In a press conference last Wednesday, President Obama was visibly angry with the Senate for failing to advance several controversial gun control measures. The Senate did not pass amendments to mandate background checks on all gun buyers, extend the assault weapons ban, and restrict the capacity of ammunition magazines. The President spent much of the conference blaming the National Rifle Association and special interests for foiling the bill. However, the force hindering meaningful arms control legislation in this country is not limited to a few groups.
The real problem with gun control in America is that it is viewed as a sacred cow. Diehard defenders of the second amendment want to portray gun rights as a black and white issue. A meme shared on Mitch McConnell’s Facebook page after the Senate voted down the measures showed McConnell forming a zero with his fingers; the caption read, “You can have this much gun control,” This type of reaction illustrates the popular view: You’re either for guns, or you’re against them. It’s not that simple.
Opponents of gun regulation feel that any restriction is too much restriction. The NRA recently ran an advertisement that paints the issue in stark terms by referring to the Senate proposals as “Obama’s gun ban.” Even limits on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons that serve no purpose for hunting or home defense are unpalatable—these are viewed as the first steps down a slippery slope. Some worry that this slope leads to further erosion of gun rights. The most extreme believe that it will lead to tyrannical government power over a citizenry that cannot arm itself against an authoritarian regime. I do not lose any sleep over such an unlikely prospect, but fears of government overreach should not be ignored. The problem is: If there is a slippery slope, we have already started down it.
To understand the problem with this “first edge of the wedge” theory, we need to look at gun rights in the larger context of weapons regulation. Guns are only one type of instrument on a continuum of items that have applications for recreation or self-defense, but also the potential to be wielded in an attack. Kitchen knives and baseball bats have been used as murder weapons, but are widely recognized as having practical and recreational utility that outweighs their potential to be used in a crime.
On the other end of the continuum, restrictions on many classes of weaponry already exist and go unquestioned in America. Never in our history have civilians owned fighter planes, warships, or armored tanks, in spite of the strong deterrence they could provide to would-be burglars. In between the extremes, we have already drawn a line. There is no reason to think that different guns cannot fall on different sides of the line.
Today, as has been the case for a long time, if the U.S. government seriously wanted to impose its will on the people through force, all the assault rifles in the world would be of no use. During his recent filibuster, Rand Paul called for restrictions on the government’s use of drones. To extend this argument along the NRA’s line of logic, perhaps he should have pushed to let citizens line up to buy their own for self-defense. Ever since we left the musket era, the government has wielded weapons of increasingly greater power than any that have ever been owned by civilians. If there is a line in the sand, we crossed it long ago.
What remains for us to decide is where we want to strike the balance between our right to arms for self-defense, and our right not to live in fear that our hometown will be the next Newtown. This should be a civilized debate, because both rights deserve protection, but neither is likely to be fulfilled for all people in all cases. Fortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive, and a little common sense can go a long way in maximizing both. Owning a shotgun for home defense makes sense. Requiring a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 50-round magazine for hunting game does not. Furthermore, the AR-15 (the semi-automatic assault rifle used in several recent mass shootings including Newtown), in spite of all the harm it can inflict on defenseless victims in an attack, would be no match for the power of a coercive militaristic government bent on overpowering its citizens.
The current discourse in Washington is muddled by the misconception that the right to bear arms is a sacred one that cannot be touched. Arguments that suggest there can be no middle ground on complex issues are tempting because they are easy to grasp, and are frequently used to oversimplify disputes for political gain. George W. Bush framed the war on terror in similarly uncompromising terms: “You’re either with us, or against us.”
Once we realize that the sanctity of gun rights exists only in the imagination, maybe we will take a more rational approach to the issue. I hope that Congress will eventually decide that the Second Amendment is absolutely deserving of staunch protection, but should not be used to compromise (as The New Yorker’s Andy Borowitz put it) our equally important right not to get shot.
Nick M. Phillips ‘16, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Greenough Hall.