Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Why gun owners fear Democrats: An analogy.
(I posted this over on dKos, thought it might be of interest to people here.)
* * *
xxdr zombiexx's diary on Thursday provoked a lot of good discussion, and brought out in high relief some of the differences here on the left regarding attitudes towards guns. One very insightful thing he said in the 3rd update to his diary particularly got me to thinking:
The point is that I do think that some people take this "right to own guns" bit too seriously and have elevated it to a religion.
OK, let's use that as the launching point for an analogy. It is not a perfect analogy, but I hope it is an illustrative one - please keep an open mind, and give it a chance to work. My intent here is to explain, not argue.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I want to focus on the first two parts of that, concerning religion, which are commonly referred to as the "Establishment" and "Free Exercise" clauses.
(I am not an attorney, and am not trying to argue legal history - I just want to provide a basic premise for the analogy.)
We tend to think that these clauses mean that an individual American has the right to believe (or not believe) as he or she sees fit, and to exercise their belief freely, without the interference of the government. And by & large, this is true. There are disputes concerning what constitutes any kind of government recognition or support of one religion or another (things like having the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, et cetera), and there are problems which occur with how some people exercise their religion (as in considering otherwise illegal drugs to be a sacrament). But for the most part, you can believe as you see fit, and exercise that belief within the normal constraints of the law. This is how the vast majority of Americans live their lives.
[Here comes the speculative part. Bear with me.]
OK, now consider how most people would view the Democratic party if it had a history of supporting limitations on the exercise of religion. Let's say that during the 1960s, following the death of President Kennedy, there was an effort made to promote Catholicism, in respect for the religion of the slain president. After all, a substantial number of Americans at the time were Catholics, including a large percentage of the working-class base of the Democratic Party in the big cities of the North East. Oh, you could still believe as you saw fit, still be Baptist, or Jewish, or Mormon - but let's say that there was legislation proposed that would make the Pope the nominal head of all religions in the US, just as a sign of respect to President Kennedy.
Of course, such legislation would be seen as completely inappropriate, there would be a backlash, and Democrats would pay a heavy price in following elections. After wandering in the political wilderness for a generation, most Democrats would know not to get involved in such a mess, to leave religion well enough alone.
Time passes. But then along comes a new religion. A bit of a weird one. Scientology. A lot of people see it as a cult. Its power and influence is seen to grow, though in fairly limited ways. Still, it makes a lot of people uneasy. Several European countries decide that it is something of a threat, and pass laws against it, some harsher than others.
A new Democratic president decides to do something, and is instrumental in passing a new law in an effort to protect people from perceived dangers of Scientology. But the wording is sloppy (as any such effort to limit a religion while trying to stay Constitutional would be), and as more people become aware of the implications of the law, the more different religions seem to be threatened by it. Over the course of a decade, even though the Democratic president and his Republican successor don't really use the law to do anything against most people, the general consensus comes about among believers that this law should be allowed to lapse when it comes up for renewal.
And still, even so, there are those Democrats who think that Scientology is a real threat, and they lobby hard to keep the law. Their intention is completely honorable - all they want to do is have what they see as reasonable limits on this one particular 'weird' religion. But their actions remind people of the ill-fated (though again, well-intentioned) efforts to promote Catholicism, no matter how much they profess that *that* is not what they mean to do at all. Fed by the Republican noise machine, fear of Democratic interference in the free exercise of religion is kept alive, even while the anti-Scientology law is allowed to expire.
A new Democratic president comes on the stage. He seems to be honest, and forthright, and has a lot of messes to clean up from his inept Republican predecessor. He says that he has no interest in limiting anyone's religion, that he is a non-Catholic himself, and most people believe him. But he did slip up once during the campaign, and made an unfortunate comment about small-town Americans bitterly clinging to religion. That made a lot of people nervous, even good Democrats who were people of faith. And he had been on record previously in supporting the anti-Scientology legislation. And someone remembers that he was raised an atheist. A couple of his top cabinet members make comments which can be understood to be hostile to Scientology, perhaps to religion in general. Oh, and his official government website says that he still supports making the anti-Scientology law permanent.
