’s seminal essay, “Self-Reliance” and coming away wondering: “But where’s the part about GUNS?”

Emerson spoke of individualism in the vein of Kantian autonomy.  His bête noire was conformity.  In the essay, he explored the precarious interplay between solitude and community; and he emphasized the importance of critical reflection in realizing this ideal.  An ample dose of hysteria is required for one to feel the need to add to his disquisition: “Fine.  But one also needs to be able to kill certain people!”

There was no militancy, no aggression, no fear, in Emerson’s conception of self-reliance.  He eschewed groupthink. He prizing novelty over imitation, and did so while resisting the tendency to fall into self-absorption or selfishness.  At no point did it occur to him to solve the pseudo-problem: “How shall I defend myself against possible assailants?”  Had such a question arisen, he surely would not have concluded that it involved using lethal force at one’s own discretion.  Vigilantism is not a prerequisite for self-reliance.

Personal prerogative no more precludes social responsibility than social responsibility precludes personal prerogative. Self-reliance and civic duty are not antithetical to one another. Kantian autonomy does not entail an every-man-for-himself view of the world. Even as we are sovereigns over our own lives, we are still interconnected. The point, then, is to be civic-minded while retaining individual liberty. Civil society breaks down the moment everybody is obliged to concern themselves–above all else–with protecting themselves against their fellow citizens. In any case, very rarely does protection require aggression.

Holding that self-reliance (or individual liberty) is somehow based on the ability to kill others is analogous to holding that civil society requires the establishment of an obscenely-bloated military industrial complex.  Alas, many insist that to be truly democratic, a nation must have a polity teeming with guns. Not coincidentally, these are the same people who insist that patriotism is born of flag-waving bluster.

To be sufficiently equipped, a civilian militia entails an armed citizenry. Be that as it may, public safety is no more predicated on an armed citizenry than geopolitical stability is predicated on militarism. Indeed, the imbroglio precipitated by an arms race translates between the domestic stage (between citizens) and the world stage (between nations). The answer is NOT to arm everyone to the hilt.

If, upon completing Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”, the first thing that occurs to you is, “But what about being able to shoot BURGLARS?”, you might consider being medicated for neurosis. The chance that someone attempting to rob a domicile is determined to kill people in the process–or that slaughtering the residents is one of their ends–is miniscule. When people want to steal things, they want the process to go as efficiently (read: quickly and quietly) as possible, with minimal complication.

Insisting that one needs to pack heat to effect self-defense is like insisting that one needs to drive around in an armored vitamin truck to maintain a nutritious diet. Yet this mentality has taken hold in the most lethal of contexts. Understood as a pathology, America’s gun culture has saturated not just the good ol’ boys’ club; it has leached into into a wider family dynamic. It may have begun by afflicting men who were grappling with insecure masculinity; but it has spread to everyone in their social ambit.

So why the obsession with guns?  This is both a sociological and psychological question. As we have seen, gun fetishists provide clinicians with a textbook case of over-compensation: a way of dealing with an array of insecurities.  Behold an assortment of men who—we might presume—were not breast-fed enough as infants; and were likely bullied as children.  Having made it through the gauntlet of adolescence, legions of maladjusted adult males are desperate to prove themselves as “real men” in any way they can.  Having become smitten with the gun-toting hero on the silver screen, they spend much of their time fussing over how macho they appear to be in real life.  As a consequence, they often indulge in flights of fancy–typically involving contrived swagger, militarist sartorial motifs, and some sort of hokey slogan.

A siege mentality invariably leads to the rationalization for the (chimerical) need to “bear arms”…even as there is no more need for a civilian militia. In his fever-dream, the stalwart of “2nd-Amendment rights” boldly struts into the local saloon, locked and loaded…even though he may only be waltzing into a Starbucks, where the only immanent danger is being over-charged for a mocha-latté. He’s not a rube, he’s a bad-ass.

