Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The NRA Strikes Back

To anyone who ran to their local gun dealer the moment Obama was elected, you can breathe a little easier today.  Our favorite socialist may have last been seen using the constitution to clean up after the dog, but he won't be going door to door to collect your weapons anytime soon.

Handguns.  Without ever having fired one, I understand their appeal.  I do.  There's an undeniable romance in that cold, sexy steel, and I like movies as much as the next guy.  After all, where would James Bond be without his Walther PPK?  Gangsters find really inventive ways of killing each other in film, but without the Tommy guns, what's the point?  And who wants Colt 45s and classic western shootouts substituted with games of paper rock scissors?  Not I!

Movies are great fantasy, but I have to believe the universe of movie violence at least partly fuels our societal craving to arm ourselves unnecessarily. 

Yes, I say unnecessarily.  Gun advocates frequently cite "protection" to justify owning a handgun.  I don't have the latest figures, but I'm pretty sure that most of these people have a better chance of getting struck by lightning while being devoured by a shark than ever needing to unload on an intruder.  Honestly, how much crime is being prevented here?  I wonder how often police officers, who actively search for criminals, are required to fire their sidearms.  Not too often, I'm guessing.  I would also guess that little Billy is more likely to blow his sister's head off than Dad is to pick off midnight marauders in a valiant defense of his family.

So, is the second amendment a good by virtue of simply being the second amendment?  The Supreme Court seems to think so.  The law 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.  This has been analyzed a billion times, but whenever I think of militia, I envision guys who wear too much camouflage making creepy plans in remote cabins.  I'm not sure how vital modern day militias are to anyone's security; I tend to think most gun owners point to that shall not be infringed bit and more or less rest their case.

The constitution is fine, but I think the real reason people are so passionate about it is that they just love their guns.  I understand that.  Maybe a gun, like a car, is part of what defines American freedom.  Whatever.  Would I rather live in a world without them?  Yes, just like I'd like to live in a world without mayonnaise.  Don't think it's going to happen, though.

nwb

5 comments:

Darin said...

Granted my household may not be the typical American household, but we NEVER have mayonnaise in the fridge, we no longer own a car, and we have never owned or plan on owning a gun.

Two of the three were pretty much givens - no mayo, no guns. The no car thing has been a wonderful blessing. Going from 2 cars down to 1 was nice enough, but being car-free is wonderful. Wonderful urban living. In the past 6 months, we've rented a car for a total of 3 days between the 2 of us.

It may not be the FoxNews definition of freedom, but I have felt more liberated than ever!

AliBear said...

I always think that the "original intent" people should be allowed to own as many eighteenth century muskets as they wish.

McBone said...

Darin,

Sadly, my wife remains a mayonnaise offender. Our fridge is shamefully contaminated. No guns in the house here, either. We do have a cane that conceals a rapier though. The two years we lived in New York, totally car free, were bliss.

AliBear,

Thanks for reading! Yeah! No slaves though.

nwb

Kid Shay said...

I have found my nemesis, and his name is John Roberts.

creative jenny said...

I watched Larry King and the debate on guns and could only imagine how quickly the Portuguese would dissappear if they could all own a gun.....
Reading on last night's event, I laughed thinking of the blue sheet wrapped around you and the 'huge' muscles intimidating the uninvited stranger int he corridor....