It’s touching how concerned many conservatives are about the rights of terrorist suspects on no-fly lists. Many of us believe it is a travesty that while they can’t get on a plane, they can walk into a gun store and walk out with legally purchased weapons. And what is the response if we say so? A flood of wails and snark about constitutional rights, due process and (actual response to me on Twitter) “it’s that innocent till proven guilty thing.”
Then there’s the undue burden argument, brought into stark relief last week by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. “You’re putting an incredible burden on people,” Rubio said on “CBS This Morning,” if you expand background checks of gun buyers to cover all sales online and at gun shows. It would be, he added, “an extraordinary burden” on someone who wanted to sell a gun to a friend.
The Republican presidential hopeful made those comments two day after 14 people were murdered in a shooting rampage in San Bernardino and less than a week after a gunman killed three at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. Exactly who is bearing the extraordinary burden under our current laws? Whose rights are being infringed?
[SEE: Gun Control and Gun Rights Cartoons]
The insensitivity of gun-rights devotees is mind-boggling. They see in the Second Amendment a license for a pure, absolute right that should exist unfettered by regulations or, in their lexicon, “burdens.” Yet even this conservative iteration of the Supreme Court, even as it ruled in 2008 that individuals have a right to bear arms, concedes the government has a right to regulate arms. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller. Just this week the high court declined to reconsider the right of cities and states to ban assault weapons, with the effect of leaving existing bans in place.
It would be, as Scalia said, unusual indeed if this particular right came with no restrictions. We have freedom of speech and the press, but we can’t slander or libel or create a riot by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. We have freedom of religion, but polygamy is illegal and parents can be prosecuted for withholding lifesaving medical treatment from their children. We have freedom of assembly, but sometimes we must abide by government curfews and apply for government permits. We have a right to privacy, but the government retains its right to abridge it for such purposes as catching terrorists or curbing abortions.
Outside the purely constitutional realm, countless laws and regulations infringe on our personal liberty. We must get driver’s licenses, carry insurance, wear seatbelts. Kids must be vaccinated to attend school and bosses must pay a minimum wage.
Underpinning all of these infringements is the common good. That principle itself is enshrined in the first words of the Constitution, which include its intention to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare.”
[READ: Should Democrats Shut Down Government Over Guns After Colorado Shooting?]
President Obama made explicit arguments about rights and responsibilities nearly three years ago. He said Americans mowed down in shooting rampages were denied many of the guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and defined a right to life that had nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with making sure those already born are not struck down in hails of bullets. “Along with our freedom to live our lives as we will comes an obligation to allow others to do the same,” he said.
The Constitution also, of course, says it aims to “secure the blessings of liberty.” How you interpret that phrase may be the deepest fault line in American politics these days. The Heller decision notwithstanding, I don’t believe the Second Amendment — which starts with talk about a ” well-regulated militia” — gives individuals the right to bear arms. And speaking of “well-regulated,” guns should be at the top of the list, as heavily regulated as rights like abortion and driving a car.
[READ: The Planned Parenthood Shooting Is Terrorism We Tolerate]
Think about what that would mean: long distances to a small number of gun stores; mandatory waiting periods; mandatory displays of the bloody consequences of gun violence; mandatory gun locks and smart-gun technology; instruction and insurance requirements; minimum age for permits; volume limits on gun and ammunition purchases; an outright ban on weapons meant only for war; mandatory reporting of domestic abusers, suspected terrorists and others deemed to be threats; background checks for every transaction; comprehensive data collection and massive research into how to reduce this scourge.
Instead we have ever-increasing glorification, exemplified by a Nevada legislator’s Christmas card showing her entire family armed, and even easier access, with the planned January arrival of a new shopping channel devoted entirely to guns. We have the tired excuse that taking step X on guns wouldn’t have prevented tragedy Y. We have a virtual ban on research, and so many loopholes in our system there’s an al-Qaida video about how easy it is for jihadists to get hold of guns in America.
“Grow up, terrorists don’t care about laws,” a Twitter critic lectured the other day. Neither do criminals, but should we get rid of the criminal code? What this gun-rights champion really meant was “give up.” That is not an option, not if you respect your fellow citizens and their right to life.
More from U.S. News
Gun Control and Gun Rights Cartoons
The Planned Parenthood Shooting Is Terrorism We Tolerate
US Gun Safety Policy Amounts to “Duck and Cover”
Gun Rights Must be Regulated to Guarantee Americans the Right to Life originally appeared on usnews.com
