Individual rights vs communal rights

The clash of values between individual civil liberties and the good of the community is tested again and again in the contemporary United States. It's there in the free speech rights of the Phelps clan to demonstrate their vengeful god's anger vs the rights of families to bury their innocent dead in peace; it's there in the so-called Second Amendment rights to own weapons of mass killing vs the community's right to safety from irresponsibly insane killers; it's there in the dubious rights of corporations to use their enormous wealth to anonymously influence the democratic process of our elections; and it's there in the ever-increasing, intrusive scrutiny of our bodies at airport security check-points.

We're reminded this week by a Russian journalist and by Chinese bloggers that Tucson is the price we Americans pay for freedom. The Tucson massacre would not have happened in either Russia or China -- first because government officials don't appear at such rallies without massive security measures, and second because their people are not so heavily armed.

Is the price worth paying? As hard as it is to say so in the wake of such awful personal and particular losses, how much freedom are we willing to give up to avoid the loss of innocent life?

It will always be a hard choice, and perhaps a shifting choice over time, between freedom and safety. Personally, I abhor guns, hunting, and gun glorification; so for me personally there's not a whit of loss in strict gun control. But that's a personal preference.

Putting that aside, I do not see how it can be justified to allow people free ownership of guns and ammo that are designed for nothing other than the rapid killing of large numbers of people. No hunter has any need for assault rifles or handguns that fire 33 rounds without reloading.

Obviously the other side can't argue it from a rational basis. For them, it's symbolic -- either what gun-power means to them psychologically or just the idea of having no governmental power restricting you.

There are precedents aplenty, however, if the courts want to use them: we have strict regulations that control the sale of prescription drugs; we have strict regulations that require licenses to fly airplanes and where those planes can to flown; and we even have regulations over who can get a license to operate a beauty salon -- to dye your hair, for crying out loud. Why can't we have stricter control of guns?

It's a psychological thing -- all bound up in our alpha male ideals and deep-seated anxieties about masculinity. And it's enforced by the lobbying clout and money of the NRA. You might say it's our testosterone-addicted society.

The simplest solution would combine biochemistry and the ballot box: vote for women candidates until we have a majority of women in our legislative bodies.

Ralph