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?

Oh, P.S.:

‘He frowned and said that hardly seemed fair to him. I mulled that over and said, “You’re right. Gay men should be able to have guns, too. That would put second thoughts in the heads of gay-bashers.”’

Have you encountered The Pink Pistols?

Amanda: “One of the most irritating things about a good number of gun lovers I know is that they often seem certain that the pigs will be kicking down their door any day. The gun culture as it is now is a manifestation of the paranoia of the privileged class—the last people who have cause to fear being rounded up as subversives are the ones most likely to have huge artilleries in their houses.”

I do definitely agree with you here. Gun culture in the United States is creepy and fear-mongering and, not to put too fine a point on it, frequently frankly misogynist and white supremacist. I don’t want any part of them (and I don’t care to ever own a firearm, personally, if I can avoid it), but at the same time I’m deeply worried about the objective effects that gun control has.

And also, quite frankly, the degree to which white liberals have become comfortable with a political idea that has itself always been driven, historically, by racist fear-mongering (whether explicit—as in the post-Civil War South or in the 1930s, or coded in terms of Uzi-toting gangstas and cop-killers).

Of course, I think there are good arguments against gun control even aside from the historical arguments.

Ron: “An assult rifle is more of an offensive weapon than a defensive one. I don’t have any problem banning them.”

The rationale behind the Second Amendment (which I happen to agree with) is that a free people should be able to defend themselves by forming a citizen’s militia, without the aid of a permanent standing army (which the Founders thought was corrosive to freedom and encouraged dangerous military adventurism). It follows from this that the more a weapon is like the sort of weapons carried by modern soldiers, the more reason you have to bring it under Second Amendment protections, not less. Of course, the Second Amendment isn’t a Commandment from God; you might very well think that it ought to be qualified or repealed. But then the argument should be for an appropriate amendment to the Constitution, before any further gun control legislation is passed. I think there are solid Leftist reasons (historical reasons, and philosophical reasons) to hold to the position.

Amanda: “Call me pro-choice when it comes to guns, then.”

This is an awesome way to put it. Can I rip it off shamelessly? :)

“In doing so, they only bolster the stereotype that porn is automatically sexist and homophobic.”

Well. Isn’t complaining that the content in Hustler makes porn look violently sexist and homophobic sort of like complaining that “Jump Jim Crow” or “Rufus Rastus Johnson” makes American musical look viciously racist? It always has: that’s the market niche that it’s carved out for itself.

Well, I just prefer the term “feminist” myself, but the idea is to pitch as big a tent as is reasonable, so I didn’t want to alienate people who, for whatever reason, identify strongly with branches of the women’s liberation movement but don’t like calling themselves “feminists” specifically. I think this sort of stuff is less likely to come up now than it was in the 1970s, but you never know.

(And if you think that string of modifiers is long, just check out what they had to do to cover most of their bases over at Anarchoblogs…!)

“What I find interesting is that both TWIRP and Powder Puff exist to reinforce, not undermine, stereotypical gender roles.”

No doubt—and this is what drives me absolutely up a wall. Over the summers I work as a teacher at CTY, a residential educational program for gifted students (7th-10th grade). Every term there’s a “cross-dressing day”, and it drives me nuts because these are almost all reflective, smart, sensitive young men and women—and for people like that a “cross-dressing day” could be a real teaching opportunity for thinking a bit about what gender is and what gender norms do to women every day. And I think it is actually positive for a lot of the students. But every term there is at least one jerk of a boy—sometimes several—who ruins a perfectly good day by striking up pornographic poses, running around having mock slap-fights, and generally taking every opportunity he can to mock and degrade women. That doesn’t mean I think the day should be banned, of course—least of all because Right-wing twits get uncomfortable at the idea of boys in dresses and girls acting like boys! But it does make me wish I had a manifesto to hand out or a PC indoctrination camp to run people through or something…