Extremism In The Defense Of The Packing

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater's quote is one of the most powerful of the last century, IMHO. It's often misinterpreted, as Goldwater was not referring to bomb-throwing "freedom fighters", but rather to those who stood to fight, rhetorically or by their dedication to their cause.

The thing about the quote, however, is that it ignores nuance. It tosses aside distinctions and seems to suggest blind allegiance to a credo, and those who would profit from doing so will claim it means that it's pretty much OK to do or say anything if you have to do get something done.

On Memorial Day I am always reminded of the dedication to the defense of liberty that American fighting men and women have shown throughout our country's history. I think it's fair to say that Americans fought the good fight for nearly two hundred years. I can be persuaded by an argument that our battles in Vietnam and Iraq have not always been, "the good fight", but that doesn't take away the honor shown by those who fought there, and it should never denigrate the sacrifices they made. As a former Marine I understand that I might be ordered to fight in any battle, in any war, and as a Marine I accept that. It comes with the territory. Marines fight honorably, and it's sometimes to the death.

But there are some fights that just aren't honorable. There are some battles that, by their very fighting, forfeit the moral high ground. They further empower the powerful, and they weaken the weakest. Such is the battle over keeping ALL firearms legal in the United States.

I believe we, as Americans, should have the right to own a firearm. I don't believe the Second Amendment guarantees that. Yes, this is a dichotomy and some will call it waffling or worse. I prefer to believe it's the willingness to look at issues and refuse to take an "all or nothing" stand. I liken it to a line-item veto. If a US President had the blanket ability to delete certain portions of bills, without throwing the entire thing into the trash, then American taxpayers would fund far fewer pork barrel projects, perhaps in the range of more than a trillion dollars.

But, as congress knows it's "all or nothing" and if a President vetoes a bill, even with hundreds of riders attached, then our pork-loving elected officials can override the veto and force that "bridge to nowhere" down our throats. (note, for at least four more years there is very little hope of any veto as Saint Barrack has a congressional majority. We do have two years to wake up, people) After all, if a congressman attaches $50 million for home-state hubcap factories to a bill that would provide free vaccines to the poor, a Presidential veto can be spun, by the aggrieved congressman, into appearing that the President hates children.

I don't have much respect for any "all or nothing" people. OK, maybe those who say one best consumes chocolate brownies an entire tray at a time don't qualify here. Other than that, however, I think such people or organizations are harmful to those of us who have the mental capacity, and the ability, to look at issues without zealotry or political myopia.

The National Rifle Association is willing to employ any tactic necessary to force through its agenda. It will fatten the fat cats with $1000 steak dinners. It will transport politicians to exotic locales for vacations. It will promise it's political largesse, and voting block of lemmings, to those who play along. The NRA understands how the American political game is played, and it plays it with the skill of Yo-yo Ma manipulating his cello.

I don't hate the NRA. Its firearm safety program is outstanding, and its campaign to educate people on how to keep from blowing off their private parts has merit. Yes, pistol packers do blow off their own private parts, and it happens with more regularity than any "all or nothing" firearms supporter wants to admit. But it's handguns that cause this mayhem. I haven't heard of anyone shooting their own wee-wee with a shotgun in, oh, ever.

I simply despise the way the NRA deals in absolutes. The NRA refuses to consider that Teflon-coated bullets that can pierce though a police officer's Kevlar vest should be illegal. I guess one never knows when one might need an armor-piercing round to off Bambi. The little bastard might be packing heat, after all. And the NRA refuses to even consider that assault rifles, such as the AK-47, a weapon designed to fire a round big enough to punch a hole the size of your fist as it comes out of your back, are for killing people and not for hunting or anything else that might be of benefit to mankind. And tell me why machine pistols, such as Uzi's, which are specifically designed to fire rounds at people, should be allowed on our streets? The NRA believes they should.

