It's A Modern Free For All

A conservative pal of mine recently sent me a moving account of Mr. Ted Nugent, claiming that Ted had gradually evolved from a twisted rock star into a national hero, a defender of the common man, and one who has perhaps single-handedly saved more average lives than he really knew.

On the contrary, I think he's turned into a fiery demagogue, only a hero in the standard “cult leader” reference. Ted has an agenda, he's pissed off and he has an oddly frightening way of expressing his concerns.

But I'm not too sure what he's trying to accomplish when he calls Hillary a “stupid bitch” or invites Obama to suck on his machine gun at his recent concerts. It's one thing for me and you to joke casually like that at the pub. It's highly suspicious for a celeb to be that way in front of a paying audience. He's always been a bold showman, I love some of his music, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn his gate receipts have gone up since he started this particular show.

Come on, consider what we know of our own history! Using the stage and notoriety to provoke common people, prodding them with words of hate pointed at other personalities and anger towards vague notions of evil, is no way to deal with honest conflict.

I see after he rants on attacks to the 2nd Amendment, he typically pokes the interviewer in the chest with the forceful words, “Any questions?”

As if to proclaim that he has all the answers. Nobody has all the answers, man! He would be funny if he wasn't so serious about it.

That's the same kind of testy tactics the armies of dictators used to question a citizen's loyalty or the Roman Catholics once used to determine a peasant's unflinching belief in the Pope. To a demagogue, honest questions may bely treason and that's what he wants us to infer.

But I agree, there is a conflict that we need to deal with here. To me, it's not about the Constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” untethered from government oversight. It's really about the right of an individual to choose his own path to personal liberty within the protection of a peaceful society.

In spite of my respect for our Bill of Rights, I do not believe we have any unique rights to life or even the pursuit of happiness divinely bestowed upon us by an unseen Creator. In fact, the proof suggests a different story. People die all the time due to disease or natural calamity, some sooner rather than later, victims of odd virus or weather condition, without any logical way to always prevent it. The vast majority of humans have suffered just to survive on this earth, learning that any vision of constant happiness is like fool's gold just out of their reach, a fleeting and deceitful goal, not worthy of any realistic expectation. But I agree the one thing we all enjoy, if we are lucky enough to be alive for any healthy period of time, is the right to determine just how much personal risk we are willing to endure to secure our liberties while living.

Americans tend to believe and teach their children that they have the inherent right, and in many ways, the personal responsibility, to defend themselves and their family against all perceived aggression. Generally, I see that as an honorable notion but blatantly untrue, really backwards from the only right we can claim as humans. The old “Don't Tread on Me” flag that many like to hide behind doesn't mention family, friends, or community. Even if it might be so widely construed, it still just selfishly says “me” alone.

Well, the isolated “me” has been in danger from the beginning. Fortunately, like most earthly animals, we have learned that there is power and safety in numbers. A circle of like-minded friends, all protecting the peace of the central nest is at least one basis for the ideal defense of a society. But in practice it means that individuals within that community must naturally be willing to give up some of their own personal freedoms. They can't yell “FIRE!” in a theater. They can't take a nap in the middle of sentry duty. And they can't just wander off when they want to. In this way, we say it is a crime to individually violate the rules of a society which is designed to defend the safety of the whole.

Oh, but you can surely step out on your own volition. You can choose to ignore the rules and put yourself and everyone else in greater danger. But if you do, then you deny yourself any protection that comes from staying inside or supporting the circle. You lose no rights but you do forfeit the privilege of collective defense. It is an individual choice to stay or go, either way. And, to me, the right to make that choice is the only right worth a damn in this life.

People make this individual choice every minute of every day. When a soldier enlists in the service of our nation, when a cop pins on her badge, when a fireman pulls on his boots, they know full well that they are risking their personal lives to defend our circle. In this case, they are taking advantage of the only right they truly have.

Alternatively, this is not to demean the lawyer, the mechanic or the plumber who chooses to pay their taxes and remain safely inside because, to me, they are really doing the same. The are just making the choice of personal risk that they feel they can comfortably choose to survive—the only choice they have the inherent right to make—stay or go, contribute or endlessly complain, abide or don't.

As noted before, I have found the modern trend of the general public towards profusely thanking service members somewhat confounding over the last few years. I guess this explains my amusement to some degree. In my view, the old hat ideas of patriotism and nationalism have long since passed us by if they ever existed in the first place. In modern reality, where there rarely exists a clear enemy, those who serve us at the edge of the circle do so for the same reasons they do everything else—predominantly for their own personal reasons, not necessarily for the glory or continued existence of one state, maybe not to salute a beautiful flag that represents all that is good with life, and not always to defend one form of economy over another.

That is not to say we shouldn't continue to thank them because we really should. We should thank our mechanics and plumbers, too. They deserve our recognition since it is painfully clear to most of them that most of us are sadly incapable of defending or taking care of ourselves alone.

Yes, the lawyers are on their own in my little world. I know that's a harsh assessment. But it comes from the heart. (Insert winky-smile emoticon here.)

A long time ago, I chose the circle of American society. Yes, I was born into it. I was lucky that way and it made my decision quite easy. But, if your choice is to go outside the circle wherever it may be, to choose a life of ignorance or crime, then I tend to side with Mr. Nugent. Hopefully your decision will eventually lead you to lengthy stay at a rehabilitative institution, the business end of an Indonesian cane whip or to swift Chinese justice, I really don't care which as long as you don't take me or my friends with you.

On the other hand, to put it just as bluntly, if your definition of society's protection includes a personal demand to walk around with a loaded, fully-automatic M-60 machine gun, I have news for you. Your right to choose your path within the circle does not include that option. The right to arm yourself with an assault arsenal for your personal peace of mind is one those small sacrifices that a society demands you should make for the security of everyone else. In fact, if the rules of a competent society are such that it ignores or allows such unrestrained liberties, then everyone else within the circle should have sufficient cause to reevaluate their personal choices and determine whether your individual needs are truly worth their commonly shared risk.

Thankfully, I don't think that's the conflict. I may be wrong but I don't believe that's what Ted really means even if it sure sounds like that nonsense is exactly what he so passionately says.

Weapons can be very useful tools. But when they're turned against other people, especially otherwise innocent people, the “right” to own them begins to tread on the fundamental purpose of a peaceful nation.

We all want the same thing. We want a society that protects us. We don't want to live in constant fear. We want a way to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and nutjobs, those who choose to go or are forced outside the circle, without overbearing limitations on a sane, law-abiding citizen's choice for personal risk.

But our majority has let it be, allowed the sore to fester in a way, and no good choice has been made. Out of fear or apathy, whether the populace is freely armed to the tooth or the compromises of law restricts gun ownership in some fashion or degree, nothing seems to satisfy everyone while our communities continue to evolve into veritable kill zones where good people, our friends, our family, don't really know what tragic danger awaits them around the next corner.

In truth, the common lament that I witness, a lament that any demagogue worth his salt should know, is not that our rules overly limit personal freedom but that our society regularly fails in the task of protecting us from thieving thugs and fanatical fruitcakes. And, let's be honest, now more than ever perhaps, we can't do that on our own.

I don't know the answer. Wish I did. But I believe we've networked our nation together for good reason and I imagine that at some point each of us must and will take advantage of the only right we truly enjoy as humans and law-abiding citizens of a great country.

Here's my raised glass in the hope that Mr. Ted Nugent, the people he rants about, and each of you all live long enough to make the right choice.

Cheers,
Mb