Second Amendment advocates have been on a roll. Recently, various factions of gun rights supporters have appeared in public to show their concerns (and weapons) over what they fear might be coming, namely, infringements on gun ownership rights from state and local governments. In Portland (Oregon), Salt Lake City, Richmond (Virginia), Seattle, Frankfort (Kentucky), and dozens of other cities, Three Percenters, the most conspicuous contingent of gun rights activists, have gathered to support their right-of-center version of anti-big taxes and pro-gun privileges. They resemble militia soldiers in this loosely organized advocacy group; frequently they wear camouflage and tote assault weapons in public places, often alongside other groups out for an afternoon protest of their own. Outwardly, Three Percenters come ready for war, or they enjoy playing dress-up roles as they imitate battle-ready mercenaries, probably the latter with the threat of the former. They often wear armor protection, holsters, ammo belts, all varieties of tactical gear, and assault weapons complete with slings—the total cost of their impedimenta must come to well over a thousand dollars per warrior, give or take. So they march or idle around the public square, an intimidating bunch because they could mow down dozens if not hundreds of bystanders just by flipping off their safeties and pulling their triggers. In some ways, I suppose, that is the point—spread a little fear while soaking up all that attention. Flaunting assault weapons and attired in combat gear, these activists present a formidable in-your-face threat, saber-rattling to demonstrate their cause. Most of these gun-toting groups fall to the right of center on the political spectrum. That mentioned, what will happen when groups representing the far left (antifa, for instance) begin showing up armed and ready to trade insults (and much more). It’s possible. After all, Second Amendment rights apply to anti-fascists and anti-capitalists as well as to the rest of us. And the antifa comrades believe in confronting the far right, not in elections so much as on the streets. They appear to be itching for a fight.
Consider the battle scene in “Braveheart” for reference. Two large battle-ready combatants screaming insults and war whoops at one another. What might be the outcome at such a scene? You know what will happen, don’t you. Of course you do. Allowing armed protesters and counter-protesters to face off with lots of loaded weapons will surely end in bloodshed, and, as it stands now, the Bill of Rights permits people to gather brandishing weapons no matter how outrageous their motivations may be.
In America, violence is a tool of political expression and always has been. From the American Revolution to the Civil War, from the labor riots to the protest movements during the Vietnam War, champions of one cause or another have been doing battle with their opposition. Fomenting fear and the threat of violence to affect change in society remain common as well as being ethically objectionable, if not morally questionable. But there it is, big as the Statue of Liberty wearing full battle gear. Moreover, the divisions among the body politic have become especially alarming. Consider:
Earlier this year, political scientists Lilliana Mason and Nathan Kalmoe presented a paper at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting, titled “Lethal Mass Partisanship.” With data from two different national surveys, they found that 24 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of Democrats believe that it is occasionally acceptable to send threatening messages to public officials. Fifteen percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats agree that the country would be better if large numbers of opposing partisans in the public today “just died,” which the authors call a “shockingly brutal sentiment.” Nine percent of both Democrats and Republicans agree that violence would be acceptable if their opponents won the 2020 presidential election.[1]
In light of the perilous divisions we face and considering all the assault rifles (some estimates range from five to ten million) in the hands of Americans, it is urgent now to do something more than point out the danger. Every time there is a yet another mass shooting, the sales of assault weapons skyrocket as people fear gun restrictions will tighten.
Eventually, because enough is enough, we will have to figure out a way to defuse America’s surplus firepower. As it stands now, Americans own nearly half the civilian owned guns in the world, even though our population measures about 4.2 % of the total world population. Subtract the responsible gun owners and what remains are millions of people with millions of weapons all of which pose immediate danger.
What will it take to blunt the daily bloodshed we read about each day in newspapers? For starters, how about prohibiting knuckleheads on both sides of the political divide from openly carrying assault weapons in public?
Biometric fingerprint gun locks may help with America’s gun problem. But that is another matter, another subject. Beyond that, we had better explore ways to reduce the number of weapons that litter a neurotic and violence-obsessed citizenry.
(Greater Good Magazine)1