On: The gun control debate -- Let's talk

Those who pay attention to sports know this hard and fast rule: When leading in the latter stages of the game, try nothing new; instead, opt to protect the lead. Such may be the ongoing strategy of conservatives, who essentially won the argument over gun control eight years ago.

Therefore, during this past week of resurgent debate on guns and America, a near constant refrain from conservatives has emerged: the complaint that liberals’ newly invigorated advocacy of gun control is politicization of a tragedy. Instead of shying away from the charge, liberals should respond with an emphatic “yes.” The left cannot take credit for the initial politicization of gun violence, but they should be willing to take part in a tradition.

That tradition began in 1791, when the first generation of Americans exercised their right to amend their country’s constitution with the Second Amendment.

The result: American gun ownership (and by relation, gun violence) is inherently political, because it inevitably gets caught up in the notions of rights, liberties and government power. 

Modern day conservatives love to wear admiration of the Constitution on their sleeves, as if it meaningfully distinguishes them from modern day liberals. In truth, the left is equally enamored with the Constitution’s complexities, ambiguities and relevance. They are no less eager to take questions of constitutional legitimacy seriously, if for nothing more than the laws they wish to codify must pass its muster.

When it comes to the Constitution, the difference between left wing and right wing is best described in terms of differing interpretations, rather than doubts regarding whether the document need be considered at all.

Liberals hold that the document is “living”, and therefore amenable to the evolving social morays of changing times. Conservatives believe that it exists to remove changing social norms from  political discussion, in effect invalidating them from government action. Some things, they insist, are simply not up for grabs.

Exactly why the Second Amendment should be immune from these debates is unclear, as well as why tragedies should go unconsidered as we rifle through our passionate argumentation.


Tragedies are indispensable in these debates because they ground are often lofty rhetoric in reality.

Those who study the hard sciences know the importance of theory and practice. Subjects such as biology, physics and chemistry would be nothing without class work (the theory) and lab work (the application of theory so practical outcomes can be observed).

In politics, tragedies like Colorado’s are the closest we come to a parallel. In tones of insufferable knowingness, we can discuss natural rights (are they absolute?), conflicting liberties (where do one’s rights end and another’s begin?), and the knife edge on which government compulsion rests (where is the line between necessity and tyranny?).

That is the theory.  Last Friday was the practice. It served as a tangible and emotional reminder that despite the heady complications we discuss on Sunday morning news shows, our gun control laws allowed this to happen. This isn’t worth political discussion?

To those who argue for more liberal access to firearms, reciting statistics about gun deaths per year is considered perfectly legitimate, even if they find such statistics unconvincing. That, being their prerogative, is perfectly fair.

Yet somehow, when gun violence grabs the nation by its lapels and forces it to take notice, when it doesn’t occur in places where we have become acclimated to it, when the guns purchased aren’t run of the mill weapons but the deadliest available, somewhere a line of propriety has been crossed.

Unanswered thoughts

The questions which follow massacres are unavoidable: Is the right to own a gun so absolute that Friday’s victims are acceptable, if truly regrettable, losses? Where does the right of citizens like James Holmes -- those with no legally recognizable reason to preclude  them from gun ownership -- end, and the right of the public to expect a certain degree of safety begin?  Does the fact that one man so easily and quickly took the lives of others mean the government should compel the citizenry to relinquish their assault weapons, or is this, in effect, a government over reach?

These questions aren’t just unavoidable, they are conducive to the nation as a whole. Just because our search is difficult does not lessen their importance for American society and culture.

Conservatives, join the debate. It’s rather dull without you.