The Obsolescence Of The 2nd Amendment

Postscript 4:

The longing to be heroic is nothing new.  The psychological underpinnings are timeless, and surely transcend cultures.  One can conjecture, in ancient times, Assyrian boys fantasizing about being Gilgamesh; Greek boys fantasizing about being Achilles; Persian boys fantasizing about being Rostam; Indian boys fantasizing about being Arjuna; and Chinese boys fantasizing about being Guan Yu.  The phenomenon is as old as human nature itself.  The medieval musings of Spanish youth were surely captivated by “El Cid”, while the French told tales of “Lancelot du Lac”.  These were heroic figures that served as archetypes—triumphing over dastardly villains, and saving the day.  They would have captured the imagination of men aspiring to be heroic figures…whether defeating a dragon, routing an enemy, or rescuing a damsel in distress.

Fast forward to the 20th century.  Action sequences no longer involve sword duels; they involve shoot-outs.  In America, many a schoolboy played cowboys and Indians, or cops and robbers—running around back yards wielding plastic pistols, imagining themselves to be engaged in some sort of derring-do (before being called back into their homes for the dinner).  When American youth become older, such games of make-believe no longer suffice.  Insofar as the urge for such role-playing abides, those who fail to mature find the need for an alternate rationalization for their fanciful escapades.  Enter the 2nd Amendment.

A contorted reading of a sentence composed in September of 1789 (by those who lived in a nation with no Pentagon, no FBI, and no State Troopers) turns out to be carte blanche to stockpile weapons for one’s own purposes…in the 21st century…where the Department of Defense has a trillion-dollar budget and hundreds of thousands of armed police are patrolling the streets at any given time.  The trick is to pass off (what was) a provisional right as an inalienable right.

By pretending that this simple statement says something it clearly does not, disaffected men can still pretend to be paladins—equipped, as they suppose themselves to be, with the weaponry needed for their valiant quest.  Quest for what?  Well, to eradicate whatever sinister forces they imagine might be lurking in the shadows; like any good patriot.  Those swept up in this puerile reverie aspire to be dashing gun-slingers, starring in their own cinematic extravaganza.

The allure of 2nd-Amendment revisionism is relatively straight-forward: By positing this chimerical license, one is invited to cast oneself in the role of the swashbuckling hero.  In one shining moment, every man has the chance to be Wyatt Earp, wandering the Wild West, poised for his moment of glory.  Where?  Maybe in an elementary school hallway; maybe in the vegetable isle of a grocery store; maybe in one’s own kitchen.  The mere prospect of saving the day in a hail of bullets enables the day-dreamer to alleviate whatever sense of inadequacy he may be harboring.

For a variety of reasons, there is currently an overabundance of such people—notably: white males—in the United States.  Those who are riven with apprehension and a yearning to prove their manhood insist that they need to be armed with a lethal weapon to PROTECT themselves and their kin.  From whom?  From any bogeyman that might emerge from behind the next hedge.  Insecure masculinity is thus buoyed in a fever-dream of braggadocio.

Studies have shown that, across America, feelings of insecurity track with rates of gun-ownership.  But why so much worry about “safety”?  The answer is complex, but part of the explanation is a parochial mindset.  Like in a video game, the idea is to vanquish the dastardly OTHERS.  While foreign-ness tend to be embraced in urban settings, it is seen as a potential threat in provincial settings.  Those for whom cosmopolitanism is a foreign concept are chronically worried about those who are NOT LIKE THEM, roaming the streets, plotting nefarious deeds.  As would be expected, this appeal is prevalent in rural areas, where interaction is limited to kith and kin…and to those who resemble oneself in salient ways.

What does it REALLY say about someone if they need to have a gun to feel safe?  At root, the hankering to “pack heat” is born of an odd cocktail of neuroticism and narcissism…with a dash of delusive thinking.  The Amendment-in-question effectively serves as a herald for the aspiring super-patriot, who, in reality, cares nothing for civic responsibility…or public safety…or individual liberty; yet is determined to be a “real man”.  The thinking is: It’s a dangerous world, and each of us needs to cover our own ass when things go awry.

