"Framing" gun control debates in liberal terms shuts down leftists. Examples inside.


PDA






jlbraun
August 20, 2007, 09:39 PM
"Gun owners are infantile and paranoid."
Response: "Why are you being intolerant of those that make different life choices than you?"

"There should be a 5000% tax on ammunition, and pistol permits should cost $5000."
Response: "Isn't that classist? Only rich people should be able to use guns?"

"Women shouldn't own guns for self-defense, they'll just get the gun taken away."
Response: "Isn't that sexist and discriminatory towards women?"

"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote? Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?"

If you enjoyed reading about ""Framing" gun control debates in liberal terms shuts down leftists. Examples inside." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
IA_farmboy
August 21, 2007, 12:36 AM
"Gun owners are infantile and paranoid."
My response: That is a very prejudicial and ignorant statement.

jlbraun
August 21, 2007, 01:19 AM
That is a very prejudicial and ignorant statement.

Don't use "ignorant". Use "intolerant" or "bigoted". This turns their own language against them.

Rainsford
August 21, 2007, 02:08 AM
Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun-----Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?Minority = illiterate?

In this situation does "minority" imply ethnicity, or is it referring to the minority of people who are incapable of completing such a test?

IA_farmboy
August 21, 2007, 02:12 AM
Why not use the word "ignorant"? Would "uninformed" be more appropriate?
What many gun grabbers don't seem to realize is that gun owners come in many shapes, sizes and colors. Calling them all "infantile" certainly shows ignorance of what gun owners are like.

IMHO, "intolerant" and "bigoted" are just variations on the "prejudicial" theme. I'd just be repeating myself.

igor
August 21, 2007, 05:20 AM
"Bigoted" and "intolerant" are the language of the other side. Using their language to answer gives better bite to the message. It is highly recommendable to do so!

iiibdsiil
August 21, 2007, 05:33 AM
Just ask the next one that says guns should be banned if he wants to fight for it :evil:

Hawk
August 21, 2007, 12:24 PM
I've found that many U.S. antis will lose enthusiasm for the Australian model when they learn that the turn-in:

1. Involved compensation to the owners.

2. Was financed by raiding their Medicare funding.

jlbraun
August 21, 2007, 12:27 PM
@Rainsford

The original purpose of "literacy tests" was to selectively "test" minority voters with languages they couldn't read. Goes the old saw:

"Boy, can you read this?" (holds up newspaper written in Chinese)
"Yassuh. It says there aren't going to be any black people voting in Georgia this year."

Do *not* use "ignorant" and "uninformed". Those are words spoken from a position of knowledge and information - ie. the upper class. Instead, you have to use words that emphasize the struggle of the lower class, and castigate them for not being responsive to the struggles of the lower classes, minorities, workers, and oppressed women - so you should use "intolerant" and "bigoted", as well as "anti-progressive", "anti-democratic", and "archaic" - as well as "sexist".

velojym
August 21, 2007, 02:42 PM
The left is fond of phrasing things to reflect perceived inadequacies in ethnic minorities. They really believe nobody would hire blacks without 'affirmative action' (they must really think black folks are inferior), and that other brown people are incapable of learning english.
Naturally, they'll claim their opposition is racist... but are we?

MattB000
August 21, 2007, 02:55 PM
I agree we need some things that are more tailored towards each individual argument. It seems as if both sides have formed a series of scripted answers that result in most debates winding up like a game of tic-tac-toe. For what it is worth, here is my two cents...

"Gun owners are infantile and paranoid."
Response: "Why are you being intolerant of those that make different life choices than you?"

This isn't likely to work. It's a set, waiting for them to spike. "I'm intolerant becase of ___(insert favorite anti rehtoric here___)"

"There should be a 5000% tax on ammunition, and pistol permits should cost $5000."
Response: "Isn't that classist? Only rich people should be able to use guns?"

I like this one.

"Women shouldn't own guns for self-defense, they'll just get the gun taken away."
Response: "Isn't that sexist and discriminatory towards women?"

This one is good as well, however, I've never actually heard anyone say that.

"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote? Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?"

This definetly needs to be reworded. :eek: I think I can see how you got there (minorities aren't provided with as good of education throught no fault of thier own), but as you can see above, it opens you up to attack.

fletcher
August 21, 2007, 03:00 PM
Minority = illiterate?

In this situation does "minority" imply ethnicity, or is it referring to the minority of people who are incapable of completing such a test?

I think this is a play on the same kind of junk liberals complain about whenever some sort of restriction is placed on voting or what have you. No matter what it is, it is somehow "disenfranchising minorities".

jlbraun
August 21, 2007, 03:01 PM
It seems as if both sides have formed a series of scripted answers that result in most debates winding up like a game of tic-tac-toe.

Correct, but a lot of antis think that "they'll just take the gun away from you" is actually a new argument.

