Reader Info
Advertising, subscriptions, staff, privacy policy, contact info, freelancers' guidelines, etc.




News Bites
Michael Miner on the media | RSS | Archive | Search


The Supreme Court celebrated Independence Day a few days early by unshackling the Second Amendment, declaring the freedom of Americans to defend our lives, liberty, and property by keeping guns at home. Anyone who, like me, was viscerally dismayed by the 5-4 Roberts bloc (therefore doubly suspect) ruling, written by Justice Scalia (therefore triply suspect), could take comfort in critiques that emotionally dismissed it as "wrongheaded and dangerous" or coolly dissected it as ahistorically reasoned.

But what worked for me was a stiff dose of libertarianism. It's not necessary to agree with libertarians to appreciate the therapeutic value of their often contrarian perspective. So first I read the Tribune's Steve Chapman, one of my favorite pundits, who said the thing is, gun control hasn't worked, and who explained why Thomas Jefferson is smiling tonight. Then I moved on to reason.com, where the more doctrinaire Radley Balko mourned a "hollow" victory. Balko complained that Scalia's opinion was laced with "caveats, exceptions, and asides" and was so narrowly focused that "for practical purposes, the only people directly affected by the ruling are the 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C., and the handful of others living in protectorates of the federal government."

Balko was a tonic. In his grumpy, disapproving way, he reminded me that a constitutional freedom is a freedom our courts and our legislatures are under no obligation to regard as absolute. If it's wrong to shout fire in a crowded theater, it can remain wrong to sport a firearm there. No, despite the headline over the dismayed editorial in the New York Times, Scalia had not just told America to "lock and load."

Like Chapman, but giddily, Balko bolstered his argument by invoking Jefferson. Wishing Scalia had taken the opportunity to plug the 2nd Amendment "as a bulwark against government tyranny," Balko said the threat is real: "One needn't be a modern-day mountain militiaman to observe that authoritarian regimes often become tyrannical after first disarming the citizenry. As Thomas Jefferson put it, 'When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.'"

It should be half that simple. Sometimes when the government fears the people there is Zimbabwe.


Comments
(please read our policy)
notevenagunnut
July 4th - 8:19 p.m.
Seriously, educate me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mugabe's government the one murdering and terrorizing its people, not vice versa, and didn't that government confiscate citizens' guns for pretty much that purpose? Don't you have this exactly backward, just for the sake of a snarky insult toward people who have different opinions from yours?
Michael Miner
July 4th - 11:53 p.m.
Like most epigrams, Jefferson's is more witty than wise, and no intelligent person should recite it as an ultimate truth. The conditions that Jefferson presents as alternatives usually go hand in hand -- people fear the wrath of governments that fear the wrath of the people. The history of the cold war is a history of client regimes responding to the publics they feared with something other than liberty. Zimbabwe is today's best case in point: Mugabe's terrorizing a public that he knows will throw him out of office (and probably execute him) if given half a chance.
JoeBu
July 5th - 2:51 p.m.
The current subverting of the 4th amendment will do exponentially more to subject Americans to governmental tyranny than any "unshackling" of the 2nd will do to prevent it. If only these cited writers had spilled their valuable ink in the name of a liberty that might actually matter.
ida no
July 5th - 3:10 p.m.
While I agree with you about epigrams, it is also true that this is a bad place to try to debunk this one. Zimbabwe is actually the NRA's poster case, because disarming the populace was indeed a deliberate precursor to government violence. It's exactly the NRA's fantasy of what happens when you repeal the 2nd Amendment (whether that could ever really happen here or not).

It's wrongheaded to use Zimbabwe's example to say that gun rights don't matter when those people don't have gun rights. Liberia, maybe.

Also, of course, if there were two-way violence in Zimbabwe, many people might argue that armed violence against Mugabe (or that against Taylor) was a *good* thing.



The News Bites blogroll
Harold, Daily by Harold Henderson

The View From Here by Andrew Patner




Branzburg v. Hayes, the split U.S. Supreme Court decision (1972) generally construed by journalists and judges alike as affirming some sort of reporter's privilege in federal courts.

U.S. Appellate Judge Richard Posner's influential opinion in McKevitt v. Pallasch (2003) telling those journalists and judges they were wrong -- there is no such privilege.

John Milton's Areopagitica (1643), one of the earliest and most eloquent arguments for a free press. Said Milton: "As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye."

©1996-2008 Creative Loafing Media All Rights Reserved.   We welcome your comments and suggestions.