RAGE ON THE RANGE

It’s so seductive, so romantic, so quintessentially American: One man, a rugged individualist, standing up to an overreaching, abusive government that has singled him out for example-making. He is a quiet, industrious man just working the land, just as his family has done for generations before him, and now Big Brother wants to put an end to it, in the name of a tortoise. But the jack-booted thugs have crossed the line in the desert sand. This old coot is not going to budge. He’s going to make a stand. Is it any wonder why so many people in America are coming to defense? Or are the issues really that cut and dry?

This story caught my eye earlier in the week when it popped up on my Facebook feed. A friend of mine linked it, applauding Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has been embroiled in a dispute with the federal government for over 20 years now. Bundy owns a 150 acre cattle ranch near the town of Bunkerville, but he also grazes his herds on a 600,000 acre tract owned and administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Ranchers who graze on BLM land are required to pay grazing fees (which are really a pittance). After all, they are using public land to turn a personal profit. Seems fair enough.

Not for Mr. Bundy. In 1993, the BLM adopted new regulations for the Bunkerville tract in order to protect the habitat of the endangered Mojave desert tortoise, restricting the amount of cattle Mr. Bundy could graze to 150 head. The old cowboy took umbrage with this, and has since refused to pay his grazing fees or reduce his herd, increasing the population to over 900 head of cattle.

Damned ecoterrorists! Spoiling it for the rest of us job creators!!!

Two decades have passed and the case has been in an out of court, with Bundy losing every decision. The BLM claims that he currently owes over a million dollars in grazing fees and penalties, but Bundy still refuses to cough up or remove his cows. So after several federal court orders, the BLM moved in last Saturday, and with hundreds of armed agents–along with trucks and helicopters–and began the arduous task of removing the trespassing beasts. As of now they have removed over three hundred. Mr. Bundy claims the he and his family are exempt from paying grazing fees or following the rules, since his Mormon family has been farming and ranching in the area since settling it in the 1870’s. He’s referred to the Bunkerville tract as “my land,” and repeatedly says he doesn’t recognize the federal government’s authority over any state land. He even is on camera claiming that he “(doesn’t) recognize the U.S. government,” period. He has threatened a “range war,” if the feds make good on their promise to remove his cattle, with his wife saying “I’ve got a shotgun and I know how to use it. We’re ready to do what we have to do…”

This, predictably, has blown up in the media, with the usual right-wing suspects throwing gasoline on the range fire, applauding Bundy for making a stand against a “tyrannical” (it’s always ‘tyranny’ with them–get a new word already) government.  And now the “militias” are following suit, sending their armed to the teeth wannabe warriors into the fray to protect the rancher from Obama’s freedom-hating agents. Hundreds, if not thousands of these camo-wearing faux soldiers are at the ranch already, turning the place into a powder keg, rekindling memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge, times when the government went in guns a-blazing.

Whatever your opinion on the matter, THIS has become the story to watch. These militia types must be creaming in their Duck Dynasty underwear. They have made this their flag issue and I’m sure are eager for shots to be fired, so they can ignite the “Second American Revolution” that these guys have been drooling over for years now. Check ’em out here, protecting old Bundy (second from the right, white hat).

“Can we hit Taco Bell after watering the tree of liberty?”

And as stirring as the image of the old man standing alone against the evil feds is, I have zero sympathy for Mr. Bundy. Like most Western ranchers, I imagine that he’s a very wealthy man, and now he’s demanding that he use our land–public land–for free. He doesn’t think the rules should apply. He believes that he should be able to do as he please and profit from it. He’s essentially asking for handout (so much for the rugged individualism) at OUR EXPENSE. And I thought that these right wing/libertarian types were against freebies. Mr. Bundy, like many ranchers in the West, has a twisted sense of entitlement, and at first I was so surprised that his cause was eliciting so much sympathy. This isn’t the story of a poor farmer getting bullied by the nefarious forces of Uncle Sam. This is the tale of a rich white guy refusing to pay his fair share. It’s Wall Street on the high desert.

