The Theological Ruminator
OK, I let this simmer all morning and finally decided to go ahead and post it.
Since the answer to this is actually quite easy to discover it seems to me that you're employing the logical category of a loaded question. Whether one agrees with you or not, your question is phrased in a way that no reasonable person would disagree with your presupposition, therefore . . .
I hope this doesn't come off too harsh but you do this a lot on your blog. Often, when arguments/questions are framed this way, I go to the extremes of either vehemently arguing the other side, complete with similar logical fallacies (the global warming debate where one of the first things I did was a form of ad hominem) or not bothering with it (the KJV debate, where you actually said that you didn't see how reasonable, informed people could disagree with you!). I'm trying, however, to reign in my contraian personality somewhat. I don't think I'm alone in responding emotionally to the way things may be argued/presented, however.
In any case, I might be more apt to engage in this debate if I wasn't already painted as a a bad guy before the debate begins simply because I disagree with you.
Of course, I wouldn't want YOU analyzing MY arguments this closely! 
Well, I figured being controversial WOULD get you to respond. Besides I simply stated the fact this time. The NRA believes that their constitutional rights are being violated when assault weapons are banned. My question is why? Modern weapons run the gamut from simple hand guns to rocket propelled grenades to nukes. Certainly there is a continuum here and our right to "keep and bear arms" stops somewhere short of rocket propelled grenades and nukes. I don't see any reason to protect assault rifles as a right. Do you?
Please, please be the bad guy...
Actually, I don't have a pony in this race; I don't own a gun and have no desire to do so. While I've shot them, I've never even been hunting in my life. However, as a small "l" libertarian, I don't want governments in my face and being my nanny. Outside of that general principle, I really don't care because it has no impact on me.
That said, I still reacted to the way you framed the debate because the NRA's stance, which you imply is incredulous, is obvious; the NRA feels that the 2nd amendment restricts the government with regards to the regulation of firearms. You apparently feel that it is obvious that they are wrong. This is interpretation. The 2nd amendment is quite vague here (though it seems to me that a flintlock was an assualt weapon during the 1790's).
The courts, as interpreters of the constitution, have made it quite difficult for local governments to enact such bans. Columbus had two previous ordinances struck down (do you oppose those decisions?). Nothing about this (on either side) is self-evident to me. I assume the ambiguity on the issue and, as you well know, my own preference is for less regulation, not more. Thus, I'm in general opposition to the Columbus ordinance. In the end, it boils down to my own inflammatory question: Who are you or the city of Columbus to decide what is acceptable in how I choose to defend my family?
Should the courts uphold the ordinance, however, my response would be that they did their job.
OK, you got your reluctant bad guy!
By the way, I liked your comment that mine was a "loaded" question given the topic of this post. Heh, heh.
Anyways, while I am much less of a minimalist than you (I recall a few office debates here), I still think that if the government need not be involved than it shouldn't. But I do think that one of the most basic duties of the government is to provide reasonable security for its citizens. While I don't debate with the "right to bear arms" - it's part of our heritage and probably won't ever go away, I do take issue with a right to bear rapidly firing arms.
There's a continuum here. I agree it's grey and the line to be drawn is not entirely clear as you pointed out. What is the "firearm" that I'm allowed to have? We agree it's not a bazooka. But what about an assault rifle (semi-automatic)?
Personally, I say, no. The semi-automatic should not be a protected firearm any more than a bazooka should be. While both items could conceivably be used in self-defense, it is MUCH more likely that they would be used for less noble purposes. Here, I think the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens trumps its responsibility to keep its nose out of everyone's business.
Of course, worded that way it's far less controversial because we would simply draw our line in a different place--though I'm still at a loss as to determine why you or the city of Columbus is better at determining that line than I am.
It is interesting to me that the current debate over the way judges should interpret the constitution mirrors a similar debate in biblical studies. Today in the New York Times, Stanely Fish took issue with how Antonin Scalia interprets the constitution. Scalia believes that it is best to determine what the language meant to 18th century Americans and let that be a critical, if not deciding, factor in determining rulings. Fish, of course, is a lot more free flowing, being one of the foremost reader-response critics of the day.
