GUN
RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Admittedly, one has a different perspective when writing
from the most militarized nation on earth, Israel. National security isn’t
simply a political excuse for parliamentary debate but a real survival matter
for a tiny country surrounded by enemies who publicly declare their intention
to destroy it. Military might is a watchword even for peace-lovers who’d give
up the West Bank in a two-state solution to the Palestinian right of
independence.
Whatever one reads here, there is no mention of personal
gun rights or the ideology of a lone rider shooting his way through Indian (or
Palestinian) territories. Instead, there is shock and horror over the Aurora
shooting. One hears a relieved sigh, It can only happen in America.
Perhaps it’s the fact that most public places have guards
that check one’s backpack and purse; perhaps it’s a greater awareness that
suicide-bombers have caused enough damage over the years; it might even be a
general psychosis that informs everyone about living in a military zone,
despite exterior conviviality. The fact is, one must be vigilant and keep a
watchful eye on one’s surroundings.
This is in no way to say that someone could have
prevented a nut-case from opening fire in a crowded movie-theater. The
consensus is that with enough intent and planning, one can cause harm anywhere
in the world. But there is also a consensus in Israel that cultural cues and
training may help create an atmosphere and mindset where citizens can expect to
live a normal life under abnormal conditions.
The new normal in Israel differs from that of Colorado
when it gets to guns and security, patrolling one’s borders and airports. But
public debate about such issues is radically different, and perhaps
informative.
While Americans of all stripes—see both Obama and Romney
on the issue—publicly declare their support for gun ownership and the right “to
bear arms,” in Israel the issue revolves around duties to protect one’s
country. Israeli media is enmeshed in a parliamentary debate over the duty of
ultra-Orthodox Jews to join the Israeli Defense Forces and bear equal burdens
as secular citizens.
The Second Amendment to the
Constitution has two versions, one passed by Congress that states: “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,” the other ratified
by the states and authenticated by Jefferson, Secretary of State at the time that
reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right…”In his Law’s Empire (1986), Ronald Dworkin spends an entire chapter to the different punctuation of the this amendment, claiming that if one follows the grammatical conventions of the time, the right to bear arms was associated with the formation of militias and not attributable to individuals. This, of course, isn’t what the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller when it reaffirmed the right of individuals to bear arms, overturning the District’s restrictions.
What gets lost in the American debate, especially when intellectual light-weights join the conversation from both political parties, is the realization that in a democracy that holds the rule of law paramount, there are no rights without duties. One’s right ought to be proportional to one’s duties. The assumption is that we are dealing with responsible adults.
Will the horrific Aurora case change anything? There are 49,762 licensed gun dealers in the US and 7,261 pawn shops that sell guns; about 30,000 people die annually from firearms, half are suicide cases (NYT). To some extent, we have to change the public discourse if we want to have a useful conversation with the National Rifle Association.
First, gun ownership shouldn’t be understood as an absolute right. Just as equality isn’t an absolute principle—we have laws and policies about equal opportunity—so must our understanding of gun rights be circumscribed with greater regulations (perhaps a few weeks of waiting period is reasonable, just as we wait for liquor licenses).
Second, gun rights should be accompanied by duties. These duties shouldn’t be limited to the permit fee, but also to training and annual classes where gun owners should reconsider why they own their guns and under what circumstances they should or shouldn’t use them.
Third, gun ownership should be understood as a personal responsibility to one’s community. As such, each gun owner should contribute ten hours a year to help law-enforcement agencies, for example, or participate in mandatory exercises, depending on each community’s needs.
One needn’t be for or against guns, but rather approach the topic as a political issue worthy of public debate with reasonable solutions.
Raphael
Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See
previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment