With all of the welcome news lately of a potential impeachment of Trump, the focus on gun-control seems to have slipped off the front page. That’s disturbing, as public shootings still occur much too frequently. The GOP and its éminence grise -- the NRA, the power behind their throne -- have never given a damn about gun-control or, it seems, about the rising number of gun-related massacres across the country. “Thoughts and prayers” is their standard response to those horrific killings, including the slaughter of our children.
Back in the ’90s I corresponded with then-Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina regarding his decision to vote for the repeal of a ban on semi-automatic weapons. I told him his vote was a terrible one. To his credit he replied with a personal letter, unlike my worthless Senator Lindsey Graham who (or, more likely, his staff) would always reply with a form letter that not only didn’t address the issue I had written about but also contained the laughable sentence, “We may not always see eye-to-eye...” No shit, Lindsey.
Also to Inglis’s credit, let me add that he responded by saying that he had never accepted a dime of PAC money from any group, including the NRA. I took him at his word (I met him once, and he seemed to be a reasonable guy). But he went on to say:
“I voted for a bill that would repeal the [assault-weapons] ban in this Congress. I didn’t vote that way because I’m a fan of assault weapons (I am not), but because I don’t believe we should have passed the Schumer/Clinton bill in the first place.
“My vote on this issue is influenced by three observations. First, as a matter of truth-in-legislating [?], I believe we in Congress need to admit that the Schumer/Clinton bill and other gun control measures are little more than symbolism. Second, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is part of the Constitution. While the ban on assault weapons is a small erosion of that right, the adamant advocates of gun control here in Washington want to take all guns from the American people. It’s certainly their right to advocate that position, and I would strongly support their First Amendment right to make that argument. However, I would remind them that the Constitution should be amended only by the legitimate congressional process of a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures.… Otherwise, none of our Constitutional rights would be safe. Third,there is little difference between these sinister looking assault weapons and legitimate hunting rifles. Since the mechanisms work very similarly, it’s very hard to define, as a matter of law, the difference between assault rifles, (which are of little usefulness)and legitimate sporting and hunting rifles.…
“I think there are at least two things Congress should be doing about crime rather than pursuing the false but politically appealing solution of gun control. First, I think we should focus on the guy, not the gun. The reforms the House recently passed as part of the Contract with America are a good first step in what should be a lengthy review of our present approach to crime. We limited the endless appeals of convicted death row killers; changed evidence law to prevent criminals from getting off on technicalities; gave block grants to the states to design local solutions to crime; set up funding for more prisons; and passed ‘truth in sentencing’ guidelines so that states would have incentives to make convicted criminals serve their entire sentence, not just a fraction, before they are released. I believe that if we continue directing our efforts toward deterring criminal activity, we will begin to make some progress in the fight against crime.
“Secondly, changing our policies on criminal laws alone is not enough. We also need to eliminate the welfare trap that destroys human potential by destroying the incentive to work, leading many to drug use and drug trafficking. Our recently passed welfare plan is a good beginning toward giving states the flexibility to use our limited resources more efficiently to encourage work and education and to create opportunities for people to get off the welfare rolls and stay off. These are important first steps that will promote responsibilities, not just rights, opportunities over entitlements and greater local control instead of Washington, D.C., mandates.”
Wow, where do I begin? Let’s take a closer look at some of his arguments:
- “Gun-control measures are little more than symbolism.” I’m not sure what he meant by that, but if there’s any truth in it, the answer to the problem is not to throw out such measures but rather to strengthen them. And if mere “symbolism” is grounds for dismissing legislation, let’s consider Trump’s insistence on building his goddamn wall, a symbol of his racism and his hatred for “others.”
- “Advocates of gun-control must go through the proper process of amending the Constitution.” Amending the Second Amendment (which I have no objection to doing) will never happen. In fact, would it really be necessary? Sensible gun-control laws should not affect the responsible ownership of guns. But when lethal weapons proliferate to the point where their sheer numbers endanger the public well-being, and the well-being of our law-enforcement officers, gun-control laws (such as closing loopholes) and bans on certain weapons are a must. No one I know of (though Beto comes close) is calling for “taking away all our guns.” Gun-control is a call for common sense; it’s a call for justice. Advocates of mandatory drug-testing programs for employees, which in many cases appear to me to impose on our Fourth Amendment rights, certainly didn’t bother to amend the Constitution to impose their often-unreasonable measures.
