Posted on 02/19/2018 6:53:53 AM PST by Sopater
In November 2007, the novelist David Foster Wallace wrote a short essay for a special edition of The Atlantic on “The American Idea.” Writing about 9/11 and all that came after, Wallace proposed what some might consider a monstrous thought experiment:
Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, ‘sacrifices on the altar of freedom’? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Wallace’s point was that, in the wake of 9/11, a host of policies had been put in place—the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, private contractors performing military duties—without a substantive public debate about the trade-offs they represented and whether they were worth it. Wallace wanted to know what it said about us as a people that we were unable or unwilling even to consider whether some things might be more important than safety.
“Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?” he asked. And if we would not have such a conversation, “What kind of future does that augur?”
More than a decade later, we are still incapable of serious discussion of the trade-offs between safety and freedom. For the most part, we’re not even able to admit that such trade-offs exist.
Are you ready for another monstrous thought experiment? What if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to mass shootings is part of the price of the American idea? In some ways, mass shootings are a more apt example of what Wallace was talking about than terrorism. After all, we can arguably do something about a worldwide ideological and religious movement that uses violence as a political weapon—and we have. Whether the aggregate cost in American blood and treasure has been worth it is another question, but it suffices to say that we can do much less about a random madman intent on killing innocents than we can about ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Set aside, for now, the facile arguments for gun control half-measures that wouldn’t have stopped the Parkland shooting—or Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Newtown, or the others. Consider instead what the Left thinks it would really take to stop these kinds of shootings: a repeal of the Second Amendment, followed by mass confiscation of firearms and subsequent heavy regulation of private gun ownership, along the lines of policies in many European countries.
I’m not trying to be provocative. That’s really what it would take. Are we willing to consider it? Should we? What does it say about us that we can’t even acknowledge the trade-offs involved in keeping U.S. school children safe? The best we could manage last week were the worn-out, ritualized responses: outraged calls for anemic gun control measures from the Left and a naive insistence from the Right that tackling “mental health issues” will somehow solve the problem.
The New York Times’ Bret Stephens, for one, is at least willing to be honest about the thing. Back in October, he wrote a column calling for repealing the Second Amendment. There’s of course much to criticize in Stephens’ argument, beginning with his cherry-picked statistics that fail to explain how, despite a recent surge, the murder rate, and violent crime in general, has been plummeting since the 1990s even as gun ownership has steadily increased.
I’m not going to pick apart Stephens’ piece (my colleague David Harsanyi did a fine job of that shortly after it ran). The point is that Stephens plainly states what most liberals are unwilling to admit: if we really want to stop gun violence in America, we’re going to have to make fundamental changes to the constitutional order so governments can wrest guns out of the hands of Americans.
To suggest anything less is intellectually dishonest because anything less simply won’t work. It’s no surprise, then, that Joe Scarborough took to The Washington Post on Friday to argue for stronger background checks, a ban on bump stocks, and “assurances that military-style weapons”—whatever that means—“will stop finding their way into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers and the mentally ill.” He puts these forward as substantive policies that will not only make a difference but won’t require rewriting the Bill of Rights, neither of which are true.
Or consider the refrain that immediately popped up on social media after the shooting: that guns should be regulated like automobiles. Sure, there are myriad ways we could do that, from requiring things like insurance and a license, to heavy restrictions on what sort of guns manufacturers are allowed to sell to the public.
But of course owning and driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, it’s a privilege that comes with certain duties and costs. If we’re going to regulate firearms like cars, we’re going to have to decide that owning a gun will no longer be a constitutional right but a heavily regulated privilege. If we do that, we’re going to have to be honest about what that means: changing the very nature of the constitutional system America’s Founders designed.
Here it must be said that the Second Amendment was not meant to safeguard the right to hunt deer or shoot clay pigeons, or even protect your home and family from an intruder. The right to bear arms stems from the right of revolution, which is asserted in the Declaration of Independence and forms the basis of America’s social compact. Our republic was forged in revolution, and the American people have always retained the right to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical. That doesn’t mean that private militias should have tanks and missile launchers, but it does mean that revolution—the right of first principles—undergirds our entire political system.
That might sound academic or outlandish next to the real-life horror of a school shooting, but the fact remains that we can’t simply wave off the Second Amendment any more than we can wave off the First, or the Fourth, or any of them. They are constitutive elements of the American idea, without which the entire constitutional system would eventually collapse.
In this, America is unlike the European nations that gun control advocates like to compare it with. Germany can restrict the right to bear arms as easily as it can—and does—restrict free speech. Not so in America. If we want to change that, it will involve a substantial diminishment of our constitutional rights as we have known them up until now. After last week’s school shooting, some Americans are okay with that, especially those families who are grieving. But I suspect most Americans are not willing to make that trade-off, and might never be—unless they suffer the same of kind personal loss.
