Comments Elsewhere

Ron: “Who are these citizen militias going to protect us from in 2004? Invading Canadians? Mexicans?”

I don’t know. Who is the National Guard or the professional Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force going to protect us from? If this is an argument against having a citizen militia it’s certainly an argument against having any military force whatever.

In fact I don’t think we need any professional military force, so I think that there’s nothing wrong with that idea. But that doesn’t mean that there is no need for civil defense whatsoever. Military threats to U.S. civilians are few, and would be fewer if we didn’t have a professional military being deployed around the world to kill people. But military threats aren’t the only threats to be defended against. There is organized crime; there are the night-riders’ modern brothers-in-arms, the gay bashers; there is disorganized street violence. Any reason you could cite for having armed police around is just as much of a reason for having individuals, or—if necessary—groups of people working together who are able to defend their lives and their homes. The question is whether the people or a separate, paramilitary police force is a better means to defending people’s safety. And I don’t think that the historical evidence is unquestionably on the side of the cops. In fact, when you come to defending the rights of Black people, or women, or lesbian and gay people, or transgender people, or Muslims, or Latino/as, or immigrants, or any number of other historically oppressed groups, I think it’s decisively against the cops.

“If it’s an ATF or FBI agent you feel a need to protect yourself from, you have much bigger problems than more guns would solve.”

It’s important to note here that I’m proposing citizen militias as an alternative to the cops, the feds, and the army—not as a force to enter into conflict against them. I think that if cops or feds are violating your rights, then you have every right to try to defend yourself, but shoot-outs aren’t any kind of strategic way forward. I support the abolition of gun control and peaceful political efforts along with it to reduce the role that military and paramilitary defense forces play in our day-to-day lives.

“Yes, I am in favor of modifying the 2nd amendment. Until that happens, I’d support most efforts to regulate gun ownership.”

But Ron, the question is whether “most efforts to regulate gun ownership” that are currently being pushed are legal at all. If you buy my argument about the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment, then it’s quite likely that a lot of them aren’t, because laws in violation of the Constitution are null and void. So it makes sense to push for an amendment that will limit the Second Amendment protections (although I think that would be a bad idea); and it makes sense (although I again think it would be a bad idea) to push for gun control legislation once that it achieved, but what legal basis is there to support the sort of gun control legislation you want before the amendment is so qualified?

“Living in an urban area of 6 million people, I’d be a lot safer if there were less handguns and automatic rifles around. A friend was shot in the face intentionally and an aunt took one in the chest accidentally. Both lived thankfully.”

Gun violence is terrible, to be sure, but I think the issue to confront is the culture of violence and fear that we live in, not the supply of guns (just as the answer to reckless driving is to address the recklessness, not to ban the cars). I live in one of the highest-crime urban areas in the country, but what I see day after day is that gun control regulations don’t keep guns out of criminals’ hands. They just force ordinary, peace-loving people (especially poor Black people, who have always been the major acknowledged or unacknowledged target of gun control) more dependent on a police force that is often indifferent or sometimes even actively hostile to them.

“It seems the Swiss are the ones best able to maintain a safe gun culture. I suspect much of it has to do with the relatively even prosperity of the swiss population.”

I don’t think that poor people with guns is the problem. If anyone needs to have access to means to defend themselves, it’s poor people in high-crime areas.

“It probably also helps that most recieve some training in gun safety. I don’t think it would work here without major social change.”

That’s fine. I’m all for major social change. Aren’t you?