Cold Dead Hands

If you met someone and they told you that they were a "landmine enthusiast," you would likely look at them askance.  To combat your apprehension, this person might tell you about the heritage of their landmines--handed down from father to son--and he'd let you play with some (deactivated, of course, because the guy cares about landmine safety).  He'd recite facts, not just about the history of landmines as a tool of our founding fathers, but also statistics demonstrating that landmines are easily hyped by the media and they're actually less dangerous than one might think.  And you'd have fun playing with those landmines (seriously, how cool would that be?) and you'd be generally impressed by his calm knowledge regarding the situation.  Of course this isn't likely.  But of course there is, as far as Google will tell, no pro-landmine lobby.  

There is no political consensus in this country for any kind of repeal or abridging of the Second Amendment.  Americans have a deep emotional attachment to guns (the same emotionalism that gun-loving libertarians decry when it's time to "reexamine" Social Security and Medicare).  If Obama, or any president, had any serious designs on stripping citizens of their guns, they'd likely have a lot of other pesky Constitutional rights to attend to first (I included a partly tongue-in-cheek bit in Nos Populus about how a truly cynical tyrant-to-be would actually leave guns off the table, just because that one issue would render the whole takeover too complicated).  Much of this is due in part to a pro-gun control movement that has largely accepted the facts on the ground.  Much more can be laid at the feet of the most successful lobbying organization of our time.

In spite of the fact that the President Obama has in no way acted to seriously curtail Americans' access to guns, has not even spoken on the issue, and would generally be ill-advised to do so, the National Rifle Association still loves to wheel out the old "from my cold dead hands" scare tactic canard.  This macabre imagery works with the marks, of course.  But for a lot of other Americans, it gets a little bizarre and even creepy after a while.  It's not that we have a problem with guns or gun-owners, per se.  It's that when we see pro-gun people and their friends posing with guns and posting the pics to Facebook (and, admit it, part of the reason they did it in the first place was to aggravate a nameless liberal), we don't exactly see the freedom fighter that you seem to.  Yes, these are the movement's most extreme members (if they're even that) but fairly or otherwise, these people do reflect on the movement as a whole.  And it is up to the responsible, sensible gun-owners to police their own side, not circle the wagons, as the NRA apparently must, even when no one is threatening guns or their owners. 

But what purpose does the NRA serve if their mission is basically accomplished?  To guard against future infringements upon the Second Amendment?  Yeah, maybe, but how much overhead does that require?  No, they need donations.  And some pro-gun Americans recognize this; many more (mostly younger) view the NRA as outmoded because, well, Mission Accomplished.  Enforce the laws as they exist, is the general view.  What choice does the NRA have, then, but to double down?  "It could happen at any time!"  "Never trust anyone who says they don't want to take your guns--it's a ruse!"  To remain relevant, they must reinforce the fear that drove so many to the party in the first place.  Never mind the vicious cycle that's bound to create.  People might stop giving us money.  So it's "protect your rights this" and "cold dead hands" that.  Regardless of the facts, keep pushing for the weapons you already have.  Nothing must stop us. 

On the fifth anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre, and with the Trayvon Martin killing still very much in the news (whether you think it deserves to be or not), gun enthusiasts might assume a bit of deeper reflection.  Neither tragedy was solely about guns--no episode like this ever is--but it's hard to imagine an executive from the ax industry offering a full-throated defense of his product in the aftermath of a tragic ax-killing.  It would be, at best, in poor taste.  And most people would understand that the ax itself was largely incidental, as gun proponents rightly point out when it's a gun.  But perhaps if we lived in a world where ax murder rates were anything like gun murder rates, there'd be a bit more of a push for a check on their availability.  And would it be then, as here, that the people holding the weapons would be the most viscerally offended?  The ones clamoring the loudest and most creepily for would-be suppressors, real and imagined, to back off?  Maybe.  But they'd look just as ludicrous. 

So, a little bit of humility.  Or is the point of the gun that you might never have to be humble?