I don't think it's a secret I take Scalia's approach to the Scripture (though I have more sympathies with Fish than you might suppose--well, maybe not you, but some might). If I take it to the constitution, does it now make it more relevant to this debate that a flintlock was an assualt weapon in the 18th century? Was an axe not our pistol and a rifle our bazooka? How would Scalia rule on this argument?
I'm with you, Roy, on your concerns. And I am far from an expert on how constitutional law should be interpreted. So I don't feel like I can fairly comment on what a fair interpretation of our "right to bear arms" is.
But as far as determining the "line" goes, I think that's the tough call that every government has to make. It has to balance it's responsibilities to protect with it's responsibilities to allow its citizens freedom. I imagine you stand against abortion, Roy. What makes you think you are better at determining the government should interfere in this case than a woman who wants an abortion? I suppose it's because you view abortion as violating the right to life that a society's smallast and most defenseless members have. Here government interference is clearly called for in light of its duty to protect its citizens.
Now, I don't think assault weapons are entirely the same thing. But I do think a similar principle is at work. The government needs to reasonably provide for the safety of its citizens. Assault weapons are a significant danger - and give extraordinary power not to the average citizen, but to criminals. Consequently, I do think it is the necessary, if not difficult job of the government to step in in situations like this and determine for you your boundaries.
You'd drive the NRA nuts! They would tell you that the criminals get their assault weapons by criminal means. To my knowledge, though, there is no data to back up either assertion. If that is true, at best you (and they) have anecdotal evidence and at worst you're arguing from a hypothetical. If I'm grading your paper and you argue either way you're in trouble.
I also think the abortion issue is a non-sequitar, for a number of reasons. I'll spell them out if you want me to, but that's a secondary point to me.
Thus, to me, this is still ambigious and you've not proved your point. I prefer the government take a lighter hand when the issue is ambiguous. Risks are inherent in a free society. But, if you can demonstrate that we are in danger from criminals who legally obtained assault weapons, I'll conceed the argument, since I do agree that one of the roles of the government is to protect its citizenry, which is why I'm generally OK with the Patriot Act.
Finally, you may have hinted at this, but it seems to me that you missed that one reason government officials can draw the line is that as elected representatives, they are empowered to draw them. As a citizen, my only recourse is to try to get them out of office and install people who will overturn their legislation or to try to get their legislation overturned by the courts. I would personally prefer that the 10th amendment be followed here as throwing it to the courts eliminates all meaningful debate. Just think of the kind of debate we'd have on the abortion issue if we actually had to craft laws and discuss them. Now all we have is rhetoric to the choir on both sides, and all meaningless because the court decided by fiat.
I agree with you on the courts thing and also on the evidence point. I suppose their might be studies out there that argue one side or the other. I am not producing evidence to support my claim and I know it. I'm just running on my common (or not-so-common) sense that tells me "semi-automatics are way to dangerous to be legal." I'll admit I could be wrong and I'm not producing evidence, but hey - this is a blog, not a paper!
I expect I am right on this issue, but the issue is too much out of my control (as you pointed out, it's really being hashed out in the courts more than anywhere) for me to bother searching for significant proof of my contention.
i think it's because the NRA is stupid and are formed mostly by selfish backwards people. Is that loaded?
KA-BOOM!!!
Dude, I hope to someday not be stupid, selfish and backwards but I guess there's not much hope is there?
That's right, Roy! It's why you have no chance at beating me in golf when we play in the next few weeks!!!
But remember, stupid, selfish and backward = skill at golf. Too bad Mike isn't here to have fun with that!
Saw a great sign today at a pawn shop: "Show your love with a fire arm!"
You weren't in my hometown in Arkansas were you?
Let me guess what the sign next to it said: "Spray-paint on sale now. This Valentine's Day show that special someone you really mean it when you write their initials on freeway overpasses."
Nope, the sprawling metropolis of Waco, TX, though I recall your sign in Arkansas. I thought it was a good deal and romantic to boot, so I took advantage of it on an overpass between London and Clarksville.
Commenting by HaloScan
