Our Right to Choose
I am not particularly fond of participating in the “Gun debate” not for lack of passion but on the grounds of the almost insurmountable communication barrier. A barrier built of irrational fear (on both sides), failures of logic, and judgment clouded by emotion. Both sides are convinced those participants on the other side are either crazy or cowards to the point of excess, and communication has become nigh impossible. However, I found this comic and I thought it so clearly highlighted the ignorance of both debates I would throw in my two cents, for what it is worth.
The NRA gentlemen is talking about armed guards, the idea of this would be there are designated professionals who are there to protect us citizenry from those who would do us harm.
The gentleman with the newspaper is using a military base as an example of how guns can’t protect people. This is based on the flawed idea that every service member on these bases is armed. When in fact, there are more casually armed individuals walking around Wal-Mart than your average military base. Only MPs are allowed to carry, and only while on duty. Much like Campus police.
The flawed logic on both sides is ultimately a failure of thought that sweeps America as a culture. It is the failure to accept personal responsibility, and the willingness to have someone else solves our problems for us, while firmly believing that we are the only ones who could do it right.
The most extreme of those on the left, believe that widespread confiscation of guns would reduce gun violence, because we PUBLIC can’t be trusted and someone else should be responsible for our safety.
The most extreme on the right believe that every citizen should be armed at all times.
At least these are the perceptions perpetuated by the media. Which doesn’t help to bridge the communication gaps in this debate, but why would they MEDIA want to support the end of this debate, they make their money on the conflict.
What the 2nd Amendment, which is at the core of this debate offered, was every citizen the right to defend themselves from any threat. This is a right, I purposely stress that word, it means it is a choice, if a citizen does not want to carry–that is their choice. If they do, it is again their choice as well. But few talk about the responsibility associated with that right. Military personnel are rigorously trained on weapons safety, before they are trained on how to properly employ their weapon. Does this prevent all problems, no, but it reduces them. No solution is 100%. That is a fact of life. The CCW (Concealed Weapons Permit) programs are an excellent step in the right direction, they are optional and offer the average person a base of knowledge to make good decisions.
One other thing that CCW programs offer is the option of defense, in a concealed weapon state an attacker never knows who in the area may be armed. That question is a preventative measure. Everyone, regardless of their stability level conducts a cost/benefit analysis before they act. Will they choose to hold up a gun store or a liquor store? But again, no answer is 100% and there are always outliers.
There is a great power in the question of who may or may not be armed and that provides greater security than an armed guard. An armed guard is an advertised defensive position, they are a target. But an average citizen carrying concealed hides in plain sight. Schools, government buildings, and military bases don’t have that option.
What us advocates of the 2nd Amendment debate are asking for is the option to defend ourselves through the ability to carry. Just the option, let us decide where we can conceal carry. We don’t want armed guards. We understand that there is responsibility associated with that right. But by denying us that option, by pretending that outlier behavior is the norm the conversation only gets more convoluted.
What really needs to happen, is either the end of this conversation, just simply stop talking about it as if the guns are the problem, not the operators. Or establish what our goals are and establish rational policies to support those goals, ignoring outliers and focusing on the macro impacts of a simple logical policy.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns
Adam:
Thank you for the clear, calm, and concise explanation of the issue behind the issue – I couldn’t have said it better.
I would be more than happy to take the approach of free choice and let people avoid owning guns if they choose to do so.
Unfortunately, the anti-gun folks have no desire to do that. We are making the “wrong” choice and they won’t stop until we are brought to heel. Kind of hard to find a middle ground in a discussion like that.
Correct, NR Pax.
Government policy that ignores human nature doesn’t work all that well, long term. Even severe repression only works temporarily.
It took decades, but the USSR found that out the hard way.
“Government policy that ignores human nature doesn’t work…”
And there’s the rub. The left doesn’t (cannot) acknowledge that there is any such thing as “human nature”. To them, all aspects of human behavior are completely plastic and malleable and can be shaped and directed to suit their preferences and desired ends.