It's the NRA's all or nothing way of dealing with firearms that drives me to disparage the organization and its goals. I realize it's a convenient whipping boy for liberals and anti-firearms activists. I am not one of either of those factions. And I know my position on common sense legislation of firearms drives some of my fellow conservatives nuts. We've had "the chat". Even with the flak coming from the right I am not willing to concede that Big Brother will come to confiscate my Remington .22 with the outstanding Bushnell scope if we make handguns and assault rifles illegal.

I'm also not willing to concede the old position "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." I am not calling for the elimination of all firearms, only those sold, distributed, and possessed for one reason; the killing of people.

I have never been hunting with a .45 calibre pistol. I have never shot a deer with the M-16 I learned to use as an effective killing machine during my tenure as a Marine. I have, however, harvested prey using a 12-gauge shotgun. I also feel I can defend my family and my home quite effectively with either a shotgun or my .22 rifle loaded with hollow-point bullets.

I am a strict constitutionalist. I believe our country was made great primarily because we have a document, the United States Constitution, that lives and breaths. The men that wrote it some 220 years ago created a document that guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all who dwell in our country. It has been amended many times, but for our country to remain what it has become I believe we must defend and apply the constitution as it was meant to be applied.

There are a few parts of the Bill of Rights that some find inconvenient today, or they are just too lazy to understand and defend. I believe the men that wrote the document were brilliant, and took a lot of time to think through the wording, and the meaning, of what they wrote.

There was a reason the "Founding Fathers" specifically cited the Press in the Constitution and its amendments. They understood that a free press, that was willing to expose government corruption and would take on government, was necessary to inform the electorate and help voters make educated choices.

Please note there is nothing about term limits anywhere in the constitution. The Constitution's authors felt elections would accomplish that. The Press would, by design, help ferret out information needed by people and, by design, people would consume it and make good decisions on Election Day.

Even though the electorate, by and large, no longer gives a collective rat's posterior about doing any kind of research, especially in Memphis where skin color often means more than honesty, integrity, and wisdom, the Constitution is still on-point about how it should work. When people start believing they are smarter than Thomas Jefferson, et.al, then we get what we deserve.

Which brings me, nicely, to the Constitution's Second Amendment. To understand why it is written the way it is one must understand the way things were when it was written. Around 1787 the Revolutionary War was a painful and recent memory. Americans didn't have much stomach for another big war, and there was not a truly strong central government. As such, states and territories had to rely on militias to enforce the law and keep peace.

When the Constitution's authors met to pen the "Bill Of Rights", they had to consider a way to allow the states to arm the militias, and prevent rogue courts or other authorities from robbing them of that power and right. So, the Second Amendment was added. It reads, "A well maintained militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That, my friends, is the ENTIRE text of the Second Amendment. The intent of the amendment was solely to arm militias. The language, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was never intended to allow every American to pack a sidearm, own an assault rifle, or bear a bazooka.

If one checks one's history, Americans simply didn't own weapons at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Farmers had them to shoot food to feed their families. But city dwellers didn't have them, and by all accounts gun crime was non-existent.

It was only in the late 19th century, when the Colt sidearm became mass produced, that Americans started their long romance with firearms. It was mass advertising that caused it, and the battle over the Second Amendment started in earnest.

The Second Amendment notwithstanding, the recent passage of laws in Tennessee that will allow gun permit holders to take their weapons into bars and restaurants is simply one of the most astounding pieces of stupidity and idiocy I have witnessed in my lifetime. Tell me, what possible good can come of this? Guns and alcohol don't mix. True, if you're carrying a weapon it will still be illegal for you to drink in public. But tell me what bartender is going to refuse to serve a packing patron? And tell me why restaurant owners, managers, and employers should be forced to police this monument of moronity?

But the NRA supported the legislation and, behind the scenes, lent considerable political muscle to its passage. Of course, judging the Tennessee legislature using any kind of litmus test tied to gray matter is absurd and would yield nary a tick on the cerebral Geiger counter.

Businesses can post signs that make their establishments gun free. Tell me, if a pistol packing poltroon walks in demanding a drink, will that 95-lb. waitress tell him "no"? Remember the "well informed electorate" portion above? Tennesseans have a chance to show their lack of ignorance by voting these idiots out of office at the next possible opportunity. Now THERE is an example of effective limiting of terms in office.