- “There is little difference between assault weapons and legitimate hunting rifles, and so the application of gun-control laws is very difficult.” Really? I served my time in the U.S. Army a good number of years ago, but I’m no expert on weapons (my specialty was electronics maintenance). Nevertheless, his argument strikes me as simplistic: to refrain from protecting the public through appropriate gun-control measures on the basis of a technicality such as this is stretching things a bit too far.
- “We should focus on the guy, not the gun.” I say focus on both. Restricting the appeals of death-row prisoners isn’t going to make our neighborhoods any safer; these guys are already behind bars and most of them are trying only to save themselves from execution. And how many innocent prisoners have already been released from death row over the past decade or so? Every time we limit the rights of defendants or prisoners, we also limit the rights of ourselves. Building more prisons is an after-the-fact “solution”; the crime has already been committed. And let us not blame welfare for our high crime rate; that makes as much sense as blaming Hollywood movies. But that’s politics -- attacking straw men rather than grappling with the real issues. Welfare exists because poverty and ignorance exist. Crime, too, exists, to a large degree because poverty and ignorance exist; violent crime exists, in large part, because of the ready availability of guns, especially the semi-automatic weapons used in the horrific massacres. Let’s attack poverty and ignorance and get to the root of those problems. And let’s impose just, achievable, and effective gun-control measures. Also, “deterrence” as a solution is of questionable value, considering the millions of crimes committed every day regardless of the penalties. Gun-control, however, addresses the number and availability of weapons.
As a liberal, I’m just as concerned about protecting our rights as Inglis is. What we should all keep in mind, however, is that not all of our rights are unlimited ones. We cherish our freedom of speech, for example, but libel, slander, and “shouting fire in a crowded theater” as a hoax obviously cannot be allowed. Here is how I see it (with help from Mortimer J. Adler’s writings): In the “sphere of liberty” lie all the activities that a human being can engage in -- reading, sex, voicing opinions, playing sports, driving, operating a factory, smoking, to name just a very few. But within that larger sphere lies a smaller one that we can call the “public sphere” that encompasses those acts that have an effect upon another individual or upon the common good. (See the diagram above.)
As I mentioned earlier, when lethal weapons proliferate to the point where their sheer numbers endanger the public well-being and the well-being of our law-enforcement officers, gun-control laws and bans on certain weapons are a must. We are at that point now in our country -- actually, we have been for a long time -- so the right to own assault weapons should reside in the public sphere where they are regulated.
The public sphere -- and only that sphere -- is where the government can justly regulate human acts. That’s why we have laws against libel and slander because those acts lie within the public sphere. I may operate a factory, but when I start polluting the environment I affect the common good and enter the public sphere. Therefore we have laws and regulations (or, at least, we used to before Trump came into power) dealing with pollution. Second-hand smoke is a health hazard that must be contained (therefore smoking in public resides in the public sphere). And non-consensual sex clearly endangers women and children and thus belongs in the public sphere.
This limiting of laws to only the public sphere is vital to a just society. When this nation imposes laws on private acts (i.e., those that fall outside of the public sphere), then we are imposing unjust laws and curtailing the very freedoms we say we hold so dear. That’s why, for example, the Supreme Court decision on Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) was such a travesty of justice; that’s why the proposed flag-desecration amendment was a farce. When we legislate on the basis of what’s merely offensive to some people, we open the door to any number of unjust laws (so-called “religious freedom” comes readily to mind).
Back in 1994 I read (and still have) a letter to the editor, titled “Assault weapons a birthright,” that appeared in a local paper.The writer was responding to an op-ed titled “Nobody needs assault weapons.” The letter-writer’s point was his attempt to explain to the op-ed writer “why we need to own an AK-47 or similar weapon.” His “why” was that “it’s our birthright, provided by our forefathers, to own one.” (Hmm. I just reread the Second Amendment, but I can’t find any mention of an AK-47 or similar weapon.) A birthright is “a natural or moral right, possessed by everyone”; I would guess the writer didn’t have a clue as to the meaning of the word.
Thoughts and prayers...