Deliberative Humility and Achieving Agreements
Fred Baerkircher of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio wrote a very thoughtful letter to the editor that appeared in today’s Beacon, reprinted in its entirety below, in italics.

The Jan. 9 letter, “Unambiguous right,” took issue with another writer’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The crux of the criticism was a citation of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary that defined militia at the time of the Constitution’s writing as “the whole of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.” The idea is that the Second Amendment then guarantees unfettered access to weaponry for everyone, except, presumably, females.

First good point.  The argument Fred is challenging would exclude only women from owning firearms and this is presumably not what the Jan 9 letter writer intended to argue.

If it were so easy to settle questions of constitutional intent, we would probably have a good deal fewer scholars on the subject.

Worth noting both Fred’s ability to be concise (a skill I lack) and the importance of this point: Constitutional controversies are complicated and one common weakness, exhibited in one form in the Jan 9 letter, to argue as if one’s favored position was ‘simply common sense’ and (below) to do so by saying ‘see, the dictionary says so.’

But even if one does regard the word of a dictionary as settling the issue (the Constitution makes clear that it is the supreme law of the land, rather than any reference book), the citation is incomplete and incorrect.

First, the Merriam-Webster dictionary did not exist until the mid-1800s, not, as the writer stated, at the time of the Second Amendment’s writing. Second, I find it unlikely the letter writer has access to one of those first-run dictionaries, and modern versions do not give any kind of indication when a given term’s definition was cemented or its evolution.

In other words, the framers definitely weren’t going to Webster for their terminology, and their use of the term may well have meant something entirely different.

Brilliant on two levels.  First, the Jan 9 reference to the dictionary is not correct; the framers almost certainly could not have relied on Webster’s in the way the Jan 9 letter writer is asserting.  Second, notice that Fred refrains from concluding that the Jan 9 letter writer does not even understand his own argument.  Fred is demonstrating the restraint and respect needed to ensure that a even a persuasive argument remains an invitation to engage in conversation, so we might all learn more about the issues we are trying to figure out and about how to make more persuasive arguments.

The current edition of that dictionary does indeed include the letter writer’s understanding of the term as including all male citizens, but only as the last of three definitions.

The other definitions list militia as being a part of the organized armed services, and a body of citizens organized for defense. The omission of those other definitions, either of which would hold vastly different consequences for our nation’s gun laws, is rather telling.

Here Fred follows his powerful left jab with a whopping right hook for the knock out.  Not only is it inaccurate to assert that the framers used Webster’s and that we ought to expect the Supreme Court to defer to this reading today…but if we were to use the Jan 9 letter writer’s own (incorrect) standard we immediately discover that even by that (inaccurate) standard the conclusions drawn by the Jan 9 letter writer remain incomplete. Why?  The Webster’s definition has three parts and the two parts left out by the Jan 9 letter writer point in the exact opposite direction in terms of Constitutional interpretation…refuting the Jan 9 letter writer’s argument with his own evidence.

My own view of the Second Amendment, like that of probably most Americans, is complicated and liable to fluctuations by situation. I don’t claim to have all the answers. But I do know that tossing around citations that don’t mean what is claimed, or that don’t actually exist, will not help anyone reach an understanding of this complex issue.

After advancing a thoughtful and carefully measured argument an author has earned the right to be listened to more carefully than we otherwise might, because we expect that doing so will improve our own thinking.  So, it is worth nothing that in the final paragraph Fred suggests the importance of deliberative humility in the face of complicated controversies, a willingness to engage in conflict tempered by a recognition of our own fallibility.  And he concludes with the observation that we do this, embrace the democratic value of analytical rigor and humility, because we share the goal of reaching an understanding and, when possible, achieving agreements.  Well said Fred.