CE Week #4: “Reality of guns trumps theory”
Leonard Pitts Jr.
The Miami Herald
February 14, 2008
You have no right to read this.
The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn’t necessarily give you the right to read it. Or so I was once told by an attorney. While the right to free speech certainly implies a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken, he said, the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly grant such a right. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.
The key word being “theoretically.” As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of our national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to dictate what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.
I bring up the First Amendment in order to discuss the Second. The Supreme Court is pondering what is expected to be a landmark ruling on that amendment which, for the record, reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
At issue is whether a District of Columbia law banning handgun ownership is constitutional. The key question is this: Does the Second Amendment confer an individual right to gun ownership, or does it refer only to the right of a state to raise a militia? I’ve always thought the latter, a view buttressed by many legal rulings, including the Supreme Court’s, when it last weighed in on the subject, nearly 70 years ago.
But in a very real sense, and for reasons similar to those just mentioned, I also think that’s beside the point. Regardless of whether a right to individual gun ownership can be found in the Second Amendment, the perception of that right is so deeply ingrained that legal theory is – here’s that word again – superfluous. Do you really think, regardless of what the court rules, it would be possible to ban firearms on a national scale? I think any attempt to do so would lead to uprisings we can scarcely imagine.
What we have here, then, is another case of theory versus reality. It’s a confrontation that did not have to happen.
The problem with this debate is that it has always been defined by its most extreme voices, its most uncompromising, ideologically pure voices.
But what if gun control advocates got over the idea that getting the right ruling from the right court would magically make guns disappear? And what if gun advocates got over the notion that every attempt at firearms regulation is a step toward totalitarianism? Where might this debate go then?
What if supporters of gun control could concede that hunting is, for some, an honored tradition? That some people feel it necessary to have a weapon in the home for protection? That some entirely rational folks simply like guns?
Could gun rights people then concede that you don’t need an assault weapon to go deer hunting? And that manufacturers who flood poor, violence-prone neighborhoods with cheap handguns ought to be held accountable? And that guys who sell guns from the trunks of their cars are nobody’s friend? And that background checks and gun safety classes for new gun owners make us all safer? And that gun registration isn’t totalitarianism any more than a driver’s license is? And, most of all, that all of us are tired of seeing children shoot children with guns they never should have had access to?
It’s called compromise and no, it would hardly mollify ideological purists. It would not make guns disappear, nor acknowledge an individual right to bazooka ownership. What it would do, though, is recognize that ideological purity has its limits. That’s a good thing to remember.
When theory confronts reality, put your money on reality every time.
This reminds me of the movie “Bowling for Columbine…” which was extremely long, and all about gun control in America, for those who haven’t seen it… (it kind of made me wonder if we really should all move to Canada–something I’ve heard alot lately).
In my opinion banning guns in America wouldn’t work. Just like banning alcohol didn’t work. Sure, there are some good involved in getting rid of guns. We wouldn’t be able to quickly shoot and kill each other. But then wouldn’t those people who want to kill each other find more unique and disgusting ways to do it? Perhaps like, running someone over or beating them up with a baseball bat or an old floorboard (with rusty nails, respectively). It’s not plausible. The reality of it is, we have guns and that’s that. What people should stop attacking is the gun, and start looking more for why we feel as if we need to be protected from our fellow neighbors. I know it sounds too idealistic, but…the main reason we have guns is to feel powerful and protected…
But what we don’t see is why we need to feel that way… am I going off to far on a tangeant here?
I’m sorry. Got caught up in the moment…
Well, this article was sort of superflous, wasn’t it?
What I took from this article was how the second amendment can be so differently interpreted. The author believed that the only delegated right included in the second amendment was the right to assemble a militia. But, how can there be a militia without guns? It connects back to what we learned a while back about formal and informal amendments. To clear anything up, it might be a good idea to add an amendment that in addition to having those guns for the purpose of raising a militia, people can have them for other reasons. It can be viewed as an informal amendment because it was never clearly stated, but we still hold the right to bear arms.
As far as my views go on the gun issue, it would be nice if we have some tighter regulations. Somehow, a few years ago, my cousins, who were not in any branch of military or anything, got their hands on an AK-47. It would be nice to live in a world where immature teenagers couldn’t gain access to weapons like that. In my own perfect world, we wouldn’t need guns at all, but I understand that some people feel the need to have them for protection and hunting, but I think they usually cause more problems than they solve. I mean, now people are getting in trouble over toy guns.
I liked Kelsey’s point about not fighting the gun. I don’t think that’s where the problem is, I think the problem is “manufacturers who flood poor, violence-prone neighborhoods” and “guys who sell guns from the trunks of their cars”. Instead of working to ban guns or make them more readily avalible, we should work on making the system we have now safer.