That this has resulted in disaster and tragedy time and again is irrelevant to them. After all, that was someone else trying to implement utopia-they weren’t in charge and they are uniquely gifted with the intelligence and insight to make it work “this time”.
What is more-they won’t quit until they are allowed to try. They are enamored by the “vision of the annointed” (as Thomas Sowell so accurately described it) it is their primary motivating principle. They will seize the levers of power (government) and use them to destroy all the other social institutions which are-at best-unhelpful to their agenda.
Understand this and you will understand the nature of the fight that we face. Otherwise you won’t be able to effectively resist the lefty attack on American society as it exists and has existed and the promise of ordered liberty which is the founders gift to the world.
Precisely Pax; as Rush Limbaugh has observed regarding the Left’s criticism of Israel’s refusing to negotiate with Muslim terror groups, “When the goal of your enemy is your total annihilation, where do you begin negotiating, at acceptance of partial annihilation?”
I actually wasted time a while back with someone arguing about “common sense” gun laws and having him ask “Why don’t you right wingers want to compromise on this?”
Borrowing from The Law Dog, I listed the numerous laws that have been passed against guns and showed how we already had compromised. Then I replied “What are YOU going to give up in return?”
The answer: “We’ve already compromised by allowing these deadly weapons to exist.”
My patience with people on that side of the debate pretty much died without a whimper at that point.
I second Lazarus’ comment, Adam. Nicely written piece.
“The most extreme of those on the left, believe that widespread confiscation of guns would reduce gun violence”
Thats very generous of you. My experience is that they don’t give a damn about gun violence, they want the political opposition disarmed.
I won’t disagree with you there, but if they are going to used a flawed logic to attack us. I’m willing to play that game and argue on the same ground they do.
What the 2nd Amendment, which is at the core of this debate offered, was every citizen the right to defend themselves from any threat.
Actually the 2nd Amendment offers nothing, it is designed as are the other amendments to keep the government from restricting those rights upon which man was endowed by his creator. Meaning we were all born with the right to speak our minds, defend ourselves with weapons as needed, and be secure in our homes. The founders knew every man was born with these rights and that governments routinely intrude upon the god given rights of those it rules.
I think a fundamental flaw on both sides is often the idea that these rights are “granted” to us under the bill of rights as opposed to being our birthright and the amendments are a choke collar to keep the government in line.
It’s from this standpoint that I would oppose restriction on the second amendment as I believe any restrictions on the amendments open the door to restriction on all the amendments. It leads to things like FISA courts that meet in secret and spy on the citizens of the nation, it leads to things like seizure of assets prior to conviction in a nation where innocence until proven guilty is the theoretical precept behind our laws.
The reality is the government already infringes on far too many amendments and the electorate has grown to accept that as part of our lives without nary a cross word. I believe we’ve already passed the tipping point and a totalitarian democracy is inevitable at this point. We will accept restrictions to speech, to the right to bear arms, to the right to be secure from government search and seizure and soon we won’t be able to stop accepting restrictions until the amendments exist in name only.
I agree 100 percent
+1
VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT, Et Alii:
Thank you for posting that!
When I saw this article, I was prepared to post my own comment.
However, there’s no need for me to do that, as you’ve already said what I was planning to say.
OOPS!
I posted my response to VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT in the wrong place!
Oh, by the way, I’m one of those so-called “extremists” who believes that EVERY individual should always be armed, at all times and in all places.
Veritas,
I agree, the Constitution as a document is a reflection of the rights we were endowed with by our creator. And is designed to control our government, not us. I only phrase it that way for because of the egocentric view of our government.
Thank you Adam. I very well thought out and written article. Your one comment at the beginning, ‘I am not particularly fond of participating in the “Gun debate” not for lack of passion but on the grounds of the almost insurmountable communication barrier.’, is the reason I stay out of a lot of social debates. Be they guns, abortion or several others. It seems people we see in the media are the extremes. The common sense middle ground of thought is lost. Most people I know who feel as you and I and most members here about guns for instance, do not want to debate it either for the same reason. Anyway, it was a great article and it is a source for me for reference.
