“What principle of constitutional self-government requires that the permissible age to purchase an AR-15 should be 18 rather than 21? A recent ruling out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the right of 18-year-olds to buy what most of us would call ‘assault weapons.’ Its reasoning? ‘America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army.’ In fact, the enlistment age for the Continental Army was 16 — just 15 with parental consent. Some served at age 14. Is this a sufficient legal and historical basis to allow young teens to purchase nearly military-grade weapons in 2022? This type of 'originalism’ is indistinguishable from idiocy.”-- Michael Duffy, Washington Post
29 May 2022
Word for the day: "originalism"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Something that bothers me all too frequently in these discussions is this notion/distinction of assault or near military grade weapons. It's a cat box of distraction. A sharpened stick is an assault weapon in the right hands at the right time. We need stop trying define in exclusions to allowance of deadly weapons. There's plenty of armies that would be happy with AR and the like. I'd want a man portable sea-wiz over an AR or M-16. As Chekov said sorta, if you introduce a gun you best use it. We have, the GOP has made sure of it, and they are being used to kill, as intended.
ReplyDeleteOriginalism? Limit gun purchases to muzzle-loading single-shot muskets.
ReplyDeleteI recently heard an interview with a historian who's written about the evolution of America's gun culture. He pointed out that debates about the second amendment were well-documented by the men who wrote it, and the notion of an individual's unrestricted right to own any sort of weapon never even came up. They had other things on their minds. The author also pointed out that when Anton Scalia explained his reasoning, even some other "originalists" wondered where he got that stuff. It's hard not think "originalism" is simply a euphemism for making stuff up to justify a ruling that the "originalist" knows damned well is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that gun violence has halved since the 1990s, it's still a monster of a problem. The US has a mass shooting (four or more fatalities per incident) nearly every day. And high profile mass shootings seem to occur a few times a month. With every new Sandy Hook, there's another nationwide uproar: "How the hell do we stop this shit?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think we can, without changing our entire culture. We have become ever more entitled and hedonistic. This is the sick and terminal side of consumer capitalism. Every generation is drawn further toward the conviction that meeting material wants is of paramount importance. This view is nearly unassailable.
So, if I say that suffering is occurring due to the ubiquity of certain sophisticated firearms--the same scourge Australians eliminated in 90s--Americans can convincingly respond with, "Yes, but owning semi-automatic weapons gives me pleasure." This is in accord with our dogma: What gives us pleasure must not be withheld.
The gun squad can yammer on ad infinitum about the Second Amendment, hunting and home protection, but if it didn't feel good to squeeze-off bricks of .223 through an assault rifle, would there really be the same narrative of entitlement? An AR-15 is another consumer item and a pleasure to own--a hot little toy, even as it gathers dust.
We have bigger problems than guns. But, at the root of every one of these problems is the conviction that my pleasure is more important than the collateral suffering it causes. As we consume our way through the animals, forests, atmosphere and oceans of the planet, our capitalist credo drowns out every other concern: If it feels good, do it.
So here’s how we move beyond paralysis on the gun issue: Americans begin subverting consumer culture by seriously questioning their “right” to maximum material pleasure. Americans stop asking the gun crowd to sacrifice for the good of the larger society, unless we are willing to embrace a new sacrificial approach to a thousand other consumer appetites--all of which are generating a tsunami of suffering across the sweep of human, animal and environmental interests.
So you are arguing that times change, technology advances, and so the law must evolve. Great. We limit lots of "arms" today away from private hands - nukes, tanks, howitzers, and so on. Therefore, there is no reasoning that stops us from limiting individual weapons, particularly military-class weapons. Done. Gun control is a thing. Let us use it.
ReplyDeleteArms use in the military is strictly regulated and they provide serious and ongoing training. Maybe we should require that for civilian arms sales as well.
ReplyDeleteIf someone has honorably completed their length of service, fine, they can get a gun. But otherwise, you have to wait until 25-years-old to purchase an AR-style rifle.
ReplyDelete4 of the worst 5 mass shootings in the US were carried out by men aged 64, 29, 26, and 35. The exception was the 3rd worst shooting (Blacksburg, VA, 2007, 32 people died.), which was carried out by a 21 year old with 2 handguns.
Delete