It has been said that the Second Amendment is treated as a second-class right, and that’s definitely true. While no right is truly absolute, there are restrictions and limits on other rights that tend to revolve around directly hurting someone else. With the Second Amendment, it’s just enough to claim that someone somewhere might be hurt that’s sufficient.
It might seem like a small thing, but let’s understand that if I libel someone, I pay the price. Other people don’t lose their right to speak freely because I might commit libel. Only I would be held to account for those actions.
This is as it should be.
But guns are different. If someone does something to harm another with a gun, the reaction among many is to restrict guns for everyone.
In my VIP piece on Wednesday, I talked about a piece from Newsweek.
I’m not going to repeat myself here because, well, you should totally get a VIP membership and read it for yourself. However, there was one quote that stuck out to me a bit and, frankly, it’s part of something that’s been living rent-free in my head since then.
Amy Cooter, Director of Research, Academic Development, and Innovation (RADI), Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute
Ghost guns should almost certainly be banned, but there are enormous practical difficulties in making that happen such that any regulation would likely merely add time to sentences for already committed or separate criminal actions.
Regulation would also have some immediate push back from certain militia world groups who see ghost guns as a way to escape “tyrannical” government control over firearm access.
So Cooter here really thinks we should ban “ghost guns” and that people who take issue with that are “militia world groups.”
Now, she’s practical enough to note that it wouldn’t be particularly easy, even without the pushback she mentions.
However, Cooter was also asked a question in another piece. Because the alleged killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was a fan of the Unabomber’s Manifesto, the question was asked whether that should be banned.
Simple enough to look at it and say that, under the First Amendment, you can’t. Cooter doesn’t seem to disagree with her answer, either.
Amy Cooter, Director of Research, Academic Development, and Innovation (RADI), Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute
The Unabomber manifesto is already out in the world in such a way that it would be incredibly difficult to “ban” it.
We’ve also traditionally seen such things as protected, to some extent, under the First Amendment, and there seems to be little political will to reevaluate that position as long as very direct incitements to violence are not present.
However, law enforcement have moved with more recent incidents to trying to prevent manifestos from being spread publicly and thus inspiring other actors—generally a good move so long as researchers who are best equipped to help evaluate the nuance etc in those documents are not cut out of the loop.
Now, I don’t agree with her about law enforcement keeping manifestos from the public. The truth is that we’ve seen enough evidence to know that these actions inspire others all on their own. The manifestos are unnecessary to do so, which means there really isn’t a good reason to sit on them.
However, look at that first sentence for a moment.
It’s “already out in the world in such a way that it would be incredibly difficult to ‘ban’ it.”
And yet, she wants to ban “ghost guns” which in this incident are basically just 3D printer files.
They’re everywhere on the internet. It’s a genie that’s never going back in the bottle. Yet Cooter advocates for banning so-called ghost guns just the same.
Plus, let’s understand that “ghost gun” just means an unserialized firearm. I’ve got an old H&R .32 revolver that counts as one simply because it was made before serial numbers on firearms were a thing. Should that be banned? Are we just banning “kits” here? I ask because every single part other than what the alleged killer printed is simply an aftermarket or replacement part for traditionally manufactured firearms. Are those to be restricted?
What Cooter demonstrates here, though, is how the double standard works.
The First Amendment protects the Unabomber’s Manifesto just like it protects the words you’re reading here and now. Likewise, the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. One is a perfectly acceptable position among most in society while the other makes you sound like a dangerous lunatic to far too many people.
They see the Second Amendment as not warranting the same level of protection.
That’s a big issue, and that’s the hurdle we have to clear if we want to make our right safe for future generations.
Read the full article here
