enkidu's Journal: What freedom is about

Here's a letter I wrote to Nicholas Kristof, one of the newer editorial writers at the NYTimes, after he wrote an editorial stating that Yemen, where practically everybody who travelled carried an assault rifle for protection from bandits, was NRA "heaven". He also stated that all people who dislike gun registration laws should move to Yemen since you could own any weapon you wanted.

Dear Mr. Kristof:

Let me salute your willingness to get even *more* email than before. I hope my letter is one of the ones which makes a strong argument. Feel free to respond through any of the means I provide below. However, I would like to ask that you don't disseminate my phone number.

I am a liberal in terms of social policy: I believe the government has no right deciding what I should be able to read, write, watch or do in the privacy of my own home. I support gay marriage and the right of a women to have an abortion. I am also a gun owner and enjoy the shooting sports.

Your statement "And if you're so bothered by gun registration, and so convinced that guns don't kill people, then consider moving to a nice mud-brick home here in Suq al-Talh. With you and everybody else carrying around an assault rifle, with armor-piercing rounds in your bandolier, with a couple of grenades in your pockets, you'll really feel safe. You'll love the freedom!" I find offensive and facile: you equate the freedom sought by gun owners with lawlessness. A classic strawman argument; surely you can do better than that!

I have no objection to gun registration (all of my guns are registered in accordance with all state and federal laws). I do not object to law and order. If you are trying to argue that the N.R.A. is against law and order, one could argue that the A.C.L.U. is against child abuse laws.

As an intelligent man, you are aware that true freedom is a balancing act between unrestrained freedom and respect for other peoples freedom in the form of law and order. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins", to quote the great Justice Holmes. Yemen is one area where people have less freedom because of the lack of respect for others rights and a lack of enforcement of that respect. Lots of bloody noses in Yemen. America has always been a place where respect for others rights was held in the highest regard. In last century, some of the exceptions to this respect have been in the areas of alchohol, abortion and guns. All of these attempts criminalized objects or acts which do not affect other citizens or their rights.

So, how are your rights enhanced by preventing my from purchasing a target pistol (Hammerli 602) [enkidu: Actually, this is not true, the Hammerli is exempt from some CA gun laws due to an Olympic pistol exemption. A correct example would be a Thompson/Center Arms single shot Contender pistol, a target pistol used in NRA sanctioned silhouette shooting, but banned by the CA DOJ.] not approved by the CA DOJ? Granted, you may feel safer. But I could also claim that I feel safer if you didn't have a book on building bombs in your house. Or that I would feel safer if you didn't have that sports car in your garage ('cause my kids like to play in the street). Frankly, I'd feel much much better if you didn't have that Scotch in your cupboard and the sports car in your garage. Laws which restrict others rights with no urgent social neccessity have been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court. And rightly so. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the freedoms and rights of the few against the will of the many.

Laws make it illegal for me to shoot my neighbor. Laws make it illegal for me to drink a bottle for Scotch and drive my car on public roads. Laws make it illegal for me to use a bulldozer to raze my neighborhood without permission. Laws make illegal my shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Laws make illegal my throwing a molotov cocktail at someone's house. However, laws don't and shouldn't prevent my owning gasoline, a bottle and a handkerchief. Laws don't muzzle me when I'm in a theatre for fear I may falsely yell "FIRE". Laws don't restrict me from owning both Scotch and a sports car, or even buying scotch while driving a sports car. Laws don't restrict me from owning bulldozers and driving them around on my property (provided the noise doesn't disturb the neighbors of course). Laws should not restrict me (provided I have committed no felony or am not mentally disabled) from owning firearms which I use in a safe manner in areas allowed by law.

I object to the increasing criminalization of the simple ownership of objects and not the acts of using them in ways which infringe upon the rights of others. Laws should not make criminals of people who respect other peoples' rights and freedoms.

Yes, guns are dangerous. So is dynamite. So are baseball bats. So are bows and arrows. So are fast cars. So is propane. So is fertilizer. So are planes. So are knives. So are swords. So is gasoline. So is alchohol.

Once we start down the slippery path of deciding which objects for individual use are too dangerous for individuals to simply own, we start down the dangerous path of criminalizing people who have not, have not planned to, and have no intention of committing any crimes.

There are other more constitutional arguments with which I will not bore you, not that they hold any less validity. There are also arguments centered around the right to self-defense and the preservation of one's existence. I feel that all of these are secondary to one of the most fundamental tenets of freedom, for which America and it's constitution stand: the right to be let alone. Leave me alone. I have committed no crime. I have never conspired to commit a crime. Why are you trying to criminalize me simply because of the company I keep and the objects I own?

I leave you with one more quote from the great justice: "To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man."

Sincerely,

[snip]
Software Engineer and Independent Voter