Reality does not comport with gun-fetishists’ sumptuous buffet of intoxicating fantasies; as demands for this ersatz “right” are antithetical to any TRUE sense of civic duty.  After all, those who are civil recognize that what each of us does in the public square invariably has an impact on everyone else.  (Translation: We’re all in this together, so we must act responsibly.)  This means that, as tempting as it may be, we should not be so eager to arrogate to ourselves special entitlements without regard for how doing so might impact the commonweal.  It also means that we need to resist the craving to be the hero of a feature presentation showing in our own minds…if doing so attenuates public safety.  (Every country on earth proves a simple truth: Fewer guns, less violent crime.)

In spit of all this, the myth that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant continues to abound…even amongst those in putatively Progressive circles.  Consequently, America winds up with a systematically-inculcated neurosis; and the ammo and firearms industry winds up with overflowing coffers.  To this end, they are eager to propagate a slew of myths.  Let’s look at a few.

The Top Five Rationalizations For America’s Gun Culture

In America, the discourse around gun-rights is amped up in bewildering ways. Casuistry abides in an environment where neuroses run rampant and common sense has all-but-vanished. Gun-rights rhetoric is no different on this score.  Much of the ideology boils down to the following pitch: Civilians must be able to easily and expediently kill others by availing themselves of weaponry explicitly designed for that task.  Why?  Because “freedom!”  The implication is as follows: If civilians are NOT afforded such license, society cannot truly be “free”.  Hence the maintenance of civil society—nay, the commonweal itself—is predicated on the ability of civilians to use lethal force at their own discretion.  According to this thinking, the provisional right is REALLY an inalienable right.

Sometimes, the sophistry goes a bit deeper. Let’s look at the five most daffy pseudo-arguments used to validate gun fetishism.

1. If only the Jews were allowed to have guns in the 1930’s, the Holocaust would not have happened.  There are myriad variations on this preposterous claim.  One can replace “Jews” with “Armenians” and “Holocaust” with “Medz Yeghern”, and the argument is roughly the same; and just as absurd.  Translation: Genocides happen because of gun control measures.  In reality: Had the oppressed people been armed, it is likely that MORE of them would have been killed.
2. I need to protect my family from anyone who might break into my home.  Translation: I need to be about to kill intruders.  For if they aren’t killed, they may decide to slaughter my un-armed spouse / children.  An extreme level of neuroticism and/or delusion is required to think that this makes any sense.  In fact, one puts oneself in MORE danger, not less, if one brandishes a gun during a burglary.  For virtually the only circumstance in which a burglar would be tempted to use lethal force is if his own life is threatened.
3. The 1st Amendment depends on the 2nd Amendment.  Translation: In order to exercise my right to free speech, I must be able to use lethal force whenever the need arises.  More broadly, ALL liberties are ensured by the ability for any given citizen to kill people (if the occasion warrants).  Take that option off the table, the argument goes, and ALL freedom is put in jeopardy.  This claim is belied by a mountain of counterfactuals—namely: the many countries that maintain thriving liberal democracies with a completely un-armed citizenry.
4. The 2nd Amendment is a prophylactic against tyranny.  Translation: In the event that the federal government becomes “tyrannical” (read: insufficiently right-wing), I must be able to defeat the U.S. military in a head-to-head confrontation; using the cache of weapons that my friends and I have amassed in our basements.  Here, there is a fever dream that one shall be ready to take on the combined might of the U.S. armed forces with one’s personal arsenal…presumably while waving a Gadsden flag and yelling “freedom” at the top of one’s lungs.
5. When simply wearing a “Punisher” t-shirt, a flak jacket emblazoned with the American flag, and camo pants isn’t enough, packing heat is a way to prove one’s man-hood.  There is a desperation amongst certain (insecure) men to feel as “manly” as possible.  Toting firearms is seen as the best way to do this.  This engineered neurosis is a boon to the gun / ammo industry, which has a gargantuan financial incentive to feed this social pathology.

