Mass shootings and the lie of absolute rights

Mass shootings are becoming a chilling and common subject in the American news. More chilling still is the realization that the number of widely reported mass shootings pales in comparison to the actual number. According to gunviolence.org, as of November 3, there have been 302 mass shootings in the United States in 2018. That’s right, 302 mass shootings just in 2018. 314 people died and another 1233 were injured.

Following these tragic shooting incidents, there is always an outcry. There are calls for stricter gun control laws. Yet, seemingly without fail, these outcries lead nowhere. Legislation dies on the table. Guns continue to flow freely into the population and mass shootings continue to happen, very often with legally acquired weapons. It’s important to note that fact: legally acquired. So how is it that these incidents that defy common decency and basic humanity never lead to any real change in gun control laws?

I blame the lie of absolute rights.

The American Founding Fathers were distrustful of giving too much power to either a head of state or a central government. They were so afraid of that, in fact, that they drafted the toothless Articles of Confederation. That system of government proved so impotent that it was replaced after a mere seven years with the more familiar Constitution that is still in effect today. However, even the Constitution was created with a healthy fear of an over-powerful central government and prompted the Second Amendment, along with a number of other checks on government infringing on individual rights.

The language of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” gives it an absolute air. Without question, the gun lobby has taken to addressing any attempt to curtail the sale of any firearm as a blatant infringement of this supposed absolute right. The reality, however, is a lot less clear.

From the standpoint of political philosophy, absolute rights have never been a serious consideration. It’s a simple fact that participating in society, almost by definition, means that a person’s rights are curtailed. My right to pursue happiness, perhaps by worshiping a Sun God in the nude, does not trump your right not to be exposed to my nudity. Your right to believe that I will burn in Hell for my nude Sun God worship does not trump my right to worship the Sun God in the nude, so long as I do it privately. Under the American system, no right is absolute. Not the right to free speech. Not the right to religious freedom. Not the right to liberty. Not even the right to life. Yet, somehow, someway, we’ve come to accept the idea the curtailing the right to buy guns in any fashion is an unforgivable sin against God, apple pie, and democracy itself. That idea is absurd and contrary to the very idea of government itself.

At its core, a government’s essential function is to create rules that define the boundaries of how members of that society interact with other citizens and non-citizens. One also hopes that a well-ordered government establishes rules that promote the safety of citizens. In the U.S. these general functions are codified in the Preamble of the Constitution. Specifically, the government has a responsibility to “establish Justice,” “promote the general welfare,” and “ensure domestic tranquility.” It’s not a stretch to say that 302 mass shootings in one year pretty much equal failure on all three fronts. On those grounds, the Federal government should have long since intervened and cracked down on the ease of gun purchases in this country. Where they get tripped up, or the excuse they use, is the Tenth Amendment, often referred to as the Reservation Clause.

The Reservation Clause, in a nutshell, says that whatever powers the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government, stay with the individual states. The rules governing marriage, for example, were long considered a matter for individual states to decide. Hence, the protracted battle for same-sex marriage in the United States. The Federal government didn’t want to interfere. In the end, though, because state governments had proven intractable on the issue, and willing to use laws to discriminate, federal action became necessary to ensure that citizens were provided with equal rights.

Since the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant the power to regulate gun sales to the federal government, regulations become largely a state matter. Many state governments are not of a mind to regulate gun sales, so federal politicians throw their hands in the air. “The states say no. What can we do? Reservation Clause!” Of course, this really is just an excuse. The federal government has set limits on what kinds of weapons can be sold and to whom in the past. They can do so again. The real stumbling block is money. The gun lobby throws a lot of money around and conservative politicians don’t want to lose their share of that particular pie. Why prevent slaughter when campaign contributions are on the line, after all?

And let us not forget that the Second Amendment isn’t just about guns. It’s also about militias. In the days of America’s founding, standing armies of professional soldiers did exist, but lacked the size and mobility to deal with every threat. Militias comprised of citizens that were not professional military filled that gap in domestic defense by dealing with short-term and local threats. In the present day, the existence of a professional standing military, the National Guard, a technologically sophisticated intelligence community, as well as federal and local law enforcement agencies has rendered the need for militias obsolete. With the need for militias gone, the actual reasoning for a nominally unrestricted right to bear arms becomes moot.

The Second Amendment does protect a citizen’s right to own guns. A wholesale moratorium on gun ownership isn’t the right or even a practical solution. There are legitimate reasons to own a gun. That said, no right is absolute in a society. We forego that possibility in exchange for the comparative safety and benefits of a relatively stable social structure. The idea that gun ownership should never be curtailed in any way is contrary to basic reason. We place limitations on who can drive cars, practice medicine, or present themselves as engineers. We accept those limitations because they preserve the public good. When politicians refuse to entertain gun control laws because it threatens their campaign contributions, they act against the common good. They become directly complicit in every mass shooting tragedy.

Photo: Clinger Holsters