Guns and the Death of Logic in Wayne’s World

Guns and the death of logic in Wayne’s World

       So, as I’m reading today’s news and e-mail, I open a “survey” produced by the NRA. It has a photo of Wayne LaPierre in one of those great suits on which he is accused of abusively spending NRA funds not his to spend, instead of his $5 million plus, NRA President salary. That aside, it is also a classic example or questions aimed at producing response bias by their wording.

Several are simply boiler plate. Examples include:  

       “Do you agree that the Second Amendment guarantees your individual right to own a firearm?”  

Of course, an informed individual, minus the research into Alexander Hamilton’s stated reasoning, (poorly trained and ill-equipped state militias in times when Indians (and the British and even the French were threats in frontier areas) will answer this with no factual basis for analysis.

“Do you support the confirmation of pro-Second Amendment judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts?”

Obviously, the nominee could be a legal dullard, but as long as he’s pro-second amendment…!

“Do you support laws that protect your fundamental right to use a firearm to defend yourself and your loved ones from a violent criminal attacker?”

This one is a bit trickier since, while most would, in theory, agree that given an assault or life-threatening encounter with a “violent attacker” self-defense is appropriate. This is really a, not so thinly veiled, “pro-stand your-ground law”, statement. 

      What we have seen nationally in these cases is almost never an “appropriate” or “reasoned” response (can you say Trayvon Martin?) but an unjustified shooting by an imbecile - primed, ready, and legally empowered to do what they long to do.

“Should Congress and the states eliminate so-called "gun free zones" that leave innocent citizens defenseless against terrorists and violent criminals?”

       First of all, states can already do that with no recourse from the Congress. Period. Additionally, however, let’s examine how many “terrorist” attacks have happened in any “gun free” zone. In our recent history, a “no fly” zone would have saved more lives than all those killed in “terrorist attacks”, foreign and domestic, in any "zone" in the last 40 years. Moreover, considering the lousy shooting of even trained LEOs under stress, why would we assume armed citizens would kill more terrorists that by-standers?

“Should Congress pass a law that gives law-abiding citizens the right to carry a firearm across state lines?”

       First off; all recent mass shooters were “Law abiding citizens” right up until they weren’t. That fact aside, this law would also abrogate Constitutionally mandated states’ primacy in controlling their own state firearms policy. (anything not specified in the Constitution is the state’s purview.) In fact, however, subject to all the other questions (to which the NRA wants you to answer NO!) which include real background checks, automatic weapons bans, etc., this question is designed to make real hunters, who may wish to transport their hunting rifle from Montana to Idaho safely in the trunk of their car, angry. Such a ban would indeed be onerous and would have had little or no effect in preventing recent mass shootings.

“Do you oppose any United Nations treaty that strips the U.S. of its sovereignty and gives U.N. bureaucrats the power to regulate every rifle, pistol, and shotgun you own?”

       Really? Get the f*** out of here! This is included specifically to create the illusion that such a proposal would: a) Have or gain any traction or b) have the capability to be unilaterally enforced against any national policy. While there could be a lunatic fringe who would like this idea, (but I doubt it) this would be as a realistic as a treaty forcing all Americans to become vegans and drink only vitamin water at football games.

“Do you agree that law-abiding citizens should be forced to submit to mandatory gun registration or else forfeit their guns and their freedom?”

       Well, actually, Wayne, yeah, I do. Just like in Switzerland. The issue here, however, is the use of the word “Freedom.” Free to do what? If you mean amass stockpiles of 15 or 20 high rate of fire automatic weapons and 1000 rounds of ammunition, then one wonders why any individual might need to be “free” to do that. 

     The survey, intentionally, of course, recognizes no middle ground between responsible hunters and mass murderers. In Wayne’s World, both need to have access to all the guns they want. When it suits, the NRA clearly delineates between responsible gun owners (And, contrary some to ultra-left propaganda, many of those, responsible sportsmen, are becoming more and more disenchanted with the national organization’s leadership and rhetoric) and collectors of assault weapons and mountains of ammunition.

“Should NRA direct critical resources toward stopping anti-gun billionaires like Michael Bloomberg who are spending millions of dollars to destroy your Second Amendment freedom in states around the country?”

       Wow, where to start here? That darned Bloomberg! Of course, this is also a classic response bias issue, in which the wording of the question, especially the use of negative absolutes is structured to generate a desired response, vice a measured evaluation of the question. In fact, in this case like much NRA rhetoric the implication inherent in the question is a lie, as well.

