Lost, Shy Dog
Ran out of time this morning to post any thoughts. Only had an hour, part of which was spent reading Standing by Words, by Wendell Berry, and part was spent chatting with Reno. Then off to my first work appointment of the day. I was in a funk on a sunny Friday. Felt like a bug trapped in a clock with moving parts all around. Among the moving parts that arrest my attention are the killing of 17 students in Florida; our carnival-barker-President and the sycophant congress who, together will allow the deportation of 700,000 DACA young people; and closer to home, a good friend about to undergo cancer surgery.
Then one of those lost pet signs stapled to a pole caught my eye as I drove past. LOST SHY DOG. Three words that fit me to a T. Feeling lost, wondering what to say, and dog-like-low.
I’ve had in mind a reply to my friends who have exchanged some impassioned, even vitriolic emails lately on guns, the constitution, and what ought to be done. For the most part I stayed on the sidelines, strained to follow the exchange of ideas and think. Those who participated are well-known to me. They are known and respected by their friends and loved ones, and have well established roots in my community. So, I weigh their words especially when the air crackles with the static of disagreement. I printed some emails out and actually highlighted a number of statements for emphasis.
I hold to the truth that each of us is a standard issue human, and we have our basic human needs and pleasures in common: good food, good music, and good fellowship. Those are binders of community if we will allow that to transpire. Also and equally important: we are Americans. I have lived in a foreign country and could be happy living somewhere else, if I had a few friends. But I will always be American in temperament, in outlook.
Last night I had the pleasure of hearing the Elvis tune, An American Trilogy, covered by Gary Puckett. I grew up in North Carolina. Tears welled up as those magnificent lyrics washed over all of us at the concert. I was aware that being an American has meant many things since our founding, commitments that must be made anew by each generation, some of which must be made in contradiction to our forefathers, because the times and the country have changed. A close to home example: I do not hold the same view-point as my slave holding ancestors.
So to my friends here are a few thoughts;
The Constitution, our founding document, did not fall out-of-heaven. Holding rigorously, literally to every word as sacred writ, will not save us from anything. More likely, such a worshipful, hidebound, insistence that historical and social perspective on the document is not needed, and is proscribed–will bring about the very disaster that we all wish to avoid. I will not belabor this point as all of you are philosophically informed about the working of the mind, and how all knowledge is context relative. If the constitution is your Bible, I simply beg you to reconsider. And I did not say it is unimportant.
A semi-automatic gun is a fearful weapon. It is a handy weapon-of-mass-destruction. Those who have been in a war zone know this is true. A AR-15 with a 30 round clip is designed to kill efficiently, quickly. The same can be said of a semi-auto hand gun. I also note that hand guns are almost never used for hunting. There is a big qualitative difference between the well armed militia of our founders, and the military small arms of the 21st century. This is a fact. It is relevant to the discussion. Allow me to suggest that no one in the typical small town, suburb or city ought to possess any of these weapons. Civilization means that at last we have agreed to peaceably live by our laws. But we are awash with weapons. And we cannot keep plenty from “falling off the truck.” Parenthetically I suggest that a semi-auto gun of any kind is the apotheosis of the industrial age–a tool of unparalleled efficiency….
I have empathy for the expelled student who expressed his despair by murdering 17 of his class mates. By experience I know that depression can be horrendous, persistent, and demanding of a long arc of therapy and support from others. To say that we are going to “wrestle” with the mental health issue as our response to school killing is tantamount to attempting to drink up ocean. Our society cannot afford to do this on any level, financially or medically. It is not a crime to be mentally ill. At the very least, we must make gun ownership much more restrictive, more difficult than the privilege of holding a drivers license.
And to the assertion that a well armed citizenry is a bulwark against tyranny, again I say, times have changed, even though many keep quoting that scripture. Tyranny is more insidious, more indirect than it was when King George lost us as his colony. I find it ironic that the pro-gun folks overwhelmingly voted for the President that we now have. I was told by a relative who was an evangelistic NRA member that President Obama was “going to try to take his guns away.” That expectation was also projected upon the Democratic candidate for office, Hillary Clinton. And behold, we now have the most despotic minded President in our history, ensconced in the White House. A proliferation of gun ownership is irrelevant to the threat of tyranny.
I’ve gone on too long. It is difficult to read this much on a screen.
At concerts conclusion of last night, I shook the hand of Gary Puckett and thanked him for the contribution of his music to my life. Also I mentioned that his songs helped all of us through the terrible darkness of the Vietnam War. You remember the Vietnam War? Families broke up, some members left to live in Canada, others came back deranged by PTSD, or with appendages missing. All because their government called them to go and fight. The good words, the sane words, of those tunes helped to get us through.
I wonder what is going to get us through the gathering darkness which I think we are facing? Who will write the lyrics, and craft the tunes that will ground us in the earth to which we all belong and to the sacred bond that we bear together as Americans?
