At the risk of alienating some of my fellow progressives, I admit that I find myself ambivalent on the gun control issue. I agree with some of what each side says. Moreover, I recognize that my attitudes on gun control have changed somewhat over the years and have indeed moved to the right of where I used to be.
If asked to describe my current stance on gun control, I'm not sure I could do it. At least, not very clearly. My own thoughts on the matter are too muddled and contradictory. And this means that I need to try.
The Second Amendment
Let me start with the 2nd Amendment. Here is what it says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As you can see, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is clear. But it is also clearly linked to the idea of a "well regulated Militia." This is problematic because it doesn't seem to say anything about individual citizens who are not part of any regulated group tasked with security. In fact, it seems easier to use this text to support armed local law enforcement forces than private citizens. Read in such a way, there is little to prohibit any manner of gun control legislation for individual citizens.
On the other hand, there is a very different way to read this amendment. By putting it in the context of what the founders where probably thinking when they wrote it, it can be interpreted as providing a means (i.e., arms) for the people to hold their government accountable through violence. That is, for a people to be truly free, they might require the right to arm themselves against their own government. Read this way, there should be no gun control whatsoever. In fact, this reading would suggest that individual Americans should be able to own anything from land mines to anti-aircraft munitions.
The American Compromise
As you know, the courts have generally not interpreted the 2nd Amendment in either of these ways. Their compromise position allows certain restrictions (e.g., fully automatic weapons, etc.) but generally grants firearms rights to individual citizens who are unaffiliated with any regulated body.
Like any decent compromise, this one has managed to upset nearly everyone. The gun lobby pushes to expand rights and create fear that "Obama is coming to take our guns." Many on the left would prefer to expand federal bans on assault rifles and other high capacity weapons.
Why This is So Hard
I suspect that this is so hard because none of us particularly like being told what we can and cannot do. But the core issue seems to boil down to our trust and confidence in our government (or lack thereof). Do we really trust that the government has our best interests in mind, or do we worry that we may someday have to defend ourselves from the government itself?
I recognize that there are far too many injuries and deaths in the U.S. involving firearms. I know full well that most experts say that the single most effective thing we could do to reduce them involves getting guns off the streets. But I also feel that many of the laws we have enacted to curb gun violence have been ineffective, overly politicized, and were not data-driven in the first place. We implement these laws reactively following a tragedy and usually end up getting it wrong. In short, I don't have a great deal of confidence in the ability of our government to do this sensibly.
Similarly, I have no confidence that local law enforcement would be able to reach my home fast enough to be of much use in the event of a break-in. At least on the issue of defending one's home, I find myself in complete agreement with those who work to preserve this right.
On to Part II of this series.
Subscribe to Red State Progressive