        In 2014, Bloomberg told the New York Times he plans to spend $50 million on the initiative, which will focus not on passing federal bans on specific weapons but on expanding the background check system for gun buyers. Read it again. Do you see the destruction of second Amendment freedom in there? Background checks are in no way an abrogation of Second Amendment freedoms in any real sense. 

        Now if the Amendment's wording said “Regardless of ill intent, history as a terrorist, mental instability, proven violent behavior and/or criminal behavior, etc.…” but it doesn’t, does it? In fact, the preface is “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …..” 

        What the NRA always ignores is the simple fact that we now have that well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard, and no one I know thinks the Guard shouldn’t have whatever weapons are appropriate. One of the benefits of a flexible Constitution is that, as the world changes and the nature of life in it also changes, the document need not be completely rewritten every time it becomes appropriate. 

       That’s why the number of federal courts is unspecified, as is the nature of the executive branch offices (Cabinet posts). Both are left in a sort of “as appropriate” status since Hamilton, Madison and Jay understood that the nation would grow. They couldn’t have foreseen the Department of Energy or Labor, or Transportation, and didn’t need to.

        It would have been even more difficult, considering the general dislike in the former colonies for a standing army, to imagine both a Federal permanent military and States versions as well. The Constitutional convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation. In other words, in 1789 there was no US Army worthy of the name.

        At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, militias, largely disorganized, and as Hamilton loudly bemoaned, mostly untrained, were the only real time protection on the frontiers. While we all can claim to think we know what the Second Amendments “means,” consider this: Since the militia meant and constituted what was in essence, “the military,” shouldn’t we expand that to mean that in today’s world, “arms” should be expanded to include nuclear weapons, field artillery, airplanes, submarines…?   I mean, "C’mon, man arms is arms, is arms, right?" An F-16 by any other name!  If I haven’t convinced you yet, that the NRA is about more than guns, you need a nap.

       “Do you believe more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners will make our country safer?”   

Again, with the blatant response bias. If we knew which gun owners were “law abiding” and would always remain that way, this would be a no- brainer, but let me give you some “law abiding citizens”  who were on no one’s radar, and would never have been on the NRA’s: Harris/Kleibold/ Dylan Roof/Connor Betts/Patrick Cruscius/Nikolas Cruz. These law-abiding citizens (until they weren’t) are responsible for 73 other dead law-abiding citizens, 32 of them children. All used automatic weapons.         

And finally, not because it’s the last one, but because I’m sick of reading this bullshit:

  

“Do you support or oppose allowing military service men and women to carry firearms on U.S. military bases to guard themselves against violent criminals and radical Islamic terrorists?”

      Notice how he tossed the "radical Islamic terrorists" in there. This is called a “trigger word”, guaranteed to generate a visceral response (in some, acolytes usually). Actually, I’m surprised it took this long to toss it out. In fact, there have been 7 shooting deaths with multiple targets on US military bases since 1994. One involved a Muslim, also an Army Officer. Would we have had him carrying a sidearm, too? In fact, base commanders have that option (but not concealed personal weapons), so the point is moot, but it did allow the “Islamic” insertion. Now here’s the weird part: This shooting spree, by a Major, who also happened to be a US born Muslim, took place in 2009, yet until 2012, 3 years post shooting, Fort Hood security was still being provided by a civilian contractor, not MPs, even though a 1400 man, brigade strength, MP detachment was assigned to the base (God I love research!). Now the rest of the story in this one incident:  reviews by the Pentagon and a U.S. Senate panel found Hasan’s superiors had continued to promote him despite the fact that concerns had been raised over his behavior, which suggested he had become a radical and potentially violent Islamic extremist. Among other things, Hasan stated publicly that America’s war on terrorism was really a war against Islam. Perhaps the gun wasn’t as responsible as the flawed judgement of those who put a clearly troubled and radicalized individual in the position to use it? How truly different is Major Hasan from Dylan Roof?

        Another final takeaway if you will. This is by no means the first or last poorly written “propaganda disguised as survey.” Both major political parties are guilty of using biased questioning to elicit a response which on many cases, they hope will become your reflexive and permanently internalized opinion on the matter, eliminating the need for such things a research, independent thought, discussion, etc.