Yes, we Urban folk think that. The planning, the arsenal, and the victims seem to be the result of psychosis in the burbs. In the city it is so much simpler, just flip us the bird and you are dead and so much cheaper too; one gun, one bullet.

I won’t speak for UC, but I’m willing to bet we agree on this one.

You are correct, we’re in complete agreement on those points.

I apologize if you felt I was calling you stupid…that wasn’t my intention. But the “we don’t want everyone to have nukes” scenario is a stupid argument because it’s an absurd scare tactic with no basis in reality and it frustrates me when people trot that out (you’re not the first).

Yet, the rationale seems to be justified only on current-day logistics, and not future logistics as well as the perhaps the most important, basic principle.

I’m arguing it on current logistics because that’s the reality of the world we live in and because it’s impossible to predict the future. Maybe you’re worried that at some point down the road, nuclear weapons will become affordable and easy for everyone to use…and in response to that in the future maybe people will come up with the technology to counter nuclear threats so home ownership of a nuke won’t matter. Who knows? Not you or me.

I don’t try to tailor my positions on individual rights to take into account future technological advances because it’s something that nobody can predict with any degree of certainty or accuracy so it’s pointless to bring it up in a debate. Of all the weapons that the average citizen could reasonably come into possession of today, I don’t consider any of them to be enough of a threat to infringe upon our rights to self-defense and the ownership of weapons. I support the right for individuals to own even heavy weapons because the 2nd Amendment wasn’t just designed to take into account the average burglar breaking into your house…it was a protection against tyranny by the state, which can sometimes require more firepower than a .38 caliber pistol can offer (a point often lost on gun-control advocates). A well-armed populace is a populace capable of keeping its government honest.

If the 2nd amendment is to stand the test of time, it must be interpreted and circumscribed to anticipate the future and be resilient. In fifty years, considering the pace of technology and globalization, it could very well do so.

That’s a bridge to cross when we come to it, not before. Trying to anticipate where technology will eventually lead us is fodder for science fiction authors and trying to restrict and tailor individual rights based on personal predictions of human evolution is a fool’s errand for politicians.

It seems as though I will not be able to even rattle, just a little, UCrawford’s belief that citizens should be able to own and possess any type of weapon, as was so clearly stated.

My opinion that we should be able to own whatever weapons we want is not an indication that I think people should not be punished when they violate other peoples’ rights with those weapons. In fact, I’m generally quite unforgiving in regards to violent criminals. I just don’t believe in the ability of preventative regulation to do much of anything except punish the law-abiding.

Yet, the rationale seems to be justified only on current-day logistics

If the 2nd amendment is to stand the test of time, it must be interpreted and circumscribed to anticipate the future and be resilient.

I won’t speak for UC, but I’m willing to bet we agree on this one.

My rationale rests on two fundamental points.
1) There should be few, if any, external decisions about what I can and cannot do.
2) The Constitution is not a “living document”. It is not to be reinterpreted. If it doesn’t suit the current environment, amend it. Until then, it is to be interpreted in exactly the manner it was intended.

Before I elaborate, I would like to appeal for a less hostile response. To regard someone’s logic as “stupid” does little for a meaningful exchange not to mention, is rude. If my assertion was in fact so illogical, then it would likely be obvious to all who post on this great site anyway, and no response would really be needed, but rather ignored.

The fact that the two responses to my post came with such contempt is probably not due to my stupidity or lack of logic, but rather that the issue is an important one, and creates a rift when differences arise. With that, I would like to refine my point.

Using “nuke” as an example as an arm that should be banned or regulated likely eclipsed my main point, which UCrawford still recognized when it was reiterated to “real weapons”. That is a good point, and for the sake of argument, let us keep it realistic (although, I would like to note that nuclear equivalent types of technology may in the future be realistically included in the argument considering my own little experience with graduate students working with nuclear-powered systems).

And to further refine the argument, Brad’s assertion of North Korea is outside my argument, for that is another government and quite different from citizenry law (although global politics is slowly emerging towards it). And although U.K. gun laws have not taken guns off the streets, it misses the whole issue of whether it should still be a policy and the law by which a nation should strive to uphold. It may not be a fallacy of principle or law, but one of implementation.

It seems as though I will not be able to even rattle, just a little, UCrawford’s belief that citizens should be able to own and possess any type of weapon, as was so clearly stated. Yet, the rationale seems to be justified only on current-day logistics, and not future logistics as well as the perhaps the most important, basic principle. Just because most do not have the means today to obtain high-grade weapons, or the people that do typically wouldn’t do so, or even further that most wouldn’t even know how to operate it (all of which I further disagree with) is based on a level of assumption on current conditions.

If the 2nd amendment is to stand the test of time, it must be interpreted and circumscribed to anticipate the future and be resilient. In fifty years, considering the pace of technology and globalization, it could very well do so. Then, what is your argument to hang on when those logistics no longer hold. That is the essence, I think, of my point; although unrealistic or rare today, high-grade weaponry must be regulated to some degree.

