An interesting article on the divide between pro- and anti-gun cultures in America. And it’s about a lot more than guns:
“The intensity of passion on this issue suggests to me that we are experiencing a sort of low-grade war going on between two alternative views of what America is and ought to be. On the one side are those who take bourgeois Europe as a model of a civilized society: a society just, equitable, and democratic; but well ordered, with the lines of authority clearly drawn, and with decisions made rationally and correctly by intelligent men for the entire nation. To such people, hunting is atavistic, personal violence is shameful, and uncontrolled gun ownership is a blot upon civilization.
“On the other side is a group people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from the state. They are conservative in the sense that they cling to America’s unique pre-modern tradition—a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty at large for everyman. To these people, ‘sociological’ is an epithet. Life is tough and competitive. Manhood means responsibility and caring for your own.”
“That really kind of spells it out,” Reynolds says. “It is a division between two very different views not only of American society, but also life itself.”
It’s really a low-grade cultural civil war going back to colonial times. But one side is a lot better trained and armed so, fortunately for the other side, it hasn’t turned into a shooting war.
“On the other side is a group people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate”
What we have here is a failure to articulate.
PS: I’ll bet more people in the gun-totin’ primitive South know what that “dulce et decorum est” saying means in English than they do in those civilized, ersatz-European “gun free” neighborhoods. (And I used “ersatz” instead of “imitation” to show that I can do the multiculti swing too. And I don’t even own a gun or an iPad!)
“…a society just, equitable, and democratic; but well ordered, with the lines of authority clearly drawn, and with decisions made rationally and correctly by intelligent men for the entire nation.”
Objection! Facts not in evidence.
“On the other hand is a group of people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate…” Wow. Condescend, much?
Ahh for a frontier!
That may be the view from the academy or state house, but the facts on the ground are that it’s a contest between people who are ignorantly afraid of guns and/or afraid of people who own guns and those who are not.
Which is why the NRA et al needs to insist on making firing ranges and gun safety training available to urban areas that have been purposely deprived of such necessities. We need to educate the hoplophobes.
The US is no longer a frontier country. So habits will eventually evolve like they did in any other country with stable borders. The gun ownership debate is a bit silly. Most countries in Europe allow you to own a gun if you have a permit. The limitations are on the type of guns you can own and where you can use them. Which is something which also applies in the US to a degree. Can you buy an Apache helicopter or an M1 tank? A shoulder launched missile weapon? How about an automatic weapon?
In point of fact you can buy a tank. I ran a range at Ft Knox once upon a time where a civilian purchaser of an M1 was put through the mill so that he could safely operate and shoot it. Helps to be well connected with the powers that be, but it is possible.
You can also buy automatic weapons as well. As for shoulder launched missile weapon, I think it depends on whether you mean surface to air or surface to surface. But if you want to build your own missile, you can do that too.
“So habits will eventually evolve like they did in any other country with stable borders.”
Yep, its evolving alright!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u.s.-record-low-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
I credit the rise of the new media. Europe is too deeply entrenched by the leftist medis, we, on the other hand, are pulling away in the other direction. Thoughtful people, presented both sides of the story, have decided overwhelmingly that gun control is a phony solution. We are Switzerland writ large.
Gun owner rights are not just on the march over here, they are absolutely routing the opposition with no end in sight.
The 94 AWB was the prohibitionists high water mark at cemetary ridge during Gettysburg. Right now, we are in the midst of Sherman’s march to the sea. Between the continued sweeping political change that will come after the next election wheh Obama loses in an historic landslide combined with Heller, I expect 90% of all objectional gun laws will be history in short order.
Although I cherish all my Amendment Rights, I worry least about losing the 2nd Amendment Right. And for reasons so obvious that they scream aloud.
Primarily, how in the hell would UNARMED people take the guns from HEAVILY ARMED people? And the pat answer of “police and armed forces” going door to door is foolish, but I have heard it.