Enjoy this clip of Gary Puckett singing one of his hits, “Lady Will Power.” For a 75 year old he still has some pipes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onrScyp_1o8
Feel free to offer your comments on what I have written, really.
8 thoughts on “Lost, Shy Dog”
Your comment of, “The Constitution, our founding document, did not fall out-of-heaven. Holding rigorously, literally to every word as sacred writ, will not save us from anything,” is not how I look at the Constitution. I know it did not fall from heaven but was written by citizens with great wisdom. It is not sacred writ that causes me to say the things I say, it is the need for structure that causes me to uphold it as I do. It can be changed, as it has been quite a few times and no one felt a stroke of lightening, except those who were glad they could imbibe once again. It is the law, and we need the law. It must be adhered to until changed. not following the law but basing things you want on a whim can only lead to chaos.
You would not subscribe to “originalism” then?
I do subscribe to ‘originalism’, I’m surprised that you would ask such a question since most of my comments subscribe to the Constitution.
I appreciate your candor. I did not want to assume that is what your comments amounted to. Better to just ask in order to make sure. The equivalent doctrine in protestant fundamentalism is the “verbal plenary inspiration” of scripture. Fancy words for the belief that a text is a direct transmission from a divine source. I take “originalism” to be belief that the flounders words in the Constitution are quasi sacred, the ultimate authority for life and practice in the 21st century.
The laws of any land should be viewed as malleable, interpreted by the courts to fit the current judicial view of the constitution and the ethical codes based on cultural mores that change over time. For instance, we now encourage any citizen of this nation to cast a ballot. When the constitution was crafted the criteria was any free, male, property holder could vote. This disenfranchised the majority of the population. Over time that has clearly changed.
We now are immersed in a horrendous debate over guns and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. But in my estimation, this has little to do with what the founders of our country wrote those many years ago, for the squabble over the 2nd Amendment is only a smoke screen for the true debate.
We are and always have been an ever changing country as immigrants come to our shores to find the promises of freedom. But we are also tribal creatures, bonded to our innate heritage by DNA. The influx of folks who do not look like us white people, who eat different foods and speak strange languages, frightens those who want to surround themselves with the familiar. Mix that with the myth of the west where men were men based on what firearm they carried (which, by the way, is also mythology created by early 20th Century fiction writers romanticizing a nonexistent culture) plus a lack of self-esteem based on the strict father culture detailed in George Lakoff’s book and you have the modern American, chest thumping, right wing white male.
I wish I had an answer as to how to bridge the ever widening gap between us, but I don’t. Perhaps a galvanizing event will take place, but those are usually based on a disaster of some sort and I would prefer we avoid that scenario, so in the end, I’m just another wanderer in the desert looking for the elusive oasis where we all get along.
Your summation seems to be a useful survey of the landscape. It’s time to start building that bridge. I am one white guy that has learned to like curry, sushi, etc., in addition to the fried chicken and watermelon of my native heritage. I am a wiser and more joyful person due to the contributions of other ethnic traditions. This bridge building project will take several generations, and needs to include everyone.
When a tragedy strikes I understand the impulse to do something. Our hearts bleed for the innocent and anger rises up within us. We want to punish the guilty and vow to never let it happen again. If we have a conscience, and most of us do, it is part of being a “standard issue human” as you put it.
You say that the Constitution did not “fall out-of-heaven” and that not every word should be treated as “sacred writ” I am in total agreement with you. It is flawed and always will be, being the work of fallible humans. But it does distill a great deal of hard won wisdom. The Founders knew a great deal about the “standard issue human”, both his strengths and weaknesses. One of the things they most feared was the “impulse of passion”, that a group, most especially a majority group, moved by some perceived injustice, common interest, etc., roused by the sentiments of the moment, would pass laws that were “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”. (See Federalist No. 10 for example.) Aware of this they made it hard to pass laws, requiring that every proposed law has to get the agreement of three different institutions before it is law in fact. They made it even harder to amend the Constitution itself, requiring super-majorities. I for one, think it would be folly for us to toss this received wisdom aside too quickly. After all, in recent decades we have not exactly covered ourselves in glory with the gravity, acumen, intelligence, prudence, and justice of our self-government.
But we agree that the Constitution is not perfect, so let us seriously reconsider the right to bear arms. The ultimate justification for the Second Amendment is that it is a “bulwark against tyranny”. You reject that argument because “times have changed” offering up as support the claim that “Tyranny is more insidious, more indirect than it was when King George lost us as his colony.” I actually doubt that your claim is true. Consider for example one of the charges found in The Declaration of Independence: “sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.” The language might be a bit antiquated but I bet that a lot of people even today would shout out in agreement with that. Further, even if tyranny is more insidious and indirect, you have not shown that armed resistance to it is not helpful. Alexander the Great had a rather direct, armed, solution to the insidiousness of the Gordian Knot.
There is no easy way to prove unquestionably that an armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny, only that it is likely to often be so. History abounds with examples of one of the first acts of an ascending tyranny is to disarm much of the populace. Often very bad things ensue. Just a few examples:
1911 – Turkey. Armenian genocide.
