The Gun Owners Bill of Goods

When I was in second grade, almost every day after lunch, Miss Sarah Turk would announce it would be reading time and we would all dutifully take out our books and start to read aloud.  We would read and wait.

What we were waiting for was the sound of Miss Turk’s book hitting the floor as she was lulled asleep by a full stomach, the warmth of of the room, and the sound of little voices struggling to sound out words.

I’ve though about Miss Turk a lot since the Parkland massacre and the stunningly stupid suggestion that arming teachers would be a solution to the problem of mass shootings in schools.  If Miss Turk had been packing heat instead of just holding a book she might have blown off one of her sensible shoes as she drifted off into slumber.

That thought always struck me as funny until my former bishop, The Rt. Rev’d Dr. Sherman G.  Hicks posted this question on his Facebook page: “Would you like to be a Black teacher holding a handgun when the cops showed up at a school shooting?”

No teacher should be holding a gun at any time but this argument has been embraced as part of the bill of goods that the National Rifle Association has been selling to its unwitting supporters not the least of which is the current drone occupying the Oval Office.

Even their very own website admits that the NRA was founded to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” Their emphasis was on developing highly trained “marksmen” with rifle ranges across America that promoted the "safe and skilled use of weapons." 1

There isn’t much money to be made with this limited mandate. However, there is a lot of money to be made knocking down “straw men.”

That is what the National Rifle Association has been doing for forty years now as they knowingly mislead their followers into believing that all of their rights were at stake at the mere mention of anything that hinted of gun control.

In fact: “The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons.” 2

For the next few decades, guns weren’t much of an issue at the federal level. But that began to change in the ’60s, with multiple assassinations — of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. — and the rapid increase in crime at the time. So the federal government again passed a new series of gun restrictions, particularly the Gun Control Act of 1968.

At this point, gun rights activists began to worry. The leadership at the NRA was complacent with and even publicly supportive of gun control policies, and began to talk about withdrawing from its already limited political lobbying. (Notably, Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated JFK, obtained the gun through an ad in the NRA’s magazine, American Rifleman — so the organization’s leaders likely felt restrained in how far they could go in opposing gun control, given the potential backlash the group could face

But a few hardline members, led by Harlon Carter, subscribed to the argument that if the federal government were given even an inch in regulating guns, it would take a mile, and that would end up with guns banned altogether. So during the organization’s 1977 meeting in Cincinnati, Carter and his supporters rebelled, placing him in charge. It was at this point that the NRA truly became the gun lobby. 3  

It is a lobby that is built a logical fallacy promoted by the NRA from Carter to Wayne LaPierre whose annual salary is estimated by numerous sources to be around $1 million.

Mr. LaPierre is making millions by selling his followers the same “bill of goods” that Mr. Carter discovered.  He said of the government after the Parkland shootings: “Their goal is to eliminate the  Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eliminate all individual freedoms.” 4

That is a fallacy! As a matter of fact, it is such a major fallacy it has even been given a name.  It is called “The Slippery Slope.”

Now I know that the few friends I have who have bought into the NRA’s scheme will probably not buy into what I am about to tell you but you are falling for a hoax.  You are buying into a lie. 

The slippery slope basically argues that you cannot do anything without going too far.  The fallacy introduces the irrelevant material of the consequences of more far reaching action in order to oppose the more limited proposal actually made. 5

 Here, in one simple black-and-white sentence, is what is making Mr. LaPierre $1 million a year. “Ban one type of weapon - this time it is the AR-15 - and before you know it they will all be banned.”
  
That is not what anybody is advocating. Nobody wants to take away anybody’s hunting rifle! 

What 67 percent of the American people would like to do is ban the sale of assault weapons which are the machine guns of our day. 83 percent would like to see a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. 6

According to the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the wildly liberal Antonin Scalia: 

[T]he conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. 7

Therefore, Justice Scalia continues in the District of Columbia-vs-Heller opinion:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” 8

Even the uber-conservative, super-hawk, former FOX contributor, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, believes there is no constitutional right to own an assault weapon.