(I have an old [female, liberal] friend who thought and WANTED Obama to win, because she thought he’d do it soon after being sworn in)
Just tracking down everyone on a “government registration list” to take those guns would be overwhelming even IF you could get LEOs to do the work. Then there’s the pesky gun fights with the 2nd and third guy, who gets tipped off by the first guy!
I must second Mr. Schtumpy’s post. We have a hard enough time trying to keep spraypaint out of the hands of teenagers. Trying to disarm America will be vastly more difficult than most gun advocates think.
“Most countries in Europe allow you to own a gun if you have a permit.”
The European mindset in a nutshell. This, Mr. Godzilla, is the reason why we broke off from England way back when. I know that you are probably culturally conditioned to not understand this, but we don’t believe that our government should be the one doing the “allowing” of anything. On the contrary, it is we the citizenry who do the allowing of what the government is and is not to do. The officials in government are our servants — that’s why they are called “civil servants.” Owning a gun is an aspect of the individual citizen’s right to defend himself, because a gun is a weapon that is wielded by an individual.
But you’ve probably zoned out by now, and my words make about as much sense to you as a random selection of characters. You come from a backwards world, where you grown men and women actually say things like “the government allows.”
What? No nukes? Your hoplophobic strawman is sub-par.
Usually when two rhetorical views get to the point of proverbial war, the underlying assumptions are incompatible. In this case, I think one side rightly says, “guns make it easy to kill people, look at Europe with its peaceful societies.” The (incorrect) assumption is that we live in a steady-state world, where the only form of violence that will ever happen is criminal.
Then there are those in favor of guns, who say, “Yes, guns probably lead to a few hundred extra deaths a year, and that sucks. But an armed citizenry also checks government abuses, and government abuses tend to be highly non-linear. Look at Europe and Russia and China and Cambodia and ….”
As usual, I find the leftist argument to be horrifically short-sighted.
I never had any doubt that Andrea knew what a republic is.
He’s telegenic, so that some how makes him uber intelligent; and intellectually nimble. And naturally you’re a boob if you don’t agree. No discussion of policy or action seems possible without their sliding into ad hominems of critics. It doesn’t matter if tomorrow we discover Obama has some abhorrent habit, he will still be a hero to fans like this author.
Pap Smears! He talks about pap smears?!? What man do you know talks about pap smears and isn’t a woman’s obgyn?
What? No nukes?
It’s just a matter of price and supply. A fuel/air bomb can produce results at a much lower cost and without the give-away radiation.
It doesn’t look like much, but read the comments.
It is so fun for Americans to bash “Europeans”, even democracies who via NATO have agreed that an attack on us is in an attack on them, so I’m going to just stick to the “Anglosphere” for this comment. Do you actually think people in the UK, Canada, NZ, and Australia are subjects in any sense other than ceremonial?
On the contrary, it is we the citizenry who do the allowing of what the government is and is not to do.
The above is also true of the UK, Canada, NZ, and Australia. Gun control IS no different from nuke control in the sense that it is the people who does the allowing, both in the USA and in other democracies. I respect the 2nd amendment, but it sounds like you “we know what a Republic is!” Anglosphere-bashers don’t respect democracy.
Do you actually think people … are subjects…
Making subjects and concentrating power is the inclination of tyrants (to some extent all humans) everywhere. Americans are not alone, but often take the lead in asserting individual rights (the ninth amendment.) The first and second amendment are examples. Most Americans believe in freedom and many are willing to give blood for it.
Thats right. Democracy deserves nothing but hostility. Rule by mob can do nothing but tear apart civilization.
http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au/index.php/crowned-republic/a-crowned-republic
If you can’t win an argument through semantic buffoonery, then get a bunch of Aussie monarchists to storm the gates for you.
Karl, Leland and now, recently, you, are the ones who aren’t offering arguments, just name calling and sarcasm. Please make a legitimate argument.