1929 – Soviet Union. The Holomodor, the man made famine in the Ukraine, that killed many millions.
1964 – Guatamala. In the ensuring decades tens of thousands of Mayan Indians were killed.
1970’s – The Kmer Rouge in Cambodia, close to 2 million.
Tyrannical governments clearly believe that armed citizens are a danger to them. I don’t know why we should believe otherwise.
It is not required that an armed populace be an iron clad guarantee that tyranny will not ever triumph, only that it meaningfully reduce the odds, because the costs of tyranny can be so overwhelmingly great, in millions of lives lost and lives lived in fear.
Laws must be enforced in the real world. If private ownership of firearms were outlawed today what would happen tomorrow? There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in the US. That would supply a criminal element for many decades at least, unless substantially most of them were confiscated. How would one go about doing that? Armed police knocking down your door at night, ripping your home apart looking for weapons? Then doing it all again in case they missed something the first time? To say nothing of guns smuggled in from elsewhere. We cannot even keep out illegal drugs to the degree that they aren’t both cheap and plentiful. I dare say that many thousands of citizens would be killed if ever such confiscation were attempted, no matter what the merits of it might be.
Ah, but some say that they only want “reasonable” gun control, not confiscation. I ask them, go case by case and show how your proposed law would have prevented each tragedy. Without confiscation, all “reasonable” gun control laws will fail in their intended purpose, at least for many decades. Those most punished by such laws will be citizens who had no intent to commit a crime, let alone harm someone. You say that a semi-automatic is a fearful weapon and I do not dispute that, but it is not a weapon of mass destruction. They are only maybe two to five times more lethal than non-semi-automatic weapon, such as a revolver, etc. It is unlikely that a lone person with a semi-automatic could kill hundreds or thousands of people, the way a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack could. Most of the long guns and a vast majority of the hand guns in our nation are semi-automatics. To outlaw them brings you to basically the same problem as you would have with confiscation of all guns.
Aside from the bulwark against tyranny issue, there is the question of whether or not guns do provide, on balance, a net personal protection gain. I acknowledge that the evidence on this is debatable, but the loss of freedom that extreme gun control or confiscation would incur is certain. So we are attempting to weight an uncertain benefit against a definite loss. Would not prudence dictate that we have a more solid evidence for a gain before incurring such high costs?
That doesn’t mean that there is nothing we can do, but most of the things we can do are cultural, such as imbuing a respect for life, teaching self-control, etc., and those take time. They are hard work and do not provide the instant gratification of passing laws that don’t really achieve their intended purpose, or provide little benefit at great cost. Perhaps there are some things that can be done in the area of our gun laws to ensure that those who should not have access to them do have a harder time getting them, but those changes should be made on the actual, real world impact of the law, not because someone finds some firearm scary looking. Most proposals in the wake of these types of shootings are meaningless in real life. For example, magazine size restrictions would have an extremely limited impact. It takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine. In a war, where someone is shooting at you, yes that might make a difference. But in a situation where an attacker is shooting at unarmed civilians its impact is so marginal as to likely be unmeasurable. Further, what is a magazine but a bent piece of sheet metal and a spring. Most kids in a shop class could make one. How are you going to stop that?
A good place to start doing something is in better implementation of our existing laws that actually do make sense. The latest shooter had at least 20 complaints lodged against him, including with the FBI, yet nothing was done. Another shooter was able to obtain weapons when he had a record that disqualified him from doing so, yet those records were never properly forwarded. There is scholarly evidence that mass shooting produce what is called contagion, that one shooting makes another more likely through a suspected desire to gain like notoriety. Perhaps our news services can stop publishing the names and pictures of the shooters?
In the end though, we do have to accept that we cannot stop every determined individual, even if we choose to make our country a police state. The greatest mass school killing wasn’t done with firearms but explosives. (Bath School, Michigan, 1927, 38 children and 6 adults murdered.) We have severely restricted the use of dynamite since then, but then Timothy McVeigh used basically fertilizer to murder 168 people. Are we to outlaw gardening next? There is always a need to balance benefits against costs. To do otherwise leads to either meaningless or, even worse, counterproductive measures. A lost shy dog, acting on its fears, will often run and hide from those trying to rescue it.
Undoubtedly I have not convinced you, and that is fine. Hopefully though, I have given you reason to pause and think through a bit more deeply about the long term consequences of any proposed change in the Constitution with respect to the Second Amendment.
Yes, I will continue to think deeply about these matters. Will I have a choice? As I have said, the circumstances of life have changed a great deal since the time of our founding as a nation. I am unwilling for my child, or your child to be the “next up” victim in this hallowed right of ours to bear a weapon that is exquisite at efficient killing. That strikes me as surreal reasoning. Increasing funding for mental illness is so much blather. Mental illness is common, ubiquitous and always will be. Another “do nothing” obfuscation.