Tucson, Jefferson and God

One week ago today, gunfire erupted in a Tucson shopping center, killing six people, including a little girl who went there to learn more about American politics. What lesson did she take to her grave?

Contrary to early suspicions, there is no evidence that the gunman was motivated by any political dogma, from any point on the spectrum. Thus, President Obama and most of his critics on the right have agreed to drop pursuit of such claims. And consequently, arguments for the moment have shifted to gun control, or more accurately, to gun safety considerations.

The arguments have quickly devolved to the extremes: 'bans' on one hand, 'second amendment rights' on the other. It's as if there is no middle ground worth considering. I would ask this: how would Americans respond to the following question: "would you be willing to at least discuss ways to minimize the chances of U.S. Representatives, federal judges and nine-year-old girls from being shot?" I'm guessing there would be a clear majority in favor.

And the extreme second amendment advocates realize this, as well. This is a conversation they don't want to have.

Which leads us to the following quote to the New York Times from Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America:

Why should the government be in the business of telling us how we can defend ourselves? These politicians need to remember that these rights aren't given to us by them. They come from God. They are god-given rights. They can't be infringed or limited in any way. What are they going to do--limit it to two or three rounds? Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially when the police are not around and you have to defend yourself against mobs."

Let's quickly deconstruct that.

• First of all, there is no evidence that God wrote the Bill of Rights, nor is there any mention (to my knowledge) of Glocks or extended clips in the Bible;
• Who are the mobs coming to take Mr. Pratt's guns away? Highly unlikely they will be the non-gun owners, since by definition they would be at a severe disadvantage;
• Actually, a limit to two or three rounds could be very helpful--particularly when someone decides to kill as many people as possible in a Tucson shopping center.

But what's most evident here is the immediate resurrection of God into any argument concerning guns, no matter how clumsy the implementation. God is the ultimate bullet-proof shield against logic. It's apparent that God is an invincible repellent to common sense reasoning; never mind the revered founding fathers, who actually did create the right to bear arms.

Surveys have shown that conservatives are 50% more likely to own guns than liberals. And conservatives are certainly far more likely to be members of the Republican party. So why would conservatives bother enlisting the defense of an other-worldly God rather than the former real world colonists who actually drafted the second amendment?

The answer, I believe, is the confounding legacy that is Thomas Jefferson.

In many ways, Jefferson is the patron saint of modern conservatism. He was a champion of the rural farmer, distrustful of cities. He was an expansionist, negotiating the Louisiana Purchase, and sending Lewis and Clark on their way. He consistently opposed a strong federal government, preferring ultimate power to reside with the states. He wrote vociferously against British taxation, and as Governor of Virginia, twice saw the British invade his state. He was unflinching in his belief in freedom, liberty and individual rights--after all, the guy wrote the Declaration of Independence! By many, he is considered 'the first Republican'.

With such credentials...it would seem logical for current conservatives to consider him not just a founding father, but in fact the Godfather of their movement.

And yet, they seldom mention him.

The sticking point, of course, comes from his views on religion. Yes, he is well known for his "wall of separation between Church and State". But his words and actions are far more definitive than that:

• As governor, he disestablished Anglicanism as the official state church, and abolished 'religious tests' for citizens;
• He wrote, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection..."
• He wrote, "The clergy had a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity throughout the United States; and as every sect believed its own form to be the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own. (But) the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly..."
• He wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

These are hardly words a modern conservative can abide by. The feelings of this perhaps most prominent founding father are clear: liberty, freedom and religion do not live in the same neighborhood much less room together. It is no wonder that people like Erich Pratt bypass the founding fathers altogether in defense of their fetishes and phobias. To him, the god of his own invention provides the only 'true' answer.

The New York Times should be quoting Jefferson instead of Pratt.

And the fact that automatic weapons are not a god-given right is the lesson that nine-year-old Christina Green might have lived to learn.