These People Scare Me

I read an article over the weekend in the local Atlanta newspaper about a group organized in Georgia called GeorgiaCarry.org that fights for everyone’s—and I am quoting from the website—“right to own and carry the firearm of their choice for any reason other than to commit a crime.” I.e., for no restrictions on firearms other than not to commit crimes with them. In the article, the founder of the organization talked about how he views his organization as Georgia’s newest civil rights group.

He may technically be correct. The Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” is, as the Supreme Court recently confirmed in a contentious 5-4 ruling, a personal individual right that forestalls governmental interference (although reasonable restrictions are permissible; but such regulations are subject to strict scrutiny. It is my opinion that this decision is going to generate a storm of constitutional law holdings in the federal courts on this subject over the next several years). However, every time I read about what fierce gun rights proponents are up to, I cannot help but think: why are these people so uncompromising? Why is it so important to someone that he be allowed to carry a concealed firearm—obtained with as little government scrutiny and control as possible—wherever he goes, on the street, on the job, in the car, at work, in a public building, a restaurant, a bar, or even in an airport (the subject of GeorgiaCarry.org’s current headline-making lawsuit)? We accept reasonable limitations on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly—both of which are enshrined in our Bill of Rights in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution (and do not have murky and vague references to a militia being important, like the 2nd Amendment does. See the full text of the 2nd Amendment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. See the full text of the 1st Amendment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Text). For example, it is against the law to scream “fire” in a theater, for the very good reason that the panicked stampede that may result could and has, in the past, killed and severely injured people.

I think if I posed the following question to a random collection of Americans:

“Which is more important, the right to bear arms or the right to free speech and assembly?”

I would get far more responses that the right to free speech is more important. Perhaps that is because the right to free speech actually is more important, for two reasons (among many others). First, we live in a democracy, meaning that WE control the government and ARE the government. We also have a mature, balanced, and reasonably fair legal system. Hence, the best, most powerful, and effective way to change (or support) governmental policy or to protect rights is to petition the government (collectively, in a political sense) or through redress in the courts, rather than grabbing your musket and taking up arms. Viz., the power of the pen is far more powerful than that of the sword, especially in the 21st century. Second, our country now has a professional army that has all kinds of crazy technological killing machines. Using your handgun—or even assault rifle—against the U.S. Marines to protect your individual autonomy from governmental inference is just not going to be terribly effective. It is no longer a realistic check on the power of the federal government.

I also do not understand the obsession with gun rights when so many of our other individual rights have progressively diminished. If you are that fired up about having your individual rights bulldozed, how about take on privacy rights? How about take on insurance companies that attempt to catalogue us and our health information as much as possible to maximize profit? How about take on marketing companies that vacuum up our personal information and sell it to the highest bidder? How about fight the battle of protecting our social security numbers from being required by healthcare providers, insurance companies, and banks to identify us (instead of, say, winning battles to prohibit the use of social security numbers being required for gun permits—as GeorgiaCarry.org apparently successfully did in Georgia). Aren’t these battles more worthy than fighting against controls on firearms sales at gun shows or waiting periods for gun purchases or the ban on assault weapons (although, I do understand that the deer are fighting back, now, so hunters may need some extra artillery) or any of the other fringe issues surrounding gun control?

I understand the passion for fighting corporatism and the government, but I do not understand the particular battle gun rights activists have chosen. Hence, l can only conclude that they just want to be gunslingers. And, therefore... these people scare me.