And that’s just the deal now, isn’t it? These militia and Tea Party types despise the “parasites” and “takers,” as long as they are poor (Being brown or black helps as well). Rich white folks are always “decent” and “hard working,” even when their privileged lips are clearly and firmly suckling on the public teat.  Imagine how they’d be reacting if this was the story of a black guy in an urban environment refusing to pay rent to a slum lord. I think we can safely assume that the tubby militia cavalry would’t be riding in pell mell to save the day.

But the government–surprise surprise–is clumsily misstepping here. Yes, the recalcitrant Bundy clan issued some vague threats, but did that really require the BLM and other agents to move in with 300 heavily armed men, posting snipers, and acting the part of paramilitaries? People have been roughed up. Bundy’s son was tazed and arrested.

Most egregious are the “First Amendment zones” set up for journalists and protesters. The BLM insists that these are just for everyone’s “safety” (always the excuse to take away rights), as if the guarantee of freedom of speech can be geographically contained. I don’t recall reading anything about that in the Bill of Rights. But this bullshit has been going on for years now. I remember taking part in the WTO protests in 1999, as well as the DNC protests in LA in 2000. Both events saw the authorities set up “free speech areas,” in clear violation of our rights. Straying out of those areas without proper accreditation resulted in an immediate beat down and arrest. I guess such penning up of the opposition is de rigeur  these days. Welcome to modern America.

The government’s plodding, heavy handed response has only served to feed the sympathy for Bundy, serving as evidence, in the eyes of anti-government types, of the malignant forces at work here. I get it. People are losing patience with the growing fascism in our government, as seen in the NSA, the TSA, and the ever-growing list of police abuses.

But… that doesn’t excuse Bundy. He has flouted the law for over 20 years now. In this case the BLM has been more than patient. Should they just shrug, and allow him to continue violating the law? Should ranchers be allowed to graze on public land at will, with no regard for the rules and regulations that allow us all to enjoy it? When I am home, I spend tons of time camping, hiking, and above all fly-fishing on BLM land. I pay the fees. I follow the rules. Why shouldn’t everyone else?

Bundy and his supporters refuse to even recognize the authority of the BLM, which took over huge areas of open range land in the 1930’s. Bundy claims his family was using the land before that, which is probably true, but it doesn’t mean he owns it. He has no title, no deed. He just claims “ancestral rights,” which have not been recognized in court. In absence of any real defense, he just tries to wish the law and the authority away.

If they hate the government so much, why fly its flag?

Allow me to indulge in an analogy here: I think the War on Drugs is a total waste and failure, not to mention a harmful and immoral undertaking that has destroyed far more lives than it has saved. The DEA is the authority that most represents this failed policy and prosecutes its battles. If I traffic cocaine (which, like refusing to pay grazing fees, is clearly against the law) and get busted, how much sympathy do you think I will elicit when I moan about “not recognizing their authority?” They are the actual agency in charge, whether I like it or not. The BLA owns the land Mr. Bundy grazes and the desert tortoise is protected whether he likes it or not. Tough titty, old man.

Authority is not always in the right and not all laws are just, but many actually have made our society a better place to live. People cannot arbitrarily decide which laws to obey and which not to and expect no sanction. If a certain law is odious, it should challenged and changed. There are legal channels, and then there’s civil disobedience, the path that Mr. Bundy has chosen.

But is the law he despises–federal ownership of land–really so terrible? I personally LIKE the fact that large amounts of land are protected by the feds and open for all who agree to the terms of use. This is one of the richer legacies left to us by wise policy makers of the past. But Mr. Bundy, in mumbly interviews, maintains that it’s against the Constitution for the federal government to own land and make/administer the rules regarding its use. Has he ever read the Constitution? Or is he just a wheezy right-wing gasbag who tosses around the word “unconstitutional” for laws that get in the way of him turning the highest profit possible? I suppose he would like to see all federal land in private hands. After all, shouldn’t all land be squeezed for a dollar?

