By John F. Di Leo -
Most people enter politics for one of two purposes: to solve problems or to acquire power.
The hope, of course, is that these are tied together: that the reason for acquiring power is only to solve problems. Unfortunately, many in politics desire power for its own sake. Still, we Americans cling to the hope that we can usually assume the best of intentions in our political candidates, so we hope that their desire is truly to solve the problems of the day.
In a constitutional republic, there are generally two ways of approaching these challenges: liberals want to harness the levers of government to approach the problem, while conservatives, in obedience to the Constitution, strive to solve problems by getting the government out of the way, so the private sector can solve them, more safely and successfully than the government could.
The current debate over red flag laws – and other efforts to deal with mass shootings – is a classic example.
The left wants to use the powers of government to take firearms away from anyone who might misuse them. The right recognizes the constitutional obligation to obey the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” so the right seeks other solutions.
Note that the amendment does not say, “people we don’t like,” “people we don’t trust,” or “people who make us uncomfortable.”
The Constitution covers law-abiding citizens. Period.
If you have been convicted of a crime, and are incarcerated, then of course you can be forbidden the use of weapons while in jail or while under the conditions of release, as part of a sentence.
But the government cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms from law-abiding citizens who have not yet committed crimes. The constitution is clear in this matter, so the idea of red flag laws is a nonstarter, legally.
But what if we were to amend the Constitution, and legally included a provision for red flag laws into our ruling document? What then?
Well, even then, we would have a challenge, because red flag laws are – by definition – terribly susceptible to subjectivity and abuse.
To put it bluntly, the idea is that the government would only ban guns from people deemed unworthy of trust.
But who gets to decide? Who gets to make that call?
In truth, the biggest problem with red flag laws is not even the fact that they are unconstitutional. It is the fact that, even if they were legal, they would be utterly unworkable.
The Lord of the Rings
In one of the great literary achievements of the 20th century, J.R.R. Tolkien created the world of Middle Earth, in his effort to build a mythos for the English people.
At the center of his story is a ring, a special ring, a ring of power: a magical instrument created 3000 years earlier by a demon named Sauron.
This “One Ring” gives its wearer immense power – to do good or evil… But since the ring is inherently malevolent, it will always twist the user toward evil in the end, no matter how well-intentioned may have been the user’s plan at the outset.
The story of The Lord of the Rings concerns the current wearer’s effort to destroy the ring utterly, by melting it away in the fire in which it was built, a volcano called Mount Doom, in the miserable, far-off country of Mordor.
Along the way, Frodo Baggins twice offers it to heroes: first to the wizard Gandalf, and then to the elf queen Galadriel.
In each case, grateful for Frodo’s trust, but terrified of the power being offered, our heroes consider both the potential benefits and risks of accepting the offer.
Gandalf has had some 60 years to ponder, so he came to his decision quickly, and refused.
Galadriel, by contrast, had never considered the possibility, never having expected to have it dropped in her lap like this, so she spent a minute in serious contemplation.
She envisions a world made more beautiful and safe with her power… momentarily basks in pride, then sees how she knows it would end: she would inevitably go too far, and she would be transformed into the very tyrant that she fights today.
She would be consumed by this power, and be transformed into a demon herself.
Wisely, therefore, she declines the offer, and sends Frodo back on his quest, to do the right thing, the only thing: to destroy this ring of power.
Some tools – like knives and guns – are not corrupt themselves, and can be used for good or evil, depending on their bearer.
But some other tools – represented in LotR by the “ring of power” created by Sauron – however powerful they may be, do indeed have an ethical bent of their own, and will eventually result in evil. There is no other way.
The Firearm and the Red Flag Law
The story of the Lord of the Rings is like a thousand other epic tales, in that it includes swords, shields, cannons, catapults… foot soldiers and officers, ships and sailors, civilians and rulers.
J.R.R. Tolkien used the same tools in his fiction that we use in real life, for the most part. He showed that a sword, dagger, or mace are not themselves good or bad; it depends on the person who wields them.
By contrast, the One Ring is a special tool that is malevolent in itself; it is a weapon of such immense power that it cannot be controlled, and must ultimately turn to evil.
Recent mass killings – executed by socialist psychopaths in El Paso and Dayton – have prompted a fresh call for “Red Flag Laws,” proposals to allow government to identify potential risks before they have committed any crimes, and disarm them.
The red flag laws, through all the variants currently under consideration – along with most forms of gun control, in fact – are tools of government.
By definition, these tools of government cannot be wielded by individual freemen; they are weapons designed by government… perhaps with the best of intentions, but nevertheless, weapons of government all the same.
A weapon of government is different from a common tool like a firearm, a knife, a mallet, or a club. Since governments themselves naturally incline toward tyranny, weapons of government incline toward tyranny just as naturally.
We have a Constitution precisely because our founding fathers recognized this immutable fact of life.
The Framers restricted government, by restricting its weapons. The Constitution is a long list of restrictions on the tools that government can use… not because they don’t want government to do good, but because they knew that anything government has the power to do, it has the power to do maliciously.
In fact, no matter what government hopes to accomplish, it always tends to go too far, usually with utterly destructive results.
Case in point: “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” This is a well-known saying, familiar to all… but many today assume that this saying is limited to economic issues.
It is not.
In fact, all government power has the same risk. That is why our Framers worked so hard to protect us from government excess.
In a red flag law, a person who has committed no crime, yet, is imagined to be a threat, by some fellow citizen. This assumption may be right, or it may be wrong; giving government the power to punish before the commission of a crime is simply a step too far. Infinitely too far.
Imagine a nation in which your every comment on Facebook, your every exclamation in conversation, your every outburst in anger, can be used to deny you your constitutional rights. Jokes, sarcasm, and even exaggeration put you at risk because not every evaluator will get your sense of humor or recognize your way of making a point.
The conservative must then fear the power of the liberal; the liberal must fear the power of the conservative. The ugly must fear the beautiful; the beautiful must fear the ugly. The popular must fear the unpopular; the unpopular must fear the popular.
Yes indeed, the occasional mass killings that fill our news pages – all too often – are terrible; it is a horror when they occur… But it would be a greater horror if they were used as justification for the outright transformation of America, from a free country into a tyranny.
In the Lord of the Rings, when Galadriel refuses Frodo’s offer to take the One Ring, she is saddened at the loss of the opportunity that her decision must necessarily cause, but she is happily able to say “I will remain Galadriel.”
In the same way, America today must recognize that, despite the good intentions that a red flag law might appear to promise to the gullible and the short-sighted, the ultimate result would be an end to the free nation that our Founders – with the help of Divine Providence – blessed us with.
Like Galadriel, we must refuse the Trojan horse of the red flag law proposal. There are other, better solutions to violence and crime.
We must decline this shiny and tempting offer, and remain the United States of America.
Copyright 2019 John F Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international trade professional, writer and actor. His columns are found regularly in Illinois Review.
Don’t miss an article! Use the tool in the margin to sign up for Illinois Review’s free email notification alerts so that you’re notified whenever Illinois Review publishes new content!
