|
The article was poorly written from the point of view of people who think a semantic argument is the same as a logical decision making process. Because Dick resorts to poor analogies people are going to claim that the underlying point he's making is false. It isn't.
The primary problem is that nothing else in the Constitution is analogous to devices designed primarily for killing. This unique commentary on a device; arms, leads to poorly framed analogies on both sides.
The only important take away from the article is that everything in the BoR has legal limits (and they should), and that those limits are always dancing on the edge between regulation and infringement. No dictionary is going to tell you that 1 hour of training is "regulation" and 16 is "infringement". That's the sort of stuff our representative government exists to figure out on a case by case basis.
Simple minded insistence that firearms possession is (uniquely) totally beyond regulation is not the sort of mindset that gets you a seat at the bargaining table. I fear that we give up our right to influence and control our rights by our inability to engage in the debate beyond a refusal to acknowledge that there is anything to debate.
Religious zeal is useful for motivating suicide bombers, but is a real handicap when trying to convince the swing vote or earn concessions from the opposition.
I think Metcalf is risking his career to speak out, which is more than most rabid gun rights advocates would do. He's asking us to get off the sidelines and take control of a national debate, which I think is pretty smart.
The best people to write the regulations and restrictions on the use of arms are those of us who want them and understand them. The current stalemate takes us completely out of the process, and when the general public is once again outraged by a mass murder the gun grabbers are the only people with legislation ready to be passed. That's really stupid on our part.
|