Ferris, thanks for commenting, man. You raise a bunch of good issues, and it is probably fair to say that I created a straw man while arguing against the use of straw men. I agree that a slow, unwitting march to a dystopian future is more likely than some nefarious back room cabal, but I don't see gun rights as a fundamental right, nor a cornerstone of our freedom. Let me just reiterate a few points and bring up a new one.
First, people have a right to protect themselves and a right to protect their homes. Similarly, people have a reasonable expectation that passerby on the street aren't packing heat. I see the two rights in a balance, a freedom to bear arms as well as a freedom from those bearing arms. Because these rights are in a balance, there must be regulations and laws to ensure that citizens know when and where to expect guns as well as in which situations they are legal. This is why I see it as absolutely essential that every gun owner pass a background check as well as a gun safety course. This ensures that the laws regarding firearm possession and use are known and reduces the chances that gun accidents will occur. When you wish to enter into a potentially dangerous activity, such as owning a gun, driving a car, or operating heavy machinery, you should have to register, undergo some sort of background check, and have some training.
Statistically speaking, it is more dangerous to own a gun than it is to not. Possessing firearms can escalate situations that may have ended less violently, and self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a common problem with gun ownership. Rather than thinking of government regulation as tyrannical overreach, gun owners should receive free gun safety classes from the government. The government has a responsibility to ensure public safety, and educating gun owners is a natural extension of that responsibility. By providing services to gun owners, instead of simply penalizing them, the conversation can shift from an antagonistic debate to one where all citizens are stakeholders. Everyone should be engaged in preventing gun violence, even those like you and me, who have no desire to possess or use firearms. Gun violence is someone else's issue until it affects someone in your life. Attacks like the Clackamas Town Center shooting remind us that heinous acts of violence can occur anytime, anywhere.
Second, I agree that the bill of rights has been snipped away at the corners for years. The problem is that gun rights have become, for some, emblematic of the entire bill of rights. For example, some of the same people who decry universal background checks as an assault upon the liberties of law-abiding citizens were the same who enacted the Patriot act, which legalized spying upon millions of law-abiding citizens. The Patriot act, which treats all Americans as potential terrorists and threats, is a direct violation of constitutional rights, whereas universal background checks can be defended as constitutionally valid under the commerce clause, or the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment. You cannot cry wolf when the government asks to know the reason for purchasing a firearm if you stand idly by when they conduct warrant-less wiretapping, or other (il)legal forms of spying. The use of drones in America, whether for surveillance or otherwise, is a more disturbing overreach of government power than the restriction of firearm possession, yet it is sanctioned in the name of "national security." Isn't keeping the streets clear of guns also a job for national security?
If you want to talk about a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I am much more concerned at the conduct of law enforcement officers surrounding the Occupy and similar protest movements of the last few years. Examples of police brutality and violations of civil rights were sanctioned in the name of keeping the order and allowing traffic to pass. The conduct of police officers in California universities, on the streets of New York, and in Oakland is deplorable. It is a much more direct assault upon civil liberties to restrict the right to protest and to violate the rights against search and seizure, arrest without a warrant, and to physically attack protesters. If an infringement upon the second amendment represents the eroding of American values, nothing should be more important than protecting the first, fourth, and fifth amendments.
Lastly, this isn't 1776, and the people's right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with protecting citizens from government armies. Even if you are armed to the teeth, you simply do not stand a chance against the US armed forces. As has been made abundantly clear by Holder and the justice department, the use of drones against American citizens is not illegal, so long as those citizens are deemed "enemy combatants." Go ahead and buy all the assault rifles you want, good luck taking on the guy sitting in a room in D.C. who is piloting a drone. My point is that quibbles over which types of guns are legal to purchase and use is a moot point. No matter what sort of firearms you own, technology has progressed to such a point that it is not a level playing field. An individual's right to bear arms is not protection against government tyranny. On the other hand, my interpretation of the second amendment, that it protects a collective right to arms, is an effective safeguard against governmental tyranny. Until the last few decades, that was the accepted reading of the second amendment: it protects the people's right to bear arm in a militia, not an individual's right to own firearms.
To sum up, restricting an individual's right to bear arms should be treated as a public health and safety concern. Research should be done into the causes of gun violence and possible means of protection. When lobbying organizations stand in the way of research into gun violence, as the NRA has done since the 90's, they are standing in the way of progress. If research into gun violence can prevent even a single gun murder, it is a good thing. If one more person will be left standing because of assault weapons or high capacity magazine bans, then they should be enacted. You may have the right to bear arms, but I have the right to life. The latter should be protected, even at the expense of the former.
And Go Pacers.
No comments:
Post a Comment