[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Jed S. Baer]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:40:38 -0700
"Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net> wrote:

> * 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.

Not true. I have fired many rounds. I have never harmed any living thing
using a firearm. Poked holes in paper, destroyed tuna cans, shattered clay
pigeons, yep, lots. Target shooting is an enjoyable hobby, and causes no
ill effects on anything living -- except for the sore shoulder I get from
the 12 gauge. The biatholon is an Olympic sport, consisting of skiing and
target shooting. There are many varieties of target shooting. If you want
to go with an extremely generic definition of "armament", you could even
consider bows. They're certainly lethal, but they're also used for
hobbyist, or even professional, target shooting.

> 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?

Reading the historical context (Jefferson, for example), one can conclude
that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted broadly. In U.S. v Miller,
the Supreme Court goes to great length talking about the right, and it's
applicability. I paraphrase: "when called, participants were expected to
report for duty bearing arms of their own possesion, and of a type in
common use at the time". In fact, the militia reference indicates the
level of armament which is expected, or covered, by the 2nd Amendment --
those arms suitable for militia duty. However, the Supreme Court has also
indicated that membership, or active participation in, a militia unit is
not a precondition upon the right. And, BTW, if you're an able bodied male
between the ages of 18 and 45 (with some exceptions, e.g. doctors), you
are, by U.S. Law, a member of the militia. It's in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

But don't just believe me. Go read Eugene Volokh:
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm . Go read Dave
Kopel: http://www.davekopel.com/2dAmendment.htm

> 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 modern interpretation, IIRC, relates to arms typically issued, or
suitable for issuance, to the generic footsoldier, if there is such a
thing anymore, IOW, arms which would be appropriate for a single soldier
to transport, deploy, and use. This has been legislatively limited, even
before the terminology of "weapons of mass destruction". I don't recall
how it's referred to, but it covers things such as explosive devices, e.g.
hand grenades, mines, etc. Whether this is too limited depends upon your
point of view. An argument could be made for armament not at the
individual level, but at the squad level, since acting in concert
certainly is a legitimate militia activity.

I also recall a reference, perhaps untrue, mentioning that many heavy
weapons (i.e. cannon) of the American Revolution were privately possesed.
What's the modern equivalent? The 105mm howitzer?

  "The strongest reason for the people to retain the
   right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, 
   to protect against tyranny in government."

  -- Thomas Jefferson

Well, if I'm going to do that, I need at the least defensive arms
sufficient against anything the U.S. military might use against me.

> 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.

The degree (if any) of imperfection in the Constitution is certainly
debatable, but until amended, it stands as the final authority on what the
U.S. govt. can and cannot do. In matters of whether the Feds can prohibit
or require something, it is the final authority.

jed
-- 
We're frogs who are getting boiled in a pot full of single-character
morphemes, and we don't notice. - Larry Wall; Perl6, Apocalypse 5