The Second Amendment: Love the Fighter, Hate the Lover

The massacre at Fort Hood has me wondering what kind of nation we really are. My inescapable conclusion is that as a nation, we're a fighter, not a lover.

Our lack of amorous disposition is evident throughout the culture wars. Abstinence education staggers on despite ample proof that it puts the teen population at risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy. Just this weekend, an already insanely vitriolic attempt to overhaul health care degenerated into another abortion debate, further reducing the control that individual women have over their own bodies. And for most of the past year, we've all stood by while state after state has insisted that sexual orientation is a fine reason for depriving some law abiding citizens of the right to marry other law abiding citizens. Seen through this lens, we seem less like libertarians and more like prudes who insist on having a government chaperon in our bedrooms.

Of course, we draw the line at the gun shop: there, the government is not welcome. And this explains why tragedies of the sort that occurred at Fort Hood happen in the US more than any other developed nation on earth. That's not opinion by the way: it's empirically validated fact. Our 'love affair' with the Second Amendment has ridiculously awful and clearly unintended consequences of depriving too many people of their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

And here's the kicker: we can't talk about it. There's a sort of NRA mandated form of political correctness that insists that we must hate the shooter not the weapon. Perhaps thats why no one is focused on how easy it was for one lunatic criminal to legally, easily and privately arm himself from a convenient local arsenal (gun shop). Instead, we have inane political theater of the sort staged by Senator Joe Lieberman, who wants to put the Army under investigation for harboring a killer in its midst -- irony intended.

I'm not now suggesting, and never have, that we take away all of everyone's guns. I am, however, asking that we consider taking a lot of them away. That doesn't mean that I despise freedom, but it does mean that the right to bear arms should not be allowed to obliterate all the others.

 

Follow Michael B. Laskoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mlaskoff

Comments

[sixpt1]

Here we go another anti-gunner using a gun tragedy to push for gun control. It is very sad and you are pathetic for exploiting this tragedy to push your view upon others when you should be showing respect for our fallen heroes. They have given their all to protect the freedoms that you are abusing by exploiting their deaths.

A Disabled Veteran.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

These heroes were felled by civilian procured, high powered hand guns. I can mourn the loss of the people who died senselessly and ask questions about the guns that killed them. Can you?

[OliverTwist]

Here's a dialog from a Hagar cartoon that reflects our cultural values.

Hagar's daughter Honi is speaking to Hamlet who was reading a book but is looking at her as she speaks:

"You're not like other Viking boys, Hamlet!"

"You don't act TOUGH and MEAN!"

"You're HONEST and SENSITIVE and you RESPECT others!"

"BUT I LIKE YOU ANYWAY!"

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

I like you to... but what does your comment mean.

[AttorneyAtLaw]

"... no one is focused on how easy it was for one lunatic criminal to legally, easily and privately arm himself..."

=========

This individual did not prove himself to be a lunatic criminal until he began shooting. Denying people their civil liberties because they might abuse such liberties will deny the right to all of those who would not abuse those liberties and, in effect, presupposes a person's guilty intent.

You lament how some would impose "a government chaperon" upon citizens with respect to abortion and gay marriage, yet you suggest government further limit the right to keep and bear arms. You don't support taking away "all of everyone's guns," but just "taking a lot of them away." Would you also support gay marriage being recognized across the land, but then not allowing "a lot" of gays to marry? What about not taking away "all of everyone's abortion rights," but just "a lot of them?"

Each side, liberal and conservative, purports to be in favor of increased civil liberties, but are all too happy to curb those civil liberties which they personally find to be objectionable. The United States has the highest level of civil liberties retained by its citizens of any other developed nation on Earth. Where there is freedom, some will abuse it to the detriment of others. Police states may be "safer," but they achieve this safety at the cost of civil liberties. That is unacceptable.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for airing your dissent. It's discussion that's needed. That does not mean that I agree with you.

1. The fact is that the defense of the second amendment is consistently producing situations in which the civil rights of others are infringed upon. The second amendment is not 'better' than all the others.

2. There are all kinds of limitations on civil rights. For example, not all speech is protected by the first amendment. For example, slander is a crime because of the harm that it does to others.

3. I am not suggesting that we prevent people from owing guns. I'm suggesting that we restrict the number of guns that an individual is allowed to own; the type of firearm that they can legally possess and the number of people who are allowed to own them.

4. Removing many guns is not the same as removing many rights from people. The first is property; the latter are citizens.

5. You're right that a police state is not the answer, but fewer guns might increase our personal safety as well as collective civil liberties.

[AttorneyAtLaw]

Thank you for elaborating. To continue this discussion, I have to respond to your points. This may take a few replies due to word limits.

1. I do not argue that the Second Amendment is better than any other, but I fail to see how advocating for the right "is consistently producing situations in which the civil rights of others are infringed upon."

