All the recent discussions about our constitutional rights and losing them or preserving them, got me thinking about the concept of a social contract. I found several definitions of social contract at thefreedictionary.com. Here is one, “the agreement among individuals by which society becomes organized and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare.” And another, “ a usually implicit agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.” I learned that this concept is an old one, debated by philosophers for centuries. One of the definitions implies that there is a trade-off. To obtain a degree of protection and security, some individual actions are curtailed.
I also looked at the first ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights of our U. S. Constitution. These cover freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, the right to keep and bear arms, to not shelter soldiers, protection from unreasonable property searches, protection from testifying against oneself, the right to a fair and speedy trial, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Also protected are any rights not listed, and any powers not given to the federal government.
For me, considering the definitions of a social contract and the bill of rights makes clear that these rights are in a constant tension between individual freedoms and societal needs for security and protection. For example, freedom of speech does not cover speech deemed to incite “immediate, imminent intent to do violence”, the proverbial yell of “fire” in a crowded movie theater. As well, the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment has changed for our society over time. Some methods for executing convicted criminals now seem barbaric, such as the electric chair or hanging. As well, some of the rights are to a degree aspirational. Can it be guaranteed that U.S. citizens will always have a fair and speedy trial? I want to illustrate that the rights noted in our Bill of Rights are sometimes hard to pin down, are a moving target, or are sometimes enacted imperfectly.
So back to the social contract and Our Bill of Rights. On reflection they are not hard and fast. They have been and are open to debate and change. That being said, could all this not be applied to the second amendment as well? Where is the balance between individual actions and societal security and wellbeing in the second amendment? Can we find that balance for this point in time in our culture?
I end with one last thought in the form of this question, is the passion about gun owners’ rights really about guns, or is it actually about something else?