I’m fascinated (if not a bit obsessed) by this story and am interested in seeing how it goes. I hope no blood is shed, but these militia dudes have a lot of hardware and itchy fingers, though they are sadly deluded if they think their intervention  will spark the oncoming race war, or culling of the socialist leeches, or whatever comic-book fantasy they’ve concocted to make up for the fact that they feel flaccid and powerless in real life.

In the meantime I’m moving home to set up a methlab in the Mt. Rainier National Park. My family has lived in the shadow of the mountain for three generations, and I refuse to recognize federal sovereignty in Washington State. Any Oath Keepers care to join me? I’m buying the beer.

HAPPINESS IS A WARM GUN

It’s been a bad year for gun massacres in America.  A lot of crazies have been melting down, raiding the nearest arsenal, and randomly killing innocent folks.  Three in particular have grabbed my attention: The Cafe Racer shooting in Seattle a few months back (which touched some people close to me); the Aurora, Colorado “Batman” blast up; and last Saturday’s awful bloodbath at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which tops all others in its mind-numbing savagery.

Each of these terrible events has sickened me and fanned my fire of rage.  Like most of us, I shake my head, sigh, shout, and wonder how such things can happen. I question aloud what drives these broken people commit such acts and how we can spot them before they explode. For a short time I try to understand their madness, but soon realize this is a futile exercise.  Sometimes crazy is just crazy.  And then I think about guns.

Though I’ve felt tempted to rant on America’s gun culture after each of these travesties, I’ve bit my tongue and held my fingers away from the keyboard.  Sure, I threw up a few anti-gun memes on Facebook and practiced some sloganeering via my status updates, but I have refrained from ranting here.  Why? Because the gun debate in America is much like the controversy over abortion: It consists of two entrenched sides who just scream and chant worn-out mantras at each other that lost their meaning a long time ago.  This is especially true for the pro-gun side, but this is a debate where people stopped listening to each other a long time ago.  It’s really hard to add anything new to the dung pile.  But I’ve thought hard on this and here it goes, as messy and repetitive it as it may be.

I grew up in the American sticks around a lot of guns.  Near my house were the hinterlands of a sprawling military base where the sound of artillery and machine-gun fire served as the soundtrack to my childhood.  Many of my friends had fathers who hunted or kept guns for target shooting and self-defense.  My father wasn’t a gun guy, but my grandfather kept a few firearms, as did my older brother.  I learned to shoot at a young age and even did a bit of pheasant and grouse hunting (with the aforementioned grandpa), along with recreational blasting with a couple of buddies. Even today, when I visit home, I sometimes go shooting with some friends.  I enjoy the hell out of it and have no personal aversion to guns.  I think I understand their place in American culture as well as anybody, because I’ve lived it.

However, we Americans are insular people, and often have absolutely no clue as to how the rest of the world views us.  As an American, in America, I never really questioned our gun culture, because I grew up in it and it was really all I knew.  Sure, sometimes people cracked a nut and took out some bystanders, but that was just normal, I thought.  Like many Americans, I cherished the right to bear arms and considered rampant gun violence an unfortunate but necessary side effect.

I’ve lived abroad for over eight years now, and one thing I can tell you is that it’s given me some perspective on my home country.  Over this time I’ve traveled to over twelve different countries and talked to people of all nationalities, and guess what? Most all of them are absolutely perplexed by American gun culture.  They ask me all the time:

“Is it true so many of your countrymen are armed?” “Why do people need so many guns?” and most importantly, “Why do Americans put up with so much gun killing?”

At first I’d try to engaged these people, explaining our history as a frontier nation with man-eating bears, hostile Indians and big game; I’d tell them about the revolution and how American citizens consider an armed populace some kind of check against an abusive government; I’d attempt to enlighten them about the role guns have played in the making of the country–how they’ve become an institution–a religion almost. But these lame sputterings only served to further confuse.  After a while, I realize that had I had no good answer.  I couldn’t adequately explain any of it, because after living in a gun-free country for many years and looking back at my own culture from the outside, I realized that there was no good answer.  Yes, there are historical reasons for American gun culture, but what it had metastasized into could only be described as a kind of collective insanity.