Returning to Wallace’s thought experiment, we might rephrase it like this: is the Second Amendment worth dying for? That’s another way of asking what the American idea is worth. It’s not an easy question, and I don’t pose it lightly, as I’m sure Wallace didn’t.
But it’s one we need to ask, even in the face of heartbreaking and devastating loss. Is ours a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices of our personal safety in order to preserve our democratic way of life? If we will not sacrifice some measure our personal safety, are we willing to sacrifice something like the Second Amendment? If so, what else are we willing to sacrifice?
If the second amendment leads to deaths (and I don’t believe it does but for the sake of argument I will go along with the premise) it leads to far fewer deaths than the dictatorial regime we would eventually be saddled with if we gave up the right to defend ourselves as private citizens
lol!
I’m not your type :)
“What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs...”
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Did I say that?
Did I say that?
“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to obtain or preserve their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them”
“The 2nd amendment protect the 1st”
“You won’t need the second amendment until they try to take it away from you”
“A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to obtain or preserve their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them”
“The 2nd amendment protect the 1st”
“You won’t need the second amendment until they try to take it away from you”
I say repeal the 2nd Amendment and let’s get this party started.
DEFINITELY WORTH READING. THANK YOU.
And if guns are taken away Have Crock Pot Will Travel and any other that harms must keep the crazy locked up.
My ancestors said yes in 1776 to stand with the Continental Congress Oct. 1775 and bear their own arms against the British:
“In Consequence of the resolution of the Hon Continental Congress and to Shew our Determination in Joining with our American Brethren in defending the Lives Liberties and properties of the Inhabitants of the United Colonies We the Subscribers do hereby solemnly engage and promise that we will to the utmost of our power at the risque of our Lives and Fortunes with Arms oppose the Hostile proceedings of the Brittish Fleets and armies against the United American Colonies”
“signers in Salem” “Israel Ober”... “WILLIAM HALL, Amos Dow, RICHARD Massna Selectmen of Salem” Dated Salem Aug 27 1776 “ p278ff
“signers in Brentwood” “Benjamin Pulsifer” p217,p278ff “Provincial and State Papers, Volume 8 During The Revolution 1776-1783” By New Hampshire” -Nathaniel Bouton
The "necessary" compromise is already in place - the background check system is, in my opinion, an encroachment on the Second Amendment but one that should be minimized if the people running it were obeying the law as well. They're not, the data they use is being illegally retained as a de facto form of registration. Aside from the fact that this has never solved a single crime, it is a clear indication that "the system" is being weakened by carelessness in data gathering and by many of the people entrusted to run it either gaming it for something else or simply failing to do their jobs. When people demand "strengthening" the background check system, "fixing" it and making the people who run it accountable for their actions and failures should be a more accurate goal.
There are a lot of crazy people out there, and we know who many of them are. I would turn the author's question around and ask him if allowing them to wreak havoc is a necessary compromise in the interest of the First Amendment or if some necessary compromise in having them institutionalized isn't more in order here? Because it's too late to ban guns, and forcible confiscation at the point of another gun, however dressed up by rhetoric, is a cure far worse than the disease.
Is freedom worth dying for? I’d rather fight and live for it, if necessary, but some things are worth dying for. I have a moral obligation to pass a free country on to my children . . . or die trying.
“Once the snowflake generation assumes full control of the levers of power.”
I don’t think it will be that long...present democrats are extremely intent and aggressive...
I claim that this is nonsense.
The predecessor to the automobile was a horse-drawn carriage. Does a person not have an unalienable right to harness an animal and improve the lives of himself and his family by doing so? Even drivers of horse-drawn carriages must follow certain rules; for example, controlling which carriage may pass through an intersection first.
If there is no right to own and operate a horse-drawn carriage, then how about a horse-drawn plow. Must a person seek government permission before harnessing an animal in an attempt to feed his family?
Technology has made it appear that many activities for which we have an unalienable right are impractical. Under the proper circumstances the right will be self-evident. The Second Amendment will make the argument with the government bureaucrats much simpler if the time comes that we must have the discussion.
Some of us were among those sent to fight America's enemies in Vietnam. I spent many hours on guard duty armed with an M16 and a box of grenades. I had plenty of time to contemplate whether or not I was willing to kill if our enemies attempted to take our position. I do know the answer to that personally.
I was fortunate I think that my resolve was never tested.
I truly appreciate your resolve...I don’t think I would be as conflicted in a similar case. But, if we go to war here, it will be with our neighbors...with Americans. We need to pause and contemplate that seriously.
In a defensive situation I would act to protect my family...no matter how I would feel later. But, it is important to realistically ponder ahead of time what this war would mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.