In my piece on the home page about President Obama’s tears, I argue that conservatives should aggressively make the moral case for gun ownership. I’ve received a few questions about the paragraph below, and I thought I’d take to the Corner to explain and clarify. Here’s the paragraph:
Gun ownership goes to the heart of what it means to be a responsible citizen in our constitutional republic. It goes to the heart of what it means to be a responsible parent or spouse. It isn’t merely about hunting, or the joy of an afternoon at the firing range, or “looking tough.” It isn’t about fear. It’s about autonomy, independence, and a deep and self-sacrificial regard for the lives of those you love. It’s about exercising the fundamental human right to defend oneself and others.
My correspondents ask whether I’ve overstated the case a bit. “The heart” of what it means to be a responsible citizen or parent? Really? I can see their objection — the paragraph seems to imply that a person is not a responsible citizen or parent if they don’t own a gun. I certainly don’t think owning a gun is a moral requirement, but I do think it is wise. Perhaps I can better make my argument with a series of questions.
First — regarding citizenship — do you view yourself as merely a beneficiary of American freedoms or also a guardian of our essential liberties? The fundamental right and moral obligation of resistance to tyranny is written in many state constitutions, including Tennessee’s (where I live). Section 2 of its Declaration of Rights states:
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Those are strong words. Of course there are many methods of guarding liberty. I’ve done my best to defend the Constitution for most of my twenty years of legal practice, filing civil rights cases in federal court. Civil disobedience can be effective – so can protest, political activism, and the vital work of education and cultural engagement. But the ultimate backstop of liberty is an armed citizenry, a backstop baked into our constitutional cake.
Second — regarding our families — as we love our spouses and children, do we identify not just as providers but also protectors? A responsible parent or spouse should think hard about our obligation to protect the ones we love. Again, that can be done in a number of ways — and one must realize that there is a difference between protecting and sheltering — but when we give serious thought to what it means to be a protector (and teaching our own kids to grow up to be protectors), the case for owning a gun and training your children how to use it becomes much more compelling. Where I live — in a more rural area where the police are not close by — the case is even more clear.
Third — regarding the defense of others — do you abide by the biblical command to love your neighbor as yourself? There are countless ways to serve a community, but a law-abiding adult who is a guardian/protector can represent the difference between life and death in the midst of grave danger. The thought of seeking shelter, terrified and helpless, in the face of an armed threat makes me feel sick. The idea that I’d be forced by misguided law to confront that same threat unarmed makes me angry.
In other words, owning a gun doesn’t involve quite the same kind of cost/benefit analysis involved in buying most household goods. It’s a serious matter, requiring serious thought — one that truly does cause us to get to the “heart” of our identity as citizens, parents, and members of the community.