[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Jed S. Baer (thag at frii.com) wrote:
> 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?
> 
> 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.

Yes, a gun can be used as a hobby.  But I don't think it affects my
argument one bit.  If the goal is to become as effective at pointing
something, and getting the imaginary ray of your pointed device to hit
some target, there are plenty of ways to do it *without* making a
lethal weapon.  The appeal of gun, even for those that seem to do
nothing but target shoot, often (but not always), is the lethality of
the gun.  That's why my dad has his .44 and his .357.  There is a reason
he doesn't shoot pellet guns.  I suspect for many (most?) gun owners,
that is a big motivation, too:  the destructive power.

> > 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?

[snip]

> > 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.

You are basically proving the point I was trying to make.  We have
interpreted what the Constitution means, and we have limited those
rights granted therein.  Thus, having a debate about those
interpretation is certainly within the realm reason.

> 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.

This is the most powerful argument for gun possession, in my opinion.
Sadly, today, it is a pipe dream.  Neither you, nor I, nor the next 20
countries combined can catch up with the US gov't in terms of armaments.
If we want to keep the government in check, we are going to have to make
damn sure we have some other methods, because if we ever had to take up
in armed revolt against the US gov't, God help us.

> > 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.

True, I wasn't saying that we should ignore it.  But if someone argues
that the Constitution is wrong, I say one who feels that the
Constitution is correct  must argue why the Constitution is *right.*  It
is not simply enough to point to the Constitution and say 'look see, it
says.'  I am not accusing you of that, but many ardent defenders of the
Second Amendment do nothing more than that.  For their argument to be
effective, at least in my mind, you have argue why the Constitution is
correct.

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