Tuesday night - just got in from seeing Argo with friends. Really suspenseful movie - four stars in my book! But the trailers? Maybe I'm just sensitive about the whole gun thing about now but almost, without exception, all the movie previews starred some kind of weaponry - some Mafia movie, another movie about a guy just released from jail and there is a hit on him. Guns, guns guns.
That brings us to a discussion about what's on everyone's lips of late - trying to make sense of the Connecticut massacres and the search for answers. In yesterday's blog post I shared my on-the-fence feelings about guns. I'm a card carrying Democrat but not a cookie cutter one. When I was prepping my family for the impending avian flu, I planned on getting a shotgun to keep looters at bay (don't ask - I kind of went off the deep with preparations - still have cases of MRE's in the garage!) Friend Ryan taught me to shoot. And, of course Patrick has a gun - he is a Marine. I have liked the thought that, if something really bad happened to, say, one of the kids, he could be called on to come to the rescue - rescue Madeleine from the clutches of a drug lord or something like that! And when I was considering working overseas in potentially dangerous places, I joked with him that he might end up having to travel across the world to rescue me. So yeah, guns. Kinda sexy and exciting right?
Not to mention, the right to bear arms was put in the Constitution in large part so that citizens would have the means to overthrow an oppressive government if need be. Study American history and you will gain an appreciation for the pluckiness of the average Colonist. That whole "live free or die" thing is alive and well still - there are many people in our country who take seriously their potential role in defending their way of life at the end of a gun barrel. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?
So here I am straddling the issue - it's not a good place to be - it's a cowardly place to be - allows me to hem and haw when the discussion comes up. I find myself agreeing with friends and colleagues who speak passionately to handgun ownership while at the same time agreeing with other friends who believe guns are an abomination. Over the past few days there have been no paucity of articles on both sides of the gun aisle. I've been reading up a storm. One article in the NYT entitled, "The Freedom of an Armed Society" was what I have been needing to read. I'd like you to read it too and let me know what you think (comments please).
The author has struggled, like me, in solidifying and articulating his own position on guns. He says he has always suspected that "an armed society is not a civil society" but in order to create his own mission statement he needed to draw on some of the best thinkers of our time and also work to understand the position of people who feel the opposite. He examined the arguments of N.R.A. president Wayne LaPierre, digested the words of modern philosophers (when we're in a quandary we should always seek out our philosophers - they're the ones who make the most sense), and he cited Michael Foucault, the modern French philosopher and social theorist. He, himself, is a philosopher.
Following are some takeaways from the article that I found especially compelling:
- We are on a trajectory where guns will be ever more pervasive in our lives. The Supreme Court is upholding legislation that would allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons. The N.R.A. "strives for a day when the open carry of powerful weapons might be normal, a fixture even, of any visit to the coffee shop or grocery store - or classroom." Ironically this comes at a time when fewer Americans are choosing to own guns. Gun sales are way up which means we're falling into two camps: those without guns and those with a lot of guns. Think of it. Do you want the norm to be for each person on the street to be carrying a gun on them just as they do a cell phone today?
- The N.R.A. makes the case that "more guns equals more safety". They say "an armed society is a polite society." They also argue that "guns provide the ultimate insurance of our freedom in so far as they are the final deterrent against encroaching centralized government and an executive branch run amok with power". These arguments on their face are compelling. It's absolutely true that, now and then, a crime is thwarted by a citizen packing a gun - those instances are newsworthy (and I think not all that common). I've discussed my appreciation for times when armed citizens have risen up and throwm off the mantle of an oppressive government - government needs to be kept in check, I agree.
- Debrabander, in this article pulls back the curtain on these central arguments of the N.R.A and de-romanticizes the notion that an armed society is a polite society. He makes the case that we don't want a polite society - our Constitution is founded on a basic tenet of free speech where ideas are bandied around without fear, people get angry, people take sides. It's what makes our country great - we speak with almost impunity. And from those often messy dialogues good stuff happens - often a middle ground opens up where new ideas can breathe and change be enacted. Guns shut that down. When you inject violence into a dispute it shuts it down - people shut up and retreat to their corners. Change isn't given a chance to incubate. Or as Hanna Arendt states, "violence is mute".
- "Arendt offers two points that are salient to our thinking about guns: for one, they insert a hierarchy of some kind, but fundamental nonetheless, and thereby undermine equality But furthermore, guns pose a monumental challenge to freedom, and particular, the liberty that is the hallmark of any democracy worth of the name - that is, freedom of speech. Guns do communicate, after all, but in a way that is contrary to free speech aspirations: for guns chasten speech.
- As for the argument that we could throw off a despotic government by taking to the streets with our weapons, that doesn't bear scrutiny well. Debrabander argues: "This argument has been the means by which gun rights advocates withstand even the most seemingly rational gun control measures (it's the argument that has kept me on the fence). He makes the case that gun ownership is ironically antithetical to a society capable of throwing off their government. Huh?? He states, "broad individual gun ownership gives the powers-that-be exactly what they need!! Huh again!? The concept is that a population of privately armed citizens is a vulnerable one. When shit happens, there is a natural tendency for people to retreat into individualism, batten up the hatches, make a wagon train circle around their family/friends. Case in point - this shooting incident. Lots of people are reacting protectively, considering homeschooling their kids, increasing their security. The philosopher Michel Foucault says "nothing suits power so well as extreme individualism since it is far easier to manipulate a collection of discrete and increasingly independent individuals than a community."
- The idea that we can, as privately armed citizens, overthrow our government is laughable. Even my gun totting friend Paul said, "Do people really think they would be a match for Apache helicopters with heat seeking missiles?" This is where we need a dose of modern American history lessons. The current reality is that "assembled masses don't require guns to exercise and secure their freedom and wield world-changing political force." They need ideas and dialogue and community. Think of the regime changes in the world - they have all been precipitated by unarmed citizens. Seems we have a romantic attachment to the past where it was more of a level playing field between citizenry and government. Even then, it wasn't the farmers' muskets that won the Revolutionary War - it was the private assemblies, the ideas that couldn't be squashed and a populace that refused to be governed by a remote king.
Challenge today is to read the article and do your own reading. Consider everything. Do your own research. Thinking the time is ripe, right now, for action on this issue. My research has led me to rethink long-held beliefs and to choose a position - one that is in many ways contrary to those long-held beliefs. I am declaring myself a person who supports extreme gun control. Now I just have to decide what it is I'm going to do to make a difference.
Peace,
Sarah
Picture - they sell combo gun/cell phone holders for your belt!
No comments:
Post a Comment