After the AR-15, How About a Tank?

I like to read Yahoo News.  If I didn't, I would be unaware of the existence of Honey Boo Boo.  I wouldn't know that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are providing the latest bit of evidence in support of the arguments, made by some curmudgeons, that one should have to apply for a license to reproduce.


And I wouldn't know that Arnold Schwarzenegger owns a tank.  From Yahoo:

The tank in question is an M47 Patton. Produced between 1951 and 1953, the 50-ton behemoths are still in service across the globe 60 years later. And Schwarzenegger told me and an assembled group of around 15 journalists on Friday that this was “exactly the very tank that I drove in the Austrian Army when I was 18 years old.”

There is no mention in the article of whether Arnold's tank has the original 90mm cannon or the .30 and .50 caliber machine guns.  Neither does it say whether the former California governor, action film star, and competitive body builder has a supply of ammunition for those guns.

I'm guessing it didn't even occur to the reporters to ask about any of that, because we're talking about a famous person here, not just an average citizen. The thought of an average private citizen in possession of any of that would be horrifying beyond description, but Arnold is OK.  The rich and famous are different from you and me.

This reminded me of a recent discussion thread on a social media network about the right to keep and bear arms.  One participant said some of his friends who are gun rights advocates took the position, which he clearly viewed as extreme, that they should be allowed to own tanks and Apache helicopters.


A constant feature of these discussions is the idea that no one needs a (fill in the blank, usually something like an AR-15) to go hunting.  Every time I read that, I'm reminded of the bumper sticker slogan, "The Second Amendment Ain't About Duck Hunting."

So what is it about?  Well, it's true that it's not about hunting.  If you go back and read the writings of the Framers, you will find very little about hunting.  They put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights for two reasons.  First, they considered an armed citizenry to be a bulwark against tyranny.  (I almost never see the word bulwark used in any other context nowadays.)  Second, they considered armed self-defense to be a fundamental, natural human right that was sufficiently important to be guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  Notice that this right exists independent of the Bill of Rights. A fundamental, natural human right is not created by the Bill of Rights - merely secured by it, against government infringement.

In the "bulwark against tyranny" framework, the right to keep and bear arms must encompass "arms ...  of the kind in common use [in military service] at the time."  (U.S. Supreme Court, United States vs. Miller, 1939.)  In this case Miller was in possession of a "sawed-off shotgun," and the Court said that in order to prevail in the case against him, Miller would have to show evidence that this was the sort of weapon one might have to use if he were to be called upon to serve in a citizens' militia. As it turns out, short-barreled shotguns were in use by the military in those days, but Miller did not present evidence, and the Court ruled against him.

Some opponents of gun rights say that if we are going to subscribe to the "bulwark against tyranny" argument, private citizens must be able to own machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and shoulder-fired missiles. Such a position has not, to my knowledge, been taken publicly by any gun-rights advocates, although its logic is compelling, and I suspect the Framers would likely agree with it, as it is consistent with their original intent.

It is easy to dismiss that original intent by declaring that, more than two centuries later, we need not fear government tyranny.

At the Jewish High Holy Days in the autumn of 1992, the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Columbus to the New World - and also an important year (1492) in the Spanish inquisition - our rabbi spoke of the many Jews of Spain who converted to the official religion of Catholicism.  He asked the congregation to imagine facing a choice of conversion or leaving the country with nothing but the clothes on our backs.  What would we do if we knew government agents would be knocking on our doors to present that choice?

I turned to my wife and said I’d head down to the basement and start loading magazines.

In the 21st century we do not believe our government will be tyrannical or oppressive.  The Jews of Catholic Spain and Nazi Germany hadn’t believed it could happen, either.

If you are convinced that we need have no fear of our government, perhaps you recall episodes of civil unrest in which law-abiding citizens relied on privately owned weapons for defense.

In March, 1991, a young man named Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles police officers.  The beating was caught on videotape and appeared to show that the officers used excessive force.  Four officers were charged.  In April 1992, they were acquitted on nearly all charges.  South Central Los Angeles erupted in riots.  Over fifty people were killed, and more than two thousand were injured. There was extensive looting.  Among businesses apparently targeted in the looting were Korean retail establishments.  At the time it was said that the black underclass in that part of the city resented the economically successful Korean immigrants.  Whatever the motivations for looting - and mob violence often has no motivation other than random mayhem - TV networks showed video footage, forever etched in my memory, of Korean shopkeepers on the roofs of their stores, holding AR-15s (or similar arms), which seemed effective in redirecting looters elsewhere.

I own semiautomatic rifles because I am a recreational shooter and enjoy a day at the range trying to make holes in a paper target at 100 yards in the smallest possible group.  Being able to fire a shot with each squeeze of the trigger and have the rifle’s mechanism cycle the next round into the chamber without having to work a bolt, which would interfere with my steady hold aligning the sights with the target, makes the semiautomatic rifle ideal for this pastime.

Do I expect to need my AR-15 to defend my home against a criminal mob, like the Korean shop owners during the rioting that followed the Rodney King verdict?  Not really.  I live in an area where the risk of attack by a small pack of coyotes is much greater than that of facing a group of malevolent humans.  Am I expecting agents of the government to knock on my door commanding religious conversion?  Certainly not, although I believe a government that trusts the people with arms may be more deserving of the people’s trust (paraphrasing James Madison).

Unlike Arnold, I do not wish to own a tank.  For one thing, I have no place to park it.  And I cannot afford to operate a vehicle whose fuel consumption is measured in gallons per mile (the M47's fuel capacity is 233 gallons, and its average range is 100 miles).

But I am convinced of this: telling folks such as I that we may not purchase semiautomatic rifles or high-capacity magazines is extremely unlikely to save the life of a single innocent who might be imperiled by a deranged killer.  Pistols with ten-round magazines can be reloaded quickly and are more than adequate as implements of such mayhem.

We can pass all the gun control legislation we want, but allowing that endeavor to distract us from the task of getting at the root causes of these horrific crimes, in the psyche of the perpetrator, will satisfy those who fear and loathe guns while leaving the fundamental problem unsolved.

Rodney King died last June.  During the riots, which King recognized as fundamentally destructive of civil society, he asked, "Can we all get along?"  This could be asked of the advocates of gun control and of gun rights.  And the answer is yes, if we remain focused on the problem of human behavior that is fundamentally destructive of civil society, rather than the implements of that destruction.