The four Anglospheric countries I mentioned have stricter gun control than the United States. Leland apparently thinks this has to do with the issue of “The USA is a republic, not a democracy.” Leland thinks the question “Is Australia a republic?” has a simple answer: it isn’t one. I think the answer depends on what definition of “Republic” is used, and I think that without offering a definition, it is a worthless question. Why this position has generated so much ridicule is beyond me.
I think it is worth considering the role of reserve powers when discussing the definition of republic, and this time around I pointed out another wrinkle in the definition of “republic” (the notion of a “crowned republic”), but for the purposes of figuring out gun control politics in Australia, that sort of distinction is worthless. Why? Because Australia has a liberal democratic system of government in which the people decide this sort of thing via elected officials, just like the USA and just like all the gun-restricting European democracies scorned in the comments above. Nevertheless, Leland brought up the issue of what is a republic again, as if it was relevant to the discussion.
Karl, if you only have mockery to offer, why you aren’t pointing your ridicule at Leland is a mystery to me. But if you can do better than name calling, please go ahead: make a legitimate argument.
You have driver licenses in the US right? Why does a gun license sound so appalling? The principle is the same. If you are a responsible person you can have one. If you are not a responsible person you cannot have one.
Karl, Leland and now, recently, you, are the ones who aren’t offering arguments, just name calling and sarcasm.
I wasn’t aware I was arguing with you. Rather I was agreeing with Andrea.
Please make a legitimate argument.
Try your own advice. For instance, all of this is a strawman on your part:
Leland apparently thinks this has to do with the issue of “The USA is a republic, not a democracy.” Leland thinks the question “Is Australia a republic?” has a simple answer: it isn’t one.
What’s apparent is that I’m not debating you. You made a bunch of strawman arguments, that you attribute to me. Then you set fire to the straw. Color me unimpressed. The ridicule comes from your desparate attempt to twist a simple definition by adding qualifiers, such as “crowned” or “constitutional monarchy”. How about we bypass your irrational conversation with yourself, and just ask the Australian Parliment? Are they legitmate enough for you?
You have driver licenses in the US right? Why does a gun license sound so appalling?
First, the right to drive is not protected by the Constitution. I also think it should not be. In fact, I often wish the US privilege of driving was as restrictive as European nations.
Second, the reason for the DL is to understand basics of vehicle operation on roads shared by other citizens. The reason for unregulated gun ownership is protecting your own life and property from other citizens and the government. The reason gun ownership has gone up during Obama’s Administration is due to his idea that he controls our property and can redistribute to other citizens at his desire.
Godzilla, I expected you to either bring up the “but you have a military and police!” argument, or the “they make you get a driver’s license, don’t they?” argument, so your rejoinder is no surprise. Leland has already pointed out that there is no such thing as the “right to drive” so I won’t bother refuting you any further.
As for Bob-1, I didn’t read much of his long diatribe on Australia or whatever it was. I got bored — it’s the same old “we should be more like (insert name of country that resembles the US in some ways only it has a lot more laws that Bob-1 likes)” blahblah. TL;DR.
Andrea, no I don’t think that, and I think Ken Anthony above got it right: America often takes the lead when it comes to individual rights. One good approach for justifying American Exceptionalism is to take the approach Ken took: pointing at the US Constitution, which is flexible enough to accomodate both sides of the culture war.
Leland, Andrea was contrasting Europe with the USA. Using the definition provided in the document you linked to, Europe is chock full of republics, republics which heavily restrict gun ownership. So why bring up the subject of republics, if that’s the definition you’re using?
The article may be condescending to the pro-freedom side in the gun-control debate: most Second Amendment advocates I know are fairly articulate, and better informed on history and economics than most “liberals” I’ve encountered (or whose comments I get to read here). However, I do think it expresses an essential truth, not just about Second Amendment rights but about other aspects in the struggle between liberty and statism. People who value their lives and liberty, and therefore believe they have the right to effective tools to defend them (with or without Godzilla’s permission) just have a different outlook on life in general than people who see themselves as serfs (the masochists) or rulers (the sadists).
