[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Timothy C. Klein wrote:

*snip*

> 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.

Well, I understand there's a bit more of a satisfying "boom" when
you're firing a .44 than a pellet gun...  also, if you're doing
target shooting, there's the question of range. I don't know what
the upper range of a pellet gun is, but I expect it's quite a bit
less than the range of a decent handgun or rifle.

> 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.

In a legal debate, one need only interpret what the Constitution means,
not whether it's right or not. But this isn't a legal debate...

In a debate about what makes sense in today's society, I agree. The
framers had no way of knowing what kind of arms would be available
today, nor what kind of society we'd be living in. It's not a discussion
about what will hold up in court or not -- it's a debate about what
people think should or shouldn't be allowed. Also it's not as if the
Constitution couldn't be amended if enough people agreed on the issue
one way or another. (Unlikely, but it's theoretically possible.)

Theoretically, we could tack on another amendment defining "arms"
or otherwise further define the 2nd amendment if people wanted
to do so.

Zonker
--
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/