Reader Tim writes in with a thought-provoking e-mail and asks some tough questions:
Hi Jay,
So I'm surfing around and bump into your site by accident. A brief look and I think to myself - another motherfucking Obama hating well armed fanatic. But hey, MArooned is a good name, and the MA part is kinda clever...I should read more carefully. And I must say you seem like a smart guy, with some intelligent people commenting on your posts. I especially liked the Justice for All discussion - much more thoughtful than the usual talk radio crap, IMHO.
Anyway I am a history graduate student. I think American historians have missed the importance of the gun culture in the first hundred years, as well as the gradual disarmament of the general populace in the next hundred. So I some questions for you, and anyone else who might care to answer:
When the constitution was ratified the adult male population, (not including slaves and some other categories), constituted a militia. People owned muskets and rifles. Towns and cities typically owned some artillery. I suppose an individual could own an artillery piece if he really wanted to. The point is that an effective military unit could be formed at short notice without any assistance from the state or federal government. Hence the 2A was a tremendous barrier to government tyranny.
Over time this has changed. The right to bear arms is curtailed - we may only purchase certain weapons, certain kinds of ammo and so forth. The most effective weapons are restricted to the military. The functional equivalent to the old musket is the modern assault rifle - supplemented I would say by other automatic weapons, anti-tank and anti-air missiles, grenades and grenade launchers, and so forth. The equivalent to the cannon is of course tanks, apc's, jet aircraft, and various kinds of artillery.
So the questions:
1. Is the populace, in comparison to the government, essentially disarmed?
2. Is the 2A effectively gutted by the government monopoly on the most powerful weapons?
3. Should the NRA be lobbying not just for gun rights but for the restoration of local militias armed with the most modern military weapons?
Tim
I dashed off a quick note to Tim with the following responses:
1. Essentially disarmed? No. We still have a wide variety of options readily available, and even more if one has the time, money, and/or connections.
2. Yes and no. To the best of my knowledge, private individuals can't own functioning tanks or fighter jets; however there's a pretty big discussion on the original intent of the founding fathers as to whether the 2A means all arms or just small arms. Personally, I fall into the "whatever you can afford and not screw up with" category, but that's me.
3. Should they? Hell yes. Will they? Hell no. The NRA is nothing if not practical, and lobbying for "ZOMG TEH MACHINE GUNZ!!!!" will bring them naught but pain. Better to work to repeal the dumbest of the dumb gun laws and halt further encroachments than to go out on a limb for FA (full auto) or explosives.
Obviously his questions merit further in-depth responses. I'll elaborate now.
1. Is the populace, in comparison to the government, essentially disarmed?When you consider what weaponry the Armed Forces has at its disposal, it sure looks that way, doesn't it? Rocket launchers, tanks, bombers, grenades, machine guns; all of these are strictly prohibited to the average American (okay, we can own certain old machine guns; however all others are strictly prohibited). In a straightforward confrontation, Jethro and Grandpa with their lever-action rifles don't stand much of a chance against belt-fed machine guns and A-10 Warthogs.
There's one check to this: The number of active duty personnel is just over
1.4 million. There's some 150 million or so adult Americans. We outnumber them 100 to 1 in a pinch, and there's no guarantee that all 1.4 million soldiers would participate in wholesale slaughter and enslavement of their brothers, sisters, cousins, and friends. Rebels armed with crude AK-47 clones made in home-built forges kept the Russian Army at bay for nearly 10 years, however; millions of Americans with AR-15s and Remington 700s could certainly inflict massive casualties upon even the greatest fighting machine on the planet.
This does, of course, lead to an interesting thought question: What should we be allowed to own? In the time of the Founding Fathers, private citizens - the wealthiest ones, to be certain, but private nonetheless - could own armament equal to or sometimes surpassing that which was owned by the fledgling government. Should private citizens be allowed to purchase and own fully-equipped Harrier jump jets, M1-Abrams tanks, and/or anti-aircraft missiles? Given the purchase price of said items, and the likelihood that they would "fall into the wrong hands" (extremely low, IMHO; anyone with a spare $30 million to drop on a Harrier isn't going to sell it privately to the Crips...), I'm inclined to allow it, but with strict penalties for misuse.
2. Is the 2A effectively gutted by the government monopoly on the most powerful weapons?That's a slippery one. The Second Amendment states:
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.
There are some who argue that as long as the American people are allowed to own single-shot .22 rifles, the Second Amendment is intact (I disagree, most vociferously one can imagine). Others (and I fall squarely into this camp) firmly believe that "shall not be infringed" means what it means; that the average American should be allowed the same tools available to the government. If the private citizen can afford their own armored personnel carrier, power to them. If they want to stockpile machine guns, rocket launchers, or .50 caliber sniper rifles, go to town. Only punish the misuse of these items, not the potential.
That said, even now in the status quo the average American has a fairly staggering assortment of arms from which to choose. All sorts of self-loading rifles; large caliber, long range bolt-action rifles; intermediate battle rifles; fighting shotguns; and a staggering array of pistols are available to (most) Americans with little trouble. For those with money to spend, there's a large number of completely legal fully automatic weaponry out there; for less money even (but some hoops) there's non-standard weaponry.
The important thing is not what we have; it's that we have it.
3. Should the NRA be lobbying not just for gun rights but for the restoration of local militias armed with the most modern military weapons? That's the million dollar question. At first blush, the answer is intuitively obvious: Hell yes. Any gun law - all gun laws - run counter to the Second Amendment. Every infringement is another chink in the armor; every law that strips the right to keep and bear arms from the lowliest one of us harms us all in our defense of our freedom.
But we do not live in a perfect world nor a vacuum. The NRA has to operate in the here and now, in the very real political climate that surrounds the gun control issue. Push too hard, or to fast, and the forces for evil (disarmament) will swoop in, eager to paint the NRA as extremists hell-bent on arming felons, white supremacists, and gangbangers with Uzis and bazookas. The mainstream media calls the NRA an "extremist" organization; of course, the NRA has some four million members out of approximately 80 million gun owners, meaning that they reach approximately 5% of their target audience. NOW has half a million members out of roughly 150 million women, or 0.3% of their target audience, yet they are never referred to as "extremist"...
For the NRA to insist on repealing the
Federal Firearms Act of 1934 (heavy regulation of fully automatic weapons) or even the
Hughes Amendment of 1986 (prohibiting the sale of new machine guns to civilians) would be folly; they would be smeared from here to the gates of hell by the myrmidons of the mainstream media. Heck, NRA members would be wise to question the wisdom of going after the FA laws when there are so many other heinous anti-gun laws (
Lautenberg Amendment, anyone?). There are thousands of gun laws already on the books, as well as laws that deal with the misuse of any tool, not just a firearm, as a weapon again persons or property. While getting full auto weapons and explosives off the forbidden list is a noble goal and a step towards truly restoring the Second Amendment, it's political suicide.
The NRA is a lot of things, and stupid ain't one of them...
I hope I've answered your question Tim*. I know there's an awful lot more to be said on this topic and many more answers to your questions. I also know there's a good deal of my personal beliefs sprinkled into my answer - take those with a grain of salt, as I live in one of the most gun-unfriendly places in the US... Here's hoping others will join in with their own answers to your question, or at least their own personal take on things as you ask.
Thanks for writing to me - this was an excellent exercise - and for reading MArooned!That is all.
UPDATE: Tim, not Tom. Curse you, "o", for being right next to "i" on the keyboard!