Morality Appraisals in Consumer Responsibilization.

This article examines how U.S. consumers respond to the process of responsibilization for armed protection against crime, focusing on the role of their varied understandings of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Using interview and social media discussion data, the research finds that consumers conceptualize armed protection as multiple distinct scenarios differentiated by actor characteristics, location, and type of criminal threat, accepting responsibilization in some scenarios while rejecting it in others. Consumers’ morality appraisals of responsibilization subprocesses—personalization of behavior, authorization by agents, market capabilization, and widespread adoption—are guided by their individual interpretations of the Second Amendment right, which serves as a heuristic influencing whether they view responsibilization as moral or immoral. The study highlights that responses to responsibilization are proportional and nuanced rather than binary, and that some consumers come to regard responsibilized armed protection behaviors as moral entitlements linked to constitutional rights, while others emphasize risks and advocate for greater state responsibility. These findings contribute to understanding the complex interplay between consumer rights, moral judgments, and neoliberal governance in the context of firearms in the United States.