In playing make-believe, such men surmise that packing heat is the best way to come off as a “tough guy”; ready to stave off tyranny should the occasion arise.  Moreover, they see “bearing arms” as a pre-requisite for being a “patriot” (a buzz-word for something we should all want to be).  Of course, such delusive thinking is not limited to men. Female counterparts often play along with this charade; sometimes even with similar affects—replete with the paranoid suspicion of an impending Leviathan.  (There is nothing earth-shattering about this. Obsequious women have been bamboozled into supporting misogynistic norms since immemorial.) The bogeyman of “Big Government” looms on the horizon; so the answer is a “well-armed citizenry”. This queer compulsion is justified by re-reading the 2nd Amendment as a call-to-arms…AGAINST the very State it was drafted to protect.

Ammo-paths (one might call some of them ammo-sexuals) are typically contending with a nagging sense of inadequacy.  In times of existential despondency, people want something—anything—to hold onto.  While religionists—especially those who are insecure and easily beguiled—cling to antiquated dogmas, and super-patriots cling to flags, ammo-paths cling to guns.  (The most insecure Americans end up clinging to all three.)

There are many quick fixes for existential beleaguerment.  Unfortunately, regressing to childhood to play cops ’n robbers (with lethal weapons) happens to be one of them.  There are preferable remedies to this woeful condition (see Henry David Thorough and Ralph Waldo Emerson).

As all forms of cultic thinking remind us, those grappling with deep-seated insecurities are easily lured into the treacherous precincts of neurotic thinking.  By letting one’s imagination run amok, one supposes that someday, somewhere, one might find oneself in predicament…where the only way out is to emerge, triumphant, in a hail of bullets.  By indulging in visions of shooting oneself out of a dire situation, one must assume that the only thing standing between the polis and a despotic regime is a cache of guns. (One must ALSO assume that one is a crack shot; and that things will end well for one having resorted to lethal force.)

The gun fetishist envisions himself the protagonist in a hair-razing scene lifted right out of the latest action film–taking down the bad guys, one bullet at a time. Such fantasies are an enticing prospect when those who find themselves plodding along in a rather mundane life, where the most exciting thing one encounters is a play-off game on TV.

And so it goes: By having a gun, the ammo-path can become the star of his own movie. Flights of fancy are the quickest way to add some pizzaz to an otherwise humdrum existence. Some people join cults, some people buy Glocks. Instead of realizing his goal (ostensibly: civil society) via participatory democracy, the ammo-sexual supposes he can do so by being quick on the draw.

There’s no need for psycho-analysis here. As we all know, feelings of inadequacy can be dealt with in myriad ways.  In surveying the motley tapestry of mankind, we find that people do the daffiest things to make themselves feel as though they have social stature.  Every culture is a bit different. Here in America, firearms are one of many prosthetics for masculinity—from ostentatious (often un-necessarily loud) automobiles to the gratuitous use of military accoutrements. ***

Insecure self-esteem manifests in ways that are now familiar to all of us. Regrettably, an alarming number of people have lots of emptiness that they’re looking to fill…something that can be done by getting copious amounts of (ill-advised) plastic surgery or by purchasing comically over-priced handbags. When it comes to the mania surrounding guns, we are dealing with a societal dysfunction that is deeply embedded in America’s culture. What makes this particular dysfunction especially concerning is that it is so dangerous. Tens of thousands of Americans are not killed each year by the proliferation of silicone implants and high couture.

Another myth is that gun control (that is: regulating firearms) is inherently racist toward people of color (p.o.c.)  Such a strange notion would be comical if it weren’t taken seriously by so many ill-informed p.o.c.  The supposition can be easily refuted with the following observation: RACIST gun control is racist.  Take the racism out of racist gun control; and one is left with, well, gun control.  Indeed, ANY regulation that favors one race over others—or is targeted at one race over others—is ipso facto racist.  It doesn’t follow that regulation per se is racially biased.  If someone stipulated that, say, only p.o.c. weren’t allowed to drive over the posted speed limit, this would not be an argument against speed limits.

