The Founding Fathers Never Envisioned Weapons Like These

by Steven Martin Cohen

A response to: Books Banned like Guns Banned, by L.Neil Smith, posted on pissedOff 6/4/97

I disagree with aspects of your position. I absolutely agree that when the rights of one person are threatened the rights of everyone are threatened. But as far as books and guns being equated--that's a bit more complicated. On the one hand, books and the ideas they contain can actually be more dangerous than a single gun. Books such as Das Kapital were the basis of incalculable waste and human suffering in the 20th century, and, let's face it, while the Anarchist's Cookbook may never be considered one of the literary classics, its recipes in the hands of a motivated psycho can provide an easy path to inflicting death. And yes, it is not the recipe that causes death; it is the willful implementation of a device using that recipe.

This brings us to guns. True, that the legal owner of licensed guns is usually not the criminal that uses a handgun to rob a convenience store, and any regulation of guns will be circumvented by people with criminal intentions. A coherent chain of ownership can definitely help solve a violent crime though. But on a more philosophical note, guns themselves are designed for the sole purpose of discharging a projectile with a lethal muzzle velocity. Period. The argument could have been made that guns were designed for one specific purpose--to kill. Of course the target shooters and hunters would cry, "Oh no. Never. Impossible! Not us." And some of them would be telling the truth. But the fact is that almost all projectile hurling technology from before the bronze age to the present has been funded and researched by the military governments of the world for the sole purpose of gaining an edge to kill the enemy, because high momentum discharged from a distance kills more easily than killing with your bare hands close up. And now we are at a period in time when guns are cheap enough and easy enough to make and buy and transport and conceal that anyone can afford to buy and carry them. And not everyone is of sound enough judgement to do this. The ones that are cry foul and call this a rights violation. The ones that aren't kill people and create victims--another rights violation.

The reason people must be licensed to drive cars is because a car can kill--lots of mass and momentum (forget for the moment that it's also an easy source for extra revenue so the system naturally perverts itself). Same deal with airplanes. Fishing--I'm skeptical about that one! But guns--they should be licensed because much of our society has demonstrated it can't handle that freedom. I think you should be allowed to own as many guns as you want--but each and every one of them should be licensed, and so should the owners. And this is no more a violation of people's rights than requiring car and airplane licenses. One might argue that anyone should be permitted to buy a helicopter and take off into the wild blue--with scarf dangling in the free American air. Who needs training? Who cares about traffic patterns? He has rights, and those rights permit him to buy any configuration of matter that can be dreamt up and manufactured by human beings. The problem is: when does the rights of any single individual potentially endanger and infringe upon other people's rights.

Enter the government. In a perfect world, a selfless and wise government would know exactly where to draw the line. But nothing is perfect. I believe there would be uncontrolled negative anarchy without certain controls on the behavior of humans. As I think you pointed out, the entire population of Switzerland is armed and they don't go around killing each other. But they are trained and educated differently from birth. The entire fundamental structure of Switzerland is different. We are far from the Swiss, and comparing us to the Swiss--given the cultural difference--is like comparing an arch light electrode to a water buffalo because they are both made of carbon.

When I read your article, I tried substituting in place of the word: gun: thermonuclear device. Supposed I told the meddling agents of the government and my nosy next door neighbors, "Hey, look, I'm only using my neutron bombs for target practice in the desert. What are you getting so upset about? First off, the Constitution gives me the right to bear arms, and nowhere in this precious document does it say what arms I can bear so I'll bear them proud and free. Secondly, you just have to trust that I'll always do the right thing, simply because I say so. I'll never drop this on your town. I promise--that is, unless I feel threatened or something goes very wrong with my brain chemistry."

In light of the obvious opportunity for potential abuses, is it really so much to ask that guns and their owners be licensed?