Over that past couple of months, as liberals and progressives do their soul-searching, some have wondered if their positions on the issues should change. One of the positions that comes up is that of gun control. I think that liberals should change their position on this issue.
First off, though, no one should ever change their position to pander. One should always do so for genuine reasons. I would never advocate telling people that you have changed your position to appease their points of view. Instead, I hope that you will consider changing your pro-gun-control point of view for liberal reasons.
more below the fold...
Why Gun Rights Are Good
As I've been thinking about the roots of liberalism and the causes it champions, I have run into a weird bump. Gun control seems inconsistant with liberalism. Now, I suppose that one can make a pacifism connection, but I try not to associate absolute pacifism with liberalism. After all, our nation's founders accomplished their liberal goals through a violent revolution. I cannot condemn them for their violence. In order to commit this necessary violence, however, they needed guns. After their success, they advocated the freedom to bear arms.
Let us consider their reasons. Obviously, Americans at the time needed fire-arms to dispatch Indians and consume food. These reasons are no longer relevant, but consider what the 2nd Amendment says. It talks about militias. Delaware was pretty isolated from Indians, so their militias weren't going to fight them, but their militias were still considered important. Why? Because the Constitution's power is derived from the people.
If the people ever need to get rid of a government that is oppressive, then they will likely need guns-- either their own or those of another nation. The threat of violence is often sufficient to pressure a change, but that threat must be backed up with firepower. The only sure way to have that firepower is to have an armed populace.
The right to bear arms is a liberal right and a threat to over-reaching government like fascism. It is about empowering the citizen. If you doubt that the power of non-military types using fire-arms against a true military, I will refer you to the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam War, the Russo-Afghan War, and the current Iraq War. Now, imagine the moral of soldiers fighting their own people. People owning fire-arms should scare the life out of would-be tyrants and fascists.
Why "Liberals" Have Taken Up Gun Control
Why, if gun ownership is a liberal right, would liberals oppose it to one degree or another? I think that ultimately, gun control has more to do with urban populism than it does with liberalism. Think about it. City residents feel threatened by guns, because for the most part, it is impractical for them to grow up around using them, as rural people do. They associate guns with crime, not the last barrier to tyrrany.
Populism is not necessarily a bad thing. Populism can lead to things like progressive tax law and environmental regulation. It can also lead to discrimination against minorities and excessive security measures like the Patriot Act. (Please take a moment to compare the Patriot Act to gun control; both sacrifice personal liberties for common security, at least in theory.) Thus, I would like to point out that what the majority thinks is not always right, even in a democracy. We have rights for a reason.
Populism is picked up by both the Republicans and the Democrats. It is an effective way to get elected, and it is often a guide to doing the right thing. I think that you will find that Republicans pick up rural populism, while Democrats pick up urban populism. Democrats pick up gun control while failing to pick up measures to protect the family farm, both populist positions.
Pragmatically, gun control has contributed to liberals' falling reputation in the South and other rural areas. It is inconsistant with liberal values, and this fact has lead rural residents to perceive liberals as urban elitists. I think that they have partly gotten that perception right, too.
Why Gun Control Advocacy Arguments Are Not Sufficient
The number one reason pointed out by gun control advocates is that guns are a lethal part of crime. They're right, but they have let this idea push their position in the wrong direction. Since when have liberals chosen banning individual behavior to solve criminal and social problems? We support rehabilitation instead of jailing drug users. We support education about condoms instead of trying to crack down on fornication when we work to prevent the spread of STDs. We should use our ideas of education and opportunity to fight crime, not the removal of weapons.
Yes, guns allow criminals to kill other criminals and innocent people alike. Guns offer some protection to the individual against criminals as well, though not sufficiently to counter the first problem. What might, though, are the lives saved by the avoidance of tyrrany. It is not an issue of crime. It is one of freedom.
Often, gun control advocates try to protect hunting weapons while getting rid of military grade weapons. They say that collectors and hunters are not their targets, and I know that they are genuine about this point of view. However, they miss the whole point. I would not think it a great injustice for hunting to be banned (though I would think it was stupid.) The whole idea of gun ownership in a liberal democracy is the ownership of military weapons. Hunting weapons won't cut it.
Reasonable Gun Control
I think that ideas like safety standards for guns is reasonable, just like it is for any other consumer product. Also, background checks are not unfounded. By the time that the government is using to track dissedents, I think that there are other problems to contend with.
Liberals can win with this issue and not look like opportunists. I want to give you food for thought on the issue. I want you to consider changing your position. Thank you.