Very surprised by this thoughtful argument from the Times new conservative pundit Bret Stephens. A contrarian is right twice a day, and while he may be quite wrong on climate change, he is absolutely advancing an argument we need to have on guns.
In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.
As I’ve argued before, background checks and assault weapons bans not only would fail to stop any mass shootings, but they would fail to dent the majority of the 46,000 or so gun deaths we’ve endured in just the last four years. Most of which are the result of a single suicide or homicides by handguns. Even the tragedy in Vegas is not linked to assault weapons per se, but a semi automatic weapon converted into an assault weapon. Banning the conversion kit, as even some Republicans are now considering, would have saved the 58 lives lost early this week, but done little to save the other 46,000 or so who have died in gun violence since the the start 2016. Nearly every killer, including this one, would have passed a background check.
So the reality is, these weak tea efforts are still going to be filibustered by the NRA and it’s cronies in Congress and would do little to solve the problem if they passed.
A real movement for gun safety as strong as the NRA would finally concede that this is a culture war we are fighting. And we believe American culture is no place for unfettered access to firearms. We believe our culture has evolved to consider racial equality, LGBT equality, and abortion rights. Why should the right to a gun not evolve into a far more reasonable process subject to regular regulation like any other commercial products from automobiles to health insurance?
As Stephens argues, the right has already redefined the 2nd amendment beyond anything the framers would’ve considered rational, and they will likely enshrine that radical reframing as President Trump continues to fill Supreme Court vacancies.
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.
Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be
Repealing the 2nd Amendment does not ban all guns, it simply subjects guns to the same rules and regulations other products can be subjected to under federal, state, and local law. In my book, owning a firearm should be as hard as getting a pilots license. It says a lot about our country that health care is a privilege and gun ownership is a right, and not the other way around.
Christopher says
Well, it would force the pro-gun crowd to debate the merits rather than hide behind the Constitution, though I’d be happy if we simply took seriously the well-regulated militia clause.
JimC says
I would say no, for two reasons:
1) The Second Amendment has been fortified by recent rulings, as David has observed.
2) I don’t want to get in the habit of amending the Bill of Rights.
jconway says
Re: Christopher
The court has moved to far away from that and will likely move further away from that in the future. This gives us an opportunity to enshrine that permanently.
Re: JimC
Your first point basically proves why we need to do this since the courts have veered too far to the radical right. Remember-amendments can overturn court decisions. Hence why the anti-choice movement has been pushing so hard for a an amendment alongside judges that would overturn Roe. We need to do the same thing.
And remember the bill of rights as originally written excluded blacks, women, LGBT and native peoples. It wasn’t perfect-the framers made the amendment process knowing we would evolve to correct their mistakes. One of the many reasons progressive movements are less United and our jurisprudence less tenable is that we don’t bother changing the Constitution and updating it to meet the times. We simply hope our sides judges can change it the way we want, and it hasn’t really worked out that way since the court doesn’t galvanize our side like it does there’s.
A push to make the right to vote, the right to choose, the right to healthcare, the right to proportional representation and the right to organize a union as amendments will lead to needed changes even if they don’t pass. I’d throw term limits and campaign finance limits in there too, but I know folks here are split on that.
We would repeal and replace the second amendment with something stronger that frees our government to regulate all firearms and not just the unpopular ones (that happen to be involved in the fewest gun deaths). Until then the right is correct that most regulations wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. That means the amendment itself is in the wrong, and not just the jurisprudence.
Christopher says
Your present proposal sounds like a complete 180 from what I recall your attitude of a few months ago which I interpreted as why bother since we can’t hope to get the votes for years.
The writers of the Bill of Rights may not have had various minorities in mind at the time, but there’s nothing in their language that excludes them either, so as long as we interpret them through the lens of equal protection I don’t see a problem there.
I don’t agree that all your proposals belong in a constitution, but it may be wise to prepare them. Some liberal groups are apoplectic (and I think a bit paranoid) about the prospect of calling a constitutional convention, but if one does get called progressives need to be prepared to show that two can play that game.
jconway says
A few inaccuracies here:
The language of equal protection is itself something that came because the 14th amendment. Prior to that, the Bill of Rights was exclusive to white property owners. Amendments to the bill of rights are nothing new or anything to be scared of. The side that promotes a living Constitution should evolve it via the textualist way-the amendment process. It’s s more durable way to achieve a policy victory. Particularly on guns.
Wrong again. That proposal explicitly began with me saying if it were up to me we would have no second amendment, but since we do all the gun control in the world will remain dead on arrival in the senate and gerrymandered house. So we should focus on gun violence reduction tactics that don’t involve gun control and reduce hand gun deaths. Until this shooting, there has been no mass shooting involving an automatic weapon. Until this shooting, there has been no mass shooting involving bump locks.
This shooting and all of the others would not have been stopped by background checks. 58 people die from guns every 20 days in chicago, from hand guns which Heller explicitly protects via the 2nd amendment which overturned an ineffectual Chicago ban. Ineffectual since we need to empower the federal government to regulate all guns, not just the ones liberals scapegoat but every gun.
Christopher says
I understand that equal protection comes from the 14th amendment. Again, my point was that applying only to white property owners at first is not a reason to amend the Bill of Rights because nothing in the language thereof requires that they continue to only apply to white property owners. They were also only intended originally to apply against the federal government, but interpreting them through the lens of privileges and immunities (also 14th amendment) has led to applying them against state governments.
jconway says
I’d be remiss to remind you the U.K. has done just fine without a Constitution, let alone, a Bill of Rights. Their gun policies are more sensible and until this last election-their governments were generally more productive and representative of the people’s will. Ditto Australia and Canada, which also have parliaments.
The Madisonian model seemed outdated under Obama, who would’ve been far more effective as a Prime Minister. It seems downright dangerous under this President, elected by a minority and governing with an artificially gerrymandered Congress that compacts black, brown, and blue voters into fewer districts while giving a gun happy cow pasture like Wyoming as many Senators as California.
Christopher says
UK has been lucky, but I prefer a written Constitution for a whole host of reasons. Otherwise it’s legislative supremacy and do we really want that? I also think we need to remember that our system was created by people and states and both need to be taken into account.
doubleman says
What if we repealed and replaced . . . the Constitution?
fredrichlariccia says
It’s Official : God Has Spoken
Dear Humans :
I will not be accepting any more of your thoughts and prayers, effective immediately.
Time to pry your hands apart and actually do something.
SomervilleTom says
Fred, my friend, it really IS important to cite sources that you copy.
Plagiarism is not cool, and I’d like to be confident that when I read your commentary here, I know that it is truly your own.
fredrichlariccia says
I’ve been told not to cite Facebook sources but I’m more than happy to do so.
fredrichlariccia says
” The GOP insists that the Vegas shooter’s gun arsenal is ‘a right,’ but medical treatment for his 500 + survivors is merely ‘a privelage.’ “
fredrichlariccia says
Posted on Twitter by DESIRINA BOSKOVICH.
fredrichlariccia says
The late Molly Ivins on guns :
” I am not anti – gun. I’m pro – knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a nation of great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning knives.”