They’re Coming for Your Guns, Money, and Freedom

Don’t ask me who “they,” are; I know who they are, and so do you: the Jews.

As America reels from the latest battle in the ongoing race war (yeah, white supremacists, sorry; the race war started in 1492 and never ended), our political leadership is discussing some sort of basic, common sense gun laws, like requiring insurance and some very basic screening, I can already hear Sarah Palin screaming into a microphone somewhere, “They’re coming for your guns!” The GOP right now has more in common with Spinal Tap than any of their constituents — they’re 30 years past their prime, but insist on releasing “fresh” material that’s just recycled from Nixon’s enemies list. Great. Except even Nixon wasn’t that inventive.

If you look at any othering rhetoric, it’s all, unfortunately, a rehash of lazy Medieval stereotypes. The Jews are coming for your money. The Gypsies are coming for your children. Beware of the witches who want to steal your turnips. And we all know Scots and Welsh are not to be trusted with livestock (okay, that one might have some sexual overtones that my British friends can deny or confirm later, but the central point remains). It’s always some readily-identified outside force that never resembles anyone in society, and, critically, it is always a distraction to avoid talking about bigger issues, like famine, the increasing costs of crusades, and rising infant mortality. I suppose it’s just as well that we’re still using reworked anti-Semitic boogeymen, since we’re still dealing with the exact same issues 14th century serfs faced. Why bother to update the villains of the story when the story itself is the same?

In the coming weeks, we’re going to see many, many, many white men on national television break down and cry crocodile tears at the thought of the Jews coming for their p̵e̵n̵i̵s̵e̵s̵. Sorry, it’s the government coming for their guns. Believe me, I’m a sentimental guy; I’m loathe to part with childhood books, but I have a hard time getting worked up over a killing machine I bought a month ago to spite the libs. Also, I have plenty of friends who are hunters and own guns, and, while I don’t expect them to be wild at the idea; I do think most of them would view regulations in the same way most of us view building codes or driver’s licences — a pain in the ass, but the unfortunate price we pay to prevent 13-year-olds from running down kindergartners or unscrupulous developers building homes out of asbestos and marmite and then making a quick buck.

If you want to test the political rhetoric, just offer to buy any Asian woman a handgun. Seriously. If good guys with guns really stop bad guys with guns, wouldn’t it make sense to arm the most at-risk groups in society? Or would that be met with the exact same skepticism the Plantagenets would view arming the Scottish? Americans have — or should have — learned in the past four years that dog whistle racism has a definite human cost (paid for most recently by eight Asian American women in Atlanta), and that political inaction has a death toll (500K dead Americans and the numbers are climbing, thanks to COVID denial). In the coming weeks, we will see the gruesome intersection of those two philosophies. The trick for you, the voter, is to simply substitute “Jews” for any unspecified scapegoat whenever some hack on national television gets rolling on the causes of American violence. Turn it into a drinking game. “Jews” in place of “mental health issues,” “Jews” in place of “economic problems.” “Jews” in place of “coastal elites.” Go ahead, if it’s still a complete sentence with those simple substitutions, turn off the television, because that host is clearly more-interested in radicalizing their audience than honestly discussing problems and solutions. In this case, I’m not substituting nameless fiends in for Medieval scape-goats; I’m pretty clearly going out of my way not to mention Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Fox News, and Donald Trump. In the mean-time, instead of giving writers all the authorship in this national narrative, maybe spend equal time with experts?

And, because God knows the Mainstream Media isn’t going to offer any workable solutions, I will. Also, it’s worth noting that the overwhelming majority of what I write is something like satire, these suggestions might blur that line.

1. Make gun manufacturers liable for their products — this has already been floated by a few people, and the Sandy Hook lawsuit made Remington Arms potentially liable, but people forget that extending manufacturer liability in the 80’s and 90’s in tobacco nullified Winston-Salem’s inordinate power over the public discourse, which allowed society to more-effectively deal with the tidal wave of tobacco marketing and political strategy. Similarly, if bullet manufacturers are suddenly financially liable for every kindergartner their armor-piercing rounds goes through, it might make a few executives look at more-lucrative, less-risky careers. And it would probably give the American public the time and space to think without being bombarded by subtly-racist-rhetoric designed to move high-capacity magazines off of shelves.
2. Make families of shooters civilly liable for family members’ behavior — if we’re going back to Medieval thinking, we need to go all the way and bring back collective punishment. Adam Lanza’s father, Peter Lanza, is a VP for GE’s Financial Services. I understand that there’s a lot of animosity and shame associated with raising a psychopath, but we’re still raising them. Imagine if parents and family members knew they could be bankrupted by the behavior of their offspring. They might be slightly less-inclined to go to father-son gunshows. And, yes, I realize that plenty of well-intentioned parents raise awful children, but I have never seen anyone callous enough to say to the victims of violent crime, “Sorry, his dad meant well.” Make Dad pay for the victim’s funerals. Make the shooter’s siblings pay for the victim’s hospital bills. Watch as early interventions increase, and buying children firearms for Christmas decreases. Make consequentialism great again!
3. Universal health insurance — This is just part of a larger national problem; Americans put off going to the doctor because it’s expensive. We put off going to the doctor until a minor-but-expensive malady becomes a lethal and insanely expensive illness. Imagine if, after Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa got his first misdemeanor assault charge (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/suspect-boulder-shooting/2021/03/23/4ec57954-8c0e-11eb-a730-1b4ed9656258_story.html) had the option of enrolling in an in-hospital psychiatric treatment program? The GOP and I are in agreement that mental health is an issue in America, I’m going to make the radical argument that ensuring access to mental health care might be a first step toward actually addressing mental health issues.
4. License, register, and insure guns just like cars — this is at the heart of most gun control proposals I’ve seen. As mentioned, I have hunter friends who would probably not be enthusiastic at increased fees, licensing, and safety requirements. Most of them also agree that licensing drivers and requiring insurance is the unfortunate cost of deterring 14-year-olds from drinking and driving.
5. Stop the unspecified scapegoating — Perspicacious readers might have noticed a running theme in this essay about feudal scapegoating making a comeback via dogwhistle politics and T. Carlson-esque “question asking.” So, let’s be clear: when we discuss Russian operations in Afghanistan, we should specify who we’re talking about. When we talk about how German banking policies put pressure on Greek shipping interests, and that makes global commerce in general more expensive, we should specify all the parties. “[Vague group you despise] is coming to [do something you fear]” is dangerous, because those vague groups somehow, magically, always become already-marginalized groups at the fringes of society. Again, traditionally it’s religious minorities like Jewish people, then it was racial minorities, then it’s LGBT+ folx, next week, it will be the elderly. If you’re wondering, disabled people rarely live long enough to draw specific ire from the majority, so we’re rarely directly cannibalized, if only because we’re killed indirectly long before lynch mobs can be organized. Conversely, if Bill O’Reilly wants to continue vaguely demonizing whoever; he can fucking well arm us all. If only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns, it should be in the interests of the majority to arm every minority member and let us fend for ourselves. Or, possibly, they know that guns tend to turn aggravated assaults into homicides, and they’d rather not put their lives in our hands the same way we’re forced to trust them with our lives.