Tuesday, January 11, 2011

On the Right's worship and eroticization of guns in America

"My countdown: No one read this! Jizz stain" - Jared Loughner

This is the last thing Jared Loughner wrote on his MySpace page before the shooting. It was the caption for the image of the ammunition clip extension he had purchased online which would enable him to shoot 30 bullets instead of the cartridge's initial capacity of 15.



I wanted my first post of 2011 to be on a happy or funny note. But unfortunately, due to the combination of my procrastination and the events that happened in Tucson, Arizona last weekend, it has to begin on a serious one. Before I start my post which attempts to think some things through, I want to start out with some ground rules for discussion.

1. The attempted assassination of Representative Giffords (D-AZ) was ultimately NOT politically motivated. Jared Loughner is a psychopath.

2. The tea party, Sarah Palin, the Republican party, and the NRA are in no way responsible for the deaths and injuries of the victims. The responsibility alone falls upon Mr. Loughner.

3. The tea party, Sarah Palin, and the Republican party ARE responsible for heated and violent political rhetoric that portrays moderate policies like Romneycare and some sort of immigration compromise as leading towards the apocalyptic collapse of this nation and its democracy. (As a leader, Sarah Palin should apologize for her irresponsible "gun sights" congressional PAC advertisement and Joe Manchin (D-WV) should apologize for this ad shooting the cap and trade bill as well).

4. The Democratic Party is also responsible for heated rhetoric and the demonization of those across the aisle. In many ways, the Democratic Party invented the practice at the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Robert Bork, and our nation and its political dialogue is worse off because of it.

5. This is NOT an isolated event. Just as the rough framework of religious ideology provided the environs for the deranged mind for the Fort Hood shooter, Nadal Hassan, political ideology provided the cultural ether for Loughner's mind to operate in.

I would argue that our main problem is the ether of the Right's worship and eroticization of guns and gun culture.  When I talk about the Right, I'm not talking about a political party or political ideology but the elements in generic American cultural Right that sees the 2nd Amendment as the Amendment that defends all the others and the sole reason our Republic survives.  (Liberals tend to view the 1st Amendment as the primary right that defends all others) 

I've used guns.  For me, it's fun to shoot at targets and I understand families who hunt for tradition.  I know people who own guns and 99% of the people that own guns use them properly and with respect.  However, the Right's worship and eroticization of guns combined with the paranoia that Government is not only negligent toward its citizenry but actively out to get them and take away their freedom is a dangerous mix.  Remember, for some on the Right, the TRUE definition of the 2nd Amendment is to protect U.S. citizens not from a simple break-in, or even from a foreign invasion, but from their own tyrannical United States government as Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said, "Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than Al Q'aida."

What this country needs is for both political parties to tone down their own heated rhetoric and stand up forcefully against rhetoric that goes too far, or is too explicit in its imagery a la Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" comment.

We also need to enact common sense gun laws that allow our citizenry full access to their constitutional right to own a firearm while enforcing reasonable restrictions against assault rifles and advanced weaponry as well as new regulatory mechanisms to weed out potentially mentally ill customers of guns and ammunition.

Your thoughts are not only appreciated but encouraged.

And allow yourself to enjoy the Little Britain clip...it is funny.  There'd be fewer Jared Loughner's if we all laughed at ourselves a bit more.

2 comments:

  1. I have to generally agree with what you're saying, except on a key point - that using gun imagery in political ads is inappropriate.
    Joe Manchin's ad is level toned and addresses a legitimate campaign position.
    Sara Palin's use of the targets on vulnerable political districts is a different issue. While I don't find it objectionable personally, I can't speak to it's potential message to the "lone wolf" demographic that is so often influenced by such metaphors.
    To a sense though the lack of dialogue about guns is really an issue that hasn't been addressed. There should be a better discussion about the value of gun restrictions. But also an acceptance from the left that just because you want to own an AR15 doesn't make you a crazy person. Equally the right needs to allow for the possibility that owning a cruise missile isn't exactly good public policy.
    Either way this congress and President has a makeup for a potentially productive discussion of guns and gun regulation, I just hope it will happen and be somewhat reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Mike,

    Just to clarify, I'm not saying that that particular rhetoric had any causal effect on anyone who might be a "lone wolf", but I am saying I find those kinds of ads inappropriate as they imply violence.

    Some conservatives recently brought up a Democratic map with archery targets on states where Bush won with less than a 2 point margin in 2004(and I don't want to tit-for-tat here anyway because it's counterproductive). But that ad clearly meant to me, "HEY, we're close to winning Florida! Let's focus more on that state next time!" Whereas the imagery of the Palin ad with a gun sight symbol over the district and then below (D-AZ # Gabrielle Giffords), said "That woman voted for the healthcare bill - time for PAYBACK! Vote R-2010" The meaning of that sentence is fine, but with the imagery makes me queasy.

    I just want Palin (and Manchin) to say "It might not be technically inappropriate to use these symbols, but in this highly polarized environment, it probably isn't helpful. I'm sorry I went a bit too far. And because I'm a leader I should be held to a higher standard."

    ReplyDelete