I don't buy the argument that packing heat makes me safer. I know that people say they wear sidearms because it makes them feel safer. Perhaps, but it's an ill-conceived sense of safety and one refuted by several studies.

I have seen too many studies, and not just those funded by left-wing wackos, where people lack the training to defend themselves with a firearm when danger pops up.

There was an outstanding one shown recently on a televised news magazine. I wish I could remember the network, but it's really not important.

It showed several rooms full of people who had taken an extensive firearms training course. They all had weapons. They thought they had pistols but, in fact, they fired paint pellets.

Unexpectedly, an attacker burst into the room and started firing at them. They did not know it was coming. In every scenario, repeated several times, the pistol packers either shot each other, missed their target, or failed to get off a shot before they were, themselves, shot several times.

It takes years of training in facilities not available to the average Joe or Josephine to be able to defend oneself well in times of danger. The body reacts to danger by releasing tons of endorphins, and those little pearls of energy provide tunnel vision. You simply can't think like you need to think without long, long periods of stressful, real life, training. You and I can't walk off of the street and get it. You can't get it by firing at paper targets. You can't get it by going to the firing range and popping off rounds at a piece of wood that pops up 25-yards away.

The good stuff is available to law enforcement and the military. And without it, people simply can't learn to do what's necessary when their lives are threatened. We like to think we're John Wayne but, in fact, we're normal humans with reactions that humans have when in danger. And those reactions, unless sublimated through training, will prevent us from being able to draw, aim, and fire accurately and with the lethal action we need. In nearly every case the inadequately trained will be dead before he can fire an accurate shot or, as the training scenarios showed, they will kill an innocent bystander with an errant shot.

So, why not look at things calmly. Why can't we, as Americans, say we don't really need handguns or other weapons designed to kill people? Why can't we force our elected officials to actually provide penalties that mean something when firearms are used in commission of felonies? I propose a life prison sentence, without parole, for anyone who uses a firearm against a person. I propose taking away a judge's option to reduce the sentence. I propose taking away time for "good behavior". I propose that, if somebody uses a firearm against a person, whether he shoots that person or not, he goes away for the rest of his life.

This will only work if we take away the ability of bleeding heart judges to lessen sentences. And I believe that, if we do this, it will dramatically reduce the number of gun crimes. It might, after a time (because people will have to see that it works and that we weren't kidding) actually nearly eliminate gun crime. And wouldn't that negate the need to own a weapon designed to kill people?

You'd have to make selling such weapons illegal, at stores or at gun shows. You'd have to make those penalties strong, perhaps forfeiture of the violator's business and weapons stock, along with a hefty fine. And if someone is importing prohibited weapons, they go away for life as well.

I think the reason we have crime issues has a lot to do with the fact that we aren't serious about punishment. We allow smart lawyers and cowardly judges to manipulate prison time down to something not meaningful. Fix that, and things get better. It requires a lot of political will, and we continue to elect crooks and thieves who belly up to the NRA's, and other special interest group's, bars and water down everything that matters. We get what we deserve.

So, give all of us guns in restaurants and in federal parks. We'll kill each other and the bad guys will still run free. I loved the recent letter to the editor where the NRA apologist says we need guns in parks because 11 people were shot there last year. The last I checked there were hundreds of National Parks and National Monuments. 11 is too many, but it doesn't justify extremism in the defense of liberty.

It's time for some common sense. The NRA is a convenient target, and it certainly isn't the only problem in this mess. But it is the extremist at the center, and its "all or nothing" approach is harmful and dangerous to us all.

But at least it knows how to get out the vote, even if it's helping to make America a more deadly place than ever. Countries that effectively ban weapons, and have severe penalties for possession, have exceptionally low crime rates. Look it up for yourself.

But, in the United States, we can pack a pistol into the pub. Hey, that's worth something. And if you don't like it, eat steel coated rounds, sucker.