supremes

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/scotus.handguns/index.html

I'm not in the NRA. I don't own a gun. And if I had one, I'd probably have to figure out how to use it before I could kill someone with it. Without indiscriminate random firing into a crowded street anyway. But there's some strange logic here. The idea of handguns being banned and illegal is somehow going to deter criminals from owning one? Criminals. Aren't they the same people who already violate laws? So they're going to automatically observe this one as well? It's a strange logic. I agree in some principle that reducing the number of guns available does reduce violent crime, if only by extension increasing the cost of purchasing illegal weapons for example. That makes some fundamental sense. There are two things that make more sense than an outright ban. First remove the common conditions which inspire criminals to violent activity with weapons to achieve their aims. Easier said then done, but it's considerably cheaper in the long run to offer hope, empowerment, and some changes that inspire prosperity than to continue to suffer the imposed prison sentence of a ghetto lifestyle. Second, provide some deterrence by harshly penalizing people who use guns, and people who provide tolerance for their use (the don't snitch crowd). This works on a few people, smarter crooks figure out ways to make ends meet without packing a piece unless it's really needed. Violence isn't needed in a world with volume internet scams.

To actual gun control advocates, I can and do appreciate the arguments. Hand guns and automatic assault rifles were not around in the late 18th century. Even had they been, the population density was such that they would make little profitable use except in defense of frontier establishments (thus why the Colt revolver did so well in the mid 19th century). But the trouble is that such weapons were designed with a military purpose, that is, solely to kill other human beings. With ruthless mechanized precision in some cases. With our society grown into much more of a mechanized, urbanized system, some levels of restriction on the types of weapons available to the common person seem inevitable. We do not, for example, commonly see someone strolling around with an RPG or a .50 cal heavy machine gun. Hand guns it can be argued provide some levels of basic personal defense, and certainly the perception that a community is armed and willing to defend its place of residence against such trivial attacks as vandalism or theft is likely to have some positive benefits in reducing crime as well. But even so, it's possible that people could simply have shotguns.

But on what grounds is someone claiming a need to defend themselves against the government when there are peaceful means to resist the will of said agency? I don't quite see that argument. I'm not in favor of unlimited gun control and aside from some basic regulations that restrict purchasing access for ex-cons or psych ward types, I'm not sure we need a major push to remove guns from our society. I think we need a major push to remove the desire to use violent measures to exact benefit or other criminal advantages. Without guns, the desire to do murderous things is simply limited to other weapons, or at least guns with a stated and mundane hunting purpose rather than human killing machines. But without some cogent argument in favor of anti-regulation and supporting 2nd amendment rights, the central argument of gun control is steadily going to gain ground and it will not remove the principle issues with their employment.

So to attempt to provide one. There are two elements to it. One is that the defence of one's property and livelihood against physical assault is ultimately up to the individual. The chief ability of police is not to prevent crime but to deter it by detaining and prosecuting those responsible for it. Individuals are already in a fortress mentality in America, but yet curiously seem willing to allow police or other agencies to come to their rescue during times of difficulty. Certainly a fire department is better equipped to put out a fire. A doctor is better equipped to treat a wound or illness. But to prevent careless injuries, most accidental fires, etc, that's a personal stake. It's not the states business to walk into our homes and point out to us every fire hazard or potential death trap. It's our own. The same is true for the deterrence and ultimate prevention of crime. To do this there are a variety of methods, security alarms, cameras, fences, locks, dogs, and if all else fails guns. If a criminal enters a property with the reasonable expectation that he/she may be killed as a result of their acts, they're likelier than not to find somewhere else to go. To me this is really the only reason not to impose a massive sweeping ban on weapons. Some of them the public can do without. But in the environment we've created, sometimes a loaded weapon may be the only thing making someone think about what they're about to do.

The second is more simple, but as the Constitution is the highest law, it does indicate a need for well-regulated militia. The implication, viewed in the historical terms of the day, is in part that the general population would be able to readily use weapons in defence of their homes and be able to do stand to in a collective way if need be. It's hard to see a need for militia what with a massive professional standing army (something not in the Constitution, but sometimes useful in statecraft). This I suppose is the most basic question up for consideration in the court. Does the 2nd amendment mean: regulated guns or regulated militias. It's hard to see the founding fathers arguing that people needed guns to stand up against their own government, as some 'militias' at the present argue. But with the Revolutionary War not far in their history, there was undoubtedly some thought to that problem. In any case, it's easy enough to point to the language of the text and make something approaching a cogent argument that government may be able to regulate and restrict access to purely 'offensive' lethal weapons, but they shouldn't be banning them.

In the aftermath of decisions like Kelo, I'm not encouraged that the Supreme court has taken up cases like these. But if the chief argument against such controls is as sensible as this, I can't say there was no attempt to defend the 2nd amendment.