In general, when we talk about the rights secured by the Bill of Rights, we recognize both in law and in our rhetoric that the rights are not absolute. There are necessarily gradations and the gradations are reflected/embodied in statute, regulation, or case law.
Freedom of Religion isn’t absolute. The practice of one’s religion cannot physically harm others without their consent. And some states do not allow the parents of a sick child to refuse treatment on religious grounds.
Freedom of the Press isn’t absolute. A reporter could, under certain circumstances, be compelled to divulge a source (as in the case of an imminent attack).
Freedom to Assemble isn’t absolute. The assembly must be done in a lawful manner (permits, typically), can’t block a thoroughfare, etc.
Freedom of Speech isn’t absolute (fighting words, incitement to criminal action, clear and present danger, etc.).
Likewise, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn’t absolute. All states have some restrictions on who can buy guns, typically have some form of background check, often require registration for certain kinds of weapons, etc.
We all live with and accept this legal regime with respect to our fundamental freedoms. There are restrictions, exceptions, regulations. That’s the water in which we swim. And we aren’t less free for these exceptions, restrictions, and regulations. In general, they just make our society a more reasonable, rational place to live.
Importantly, the nature of these exceptions, restrictions, and regulations change over time. They change as new laws or regulations are passed, they change as courts interpret novel fact patterns and refine underlying legal principles, etc.
That, too, is the water in which we swim. And, for the most part, when we talk about new proposed regulations, restrictions, and exceptions to these otherwise fundamental rights, we evaluate them with an eye toward whether they make sense — whether they make society more reasonable and rational — given the underlying fact pattern.
The exception is the way gun rights advocates think about and talk about Second Amendment rights.
The rhetoric around guns by 2A advocates is often apocalyptic. And there’s a reason for that, and the reason is the NRA (foremost) and right-wing conspiracy sites/outlets (secondarily).
From my cold dead hands. Gun grabbers. Jackbooted thugs. New world order. The Takeover.
This is the language of the NRA and (by extension) the language of gun rights advocates. It relies on the conceit that some shadowy force in the government is ready to seize all guns and impose a nefarious plot/rule on the citizenry, and that only the ubiquity of armed patriots has prevented this, and furthermore every armed patriot must stand ready to fight when the tanks in Operation Takeover roll down Main Street.
Most of us see this for the fanciful nonsense it is. But the NRA has been using this kind of approach literally for decades (read UNDER FIRE, by Osha Gray Davidson). Gun rights advocates have internalized this to such a degree that it permeates the rhetoric and thinking around gun ownership. As a result, the kind of reasonable discussion that we can have about other fundamental rights can’t be had about gun rights.
What strikes me as so strange about this is that the rhetoric flies in the face of reality. Meaning, for decades the NRA has portrayed most (if not all) restrictions on gun ownership or transfer as the kind of attack on gun owner’s rights that must needs invariably lead to the seizure of all weapons. BE VIGILANT, FELLOW PATRIOTS!
And yet, as I mention above, the water in which we swim is always changing, and we’ve had many changes to gun laws over the decades. Some of those were more restrictive than the status quo at the time (think the Assault Weapon Ban under WJC). And as those changes were contemplated, the NRA and gun rights activists pulled out the same apocalyptic rhetoric that comes out every time. DON’T TREAD ON ME, LIBTARD GUN GRABBERS!
But of course the apocalypse and Operation Takeover didn’t come, even when gun rights have been restricted in some sense. And it never will come, because it’s fanciful, adolescent nonsense.
See, if we could talk about gun rights in the same way that we talk about other fundamental rights (e.g., Does this proposed course of action make sense? Does it make society more reasonable or rational? Is it worth a limit on our freedoms?), we might be able to make some progress.
But I don’t think we will, unfortunately. I think the NRA and various conspiracy theory outlets have an abiding interest in creating apocalyptic hysteria in their supporters, listeners/watchers, convincing them that any attempt to regulate guns is really the secret first step in Operation Takeover. And it doesn’t matter that gun regulations have changed over the years, that the NRA has deployed the same language every time, and that the takeover hasn’t come.
The NRA understands well the water in which we swim, but it tries to make its supporters the goldfish who don’t remember yesterday, who see an existential threat to gun ownership in any proposed regulation, and for whom the little plastic castle is a surprise every time (h/t Ms. DiFranco).