It takes a special kind of derangement to use any of the above as an excuse to justify keeping guns in common circulation.  In the event a lot of people find the need to stockpile their own personal arsenals, there’s little doubt that social dysfunction is afoot.

For the gun industry, the gimmick is based on the (risible) message: REAL MEN own guns, because REAL MEN protect their families (presumably, but using lethal force to ward off burglars).  Bushmaster actually had a marketing campaign proclaiming that you are not a REAL MAN if you don’t own a Bushmaster.  (An apt retort to this is the quip: “The only gun a real man needs is the one between his legs.”)  Bushmaster may just as well have used the following slogan: “Scared of robbery?  Buy our stuff!”  Those who fall for this boondoggle show the world how tough they are by cowering behind their AR-15’s.

And so it goes with the fatuous didactic annexation of the 2nd Amendment: Misconceptions about such a simple statement are propounded by businesses that stand to gain from such misconceptions; and eagerly embraced by self-proclaimed defenders of “freedom”.  The result of this boondoggle is plain to see: A bonanza for firearm / ammo manufacturers; and an epidemic of gun violence (not to mention a complete misunderstand of what “patriotism” means).

But how do we get from insecurity to braggadocio?  Simple: By wielding a gun, a sense of inadequacy is parlayed into delusions of being a super-patriot.  The key ingredient is a mis-reading of the 2nd Amendment—whereby the fetishization of guns is afforded a pseudo-patriotic justification.  Thus: “I’m not over-compensating for my insecure masculinity; I’m realizing my Constitutional rights!”

Men dealing with a sense of inadequacy are grasping at straws—frantically searching for something to make them feel tough (alt. “manly”).  As a prosthetic for masculinity, a gun furnishes one with a way to feign “bravado” without actually having to be brave.  (After all, who is really THAT terrified of burglars?)

Grifters have used the same formula since time immemorial: Create the (impression of an) ailment, then offer the (alleged) cure.  The snake-oil being being hawked does not necessarily have to be a magical elixir in a nifty-looking vial; it can be a PATHOS.  (An illustration of this boondoggle—in biological terms—was used in the film, Mission Impossible 2 c. 2000, in which a plague was manufactured so that the antidote could be sold to a desperate global population.)

What makes some scams especially absurd is that they exacerbate the very problem that they purport to solve.  Such is the case with guns: “We feel threatened by ‘bad guys’ with guns, so we need more guns!”  (A similar point can be made about the military industrial complex: It is there to confront a slew of alleged geo-political “threats” that are largely instigated by its own existence.)  The result is a Kafka-esqu take on society: We find ourselves in a world wherein guns proliferate; therefore we need to ensure MORE guns are put into circulation.

The conclusion of this topsy-turvy logic is as follows: By making guns EVEN MORE accessible—and thus the likelihood they’ll be used EVEN GREATER, we will somehow REDUCE the danger of gun violence.

Let’s elaborate upon each point:

ONE:  It is absurd to suggest that one will somehow prevent a genocide by flooding society with guns. Fascist regimes don’t back down simply because those who are being subjugated / persecuted shoot back.  Such regimes simply bear down harder.  To suggest that an un-armed citizenry led to pogroms—anywhere, at any time—is bonkers.  What makes the claim especially risible is that it can be applied to virtually ANY tyrannical regime that has persecuted a group of people—whether it was Mao vis a vis Tibetans, dissidents, and intellectuals (as well as tens of millions of peasants) in China; Stalin vis a vis subversives and the various ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union; or Efrain Rios Montt vis a vis Mayans in Guatemala.  The same goes for the genocides carried about by Pol Pot, Suharto, et. al.  Of course, ALL of those were RIGHT-WING regimes—an irony that is lost on gun-fetishists, who so ardently push for right-wing governance.

Would the Medz Yeghern in Turkey, the Holodomor in Ukraine, the Holocaust in northeastern Europe, the killing fields in Cambodia, and the Genocidio Maya in Guatemala have still occurred had the peasantry in those countries owned guns?  Yes.  The reason those in power carried out such atrocities had nothing to do with the fact that the victims happened to be un-armed.  Had they been armed, the persecution would have simply been more violent.  So what WOULD have prevented such atrocities?  The answer is complex, as each of these events involved several socio-political factors.  One of those factors was not a lack of gun-rights.