Then, still very early in his administration, there are several high-profile instances where Scientology is in the news and seems to be as much of a threat as ever, if not moreso. Demands on left-leaning political blogs increase for a renewal of the anti-Scientology law, as poorly written and ineffectual as it was. Some vocal atheists weigh in, say that the problem goes well beyond just Scientology, that it is religion itself that is the problem, and that we should all just grow the hell up and get past this infantile fascination, be more like the Europeans. People of faith - not just Scientologists, but all those who remember what has happened in the past - start to eye the Democrats with increasing unease and suspicion.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I'm that rare bird, a gun totin' Lefty.
Crystal D. wrote:
"I just find it odd that so many gun owners seem to want ZERO rules in regards to gun ownership."
That may be your perception, but it is incorrect. No gun rights advocates I know of support rolling back legislation that currently prevents convicted violent felons from owning guns (with respect to non-violent felons, opinions vary) or those adjudicated mentally ill or chemically dependent.
On the other hand, I personally think law abiding civilians should be able to own every type of small arms currently in use by the military, which is I minority view, I know.
While I philosophically have no objection to Open Carry of Handguns where it is legal, as a practical matter, if it were legalized in Texas suddenly, I would keep exercising my concealed carry rights granted by my Texas CHL, as a matter of personal preference.
_Drew_ wrote:
"As a Democrat myself, I'd very much prefer the party to earn the respect of gun owners before trying to even launch what seem like reasonable changes in gun laws (i.e. more comprehensive and complete gun registrations)..."
While I agree with the rest of what Drew says after this paragraph (stricter enforcement of existing law w/ respect to firearms used in the commission of a violent crime), I do object to the notion that gun registries are even remotely "reasonable", and note that gun owners rightly object to them, as they've historically been used as the first step in outright confiscation later. The Canadian gun registry is a joke, and this is becoming increasingly apparent to Canadians who look into the issue. Not something we want to emulate here. It's interesting to read Canadian gun rights activists, as they definitely feel culturally split between the UK and the USA, and are favoring the USA way of doing things with respect to gun legislation.
I consider myself mostly Left leaning, and I actually voted for the U.S. Green Party ticket in the last election. I don't have political tunnel vision and vote exclusively on the gun rights issue like some who supported McCain/Palin; The Green Party, at least in terms of Party platform was objectively better than the Democrats with respect to gun rights, because all the Green Party said was "support the GCA of 1968". I'm not a big fan of the GCA of 1968, but I didn't see any major party calling for its repeal either. Like me, even the NRA only objects to selected portions of the GCA of 1968.
My position against most forms of so-called Gun Control and supporting human self-defense rights are to my mind solidly rational, not irrational and certainly not cult-religious. While as an atheist I eschew language such as "my rights come from God", the secular 18th century alternative I prefer is "my self-defense rights are intrinsic rights I have simply by virtue of being human, regardless of the Constitution, which merely recognizes and guarantees such rights".
The Democrats are enjoying their majority because of pro-gun rights Democrats like James Webb (VA-D) and that pro-gun rep in NY that has all the anti-gun people in NYC all pissed off (because they wrongly assume the rest of the Empire State is in lock step agreement with NYC with respect to 2A issues). I won't NOT vote for Democrats solely because of gun rights, nor would I ever ALWAYS vote GOP because of gun rights issues, but it is part of my political calculus. There's a lot I like about what our new President has done so far on other issues; but his gun-control favoring past is well known and continues to give me pause. I think he has the good sense not to push the issue, but only time (and events) will tell.
I like where Texas has gotten with respect to concealed carry; I'm encouraged by the prospect we may soon get campus carry, expanding the scope of concealed carry. I don't want any Federal interference coming in and f*cking all that up.
Heh.
I agree with much of what you said, but I have to wonder, with respect to that "legislation that currently prevents convicted violent felons from owning guns"
... was the NRA originally in favor of that legislation?
As to guns, I grew up with 'em, and the people who use them. I've told the story many times of the 15-year-old friend who got a .44 magnum after the first Dirty Harry movie came out, and we all went off to the bayou (this was in Houston, Texas, where I grew up) to shoot it. I think I was one of the oldest there, at 19. (Damned thing just about blew my ears off.)
