“War is
peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
George Orwell, 1984
We approach
the celebration of our Independence, and in a couple of weeks there will be
fireworks, parades, family cookouts, and a vast amount of political speech
about the courage of our founders, and the greatness of our nation. How much of this will actually have a
meaningful impact to the average man or woman living in this land?
Our
independence was gained through the blood and sacrifice of a people who fought
to form their own union, not beholding to a far distant King and his Parliament. We were not a perfect people, but our
founders knew enough to understand unlimited government enslaved its people, just like the institution that ultimately led us to our great Civil War. Therefore, from the beginnings we sought a
limited central power. After the failure
of the Confederation of States, the leaders of the many states sat together in
debate and compromise to write a new Constitution to ensure the limits of
power, and safeguards to the individual.
Those
original ten safeguards have been built upon, or in some cases reduced, through
the passage of time, or the conscious act of the nation. For example, at one point the political will
of the vocal minority led us to prohibit the distillation of spirits and
brewing of malt through the passage of the 18th Amendment. Of course this did not stop the demand for
them, it just made it illegal. The by-product
of this decision was to create an underground industry to meet the demand. Men like Al Capone and Joseph Kennedy made
their fortunes though this enterprise.
Ultimately we repealed that decision with the passage of the 21st
Amendment.
Also, in
this new endeavor the politicians and judges have had to feel their way through
the framework to find the best solutions to the checks and balances the
founders built into our nation. Every
President has sought to expand his power, the Judges of the Supreme Court have
exerted their rights and have from time to time stepped into a leadership role
in attempting to engineer the society to fit the model they like, the Congress
has fought with the other two branches to exert itself. Of course there have been times when the
Court and the Congress have willingly ceded power to the President, but always
with consequence.
So here we
are on this 23rd day of June in the year 2016 on the Gregorian
calendar. And my question is how much of
our liberty are we willing to surrender to secure the illusion of safety? This seems to be a recurring theme for me as
it was pointed out I wrote a similar piece three years ago (Ben
Franklin Had it Right).
Again, as in
the past, we have had some calamitous event and everyone wants to do something
to ensure it won’t happen again. As much
as we would like to live in a perfect and safe world that is an impossibility
so maybe we should consider that as we debate what to do? Alas we won’t.
On the one
hand we have those who favor increasing controls of the guns proposing
additional restrictions on the purchase of those weapons. That makes sense, doesn’t it? We had a terrorist legally buy a rifle and a
lot of ammunition and kill 49 people in Orlando. If we had those additional restrictions this
would not have happened. As my Senator,
Bill Nelson, wrote me.
“Earlier today, I spoke with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota about the
new bipartisan gun bill Sen. Susan Collins and I recently introduced to prevent
anyone who is on the No-Fly List from buying a gun. To me, it’s common sense —
if we don’t let someone on a plane because the FBI thinks they may have ties to
terrorism, then we shouldn’t let that person buy a gun.
Another provision included in the bill is one I introduced last
week to ensure that the FBI is notified if someone who was once on the
terrorist watch list purchases a gun.
We’re not saying: don’t sell guns to someone just because they
were investigated. But having a system in place that alerts the FBI if someone
they once investigated is suddenly trying to purchase multiple assault weapons
is just common sense.”
Call me a
skeptic but I always worry when the phase “just common sense” is thrown around
as a justification.
In opposition we have those who would like nothing to change at all, offering little in
the way of options.
If the
Court, the Congress, the President, and a significant number of individuals
feel strongly we should not have guns for protection from others, or the state,
then why are they taking halfway measures to address the problem? Why isn’t the President calling for a
Constitutional Amendment to repeal or rewrite to the Second Amendment? This is a rhetorical question, for the answer
is obvious. There would be significant
opposition, and there is much more political capital to be made in keeping the
issue alive with supporters and vilifying the opposition.
But at the
end of the day we come back to the question.
How powerful do we want the central government, and how much of our
individual freedom are we willing to surrender to have it? As our founding fathers understood; freedom is
not an absolute and if power rests with the few they will exercise it at the expense
of the many. Think about that as we
remember our founding.
No comments:
Post a Comment