A story in yesterday's Washington Post provides a cautionary tale about the employment of vast power driven by blind faith. No, it's not a story about fanatical religious zealots in the Middle East...it's about people right here at home. It's about the ruthless, single-minded power of the national gun lobby, as represented by the National Rifle Association.
The story, in a nutshell, is this: a popular, respected outdoorsman and 40-year member of the NRA named Jim Zumbo made a comment in his blog in which he criticized the use of military-style semiautomatic assault rifles like the AR-17 (civilian version of the US Army's M-16) and the Russian AK-47 for hunting, especially of small game like prairie dogs. In the most inflammatory part of his blog post, he referred to such assault weapons as "terrorist rifles."
The response from the NRA and from gun owners nationwide was immediate, predictable, and overwhelming. Despite profuse apologies bordering on grovelling, Mr Zumbo was villified from every direction. His formerly popular TV show has disappeared from the air, the Remington Corporation has cut all sponsorship ties with him, and he has been forced to resign his position at Outdoor Life magazine. He has, in short, been ruined by the ferocious response of one of the most powerful organizations in the United States today.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is the holy writ of the gun lobby. It reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. These 27 words have been the source of some of the most bitter Constitutional and social arguments in the history of the United States. They have been parsed and analyzed in countless studies and legal cases at every level: the exact meaning of "a well-regulated Militia," "necessary to the security," and "infringed" have been endlessly analyzed and debated, but the Second Amendment remains a political third rail no one in Congress is willing to touch...and the fall of Mr Zumbo shows why.
I've written about this topic before in this blog. I am neither an advocate of strict gun control nor of unlimited and unregulated ownership of firearms of any kind. As with most things, I advocate a healthy dose of skepticism and common sense in approaching the issue. One of the favorite bumper-sticker level matras of firearms advocates is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That's true, of course, but it might be more accurate to say "Guns don't kill people, but people are able to kill more people, more easily with guns." I have never killed anyone, but I think it's pretty obvious that it takes time, effort, and strength to strangle someone, or beat them to death with a blunt object, or land a fatal blow in a contested knife fight. On the other hand, a loaded gun ready to hand can deliver a fatal injury almost instantly, at a distance, and with very little effort or time required for reflection. Once fired, a bullet can't be recalled to the barrel of the gun when sudden remorse strikes the shooter.
Gun advocates often cite the need for defense against external threats, and even our own government, as reasons for a need for unchecked gun ownership. In my case, though, I think I'm much less likely to be threatened by official organs of my government or by a foreign terrorist than by an angry man with a perfectly legal arsenal and a deadly grudge.
I can't think of any scenario that will cause people on all sides of the gun issue to exercise reason and common sense. If the Columbine High School massacre and the more recent Utah shopping mall murders aren't enough, I don't know what is. I have often written in this blog about the danger of blind faith and fanatical belief in an idea. Usually, I'm referring to blind religious belief, but the single-minded focus and imperviousness to evidence of the NRA and other gun advocates is very similar. Of course, an NRA zealot - no matter how fired up with the righteousness of his or her belief in gun ownership - isn't likely to murder those who object to that idea, whereas a political or religious fanatic will. But the nearly mystical belief in the sanctity of gun ownership has led us to a situation in which the nation is awash in weapons, many of them of military quality and with no particular sporting value. The only thing that keeps us from the sort of anarchy we see in Iraq and in the larger Middle East (areas also awash in guns and explosives) is the traditional American sense of tolerance, fair play, and respect for the rule of law.
Unfortunately, tolerance and respect for the law also demand empathy and common sense, and these appear to have been checked at the door as people arrive for the discussion of reasonable firearms regulation.
I'm sure the unfortunate Mr Zumbo will find another job, but his swift and brutal crushing by the mighty power of the gun lobby should provide a cautionary tale worthy of serious thought and analysis.
Read the Second Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, and think about what it means in the context of the social and political realities of the year 2007. If you approach it with an open mind, you may come to some disturbing, if obvious conclusions.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
No comments:
Post a Comment