What is It?

Lay down the law
Shout out for more
Breakout and shout day in day out
--Breakout, Swing Out Sister

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town
--Don't Take Your Guns to Town,
Johnny Cash
___________________

When at estate or yard sales Ranger always asks, "Do you have any guns, guitars or military items?" The question results in some unusual responses.

Last weekend he received, to wit: "Nope, the family got all the good stuff!" Ranger replied, "I'm sorry for your loss." There are not too many Zorba's who remain by their Madame Hortense, but there are many vultures out to swoop up the goods. This interaction was a pretty good summation of American life today -- "We got the good stuff." At least, some do.

We don't so much talk about the right stuff, however. Of the three stuffs that hold Ranger's interest, guns are the one most threatened today. The Supreme Court recently affirmed (McDonald v. Chicago) that gun ownership per the Second Amendment is an individual right; legally-owned firearms are a citizen's right.

However, since this ruling, several citizens have received prison sentences for having loaded firearms in their cars or on their person; in one case, the firearm was in a backpack. So how is it the right to own firearms not being infringed upon when citizens are still going to prison for bearing arms?

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict our rights to the border of our households. Why doesn't the SC resolve this issue in a court decision? Why are we allowing citizens exercising their constitutional rights to be turned into a new class of public enemy? Americans have always carried guns; whether that is a public or private good is an issue aside from the fact.

It just seems a little screwy: The U.S. is involved in a kinetic Phony War on Terror / Overseas Contingency Operations (PWOT / POCO ©) and we in The Homeland (™) are told the threat level is elevated, and we are to be "alert, but not afraid". But . . . what good is being alert if I can't be armed if my alertness spots a threat scenario? What good is it, Mr. President?

Ranger has a squirrel dog, Buddy, who barks incessantly until his master goes outside to recognize the ruckus. Sometimes there is actually a squirrel; sometimes, not. To reify Buddy's rantings, Ranger will ask, "What is it?" If it is a false alarm, Buddy will run tree to tree helter skelter, as if to scare up a threat.

That is what living in the U.S. 2011 has become: We are being trained Pavlovianly to look up when the talking heads bark, but what does all the sound and fury amount to? Without a shotgun, you have a man and a dog staring up at a tree at the caperings of a possible menace to the wires in his attic.

The question does not oppose RAW's opposition to the militarization of our lives and of the police. Individual arms have never stopped a terrorist incident since 9-11-01. While terror can't be stopped by guns, everyday crime could be. The late, great American city of Detroit suffers about one murder each day, but lawful citizens are denied the right to carry firearms to protect themselves from a real criminal threat. Meantime, police are armed to the teeth to fight a questionable terrorist threat.

This makes no sense.

Good safety posture come from correctly identifying the threat and arraying responsible deterrents and protection. For the average citizen, criminal recklessness perpetrated by another individual or group of individuals is his biggest threat. Within the context of current America, awash in a sea of guns, the question is: Do we want citizens to be able to protect themselves, or not?

Either we have gun rights or we don't.