Right Nuts and Left Tits

This is the problem: the Second Amendment itself--and the cultural assumptions that underly this constitutional juggernaut.

Most citizens, of most countries, do not "assume" that they are entitled, by the mere circumstances of their birth, to possess and employ lethal firearms. But Americans DO so assume.

Americans, unlike, say, citizens of Japan or Britain or France or Sweden, grow up thinking that their authorization to bear arms is inborn and inalienable--a "natural" right--accorded them by the universe or by what Jefferson sneakily (and deceptively) called Nature's God. Any attempt to deny, limit, restrict or control that "right" is thus considered a threat to an individual's very identity as a free American, indeed as an autonomous human being.

In most other countries, though, possessing a gun is viewed as a privilege or a responsibility accorded to an individual based upon that individual's particular needs, qualifications and training--a privilege not given lightly and granted only to those who demonstrate convincingly that their use of such weapons would be useful or (at least) inoffensive to the common good. Granted by whom? By the central government whose sacred duty it is to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." In such countries, that's what the GOVERNMENT does--not what individual gun-toters do.

A complete reversal of the American attitude (despite the language of the Preamble to the Constitution).

Of course, this is not a new idea. My friends in Europe have often expressed their astonishment that Americans regard gun rights as something as integral to one's selfhood as, say, a right nut or a left tit. It always surprises me, though, that Americans themselves do not recognize, indeed refuse to recognize, how completely "out of it" they are. My God, isn't it clear that, in the 21st century, constitution writers possessed of even a bare minimum of rationality would NEVER include in their foundational document any provision as threatening to "domestic tranquility" as the Second Amendment?

Obviously, I believe that our outdated 18th century assumption is wrongheaded--and that our gun-toting culture is both self-defeating and viciously cyclical (we buy guns to protect ourselves from others who buy guns to protect themselves from others who...well, you see the pattern). However, I also believe that any wimpy attempt at "modest" control--better vetting, no assault guns, yada yada.--will FAIL. As long as guns OF ANY KIND are widely available and regarded as a natural "right," nothing substantive will change. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

It is my belief that only a complete about-face in our fundamental assumptions--comparable to the moral revolution settled (at least officially) by the Civil War and enshrined in the post-Civil War amendments--can procure a safer, saner, commonwealth. In short, the Second Amendment must be REPEALED and gun possession must be seriously limited/regulated (as in Japan or the UK).  No one, anywhere, should be assumed to have a natural or constitutional "right" to bear arms.

Alas, I doubt that we Americans have any REAL will to change our ingrained thinking so radically. The fearsome toll of gun violence shocks us, yes (sincerely), but still we cannot bring ourselves to espouse anti-Amendment "blasphemy" or take anti-Amendment stands. Instead, in response to the havoc wreaked by the un-infringed bearing of arms, we cling vacuously to moments of silence followed by...thoughts and prayers. It's pathetic, and we know it. But give up our guns? My God, they're like our right nut and left tit!

Revival of the Fittest

All the current revelations of sexual wrongdoings and/ or repentance therefrom bear a sort of queasy resemblance to the over-heated “altar calls” at the climax (ahem) of revival meetings. On the one hand, I am encouraged that the national “congregation” is suddenly clamoring to confess both its frequent misdeeds and its general complicity in them. On the other hand, I am skeptical that our frenzied coming-to-Jesus will have any lasting effect on the sex-power drive of alpha males. There will be temporary teeth-gnashing and breast-beating, of course, but the history of human phallocentrism suggests that any “resolve to sin no more” is likely to be short-lived. As a species, we are capable of CONCEPTUALIZING a better, more self-disciplined, less brutish rapport between the sexes. Indeed, certain individuals—perhaps even increasing numbers of them—may be successful in living in accordance with such ideals (and this, too, is modestly encouraging). But overall, globally, how well do we do? Certainly nothing to shout “hallelujah” about—not very loudly anyway.  Because, well, recidivism, thy name is alpha male. And so, fellow dreamers, until we meet again at our culture’s next revival meeting...