I wonder if the founders of this great democratic republic new what future problems that one sentence would cause. It certainly caused a few problems when it was debated and originally added, and the debates, name-calling, threats, and intimidation haven't stopped since.
We've heard a lot of sound bites as arguments intended to support this amendment, and we've heard a lot of statistics from individuals and groups intending to shed light on the 'gun issue'. It would be unfair of me to characterize people on any side of the debate with phrases such as 'pro-gun', 'pro-freedom', 'pro-regulation', or 'anti-American'. Most reasonable people have some combination of feelings about "Arms" that are not easily separated into neat little boxes.
For example, if we define "Arms" as a hunting rifle or shotgun, then few people would argue against the ownership of such a firearm. If, however, we define "Arms" as a nuclear bomb those same people may have a different opinion. The text, as you can see above, is unclear because it makes no such distinction. Well, you might say, the authors didn't know about nuclear weapons so it obviously doesn't apply to those. Perhaps, but then it also should not apply to tanks, submarines, jet fighters, drones, missiles, and automatic weapons of any kind. As one can clearly see, the issue is murky.
It also doesn't help that the text might as well have said "because slave rebellions and escaped slaves are dangerous, slave-holding states shall not be prevented from hunting them down and protecting themselves (from the murderous savages)", for that was clearly the intent of the 200+ year-old text.
But, rhetoric is a self-reinforcing cycle, so I'm going to try to avoid/ignore all the "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people" sound bites and focus on data and good old-fashioned critical thought.
The problem with this approach is that the data really isn't clear, except on this one point: more firearms means more deaths by firearms. Thank you, Captain Obvious, now there's a shock! As Eddie Izzard has been reported on the Internet as saying, "They say that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people."1
One note before I go on - in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am not against people owning firearms, in fact, I belong to that rather non-exclusive American club. However, that does not prevent me from reasoning and it doesn't even prevent me from being a pacifist2 even though that's not how I was raised. Even so, here's where the situation stands: people are tired of innocent people getting killed. That sentiment belongs to no one side of the debate, even though there are many sides. That sentiment does not even belong solely to Americans. Even people uninvolved with this debate tire of innocent people being killed, no matter how they are killed.
To attempt to stop innocent people from being killed, people all over the world enact laws to curb driving under the influence of all sorts of drugs, alcohol included. They enact laws to curb hitting pedestrians with cars. They enact laws to curb the introduction of dangerous products by merchants (other than firearm merchants in America) - everything from requiring safety restraint systems in cars to eliminating lead paint from child toys. They enact laws to keep people safe in all sorts of ways, except this one way in America, because in America the ability to possess "arms" is sacrosanct.
Except it's not.
As noted above, there are all sorts of "arms" an individual cannot own, and there is an entire class of people (those convicted of a felony, generally known as "felons") that are prohibited from owning "arms" - specifically firearms. So, what we Americans are really saying when we argue for Amendment II is not really that different. Instead of slaves, however, it's other people (i.e. not us)...which plays really well in politics, especially politics that consider those other people as less worthy of the same life.
Here is where we get back into the rhetoric, because although it's generally been distasteful, the use of firearms against women who have been victims of domestic violence has been weighed against the freedom of the people and found wanting. Of course we need to be clear here, when we say the people, we really mean those who fear those other people so strongly that the only solution is to arm themselves. The general public only raises its voice when the victims of those other people, who are, by the definition of the people, criminals, are children.
But...those are criminals - are we to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty? Well, if you want to reduce "gun violence", there is only one sure way to do it - reduce the number of guns. But...that's un-American. Really? Is it "American" to say that one individual's freedom trumps another individual's safety? No, that's chaos, but that's really what we're saying - it's just that no one has the guts to commit to the one course of action that the data and reason itself say is the only sure course.
Thought can change and amendments can be repealed, but Americans would have to hold true to the other things the Constitution says, not just a single, out-dated statement. We would have to hold true to the principles that ordained and established our great republic. Those principles that identify a "more perfect union" as one with justice and domestic tranquility that provides for common defense and promotes general welfare. Until we return to those principles, I really cannot take seriously an argument that attempts to amend the details of how those principles are implemented.
Notes
- Here's the snippet from one of his concerts on youtube - the actual quote is a little different.
- Pacifism is the "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes" - it says nothing about hunting.
No comments:
Post a Comment