Glad we could find some common ground on this. It is the type of thing that by siding on the moderate pro-gun side I am mistaken for an extremist. Which is a just sad that we can’t have a reasonable discussion about this.
Adam, I have enjoyed your posts, and this one is no exception. Excellent reading.
Here is the gap in the arguement for me, and I’ll use LTC Bateman as an example. Here’s an American who should understand the full import and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. His training should make him fully aware of both the pros and cons of an armed society. He should see that the 2nd is the Amendment that protects all the others. And yet, he’s turned on us and our Constitution. He isn’t ignorant, uninformed, or stupid. So — why? Why did one of the very people who should defend this Amendment the most become one of its most virulent attackers? That is the question that I can’t find an answer to.
Some people love freedom, Pinto Nag. Others merely see it as just another politically-expedient word.
Bateman IMO is firmly in the second camp.
“Others merely see it as just another politically-expedient word.”
No need to be coy Hondo, lets call it exactly what it is, while some people love freedom, there are others that love control and the percieved power that goes with it. Bateman and his ilk crave power and control.
Pinto, there are always outliers. Those people who are the exception to the rule. We can’t allow them to muddle things up for the rest of us.
“Or establish what our goals are and establish rational policies to support those goals, ignoring outliers and focusing on the macro impacts of a simple logical policy.”
Therein lies the crux of the problem; “rational” and “logical”. They are defined differently by different groups based on their own agenda.
What the left, and anti-gun crowd, fail to look at is data. The data does not now, nor has it ever, agreed with their hyperbole, yet they claim to be promoting a “rational solution”, which is neither rational or a solution.
I think this is definitely it.
LTC Bateman doesn’t bother me as much, because he seems to prefer “organized militia” over “individual right to bear arms.”
When we sit around and discuss what we can do about gun violence, I will only ever entertain discussion about things that would actually do something about gun violence. People are in love with assault weapons bans, magazine capacity, and yet, every instance of gun violence that is immediate to us involves low-end handguns acquired on a market that has nothing to do with gun shows, licensed firearms dealers, or any of the “solutions” so many propose.
I have a sneaking suspicion if the forces that would do something about gun control came to the NRA and said, “hey, you guys are subject matter experts, what measures do you think would reduce gun crime?” they’d be surprised by the level of responsibility and thought. And it’s a shame.
How many of the Bill of Rights give rise to statutes which, when broken, result in a call for rescission of the amendments? I can think of only one. Just Google “Rescind 2nd second amendment” and see. Oh, there may be a few nuts who want to rescind other of the Bill of Rights amendments but only rescission of the 2nd appeals to otherwise informed and intelligent people. Curious, no?
Adam,
Excellent analysis.
Maybe we need additional security forces seperate from the existing Security Police/Military Police.
Just don’t give them red shirts.
If they are going to have all these security contractors on post, even the MP’s seem redundant, money would be better spent on more combat engineers or tankers or infantry or arty
They already did that as a ‘temporary solution’ over the past decade when more MPs were being deployed, ‘cept they have blue shirts that say ‘Department of the Army Police’ on ’em.
I know that over at Bliss, they’re still there.
Why don’t we just allow off-duty military to carry concealed? It is a cheap simple solution.
“The extreme right believe everyone should be armed all the time”
No, there are plenty of people who should NOT be carrying a gun due to incompetence, impaired faculties, or ignorance. I do not want to infringe on my neighbors right to be safe in his or her home or in public, so I exercise my right carefully. My rights end where my neighbors begin.
Anti gunners have clearly stated that they want to infringe on the right of self-defense for anyone who disagrees with them.
I was establishing two extremes, I understand there plenty of people that fall at every point of the spectrum that is this debate. I also agree that there are plenty of people who shouldn’t carry. I like CCW classes for what they are, it isn’t the best education but it is better than none.
I saw a movie a while back where a government changed its laws so that only police and Soldiers could have guns.
Schindlers list.