Centerfield

Well, infringement is in the eye of the beholder. I mean, you can declare that laws regulating gun ownership are not infringement, but that's not going to convince anyone that thinks "can't infringe' means can't touch in any way.

Mind you, I have no problem myself with the substance of these positions, but I'm not sure they do a whole lot to bring the no-infringement types and the "let's ban em all a step at a time" types any closer together.

That said, I think gun control is one area where moderate opinion has held sway. I think that there is a substantial majority of Americans that wants guns to remain legal for those who feel safer if they own them, but is untroubled by regulations that try to keep especially deadly ones illegal and try to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them to break the law.

I think I'd be more more amenable to her opinions if she didn't mistake "caliber" for rate of fire.

"any weapon of a higher caliber than semi-automatic".

By the way, doesn't the 2nd say something like "...shall make NO law abridging ...." (caps for emphasis). My dictionary says abridge means limit. Don't licensing, concealed carry and waiting period laws limit those rights?

I don't necessarily agree that everyone has a right to a .50 cal machine gun, but I don't see anything in the Amendment that allows government to prohibit it.

Brian,

Precisely why I concluded with "Both sides have valid points that I believe I have addressed. Unfortunately, I doubt if they would agree."

Besides, isn't it the measure of a reasonable compromise that the opposing parties will not be entirely happy with it, but, if pushed, could live with it? *grin*

I believe that this is one of the greatest strengths we have as Centrists -- the ability to view both sides of issues and find the solution(s) that everyone can live with.

Mercutio,

If you were to read my entire post, I quote the Second Amendment in its entirety: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As for my mistaking caliber for "rate of fire," I am not a gun enthusiast as I also stated in my post. Thank you for pointing out my error, however.

It's up to the judges to decide what the law is, but as far as policy, I don't think it's a good idea for the average person to have a gun in their home. It's as or more likely to be used on themselves, family, or friends than it is on an intruder.

It is reasonable for people who work in high-robbery occupations--e.g. jewelry salesmen, liquor store owners, couriers to be armed. It's reasonable for people who have received death threats to be authorized to carry handguns.

If it were up to me, I would prohibit casual ownership of handguns. Perhaps that is unconstitutional, but if that is the case, then bad policy is enshrined in the Constitution.

"I don't necessarily agree that everyone has a right to a .50 cal machine gun, but I don't see anything in the Amendment that allows government to prohibit it."

If we interpret it in that absolutest sense, don't we have to allow people to posess any sort of "arms" they can get ahold of? Nuclear arms? Chemical or biological weapons?

Seems to me we draw the line, pragmatically speaking, at the weapons capable of inflicting mass casualties -- knowing that there are a few disturbed people out there who would use such weapons.

In the argument about what the constitution grants regarding gun rights, it's important to note the distinction between a rigid interpretation of the exact phrasing, and the current underrstanding of its meaning, based on a series of legal precedents.

So even if one interprets the 2nd amendment as constraining congress and other gov't authorities from making ANY laws or regulations controlling gun ownership, that's not the view that the law has taken.

And like I said before, I think on gun control there's a broad center holding sway that doesn't want guns either banned or unregulated.

I'm not a gun enthusiast either, or even just someone who feels safer owning one just in case. I don't own one.

But I think the old saw about a gun being more likely to hurt than to help (kill self, friend, or family member)is a canard in the sense that it conceals so much of relevance regarding the question of a gun's utility.

First, it doesn't give any value to the peace-of-mind value a gun provides some, such as someone who has been mugged, raped, or burglarized. It also doesn't count the number of homes not burglarized in states with minimal gun restrictions, nor the # of people not mugged in states with license-to-carry laws.

It also suggests that acts of domestic violence done using a gun would not have occurred in their absence, or would have been less likely. People commit suicide with pills, and murder wives with baseball bats and kitchen knives.

I have a very hard time believing that a man who abused his wife and eventually murdered her would not have done so if guns were outlawed. And I have an even harder time believing that someone in the grips of a long-term despair so painful that they blew their brains out would have made it through if only guns were banned.

Guns are tools. Dangerous tools, but tools neverthe less. So I'm satisfied that people who think they are too dangerous to have around are able to keep their homes gun free, and those who feel safer with them around are able to have them around.

The Constitution was written vaguely enough to insure that the constant tension between security and freedom is maintained. A “hard-wired” rule wouldn’t be flexible enough to allow the ever-contentious world-view/sense-of-life disagreements to form a better argument and grow more profound (or at least deal with the present).

The First Amendment isn’t interpreted literally - my freedom of speech has “reasonable” limits placed on it. Why should the Second? When the Second Amendment was written:
- the existent arms were swords and muskets. Today’s weapons (semiautomatic or otherwise) have little in common with an unrifled blunderbuss that would take one minute to reload.
- the population was largely rural - what are the ramifications of high-powered weapons in cities/suburbs with nothing but sheetrock and vinyl siding separating neighbors?

I think gun control is necessary. I don’t mean “ban guns”. I don’t think it would “keep guns out of the hands of criminals”. I think it would help law enforcement authorities:
- to explain how a weapon stolen in Missouri might end up being used in a holdup in Wisconsin.
- notice that quite a few weapons went that way and that perhaps there’s a network of criminals/fences/transportation/corrupt officials/etc. that could be looked into.

The Constitution is based on a credible understanding of human nature. It shouldn’t be trumped by technology. A single person armed with a modern semiautomatic weapon could hold a hundred late 18th century soldiers at bay.