I know feelings run high on the issue of new gun safety laws. It has been this way my entire life but it is coming to a peak as we try to address the problem of gun violence in our country. There are a Progressives/Liberals who are strongly opposed to all the new regulations proposed.
I’ve gone ‘round and ‘round with a few of them and have come to this bit of thinking on the issue. The big argument I keep hearing is that we are abridging their rights. I am willing to concede that fact, new regulations on background checks and limits on what kind of magazines and weapons one can purchase is an infringement. However no right is unlimited and the ability for Congress to enact laws that put boundaries on rights is long settled law.
This is especially true when the new laws address a major problem for our society. There is no doubt that when we have 100,000 people a year injured by guns and 30,000 who die from gun violence that there is a significant problem with the way that we deal with citizens access to weapons. It is a clear and compelling state interest to reduce this horrific toll.
Which is where the problem for the 2nd Amendment absolutists comes in; they vehemently resist any new gun regulation, but to date none of them have been able to give me a compelling reason why there should be no new regulations. I’ve been told that it is going to make criminals out of law abiding citizens, I’ve been told that it is an expansion of an already overbearing police state and ad infinitum been read the second part of the 2nd Amendment.
Let’s look at each of these for a minute. First of f the “law abiding gun-owner” claim. There are indeed folks who currently own high capacity magazines that would need to get rid of them if a ban on these items were enacted, but no one would be a “criminal” if they do what the law requires. The folks I’ve been talking to have asserted that they will not comply with such a law.
Okay, but that robs them of the status of “law abiding”. They have expressed their intent to disobey the law and intent is part of any criminal act. They will often throw up the idea that it is a unjust law and should we obey unjust laws? My answer is two part- One, you can always participate in civil disobedience, but people to do that are ready to take the consequences and do it openly. So far as I can tell those who want to hang on to their magazines and assault rifles have no intention of loudly and proudly protest by announcing their possession of these items if banned.
Then there is the issue of how we do things in a democracy. If you don’t like a law it is not “law abiding” to flout it, the appropriate way to act is to obey the law while lobbying to change the law. Anyone just flouting the law cannot hide behind the shield of good citizenship.
The police state argument cuts a little more ice with me, but not a whole lot more. It is true that we need to be vigilant about the power of the government. However that is always true. When we are addressing a problem we need to look for balance. Limiting the general publics ability to own and use war weapons is a position that has been legal for a very long time. We have not lost our freedoms because we can’t have grenades or automatic weapons. Banning the ammunition clips that have allowed so many bullets to be fired in so short a time is a reasonable step.
This is where I just don’t hear any reasonable or compelling argument. I am at a loss as why anyone would need 30 rounds in a gun for self defense. How many times in the last two decades have there been attacks by 5 or more heavily armed people on anyone’s home? I’ll tell you, none, zero. There is no reasonable rationale for private citizens to have this kind of firepower and not a single anti-gun safety advocate has provided one.
Finally there is the text of the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment itself is a opaque bit of writing. But the Supreme Court has held in Heller that there is a individual right to own and bear arms for home and self-protection. So even though I find that the wrong reading it is the current law of the land. However Heller did not give a free and completely unfettered right . It says specifically that Congress has the right to make reasonable limits and on that right.
So it comes down to the basic question, if gun owners are really being unreasonably infringed upon it what is the compelling state interest that having such wide spread and easy access to weapons that murderous fuckwits can and do get access to them and then shoot up schools and theaters and other places?
It is obvious that there is a need to reduce the harm that guns do in this country, and it is so compelling that 90% of our fellow citizens want universal background checks and majorities want limits on ammo clips.
In the end all I have heard in response to this is a variation of “Because I want to.” To me this is a not a compelling enough argument when are talking about tens of thousands dead and injured every single year. So, for those who are pushing for change to this situation, we should all be asking gun-rights advocates where their compelling social good is. Until they can answer that, there should be almost no argument about this issue.
The floor is yours.