via e-mail |
| The Last Refuge for Hate: Gun Hate |
|
January 24, 2005 Alan Korwin |
|
Email has been flooded recently with links to the Dept. of Justice
study, just released, that unambiguously finds the right to keep and
bear arms belongs to individual people.
The 214-year-old American right to keep and bear arms does not
protect some sort of collective, or assembled militias, or armed forces,
or a right of the states. Those newly minted arguments are now off the
table, wiped out, dead. RKBA is a right you and I have as individuals.
I’ve gotten the link a dozen times already, you may have too, and if
not, here it is:
(main conclusions excerpted at end of this report)
However, since the bulk of resistance to the American right to
arms has its roots in a medical condition, no amount of history, legal
analysis, precedent, logic or argument will resolve the issue.
People who are terrified of and hate guns -- hoplophobes --
don’t care about anything rational, and we waste our time on such
arguments. They want guns to go away. They don’t trust guns. They
don’t trust people who have guns, and especially people who like guns.
The only exception is “official” people with guns, meaning,
they’re from the government, a source of relief.
I know, I know, that’s irrational. But that’s the nature of
the disease, and it will not be fixed by DOJ reports.
The more intelligent of the hoplophobes may give up their
you-have-no-rights argument due to the DOJ report, but it won’t stop
them one bit.
They will seize on anything else, because hoplophobia is an
irrational fear. Conveniently, the language of the report itself says
that the limits of this individual right have not been clearly defined.
To a hoplophobe, that means your right to arms can be legally
limited to a single gun, with a single round, that does not operate, and
is locked away, with government holding the key. And even that leaves
them nervous.
We don’t need more arguments or some DOJ paper that finds what
we already know and have exercised for two centuries. Oh, I guess the
intellectuals on our side will make some use of it, and it may have some
positive effects in some courts.
What we really need is research and medical-treatment programs for
the poor, unfortunate people who are terrified of guns, won’t go near
guns, who would not defend themselves or their families if they had to,
and who, very plainly, hate guns.
Hate is a terrible thing.
It must be confronted vigorously, righteously, and in a forthright
manner. Logic and law do not confront hate, or help lessen it. We must
learn not to tolerate gun hate, anywhere we find it.
Hoplophobic behavior in government, schools, and all facets of
public life must be recognized for what it is, exposed, and rooted out
or treated. Seemingly utopian pacifists are free to profess their love
of a weapon-free world, but they must start by disarming the evil,
criminal and tyrannical. Disarming the general public is a vent for
their twisted fear and hatred, a grotesque affront to freedom, and
unacceptable.
Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still
free. The history of freedom is inextricably tied to the development of
weapons (an interesting study, by the way, if you have the time to
examine it). Good people need guns. Efforts to end that are immoral and
unjust, and when done by government, is a direct failure to “preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution.” That’s a violation of the oath
of office, which should lead to removal from office and possibly even
criminal charges.
The people we elect or hire for public service should be screened
for latent or overt gun hatred, and disqualified if such hatred is
found, before it can do any more harm to our nation and its values.
It is well past the time when the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders), the catalog of recognized mental
infirmities, includes “hoplophobia,” in all its forms, and serious
medical research is conducted to identify and treat this pernicious
condition that threatens us all. The doctors among you should begin
raising this issue. If you’re not a doctor but have one or two, ask
them about it.
The opponents of gun rights come in four fundamental categories:
Utopian Idealists - Dreamers willing to ignore human nature
(anger, hostility, temper, greed, lust, hunger, poverty, want,
megalomania, social pathologies, etc.) in the vain hope for a world
where no one ever needs to defend themselves or others; Result:
misguided efforts to disarm the public since no one should ever be
capable of exerting lethal force for any reason. Fairly rare.
Routine Bigots - Ignorant gun haters who, generally, have
never actually seen a real gun much less fired one, and hate what they
don’t know; strong corollaries with race haters; Result: Vigorous
anti-rights profile if left alone, however they often resolve their
blind hatred when education removes the ignorance -- frequent anecdotes
of such folks “converting” after their first time at a range. Quite
common.
Hoplophobes -- Unfortunate souls afflicted with a phobic
terror of firearms, deserving of pity, and in need of medical attention;
Result: Though they should never be involved in setting policy on self
defense, national security, or Second Amendment rights, they often
insinuate themselves into such positions, their need for treatment goes
unattended, and they cause grievous social harm. Easily mistaken for
plain bigotry. Too common.
Power Mongers - Like some at the U.N or many
anti-gun-rights politicians, they know full well that an armed public
interferes with their plans, and they insidiously use lies about the gun
issue, and “disarmament (of you but not them) as a road to peace” as
a power base and source of support; Result: truly evil, tyrants who
ultimately suppress human rights, contribute to global genocides, live
an elite lifestyle, care not for their fellow citizens. Rare but
extremely dangerous.
Bottom line:
It’s nice that the DOJ report came out.
The battle however lies elsewhere.
Alan.
DOJ CONCLUSIONS: (from 125-page report)
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment
secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms...
....our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment
provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment
secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the
collective-right or quasi-collective-right views.
The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a
"right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is
reinforced by the Constitution's structure.
The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully
consistent with this interpretation.
The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals
to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the
ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to
the same conclusion.
Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the
Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the
pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm
what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
"My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I
cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way,
guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be
banned."
--Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Harvard School of Public Health
|