[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Jed S. Baer]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:17:31 -0700
"Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net> wrote:

> > 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
> 
> 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.

Hey, now, you _know_ it isn't the same. I'm not quite sure I understand
what your "pointed device" might be, but I do agree that often part of the
enjoyment is in how spectacular the results are. That is assuredly not
true for many competitions (if "spectacular is defined as making this go
kablooey), but in the ones which have arisen out of areas such as
law-enforcement or self-defense training, there considerations for
lethality, e.g. you have to shoot better with a 9mm to get the same score
as you might get with a 45. If I, or somebody else, finds fun in making
canteloupe explode, well, what harm is there in that?. But there are
firearms manufactured for the express purpose of shooting in competition.
While it's true that shooting competitions have their roots in the
development of accuracy for hunting, or military use, the sport has
certainly evolved beyond that. Not to say that you couldn't use your
Anschutz or High-Standard target rifle/pistol for hunting, or crime, but
they're purpose built for target shooting.

That target shooting mimics, in some cases, hunting, or sniping, I think
does not relegate all firearms necessarily to the "killing things"
category. I have to agree with BOF, the "purposefulness" is a tough
argument to make, without taking into account the volition of the user. At
best, we can perhaps speak of intended usage.

> > 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.

Hold on. I didn't argue that I thought that was a correct interpretation,
nor that existing limitations are constitutionally defensible. I was
merely acknowledging the current state of law. That a sufficient number of
lawmakers found it reasonable to vote limitiations into law doesn't
necessarily indicate that they're OK. Neither, necessarily, does the lack
of Supreme Court rulings on those particular points. It's all a very
interesting legal situation, when you stop to think about it. Bad laws get
struck down by the courts only when someone challenges them. And no, I'm
not so far out as to think that if I were to get my hands on a crate of
RPGs, I'd get very far in a court challenge on 2nd Amendment grounds. I
couldn't afford the cost of it, and I'd bet I'd have a hard time finding a
lawyer to take the case.

> >   "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.

Ever heard of guerilla warfare? Heck, the clue-tech archive is bound for
project Echelon, and the TIAO for sure now. ;-) Ask the Russians about
fighting in Afghanistan. It'd be even worse for the U.S. govt., because
you don't want to destroy the territory you're living in. Would U.S.
troops fire on U.S. citizens inside the country? How many would join the
revolt?

All just speculation, but it does argue, if we take Jefferson's view, for
a broad interpretation of the 2nd.

> > 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.

Ah, but now you're heading of into the pure philosophical territory of
what determines whether a govt. and/or a society is fair, just, etc. And,
in point of fact, even the authors of the Constitution didn't really try
to say that it was "right", in and of itself, in regards to individual
liberties. What it does do is recognize rights inherent in the human
condition, and guarantee that the state would not infringe thereon. IOW,
they started from a certain philosophical position, which they held for
various reasons, such as basis in common law, religious belief (deist, not
Christian). To whatever extent these preconditions were debated,
nonetheless they are taken as "givens", as far as the Consitution goes.
However, within the arena of U.S. law, the Constitution is, by definition,
*right*, even if we argue about what a particular clause might mean. And
that's a difficult definition of *right*, but it's what we have.

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