NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre had characteristically strong words in response to President Obama's Inaugural address in which he said that "we cannot mistake absolutism for principle". He was referring to the entrenched gun advocacy lobby, in particular, to the NRA. Mr. LaPierre replied that absolutism is not, as the President sought to characterize it, extremism. He went on to say that “Absolutes do exist. Words do have specific meaning in language and in
law. It’s the basis of all civilization. Without those absolutes,
without those protections, democracy decays into nothing more than two
wolves and one lamb voting on, well, who to eat for lunch.” Of course, the President doesn't disagree that absolutes exist. What he was decrying was the fact that the NRA seems to view gun rights, as enshrined in the 2nd amendment, as somehow uniquely inviolable among all the rights we possess. He was speaking against the NRA view that gun control, by its very nature, violates the 2nd amendment. In reality, this view on rights infringement is an outlier among other rights groups.
The reality, if we choose to acknowledge it, is that all our rights can be abridged by law. This includes what is perhaps the most sacred and universal of all human rights: the right to life. States in this country can choose to take life in the form of capital punishment. Similarly, the first amendment, often considered the lifeblood of a vibrant democracy, can also be curtailed. The famous example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. We have libel laws which preclude certain falsehoods from being written. We also have limitations on worship. A congregation is free to worship as it chooses, but they couldn't simply show up on a street and shut it down on a sunday morning (or for that matter perform human sacrifices). We have a right to protection in our homes and of our possessions, yet many abilities to infringe on these rights are well established in law, through warrants, probable cause, exigent circumstances etc. The point of all this is the groups that support these rights don't deny, as a basic premise, that the rights can, under certain circumstances, be infringed upon. The argument is about the appropriate degree of infringement. This is about balancing rights vs. some competing public interest. In many ways, this never ending debate is at the center of democratic governance. The issue is that the NRA seems to think the 2nd amendment is unique among its Bill of Rights peers in that any infringement is in fact not mere infringement but in fact a fundamental, irrevocable weakening.
I would ask those who hold this view to consult their conscience, and their reason. To ask yourselves, if you believe any infringement on the 2nd amendment is inappropriate but acknowledge the validity of infringement upon other rights, why you think this is acceptable? What about the 2nd amendment elevates it above other rights we all profess to hold dear? The is not a minor issue. Democratic governance demands compromise to allow for achievement for the general well being. If compromise is viewed as anathema by one side, the general well being suffers. This is the absolutism the President spoke against in his inaugural address. I for one hope his words resonate more than those of Mr. LaPierre.
The reality, if we choose to acknowledge it, is that all our rights can be abridged by law. This includes what is perhaps the most sacred and universal of all human rights: the right to life. States in this country can choose to take life in the form of capital punishment. Similarly, the first amendment, often considered the lifeblood of a vibrant democracy, can also be curtailed. The famous example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. We have libel laws which preclude certain falsehoods from being written. We also have limitations on worship. A congregation is free to worship as it chooses, but they couldn't simply show up on a street and shut it down on a sunday morning (or for that matter perform human sacrifices). We have a right to protection in our homes and of our possessions, yet many abilities to infringe on these rights are well established in law, through warrants, probable cause, exigent circumstances etc. The point of all this is the groups that support these rights don't deny, as a basic premise, that the rights can, under certain circumstances, be infringed upon. The argument is about the appropriate degree of infringement. This is about balancing rights vs. some competing public interest. In many ways, this never ending debate is at the center of democratic governance. The issue is that the NRA seems to think the 2nd amendment is unique among its Bill of Rights peers in that any infringement is in fact not mere infringement but in fact a fundamental, irrevocable weakening.
I would ask those who hold this view to consult their conscience, and their reason. To ask yourselves, if you believe any infringement on the 2nd amendment is inappropriate but acknowledge the validity of infringement upon other rights, why you think this is acceptable? What about the 2nd amendment elevates it above other rights we all profess to hold dear? The is not a minor issue. Democratic governance demands compromise to allow for achievement for the general well being. If compromise is viewed as anathema by one side, the general well being suffers. This is the absolutism the President spoke against in his inaugural address. I for one hope his words resonate more than those of Mr. LaPierre.
No comments:
Post a Comment