I believe, on moral, practial and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

Having those weapons in civilian hands is madness! 9

Let the hunters hunt.  Let those who like to head out to the shooting range every once and awhile fire away.  Let even those who feel they need to pack a pistol to protect their homes and loved ones carry heat if they would like.  But hiding behind them so that the rest of society can live in fear of a crazy person with a rapid fire weapon is another matter.

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day. 10

May God have mercy on their souls but not much.



 _____________________

1.  "A Brief History of the NRA." Nra.org. Accessed April 5, 2018. https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/.

2.  Coleman, Arica L. "When the NRA Supported Gun Control." Time, July 29, 2016. Accessed April 5, 2018. http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/.

3.  Lopez, German. "How the NRA Resurrected the Second Amendment." Vox. March 27, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/us-gun-policy-nra.

4. Tuttle, Brad. "Wayne LaPierre Has Made a Fortune as the Leader of the NRA." Time. February 28, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018. http://time.com/money/5178193/wayne-lapierre-net-worth-nra-money-salary/. 

5. Pirie, Madsen. How to Win Every Argument. (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2015.), p. 189 & 190.

6. "U.S. Support For Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds." QU Poll. February 20, 2018. Accessed April 06, 2018. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521.

7. Rosenthal, Andrew. "Justice Scalia's Gun-Control Argument." The New York Times. December 11, 2015. Accessed April 06, 2018. https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/.

8. Ropeik, David. "Gun Rights Activists Say Gun Control Is Unconstitutional. Antonin Scalia Disagrees." Big Think. December 08, 2015. Accessed April 06, 2018. http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/gun-rights-activists-claim-any-gun-control-is-unconstitutional-even-antonin-scalia-says-theyre-wrong.

9. Peters, Ralph. "I Am A Military Man and I Think We Should Ban Assault Weapons." The New York Post (New York), February 22, 2018. February 22, 2018. Accessed April 7, 2018. https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/.

10. ibid.

Approach/Avoidance

Whenever, while traveling, the topic turns to religion it never ceases to amaze me how many good people I meet who used to go to church but no longer do.  Frankly, I find them more interesting than those who have been unquestioningly plunking their butts down in the pews Sunday after Sunday for years.

What I am hearing is a variation on the same theme: “I used to go but it no longer seemed important or of value to me.”  Sometimes the problem in presented as a “judgmental” attitude on the part of not only clergy but their fellow parishioners.  Sometimes it is hypocrisy (see my earlier post about the church’s decline being tied to the rise and fall of tele-evangelists.)  For former church-goers the church has lost its meaning.

I think this may be linked to an approach/avoidance syndrome not only on the part of the people they were called to serve but of the church.

When I was little there was a large Lutheran church on the corner of my block.  I was taken to Sunday School there by and neighbor and loved the singing.  As they approached Confirmation age they purchased a new pipe organ and I was mesmerized by the sounds that it made.  Huge, impressive, big sounds.

But the church gave out mixed messages.

While I would get a postcard in the mail if I missed a Sunday or two the property seemed off limits during the week.

It had a sidewalk between the parsonage and church building that was perfect for riding bikes.  We saw it as a safe place where, as little people, we could ride around in circles for hours without ever having to go in the street.

But, every time we would ride there, the pastor, who was probably younger then than I am now but seemed to be quite ancient, would be staring out his study window.  Instead of waving a friendly hello and smiling he would scowl and wave a menacing finger as if to say: “Hey!  You!  Get off the property.” 

I could never figure this out.  They wanted me to be there on Sunday so badly that they mailed me postcards if I missed but if I was there on Tuesday they would rather I ride my bicycle on the sidewalk or the street. 

I was stuck in the perfect “Approach/Avoidance” conflict.  I could approach the church only when they said so and only on their terms.

Everyone who has ever served on a church council has experienced the same thing.  At the same meeting you would hear: “How can we get more youth involved in the church?”  And, “Why does the Youth Group always leave the kitchen in such a mess?  They never put things back where they belong!”

