The Second Amendment

This morning, gun lobbyist Richard Feldman was on CSPAN's Washington Journal.

Here is one statement he made...

“I think there are so many millions of Americans in this country that view their relationship to this democracy of ours through the eyes of the gun issue.
And they say, like you do, ‘If my government, my state government, my federal government, basically trust me with the guns I’ve owned and never misused, well, in general terms, perhaps they’re worthy of my trust. And all the sudden if they want to take away those guns that I never misuse perhaps this government is no longer worthy of my trust.’
Therein lies the tremendous power and emotional influence that the firearm issue has in American politics today.”

I find this statement disturbing on many levels...
1. It sounds childish - like the people say if you don't give me what I want, I won't be nice to you, I'll throw a tantrum and you won't like it.
2. What kind of emotional attachment do people have with guns? Maybe their problem is that they're emotionally attached to so many 'things' that they feel the need to protect their 'things'. They need a little Buddhist philosophy in their lives.
3. Doesn't he (and other 'anti-government' people)realize that the 'government' is made up of fellow Americans? He's essentially saying he doesn't trust his neighbor.
What kind of negative mind does he live with on a daily basis?
4. I think the NRA and other gun-wielding advocates of Old West justice have done a really great job of attaching their weapon of destruction to the idea of an emotional warm blankie. Once again, marketing manipulation has proven that a dastardly idea can find a home in a mushy, pliable, soft mind.

Added 08/22/2009...
5. If their love of America is so flimsy that one policy disagreement is enough to turn them against America, then I suggest their love is one of convenience and not conviction.


Later, Linda from South Dakota called in to Washington Journal. She said...

"There is a treaty called CIFTA and it is in the United Nations and it is to control guns all over,its all under the guise of illegal trafficking etc etc– but you know where this is going to go. And the only way to combat it is if you’re an individual state with specific laws. Now Obama was in Mexico touting this and urging , saying he was going to urge the senators to ratify this treaty. So of course he can say I’m not against guns and step back from it. Because once the United Nations takes over and decides all this, the only people in this country who are gonna have guns are gonna be the crazies, the crooks, and the government. So, everything else is a moot point if they get this treaty through. And I urge everyone to call their representatives and say Do Not sign on to this treaty."

FACT: It's a treaty from the Organization of American States, not the United Nations.
Richard Feldman did not correct the caller's misinformation because its not in his best interest to give her facts when she has such great fear and emotion that supports the position of his employers - gun manufacturers.
FACT: From the April 16, 2009 NRA statement regarding CIFTA:

"The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict 'lawful ownership and use' of firearms."

Clearly, the NRA knows the intent of the treaty (Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Items). There is nothing in the treaty that will cause Americans to lose their second amendment rights.
The next sentence of their statement is the crux of the issue though

..."Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners."

What a bunch of baloney...
a. the actual words of the treaty 'suggest' its not intended to restrict gun ownership in America.
b. the NRA 'knows' that the anti-gun advocates will think they can take advantage - 'cause someone's always trying to hurt the poor, innocent law-abiding (not like everyone else who are criminals) original American gun advocates who think its their right to walk around with a gun strapped to their leg 'cause that's how this country was founded and by golly that's how we're going to live in it too!
c. and now the treaty is called an international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners. Which in the previous sentence they admitted was exactly what the treaty does NOT do.
And people buy into it because they have an innate distrust of the world around them.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

Later in the program a caller indicates that he chooses not to carry a handgun, and Richard Feldman said that was great, but he shouldn't try to take away other people's rights to carry a gun.

Here, I'd like to make a generalization and an assumption. Yes its wrong to generalize and assume.
But, can we agree that a good number of American gun advocates are also Americans against a woman's right to choose, and Americans against gay marriage? Can we agree that often these three policy positions intersect? Form a union, if you will.

So, given my above generalization and assumption, why do those people not see how hypocritical they are? Its kind of easy and straightforward to see isn't it? Don't Tread On Me works when it comes to gun ownership, but not when it comes to personal choices about medical procedures and partnership, its I'll Tread on You whenever I want, or whenever my religion tells me to.

An interesting morning, to be sure.

It took me a long time to write all this and when I reread it, I still don't think my points are made clearly enough - or are expressed with as much emotional weight as I'd like. I'm feeling sarcastic this morning and I don't think it helps. Also, I worry that I'll forget my points or run out of time so I rush through things sometimes. I'll keep working on it. See ya!