The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution definitively states that citizens have a right to "keep and bear arms." The rationale for this right is, of course, the importance of having an effective militia in case of external threats to the nation. The amendment is unique in its presentation of a rationale, but people are fond of ignoring that, as well as being fond of ignoring the relevance of a militia to the present-day situation of gun ownership.
What the amendment does not in any way suggest or support is that citizens have a blind right, that is, a right to keep and bear their arms anonymously. Yet that is very much at the heart of the present argument over gun control. When we examine the fate of our several rights, we discover that almost none of them imply a lack of responsibility in the exercise of that right. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are all moderated by various cases of responsible exercise. You may not intentionally defame a person in the press; and you may not yell, "bomb," in an airplane. People who possess these rights are expected to use them responsibly.
While we do not have a right to own and drive an automobile (being somewhat ahead in time to the Constitution), I think there are some good analogies to be found here. When I purchase a car, it is registered in my name along with contact information. The car bears definite identification numbers attached to my ownership. When I drive the car, I am expected to have a valid license, demonstrating that I am capable of driving and that I have knowledge of my responsibilities. If the car is used irresponsibly either by me or by another person, I am responsible for damages as the registered owner.
Now, firearms are also dangerous and can cause damage. I see no reason whatsoever why the owner of a firearm should not take responsibility for its use. And for that matter, training and licensing would be a good thing.
The 2nd amendment does not provide that keeping and bearing arms is without responsibility for their use!
This is a great post, Tad. I've begun to think of guns as analogous with cars, in that they're both highly dangerous and ridiculously fetishized. Yet, with guns, we don't need to register them or be trained to have one. And, to take the analogy further, I'm prohibited from driving certain kinds of cars (ones that aren't street legal), but, with guns, no such limitations exist (unless I want a tank).
ReplyDeleteI also think it's funny that the notion of a well-regulated militia is lost, perhaps because of what it would require us to recognize -- namely, that no amount of small arms and rebels with guns could ever contend with our own military.
Searched you up after having a presentation where i used your essay on environment http://www2.hmc.edu/~tbeckman/essays/position.htm
ReplyDeleteI'm from norway and was going to discuss the philosophy and history behind the environmental change. I found great use in your text on it!
Also i have to say i agree with your thoughts on gun ownership. Here in Norway it's unthinkable than people should be able carry guns as you do in USA, the only people allowed to have guns at home are hunters, people with special permits and those deployed in "heimevernet" (A part of the nowergian army that work regular works, but can be called out for war if we're attacked).
I also understand why having guns is a harder debate in USA than in Norway, because your culture is very different from ours, especially when it comes to individualism and looking after yourself. This can be seen in many layers of the american society; larger differnces between poor and rich, less rights if you're without work, or get sick et cetera.
I still hope you get atleast a stricter gun law, so the mass shooting we hear so much about might happen less frequently!
Best regards from Askild.
Hi Askild,
DeleteThanks for your comments. I'm afraid that you are right about the American "culture." But we still have some hopes. (I've been to Norway once and enjoyed my stay in Oslo.)
Tad