I still remember the day my brother didn’t answer his cell phone. On February 14, 2008, a local Chicago radio station reported that a shooter had gunned down several students at Northern Illinois University, the school that my brother David was then attending.
Thank God for Dave’s penchant for working out: he was at the gym and not in Cole Hall that fateful day. Yet, in that hour before my phone rang, I glimpsed the horror of gun violence.
My experience has made me aware of how easily the gun rights issue becomes emotionally charged. While Craig R. Whitney understands the sensitivity of this topic as well, he attempts to bypass the gun rights stalemate in his book “Living with Guns: A Liberal’s Case for the Second Amendment.” Frustrated that every gun-rights debate “degenerates into a hysteria that may win elections…but changes nothing,” Whitney aims to spark intelligent discussion about firearms that will actually lead to effective solutions. By approaching the Second Amendment from a historical perspective, Whitney concludes that firearms played such a crucial role in American history that the country cannot nearly abolish guns; he believes, however, that common-sense steps such as thorough background checks will prevent tragedies involving guns without trampling Second Amendment rights.
From a political standpoint, Whitney definitely leans left. He is a National Rifle Association member, but he criticizes NRA leadership for its hostility to what he believes are practical solutions to gun violence. He also devotes several pages to a defense of President Obama, claiming that Republicans overestimate his anti-gun stance. Nonetheless, Whitney focuses more on the historical than the political, and readily critiques both conservative and liberal agendas.
The strength of Whitney’s book comes largely from his willingness to look backward. Whether surveying founding documents or twentieth century court cases, Whitney draws upon history to track the transformation of the role of firearms in American society. Jamestown, Virginia survived because the colonists used firearms to defend themselves against Native Americans.
Unsurprisingly, guns also played an indispensable role in the Revolutionary War. Based on documents of the founding period –– a letter from John Adams, the constitutions of several states, and records of Massachusetts town hall meetings, to name a few –– Whitney argues that the right to keep and bear arms was directly linked with participation in the local militia.
The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights not to protect the right to hunt or defend oneself –– these were common law rights long unquestioned –– but to enable men to carry out their duty as citizen soldiers. Nor did men ever possess guns free from restrictions. Whitney cites several examples of eighteenth century cities such as Boston, New York, and Philadelphia that passed regulations on the bearing and use of firearms within city limits.
After establishing an understanding of the original meaning of the Second Amendment, Whitney goes on to describe the decline of the militia over the next century and the subsequent transformation of the Second Amendment from a right to serve in the militia to a personal right to self-defense.
In addition to historical research, Whitney considers modern-day statistics to discern what modern firearms policies are most effective. From his research, he constructs a spectrum of recommendations that he believes do little to curtail gun rights but much to prevent gun violence. For example, Whitney pushes for tougher sentencing of straw purchasers who buy the guns used in killings but often escape punishment by testifying in court. He also believes that requiring all gun sellers to clear buyers through the National Instant Check System, a program run by the FBI, will prevent many violent or mentally ill people from obtaining guns. Whitney strengthens this recommendation by pointing out that shooters such as Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia Tech shooting could not have gotten their firearms if subjected to standard background checks.
By drawing from history, court decisions, and interviews from activists on both sides, Living with Guns provides a refreshing perspective and attempts to offer a bi-partisan solution. Its author does not demonize guns: if a man is bent on killing another, Whitney admits, he will find a means to inflict harm whether he has a gun or not. Since Whitney discloses his political leanings in the book’s title, the reader can consider his ideas without fearing a hidden agenda. For those who want to participate in an intelligent discussion on gun rights, Whitney’s book proves a helpful starting point. Both conservatives and liberals may disagree with the author’s conclusions, but by giving thought to Whitney’s position they will at least open the door to fruitful debate. Nowadays—especially when the subject is the regulation of lock, stock, and barrel—that’s a welcome thought.
mdanaher@hillsdale.edu