|
Courtesy Hartford Courant, Josiah H. Brown All content is copyrighted and may not be republished or
distributed without permission. |
|
Published: |
Monday, August 23, 1999 |
Edition: |
STATEWIDE |
|
Page: |
A11 |
Type: |
OPINION |
|
Section: |
EDITORIAL |
Source: |
JOSIAH
H. BROWN |
|
Column: |
|
Series: |
|
|
|
|
HAMILTON
WOULD HAVE EMBRACED GUN CONTROL Dissed by a former secretary of the
Treasury, the vice president killed him with a handgun. As shocking as it
sounds, that was the reality 195 years ago when Aaron Burr fatally shot
Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Himself a critic of the practice that would
take his life at age 49, Hamilton had reluctantly engaged in the duel, with
borrowed pistols, only as a matter of honor and purposely missed Burr when it
came time to fire. This historical oddity takes on special
resonance in a year when the rampage of Buford O. Furrow and the Columbine
High School shootings have focused attention on gun violence. Hamilton's
death reminds us that such violence has a long history in America. Still, the
tendency of gang members or otherwise angry (or deranged) people to resort to
firearms has increased over recent decades. Even if that dangerous trend may
be slowing, as the widespread abatement of crime during the last few years
would suggest, the pervasiveness of handguns, combined with the extreme
insecurities or delusions of troubled individuals, should make us wary. Fortunately, if the availability of
guns and the impulse to defend one's honor violently have persisted through
the centuries, so has the ability of the American people and government to
address such challenges. The manipulation of historical actors to serve
contemporary political purposes is inherently speculative and therefore
limited in its application. That said, if Hamilton would have chosen to
become a martyr for anything, it would have been to fortify the pragmatic
federal system of government that he helped to create. He would not have viewed the Second
Amendment as a serious impediment to the reasonable control of guns. Whether
via the ``necessary and proper'' clause or by virtue of its basic thrust,
Hamilton would have recognized in the Constitution the power of the federal
government to counter evident problems such as gun violence. He would have
frowned on the protests of the National Rifle Association, just as he (a
military veteran of the Revolution) advocated a firm response to the Whiskey
Rebellion of anti-tax insurgents. Hamilton died because he agreed to
participate in a ritual of honor, the duel, which went against his better
judgment. He deplored dueling, which had taken the life of his son Philip
and, he believed, contravened ``the principle of natural justice, that no man
shall be the avenger of his own wrongs, especially by a deed, alike
interdicted by the laws of God and of man.'' Nearly 200 years later, Alexander
Hamilton (not to mention his widow, Elizabeth) would have lamented the modern
parallels to dueling, whether common murders of vengeance or the escalation
of petty disputes -- over traffic collisions, perceived disrespect or
competition for women or drug-dealing corners -- which, too often, end with a
blaze of bullets. He would have advocated strengthening
the hand of authorities, both through federal law and local police, to defuse
such disorder -- if necessary, by significantly restricting access to guns. Given the chance to return to Congress
or the Cabinet, he would have considered measures such as a three-day waiting
period at gun shows or a one-gun-a-month limit, the minimum steps a
government should take to protect its citizens. Hamilton would have understood that
enacting such measures over the opposition of the NRA would bring honor to
lawmakers, and save lives. |