A Farewell to Arms: How Some Gun Owners Are Shooting Themselves In The Foot

[First Published in the March 2013 edition of The Basic Alternative Newspaper]

I’m not a pacifist. At age eight, I received my first shooting lesson from a one-armed mechanic who was the finest marksman I’ve ever met. I’ve been shooting ever since. As I type, night has fallen. I live in a low-crime neighborhood, and I personally intend to keep it that way. That’s why a Glock 45 ACP pistol sits on my desk. As someone once said: “I believe in my fellow man, I also believe in firepower.” At this point anti-gunners and those indifferent to the gun control debate, sensing another pro-gun love fest, might choose to tune out. But I’d suggest you stick around a while. You might be surprised….

As a gun owner, it pains me to report that the antigun crowd does not have a monopoly on mendacity or extremism. Far from it, many who support gun ownership seem to expend considerable energy in wrecking their own cause through just such tactics. Their antics of late are enough to make any reasonable gun owner cringe at the prospect of guilt by association. The idea of any gun legislation drives these extremists to fits of histrionics reminiscent of two-year olds throwing a tantrum. At the same time, their juvenile rhetoric is laughable. Well, it would be if my right to possess a firearm were not jeopardized by their actions.  So, let’s take a look at some of the ways the gun debate has been co-opted. Where to begin with such an embarrassment of riches?

Let’s start with the idea that gun control is an either/or proposition. Either you’re for guns or you’re against them. Although this is the most basic of logical fallacies, some don’t see it that way. No, either you’re with us or against us. It’s all black and white: Us versus Them, Red v. Blue, Conservative v. Liberal…Republican v. Democrat. Never mind the fact that this infantile view can be refuted with a simple bumper sticker that I saw the other day. It read: PROUD GUNTOT’N IDAHO DEMOCRAT. Any questions? This absolutism, so prevalent in political discourse today, is the reason nothing gets accomplished in Washington. We have allowed the extremists to define reality as they see it.

In large part, their reality comes straight from the top: the National Rifle Association (NRA). There’s no sense recounting the NRA’s long history. Anyone curious can look it up. But what I [as a former NRA member] do find curious, is the NRA’s insistence that they represent the members, rather than industry. Let’s consider Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President and CEO. LaPierre got his start at the NRA in 1978. By 1991, he’d clawed his way to the top. Now, he is the public face of the NRA and, with a total yearly compensation around a million bucks, it appears he’ll make it through the recession. LaPierre is noted for his intransigence where gun control issues are concerned. I guess if I were paid a million dollars a year, I’d be gung-ho too. But the question remains. Who, exactly, does he represent?

Not widely reported is the fact that merchants within the firearms industry created a program known as the NRA Round-Up Program. How does it work? When you make a purchase, you’ll be offered the opportunity to round up to the nearest whole dollar amount, with the difference going to the NRA. The result: total contributions from this program alone exceed $9 million. One vendor, extolling the virtues of the “Endowment,” as it is referred to, suggests that, “If you’re feeling especially patriotic...give a little extra!” Well heck, all I can say is God Bless America! Instead of watering my Liberty Tree, I’ll just cough up a few extra bucks so LaPierre can get his office redecorated. After all, it’s the patriotic thing to do.

Like Joan of Arc, LaPierre is divinely inspired. A zealot who, along with many of his fellow right-wing chicken hawks, avoided service in Vietnam, he has belatedly transformed himself into a fearless patriot leading an army of freedom while boldly declaiming: We Will Stand And Fight! Accompanying this newfound militancy, of course, is the de rigueur demand for more money, and participation.

Should fealty alone prove insufficient, LaPierre hedges his bet by generously sharing his apocalyptic vision of a world rife with hurricanes, tornadoes, riots, terrorists, gangs and lone criminals all gunning for us. The only thing missing are ravenous hordes of zombies —perhaps he’s holding them in reserve. For an organization that describes itself as the largest civil rights organization in the world, the NRA sounds more like a cult. Come to think of it, LaPierre does resemble Jim Jones a bit—especially when he’s engaged in one of his narcissistic rants against those who dare oppose him. If you’re attending the next NRA convention, you might want to skip the refreshments.

Since we’re discussing patriotism, let’s turn our attention to some others who’ve been busy, as they describe it, exercising their Second Amendment rights. (What’s up with this amendment anyway? Why does it have to be constantly exercised? Is it flabby? Does it suffer from bloating? Perhaps having a Second Amendment right is like having a Doberman—you need to let him loose on the neighbor’s lawn just to show who’s calling the shots.) With the renewed call for gun-control measures, the patriots have been coming out of the woodwork. Patriots, that’s what they call themselves. Why? It’s simple. If they’re patriots, anyone who disagrees with them must be a traitor. If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same approach McCarthy used in the 1950s. Neither has much to recommend it. Note to Patriots: You can wrap a dead skunk in an American flag—but it’s still going to smell like a dead skunk.

