Guns, Again

I have a few more thoughts on the topic before I leave it for good, hopefully.

First, the Second Amendment absolutists remind me a lot of pro-choicers in the degree of their refusal to compromise. I made this point to Clara on the drive to Colorado for Christmas and my dad said the same thing in conversation there. Both pro-choicers and gun rights advocates seem to believe that the smallest concession will mean their entire undoing. For the pro-choice side this at least seems intellectually responsible. After all, once concessions are made lending humanity to the infant in utero the whole pro-choice project seems to collapse on itself. What in reality is the difference between a fetus at six months and one at six weeks, except that it looks grosser to kill it? Murky questions. Difficult to answer. Therefore, an absolutist case is consistent.

But there doesn't seem to be the same need for absolutism towards guns. It is intellectually tenable to be both pro-gun and pro-gun restriction. Second Amendment absolutists don't see it this way. You are either entirely for them, or entirely against them. Those who are lukewarm shall be spat out in disgust. I didn't see anyone arguing in the wake of Newtown or Aurora that we ought to round up all firearms, toss them into the ocean (think of the effect on the environment!), and head to Colorado to smoke some unprohibited weed and make dreamcatchers. Gun control advocates seemed to be advocating for. . . wait for it. . . gun control. Restrictions on sales of assault weapons, tougher licensing on all firearms, mandatory background checks. No one thinks that will be the panacea to end gun violence, but its at least good policy.

But Second Amendment absolutists double down. Their solution: more guns! And--this idea coming from an organization comprised largely of members of a party that thinks ever fewer teachers should make even less than they do now--an armed guard greeting our children in the morning. Dobroye utro, comrade! Modest restrictions on gun rights are an insane emotional response to a tragedy, but putting an armed individual at taxpayer expense in each of our nation's schools is coherent, cool-headed, and necessary.

Secondly, I saw a lot of commentary on facebook and elsewhere about how gun ownership keeps the government in check. The argument is that no government would dare go against an armed citizenry. And it was a valid argument in 1789 when the average farmer and the average British soldier carried the same gun. But can we really use this argument today? It is not as if in a possible uprising the government troops will don red coats and march to the beat of the little drummer boy. The government sees your high powered rifle and raises you a Predator Drone. Good luck in that battle. I am not saying this means guns should not be owned, but with the increasing gulf between military weaponry and that available to citizens it is hard to see mass gun ownership as being a deterrent to the government. My generation struggles to find the energy to move out of their parents' homes; can you really imagine us rising in armed rebellion? And over what?

Finally, I understand that there is no simple solution to this problem. Gun violence is an absolutely unwieldy topic. Most homicides in this country are committed with handguns, disproportionately by minorities in urban areas. An assault weapons ban would have no effect on that. I don't think that any proponent of gun control thinks that it would. Nor do I think that this is merely a matter of freedom. We exchange freedoms all of the time to live as members of a civilized society. I am not free to marry multiple people, drive without license and registration, walk around naked, and any other type of socially or legally restricted behavior. We accept these in return for the stability and ability to flourish that the social contract offers. Are unfettered gun rights an indispensable part of the social contract?

Last week on facebook there waged what I like to call The Battle of the Founding Fathers. Who could find the best quote by a venerable old revolutionary about gun rights and show people that this is a part of our national fabric. And so I saw a lot of quotes about armed citizens keeping the government in check and such things. Another friend posted a quote by John Adams, excerpted from Charles Murray's recent book Coming Apart: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." My friend asked whether since we are no longer either a moral or religious people can we really expect these freedoms to have their intended effect? It is a valid question and one to be mulled over in this debate in which it often seems that conservative Christians are the strongest voice in the pro-gun lobby.

Jesus told us that it was the meek who would inherit the earth. I guess he forgot to mention that they would only do so well-armed.