As someone writing from outside the United States, can someone explain to me … why whenever any level of gun law is mooted, those who oppose it tend to automatically assume that it inherently represents a government conspiracy to cow its population, rather than (say) an entirely well-meaning (if slightly hamfisted?) desire to protect the population from a very clear and present and continuing threat?
Certainly. The Constitution of the United States was framed up in order to specify precisely what powers the government held, and by what process this constitution could be amended. Almost immediately, it became obvious that it was likewise necessary to specify what rights citizens held. These became foundational documents for our nation. If anyone wanted to modify this foundation, there were specific (and daunting!) steps that they could take in order to effect such a change; however, it was not intended that this would be easy, or a quick process, or something that a simple majority (of citizens or Congressmen) could accomplish.
One of these first amendments specified that the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Inasmuch as gun control law may infringe the right of citizens to keep or bear arms, any attempts to implement such measures is an attempt to go around the process of modifying the Constitution. Has the judicial branch of the government used its powers to interpret this amendment? Yes, and in precisely the way that the framers of the Constitution have intended.
However, some wish – in the name of any number of seemingly laudable motivations – to get around the provisions of the Constitution, and infringe one of our basic rights. If they attempted to do so by means of the constitutionally-provided process (i.e., amending the Constitution), then I’d say “have at it!” However, attempts to do so unilaterally by Congress (without the votes of the individual states) or by executive order are anathema to the very notion of how this government is supposed to work.
The gun control debate is one that’s heart-felt on both sides of the question. However, given that some take to heart this right that the foundational documents of the country have identified as theirs, it seems unreasonable to suggest that any process short of a constitutional amendment might be a means by which such a change might be effected.
Should we debate the merits of gun control (as opposed to the process by which it’s to be implemented)? Certainly. We’ll hear lots of opinions, pro and con. Should good arguments for gun control trump the very fabric of this nation’s construction? Absolutely not.
When some lament that this is merely a “political issue”, they’re hitting the nail on the head (without realizing it, I suspect): the
real issue here is whether the passions of the day should be allowed to be enshrined in our Constitution without due process. The answer to that question must always be ‘no’.
FWIW, from what I have read I also rather think the thread title is extremely misleading. Obama is suggesting tightening and better enforcing existing regulations, not banning stuff.
And, of course, at least in America (given, I suppose, the circumstances of the genesis of our country), there’s always been a healthy suspicion of the motivation of those in power. We exist as a country because some folks stood up and said, “hey! you’re not acting in our best interest, and are actually trampling our rights!” The fact that we continue to be sensitive to that sort of behavior by our own government shouldn’t be all that surprising.
Some might counter “but, it’s for the good of the people! It provides a more secure and safe environment!” However, in the context of discussing the importance of liberty vis-a-vis security, Ben Franklin passed along the following assertion: “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” (The context is striking in its application here: Franklin was concerned that the assembly wasn’t being given the right to tax the Penn estate for the purposes of establishing frontier security; the Penns wanted to give a lump sum – without giving up their claim that they were untaxable – to enable the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ‘purchase a little temporary safety’ for the colonists on the frontier. Similarly, then, we ask the question today: even
if gun control purchases a little temporary safety, is it worth giving up the liberties enshrined in our Constitution?)
So, it’s ok to accuse an entire party of partisan gamesmanship, but it’s an insult to challenge this kind of overreaching, unprovable statement? Yeah, that sounds fair…