Guns: from principle to fetish

From principle to fetish

by digby

I have long understood that many conservatives believe that the only right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that matters is the right to bear arms. But I think Sarah Palin's "revisionist historian" (as George W. Bush used to say) interpretation of Paul Revere's ride reveals that this goes even deeper than that. Essentially she --- and I believe quite a few of her followers --- believe that the revolution was fought over the right to bear arms.

I'm certainly going to wade into the historical debate around guns, which has kept scholars busy for decades now poring over every comma and off hand remark for clarification. but I think I can say with some certainty that the idea to bear arms is so sweeping that it even covers sworn enemies of the United States probably wasn't what the colonials had in mind.

In a video released today Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn encourages terrorists to use American gun shows to arm themselves for potential Mumbai-style attacks. Gadahn's video laid out a new tactic for Al Qaeda to continue their murderous terrorist agenda:

America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?

At gun shows buyers can purchase guns from private sellers without passing a background check. An investigation by the City of New York showed that even buyers that identified themselves as people who "probably couldn't pass a background check" were able to purchase guns at gun shows. The investigation also showed the wide variety of guns available at gun shows.

In addition, people on terrorist watch lists are not forbidden from purchasing guns and many have done just that. Gadahn's instructions come in the wake of Associated Press reporting that showed that more than 200 people with suspected terrorist ties bought guns legally in the United States last year. Following the AP report Representative Mike Quigley introduced an amendment to the Patriot Act that would give the Attorney General the authority to block gun sales to individuals on terror watch lists. The amendment was voted down.



During the early days after 9/11, when the whole country was awash in paranoia and fear and the debate around whether or not "the constitution is a suicide pact" was roiling the country, the government rounded people up, deported without due process, instituted a domestic spying regime and suspended habeas corpus for terrorist suspects but the right to bear arms was still considered sacrosanct:

Congressional testimony by Attorney General John Ashcroft last December that the F.B.I. could not legally use records of gun background checks to investigate terrorism suspects conflicted with a formal opinion by his own legal staff, a report issued yesterday by the General Accounting Office shows.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 6, Mr. Ashcroft defended his policy of refusing to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained after Sept. 11 had bought guns. Mr. Ashcroft asserted that the law which created the National Instant Check System for gun purchases ''outlaws and bans'' use in criminal investigations.

Mr. Ashcroft said the law ''indicates that the only permissible use for the National Instant Check System is to audit the maintenance of that system.''

But the General Accounting Office report contains an opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, dated Oct. 1, which seems to allow the checks under some conditions. ''We see nothing in the NICS regulations that prohibits the F.B.I. from deriving additional benefits from checking audit log records as long as one of the genuine purposes'' is auditing the use of the system, the report says.

Moreover, the Office of Legal Counsel added, it was further convinced such checks were legal because the bureau of investigation had been ''using this method'' all along.

The opinion was written after the bureau asked the Justice Department for permission to examine the records on background checks to see if any detainees had purchased guns.

It is unclear who in the Justice Department read the opinion. But sometime in October, the department rejected the F.B.I.'s request.

Like I said, sacrosanct.

And if they couldn't bend their "principles" after 9/11, I have my doubts that they will bend them now:

The Obama administration says it's taking "seriously" a statement from an al Qaeda spokesman that instructs sympathizers of the terrorist group to exploit soft spots in U.S. gun laws.

Last week, Adam Gadahn, an American-born spokesman for al Qaeda, released a video informing followers that, "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms" and urging them to exploit what is commonly known as the gun show loophole.

"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and, most likely, without having to show an identification card," Gadahn added. "So what are you waiting for?”


No matter how seriously the White House takes this, considering that the death and mayhem caused by the flow of arms to Mexican drug cartels is met with a shrug by the NRA, I'm not at all confident that the American right will budge an inch on this. It's no longer a principle with them, it's a dangerous, compulsive fetish. Their answer to every threat posed by this lawless gun culture is more guns.

I hate to be defeatist --- and more power to those who are fighting the good fight on this issue --- but I honestly don't know what it will take to change this. If Ashcroft was able to get away with protecting the NRA's agenda in the immediate aftermath of the most dramatic terrorist attack in history, I can't imagine what would do it.

Media Matters has more on this Al Qaeda directive here.
.