[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Timothy C. Klein]

* grant (grant at amadensor.com) wrote:
> Do you remember the rash of serial killings in Aurora in the late 80's?
> He used a hammer.  Can we outlaw those too?
> 

I used to be quite fond of this argument.  A car, a hammer, a laptop, an
airplane, all these can be use to commit harm.  So it is illogical to
single out guns, right?

Well, as I got older and wiser, I realized that is something of a straw
man argument.  There is an *extremely* important distinction between
armaments, and a plane, car, hammer, laptop, etc ...

What is it?  An armament serves no purpose other than inflicting
damage/death on other living beings.  That puts guns into a different
class than most other human tools, to my mind.  So the argument can be
made that weapons need to be treated differently, regardless of whether
or not you agree with that position.  I don't think the above argument
really does anything to further the cause of those against
"gun-control," however that is defined.

Also, keep in mind that the Constitution does *not* grant you the right
to have a *gun*, it grants you the right to keep and bear *arms*.  While
this may seem like a piddling distinction, it can be important.  In the
strictest reading of that, I should have the right to keep and bear a 50
megaton nuclear bomb.  But then again, in the *strictest* interpretation
of the Constitution, I may only have the right to use arms in association
with a militia (presumably to protect myself and the community at
large).  What does that mean?  Can I only have a gun if am a member of
some kind of militia?

What's my point?  I guess it is this:  the gun issue is not cut and dry,
as some of us would like it to be.  I think every one on the list would
agree that I don't get to own a nuclear bomb.  What about an F-22?  A
Stinger missile?  An M-16?  At some point, not everyone agrees.  Our job
as good citizens is to draw the line where it benefits society the most.
There can be *no* argument about that among rational people, I think.
We have to draw a line:  the argument should revolve around where.

The second point is that as much as I admire our Constitution, it is not
perfect.  Preventing me from owning a nuclear bomb for use in a militia
would seem to be a violation of the document.  One can not run to the
Constitution to solve all arguments: those who wrote it were human, and
may have made mistakes.  We need to always keep in mind the best
interests of the country at large.

Tim
--
==============================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net   ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
==============================================