The hard truth of life is that even though we all believe in individual rights such as life, liberty and freedom of speech, those rights only exist in reality to the extent that they can be protected from those that wish to violate those rights. The debate between the 2nd Amendment and gun-control is really about a debate that’s probably as old as civilization: Freedom versus Security. Should people have the freedom to protect their unalienable rights or should the job of protecting those rights be left to the government? I believe the answer is: both.
I believe that where you stand on that question reflects a certain type of privilege. If you live in an area where police will respond quickly and save you in a life-or-death situation, then you probably feel comfortable outsourcing this job to others. Gated communities and affluent parts of towns or major cities come to mind. If you live in a poor neighborhood where crime is high and police seem slow to respond or a rural area that’s not easy for police to get to, you probably don’t want to wait on somebody to come to your rescue.
Another factor that might impact where you stand on that question is whether you are a member of a politically privileged group. In 1957, President Eisenhower had to use the military and the Arkansas National Guard in order to enforce Brown v. Board of Ed., which put an end to the racial segregation of schools in the Deep South. In that instance, individuals were clearly inadequate for the task of protecting their rights because the size of the anti-integration protestors was too large. However, up to that point in our nation’s history, Blacks couldn’t count on the government to reliably (if at all) step in and protect them from being terrorized by lynch mobs and the Ku Klux Klan. It’s not hard to imagine that at certain times in our past, this was similarly true for LGBT people as well; police were more likely to target them for raids and arrests than to protect them against violence. Also, more recently, at college campuses like UC Berkeley, there have been instances where authorities have been slow or insufficient to stop violent protests against speakers or groups on college campuses.
The bottom line is that in order to protect the rights we all hold dear, there will be times where the government’s involvement is appropriate. However, at different points it has also been necessary for poor people, minority groups and others to be able to protect themselves and their rights when the government can’t or won’t.
Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, many people blithely propose repealing the 2nd Amendment as if the government always gets it right. This seems naïve to me. History shows that there are gaps in the defense of our God-given rights that individuals must fill. It seems immoral to prevent such people from being able to protect themselves. In a country with 300 million guns in circulation, that means people have to have access to guns.
I believe it’s fair to ask whether access to all guns is reasonable. Some say that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” that’s too dangerous for the general public, while others argue that banning it is pointless as there are countless other rifles that are just as lethal. To my mind, arguing over which rate of speed or caliber counts as too lethal is less important than whether we are able to reliably track their sale and purchase (gun-show loophole) and whether we can lawfully prevent mentally-ill people from having them. Jesus said: “from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded.” (Luke 12:48). In a country where we believe in entrusting individuals with the freedom to bear arms, we must demand of them reasonable regulations. It seems reasonable to me that we track the sale and purchase of guns as much, if not more, as we track the sale and purchase of cars.
As society responds to the most recent and tragic school-shooting at Stoneman Douglas High-school, we must continue to remember the philosophical foundations for the right to bear arms. Unless we can come together on the basic moral foundations of our country, we will never be able to make any progress on reducing mass shootings.