The
Sunday 11/12/17 Detroit Free Press editorial by staff writer Nancy
Kaffer "Dueling views on gun control" is an example of trying to solve a
problem in the context of a democracy instead of a constitutional
republic. A democracy always becomes tyranny of the majority where it
can vote away the rights of minorities. In a constitutional republic the
rights of minorities are protected by constitutional law and may not be
voted away.
Ms
Kaffer champions the democracy context when she cites several polls
that claim most citizens don't want more guns in schools, bars and
churches but that Michigan's legislature is promoting laws to expand gun
carry in those places. She is saying that the majority should rule the
minority. That's democracy.
A constitutional republic requires the government to protect everyone's right to self defense. Whether we should have that right can never be put up to a vote. The proper context is how do we go about properly exercising our right of self defense while protecting the rights of other citizens? This can be put up to a vote but only within the context of protecting rights. For example:
Waving a gun around in public is an objective threat. Our laws call it 'brandishing.' The government can forbid this not because it has any power to restrict rights, but because it is protecting the rights of other citizens. Carrying a gun on your person or even open carrying is not brandishing and should not be outlawed. On the other hand, property rights provides citizens the right to forbid guns on their own property.
How best to exercise our rights to keep and bear arms should always be debated in the context of how to protect rights instead of restricting them. The reason this context must be maintained is based on the logical fact that the right to violate or threaten to violate other's rights with a gun is a right that does not exist. Therefore government cannot restrict something that doesn't exist. So what does exist? The rights of other citizens. Protecting them is the right context.
I think banning guns in schools, bars and churches makes those people sitting ducks for any murderous psychopath. But that has to be left up to the decisions of the property owners and patrons. Unfortunately, if government owns the schools then it can turn all those students into defenseless victims, a power it should not have. The purpose of government is to protect rights, not ignore them.
Lastly, Most politicians want to get reelected and will be cognizant of voters' wants. If those polls are right about "most people" not wanting more guns, why didn't they tell their politicians about what they wanted? Politicians watch polls like a hawk. So I view those polls with a lot of suspicion.
2 comments:
'Unfortunately, if government owns the schools then it can turn all those students into defenseless victims, a power it should not have.'
Therefore, the government should not own schools. By your logic, government run (public) schools should not exist. A reasonable policy for a school would be to designate certain (trained) teachers or security guards to have firearms.
That's why private property and freedom of association (and speech) is so crucial to a free society. Even more so than the right to bear arms. That's why freedom of association and speech it the primary target of those who fight against freedom.
Stephen, I agree with you that freedom of speech is the most important freedom of all. That's because when ideas are out there for all to see and debate eventually truth will win out.
But I'm still opposed to government run education on the grounds that government tends to replace learning with indoctrination. I agree too that as far as security is concerned I would welcome some kind of armed security in our schools.
Post a Comment