PA Bill Number: HB829
Title: In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Description: An Act amending the act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Last Action: Signed in House
Last Action Date: Jul 3, 2024
A liberal case for assault rifles :: 03/31/2018
I am on the political left. I hate the National Rifle Association. I do not own a gun. I have been a victim of firearms violence. (Shot breaking up a bar fight at the age of 20.) And I am strident supporter of keeping “assault” weapons available and leaving the Second Amendment exactly as it is.
Inconsistent? Hardly. Unlike many liberal intellectuals and commentators (BIll Maher for example) I actually believe the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is about preserving freedom, not simply about the right to hunt or owning a shotgun to protect the house. If you listen to the advocates of the Second Amendment, their arguments make sense. Widespread private gun ownership is a bulwark of a free society. And like many aspects of American freedom, gun ownership is a freedom that comes with both costs and responsibilities.
Each year over 30,000 Americans die in automobile accidents. No one is calling for the banning of private automobile ownership, even though we could save thousands of lives if we restricted the highways to mostly business and military uses and required private motorists to have lengthy training courses and use their cars only for official work on streets that were policed with cameras, sensors, and a cop at every corner. We don’t do that because our cars represent our freedom, our mobility, our personalities, and our economy. Plus they are a relatively efficient mode of transport, even though they kill.
Alcohol abuse kills around 90,000 Americans yearly. Families are torn apart by booze, people drink and drive, and overuse causes numerous physical and social ailments. Yet we tolerate alcohol because it represents freedom, celebration, and relaxation to millions, even though so many people suffer from its presence. We tried banning alcohol once we recall, with fairly poor results.
So yes, if we banned guns fewer people would die from guns, but gun ownership would be restricted to the government, and to those who would be outlaws and confederates. On one level even talking about getting rid of the Second Amendment antagonizes those who feel gun ownership is a sacred right. But the people who seek to ban assault weapons, high capacity clips, and the like are missing the point when they say gun owners don’t need assault rifles to hunt or protect the home: the Second Amendment also says guns are necessary in case we should ever need a “well armed militia, being necessary for the security of the people.”
In other words, our Founding Fathers saw the potential need of the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government. Not a likely scenario I agree, but the existence of all of those weapons makes the idea of an oppressive government far less likely. More importantly, what potential adversary would attack the United States knowing there are more guns than people before the war even starts?
I live in California, a place with low gun ownership levels and a place where you are less likely to be shot that in the rest of the United States. There is obviously a co-relationship. The presence of guns means people are more likely to die from them, whether it was prompted by accident, suicide, rage, or mental illness. Yet, like the aforementioned automobiles and alcohol, the freedom to own guns creates a cost which we are, rightly, willing to bear as a society.
We will never eliminate gun violence as long as we own guns. But with responsible gun ownership and sensible regulation we can reduce the cost of freedom just as we have reduced the number of people killed by car crashes by almost half. Enhanced background checks, mandatory gun safety classes and safety certification with periodic renewals, “red flag” laws to allow temporary seizure of guns from distraught and mentally ill folks, and less glorification of the guns in the culture are ingredients in the recipe for reducing the cost of the Second Amendment to society.
Our problems are primarily cultural, and as an educator I have faith that knowledge and understanding can ensure the survival of our basic freedoms while mitigating against the side effects of irresponsible behavior.
Randal Beeman is a professor emeritus of history at Bakersfield College. The opinions expressed are his own.