If you are referring to the fact that people die as a result of gunshots, the Second Amendment does not protect a right to kill. Those who use firearms to kill others are not acting within the right. If this is your argument, why focus on only the Second Amendment? Do not all of the Constitutional guarantees that protect the accused criminal result in "situations where the civil rights of others are infringed upon" by allowing to go free some criminals who will commit additional crimes? What about those who spew intolerance (short of inciting violence) ultimately leading to listeners committing acts of violence?

As stated previously, we enjoy tremendous civil liberties in this country. This freedom is not free. It's price is the risk that some will abuse their rights. Trading our liberties for added security results in lost freedom.

Additionally, the idea that giving up guns will increase security is also disputed. Researchers estimate that between 0.5 million and 2.5 million crimes are thwarted annually by potential victims who display a firearm. These people use firearms to defend their rights from infringement.

[AttorneyAtLaw]

2. You are correct. Rights are not absolute. That said, limitations imposed on gun rights are different than those limitations on other rights - they are much more strict. Your example shows that point.

Slander is not protected speech, nor is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. If someone engages in such speech they may face suit. However, we do not remove from the lexicon the word "fire" or those words that could be used to commit slander for fear that someone may use them in such a way. Nor do we remove people's tongues. It is only after abusing the right of free speech that the offender is subject to justice. In no case are their tongues removed though. They retain the ability to offend again.

Removing words from our lexicon is essentially what you propose by making illegal certain guns - you deny people the potential to ever use the word/firearm. Banning an individual from owning any guns prior to him showing an inability to own them responsibly (by the commission of violent crime, or being adjudicated mentally incompetent) is analogous to removing a man's tongue for fear that he will speak evils. With respect to gun rights, unlike speech rights, an individual who has shown such irresponsibility or inability is thereafter forever prohibited from owning firearms. Again, yelling "fire" once does not make it illegal for one to ever use the word "fire" in any context ever again.

[AttorneyAtLaw]

3. With respect to limiting the number of guns an individual is allowed to own - why do this? An individual can only use one or two firearms at a time. Having a huge arsenal makes an individual no more dangerous. Is it simply that the public finds it odd that a person would own a large number of firearms? Should we also limit the number of cars that one can own? If it is simply because the public has a fear of firearms, that fear is no reason to curb a right. Many fear dogs, minorities, homosexuals, [enter any other irrationally feared group or thing here], but these fears should not impact others' rights.

With respect to the types of firearms and those who are allowed to possess them, there are already restrictions in place that address both. What additional group of people would you strip of the right?

George Washington put it well when he said "[i]t will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." This is what our country is built upon, a presumption that until proven otherwise people are responsible enough to retain their rights.

[AttorneyAtLaw]

4. I'm not sure I follow you on this one. If I read you correctly you are saying that because guns are tangible property, taking away guns does not violate the Second Amendment (or the Fifth - denial of property) in the same way as denying some people equal protection would violate the Fourteenth because equal protection is not a tangible object. Is the same true of denying the press of its pens and paper (tangible objects)?

You stated earlier that as rights go the "[S]econd [A]mendment is not 'better' than all the others." However, by relegating rights relating to tangible property to a secondary status you imply that other rights are "better" than those relating to such property. All rights are equal in footing, regardless of whether you are discussing taking away property that a person has a right to own or taking away a more intangible right. In both cases what would be taken away is a right of a person. The object of that right makes no difference.

[AttorneyAtLaw]

5. I disagree that reducing the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will increase personal safety.

In the UK, violent crime with handguns doubled in the decade after handguns were banned. (See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece). In our own country, Chicago, D.C. and many other urban centers have essentially banned firearm ownership and still suffer from tremendous homicide rates. In addition, the majority of mass shootings in the U.S. occur in places where guns are not permitted to be carried - schools, Ft. Hood, etc.

On the other hand, criminals are deterred by the prospect of being faced with resistance. For an example of firearms deterring crime, look into Kennesaw, Georgia. (See http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN1719257620070418). After making gun ownership mandatory, crime rates dropped precipitously.

I also disagree that reducing the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will increase the safety of our collective civil liberties.

The primary purpose of the right is to provide a last defense against a tyrannical government (i.e., a government that infringes civil liberties). The most horrid instances of brutality by governments against their citizens have come after disarmament of those citizens. Examples include: the Turks ethnic cleansing of the Armenians, Stalin's campaign against the Kulaks, Nazi Germany's slaughter of 6 million Jews, Mao's "Cultural Revolution," Idi Amin's rule in Uganda, and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia among others.

[GinaPera]

Amen, Michael!

This country has a long history of CRAZY, and they seem to be procreating at an amazing pace.

[MocksNix]

See above.