Senseless Murders in Tucson Show Exactly What a ‘Second Amendment Remedy’ Looks Like

An introduction is necessary here. I wrote the article below about a month ago. It's called "My Party Lost the Election. Is it Time for 2nd Amendment Remedies?"

I always try to stay ahead of my blog schedule so if life interferes, I have something I can post. I was saving this one for the weekend of Martin Luther King Junior's birthday as a tribute to non-violence. The article is a direct attack on one of the most absurd yet most persistent myths in American society: the idea that simply with a gun, and simply by murdering your fellow Americans that you disagree with, you can craft an American society more to your liking.

Basically, I took this myth (what failed Senate candidate Sharron Angle called a "Second Amendment Remedy") and gave it a fictional test drive. That is, I tried to imagine a way in which the fantasy could come true, concluding, as happens when you try to match the abstract with the concrete, that the myth is absurd, impossible and childish.

However, after the recent murders in Tucson (link) I feel that publishing "My Party Lost the Election. Is it Time for 2nd Amendment Remedies?" without any sort of pre-disclaimer would be irresponsible. Being a lover of free speech, I am always very hesitant to blame violent rhetoric on violent action. If you act, you have to take responsibility, no matter what someone said. However, I'm undecided. I think maybe I've erred in thinking the two are so far apart.

We're beyond people not understanding metaphor. When Sarah Palin puts up a map of congressional districts to "target" and uses cross-hairs to mark them, what other interpretation can a deranged un-American loser arrive at? What does that imply other than violence? To play into Palin's money-grubbing imagery, why not have a chomping grizzly bear over the districts? When Sharron Angle says, "look at a second amendment remedy" what does that imply other than "consider murdering those you disagree with?"

The bottom line is this: if you use gun-rhetoric or gun-metaphors then you are dangerously close to an actual terrorist. Is that hyperbole? Hysteria? I don't think so. Why? Because the intent is to scare. To publicly wink at your followers, and send a quiet but clear message to all: "Don't worry. If we don't win the election, we can still murder them."

News flash: guns did not make America great. A military, an organized military armed with guns allowed America to survive. Great ideas made America great.

Below is the original article, mocking the gun-myth and its winking metaphors. Responsible gun owners, if you want to keep your guns for protection against home invasions, I'm okay with that, but please don't entertain the embarrassing gun-revolution-myth that makes The Tooth Fairy and Santa look plausible. Guns are no way to change America.

And with that, let me just say that I hope the families of those murdered find some measure of peace.

Now, the original article –

My Party Lost the Election. Is it Time for 2nd Amendment Remedies?

Well, it's happened. I don't have the government I want, and as Senate candidate Sharron Angle said during her failed 2010 campaign, "If people don't get the government they want, they'll have to start looking at second amendment remedies." (Source.)

That was and will forever be an absurd thing for anyone, especially a potential senator, to say, but who cares? We still don't talk about chickens for healthcare. Why discuss one crazy idea from one crazy candidate who lost?

Because while "chickens for healthcare" was hilarious fun, a huge section of America didn't fall under its spell. The myth that you can achieve civic satisfaction by murdering your fellow Americans was spread long before Sharron Angle's fifteen minutes began and ended. I'd like to give this fantasy a hypothetical run to test its viability: would a second amendment remedy work?

Before we begin, let’s respect this myth. Owing to the purpose of preserving our great nation, gunophiles believe it is patriotic, even moral, to own weapons. More is better. Their source material for the myth is coded into the nation's key legal document. When non-gun-manufacturing CEOs meet their gun-manufacturing kin at the yacht club, the non-gun execs must express nothing but jealousy for such astounding product placement.

As for me, I don't have the government I want and I'm impatient. So according to the gun-myth, it's time for violence.

Wait. Wait a second, before we get started, we need some details. "Rebel!" may be sufficient for a poorly-spelled sign, but in real life we need particulars. Damn specifics! They're the bane of revolutions! So what's your question, son?

A gun is a detail-based life-removal appliance, so um, exactly who should be shot? Everyone suspected of voting for the current government? Or just the elected? But which office? All of them? Can't we just agree to disagree? No! The tree of revolution needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. There's nothing in that armchair warrior's wisdom about respect! Who is more tyrannical than the majority when majority rules?

Another question, then, if I may. What now? As far as patriots go, we're not talking about my blood, are we? Because sometimes when I read what I wrote years ago, I don't even agree with myself. This could be the shortest revolution ever.

Okay, so shooting all the people who voted for the government I don't like isn't practical. It's probably better to target a particular politician. That is what the myth implies, right? It's never shooting the populace; it's always threatening the people they vote for. Somehow one person makes oppression happen, not his or her support network.

Or should I join the local Beer Belly Militia and run around the forest with sweaty men in a non-homoerotic, totally patriotic way? Do we then storm the capital building and shoot whomever we don't like?

What will the people who voted think? Remember, the supporters of the people we're "taking out" (to use another gun-mythology-approved euphemism for murder) won the election, so my brothers in arms and I are a well-armed minority enforcing our political will with violence.

Wow, that sure doesn't sound like America, but hey, it is now, bitch! 'Cause we got the guns! What next? Hold a re-election? And take a chance it doesn't go our way? Are you crazy? But maybe a terrified populace will get wise and vote for who we want. Mission accomplished!

Unfortunately, the story won't stop there, because now it's time for the people we just kicked out (or shot) to exercise their second amendment remedies. And remember, we were a minority when this started. So now, they outnumber us.

Fairy-tales always imply an end, a "happily ever after." In reality, life goes on. A nation of Second Amendment remedies would dissolve into an endless cycle of people grabbing power via murder.

Most arguments about what makes a true American are pointless, but not this time. One who appreciates American ideals, a true American, understands they are not going to win every election. They are not always going to get the government they want, and they know that killing those who disagree with them (or advocating that) is against any definition of freedom and the very basics of what makes civilization worthwhile.

Or, everyone can pull out their guns and let's just get it over with now. The last person alive can be the sole dictator and sole citizen of the nation formerly known as the USA.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.