So, how have these patriots gone about exercising their rights? Lately they’ve been concentrating on public spectacles to get the word out. This can take many forms. For instance, National Gun Appreciation Day, held on Jan. 19, was trumpeted as an opportunity for red-blooded Americans to come out of the closet and show the nation who they really are. Many gun shows were scheduled for that day in order to sell—uh, support the cause. Unfortunately, all did not go as planned. In their rush to show what repressed girly-men gun control advocates really are, several patriots at these shows were accidentally shot, thus providing support for their opponents. Ironically, a website related to the event heralded it as a great success and a reminder to the gun grabbers that “They’d better keep [their] hands off our firearms.” Sounds like a good idea, especially if the owners aren’t smart enough to know if their guns are loaded….

Speaking of repression, some online pro-gun commentators have taken to quoting Sigmund Freud, of all people, on the subject of guns. The purported quote goes something like this:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity—Sigmund Freud

If it’s on the net, it must be true, right? I mean, it’s signed and everything. Unsurprisingly, this lame attempt at intellectual legitimacy falls flat. Are we to believe that these people who, based on their incoherent online babblings have a tough time deciphering a comic book, are suddenly delving into the mysteries of psychiatry with Freud? Not likely.

Back at the ranch, the latest pro-gun gambit has resulted in rallies being held in various states, including Idaho. These Second Amendment rallies involve groups marching with signs and brandishing firearms in very public settings as orators harangue the crowd with patriotic speeches. You can even buy T-shirts commemorating the event [and, if you’re feeling especially patriotic, buy two]. In Idaho, at least, open carry laws enable their guns to be loaded.

Unsurprisingly, other states are less enlightened in this regard. In California, those choosing to exercise their rights may openly carry firearms, but they must be unloaded. And so, Californians have been treated to the spectacle of frustrated, impotent gun owners neurotically obsessing over their empty guns—shooting blanks as it were. I wonder what Freud would have to say about that?

I don’t know about you, but when I see groups of armed people strutting around town, the first term that comes to mind is not Patriot. No, more like: gun-shop commando, mall ninja, Rambo wannabe…cowboy. By the way, cowboys may “do it better,” but not when it comes to supporting my Second Amendment rights. If it’s all the same to you yahoos, I’ll speak for myself.

In January, a man in Utah achieved brief notoriety after showing up at a JC Penny store sporting an AR-15 rifle and a pistol. Why didn’t I think of that? It could be a godsend when dealing with the return desk. Seriously, though some took exception to his hardware, I don’t agree. When I go shopping, I always take a couple of claymore mines along just in case I need to establish a defensive perimeter around the men’s room. You can’t be too careful.

Not to be outdone by their big-city, antigun brethren, some in the law enforcement community have taken it upon themselves to publicly state that they will not enforce federal laws pertaining to firearms. Let’s be clear: Any sworn law enforcement officer who decides that they will pick and choose which laws to enforce has missed their calling. They should resign and hit the campaign trail. Politicians make laws, police enforce them—only police states combine these two functions.

Despite the bold stance taken by some pro-gun officers, you just can’t please everyone. Take this anonymous screed that appeared on the Eastern Idaho Tea Party’s Facebook page. Dated January 16, it states [in part]:

The Bonneville sheriff’s office says it won’t enforce federal law in regards to gun control. Not good enough…you are required to protect county citizens from Constitutional [sic] violations committed by the federal government. The fact that your agency won’t enforce federal law isn’t good enough!

What can I say? I’ll have whatever they’re having! Not only is it not sufficient to refuse to enforce the LAW, it sounds like up in Bonneville county, the sheriff’s office is also expected to go mano y mano with the Feds. Let’s see, Bonneville Sheriff’s Office versus the ATF, DEA, DHS, FBI, U.S. Marshals, etc. Are they still carrying flintlocks up there? I know I should root for the hometown team, but can we take a reality break?

We could continue in this vein, but it’s too painful. After all, these are my fellow gun owners who, through diligent application of ignorance, are slowly eroding my right to own a firearm. Once again the extremists are attempting to hijack the debate. Nothing has changed except the names of the victims. What of those in the middle, We the People? What should we do? This time around, we might consider exercising our right to a little critical thinking in order to cut through the crap these groups have served up for years. It’s important for the public to understand that those who choose to own firearms come from all walks of life and that the antics of some minority fringe elements should not be misconstrued as representative of the majority of gun owners. 

So, is this a farewell to arms? Hardly. All sides can rest easy knowing that nothing will get accomplished. The legislative inertia that characterizes our country will continue as long as politicians are only concerned with maintaining power. Meanwhile, special interest groups on both sides will leverage the controversy to their benefit as ambitious politicians, sensing an opportunity, cynically exploit the situation. It looks like the good old boys will have plenty of time to hang curtains in their new bunker before the black helicopters arrive. The stalemate will continue, and those who have benefited from it in the past will continue to do so: It’s the rest of us who will lose.