>> 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.
I think this somewhat strange as it defends a "right" it is constructing. Or maybe that's not strange at all.
>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.
I don't know what evidence your citing in support of this really. In Australia we have what must be called 'gun control' and we haven't become a military dictatorship or anything (and I hve heard you argue that arms are needed so that there is some possibility of organised military action against the state). Though at present I would love some defence against our government I do not believe a bunch of guns would give me any effective reply to new tax legislation or bad decisions concerning education funding.
> ... 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.
But discussing what legislation re gun ownership you prefer is really about saying I prefer gun ownership and which version of that ownership do I want. Again I think you're presuming that there must be some right to bear arms clause and are only talking about what it should be.
>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.
If 'the Supremes' just deleted 'the 2nd' (such portentous phrasing) Jordan, what would be the effect on your society?
>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?
I don't see how any of the above actually replied to me. Who said I wasn't for national health records, I've never been asked, but the chances of someone infecting me with a fatal disease and needing to be traced are minimal, still less the possibility that someone will enter a building where I am and open disease on anyone there, killing some and hospitalising others.
> 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.
I didn't think you did. Which is why I can't understand why every time some makes an argument against wide access to guns and/or gun ownership you respond by citing the constitution -- it doesn't seem like an argument to me.
> 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 :)
As I said above, this is the argument I hear you making. You're right to suggest I am not incredibly well-informed about either the US constitution or its gun laws -- in fact I'm learning a lot about both lately. But perhaps its because I am somewhat external to the situation that I notice patterns which seem habitual to all of you -- guns are raised, the constitution is raised, as if two naturally go together in some way, as if amending the constitution is the only way to talk about access to guns, as if any question about guns or gun ownership is automatically a desire to rip up the constitution, or as if (and I see this in your posts most of all) citation of the constitution was a reply to arguments about use of guns.
Catherine