I did not grow up in a political family, but somewhere along the line, I became interested in politics. The first political book I read was “The Arrow Book of Presidents.” As best I can tell,
I bought it through the school book club in the spring of my third grade year, 1968. That fall there was a presidential election, and I wrote the results in the back of the book. Those who know me will not be surprised that I am looking at that book right now as I type this essay.
My politics were not terribly deep in 1968. I remember being proud that the two Minnesota senators were running for president, though I would have been hard-pressed to tell you much about either candidate. I just knew they were from Minnesota. I think we all might feel a certain pride when persons from our state make a national reputation for themselves. Regardless of how you might have eventually voted, didn’t you hope former Governor Tim Pawlenty would have made more of a splash in the Republican presidential primaries in 2012?
As a Duluthian, I was proud when County Commissioner Chris Dahlberg did so well in the Republican endorsement process for the United States Senate.
I was intrigued, though, by one of the statements in his convention speech. Referring to the United States Constitution, Dahlberg said “the Second Amendment says the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed - period.”
I am not entirely sure what Mr. Dahlberg meant, but it strikes me as an odd statement to make in a political democracy. The Constitution contains many periods. In writing about representation, the Constitution apportions representatives according to “the whole number of free persons” and goes on to say “three-fifths of all other persons.” Three-fifths of all other persons - period. In Article IV of the Constitution there is a provision that requires persons held to service or labor in one state who escape from that state to “be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” Escaped slaves, for instance were to be returned - period.
In every society, we need decision points. We require “periods.” In a democratic polity, there are periods, but they are not intended to end conversation. The political philosopher Michael Walzer wrote, “In democratic politics all destinations are temporary.”
Do we really want to stop talking about guns, period? In the past few weeks we have had shootings at a college in California, at a college in Seattle, at a Walmart in Las Vegas and at a high school in Oregon. Is ending conversation really the best we can do? Isn’t it worth asking if expanded background checks may have kept guns away from Elliot Rogers in Santa Barbara, a 22-year-old with a history of serious mental health issues? Our conversations should not simply be about gun laws, but might also be conversations among those of us who own guns about our willingness to keep guns more safely, in ways that might better prevent accidents or self-inflicted wounds.
Commissioner Dahlberg did well at the Republican convention. We would do well as a society to continue important conversations about issues that matter.
David A. Bard is a husband, father, pastor, teacher and ethicist raised and educated in Duluth. He returned to the community in 2005 after being away for over 20 years.
