Scalia says you might be good to go with an RPG! (and other Second Amendment interpretations)

You know, I would agree, and I know it's easy to demonize the NRA, however: Those that represent public safety, education, and criminal justice would probably find it too easy to focus on a tangible, inanimate object, to restrict. I think it stems from the desire to do something, anything, that would make them look like they're doing their job.

For example, take education: most schools have zero-tolerance policies that put otherwise well-adjusted children through the criminal justice system on the idea of 'protect the children.' So when a child goes hunting w/ his dad, and leaves his hunting knife in the back of his pick up--should we expel him from school and charge him with a third degree felony? I've fought against our school board because they would rather err on the side of over-protectiveness, rather than evaluating people on their merits (i.e. a school teacher who's facing termination on very, very shaky evidence).

I feel like the NRA is a necessary organization because it represents the likes of Cromp and I--people who like to shoot recreationally, and who are sometimes called upon to use the same skills professionally (i.e. military). And let me tell you that a lot of the training our military gives in terms of shooting is lackluster compared to what the civilian side offers (indeed, a lot of Military organizations now contract w/ these civilian instructors to teach the units). Moreover, I would submit that a large majority of gun owners are NOT loons, bent on shooting their coworkers.

In sum: Gun owners are a vocal, but minority group of the US population. You take away their voice and it becomes easy to use fear to restrict guns. Hence, the need for the NRA.

 

I think it's pretty funny that all these guys like Scalia, who call themselves strict constructionists, and claim to be willing only to interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of the founders, are not willing to do the sane thing and say that the Second Amendment guarantees any citizen the right to own as many muzzle-loading single-shot muskets and pistols as they wish. After all, that was clearly the original intent of the founders.

But if you're not going to do that, then don't call it "strict constructionism," and don't claim that the right to bear arms is so sacrosanct that we can't reasonably restrict it.

Sure, if a guy is really hell-bent on killing people with a gun, even making automatic weapons, semiautomatic weapons, and handguns illegal isn't going to stop him. But it's going to make it a hell of a lot more difficult, and create a whole lot more hoops he's got to jump through before he can do it, giving police a chance to spot something amiss and maybe prevent it, and probably reducing the likelihood these incidents are going to crop up as often.

Personally, I think the intent of the Second Amendment was to keep order and establish national defense: with a standing army and organized police forces, there is simply no reason that we cannot dramatically restrict the number and kind of weapons the average citizen can own. And if we're not going to eliminate all guns from private ownership entirely, I think the least we can do is restrict all gun ownership to one manually-operated hunting rifle and one small-caliber (.25 or less) target shooting pistol (revolvers only) per adult family member, along with a requirement for gun safety training, thorough background checks for licensing, mandated use of gun safes and trigger locks, periodic renewal of gun licensure with thorough review of background and record, and strict limits on purchases of ammunition (like no more than one box of ammunition per licensed weapon per month).

And that's being extremely lenient, to my mind. Given my druthers, I would make all private gun ownership illegal. People can hunt with bows and spears, just like in ancient times: takes more skill, and is far more sporting to the animal. And way less collateral damage when something goes wrong.

 

Relevant

 

To those who say it would have been harder to kill people in a packed theater, I have one word: Gasoline.

 

In terms of education, I'm not talking about zero-tolerance weapons policies. I'm talking about eduction addressing some of the root causes of violent behavior later in life - from programs like making sure kids are healthy (and adequately fed) and more receptive to educational success (esp. in early years) to bullying and/or feelings of isolation among peers.

Gun violence does not occur in a vacuum, which is why we also need to look at education policies, health policies, etc. not related solely to guns, but to causes of violent behavior.

In terms of NRA, I would respect them more if their "defense" of the Second Amendment was based more on facts than fear mongering. It is only recently that the NRA has become so extreme in their policies and rhetoric (Obama has secret plan to abolish the Second Amendment).
--- merged: Jul 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM ---
In some respects, it reminds me of the abortion debate. The right is opposed to abortion and, at the same time, opposed to programs like Planned Parenthood and Title IX that reduce unwanted pregnancies.

In the gun arena, opposed to more restrictions and want more/better enforcement, yet eliminate federal programs to support state/local law enforcement (eg COPS) or mental health funding or programs to support children and families and are gutting local government budgets that impact public safety, rather than raise taxes on the wealthiest.

 

redux,

Since you pulled the trigger (HAH!) on this incredibly original scholarly debate by jacktastically threadjacking a campaign quips collage with some Onion-style humor from our forefathers, do you want to help us out by framing this discussion in a specifically focused manner that will promote discussion beyond post #26, which sounds disturbingly like something Miss America usually says about "healing the world." Just a thought.

Either that or just release your inner Patrick Bateman:

 

Whose trolling now?

Take your hands out of your pocket and back away from the discussion (as you said you would) if you dont like it.

 

Actually, I would fully support something like that. I do think violence stems in part from our culture of extreme individualism.

Also, relevant to thread title:

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News

Watch the Scalia video--he doesn't out and say, "YES REGULATE GUNZ!!!" More so than, "well, at the time, there were some restrictions, so we would have to interpret the 2A in line with that--for example, no right to keep and bear cannons."

 

Or you could just hand out hemlock, throw on the latest Julia Roberts flick and lock the doors.