As a pastor, and before as a member, I always wondered why they wanted more kids in their building if they weren’t willing to bear the burden of some wear and tear.

Mostly these behaviors are played out in more subtle forms.

I remember hearing a eulogy for an 104 member of the same  congregation I grew up in that was given by her son.  He spoke of all the good times they had.  He spoke of the Senior Choir and how his mom and another woman always led the procession.  (I would guess the unwritten rule was “God forbid that anyone should try to take that prized position from them.”) He spoke of Halloween parties.  He spoke of the couple’s club. (The straight couple's club!)  He spoke of bake sales and clean up days but he never spoke of the church as having any kind of mission outside of the congregation. 

I’ll bet that if they described themselves they would say they were a friendly

congregation.  Had there been “consultants” in those days it would have been determined that they were friendly but only to each other.  They approached each other while at the same time avoided everybody else.

They unintentionally revealed this for all to see in the history book that was published at their closing.

Nebo’s congregation entered the fourth quarter-century of its existence in a refurbished building full of optimism ... but ominous changes were underway.  The very nature and character, or more inclusively, the demographics of Nebo’s constituent neighborhood continued to slowly evolve.  In the parlance of the new demographics many of the newer residents would be classified as the “upwardly mobile,” and they left traditional neighborhoods for a new lifestyle offered by areas adjacent to downtown, or more likely, in the suburbs.  Their houses and apartments in Nebo’s neighborhood were in turned filled by people with different ethnic and religious backgrounds, many directly from foreign countries.1

OMG!

This is not an isolated experience.

Upon it’s closing this was said about North Austin Lutheran Church:

As parishioners moved to the suburbs and Austin became a largely African-American neighborhood, what was once one of the nation's largest Lutheran congregations dwindled to just 10 members.

The church offered ministries including a food pantry and after-school program. African-Americans living near the church were invited to attend, but the hymns remained the same ones favored by the old-timers, and few stayed.2 

You think?

Sadly, these Paleozoic attitudes continue to this day.

I once stupidly suggested to a Campus Ministry that was struggling for money and members that since they were located a relatively long way from any other churches they might want to reach out to people in their neighborhood.

I was thinking about real people I knew.  The couple with three children under the age of six who might want to walk to church instead of going through the process of loading them into the car for a ten minute drive.  Or people of any age who can’t or don’t drive and might like to walk to church.  I also thought it would be great for students to learn to worship and work with people who were not like themselves.

The chaplain’s response was (And how I wish I was making this up!)  “As long as they are not weirdos.” 

Can you see that nothing has changed? 

The people who might need us must live up to some arbitrary standard that we are making up on the fly.  They are welcome so long as they don’t ride bikes on the property on Tuesday.  They are welcome as long as they belong to the same racial, economic, or sexual orientation background as we do.  They are welcome so long as they are not “weird.”  A stipulation that would exclude not only me but everybody I know or would choose to be associated with.

I point out that Jesus had a propensity to love the weird and those who were different from him.  I think that Jesus would throw open the doors of the church to everybody and I think that is the ministry the church should model. 

It should be rooted in the vision of former Fourth Presbyterian Church pastor Dr. Elam Davies, who had the radical idea that the church should serve and welcome “the least, the lost, and the lonely” with dignity and respect.

Maybe then the unchurched would see the church as something of value as they are welcomed in their weirdness.

___________

1. Edmonson, Harold. "The History of Nebo." Parish Directory, 1998, March 29, 1998.  p.  27.

2. Brachear, Manya. "Old guard at church moving on." The Chicago Tribune, September 07, 2007. Accessed February 22, 2018. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-09-07/news/0709060868_1_lutheran-churches-historic-church-churches-of-other-denominations.

Colonoscopies & the 25th Amendment

It may be hard for you to believe but the last time the highly discussed Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution was invoked was Saturday, July 21, 2007 when President George W.  Bush voluntarily transferred power to Vice President Richard D. Cheney when the President went through the very light general anesthesia all of us males over fifty have endured for a colonoscopy.

