Last Thursday, I moderated a debate between the Tufts Republicans and Tufts Democrats on the individual's right to bear arms.
It was a lively debate that covered a wide spectrum of issues, from assault weapons to self-defense to early childhood education.
This is an important and complicated issue. The Supreme Court is set to hand down the first ruling on the subject since 1875 in District of Columbia v. Heller. D.C.'s strict ban on handguns could be ruled unconstitutional, setting a precedent for similar bans to be challenged across the country. However, there has been little national debate over guns.
Nationally, Republicans and Democrats understand that gun control is a political loser. Even in the Democratic primary, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has gotten in trouble for claiming that Pennsylvanians "cling" to their guns. Slights against Americans' God-given rights to firearms are no longer nationally acceptable. The last piece of gun legislation, which made guns harder for the insane to purchase, was supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Anything beyond limits for felons, the mentally unstable or children is unlikely to go anywhere. America is not going the way of Canada, France or Great Britain any time soon.
Gun rights advocates claim that gun ownership is a natural right. Their argument goes something like this: Everyone has a right to his own life, therefore everyone has a right to defend himself. Guns are the most effective tool for self-defense, so everyone has a right to them. Now, self-defense is certainly a right no government can take away. However, like any other right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions.
During last Thursday's debate, the right to bear arms was compared to freedom of speech, the press and assembly. However, each of these rights has limits placed on it when it results in physical harm. Free speech does not cover slander, fraud or libel. Threats of violence are not protected by freedom of the press. If a large group wants the right to assemble peacefully, it often needs a permit. There is no absolute right to individual firearms. If it improves public safety, the government should be able to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
In the days after Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans decided to go door-to-door and confiscate thousands of guns owned by law-abiding residents. Much of the police force had deserted. Law and order had broken down; there was rampant looting. When New Orleanders most needed to be able to defend themselves, their best means of doing so was being taken away. While there were still people sitting on rooftops waiting to be rescued, resources were being used to disarm the city. Police officers and National Guard troops were going after residents who had decided to stay in their homes.
Guns shouldn't have been allowed near the Superdome or other shelters. But for those individuals who decided to stay in their houses, their firearms were the best tools they had to ward off looters and defend their property rights. Of course, the city had no right to take its citizens' guns. An outright ban is no reasonable restriction.
The government of New Orleans disregarded a basic human right and took away the tools residents could have used to protect their families, lives and property. It made an uncertain and chaotic situation worse for thousands of Americans by robbing them of their best guarantee of safety.
Guns do not always make their owners safer or more secure, but given the anarchic situation in post-Katrina New Orleans, I certainly would have wanted one.
Xander Zebrose is a sophomore majoring in economics. He can be reached at Alexander.Zebrose@tufts.edu.
