Why Background Checks and Gun Control Aren't Equivalent to Withdrawing Americans' Right to Own Guns

The debate around background checks and gun control is complex and often riddled with misinformation. One common argument is that background checks and gun control are equivalent to the right to own guns. This article aims to clarify this misconception and provide a detailed explanation for why these measures are not the same as withdrawing the constitutional right to own guns.

Subjectivity of Simplicity and Compellingness

The concept of a "simple and compelling" explanation is subjective. What one person finds easy to understand, another may find complicated. However, there is a straightforward explanation: background checks and gun control laws do not equate to the withdrawal of firearm ownership rights. These measures are merely tools to enhance public safety and are distinct from infringing on constitutional rights.

Gradual Shifts and Parallel Processes

The analogy of frog boiling in slowly warming water can be applied to the gradual erosion of individual rights. In the 1960s, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals suggested that societal changes should be progressive and subtle. Similarly, C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters advised against immediately enticing individuals to commit severe sins, but rather to introduce small, insidious changes over time. This gradual process can result in significant transformations without immediate awareness.

Background checks and gun control measures are akin to gradual systemic changes that do not, in themselves, deny constitutional rights. These measures, part of a larger societal evolution, focus on safety and responsible ownership rather than outright prohibition.

Debate on Voter ID Laws

The debate on Voter ID laws reflects a similar complexity. Critics argue that stringent voter identification requirements can be discriminatory, especially against minority voters. Yet, it's important to note that firearm purchases also require government-issued photo IDs and background checks. Therefore, the application of background checks in the context of gun ownership does not inherently infringe on constitutional rights. However, if such measures disproportionately affect certain voter demographics, a deeper examination is warranted.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others argue that these measures could be seen as discriminatory. If the ACLU's assessment is correct and these measures are indeed discriminatory, then applying the same requirements to firearm purchases compounds the issue and may violate constitutional rights. On the other hand, if the assessment is incorrect, there is no issue with the measures in place.

Logical Inconsistency in the Argument

The argument against background checks and gun control is inherently logically inconsistent when compared to other civil rights, such as the right to vote. The right to vote and the right to firearm ownership are both enshrined in the Constitution, and the application of similar measures (ID requirement and background check) to both rights creates a paradox.

If background checks and ID requirements are seen as discriminatory in the context of voting, then applying these same measures to gun ownership is inconsistent and arguably unfair. This inconsistency highlights the need for a balanced approach to ensure both public safety and individual rights are protected.

Understanding the distinction between these measures and the constitutional right to own guns is crucial for fostering a more informed and nuanced debate. By recognizing the subtle differences between enhancing public safety and infringing on constitutional rights, we can work towards policies that promote both safety and individual freedoms.