Skip to main content

there's an amendment for that

for many years, people like me have felt that nausea that accompanies every mass shooting in the united states; the bodies are still warm when wayne lapierre or one of his meat puppets is on television insisting that the solution to gun violence is to increase the number of guns in circulation. guns for teachers. guns for hospital staff. guns for flight attendants (what could possibly go wrong?), guns for every family member, as many as they can feasibly carry while still being able to stand (their ground). any mention of even a single rule about gun ownership being tightened is met with the hysterical response that someone in government is coming for your guns.

the national rifle association and other affiliated advocacy groups trace their intransigence on this issue to the second amendment to the u.s. constitution, which guarantees all americans the right to bare arms. they hold that amendment to be quasi-religious doctrine, true for all times and in all situations, despite the fact that the men who wrote it would likely drop a load in their pantaloons even hearing about the kind of weaponry available on the open market today.

these people are as ubiquitous as they are insufferable. despite the fact that numerous polls suggest that the majority of americans actually would like to see some sort of reform to gun laws, especially when it comes to high-power assault-style weapons, theirs are virtually the only voices heard in the aftermath of a tragedy. the founding fathers meant, they assure us, for every american to arm themselves out of a sense of patriotism and pride, with the best arsenal known to mankind.

there are lots of reasons to suspect that their arguments are spurious, because they are spurious, but all that aside, i've been wondering what's happened to those people lately. there haven't been any high profile mass shootings, but there have been a lot of high profile government incursions on civil rights, with signs that there are more to come. so why aren't the gun rights advocates crawling out of the woodwork to do a victory lap?

after all, the seizure of power by an autocratic government is literally the exact fucking reason the second amendment was created. the founding fathers weren't concerned about the right to hunt or the right to do some target practice at your local gun club; they were worried that bad people were going to try to storm in a crush their democratic project while it was still in the chrysalis. they wanted to block the government from impeding the people's acquisition of firearms for the specific purpose that those firearms would be available for use against said government should the need arise.

gun guys, this is it. you've won. despite the likes of me telling you that you were being ridiculous with your militia theories, you finally have a case in point: someone has taken over your government and is putting in place measures that will leave you in all manner of danger. this is the goddamned moment you've been warning us about and you're missing it.

to be clear, i am not calling for any sort of armed insurrection, not st all. but since so many of you have been quick to remind us of the importance of the second amendment as we've watched rivers of tears commingle with blood, it seems outright bizarre that you're nowhere to be found now. no one is saying you need to spring into paramilitary action, but for the love of god, the least you could do is stick your heads above ground and say something like "aren't you glad we blocked all those gun law reforms now that there's a chance we're dealing with an actual dictator? do your whole hippie protest thing, but if it comes down to it, as promised and as is constitutionally required, we got this."

your conspicuous absence is enough to make this northern neighbour wonder if you even meant what you said about the second amendment. because right now, it looks like you either only wanted to be able to collect cool things that go boom, or you wanted a personal arsenal you could point at anyone  you just plain don't like. i'm not a scholar on the subject, but i am well certain that neither of those things was what your founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the amendment that keeps your rights sacred, even as thousands of people die as a side effect.

so speak up, gun people. for once, mushy-brained liberals like me may be forced to nod in agreement as you remind us that the threat of armed rebellion might be all that stands between a dictator and america. because if you don't say something soon, it seems pretty clear that you should maintain your silence on a permanent basis.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

filthy lucre

donald trump has shown utter indifference to the possible torture and killing of an american-based journalist jamal khashoggi by saudi arabian security forces acting on the direction of saudi crown prince mohammed bin salman but that's hardly a surprise. he said on the campaign trail that he loved the saudis because they gave him money. he refused to consider placing saudis on his infamous "muslim travel ban" list, despite the fact that saudi arabia is the one country that has been credibly linked to the september 11 terrorist attacks. or that the saudis' particular brand of fundamentalist islam has been described as the root of the extremism espoused by groups like al-qaeda and isis.

trump likes wealthy people and the saudi royals are the blueprint of the type of wealthy people he likes. they spend and live in lavish excess. family members are like catnip for the international celebrity press, even if the news media [like khashoggi] are perceived as enemies of the …

real americans

recently in my genealogical research, i encountered something that i never anticipated: americans.

i knew that some of my grandfather's family had emigrated to pennsylvania in the early part of the twentieth century and that my father has even in recent years gone to visit some cousins in the northeast [they were big bernie sanders supporters, apparently] but that was, as far as i knew, my only connection to our southern neighbour.

but it turns out, that's far from the case. one of my british relatives who abandoned the old country in favour of life in the colonies landed in the united states and shortly after was married to a woman with an obviously dutch name. i assumed that they had met on the boat on the way over because, as far as i knew, he moved up to canada right away. but she was actually american-born, the daughter of a dutchman from boston and an established english family. when i say "established", i don't mean that they were members of the genteel cl…

making faces :: written in the stars, in lipstick [part two]

it's the middle of september already? i'm not prepared for that? i mean, i am prepared for it because the heat this summer has been murder on me and i've been begging for a reprieve for months but i'm still bowled over by the speed at which time passes. this year, i've been measuring time through the launches of bite beauty's astrology collection, which arrives like the full moon once a month. [the full moon arrives every four weeks, which is less than any month except february -ed.] earlier this year, i took a look at the first four launches of the collection and already it's time to catch up with four more.

the most important thing for you to know is that after several months of problems, bite and sephora appear to have sorted out their inventory planning. for the last several releases, information has been clear and reliable as to when and where each lipstick will be available [pre-orders taken for a couple of days on bite's own website and a general…