The anti-gun and the gun control groups who are engaged in the current debate in America do bring up several valid points – it is just not ones that they think that they are talking about.
I do separate the two groups in the my assertion because I do see two distinct groups – there are those who believe that the Second Amendment can be converted to a cultural speed limit, throttling specific rights to a level that they would accept and there are those who simply believe that the Constitution is horribly outdated and can just be ignored at their pleasure.
Both are wrong but both do raise these questions:
- What is the tradeoff between liberty and security – that is to ask, what do we get for what we give up?
- When liberty is traded for security, what is the responsibility of the state to assure that security?
- If the state cannot provide absolute assurance of security and safety, what obligation do they have to inform the individual citizen?
- If the state cannot or will not provide total security (i.e. an end to crime), is it legitimate to expect citizens to give up the means to defend themselves?
I started thinking about this after this exchange between Professor Progressive and myself this morning about FC’s post on the two animals that killed the little baby in Georgia;
I’m surprised Joe hasn’t dropped by to tell us that the tragedy could have been prevented, if only the baby or his mother were packing heat.
I’ll bite. It absolutely could have been. How is it civilized or noble to stand by and watch your child get shot in the face by two thugs, animals that can be described as “human” only because they share a common DNA sequence?
How will “justice” truly be served by a trial now that the child is dead?
I’ll also play your game – what if all guns were banned and these animals choked the baby to death? The mother would still have been outnumbered and overwhelmed.
The very reason for a gun is that it is a force multiplier in the hands of the weak. It levels the playing field as much as it possibly can in situations like this where seconds count and the police are 15 minutes away – or simply aren’t coming. By restricting the personal ownership of a weapon, the “state” is assuming the role of protector and guaranteeing individual safety at all times and in all conditions. In this case, the “state” was clearly incapable of protecting this child from either being shot or strangled – how is it morally defensible to deny the mother the ability to do so?
You “progressives” love to detail the failures of the individual in service to the state (we don’t pay our fair share, etc) but not so much when the state fails in its responsibility to the people.
You are every bit as pathetic as I remembered.
What are the limits? Where is the line?
There we go with the “Who, Whom?” question again.