TWO:  Consider Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, and New Zealand. These countries each have less than 30 guns per hundred people (in the vast majority of cases, for hunting).  ALL of them have enacted stringent gun regulations.  Their level of guns per capita is actually far above the world average.  So we might ask: Is this not enough?  Would these countries be LESS susceptible to gun violence if only they had more guns in circulation?

Not according to world statistics.  Romania has only TWO guns per hundred people.  Shall we be worried that the Transylvanian countryside might be overtaken by criminals because almost nobody there is “bearing arms”?  Perhaps not.  Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have no guns in circulation; and they aren’t in any danger of devolving into civil catastrophe.  In fact, ALL these countries have extremely low crime.

It’s worth evaluating the proposition that all thieves deserve to die. Generally speaking, a burglar is not aspiring to become a murder. Such an actor would only be tempted to brandish a gun for fear that he may have to resort to lethal force. Under what circumstances? Well, to protect himself from a home-owner prepared to use lethal force. The notion that introducing MORE guns into the equation will benefit the “good guys” over the “bad guys” is unfounded; as it is based on a catch-22. The more prudent approach would be to–in the long run–remove ALL guns from the equation.

The vast majority of thieves are not looking to commit murder. They simply want to steal things. A thief is MORE likely to use lethal force if he believes his own life to be in peril.

What, then, should one do during a robbery?  Let the thief perpetrate (what is almost certainly) a non-violent crime, and leave it to law enforcement to apprehend him.  In other words: Call 911 and stay out of the way.  In the worst case scenario, the thief gets away.  In any case, no lethal force is used; and rarely will anyone’s life be in danger.

The mitigation of burglary is achieved by means other than (threat of) violence. When envisioning a burglary, we are tempted to treat it as a set-piece in an action flick rather than as the symptom of an underlying societal problem. Want to mitigate petty crime? Invest is basic public infrastructure and vital social services. Studies show that areas with high-quality public education and universal public healthcare have much less crime.

THREE: Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. both proved that lethal force is not needed to exercise one’s right to free speech…or to mobilize a protest movement…or to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Constitution ITSELF supports this approach.  The 1st Amendment stipulates that the People have the right to PEACEABLY assemble.  Clearly, this did not refer to armed rebellion. So it had absolutely nothing to do with toting guns.

The 1st Amendment pertained to redress of grievances via the democratic process, not via a coop. There’s a difference between using governmental mechanisms to improve the government and, well, OVERTHROWING the government (because it’s a lost cause). Speech is not violence. The exercise of free speech does not require the shedding of blood. After all, that’s what makes society civil.

FOUR:  Are we to attribute the emergence of Nazism in Germany, Stalinism in Russia, and Maoism in China to an un-armed citizenry?  Hardly.  To see if that would make any sense, we need only look to the socio-political causes of such regimes.  We might also consider the myriad other countries around the world that also had mostly un-armed citizens at the time, noting where tyrannical regimes did NOT emerge.

The notion that citizens having guns in their homes is what prevents a Nazi / Stalinist / Maoist regime from emerging in the United States is absolutely bonkers.  Today, neither Germany nor Belgium nor France nor Portugal nor Italy nor Greece nor Lithuania nor Czechia nor Slovenia nor Australia are in danger of becoming tyrannies.  Each has less than 20 guns per hundred people; and has enacted strict gun laws.

Behold Scotland, Ireland, England, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Armenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Tunisia, Bolivia, and Costa Rica.  Each has less than 10 guns per hundred people.  Yet NONE of these countries are in danger of becoming tyrannies either.

What about Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea?  They each have ZERO guns per hundred people.  Should we be worried?  And what about Canada?  Is there any danger of a fascist dictatorship coming to power in Ottawa now that it has enacted stringent gun regulations?

