All Heil to the Good Guys

In my last post, I addressed the idea of giving teachers guns in the classroom. But the NRA wants more than that. They want everyone to have a gun, because, as they say, “The only thing more dangerous than a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Or something like that.

But who are the good guys? Who gets to determine that? When we were on vacation in the Rockies this summer, we were having dinner at a local diner, and at some point a guy walked past our table on his way out, with his family, and with a pistol in his belt.

And here is where I show a bit of my ugly side. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have prejudices. I know, it’s a shocker.

I took one look at the guy and decided that he was probably an ignorant redneck who can’t tell his ass from a hole in the ground. (Thanks, Randy, I knew I’d be able to use that some day.) And I could be wrong. Maybe he was actually the town intellectual, very thoughtful, very open-minded, and never, ever drunk off his ass.

But my point is that I didn’t think, Oh, I feel so much safer knowing that this gentleman has a gun in his belt. No, it turned on my above-mentioned prejudice button and I wondered what he was compensating for. But if I were black or lesbian, I’d be downright scared.

The NRA reasons that when a gunman sees another guy with a gun in the place he plans to shoot up, he’ll think twice. Yeah, that’s probably right. But I can think of many more scenarios in which all sorts of people would be thinking twice.

You’re standing in line at the grocery checkout and a guy cuts in front of you. Ordinarily you’d say something like, “Excuse me, the end of the line is back there”. But then you see that he has a pistol in his belt and you decide to keep quiet.

Or your neighbor is having a really loud party on a week night and it’s already three in the morning. You want to go over there and tell him it’s been enough already, but you know he’s got a gun and he’s probably drunk. Calling the police so they can tell him it’s bedtime won’t make any difference, because your neighbor will know it’s you who complained.

In a country where kids are capable of literally bullying their schoolmates to death without guns, we would have millions of fully grown men–and some women–bullying the unarmed population with portable killing machines.

I saw a bumper sticker this morning that read, “A man with a gun is free; an unarmed man is a subject.” Exactly, that is what would happen. Let’s apply some statement analysis to the thought on that sticker.

I just learned about statement analysis from a blog I follow by a woman who was abused most of her life–first by her relatives, and later her husband joined in. She wrote about statement analysis: that people who say the same thing a lot about others are actually talking about themselves.

“Don’t believe that guy, you can’t trust him.” “Don’t listen to her, she wants to drive a wedge between us.” What those statements really say is, “I don’t want you talking to others because then you’ll find that out that I can’t be trusted, and that I am driving a wedge between you and your family in order to isolate you.”

So think about it: An unarmed man is a subject? You bet he is, because armed men would take over. The pro-gun folks talk a lot about their second amendment rights and protecting the constitution, but make no mistake, as soon as some people are more powerful than others, they will take advantage.

The pro-gun folks don’t give a flying fuck about the constitution or the people’s rights. They are petitioning the White House at this very moment to have Piers Morgan deported for speaking his mind. Guess which amendment came before the second amendment? Right, the first amendment: the right to free speech. But how free would you feel to speak your mind if the other guy has a gun, or a bigger gun?

All men would be free, but some would be a little freer than others–the supposed good guys with guns.

Yes, so back to that. Let’s just suppose all the “good guys with guns” actually do continue to behave themselves reasonably. Let’s say we accept a scenario in which lots of folks walk around with guns. How are we going to tell if they are the good guys or the bad guys?

Someone suggested white hats for the good guys and black hats for the bad guys. It’s not that silly of a suggestion, because the Wild West does come to mind.

Or we could decide that all the good guys with guns wear a band with a logo, a symbol that will represent the good citizens. And perhaps we can come up with a certain greeting that the good guys can exchange on the street.

Is it beginning to sound familiar yet?

In this day and age we do not have to arm ourselves in case the government turns on us. That’s what the checks and balances are for. And boy, do they work. Nothing ever gets done, let alone anything drastic. It’s not a realistic concern.

Instead, the government is supposed to protect us. That’s the social contract; the government gets our taxes and in return it provides protection. The government can do that by making all firearms illegal outside someone’s own property.

But what if another government takes over? Like in the movie Red Dawn that’s out right now? I will get to that after Christmas.