From catherine.driscoll at adelaide.edu.au Fri May 21 10:25:15 1999
Here's the thing I can't figure, Jordan: I know you think
people who want to limit gun ownership are ignoring the
constitution ...
I think the 2nd was meant to provide strong guidance that in the long run, the "cost" of trying to remove the right to bear arms is greater than whatever "cost" there is to upholding that right. And I also think that a historical analysis of the societies which have removed or sharply limited that right have supported this view. I think that HCI and the like use a "cost" argument to support their idea of removing or sharply limiting this right.
... and I know you think guns and gun ownership are
endorsed by the constitution; but do you think that makes
it/them right?
Does it make it right? I'm not sure how I can answer that question without merely expressing a preference, so I'll do it directly: I do prefer the handling of this right as outlined in the 2nd as opposed to other handling of it with few exceptions (the Swiss method, in particular). But I have other reasons why I think the current hysteria about acess to guns is deeply flawed: that is, i'm not some kind of strict Constitionalist, though I think it's an important point in the whole picture.
I also believe that any attempt to sharply limit gun ownership in the US will have to deal with the 2nd in some way; in fact, it's long overdue for review by the Supremes -- of course, those who wish to limit this right see a review by the Supreme's at this time to be their worst nightmare ... that should tell you something already. In the mean time, I'm against using the Legislative process (or Executive process, for that matter) to undermine the core meaning of the 2nd.
I beleive that, for instance, a national registration database of firearms is such an attempt to undermine -- traditionally, national registration is the precusor to confiscation. Yes, it's important to be able to trace weapons used in crimes. But I think it has been shown many times that such large databases are just too tempting to not be abused. If each FFL holder keeps their own records, it shouldn't take ATF more than a few hours to trace a gun used in a crime. ATF has said as much in the past (when asked; they don't ask anymore). This is how the TEC-9 used at Columbine was traced.
Put another way: if you're for a national gun/gunowner registration database, why aren't you for a national health records database?
Does being in the Consitution of the United States (the wording
is probably disordered) make it intrinsically good, ethical,
virtuous, valuable, right, fair, just, and so on.
Again, intrinsically good? I don't know that I believe such a thing can/does exist.
If you do not believe this then please stop citing the
constitution as proof that criticism of gun ownership or gun
laws is misplaced.
I don't believe I've done such a thing; and if I did, I don't see how what you're saying follows. Criticism is always a good thing in my book; uninformed criticism is merely annoying :)
Regardless: I was responding specifically to this:
From sokol at jhu.edu Fri May 21 08:45:13 1999
What I measn by meaningful regulation (as I expressed that
elsewhere) is a registration system that allows effective
tracking of a weapon to its lawful owner.
I was citing the US Constitution as the place where separation of powers is proscribed. Congress makes the laws, Executive carries them out. In the case of the "instant-check" system, Congress specifically directed FBI/ATF to not use the information as a registration system. Reno has specifically instructed her team to keep the data "for auditing purposes" ... right.
Anyone who claims Clinton is subverting the War Powers Act in Kosovo ought to also see that Reno is subverting the Constitution.
/jordan