So now, when confronted with the same questions, I just throw up my hands and tell these perplexed foreigners, “Look, I don’t know.” Just as I can’t explain what goes on in the head of the guys who commit these massacres, I can’t explain why so many millions of Americans are obsessed with guns, and why they refuse to do anything to limit their proliferation.  Sure, there’s the gun lobby and the NRA, which basically pay off the politicians, but why do so many people, in the face of massacre after massacre, dig in their heals and refuse to take ANY ACTION?  Sure, some measures may not work, but are they content to do nothing in the face of continual slaughter?  Didn’t Einstein say that doing the same thing again and again yet expecting different results is the very definition of insanity???

What is frustrating is that the gun lobby has boiled their interests down to a collection of weak-ass talking points that every yahoo and bozo spouts at you when you deign to argue for greater regulation of guns.

“Guns don’t kill people! People kill people!”

This is gas-huffingly retarded.  Pro-gun folks have been babbling this one for years and at this point it’s like a piece of bubble gum that has been chewed on for forty years.  Anyone who doesn’t see that guns make it EXPONENTIALLY EASIER for anyone to kill is either blind, deaf, or  so stupid that they shouldn’t breed, yet alone own firearms.  Sometimes these guys say, “You could kill people with spoons if ya wanted!” or but out  the old “How about knife control!” argument.

Well, if you compare a spoon to a gun during a debate, I’ll defriend you on Facebook and avoid you at bars, restaurants, and shopping malls for the rest of your sad days.  And there actually is a thing called “knife control”. There are laws governing which kinds of knives are legal and illegal to own. Look ’em up.

A few real boneheads linked the knife attack in a Chinese school that happened on the same day as the Sandy Point killing spree.  “See?” They said, with dopey grins and vacant stares. “Take away guns and people will just use knives.” That may be, but let’s look at the scorecard from both events. Sandy Point had 26 dead with ZERO survivors. The Chinese attack had 22 stabbed with 22 survivors.  If I’m a six year old faced off against a murderous schizo, I’ll take the one armed with a knife, m’kay? And thanks for totally undermining your non-argument.

“Cars kill people. Why don’t we just ban cars?”

Now that’s a good idea!  I don’t own a car and I think they pretty much ruin everything and make people fat selfish assholes, so I may agree with you on this one… but cars are NOT guns, and to say so is tired, old hat shit. People use guns to kill other people.  That is the only reason they exist.  People use cars for transportation and are sadly sometimes killed in accidental collisions. So what do we do?  We have CAR CONTROL.

Yes, cars are held to rigorous safety standards.  There are also traffic laws.  Most importantly, you must BE LICENSED to legally drive a car.  Last time I checked, no license was needed to purchase most guns in the USA.  Still the same?  And don’t bring up swimming pools either, you NRA hoopleheads.  Swimming pools, like cars, are also subject to intense and detailed regulation.

“But we NEED guns! They are our only line of defense against a repressive government!  A government will think twice about taking liberties against an armed populace?”

Oh, will they? It hasn’t really stopped them up to now…

Okay,  I will confess to the allure of this argument.  After all, who doesn’t want to bravely take up arms against tyranny? It all sounds so romantic!  To the barricades, comrades!

Unfortunately, armed uprisings in the United States have a worse track record than the Washington Generals.  Every single one has been brutally and violently put down by a much, much better-armed federal government: Shays, Bacons, Harper’s Ferry, THE SECESSION OF THE CONFEDERACY, Pine Ridge, Ruby Ridge, The Branch Davidians…. and these are just the appetizers.  I’m sorry, but as stirring as it sounds, armed civilians will never be a match against federal military power.  Horde all the guns you want, but in the face of machine guns, fighter jets, and Blackhawk helicopters, you don’t stand a chance and never will.

