Support the Second Amendment (Without Being an Idiot): Arguments You Should Stop Making

If only Abel had a gun!

If you've been reading my stuff (and my blogs stats would suggest that you aren't), you might assume that I am a typical liberal.  Now, I eschew labels, but as labels go that one would, for the most part, serve pretty well.  But one issue where I don't toe the party line is, as you may have guessed from the title of this post, I support the right to privately own and carry guns.

Now, we can debate the origins of the Second Amendment or the related, but distinct, common-law right of self-defense.  In sum, I think it is a tortured reading of that amendment to say that it only allows gun ownership as it pertains to being part of a militia, or to imply that the "founding fathers" were worried about protection the citizenry's ability to hunt or shoot skeet.  No, an honest and thoughtful reading of the Amendment reveals that it gives the right, not only to own, but to "bear" or carry guns.

But that's a bit esoteric for my tastes.  The real reason I support the ability to carry guns is much more practical: I should be able to walk down the street at night secure in knowing that I can defend myself if I need to.  I say "I should" because, well, I generally don't (carry guns or walk down dark streets, I suppose). I frequent many places daily where guns are forbidden by law (schools, courts, banks), and it is simply too problematic for me to have to figure out a way to safely stash my gun while I'm doing those things.  I would also like to take one on the occassional cross-country trip the family and I go on (deserted gas stations at night are pretty scary), but lack of uniformity or reciprocity among many states' gun laws make that too much of a risk too.

But that's not the worst thing about being a "gun rights" person (guns have rights?), no, the worst thing about supporting private gun ownership is the strange bedfellows you make.  I talking about the "gun nuts": the angry, loud-mouthed, semi-literate, overwhelmingly white male contingent from whose cold dead hands you (read: Obama) can pry their guns.  Because, as Frederic Bastiat said: 

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."  

And for many of these guys, spelling multi-syllable words is prohibitively difficult; forming a cogent or thoughtful argument that goes beyond regurgitating bumper sticker rhetoric is effectively impossible.  While these "arguments" may be fun to volley back and forth among like-minded folks on Facebook or Joe the Plumber's blog (no link intentional), it does nothing to enlighten someone who does not already share your position and is more likely to alienate them.  Take it from a liberal, pinko, bleeding-heart commie like myself. 

So, in the interest of raising the level of debate, here are some terrible pro-gun arguments that you should stop making:

• "You can kill people with knives, cars, rocks, baseball bats, certain large fruits (etc.), but we don't ban those things."

This argument (featured in the billboard posted above) is a variation of the NRA mainstay "guns don't kill people, people do."  While that mantra has its own shortcomings, this particular variation is more annoying because it instantly undermines the speaker's credibility.  Can you honestly not discern the difference between a baseball bat and a gun?  In case you can't: one is designed to hit a horsehide (now cowhide) ball as part of a mildly-fun-to-play and mildly-boring-to-watch game, while the other was designed to quickly and easily kill something.

You know what else kills people?  Grenades, bombs, nuclear weapons, smallpox -- and we most certainly ban people from owning those things.  Granted, I agree with you that a gun (or at least most guns) fall somewhere closer to the middle of a spectrum running from fruit to biological warfare in that they have the ability to be more precisely employed against a deserving target.  But stop pretending they aren't dangerous because they are.

• "We should stop trying to keep guns out of schools and start letting Jesus in."

This argument (also featured in the picture above) is what I call "doubling down on stupid."  First, it is rarely advantageous, when discussing a serious issue, to buttress your argument with a different party platitude that your opponent is also likely to oppose.  Second, you criticize (perhaps rightfully) my liberal brethren's creation of gun-free zones at places such as schools, because it is silly to think that a criminal will respect such rules.  Fair enough.  But it is equally silly to think that someone who has the psychological makeup to murder a bunch of strangers will be placated by learning about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark or singing a few verses of "Jesus Love Me."  

And if, god forbid, it were my kids that were affected by one of these incidents, and you said within my earshot something like "If only they taught these kids the bible this wouldn't have happened," I would find whatever semi-lethal object discussed in the point above that was nearby and bludgeon you to death with it for implying that my child died because she didn't believe hard enough in your particular deity.

And lastly, Christians, PLEASE stop acting so persecuted.  You had (and continue to have) a good run at dominating the politics of this country, so don't get mad that your hegemony is starting to weaken.  You can't sucker-punch someone in the mouth and then cry foul when he starts swinging back. 

• "I oppose any form of gun control."

OK, wait.  You just went through this whole spiel about how guns aren't bad, that good guys need guns, and we should just keep them out of the hands of bad guys.  Assuming that won me over, the next question is "OK, what are we going to do to keep guns away from bad guys?"  If your answer is "Nothing," then maybe you are the are the heartless gun nut that the left sees you as.

People who are serious about protecting gun ownership long-term should get on board and help design a better screening process to ensure guns are only possessed by people who ought to have them.  That means a comprehensive, nation-wide, screening and perhaps licensing process.  There are no interstate customs agents; gun runners buy guns in places with loose gun restrictions and sell them to criminals in places with stricter laws.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and some links are laughably weak.  To say you oppose gun control means you oppose all sorts of common-sense measures like universal background checks, which would make you a complete moron.

You're not a moron are you?  If you're reading this, of course you aren't!  You are wonderful and brilliant and smell like that one plant my mom kept in the kitchen before the dog ate it.  So act like it.