[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Dennis J Perkins (djperkins at americanisp.net) wrote:
> >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?
> 
> The constitution affirms your right to bear arms.  It does not specify 
> the type of firearm but you need only look at what people owned when the 
> constitution was signed to see that guns were definitely meant. 
> Considering that most individuals would not have been able to afford a 
> cannon, the framers might have thought it obvious what they meant.  Or 
> maybe they meant cannons too.

Sure, I agree, but when it comes to making laws, one can not simply say
'look at what people owned ...'  A law needs to be very specific.
Trying to fit that specificity in to the vagueness of the 2nd Amendment
is the issue at hand.

> The constitution does not require you to belong to a militia.  Otherwise 
> the federal govt would have "tried" to confiscate firearms after the 
> constitution was ratified.  And look at the definition of militia at 
> that time.  It probably included all able-bodied men in time of war and 
> did not apply to a permanent organization.

It actually is not at all clear what the Constitution included the word
militia for.  It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed"

I don't think it means that you have to be in a militia, but there is
room for debate.  And they obviously had militias in mind, as they used
the word.  A big blunder, I think, on their part.  Regardless of whether
we like, there is at least partially valid argument for the 2nd as
assurance of a national Gard type entity.  The argument is weak, but
that doesn't make it go away. 

I realize that a militia may not be permanent, may not be the army,
etc., but they did have had some kind of organization in mind.

> That the constitution seems vague in the definition of firearm is not 
> the fault of the founding fathers. They could not have foreseen that our 
> weapons would become much more dangerous.

It does not matter who is or is not to blame.  We can't have vagueness
in something as important as our Constitution.

> What do the Federalist Papers say about this?  They were written to help 
> argue in favor of the constitution.
> 

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter either.  They wouldn't have
the force of law, and were applicable to a time long since past.  What
matters now is what we should have our laws say *now.*

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