January 31, 2015 at 1:07 pm
It’s worthy of note that the Arizona and Oklahoma provisions were in those states’ original constitutions adopted on their admission to the Union, and were not the product of independent constitutional amendments.
See in context
January 13, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Given the result of the Trayvon Martin case, wouldn’t a more neutral term than “murdered” be “fatally shot” or “killed” (we might take the killing to be wrong but didn’t they turn out to be lawful?)
January 13, 2015 at 2:18 pm
Another response to gun-control laws is that this isn’t really an either/or situation. That is, either we preserve the right to bear arms or the right to life. At least this might be the response of someone who accepts the 2007 Harvard Study “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide“. In other words, gun-control laws wouldn’t amount to protecting someone’s right to life, it would simply amount to taking away someone’s right to bear arms. (Here is a criticism of that Harvard Study: “Shoddy Gun Paper Excites Right Wing“).
January 8, 2015 at 12:06 pm
Many have argued that the second amendment is not about the right of everyone to have a gun but about the right for the people to take up arms against the government if and when it becomes authoritarian. So this argument in conclusion concedes that the second amendment is about the first and not the second. But the whole essay has suggested that we should not so quickly concede that given different interpretations of this right previously.
January 8, 2015 at 12:02 pm
But one could argue that the conversation has had to go here because the gun lobby is so strong it has become politically impossible for anyone to say guns are the problem. It is also the case that mental health care has become worse since Reagan, and that such health care was cut following this same logic that the government cannot do anything unless it is intervening to protect against harm.
January 8, 2015 at 11:55 am
This quote actually begins with “solitary, poor…” I think that is relevant here because it points to how life outside of community is isolated. But the more important element of this paragraph in my view is that the right to bear arms looks like the right to mete out vigilante justice. The take-away from the fear of white Americans that Black citizenship will mean that they can carry arms seems to suggest more that such a right is deemed the right of citizens to police the borders of the community. But under Locke and Hobbes, this is a right that individual citizens don’t have.
January 8, 2015 at 11:34 am
I don’t know the British context here, but it seems like a substantial reason that this argument is made is because it serves the interests of gunmakers, ie. it’s a argument for the interests of capital guised in the language of the interest of freedom, like many arguments for capital. But it would also seem that precisely there the protection of the people overrides the liberty to purchase (or make) guns.
January 8, 2015 at 11:30 am
I’m concerned with the claim “As with other political principles, the scope of persons to whom these rights are afforded has evolved over time. However, the principle of the theory remains the same.” Carole Pateman argues in The Sexual Contract that Locke’s theory of rights depend on a certain capacity to establish proper borders of oneself and of ones property, a capacity that women and people of color are judged not to have. Shannon Winnubst examines the consequences of this in her book Queering Freedom. If Pateman and Winnubst are right then it is more difficult to argue that Locke’s rights “work” mutatis mutandi in today’s context. In fact, it might be precisely because they include within them a logic that requires someone to recognize a being as worthy of those rights in order for them to work that they are used, ie. they allow for the exclusion that inheres in the logic of rights.
January 8, 2015 at 11:25 am
It’s striking that the right to restrict is not so much stripped of the government but shifted from the head of state to that part of the government that is answerable to the people. Someone might say that since in the US context, this right is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it is not possible to make that shift. But historically, Congress and the Courts have interpreted the Bill of Rights in response to societal shifts.
December 15, 2014 at 10:45 am
So in the U.K. the individual bears the burden of proof, where in the U.S. the government bears the burden. I wonder if this difference is unique to our relationship with firearms, or if it emerges in our relationship with other auxiliary rights.
Website content © Public Philosophy Journal 2017. All rights reserved.