I grew up in Ohio, in the middle of the middle class. Father a very small business man, mother a part-time grade school teacher. I don’t know how I learned my mild to moderate distrust of government. I can’t remember that such a thing was ever discussed at home or school or with friends. It was, I expect, simply in the Ohio air.
The distrust I learned was not a fear of being attacked by government gendarmes, but a belief that if the government did something, it would be done slowly and/or poorly and/or wrong and/or expensively. That kind of distrust.
My distrust of government wasn’t a big-time distrust. Moreover, from the Ohio air I also learned good things: patriotism, that police are the good guys, and the belief that America is a good and great country.
Other people, however, in other places, learned big-time distrust of government. Such distrust, I think, goes all the way back to the American Revolution. It’s a fear that a powerful, tyrannical, or incompetent government will destroy our freedom and way of life, will take our property, and will make us subservient. Perhaps tax our tea – or beer. And, of course, take our guns.
Speaking of guns: Those who oppose any change to our gun laws offer all kinds of reasons for their opposition. Any change, they say, would violate the Second Amendment. Even small changes would be just the beginning of the end for our freedom. The guns, they say, are needed to shoot predators that prey on farmers’ animals. And good people need guns to protect themselves from bad people. And so on.
But the real and fundamental reason people oppose change in gun laws is their profound, big-time distrust of government. That distrust enables the NRA (National Rifle Association) to dictate people’s opposition to even reasonable changes. Distrust of government is mentioned occasionally as one of reasons people oppose change, but it is actually the reason that provides the context, and supports all the others.
The reasonable changes that could and should be made – comprehensive background checks, banning sale of military assault weapons, strong red flag laws, age limits for gun purchases – are opposed, whether it is admitted or not, because of fear and distrust of government. Unless that distrust is addressed, change, reasonable or not, will not happen in any significant way.
But how on earth is such a long standing, in-the-air, thoroughly ingrained big-time distrust to be addressed? Without extraordinary leadership, it can’t. Such a leader would have to have the confidence of a vast majority, and would have to address the issue openly, directly, and with perseverance. A Washington, Lincoln, FDR, or Eisenhower would be required, but where have you seen anyone like them lately?
Not only would great leadership be required, but changes would have to be made with great skill, intelligence, and insight. The Second Amendment must be interpreted — and the interpretation sold to big-time government distrusters – in a way that provides for safety and preserves the intent and spirit of the Second Amendment.
That’s a real tough order because the Amendment is not clear. It reads “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.” The Amendment has been interpreted in Court cases to apply, not only to militias, but also to individuals. But still, how does that allow an eighteen-year-old with an AR15 to massacre grade school children?
Since the miraculous leader is not likely to happen, and clarifying the intent of the Second Amendment to the agreement of all is not likely to happen, effective gun safety regulation at the Federal level is not likely to happen. As I write this, a small bipartisan group of legislators are attempting to figure out how to make some small changes. If they succeed, it will help, but not solve the problem of school and other massacres, murders, and mayhem. A little may happen, but the Federal government is not going to solve this problem any time soon, if ever. Even if some good regulations are enacted, there are still too many bad weapons out there, and they can be sold or traded to people with bad intentions.
What is to be done? Some States, but only some, may be able to pass the laws, but State borders are porous. It is simply going to have to be local communities and organizations that must take the steps needed to protect themselves, their schools, and any place people gather. That is going to cost communities a lot of money, and require unusual local leadership. With some skillful and creative security design, schools can possibly be protected. Churches will have to fend for themselves. Public places like super markets, stadiums, and the like are not likely to get much protection.
Individuals? Individuals will have to protect themselves. Sound like the Wild West? That’s where we are headed. All because there is such distrust of government in the American air.
Just Sayin’.
John R. Dixon 