The NRA has spoken up for the right of people on the terrorist watch list to own firearms. This horrifies a lot of people, but not me. After all, there are two mitigating factors here. One of course is the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution, and once you start excluding people it's not a guarantee. The second is that watch list is mighty large, arbitrary and capricious.
The founding fathers wanted us to have guns to protect ourselves. Not just from each other, but from the government. They wanted what they never had in England, the right to keep the King's forces from entering their homes. Gun ownership is just another one of those checks and balances built into American democracy.
Like all big ideas this one has a downside, and it's this: if you allow everyone to have guns, the percentage of gun agression will be higher. And the question is, is this bathwater bad enough to throw out the baby of gun rights with?
The NRA finds itself in the same philosophical quandry as the ACLU. They too defend a constitutional principal by refusing to ignore it's most unpopular ramifications. Free speech is free speech, even if it means that you can't outlaw Nazi rallies. Even if you can't outlaw porn. It's weird that the left sides with the ACLU and the right sides with the NRA, because they're both doing the same work. The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh when he had one of his drug run-ins a year or two ago. If Michael Moore was caught with a concealed firearm, the NRA might very well help him out. I would hope so! I would also hope Moore has the presense of mind to carry that firearm, 'cause a lot of crazies hate him.
With both free speech AND gun ownership, a complete lack of restraint is more dangerous than helpful. We don't need home AK-47s, and we don't need to allow calls for lynching in the public square. We do, however, need organizations who will fight for these things, if only to be sure that they are bad ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment