Shooting itself in the foot
Corrupt NRA hurts both sides of gun argument
One experience in particular
stands out in my tangled conscious
ness. I was lying on my belly with an
M-60 machine gun in my grasp. The
streak of the tracers was hurling down
range, impacting on an old armored
vehicle. The testosterone was flowing
through me like a spring flood.
One of my instructors, a
sergeant, later remarked to me that
he had imagined the greatest death I
a man could achieve; to go out in a f
firefight with a barrage of lead 1
and a shower of brass casings. It
sounded wonderful to me at the
time, but I’ve learned two things
since: 1) there is no such thing as
a great, or even a good, death,
2) guns are not objects worthy
of my love.
America, the land of the
gun owner
Think of all of the homes
you’ve visited. Half of them had
guns stowed away somewhere.
One in four businesses you’ve
patronized have had owners pack
ing heat. American society has
long been obsessed with firearms.
This country was born through the
use of privately-owned weapons. Our
culture is permeated with guns to this
day. Thousands of images of guns are
pumped into American homes each
day. What is the last action movie you
saw that didn’t show a firearm-relat
ed homicide?
This may never change, but last
Friday, Smith & Wesson took a step
that has the potential to limit the
effects of guns on our society. The
gun manufacturer declared an agree
ment with the Clinton administration
that put self-imposed sanctions into
place.
In two months, all Smith &
Wesson handguns will come wpth
external locks. Within a year all hand
guns will be designed so a child under
six cannot “readily operate” them.
Other parts of the agreement cleared
the way for a second serial number
and a national ballistics database.
In return for its civic responsibili
ty, Smith & Wesson was promised
they would receive protection from
lawsuits in the future, and several
local governments would drop suits
now pending. These controls are a
necessary first step toward a safer
America.
NRA, the most apathetic orga
nization in America
The University of Nebraska
recently held a campus election,
you may not have
noticed,
in which
14.4% of the stu
dent body voted. We look
at that figure and think, “How
pathetic.” But consider the NRA,
who, according to Jack Anderson
(author of “Inside the NRA”), less
than four percent of NRA members
cared enough to send in their ballots
to elect their president in 1995.
This is why the NRA leadership
has an open mike to say whatever
they want and bribe whomever they
choose. Most of the membership does
not even keep up with what is going
on in the political end of the organiza
tion. They just want to get their mag
azine and go about their daily lives.
Most NRA members I know are rea
sonable people who enjoy hunting or
sport shooting and
would have no
part in the
corrupt
lob
bying organi
zation the group
has spawned.
The NRA was founded
in 1872 by a couple of Union soldiers
for sports shooting; and that should
be its function today. I am not against
anyone’s right to own a rifle or shot
gun for the purpose of target shoot
ing, hunting or overthrowing the gov
ernment. But I don’t think any rea
sonable person can tell me they need
an AK-47 or a handgun. And if we
want to allow these things to exist,
they should be regulated to the full
extent of the law, no matter what the
NRA leadership says.
With the defection of Smith &
Wesson, I hope the other gun manu
facturers will scramble to make
their own deals.
The misunderstood
Second Amendment
But what
about my
m e n t
right to
bear arms?
The second
amend
ment does
not guar
antee any
one the
right to
Dear arms.
The second
amendment pro
claims: “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.”
A well-regulated militia, not
sportsmen, hunters or any crackpot
who wants to buy one. The U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Tot
found that “weapon bearing was
never treated as anything like an
absolute right.” Deadly weapons have
been regulated by societies since their
invention, and ours is no different.
We try to keep guns away from
children and felons, and it’s time we
began to keep the truly deadly guns
away from everyone except the mili
tary.
Technology is the real issue
The essence of the gun control
argument isn’t about rights or crime.
These are important issues, but the
essence of the gun control debate is
acceptable levels of danger. Some
objects are just too dangerous to
give to the average human
being. This was not true in the
[ days when our constitution
|k was written. Back then, most
|r dangerous weapons in the
hands of the average man were
very unlikely to kill someone.
The guns were slow-load
ing and inaccurate. Technology
is what makes guns so dangerous
today. The constitution refers to
arms, not guns. So why doesn’t the
NRA lobby Congress for the right to
bear nuclear weapons?
This would fulfill the constitu
tional framers’ idea of a strong mili
tia. This is preposterous not because
we don’t have the right to protect our
selves, but because they are too dan
gerous. The question becomes: When
is an object so dangerous it must be
outlawed?
I want hunters and target shooters
to keep their rights to engage in these
activities and none of the limits and
precautions suggested by the Clinton
administration would infringe upon
that.
The NRA leadership can hire
Charlton Heston, or the Pope for all I
care, to do their TV ads. This will not
change the fact most Americans can
see that gun rights and safety are not
incompatible. So, until we can all put
on our little munchkin outfits and
sing “The NRA is dead, the wicked
NRA, the wicked NRA,” I’ll accept
any positive steps gun manufacturers
are willing to take.
