- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 602
- Likes
- 352
Opinion article in todays Sun Chronicle:
Larry Ruark: NRA's arguments have all, sadly, been heard before
[If you dont want to click the link]:
Owning a gun is NOT the moral equivalent of owning a slave. The NRA does NOT advocate the return of slavery. Gun owners, given the choice, would NOT prefer to own slaves rather than guns.
That said, there are some intriguing parallels between the arguments, attitudes and actions of defenders of slavery before the Civil War and those of NRA-type spokespersons (“gun rights absolutists”) defending Second Amendment rights in our day. (To be sure, not all defenders of slavery acted, felt and argued in all these ways all the time and on every occasion. And not all gun rights absolutists act, feel and argue in all these ways all the time and on every occasion. But the general patterns were — and are — there.)
Defenders of slavery argued that government could not and should not abolish or restrict slavery where it already existed, citing its acceptance in the Constitution.
Gun rights absolutists view any proposed restriction on the right to keep and bear arms as a violation of the Second Amendment (even though the Supreme Court’s Heller decision allows for reasonable regulation of that right).
Defenders of slavery argued that slavery could not and should not be kept from expanding into any United States territory — even into “free” states. Gun rights absolutists seek to override the strict gun control laws of many states by, for example, lobbying for a national reciprocal concealed carry law.
Slavery’s defenders argued that, as history showed, slavery was necessary if a nation was to be prosperous, great, safe and civilized.
Gun rights absolutists claim that the Second Amendment is the foundation and guarantee of all other rights in the Bill of Rights.
Defenders of slavery viewed the election of Abraham Lincoln as a mortal threat to the existence of slavery (which it was not). They escalated rhetoric which was already paranoid, hysterical and counterfactual to the point at which they convinced themselves that secession was the only way to preserve slavery.
Gun rights absolutists viewed the election of Barack Obama as a particularly dangerous threat to Second Amendment rights (which it was not).
Their rhetoric has become even more paranoid, hysterical and counterfactual and has resulted in a kind of intellectual and emotional secession from the Union in which a mistrust of government (except for a compliant Congress) and a fear of “others” has led to an “every-(armed)-man-for-himself” mentality.
Defenders of slavery ignored or held of no account the suffering inflicted on slaves.
Gun rights absolutists argue that gun-caused deaths in our country are just the price we have to pay to maintain our right to bear arms.
In both cases, violence is exalted and sanctified and human lives are sacrificed to the preservation of a supposed right (to enslave others) or a wrongly understood one (to keep and bear arms).
The United States was almost the last Western country to abolish slavery.
Slavery’s defenders then espoused racial segregation and undemocratic politics.
I wonder: When the United States finally enacts sensible measures against gun violence (making it just about the last modern country to do so), to what social and political causes will gun rights absolutists turn?
[Larry Ruark, of North Attleboro, is a Sun Chronicle columnist. His essays appear here the first Tuesday of each month.]
Larry Ruark: NRA's arguments have all, sadly, been heard before
[If you dont want to click the link]:
Owning a gun is NOT the moral equivalent of owning a slave. The NRA does NOT advocate the return of slavery. Gun owners, given the choice, would NOT prefer to own slaves rather than guns.
That said, there are some intriguing parallels between the arguments, attitudes and actions of defenders of slavery before the Civil War and those of NRA-type spokespersons (“gun rights absolutists”) defending Second Amendment rights in our day. (To be sure, not all defenders of slavery acted, felt and argued in all these ways all the time and on every occasion. And not all gun rights absolutists act, feel and argue in all these ways all the time and on every occasion. But the general patterns were — and are — there.)
Defenders of slavery argued that government could not and should not abolish or restrict slavery where it already existed, citing its acceptance in the Constitution.
Gun rights absolutists view any proposed restriction on the right to keep and bear arms as a violation of the Second Amendment (even though the Supreme Court’s Heller decision allows for reasonable regulation of that right).
Defenders of slavery argued that slavery could not and should not be kept from expanding into any United States territory — even into “free” states. Gun rights absolutists seek to override the strict gun control laws of many states by, for example, lobbying for a national reciprocal concealed carry law.
Slavery’s defenders argued that, as history showed, slavery was necessary if a nation was to be prosperous, great, safe and civilized.
Gun rights absolutists claim that the Second Amendment is the foundation and guarantee of all other rights in the Bill of Rights.
Defenders of slavery viewed the election of Abraham Lincoln as a mortal threat to the existence of slavery (which it was not). They escalated rhetoric which was already paranoid, hysterical and counterfactual to the point at which they convinced themselves that secession was the only way to preserve slavery.
Gun rights absolutists viewed the election of Barack Obama as a particularly dangerous threat to Second Amendment rights (which it was not).
Their rhetoric has become even more paranoid, hysterical and counterfactual and has resulted in a kind of intellectual and emotional secession from the Union in which a mistrust of government (except for a compliant Congress) and a fear of “others” has led to an “every-(armed)-man-for-himself” mentality.
Defenders of slavery ignored or held of no account the suffering inflicted on slaves.
Gun rights absolutists argue that gun-caused deaths in our country are just the price we have to pay to maintain our right to bear arms.
In both cases, violence is exalted and sanctified and human lives are sacrificed to the preservation of a supposed right (to enslave others) or a wrongly understood one (to keep and bear arms).
The United States was almost the last Western country to abolish slavery.
Slavery’s defenders then espoused racial segregation and undemocratic politics.
I wonder: When the United States finally enacts sensible measures against gun violence (making it just about the last modern country to do so), to what social and political causes will gun rights absolutists turn?
[Larry Ruark, of North Attleboro, is a Sun Chronicle columnist. His essays appear here the first Tuesday of each month.]
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
