JOINING THE FRAY: GARRET KEIZER’S LOADED LIBERAL WAKE UP CALL
Published in Harper’s Magazine, Garret Keizer’s “Loaded” uses race as a way of demanding that, as citizens of the United States, we wake up from our progressive indifference. The brilliant author flips his intended audience’s liberal beliefs and uses it against them to successfully prove his point. The majority of Keizer’s essay is seemingly about the gun debate. The lefty audience is likely to have strong anti-gun opinion, whereas Keizer subtly shares that he is pro-gun and owns a shotgun. The author compares the gun debate to another controversial debate—abortion—in an attempt to reveal the absurdity of “yelling to deaf ears.” He relates to his audience using race, an issue liberals feel strongly about, and its probable involvement in the creation of the second amendment. As the essay concludes, Keizer encourages us to move past the firearms debate and take a stand for the things which we are obligated to do such for. Along with its sister issue abortion, Keizer shows that the gun debate boils down to the clash of absolutes, “the right of bodily self-determination versus the right to be born, the right of self-defense versus the right to walk down the street without being shot” (Keizer 138). People on both sides of the spectrum believe in their opinion very strongly and frequently the debate is conducted by “pretending that the opponent’s concerns hardly deserve mention” (Keizer 138). As he reads the diverse pro- and anti- gun arguments, Keizer wonders whether the real enemy is supposed to be “the marauding outlaws who might be deterred by an ‘armed citizen,’ or the execrable Clintons, who, …attacked the Second Amendment every day” (Keizer 139). Neither of the sides will listen to each other and their opinion is greatly enhanced by the contempt of the rival side. Keizer advocates that this arguing is absurd and that there might be common ground. Uncovering “strange fruit” in both sides of the gun debate, Keizer explains the probable history behind the Second Amendment. …show more content…
He clearly points out that to “talk about guns in America is inevitably to talk about race” (Keizer 138). The Second Amendment calls for “a well-regulated militia” and although the author explains that the framers of the constitution wanted defense against enemy armies, he also mentions that some historians came to the conclusion that a probable function of this “well-regulated militia” was to “keep slaves in their place” (Keizer 138). One major question in Colonia times was “what, if any, access slaves out to have to guns; what if any, role free blacks ought to have in the militias” (Keizer 138). Keizer plays on the Liberal’s belief that guns should be kept only to the military, but with this possible truth being presented, it conflicts with their beliefs about equality between races. He also argues that if the Second Amendment is okay to be attacked, why not just attack the Third, Fourth or Fifth as well? Finally, Keizer urges people to move past the firearms debate and towards what really matters, the obligations citizens have. The government has been taking power away from the people, yet the people who know about it are reluctant to take a stand for what they want. Keizer stresses that “when the rules of participatory government are broken, the governed have a tendency, a right, and an obligation to
Published in Harper’s Magazine, Garret Keizer’s “Loaded” uses race as a way of demanding that, as citizens of the United States, we wake up from our progressive indifference. The brilliant author flips his intended audience’s liberal beliefs and uses it against them to successfully prove his point. The majority of Keizer’s essay is seemingly about the gun debate. The lefty audience is likely to have strong anti-gun opinion, whereas Keizer subtly shares that he is pro-gun and owns a shotgun. The author compares the gun debate to another controversial debate—abortion—in an attempt to reveal the absurdity of “yelling to deaf ears.” He relates to his audience using race, an issue liberals feel strongly about, and its probable involvement in the creation of the second amendment. As the essay concludes, Keizer encourages us to move past the firearms debate and take a stand for the things which we are obligated to do such for. Along with its sister issue abortion, Keizer shows that the gun debate boils down to the clash of absolutes, “the right of bodily self-determination versus the right to be born, the right of self-defense versus the right to walk down the street without being shot” (Keizer 138). People on both sides of the spectrum believe in their opinion very strongly and frequently the debate is conducted by “pretending that the opponent’s concerns hardly deserve mention” (Keizer 138). As he reads the diverse pro- and anti- gun arguments, Keizer wonders whether the real enemy is supposed to be “the marauding outlaws who might be deterred by an ‘armed citizen,’ or the execrable Clintons, who, …attacked the Second Amendment every day” (Keizer 139). Neither of the sides will listen to each other and their opinion is greatly enhanced by the contempt of the rival side. Keizer advocates that this arguing is absurd and that there might be common ground. Uncovering “strange fruit” in both sides of the gun debate, Keizer explains the probable history behind the Second Amendment. …show more content…
He clearly points out that to “talk about guns in America is inevitably to talk about race” (Keizer 138). The Second Amendment calls for “a well-regulated militia” and although the author explains that the framers of the constitution wanted defense against enemy armies, he also mentions that some historians came to the conclusion that a probable function of this “well-regulated militia” was to “keep slaves in their place” (Keizer 138). One major question in Colonia times was “what, if any, access slaves out to have to guns; what if any, role free blacks ought to have in the militias” (Keizer 138). Keizer plays on the Liberal’s belief that guns should be kept only to the military, but with this possible truth being presented, it conflicts with their beliefs about equality between races. He also argues that if the Second Amendment is okay to be attacked, why not just attack the Third, Fourth or Fifth as well? Finally, Keizer urges people to move past the firearms debate and towards what really matters, the obligations citizens have. The government has been taking power away from the people, yet the people who know about it are reluctant to take a stand for what they want. Keizer stresses that “when the rules of participatory government are broken, the governed have a tendency, a right, and an obligation to