creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
21 Nov 2014
A Big Election With Little Local Journalism

On a warm October night toward the end of the 2014 campaign, almost every politician running for a major … Read More.

14 Nov 2014
Wall Street Takes Over More Statehouses

No runoff will be needed to declare one unambiguous winner in this month's gubernatorial elections: the … Read More.

7 Nov 2014
Tuesday Probably Meant Nothing for 2016

The dramatic, across-the-board victory engineered by Republicans in Tuesday's elections would seem to bode … Read More.

The Second Amendment vs. The First Amendment

Comment

After more than a week of residual buzz from radio host Alex Jones' now-famous meltdown during a CNN discussion of gun control, it is worth taking a deep breath and considering the spectacle's two big lessons, especially now that the White House is pushing Congress to debate firearm legislation.

First and foremost, it was surprising that anyone watching Jones was actually surprised. Yes, his references to Hitler and Stalin and his nationally televised promise of a violent revolution if "you try to take our firearms" was at once offensive and frightening. However, this kind of paranoid lunacy has been the lingua franca of the conservative world since Barry Goldwater first said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

To know that's true particularly when it comes to guns, try paying attention to conservative radio, blogs and email newsletters this week in the aftermath of policy recommendations by Vice President Joe Biden's commission on firearm violence. If you do, you will inevitably be exposed to one or another attention-seeking Archie Bunker espousing the same deranged nonsense as Jones. Sure, that's disturbing - but it is no longer surprising, except perhaps to a national media and political elite that have no sense of just how corrosive the day-to-day discourse is in so much of the country.

Just as important, though, is the second lesson to come out of Jones' diatribe - the one about the gun discourse's underlying message.

Whether it is Jones, a firearms training company CEO promising to "start killing people" if gun regulations are tightened or an outgoing GOP congressman saying "we may have to shed blood (to) preserve our freedoms" — the desire to intimidate is clear. Regardless of the particular demagogue, we are being repeatedly told that in a nation with the industrialized world's highest rate of gun homicide, those raising questions about our existing firearms laws risk being targeted as a traitors.

Urgent questions, though, must be asked.

Some of them include:

—How is a U.S. Constitution enshrining a baseline right to bear arms for a "well regulated militia" now seen by many as mandating that firearms be sold in completely unregulated fashion to any lunatic looking to stockpile a military-grade arsenal of assault weapons?

—If, as gun proponents typically assert, the Second Amendment is absolute and we therefore cannot regulate, say, assault rifles, does the government have the right to regulate any other weapons? Should, for instance, citizens be able to own automatic machine guns? What about hand-held rocket launchers - is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia right to suggest that they might be constitutionally protected? What about an individual right to own an armed flying drone?

—Alternately, if we agree that some lines can be drawn, then doesn't today's gun control conversation represent a simple disagreement over where exactly to place those lines rather than a Stalinist assault on the basic right to own a gun?

—If gun proponents are correct in arguing that a particular policy - for example, banning high-capacity bullet magazines - won't on its own solve the problem of mass shootings, does that automatically mean said policy is a bad idea?

Different people will have different answers, of course. A discussion of those differences, in fact, could be constructive, moving the political system to adopt the sensible gun policies that polls show the public supports.

But that exchange cannot occur - much less be productive - under ever-escalating threats of violent backlash. If, as White House spokesman Jay Carney recently warned, America continues watching "arguments over the Constitution's Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First," then consensus will remain elusive - and gun violence will likely continue unabated.

David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
All very good, and appropriate, questions. Here is another: if we can put limits on the First Amendment, why can't we put limits on the Second?

Of course, all of this is just about manufacturing fear and terror, driven by the usual motive: corporate profits. The weapons manufacturers and their lobbyists (ie. NRA) have to keep manufacturing fear of "guvment taking all ur guns" in order to continue driving sales of their products. There is nothing reasonable or sensible about their tactics. They are radical extremists, no different than any other domestic terrorist organization (except that they have a whole lot more money funding them!)
Comment: #1
Posted by: A Smith
Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:55 AM
Mr. Smith. The NRA is just like any other special interest group in Washington. They are representing thousands of Citizens. There are anti-gun loby representatives in Washington also. Both of these groups use fear and rhetoric to shape public opinion. As for corporate profits it seems to me that everytime Washington talks about gun control gun sales sky rocket. So in theory gun manufacturers are, excuse the pun, making a killing over this controversy.
Comment: #2
Posted by: david
Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:43 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roger Simon
Roger SimonUpdated 26 Nov 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 25 Nov 2014
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 24 Nov 2014

31 Oct 2014 Is the Minimum Wage Really a Living Wage?

26 Oct 2012 In Defense of the Undecided Voter

27 Jun 2014 How Corruption Shapes State Policy