Mr. Cheney was the Acting President for the two hours or so until the sedative wore off and the President was enjoying his cookies and juice.  (At least that is what they served me.)  There is no word on what governmental precautions were taken the night before which I found to be the most problematic.

“Only twice since the amendment was ratified in 1967 has a president done so: in 1985, when Ronald Reagan underwent a colonoscopy and Vice President George H.W. Bush briefly took over, and in 2002" when President Bush had his first colonoscopy.1 (What’s with those two anyway?)

There is a lot being said about invoking this amendment involuntary on our current President because of his mental state.  But before we want to throw ourselves into a constitutional crisis of that magnitude we might want to take a deep breath and read what the pertinent Amendment really says.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

 In explaining the Amendment Professors Brian C. Kalt and David Pozen would write:

The initial deciding group is the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some other body that Congress may designate (though Congress has never done so). If this group declares a President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If and when the President pronounces himself able, the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers. But if it does, the Vice President keeps control while Congress quickly meets and makes a decision. The voting rule in these contested cases favors the President; the Vice President continues acting as President only if two-thirds majorities of both chambers agree that the President is unable to serve. 2

 I cannot imagine what kind of a constitutional crises this would plunge the nation into.

Does anybody think that this cabinet of toadies would declare the President disabled?

Does anybody believe the congress could agree on “some other” yet unformed body to judge the man’s fitness in a bi-partisan fashion?

Does anybody believe that this President, or any President, after being removed wouldn’t be back in two days declaring himself or herself a “stable genius?"

Does anybody really believe that a two-thirds majority of both houses would declare a President emotionally unfit?

And, most important of all, does anybody really believe that this wouldn’t take forever?

What will work is what I have been advocating since the day after the election. 

All those who, before the inauguration, were hoping that the Electoral College would go rogue and refuse to ratify the election were wasting energy.  All those who are hoping to be bailed out by an un-enforceable amendment are suffering from the same “Trump-Derangement Syndrome.”

All those hoping that the President would go quietly into the 25th Amendment night are also delusional.

As Conservative columnist George F.  Will  said, “Mr. Trump,  is an open book who has been reading himself to the country for 30 years.  (These recent revelations about him are) not news.  Now, this excites a lot of people and a lot of chatter about the 25th Amendment and all the rest, but the behaviors and attitudes and the persona that have people talking about him being unfit for the presidency are the behaviors, attitudes, and persona that got about 63 million people to put him in the presidency.”3

There is a short answer to this problem: Back opposition candidates of any party who will actively work to roll back any outlandish notion the President may put forth.

The chances have rarely been better. 

Democrats have to pick up 23 seats to take control of the house.  Thirty-two Republicans have announced that they will not seek reelection.  Democrats have 13 open seats.  With an unpopular President retaking the house is a distinct possibility.

Richard A.  Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, wrote the prescription for the President’s opponents: “I think they’d be better served to give it all up and just oppose him  the way you oppose any president of an opposing party. You try to stymie his agenda ... in Congress to the extent you can, and then you try to beat him in the midterms and beat him for re-election.”4

To paraphrase Senator Mitch McConnell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for (this) President ... to be a one-term president.”5

Making this our single minded goal and following Mr.  Lowry’s advice we won’t need to endure the impeachment process or invoke the 25th Amendment and the lengthy national colonoscopy these options would entail.
______

1.  Baker, Peter. "Bush Will Temporarily Hand Reins To Cheney." The Washington Post, July 21, 2007. Accessed January 8, 2018. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001790.html. 

2.  Kalt, Brian C., and David Pozen. "The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." National Constitution Center – The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Accessed January 08, 2018. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv

3.  "Panel Discussion." Meet the Press Daily, January 4, 2018. Accessed January 14, 2018. http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/mtp-daily/2018-01-04.

4.  "Panel Discussion." Meet the Press Daily, January 8, 2018. Accessed January 13 , 2018. http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/mtp-daily/2018-01-08.

5.  "Top GOP Priority: Make Obama a One-Term President." The National Journal, October 23, 2010.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/top-gop-priority-make-obama-a-one-term-president-20101023