Saturday, August 22, 2009

Guns & Freedom

...for most gun advocates, this is fundamentally about freedom...
I've had a couple of margaritas, so be prepared for what I'm about to write to make not a lick of sense (for instance, writing "write" there was a bit of a mental block - was it really "right" or "write"? This is the sort of thing I'm warning against).

With that caveat in mind, my oft-quoted friend (who blogs at Triangulations) is someone I like having around, because he makes me think. There are other reasons I like him as well. But. He makes me ponder and reassess. He makes me reevaluate. He makes me think about political things when I'm in the middle of enjoying a delicious Mexican dinner and drinks. And at the end of it, I generally think I'm still in the right. But I - generally - have a stronger argument for it.

Here's my problem with the "for most gun advocates, this is fundamentally about freedom" line of reasoning: it ignores the gun's very function. It's very raison d'etre. Guns are, at their most basic, a thing of violence. They are an object of death and destruction. They aren't built for freedom's purpose. They can be utilized in defense of freedom, to obtain freedom, but they aren't pure symbols of freedom. Their use is - at times - instrumental in preserving freedom. But at their very core, they are produced not to be a symbol of freedom but a means of decimation. They used to be almost fundamental in obtaining food; Lewis and Clark would have been lost without guns by their side. Guns are still heralded as necessary for protection. Guns are still protected under the 2nd Amendment.

But. But a gun is no more a symbol of freedom than a bomb is. The gun can be a weapon of oppression. The gun can be used as a weapon of a totalitarian government. The gun can be the tool of a crazed person who seeks to kill a democratically elected leader. The gun is a thing we imbue with the principles of freedom because it was essential to our own revolution more than 2 centuries ago. That doesn't mean it is a thing of inherent freedom.

For those who can't tell the difference, who are offended that their own entirely legal gun carrying ways distribute the wrong message when they carry those guns near a president, especially a president who's election has meant more gun owners and more death threats, it is their privilege which blinds them to the fact that for too long a time, even in America, the gun was not a weapon of freedom but the tool of oppression. Guns are the weapon of the killers of Emmett Till as surely as they were the weapons of Alexander Hamilton. And unlike words, guns can kill with an immediacy. Which is, ironically, also represented by Alexander Hamilton.

This is the difference between the right and the responsibility of a thing. Guns, as a destructive a force as they've been built to be, have been a right of the American public for as long as there has been an America and are seen (possibly rightly) as a tool for maintaining American citizens' freedom from oppression. The responsibility of gun ownership is in recognizing where the gun's user's cries of freedom are drowned out by its oppressive past where it has been used to kill or intimidate American citizens, some of whom where president.

Because the gun is merely a conduit of freedom, not truly representative of freedom itself.

6 comments:

mikhailbakunin said...

I don't think objects can have "inherent" symbology. People imbue objects with meaning. And people look at different objects in different ways. This is especially true of guns.

Strong libertarians see guns as a symbol of freedom against government oppression. By bringing weapons to town hall meetings, they're making a political point about government oppression.

From their perspective, guns symbolize a check on the power of encroaching government. The message is "don't tread on me" -- a fundamental sentiment in American political history. In a debate over increasing government control over the markets, the symbology is relevant.

I think it's important to point out that this is more than a Second Amendment issue. It's really a First Amendment issue. Gun advocates who are legally carrying guns to political rallies see this as symbolic speech.

Thanks for the blog love, by the way. : )

petpluto said...

I think it's important to point out that this is more than a Second Amendment issue. It's really a First Amendment issue. Gun advocates who are legally carrying guns to political rallies see this as symbolic speech.

The issue for me is that unlike, say, burning an American flag in protest, guns are more than symbolic speech. They are created to destroy things, whether that be a target or a person. So, gun advocates can say, "This is symbolic speech", and in one sense they're right. But given the gun's other function, and how that function has been utilized around high profile figures in American history, there is a tension present that not only muddies the message but that creates a more intense environment.

And to not be aware of that, to assume that everyone around - who don't know you from Adam - knows that you're not going to shoot the thing who's function is destruction, is an arrogant assumption - especially in this type of political climate.

I don't think objects can have "inherent" symbology.

I agree. Which is my problem with one group of people saying, "What's the problem? Guns=freedom!"

Thanks for the blog love, by the way. : )

I figure, for the amount of times I quote you without asking and vehemently argue with you leading to all sorts of craziness on both sides, it's the least I can do. ;-D.

mikhailbakunin said...

Well, burning an American flag is an act of destruction, too.

You said that with guns "there is a tension present that not only muddies the message but that creates a more intense environment."

That's true. And I'm not entirely comfortable with people carrying guns to political rallies either. But some states have chosen -- through the democratic process -- to place the balance strongly in favor of what they percieve as an essential right to bear arms and to display those arms symbolically at political events.

If you agree that objects don't have 'inherent' symbolic meanings, why can't different states come to different conclusions on this issue?

I don't think that gun advocates are suggesting they have a monopoly on truth. They equate guns with freedom, but they're not trying to impose their views on other states without open carry. They're just following the law in their home states.

petpluto said...

Well, burning an American flag is an act of destruction, too.

The flag, itself, however, is not. The fire may be. At the same time, no one has ever succeeded in immolating a president, so.

If you agree that objects don't have 'inherent' symbolic meanings, why can't different states come to different conclusions on this issue?

I think I've already made it pretty clear that although I have a personal beef with open carry laws, I don't have a constitutional one - and that's why I live in the Northeast.

What I have a problem with is guns, being carried by people not of the Secret Service or military, being around the president, due in large part to the history of guns and violence directly relating to presidents and black men.

mikhailbakunin said...

Megan McArdle has a really good post on this here, and a follow-up here.

mikhailbakunin said...

Yet another post on the gun-toting protesters from Megan McArdle.