THE ONE RIGHT-WING AMENDMENT

The Second Amendment is the only distinctly political-leaning right of the Constitution. It wasn't drafted with that purpose or intention, but it has become so by culture and demographics. Maybe this is a too-seldom-discussed reason for the vehemence of our conflict over guns and gun control. Ironically, even raising the issue will raise eyebrows and prompt attacks of relegating the Second Amendment to the status of "Redneck Amendment." But it's worth raising in spite of the likelihood of that misconstruing.

There are two things unique about the Second Amendment. The first is the sensed "protected class," which is primarily gun owners and enthusiasts. It is not, at least now, the populace at large. The second is that the Second Amendment is the only one focused primarily on a tangible thing rather than a concept, a principle, or an abstract idea. It is the merging of these two aspects of the Second Amendment that make it so polarizing: it specifies a thing to be protected, and that thing is valued more highly by one side of our political divide. That makes it personal, even visceral, for gun owners and enthusiasts.

For many of us on the left, the Second Amendment is decidedly second-rate in terms of what it protects. It touches on a "right" to have a tangible object we don't perceive as essential, a "right" the loss or curtailment of which is probably less concerning than any right protected by the other nine amendments. (It may be that the Third Amendment, protecting us all from having the state force us to board soldiers in our houses, is viewed universally as more expendable, but there's no particular left or right slant to the Third Amendment.)

The sensed "protected class" of all the other rights in the Bill of Rights is the American citizenry at large. Everyone senses benefit in having the state neither promote nor thwart the practice of any particular religion, born-again Christians and socialist atheists alike. All of us see merit in free speech, press, assembly, and petition for everyone equally. (Of course, we divide along conservative/progressive lines as to what infringes those rights, but we all assert that the abstract rights themselves are valuable in similar measure to everybody.)

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments all grant protections to the individual against overreach by law enforcement and the judicial system in criminal matters (with the exception of the Fifth Amendment's provision against the state's taking private property without just compensation). While some might consider the "protected class" to be criminals or the criminally-inclined, that's a misconception. While criminal rights are and must be extended to the guilty as well as the innocent, the sensed class protected is all Americans.

The Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, providing for jury trials, for protection of other possible rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and for limiting federal reach to only those powers specifically granted in the Constitution, are likewise universally applicable to all citizens.

The Second Amendment is unique in its application to a fairly homogeneous and identifiable group, protecting a thing valued highly by the group. It's likely true that more Americans would "surrender" aspects of gun ownership, happily forgo them, than we'd surrender any other in the Bill of Rights. I own several guns because of a gun attack on a family residence years ago (no one was physically hurt). I grew up with rifles and handguns and enjoyed "plinking" in adolescence. Having restrictions placed on the guns I own, even forfeiting a tactical shotgun I bought in the wake of the family house shooting, wouldn't disturb me. I'd see it as no more intrusive or freedom-compromising than the requirement that I drive on the right side of the road and keep an up-to-date inspection sticker on my car. To me and many others, the right to keep and bear arms is the least essential, in fact the most extravagant, of the enumerated rights. That may be because it has to do with a tangible thing, and the use and ownership of tangible things are routinely regulated in the public interest. It may also be because I see guns as inherently dangerous, especially subject to misuse, and too associated with destruction. Agreed, a free press is dangerous and abusable and potentially destructive. So are religion and people gathering in crowds. All of our rights can be dangerous if abused. But I can honestly say I could move to a country that bars private ownership of guns without any qualms. I'd be unwilling to move somewhere I could be arrested for writing an essay or could be made to attend "worship" of this or that god.

Another way to express it is that keeping and bearing arms is the least visceral of the enumerated rights to me. I accept that people value and enjoy guns, but having and using them without restrictions or significant safeguards will never seem essential to me. Based on many polling results, it seems fair to say that the Second Amendment is the only one any appreciable number of Americans would support further curtailing at all.

There's an unfortunate confluence of what is objectively probably the least-treasured right by percentage and the political leaning of those who most treasure that right. The vehement opposition to gun control is not only mostly limited to conservatives, but it's essentially mandatory for conservatives to remain in good standing in their communities. It's easy to see that people who might otherwise readily agree that assault rifles ought to be better regulated don't feel free to express that because it's perceived as a sort of class betrayal. A conservative might well feel that it's not guns the left wants to regulate and even ban, but he himself. That person likely will never accept that unfettered ownership of guns involves more potential social cost and danger, and affords less social benefit, than the other enumerated rights. He’ll see the Second Amendment as precisely equal to the other rights, and he'll see any push to restrict guns as a declaration that his rights aren't equal to everyone else's. For him, the Second Amendment is the most visceral right, because it is the most conspicuously right-wing of all the rights.

It's hard to come up with an analogy of any right that so clearly favors a different group or class, simply because the Second Amendment is uniquely class-sensitive and thing-oriented. But analogies can be imagined in terms of legislation. A law saying hip-hop music can't be played publicly above a certain decibel level would be rightly attacked as having nothing to do with noise concerns or disturbance of the peace. It would rightly be seen as a class/race insult. A law limiting opera performances to certain auditoriums would rightly be attacked as having nothing to do with building codes or safety. It would be properly seen as a class insult. A law establishing limits on NASCAR events but waiving those limits for Formula 1 events at the same facilities? Another class insult.

It does little good to argue that guns present different dangers than speech or assembly, or that more laxity in regulating speech is socially useful in ways laxity in gun control is not. It does little good to say the Second Amendment highlights a tangible thing more than any other right. It does no good to say hip-hop, opera, and car racing don't pose as much threat as guns, or to say our rights with regard to cars, poisons, prescription and other drugs, and explosives are all highly regulated. Any gun control issue in this country will inevitably be seen as a class issue, as a right-versus-left issue, by those most vested in gun ownership as a social identifier. Rational proposals and arguments simply can't touch our vast divergence of views.

Written June 1, 2022
©2022 Lawrence Helms