Later, with cowboy friends, I was on hand to witness more than one incident of what I call "light-hearted gunplay" — shooting pistols indoors, or through the floor or dash of a truck ( Lee Pulls the Trigger ).
That being said, I know a couple of guys who I consider complete experts in firearms, yet who have had accidents. It has twice happened to me that bullets have whined past overhead while I was hiking in the woods (not in hunting season), and a girl I worked with almost got a buckskin horse shot out from under her during deer season. A school teacher I sort-of knew got a bullet in her elbow — in the classroom — from a distant hunter. And then there was the close friend and expert hunting guide who accidentally shot a bullet into a porch railing a few feet from his 12-year-old son.
Given that this was more than half a dozen incidents just in my one little life, I don't completely trust ANYONE with guns. I want responsible adults to have the right to own them, but I don't kid myself that they're an unmitigated good thing. (But then again, I feel even less trusting of all the "non-lethal" gadgets the cops have.)
And just FYI, one place I damned well do NOT want guns is in national parks. But it's for the same reason I don't want four-wheelers, snowmobiles or dirt bikes there.
As to Obama and gun control, I think the current surge in gun buying and permitting is just one more example of sheep in full stampede mode.
If you were one of the sheep, you could be stampeded by a real wolf. But you could also be stampeded by a shepherd boy yelling that there WAS a wolf when there really wasn’t.
In that second case, your real enemy isn’t the wolf, it’s the shepherd.
While the analogy is
While the analogy is probably a bit much (mostly just because it's too long to be punchy!), I think it's fair to say that gun owners have plenty of reason to be suspicious of Democrats: within reason. I don't think the idea that Democrats are going to take away all guns all over the nation is anything but insanity. But there are real reasons to believe that some Democrats in some areas would, had they their druthers, restrict gun ownership and carry laws to the point where it places a real burden on people's right to own and keep ready weapons of self-defense and the like.
As a Democrat myself, I'd very much prefer the party to earn the respect of gun owners before trying to even launch what seem like reasonable changes in gun laws (i.e. more comprehensive and complete gun registrations). I think the best way to do that is to focus on punishing the misuse of firearms much more severely: make using a or discharging a gun in the course of committing a felony a MAJOR bump up in sentencing. Similar laws were pushed in parts of Virginia and found a favorable coalition between both gun rights organizations and Democrats that wanted to see a reduction in gun crime... all without burdening legal gun owners one bit. That seems to be the best way forward at this point.
So what you're saying is...
...we should ban assault weapons and Scientology?
the answer is in the struggle
That headline seems to be one of my most frequent answers to this kind of discussion. What's often more important to me is not so much one answer or another as it is the tension that exists between the extremes or poles of a spectrum.
I'm ambivalent about the prevalence of firearms in this society and the knee-jerk level of discussion that arises whenever questions of some level of control arise. I distrust discussions anywhere along the political spectrum in which one party challenges an idea by immediately invoking the extreme. I am comfortable with responsible people who own weapons; while I am not a hunter, I do not oppose hunting and, indeed, recognize its value to a certain extent, though, not, of course, in its extremes. Guns are not going to go away, so I figure I--and we as a society--need to find a way to live with them.
On a constitutional level, I have said in a number of discussions that, if I want to be an absolute about free speech and relish the protections built into the Constitution, then I don't see how I can be dismissive of the right to bear arms, built into the same document, even though the writers could have had no idea of how society or weapons would develop over the next 200 years.
I do not think that there is a link between guns and free speech, any more than I buy the notion that "If you love freedom, thank a vet." The Constitution is what provides our foundation for freedom, which armed forces (of which my father, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers were career members) may defend and protect. But I do think that, if we start whittling away at one of those rights, then others may equally be subject to whittling. What we need to do instead is to try to live up to them, to reach the heights that these amendments set for us.
Frank Moorman, skeptic
"what is the point of giving persons Freedom of Speech... if you then say they must not utilize same? And is not the Power of Speech the greatest Power of all? Then surely it must be exercised to the full." --Salman Rushdie
Well....
I just find it odd that so many gun owners seem to want ZERO rules in regards to gun ownership. I even had some person argue that his work schedule doesn't allow him time to get a proper permit. Give me a break.