The cry of the rights of the individual to protect oneself is an oft repeated mantra. So much so that the other side of the debate concerning the proper limits of personal freedoms has been woefully obscured in arguments of straw men, red herrings and ad hominem.
Much has been said about values, but many seem to be belaboring under the mistaken assumption that values are an all or nothing game. A mere precursory survey of ethics or legal jurisprudence will however, quickly reveal an intractably more complex equation. One of the more vexing realizations is that societal values often compete with one another.
In this particular case, there is a tug-of-war between public safety and individual freedom. Of course, this is an age-old dichotomy that has taken innumerable forms throughout the years. Admittedly, many of these difficulties produce less than desirable choices and results.
Often times, there simply is no perfect answer to such insoluble problems. Thus value judgements must be made. In the case of the second amendment, context is essential. The second amendment reads as follows:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Within jurisprudence it is important to understand the difference and relationship between principles of law and statutory laws as such. Principles are the source from which rules must draw their color and tone.
Fortunately the guiding principle for the second amendment is conveniently located within the text itself. The operative phrase is “necessary to the security of a free state.” This clearly indicates that laws regulating weapons should be orientated towards improving the security of the people. It is not a carte blanche.
As many political philosophers have noted; entering into a societal contract necessarily means relinquishing certain freedoms enjoyed in the state of nature. This means that sometimes the needs of the many will be weighed against the wants of the few for the sake of societal cohesion.
In that spirit then the question of whether or not to allow concealed carry on college campuses must be framed in the context of what is best for the overall security. The focus must be comprehensive taking into account the unique circumstances that the college population presents. This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the pro-carry rhetoric that stresses personal security ad nauseum to the explicit exclusion of the needs of the many.
Comments