Getting back to original talking point of Obama’s “doublespeak”, the post indicated that he believed that, “local governments should be able to enact any gun control laws they consider necessary to end gun violence”. Now, not only does he maintain local and state governments can differently interpret the law (which is a considerably important sidebar), he also clarified his position to gun violence. While the laws eventually affect gun laws and ownership, he is not targeting the 2nd amendment directly, but rather, gun violence, which in turn refers back to the 2nd amendment, quite a distinction I believe.

Well, that is quite enough I think. Anyone who got through it has patience! I think my point has been made quite clear.
would

What makes one think that laws are going to stop a determined person of ample means from getting a hold of anything they want?

And, of course, there’s always the incorrect assumption by gun-control enthusiasts that criminals would actually obey the laws…which they wouldn’t, since disregard for the law is the key part of the job description. All gun/weapons control laws usually end up doing is disarming the victims.

And people who would have the means to acquire a super-weapon and the competence to use it generally aren’t stupid or crazy enough to want to buy one.

Not to mention that anyone with the financial wherewithal and the desire to find something like that will find it, illegal or not.

International law didn’t stop North Korea from getting a nuke. British law hasn’t removed guns from their society. American law can’t stop someone here from getting an illegal firearm or illegal drugs.

What makes one think that laws are going to stop a determined person of ample means from getting a hold of anything they want?

It does not elaborate as to what type of arms, and I’m sure we all agree that we wouldn’t want our communities ridden with nuclear arms.

Why not? If Iran and North Korea haven’t yet been able to build a functional nuclear weapon what makes you think your neighbors are going to be able to pull it off? Do your neighbors have billions of dollars to spend on a nuclear deterrent for home defense? Do you live in a neighborhood that features a lot of buildings capable of meeting nuclear containment protocols or are your neighbors just immune to radiation? Do your neighbors have their own silos, delivery systems, and a working expertise in servicing nuclear technology to keep their warheads functional?

God, I hate that stupid argument…it’s like people for gun control think that the suburbs are filled with multi-billionaire psychopaths who are just waiting to grab surplus MX missiles. It’s not reality.

As for real weapons arguments, I’m fine with people owning pretty much any kind of weapon they want. It’s not like everyone is going to go out and buy themselves a gross of Daisy-Cutters and MOABs…because what would be the point? The more powerful the weapon the more it costs, the more difficult it is to use and the less useful it is for home or personal defense. And people who would have the means to acquire a super-weapon and the competence to use it generally aren’t stupid or crazy enough to want to buy one.

“Hey Bob…look at this thermobaric bomb I’ve got sitting in my garage.”

“That’s great, Fred, what are you going to do with it?”

“Ummmm…pretty much leave it sitting in my garage to scare off burglars.”

I believe, based on subjective principle and objective logic, that one must support laws banning/regulating “arms”, while also being even more careful to maintain and uphold the 2nd amendment, as is with any issue against the constitution.

If you were trying to make an argument based on logic you wouldn’t have used the “nuke” argument. You’d have gone with something realistic like a bazooka or a tank or landmines or a sniper rifle capable of shooting through an armored limo…none of which I have a problem with anyone owning.

The 2nd amendment gives right to bear arms. It does not elaborate as to what type of arms, and I’m sure we all agree that we wouldn’t want our communities ridden with nuclear arms. Thus, there is that middle compromise that lies in the gray where most issues end up in, more or less (except on the edge of Ocam’s razor). I believe, based on subjective principle and objective logic, that one must support laws banning/regulating “arms”, while also being even more careful to maintain and uphold the 2nd amendment, as is with any issue against the constitution.

My point is that those Republican victors will all be statists too

Then it looks like you’ve got some work to do to insure that the representatives and senators your area sends aren’t a part of the problem. :)

You’re counting on the base of the Democratic party to give an honest analysis of their own leader. Fat chance. They’ll just keep telling themselves that a Republican would have been even worse.

Their base is a lot smaller than you’re giving it credit for. The only reason the Dems have Congress now is because Bush and the GOP Congress did such a horrible job when they had complete control that the moderates finally gave up on them…before 2006 the Democrats weren’t even an afterthought. Give the Dems two years in charge with Hillary at the controls and the centrists will desert them en masse.

Pre-1994 the Democrats controlled Congress for what, 40 years? Post-94 the Republicans controlled it for 12. Based on how things are shaping up in Iraq and the economy I see an even shorter tenure for the party currently in charge if they get one of their own in the White House.

It’s no trick to sell your ideas to someone who’s already looking to buy.

That’s exactly my point, though. Even after 7 years of Dubya, Republicans still weren’t looking to buy real change. Hillary would be no different. She’d just spur another round of superficial change.

Done…$20 says that if she’s elected President the Republicans will win Congressional seats back in 2010 and she’ll be out after one term.

No, I’m sure you’re right about that part. My point is that those Republican victors will all be statists too. The faces and jerseys will continue to change, but policy won’t.