That some mendacious actors have inconsistently applied strictures is not an argument to do away with those strictures altogether.  If there existed a municipal ordinance that only Asians were allowed to rob banks, this wouldn’t be an argument against outlawing bank robbery. ****  For any number of reasons, gun-fetishists have typically been WHITE MEN.  The solution to this exigency is not to simply let EVERYONE have access to guns.  Limiting gun-ownership across the board is clearly another way to achieve equity.

Sadly, Ronald Reagan used gun regulations as a political weapon against armed civil rights activists in California who were overwhelmingly p.o.c. (notably, the Black Panthers).  To conclude from this that ALL gun-regulation is racist is utterly spurious.  In fact, limiting gun-ownership is inherently ANTI-racist, as it ensures that marginalized communities are not disproportionately affected by gun-violence…as they CURRENTLY are due to the fact that access to guns in the U.S. is child’s play.

Leave aside the insanity of suggesting that having more guns in circulation would make p.o.c. SAFER; the history of gun-fetishism is inextricably tied to White Supremacy (and to Christian nationalism).  It’s no wonder that when William Luther Pierce III (a.k.a. “Andrew MacDonald”) penned “The Turner Diaries” in 1978, the cover featured a scene of besieged white people wielding guns.  In the second edition, the cover prominently depicted a white man and white women pointing semi-automatic weapons at an unseen foe.  Starting with the slave patrols that existed in the antebellum South, American White Supremacy would not be what it is without gun-fetishism.

It is no coincidence that the (mentally-stable) p.o.c. who is obsessed with the 2nd Amendment is a very rare occurrence. And it is ALSO no coincidence that the most ardent gun rights activists have always strongly correlated with those who were the most outspoken advocates of Jim Crowe (and its modern incarnations).  To this day, such people put gun rights over human rights.

Gun fetishism is not just a sign for gnawing insecurity; it is indicative of a collective pathology. As I’ve tried to show, America’s epidemic of gun fetishism is enabled by a misapprehension of the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.  We can work to remedy such ignorance; but there will still remain a slew of insecurities with which we need to contend.  Step #1 is generating awareness.

* * *

{*  Consider an analogy.  Transplant security with hydration; the free State with a healthy body; muskets with intravenous saline drips; and the (tacit) absence of a standing army with the (tacit) absence of potable water.  Now take the following statement: In order to ensure adequate hydration, in lieu of having water available, everyone must be guaranteed access to saline solution.  Imagine someone taking this as a license to stockpile IV bags and needles…even when potable water is in plentiful supply.  We might suspect such a person missed the entire point of the directive.}

{** There is a rather odd irony here. Gun fetishists who hem and haw about the perils of “tyranny” are–invariably–the very people who support fascistic policies here in the U.S. Those on the political right who grouse about verging “tyranny” engage in a risible form of ideological schizophrenia. They fail to see the contradiction because they are convinced that democratic socialism is a gateway to Soviet-style communism–as if New Zealand and Australia (not to mention Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries) were one step away from establishing a gulag archipelago. So far as they see it, the only way to prevent this nightmarish development is to stockpile guns. This zany line of thinking is the result of a semiotic swindle perpetrated by the gun lobby: that “gun rights” is a proxy for “freedom”. Therefore a threat to such rights is a sign of impending “tyranny”.}

{*** Overcompensation comes in many forms. A survey of how machismo manifests in different cultures around the world is quite fascinating. It largely depends on prevailing social norms and expectations. In many countries, men who are contending with insecure self-esteem are not hankering for firearms; they settle for beating their wives.}

{****  According to the flawed logic here, scalding water burns not because it’s scalding, but because it’s water. (!)  Consider “red lining”.  This iniquitous practice was racist because it imposed draconian standards explicitly on p.o.c. who were seeking credit or some other form of approval to secure a coveted asset (e.g. real estate in a choice neighborhood, loans for a business venture, etc.)  It did not follow from this that there should be no standards for granting credit.  Possible illustrations of this point are endless: The problem with “toxic masculinity” is the toxicity, not the masculinity.  The problem with “illiberal democracy” is the illiberalism, not the democracy.  Oddly, those who are bereft of discernment find it difficult to distinguish between something and a negative modifier that might be applied to it.  So it goes with racist regulations on gun ownership.}