Oh, So That's Food Security?

Let me be clear: guns are just not interesting to me. Nothing about them is so sexy that it lures me away from a reasonable discussion about their merits and dangers.

In fact, back home in the great state of - well, you know where - I've had enough debate with gun-promoting, boot-bearing male counterparts to be labeled a "hippie" (well... that and all the organic farming ...and tree-hugging ...and membership among the Great Unwashed).


But that citizens are willingly turning in their guns is, frankly, shocking.

The Austin Police this week accepted around 400 guns from people in exchange for gift cards to grocery store, ranging from $10 to $200. It shocks me because, not only did people surrender their arms because they "weren't using them," they yielded them directly to the authorities.

Police trade groceries for 400 guns: kxan.com

Please don't think I'm saying these police are bad people. But, let's remember the point of the second amendment is to prevent our government's misuse of its power. Keeping firearms in the hands of the people is the only check against the potential for our military (which are emboldened with lead, training, and moldable bravado).

As George Mason told his Virginia delegates in 1788,

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised ... to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."

Can we now ask the question: What population of people gladly handed over their necessary evil? It's likely that most of those people (the ones who "hadn't used them in 25 years") would reach for a gun only in defense. Any criminals showing up probably had a large enough cache at home that they wouldn't miss a gun or two - even criminals have to eat.

Come on. Clearly, criminals aren't suddenly awakening to their misdeeds because they are being handed a $100 credit at a grocery store. ...Not when there are awesome homes to break into whose owners just gave up their guns. I reckon the officers conducting this campaign believe they're "keeping guns off the streets," but they know better than anyone that the malicious folks aren't their target audience. I wonder how they reconcile that...

The avowed mission "Guns for Food" is a beautiful-sounding one that evokes emotions. Feeding one another is surprisingly nourishing to our souls, a tender and powerful interaction. And I'm sure most people - Lefties, Righties, and Freethinkers alike - wish humans had never taken arms against each other. But this is our reality. We can decide how (but not if) we can coexist with weapons.

Much like backyard food gardening and emergency survival skills, weapons are a measure of security that we may never need. So is retirement. So is a spare tire. So is a warranty on that beloved iPhone. Wouldn't you rather have it and never need it than need it an not have it? And to be caught in a serious situation knowing that you had considered the idea of preparation ...but decided you were just being paranoid... now, that would be painful. (Imagine life without an iPhone?!)

For those who aren't convinced the government has any desire to use its armed force against you (...another topic for another day?), keep in mind that hungry folks to hair-brained things. As economies drop, crime rises. Fact.

Sustainable farmer Marjory Wildcraft, (of BackyardFoodProduction.com) was talking to a local shopkeeper about the value of food-growing skills in uncertain times. This was his reply:

“Well, if anything happens” he said, “it is like this; with this gun I can get all the food I need from people like you who grow it.” (read the article "Do You Need a Gun to Garden?" here)

Perhaps if the fine folks who happily handed over their liberty could have banded together to form a food-growing cooperative, they could have provided each other both food security AND steel-plated strength in numbers.

Image courtesy of Christopher Humes and Noah Scalin