Are all gun owners "old white guys?"

I was listening to a conservative radio talk show this afternoon (The Wilkow Majority).  The topic being discussed was gun control and how liberal groups tend to create stereotypes about the people who own guns.  Mr. Wilkow stated liberal groups try to make gun ownership rights an issue exclusively endorsed by conservative white men.  He went on to say owning a gun is not something that is for “old white guys” but is a civil right for all law abiding citizens and should concern everyone, including liberals.

The 2^nd Amendment reads:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  (By the way, the term well regulated has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean well trained, not be an excuse for increased government regulation of firearms.)  In 1789 when the Bill of Rights was written, America was a vastly different place, and had a very different worldview than the United States we live in today.  There are several scholarly and historical arguments that can be made based upon the writings of Jefferson, Washington, and even Payne (for whom the name of this Blog is attributed) to support just how different we are.  

The early United States government was not concerned with its citizens having weapons.  Every home had a gun because it was needed for hunting and general protection.  The country was also just born, and freed from a tyrannical government which was trying to control every aspect of life – taxes, commerce, property ownership, etc. (Does this sound vaguely familiar?)  The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to make sure the basic rights they just got done fighting England to secure were protected by law.

As history moves forward, so does philosophy and technology.  The pistol became more technologically advanced and specialized for close proximity personal defense, or offense as needed.  The rifle took the place of the musket, offering better accuracy and increased lethality.  Law enforcement, general commerce, and the industrial revolution changed the basic need for firearms.  People no longer needed to hunt as commerce created convenient access to food.  Basic self defense was no longer a question of having a firearm because police were available to enforce laws and keep cities relatively safe.  

The popular pervasive philosophical paradigm of a utopian society was proliferated by the Industrial Revolution and continues to some extent today.  The basic idea that society is evolving into something better, that advancements will bring about a perfect world, and world peace will soon be in hand.  Today we can watch the evening news and know we are not anywhere near world peace, but our government would have us believe that we don’t need guns because we are safe.  Our government claims it is not tyrannical, and that people have no need to defend themselves against tyranny, or foreign invasion, or to protect personal property, or to ensure a fair trade, or to… and the list goes on.  

Several states, especially coastal states which tend to be more liberal, have strict laws that control a citizen’s ability to acquire or carry firearms.  Liberals will cite every case of violent crime involving a fire arm as a reason why guns are bad, and the need for strict government control.  Unfortunately for the liberals, the constitution prohibits infringing the rights of citizens to own and bear arms.  While the amount of violent crime is sad, law abiding citizens who own guns are not going to increase the amount of violent crime.  Criminals do, and criminals (convicted felons) are not permitted to own fire arms legally.

A few thoughts:

First, the liberal stereotype is wrong.  Gun owners are not just white men.  They are single college-aged women looking to protect themselves from would be rapists.   They are black men and women making sure their children are protected against home invasions.  They are hunters who were the first environmentalists, contributing significantly to the maintenance of our forests and waterways.  They are average everyday citizens who own them just because they can.

Second, a word about tyranny.  The dictionary defines tyranny as the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power.  The current administration and previous administrations have issued presidential directives which run contrary to the separation of powers – meaning they have asserted unrestrained power according to our Constitution.  Our current president has gone so far as to recently attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court.   A little known fact is our president has the authority to have the military to arrest citizens of the United States.  This power comes by an extension of a now eleven year old “state of emergency” which started September 14, 2001.  Several other constitutional safeguards and federal laws are superseded by presidential authority in the event of a “national emergency.”  While our current politicians are for the most part benevolent and would only use these powers for good, there is no congressional oversight or balance of power to protect the public from a president using the National Emergencies Act.  The notion that the average citizen has no need to fear tyranny is naive at best. 

One of the show’s callers brought a very good point.  She said to take a look at what is happening in Syria today, and asked if there was any better example to show why citizens should be able to bear arms.  The Syrian government is killing its citizens in the streets as they protest tyranny and government oppression.  She pointed out news reports of Syrian people begging for guns in front of Western television cameras.  She also pointed out how our government found it convenient to arm rebels in Libya (against Gaddafi), Afghanistan (against the Taliban) and Iraq (Kurds against Hussien in the 90’s); but our president wants to make it harder for the average American to have access to weapons.  Am I the only one who sees a correlation here?

Last, a rhetorical question based upon a caller to Mr. Wilkow’s show.  If guns are so bad, when was the last time there was a massacre at a gun show?  Think about it this way – a small concentrated area filled with guns and people who love them.  Wouldn’t the liberal concept of guns being a major cause of violence suggest that such an area would be prone to increased violence?  Or is the liberal stereotype a smoke screen for a much larger agenda?

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!