Trivial Pursuits

My best argument for gun control can be found here. We at least need an IQ test.

Owen v. Botman: Round III

Now we're on to something, Owen. This is going to be a long post, so for those users of TP who'd rather wipe other hard-to-reach places aside from the Second Amendment, no need to deal with the pain. For the gluttons for punishment, click on the link below and have at it.

Still Offering My Uzi

Thanks, Owen, for your continued interest. And away we go, via the link below:

Take My Uzi, Please!

In a triumph of reason over ideology, the Senate voted 52-47 today to reauthorize the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, to which I said: hallelujah! That the vote came in the form of an amendment to legislation insulating gun manufacturers from product liability suits was a price worth paying, IMO. Turns out, the victory was as Pyrrhic as it was short-lived. Rather than face the spectre of an America where every unconvicted felon can't go down to the gun store and buy an AK-47 to go along with his Uzi, the Senate turned around and shot down the entire bill, 90-8. As it stands, gun manufacturers must still defend product liability suits; there ought to be plenty of them once the ban expires in September and the new 2005 Uzi Peacemaker hits stores in time for Christmas.

W's fingerprints are all over this one. He made clear that he expected a "clean" bill; protection for gun manufacturers without a trade-off. Reauthorization of the assault weapons ban certainly qualifies as a poison pill.

No use expressing my agreement with a ban on uselessly destructive automatic weapons. Instead, I wonder aloud: why was the vote to reauthorize so close? 77 percent of Americans favor it. Don't bother, I'll answer myself: ideology freed from the moorings of reason and analysis. Ask a Second Amendmentphile about the assault weapons ban, and what will you see? Frothing at the mouth, first. Second, a 30-minute exegesis on the individual's right to bear arms.

Nothing on the utility of these weapons in the hands of non-military personnel (for the fairly obvious reason that assault weapons have no such utility). Anyone who tells you they want an Uzi to defend their home is, frankly, an idiot. Does firing off 5 rounds a second inside your own home REALLY sound like a good idea? To which the 2-phile will rebut: the point is I have the RIGHT to this gun, and it's being TAKEN AWAY! (gasp.) Never mind that a handgun will much more effectively protect the home in the event of a burglary, or that law enforcement agencies agree that assault weapons should be banned. Never mind the facts, the reality of the assault rifle (that is, its lack of utility outside military operations). Utterly beside the point to the 2-phile. Again I say: ideology freed from its moorings.

By now, I can sense the frothing, the itchy trigger fingers. And now for the apple on top of my head: no individual right to bear arms has ever been acknowledged by the Supreme Court. Ever. Doesn't exist. In fact, the Supreme Court's last pronouncement on the issue, the 1932 (I think) case of US v. Miller, came perilously close to the opposite holding. In ruling that defendant Miller had no right to carry a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, the Court pointed out that the Second Amendment was designed to protect a state's right to a well-organized militia. As a sawed off shotgun had no military purpose, Miller had no right to carry it. From there, it is but a short step to the conclusion that an individual's only right to bear arms comes in accordance with service in a state militia.

Now, don't get me wrong: I think the Court's rationale is borderline nonsensical. A bazooka DOES serve a military purpose (assuming a sawed-off shotgun doesn't), yet none but the most rabid 2-philes maintain that an individual should be allowed to tote a bazooka around town. Or toss grenades at burglars. You get the point. The "military purpose" test would be inherently unworkable, is what I am trying to say.

But the more important point is this: no individual right to bear arms exists, at least not outside the context of service in a state militia. The preamble to the Second Amendment makes this clear to me, and renders the amendment AT BEST textually ambiguous. Case law from the Supreme Court is no help in clearing up in any ambiguity. Textualists may be up in arms by now, but in this regard I'm armed, too. I'll even give a hint for juicy retorts: the 5th Circuit.