As discussed in the preceding essay, the notion that the 2nd Amendment was written to enable a putsch is not only wrong; it is exactly backwards.  The Amendment was included to PUT DOWN putsch attempts.  The “well-regulated militia” on which this Amendment was predicated, we should note, existed to suppress insurrections and slave rebellions.  The fear of tyranny is what prompted the Founders to NOT have a standing army (that is: to commission a professional military).  In lieu of a federalized military, they were obliged to make use of civilian militias instead.

It was explicitly in this context that the right (of white, land-owning men) to bear arms was to not be infringed; as said militias needed to be sufficiently equipped to carry out their civic duty (at the pleasure of the federal government).  Thus the right was accorded to white, land-owning men in their (latent) capacity as militia-men.

Visions of contemporary “militia” groups seizing every U.S. military base should elicit a snicker from any level-headed person.  It wouldn’t be plausible in even a movie…let alone feasible in the real world.  Alas, the fever dream subsists—wherein AR-15s are pitted against F-15s, and storming the Pentagon in the 21st century is seen as an updated version of storming the Bastille in the 18th century.

FIVE:  A gnawing sense of inadequacy—specifically one that leads to widespread dysfunction—is not unique to men.  There is an analogue of this for insecure women: the perfidious messaging that drives the cosmetic enhancement industry—from botox injections to magical skin creams.  This boondoggle is obscenely lucrative; though it is not nearly as deadly as the epidemic of gun-fetishism.

The message to women: Doing this to yourself is required if you want to be physically attractive.  The result: Hundreds of millions of women destroying their faces / bodies with plastic surgery…all the while, insisting that they are doing it to empower themselves (note the television series, “The Swan”).

An analogous misapprehension attends the gun-fetishist’s determination to compensate for his (perceived) inadequacies by “bearing arms”. Women want to be pretty; men want to be seen as “tough guys”. Whether the mass pathology pertains to cosmetics or to armaments, it is indicative of a grievous social dysfunction.

Granted, a surfeit of makeup is more benign than a surfeit of lethal weapons.  (Sephora doesn’t auger the downfall of civil society.)  Be that as it may, the exploitation of insecurity is operative in both cases.  And in order to rationalize their participation, those who fall for the scam eventually become disconnected from Reality. *

Obsession can range from benign to malignant.  When easy access to firearms becomes more important than the lives of tens of thousands of people, it is the latter.  Alas.  So long as the checks clear from the gun lobby, perfidious legislators will continue to pretend that ensuring easy access to firearms has something to do with the U.S. Constitution.

This is another reminder that sowing neurosis is an effective way to create demand for snake oil.  The idea is to offer a panacea for those dealing with some kind of insecurity—whether it’s women trying to make themselves more physically attractive or men trying to make themselves feel “tougher”. Of course, to drum up business, the idea is to CREATE demand. Hence the engineering of various neuroses.

People will always find misguided ways to address their own insecurities; and others will profit off of those insecurities. Mass neurosis—in all of its grotesque forms—is detrimental to the commonweal.  Since it often creates a business opportunity, there will always be those incentivized to encourage it.

The engineered neurosis that undergirds fun-fetishism involves an ample dose of delusion—as with those who are convinced that, when it comes time to overthrow the U.S. government, they will fell Reaper drones with their Glocks.  But what better way for those who are existentially beleaguered to be an action hero–starring in a cinematic extravaganza that exists only in their own mind?

The catch, of course, is that tens of thousands of Americans die each year as a consequence of these flights of fancy.  But take heart: At least tens of millions of OTHER Americans get to feel more like real men.

* * *

{*  A deep-seated insecurity begets a yearning for some sort of elixir.  Once a palatable elixir is found, that yearning can quickly turn into obsession.  This invariably leads to aberrant behavior of one form or another.  In some cases, people destroy their faces; in other cases, they increase society’s mortality rates.  When considering plastic surgery and lethal weapons, we find a common thread: Using drastic measures to alleviate anxiety. Whether we’re dealing with cosmetics or firearms, hucksters will always be there to provide those contending with a sense of inadequacy a means of (over-)compensation.  And, with blood on their hands, they will laugh all the way to the bank.}