Mike Donley is a senior sociology major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
The Bible tells me so
Religion adopts secular values to stay alive
“Both sides read the same Bible,
and pray to the same God; and each
invokes his aid against the other...”
—Abraham Lincoln, Second
Inaugural Address on the Civil Walr
(1865)
A century ago, religion appeared
to be on its last legs, an archaic rem
nant of a superstitious past.
Darwin’s proof of evolution had
stormed on to the stage, Hume and
others had shown that the philosoph
ical arguments for God’s existence
were fallacious and Freud argued
that belief in God was an infantile
delusion.
Marx hoped to wean society ffon
the “opiate of the people,” and
Nietzsche declared “God is Dead.”
But God didn’t die. Instead, reli
gious belief remains as strong as
ever. Even in today’s “secular” world
of “moral degradation,” 98% of
Americans say they believe in God.
(Stark, 1994)
Part of the reason religious belief
remains so strong is because most
people have a need to feel that some
divine presence is watching out for
them. But while belief in God
remains constant, the social effects
of this belief have changed dramati
cally in the past century.
A little over a century ago, many
cities and states had laws forbidding
people from working or shopping on
Sundays in order to observe the
Sabbath.
These “Blue Laws” had ample
Biblical support (Exodus 20:8-10,
Nehemiah 10:31) and were tied to
severe punishments. In colonial
times, for example, violators could
be fined, whipped or sentenced to
spend time in die stocks. Repeat vio
lators could be executed.
As commerce became more
important, enforcement became lax.
This raised the ire of many of the
era’s religious leaders.
One reverend in 1890 said “We
see this desecration of the Sabbath
increasing every year, giving up a lit
tle here and giving up a little
there.. .1 want to say to the working
man, if you give up the Sabbath, you
give up the best friend you’ve got...”
(Hill & Cheadle, 1996)
Now of course, these laws are
largely forgotten and present-day
religious leaders don’t seem to mind.
In the late 1800s, religious lead
ers were also appalled at the “loose
morals” and increasing “godless
ness” of the nation. Today we blame
this on movies and the Internet; back
then, it was blamed on alcohol.
Citing scripture (Proverbs 20:1,
Isaiah 28:7), the Women’s Christian
Temperance Union formed the
“Anti-Saloon League of America.”
Over 60,000 churches joined the
movement. Thirteen years after it
went into effect, Prohibition ended
due to difficult enforcement and the
Depression.
Today, advocates of Prohibition
and the supporting scriptures are
routinely ignored.
Of course, the Bible was used to
justify much more heinous practices
than just banning liquor or work on
Sundays. For most of its history,
Christianity was united in supporting
racism and slavery.
They had ample Biblical support
(Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20
21) and some used it to resist the
abolition movement of the 19th cen
tury.
A typical example was said by a
Baptist minister in 1856: “.. .Jesus
Christ recognized [slavery] as one
that was lawful among men.. .Jesus
Christ has not abolished slavery by a
prohibitory command; and...he has
introduced no new moral principle
which can work its destruction...”
(Hill & Cheadle, 1996)
As Martin Luther King, Jr. said,
“The greatest blasphemy of the
whole ugly process was that the
white man ended up making God his
partner in the exploitation of the
Negro.”
Christianity slowly adopted the
secular values of ending slavery and
segregation and allowing people to
choose when to work and when to
drink.
Another example of a change in
Christanity is the extreme changes in
attitude by mainstream religious
organizations toward once adamantly
opposed practices like divorce (Mark
10:6-9) and contraception (Genesis
38:7-10).
Being divorced is no longer a
stigma in politics, and fundamental
ists cannot be found blocking access
to a pharmacy that dispenses birth
control pills. Yet at one time divorc
ing and using birth control were seen
as severe violations of God’s Word.
These dramatic shifts in view
demonstrate how malleable the Bible
really is. As Shakespeare said, “Even
the devil can cite scripture for his
purpose.”
Anyone who reads the Bible, lit
erally or not, brings his or her own
biases, prejudices and expectations
into the act. They all highlight some
passages and ignore others, while
explaining away contradictory pas
sages to their favor.
As Shakespeare
said, ‘Even the
devil can cite,
scripture for his
purposeAnyone
who reads the
Bible, literally or
not, brings his or
her own biases,
prejudices and
expectations into
the act.
This practice is dangerous;
racism, the subjugation of women
and hatred and discrimination toward
homosexuals have all been justified
at one time by quoting scripture.
Last week the Pope apologized
for, among other tilings, the brutal
slayings of thousands of heretics at
the hands of the Crusaders. The
Crusaders’ battle-cry? “God wills
it!”
In the end, the Bible is just an
empty tomb full of empty words. It’s
time to close the book, open your
eyes and think for yourself.
Jeremy Patrick is a first-year law student and a Daily Nebraskan columnist