As a Latino, I found the above comic quite funny. But, it does let me comment on what I consider a frightening trend in the gun-rights / gun-control debate. The language on the debate is becoming every bit as extreme as the language on the immigration debate has been.
What troubles me is that the rhetoric and actions are becoming increasingly bizarre and heading toward the violent. In the interests of self-disclosure, let me mention that I am a gun owner, and I have shot guns since I was a 12 year old who was taught how to shoot a 22 cal LR round from a bolt action rifle. But, frankly, some of my fellow gun owners both puzzle and sometimes downright frighten me.
This past week in Portland, two men walked the streets with assault rifles slung on their back just to make the point that they could. They caused panic and multiple calls to 911. Nevertheless, they were not stopped by the police because they were doing nothing technically illegal. Frankly, their walk through Portland was one of the best arguments I could think of for banning assault rifles. In a modern American city, and given our tendency toward violence in America, the thought of many people walking around with assault rifles openly is a frightening thought. Their extreme actions actually may become one of the centerpieces of why we need to impose some control on the situation. Courts have ruled more than once that the Second Amendment does not require that we allow situations like those two men.
But, some of the TV interviews, particularly on Pierce Morgan, present a frightening scenario. From the Marine, who would refuse to observe the law, if passed, to the shouting people on Pierce Morgan and on conservative radio who talk about The Republic, we have the frightening scenario of those who have vowed to re-open the Civil War should the government even put back in place some of the laws which we used to have to try to control gun violence. This talk about The Republic continues the theme since President Obama was elected, that somehow the election of a moderately liberal man from Chicago imperils the United States of America. Actually, by using the title, The Republic, they show that what they have is not a true loyalty to the USA as it has existed, but to some version of the USA that only exists in the mythology of their minds. More than one Marine jumped on the Marine who made the video about refusing to obey the law, if passed, and refuted his claims by pointing out that no true Marine would make the statements that he had made.
I would go farther, no true citizen of the USA would make the statements that have been made by some of the talk radio hosts. Speaking about the possibility of open rebellion against the USA, simply based on one’s private interpretation of the Constitution is un-American. If you do not like the laws of this country or think the Constitution needs to be further amended, then elect representatives who agree with you. If you can convince the majority of this country to vote with you, then you have won your point. That is what democracy means. You cannot yell about the will of the majority and then say that you will impose your will even if it is the minority. That is not what democracy means. Democracy has never meant that the individual gets to decide which laws to apply and which not to apply, nor what the Constitution really means. Our country is neither Libertarian nor Anarchist. We are democratic.
Well said.
I don’t appreciate the wild eyed screaming on this issue from either side, especially since they are ignoring the cultural issues that lead to much of this. I do have a few comments on your take, though:
-“election of a moderately liberal man from Chicago”- I think many would consider him to be an extreme liberal, certainly not moderate.
-When Constitutional rights are threatened by enacting executive order, one should not be surprised an outraged response. That takes away all options, such as your suggested option of going through your representative to enact change.
-We are a republic, not a democracy. It seems you are making a judgment about those who call it what it is.
Thanks Missy! In my post I was deliberately using neutral terms. Whether Obama is an extreme liberal, a moderate liberal, a progressive, depends on one’s personal political viewpoints. Using moderate liberal was the “fairest” term I could use that appears to capture the joint opinions of various political viewpoints. It will not satisfy everyone, but will satisfy most.
There was a good discussion of executive options on a Clear Channel station. It was interesting to hear the host recommending that people cool down, as there is a limit as to what can be enacted by executive order. For instance, while it seems very likely that he could order national background checks, it is not possible that he could impose an assault weapons ban. Actually there are many more laws now being proposed at state and local levels than anything that is being proposed in Congress. And, because of Article 10 of the Constitution, those laws would very probably pass Constitutional muster. Thus many gun rights organizations are actually not warning about executive orders but about local legislation. Conversely, many gun control organizations are encouraging their members to concentrate on state and local laws rather than on national laws.
Remember, anything that a President enacts, and is upheld by the courts, has some enabling legislation (or Constitutional statute) behind it. Thus, executive orders do have a legislature behind them and can be undone by a legislature, either by removing the enabling legislation or by amending the Constitution, but not by revolution.
Yes, you are right, we are a republic, and there is a difference. Our rights are not guaranteed by law, they are simply spelled out by law. In a pure democracy, 51% get what they want, and rights are a matter of legal definition. In a republic, even 51% may not overwhelm the rights of any, since the individual, not the collective is more the focus. However, in common practice the term democracy is used as synonymous to republic when speaking of how laws are enacted. They are enacted by the democratic means of a representative republic (to be more exact).
Stop it. Your calm and reasonable analysis is just weird. We’re talking guns here. GUNS. Guns plus sane thinking simply don’t mix in America! Now, add a little “crazy” to your argument here, and people might start listening. Just a little advice. 😉
Peter: haha. That’s about the size of it.
On placing Obama on the Left/Right spectrum: Obama is definitely not “extremely” liberal. That anyone can even propose that is only because the Right has been moving the goalpost on their side further and further to the extreme Right since before Obama took office, and even moreso during his administration. Obama could easily pass for a moderate Republican, or for that which used to be considered a moderate Republican. Such a creature now appears to be extinct.
Stella, that’s about right. On the left-wing radio programs that I often tune to, Obama is not claimed as a fellow liberal. The continued and expanded drone strikes are one example of that.
Your analogy of the Republicans (and the tea party) moving the goalposts is a good one.
The reason many consider him an extreme liberal is due to his previous records as both a state and US Senator. However, as President, he has done some things that I think he probably would have voted against when he was a senator, especially in the foreign policy areas.
Someone, somewhere (my memory fails me) has commented that the USA Presidency has a tendency to moderate people and drive them toward the center. I know that I have read that when Presidents are first fully informed of the USA nuclear and non-nuclear options, and of their consequences, that even the most hawkish becomes more dovish. Meanwhile, we have seen how President Obama has become more hawkish, using drones more than his predecessor. I think that there is some truth to the idea that the Presidency drives you closer to the center.
I think it was Nixon who’s motto was “Campaign from the right; govern from the center.”
T
I got involved in a fascinating conversation on a FB page sponsored by the Communist Party, USA after someone posted an article from somewhere advocating that the Second Amendment be revisited.
The fascinating part was that the comments, all from people who consider themselves far-left, were virtually the same as one would expect from rabid NRA types with regard to the “necessity” of not tampering with “gun rights”. Somebody even threw out a Lenin quote that could have come Charlton Heston, Ted Nugent or Wayne LaPierre!