Writing for Slate, Mark Joseph Stern opines that we as a nation need to reconsider our definition of liberty if constant gun violence is the price of that liberty.
The only reason you have not been shot is because nobody has yet decided to shoot you. Our patchwork of mostly loose state gun laws, combined with weak federal standards, ensures that anybody who wants a firearm can obtain one. Once acquired, this gun can easily be used to put a bullet in your body, maybe killing you, maybe paralyzing you for life. Perhaps you will be shot for a specific reason—by an abusive spouse, for instance—or at random in one of America’s increasingly common mass shootings.
We live with this reality because easy access to firearms is, we are told, a vital aspect of American liberty. This was the National Rifle Association’s mantra throughout its decades-long push to block or topple gun control laws. This was the Supreme Court’s rationale in declaring gun ownership an individual right protected by the Second and 14th Amendments. This is the response of the pro-gun crowd following every mass shooting, as conservatives take to social media to defend untrammeled gun access without offering any realistic solutions to gun violence.
If constant gun massacres are an inevitable result of American liberty—if we cannot be truly free without letting every madman, abuser, and hothead with a grudge get guns, if we cannot send our children to school without fearing they may be slaughtered in a hail of bullets—we need to reconsider what liberty truly means.
I think the answer from the right wing in this country is, “Yes, this is an acceptable price, and we’re not going to even pretend to address it.”
One failed shoe bomber, and we still have to take our shoes off in airports after all these years. Constant mass shootings: “Oh well, what can you do? Thoughts & prayers. Where’s my next campaign donation, NRA?”
Whatever happened to that old chestnut the conservatives used to trot out to justify violating the civil liberties of various groups in order to (supposedly) achieve some security objective of momentary importance, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”?
If it’s good enough to trample on my right to privacy or a speedy trial then it’s sure as heck enough to keep some basement dwelling Call of Duty hero from amassing a collection of functional battlefield-grade weaponry, or to require that the nice lady with the late-night shift get some serious firearms training to go along with that pretty pink handgun. It’s not tyranny, it’s just common sense.