No Guns Allowed-When the Personal Amplifies the Principle
Click here for the audio podcast version of this article.
When Starbucks requested gun owners to leave their weapons elsewhere, it made headlines. The impact on gun control efforts will be pretty much nothing.
Individual Republican controlled States continue to pass laws that deprive commercial outlets of the right to make such bans mandatory. The local corner store can’t violate my second amendment rights. Neither can a national chain.
Chipotle made the news when the chain of Mexican grill restaurants asked patrons to leave any guns at home or in their cars or anywhere but at one of Chipotle’s outlets. The impact on gun control efforts will be near to zero.
Most voters, in fact the overwhelming majority of voters, regard gun safety as something that government ought to insist on. The numbers are unmistakable.
But, while most voters are for gun safety in principle, it is one of many issues. War, environmental regulation, taxes, jobs, Obamacare, and a thousand other issues are also important. Some voters will show up to vote. For some, gun safety will even be the straw that breaks a vote away from a Republican.
For enough gun enthusiasts to matter, guns are not an issue in principle. It is a matter of principle. And more. It is an issue that is personal. Very.
So when Chili’s asks customers not to show up with weapons on display, it makes for a news report. But it matters not at all.
A display of a different kind may be seen at the headquarters of the National Rifle Association. It is an exhibit of the wording of the second amendment.
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.
Well … not all of the second amendment. The part about a well regulated militia is left out.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The anti-regulatory arguments themselves tend to fall apart upon close examination.
Demanding that the government regard gun ownership as something never to be regulated, just in case government becomes so strong it needs to be overthrown, is a contradiction. A government so strong and tyrannical that violent resistance is required is not likely to respect any rights at all.
Demands that government never track gun ownership because government might be too weak to protect citizens is a contradiction. A government too weak to function is not likely to threaten anyone.
Arguments for the constitutional right to carry arm-shoulder missiles to the edge of airport landing fields will strike most of us as absurd: Antonin Scalia being one of very few possible exceptions.
But such arguments are not the point. The NRA has come to regard members as tools in a larger battle. The organization has become answerable to gun manufacturers.
Not to put too fine a point on it, a corporate sponsor of the National Rifle Association is less likely to be concerned with preventing gun violence than with making sure gun violence comes with weapons from the right manufacturer.
When Target asks visitors to please come in without weapons, it is because displays of firearms in a family-friendly environment makes that environment unfriendly to children. When ostentatious displays of massively destructive weapons drive startled customers to flee with their children, it becomes bad for business.
When Sonic asks customers not to brandish weapons that can kill other patrons, the impact on gun control efforts will not amount to anything but a news story. Sonic and Target and Chipotle and Chili’s and Starbucks don’t really control many votes. But their actions are a reflection of something that might be more.
When a parent hustles a child away from a family shopping trip because some dimwit wants to make a show of a favorite deadly weapon, that parent, and the spouse of that parent, and relatives and friends and those attending the same PTA meeting may change priorities a little.
Gun safety may become something more than what we endorse in principle. Votes get affected when the issue gets personal.
Look. I do understand. Really I do. This gun thing is a very American sort of…thing?
All I want to know is this.
In the unlikely event I can get a gun would any of you object particularly if I shot Ronald McDonald?
More to the point…would one of you American gun owners shoot Ronald McDonald?
Please?
Pretty please?
Regardless of my stand on gun violence, in this I must agree. RM must go, and shooting is too good for him.
I have lost faith in the Supreme Court since it has become such a politicized battle ground. Sure there has always been some sway of the pendulum back and forth but never this far to the right edge nor this openly political. Alito, Thomas, and Scalia have virtually made a mockery out of the idea of justices studying the law. While Roberts is no doubt a conservative he at least gives some what of an attempt to pretend he is considering both sides of an issue. I do not understand how any of the justices can read the 2nd Amendment and gain from it the right of people to openly carry guns anywhere they want to carry them. We have no need for a militia. We have a military, a national guard and police at all government levels. Keep a gun at home for protection and for hunting, I get that, but we have more militia now than anyone who wrote that ever dreamed we would.
I have also lost faith, not only in the high court, but also in Congress and the government as a whole.
“I told you so is fine, when you’re not the guy carrying the mop.” Just WOW David. Thanks.
Well, I’m flattered.
Gun violence is escalating. The nation continues passing inane gun laws, such as Stand Your Ground, and Alabama’s Get Drunk and Shoot Somebody. And the Roberts’ Court continues to validate these laws as Constitutionally acceptable.
Eventually, the streets will run red with blood.
And when that time comes, we’ll all be able to join in a chorus of I told you so. The only problem with being right, in the political arena, is that you typically don’t want to.
I told you so is fine, when you’re not the guy carrying the mop.
David you are so right man, and as one who carried that proverbial mop for years I can vouch for every word you wrote.
Yeah, MM. I keep forgetting that you carried that mop.
Ayup, as our friend Jess would say 🙂
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
It seems to me that the “requests” by corporate America are a reflection. Loss of business comes from the well founded fear shoppers feel for their kids when they are confronted by simpletons made dangerous by firearms. The same motivation that causes parents to shield their children can swing a few votes.
Excess carries its own message.