Yesterday I wrote about the politics of the Iraq War.
However today, the day after the anniversary, it's time to remember. No politics, just solemn remembrance. These men and women gave everything for our country. They must never be forgotten. And their comrades must always be supported.
"These are people we know and love. So loved by their parents, so innocent, and their death is so senseless." Rabbi Shaul Praver, Newtown.
20 elementary school children and 7 others massacred. Friday was a truly horrific day for America. Amidst such terrible loss, the victims and their families now deserve our honesty. Those of us who support gun ownership must openly explain why we do so. We must also suggest solutions to help reduce the probability of future gun related atrocities.
In the aftermath of the Aurora massacre, I stated that my support for the right to gun ownership had three roots. While I stand by this affirmation, in light of the Newtown massacre, I feel it's necessary to provide a more developed reasoning for my position.
So here it is.
The first reason I support the right to bear arms- democratic preservation. The original motivation of the second amendment was to establish a timeless guard separate from government, against tyranny. Recent Supreme Court rulings have upheld this viewpoint. While some argue that the right to bear arms is a dated relic, I disagree. Faced with high technology capabilities which offer government an unparalleled potential for intrusive power, though remote, the threat of tyranny is not extinct and must not be discounted. An armed citizenry protects against tyranny. In essence, the second amendment provides a physical capability to complement the ideological framework of our founding documents. Put simply, arms are the mechanism that would allow "the people" to "throw off'' a government that sought to detain us under "absolute despotism". However, it isn't just the capability of arms that's important for our functioning democracy. When Government knows that the people have weapons to defend themselves, government is more closely restrained to democratic conduct by this understanding.
Second- personal protection. The most basic human right is human security. The Supreme Court has found that the operative clause of the second amendment grants an inherent right to bear arms. This is especially important in terms of the security that firearms can provide to more vulnerable members of society like the elderly or infirm. In contrast, where gun ownership is excessively restricted, public security is left almost entirely to government authority. In this reality, individuals are placed in physical danger and psychological fear. This often understated psychological element is crucial. For example, during the August 2011 London riots, in the inability of the Police to control the disorder, an undercurrent of helplessness and a palpable sentiment of fear spread across the city. Abandoned by government, people were forced to resort to extra-legal action. In a democracy we are due not only the right to feel secure, but also the individual means to provide ourselves with effective security (the police cannot be everywhere at once).
On the counter side, gun control advocates like to claim that the United States suffers from an unmatched position of violent crime. This isn't true. While we have a comparatively high murder rate (and must do more to address this problem), common violent crime levels are extremely high in much of Europe. In addition, access to firearms doesn't necessarily drive gun related criminality. Firearm related homicides are higher in South America than in the United States, yet South America has more restrictive gun laws than the US. Gun laws in Connecticut are some of the most restrictive in the nation - but as the Newtown massacre and the ongoing tragedy in gun law restrictive Chicago illustrate, laws alone cannot provide a condition of security.
My third reason for supporting the second amendment - culture. Guns are an important element of the ideational traditions which define many American communities - hunting, range shooting, decoration etc. These activities may be distasteful to some, but for others they are deeply personal expressions of individual freedom. They deserve the tolerance of public authority.
Clearly each of my three components has its imperfections. For one notable example, fringe anti-government groups often excuse their illegitimate violent intentions by claiming a warped interpretation of the constitution.
BUT there is a route that allows for an effective balancing of gun rights and public protection.
We should work to ensure that where an objectively substantial cause for concern exists (IE - a combination of threats and comprehensive medical evaluation) mental health records can be used to restrict access to weapons.
We should more actively prosecute those who engage in the illegal transmission of arms to others.
We should aggressively punish those who carry arms when they have no right to do so (criminals with violent records etc).
We should improve RICO laws to enable greater action against gang leaders who allow their subordinates to carry weapons.
We should improve security at schools - with new Federal laws and funding if necessary. For example - providing teacher with firearms training and allowing those who pass such courses to have weapons at their disposal.
Finally, we should ensure that beyond the basic constitutional right to bear arms, states are given a wide latitude to determine the contours of gun control in their respective locales. Local democratic will should determine much of American gun law. In the aftermath of national tragedies like the Newtown shooting, we must find a commonality of balanced purpose. Protecting the innocent and preserving the right to bear arms are both imperatives, but they are not mutually exclusive. Update - My other pieces on guns for The Week, The Guardian and my blog.
From 9/11 remembrance but Newtown made me remember it.
