parallelsversusdictators.org

Interested in our ever-changing laws on gun ownership and the right to carry/transport firearms? Me too, so much so that my book Parallels includes a chapter on the subject, entitled “War Games: Little Boys Playing with Guns.” It’s a topic of great interest and importance to me, partly because my late father and a close friend — both major subjects in the book — were severely wounded during politically motivated and, fortunately, bungled assassination attempts.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It was written in 1789, shortly after the Continental Army vanquished the British Army, whose soldiers were defeated by civilian “rebels” hastily trained by professional soldiers like George Washington.

How did this unusual scenario lead to victory? It had a lot to do with the involvement of external forces, for example, the French Navy’s blockade of Chesapeake Bay late in 1791.

The colonists embodied the “well regulated militias” of the time; their battlefield success was partly due to irregular tactics like wearing less conspicuous uniforms than those of the “redcoats”; sometimes fighting from behind defensive obstacles like buildings, trees and boulders; and benefiting from the superior accuracy of long barreled hunting rifles versus close-quarter, smoothbore muskets, standard issue for British regulars. Fully automatic pistols and rifles (capable of firing multiple projectiles with one trigger-pull), even semi-automatic guns (capable of firing only one projectile per trigger-pull but instantly making another bullet ready for the next shot), weren’t even on the drawing board yet. In today’s world, where gun-rights advocates deliberately confuse the historical realities that existed in 1789 with those existing now, no one can afford to be fuzzy on the meaning of the terms printed in bold type.

Mike Bloomberg, former mayor of New York and a leading political voice, once confused the bolded terms in the preceding paragraph during a televised interview, displaying his ignorance of their meaning. Not a good thing, since he’s still active in political discourse.

As citizens of every social stratum, including the current president, personally experience gun violence, do we really want further watering down of restrictions on both purchasing and carrying of firearms? The proponents like to refer to their cause as a “freedom,” one based on an American “history” not truly understood.

To my knowledge, gun rights advocates haven’t explained why fully automatic firearms would ever be used in legal hunting of wild animals. (I did see a TV biography of Buffalo Bill that described the near-extermination of the North American bison by that colorful folk hero and other like-minded hunters who would gladly have used submachine guns, had those weapons been available.) Many buffalo hunters were actually U.S. Army scouts, engaged not only in a lucrative commercial business but also the destruction of Plains Indians’ major food source.

Today, wild animals have more legal protection than human beings from the ever-present superabundance of guns in the hands of the mentally ill , underage or criminally inclined. The cases where “a good guy with a gun is the best defense against a bad guy with a gun,” as cited by former National Rifle Association CEO Wayne La Pierre, may be significantly offset by trigger-happy gun owners who shoot unconfirmed “burglars” through closed doors. Even one such death–and there have been many–could be prevented by locked entrances, well lighted home exteriors, and calling 911 when necessary.

Today’s “well regulated militia” are municipal and state police and, if the need arises, the National Guard. They are less likely to do serious harm than vigilantes or masked, inexperienced, hastily recruited federal goons.

And I didn’t even have to mention all the school shootings. After all, this is a blog, not a book.