Leland writes: “What’s apparent is that I’m not debating you. You made a bunch of strawman arguments, that you attribute to me. Then you set fire to the straw. ”
WHAT? Statists posting comments here using the straw man argument? What’s the world comming to?
First, the right to drive is not protected by the Constitution.
Actually Leland, I believe it is (9th amend.) Their are two reasons we have drivers licenses. It’s a source of revenue for the state and second because of teenagers. Most teenagers lack enough responsibility and are reckless. Otherwise, there really wouldn’t be a need for a license. Hunting licenses make a lot more sense because they help prevent over hunting.
‘Proof of financial responsibility’ is another of those political lies, but that’s a different topic.
Back to the subject. I don’t care what kind of republic we are in relation to other countries. What I do care about is the protection of my liberty and my fellow Americans. Government employees have this twisted idea that they are in charge. We can’t remove that idea completely, but we can put people in charge of them that does respect the individual liberty that I care about.
Bob, are you suggesting Andrea doesn’t know what a republic is? That was my statement, and I stand by it.
And no where in the link I provided is a discussion about guns or firearms.
I note others are joining me in the ridicule of you.
Ken,
I don’t know enough right now to argue one way another whether the right to drive falls under the 9th amendment, 10th amendment (state regulates), or commerce clause (interstate highway system and its derivatives). I’ll cede the argument there and simply stick with the fact that roadways are shared. The right to protect my property and life can be shared, but at its core, it is individual right and protection.
Hi Ken, I was going to say exactly the same thing about the 9th amendment, but before I posted, I looked at the wikipedia page on it. While wikipedia itself isn’t necessarily reliable, it is full of quotes and citations that can be very useful. Have a look at the article on the 9th amendment — there is a huge difference of opinion on what the 9th amendment really means. Robert Bork is quoted as calling the 9th amendment an inkblot! 🙂 Many of the scholars (and supreme court justices) cited in the article make the case is made that it is simply instructions on how to read the constitution but it does not protect any of the rights that the constitution fails to specify.
I *wish* the 9th amendment wasn’t so hard to interpret. I think I share your feeling on the matter Ken. But as it is written, I think it would be constitutional for a state to simply ban the ownership of cars and ban the act of driving. Please correct me if I’m wrong! The right to drive, own cars, etc, is protected by the people, as they wouldn’t reelect any official who tried to ban those things, but that’s it — we’re living in a free country due to democracy, not our constitution.
Or, rather, what I mean is, the constitution (or something like it) might be necessary, but it is not sufficient. We the majority of the people want to drive, so driving is legal, albeit restricted. I think it would also be constitutional for a state to impose a scissors license, and heavily regulate the ownership and operation of scissors, unfortunately regardless of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Leland, I wish you hadn’t mentioned the “republic” thing. It seems to be one of Bob-1’s trigger words.
Yes, Bob, Bork got it wrong.
http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Lost-Constitution-Presumption-Liberty/dp/0691115850
Rand, did you disallow links?
Ken, hanging on my office wall is the following quote from Commonwealth v. Creighton, 1993, which I’ve used extensively when battling city hall:
“What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannnot be made one by legislatve fiat and then prohibited…. …Even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved.”
Sadly, that’s Pennsylvania case law, and I don’t live there. And of course, it doesn’t cover driving, but it does come in handy for opposing many of the overly restrictive proposals that my town’s elected leaders dream up on a regular basis.
I don’t think the 9th and 10th amendments pack the same punch, as they don’t prevent state and local governments from taking away still more rights, even when there is no justification for it. I guess you disagree, but there are too many influential people who don’t see it your way.
I’d like to find a Federal case in which the judges came to the same conclusion that the Penn. appeals court came to in Commonwealth v. Creighton. Does anyone know of one?
Leland, I wish you hadn’t mentioned the “republic” thing. It seems to be one of Bob-1’s trigger words.
I know, at least Beatlejuice required you to say his name 3 times.
Of the Anglosphere nations, the US is the only one whose founding was based on a revolution sparked by an attempt to seize the guns of the citizenry (See Lexington and Concord, Battle Of).