Gun Control, Privilage and Responsibility

Jay Tea at Wizbang has a pretty reasonable argument up in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the anti-gun control philosophy.

That brought a bigger issue to mind: the United States Constitution was written by adults for adults. More specifically, at the time it was written for white, property-owning males -- those who, at the time, were considered to be mature and responsible members of society. That has expanded since, to all adult citizens who have not forfeited their franchise by conviction of a crime, but the essential concept remains the same: the Constitution was written for mature, responsible people.

The underlying presumption behind that is that rights and responsibilities are inseparably intertwined. Paul Harvey phrases it as "self-government without self-discipline is self-defeating," and I kind of like that.

It's an interesting argument because, I think, this really speaks to the differences (in the best ways) between liberals and conservatives.  While gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and that right is intertwined with personal responsibility (a very conservative point of view), my argument would be: At what point does a society's responsibility to protect itself from its worst inhabitants it has within outweigh the personal rights guaranteed to its best (a very liberal argument)?

This issue is a problem for gun control proponents because, like it or not, we are on the wrong side of the Constitution on this and, consequently, our battle is an uphill one.  To me, the idea of a the right to bear arms for the purposes of a "well-regulated militia" is an antiquated ideal written long before the time when urban assault rifles and Kevlar-piercing bullets were part of our consciousness. 

Despite the fact that Jay Tea wants to dismiss them in his post, the gun-crime statistics aren't irrelevant to the discussion (though I agree that the "for the children" argument holds little water, as it is criminal for parents to allow their kids any semblance of access to their firearms in the first place), and I'd imagine trying to debunk gun violence statistics in a "it's not that bad" manner (as most of the resonders on his original piece seem to be doing) is a very difficult position to be in.  Gun violence is a problem, but it's one that anti-gun control supporters seem uninterested in engaging in.

And none of this even begins to touch on the sharp increase of these statistics when you move them into inner-city, urban, and minority neighborhoods.  A society is only successful when we take responsibility for the privileges that we enjoy, and for dealing with those who don't take their responsibilities seriously accordingly.  Our society is plagued by gun violence, and I don't understand why it is so unreasonable to what to society to try to regulate the problem on a larger scale than simply person by person.  Broad and sweeping reform is sorely needed.

 

Comments

[Gordon]

As a gun totin', rootin'-tootin', shoot-'em-up lefty who thinks guns are fun as well as the last ditch of self-defense, I would have this to say about gun control: Enforce existing laws. The right of gun ownership extends to law abiding persons only, under the law as it stands. Use a gun in commission of a crime, go to jail for ten years. Minimum thirty days, maximum one year sentence for gun violations that are misdemeanors. That way, folks get to do their time in one of our country's lovely county lockups, a year of which is more than enough to see the error of your ways.

[Dylan]

I dunno, Gordon. I kinda disagree with you on this. A year in jail hasn't really deterred gun violence anymore than a year in jail has deterred drugs in our country.