People love to trumpet the 2nd Amendment as some kind of firewall against tyranny, but in giving birth to this awful, violent gun culture, hasn’t the 2nd Amendment created a “tyranny” of its own? It makes people live in fear.  And some of us rightly ask:

“What about my right to walk down the street without getting caught in a gang crossfire?”

“What about MY right to drink a coffee or watch a movie without having my brains spattered on the ceiling by some crackpot with a grudge against society!”

The 2nd Amendment was written well over 200 years ago, and guess what? Things have changed.  It was penned during the age of muskets, and I know that this argument is repeated time and time again, but it’s correct: The Founders had no idea of where technology would take us. Knowledge of modern handguns and semi-automatic, military-grade rifles would have made them seriously reconsider the vague wording.  And let’s face it: The 2nd Amendment is just badly written. It seems to mainly endorse the idea of the right to form a “well-regulated militia” while also hinting at unrestricted private ownership of “arms”.

But “arms” are never defined, are they?

Again. Currently it’s acceptable to own shotguns, handguns, and rifles–both single-shot and semi-automatic.  But automatics are verboten. (Oh noes! Gun control!) So are grenades and grenade launchers. But aren’t these “arms” as well? What about mortars and cannons? Tanks? Missiles? Nerve gas?  ATOMIC BOMBS???

It’s clear that we have made some kind of “arms control” totally acceptable. So why is the line of general legal ownership so firmly drawn between semi-automatic and automatic weapons?

“Well go ahead and restrict guns, but if you ban certain types, then only criminals will own them!”

Okay, Bubba… but isn’t that the definition of a criminal? Anyone who breaks that law?  After all, C-4 plastic explosive is illegal to own, but some people choose to circumvent that law? And guess what, it they get caught, they are arrested and imprisoned. Why? Because they’re CRIMINALS.  Is the reality that some people will break a law reason enough not to enact it? That’s why we have enforcement.

But… don’t get me wrong. Despite this lengthy screed, I am not calling for an end to gun ownership in America.  This just ain’t gonna happen.  We must be realistic.  There are over 270 million guns in our country and they’re not just going to disappear by federal or state decree.  A lot of people would straight up refuse to surrender their firearms even if hell froze over and a law banning them was enacted. From my cold, dead fingers!

But is it unreasonable to suggest that guns can be, as the 2nd Amendment itself suggests, “well-regulated?” Shouldn’t we at least require licensing and training like we do with people who wish to fly planes, drive cars, or professionally cut hair? And what about banning certain military style rifles? Or even handguns? At least ban further sales… the old ones will eventually break down, over time.  Surely there must be SOME steps we can take to reign ’em in.

And yes, gun laws are not a one country/one fit deal. A few countries have heavily armed populations yet low gun crime (Switzerland, Israel). These are the exceptions to the rule, though.  Generally speaking, more guns = more gun crime, and the countries with few guns have drastically fewer deaths by bullets.  This is a fact and can be backed up with hard data. I’m sure anyone who has read this has seen the U.S. compared to other industrialized nations as far as gun crime goes. The numbers speak for themselves.

But at the end of the day, it’s the American people who will have to make the decision. If we choose to just endure a massacre every few weeks and do nothing to address the availability of guns in our nation, then we get the country we deserve. That’s just the premium we pay for tyranny insurance.  Many on the pro-gun side say that the answer is MORE GUNS, that more armed people would create a more peaceful nation, where there exists a kind of mutually-assured destruction. In such a society, an armed barista would have taken out the maniac at Cafe Racer; several audience members would have blown out the back of James Holmes cackling, flame-haired head; and the teacher at Sandy Hook who saved those little kids with her body would have done so with a Glock instead.  But these are just visions of fantasy. Yes, carrying citizens do, from time to time, stop murderers before they can cut down innocents, but this will never be the norm.  To believe so is simply folly and self-delusion. And if you don’t believe me, just ask the rest of the world.  But when have we, as Americans, ever tried listening to them?