The extreme interpretation of 2nd amendment rights (on display after every senseless gun massacre) is yet another instance of pushing for government privatization for the profit of the very rich, to the detriment of everyone else. The end goal here is the replacement of government police with private vigilantes, militias, bodyguards, and security companies. Given the high percentage of our GDP devoted to our ever-growing (and ever more privatized) military/police state, its hardly surprising that a position which will enhance the profits of those same merchants of death is declared sacrosanct.
This essay is about economics, not morality, not constitutional law. So I will not respond regarding those "eternal flames" of debate on all political boards. I want to simply follow the economic logic of more guns, and bigger guns - so that everyone can see how it is just another front in the elite war on government.
"Everyone should be armed say the extremist ideologues." But, they obviously don't mean everyone. Because guns and bullets cost money. And who doesn't have money? Why poor people, of course.
Follow me below the orange "reload" symbol for the exposition.
Last summer, the conservative Heritage Foundation tried to argue that if you own a microwave oven, you are not poor. This disingenuous argument was made to support even more vicious means testing to prevent poor people from getting any assistance. People pointed out that a microwave can be purchased for as little as $30, i.e., for less than a bottle of good gin.
With that in mind, let's go over the economics of gun ownership.
From what I have learned over the past few days, ammo costs about $0.25 per round; and bulk discounts kick in at 1,000 rounds or $250. Some posters on boards I frequent have said they regularly go through 1,000 or more rounds per week in target shooting. Right there, you are talking about spending $1,000 month on your hobby. That is almost a month's wages for someone making minimum wage.
Now, of course, if you are going to shoot that much, you want a decent gun. Again, from the last two days, I gather that Glocks cost about $500; and 100 round drum magazines cost about $100. I did not see a number for an AR-15; but I'm going to guess its in the same price range.
So, the buy in to be minimally armed for vigilante combat is $750 - $500 for the gun and $250 for some bullets. I'm not even counting the costs of going to a gun range or paying for licenses. Order of magnitude, for a person at the poverty line, that is about one month's disposable income. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that some poor person can afford to do this.
Can you imagine the outcry from the likes of the Heritage Foundation when that well-armed poor person runs afoul of the law in some "stand your ground" situation? The slander will start with the financial irresponsibility or criminal intent of such a purchase by such a person. It really does matter who does the shooting.
This, by the way, is not a prediction; it is history. When the Black Panthers legally walked around armed in California, back in the 1960s -
the gun laws in the State of California stated that you could carry a loaded gun out on the street so long as it was registered, not concealed, and not pointed in a threatening manner
- Huey P. Newton
the state of California passed a law banning the practice:
It began shortly after the shooting of Denzil Dowell. Easy Bay legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places so long as the weapons were openly displayed [see link to California Penal Code, Sections 12031 and 171.c]. What the Mulford law sought to achieve was the elimination of the Black Panther Police Patrols, and it had been tagged "the Panther Bill" by the media.
The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.
Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols,
PBS radio report
It is so inconvenient to remember that the first time a despised minority tried to exercise its gun rights, those rights were taken away by hard right politicos.
Does anyone really think that won't happen again? Liberals? Why, they are socialists, terrorist enablers, untrustworhty people. Minorities? See Huey Newton.
But political nightmares aside, maybe, it will simply be a matter of economics. I just demonstrated how minimal vigilanteism is beyond the reach of poor people. I mean, seriously, do you think the racist, anti-government yahoos who demand their gun rights are going to subsidize poor peoples' gun rights in the name of their libertarian paradise? Hahahahaah.
Basically, arming everyone would amount to a tax on everyone of at least $750. But, the anti-tax nuts manage to suspend their animus in this special case. You can't make people buy a product (insurance) for health care, but you sure as hell can for guns. Consistency is for little people.
But its worse than that.
If we all are going to agree to be armed, surely I don't want my arms to be inferior to the arms of my potential adversaries--a category including virtually any other citizen. The Aurora shooter was evidently in full body-armor. I need to upgrade to hand-grenades. And so we arrive at a kind of personal arms race,
- The Dream of Maximum Guns
If we follow the logic of gun extremists to their logical conclusion, it is the Wild West plus an arms race. Do you think poor people can afford whole body ballistic armor? We will reach a point like in the late Middle Ages, where the streets were not safe unless one went around with a retinue of bodyguards. And who could afford that? Well, basically, the nobility.
The whole point of the gun extremists is to make gun ownership a mark of authority, just as wearing of swords was a right of nobility in Europe and of Samurai in Japan. Following the logic to its conclusion, the rich people will have private security forces that outgun everyone in sight. And, the rich will have their toxic "Castle Doctrine" (which has already increased the murder rate and given drug dealers a free pass for self-defense) to allow them to shoot down anyone who crosses them. (Yeah, I'm paranoid here; but am I anymore paranoid than the gun extremists?)
Basically, the middle class and the poor will be asking for a justice system that works, and the rich will say "Let the bad guys eat lead - but make sure you pay us dearly for the lead."
The right to opt out of police protection and buy the best self-defense possible is the same line of corporate-sponsored bullshit that allows poor suckers to opt out of public education to pay a crooked, taxpayer-subsidized charter school for the best education possible. The bottom line in both cases is the same. The rich won't have to pay for anyone else's education or anyone else's police protection. The rich will do fine; the rest of us will wind up living in Somalia - a place run by thugs and warlords.
And, in case it needs mentioning, massive gun ownership is no guarantee of protecting democracy. Mere citizens of Saddam's Iraq were armed to the teeth with AK-47s - because their police/judicial system was so freaking corrupt that they need to be. Those AK-47s weren't their to overthrow the dictatorship of Saddam - not possible with mere guns. They were there because the police could not be counted on.
And that is exactly where the gun extremists want to take America.
Personally, I think that is where we are headed. Because the rich want it, and enough ignorant macho idiots can't follow the logic of their own prejudices to its conclusions.
-----
Go ahead and flame me. I am beyond caring about the lunatics in this lunatic country. A few short decades ago, this used to be a decent place to raise a family, get a job, and retire without worrying about corporate theivery and fundamentalist lunacy. Not anymore.