How about just:
"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote?"

velojym
August 21, 2007, 03:02 PM
"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote? Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?"
This definetly needs to be reworded. I think I can see how you got there (minorities aren't provided with as good of education throught no fault of thier own), but as you can see above, it opens you up to attack.


It does, but it's one of their own arguments being thrown back in their faces.
Liberals love to claim that brown people can never catch up to the less-brown. And, the lazier folks who fit the category will keep tossing votes in their direction so long as the checks keep rollin' in.

illspirit
August 21, 2007, 03:06 PM
"Only the government should have guns!"
Response: "So you think Bush should have total power over us? And you probably thought he was bad before.."

Which they'll probably counter with: "But guns are useless against tanks and stuff!"
Response: "So you're saying our victory in Iraq is imminent then? After all, the insurgents only have small arms and crude, home-made bombs."

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
August 21, 2007, 03:16 PM
I really like this tactic. Spouting their PC babble back into their faces has a certain satisfying justice to it. How can they argue with their own type of logic?

jlbraun
August 21, 2007, 03:25 PM
Spouting their PC babble back into their faces has a certain satisfying justice to it. How can they argue with their own type of logic?

Actually, I'm a liberal Buddhist and sometime registered Democrat who is OK with single-payer preventative healthcare, against the war in Iraq, and am generally a hippie - and gun control really is racist, classist, sexist, and statist when you look at it.

mgregg85
August 25, 2007, 12:04 AM
I like it when the gun control nuts say that 2A rights only apply to muskets. If thats the case then 1A rights would only apply to old manual printing presses and quill pens. If the government moves to ban modern guns then I feel the internet and modern newspapers/television should go as well.

"The founding fathers never intended for anyone to be able to own an 'assault rifle' with a 30 round magazine. Their idea of arms was an old flintlock musket"
Therefore...
"The founding fathers never intended for anyone to be able to instantly communicate. Their idea of fast communication was Paul Revere looking at lanterns"

GlowinPontiac
August 25, 2007, 02:50 AM
"The founding fathers never intended for anyone to be able to own an 'assault rifle' with a 30 round magazine. Their idea of arms was an old flintlock musket"
Therefore...
"The founding fathers never intended for anyone to be able to instantly communicate. Their idea of fast communication was Paul Revere looking at lanterns"

This is one of my favorite responses when talking with an anti. they shut up pretty quick when you talk about banning their blackberry and email.

Warren
August 25, 2007, 07:10 AM
Anti "gun owners are____"

Gunnie (loudly) "Wait! did you just say black folk are too stupid to vote!?!?"

Anti "What!?!? No!!"

Gunnie "Oh, I know I heard you say something bigoted and hateful, I just could not make out what it was."

Crunker1337
August 25, 2007, 11:27 AM
"You don't need guns when you have the police."
Bullets travel much faster than even the most dedicated police officer.

"Guns aren't useful for defensive reasons."
Then why do police officers and soldiers carry them?

"Guns should always have some kind of safety device."
If a gun is kept out of access from children, what's the point?

"You should have to be (enter age here) to buy a gun."
Age doesn't necessarily equal responsibility.

"Why do you need a gun?"
It's a free country; I don't need to justify my life decisions to anyone.

"Why do you need an assault weapon?"
It's a free country; I don't need to justify my life decisions to anyone.

"Guns are way too complicated for normal people to use."
Illogical. Firearms without added accessories have up to three controls, whereas a car has in excess of 25 controls.

"Guns are for cops and the military only."
The Bill of Rights was intended for protection against such corruptible groups.

Mot45acp
August 26, 2007, 11:02 PM
"There should be a 5000% tax on ammunition, and pistol permits should cost $5000."
Response: "Isn't that classist? Only rich people should be able to use guns?"

Add "I thought you were for the little man/average Joe"

Zundfolge
August 27, 2007, 05:28 PM
Add "I thought you were for the little man/average Joe"

anti's respons: Oh I AM for the little man/average Joe ... anything to keep these evil death machines out of his home will save the life of Joe, his wife (because we all know one night he's gonna come home too drunk, start smacking her around and just shoot her instead) and his children (who are able to activate firearms just by giggling ... we all know guns WANT to kill children).

Blackbeard
August 29, 2007, 11:39 PM
"You don't need guns when you have the police."
There aren't any cops in Blacksburg, Virginia?

"Do you really need an assault weapon?"
Not yet.

"Guns are way too complicated for normal people to use."
Point, squeeze, bang. Pretty simple.

DiN_BLiX
August 30, 2007, 12:02 AM
Actually, I'm a liberal Buddhist and sometime registered Democrat who is OK with single-payer preventative healthcare,

Which makes you... MORE DEADLY THAN ANYTHING IN MY COLLECTION! lol

p.s. your not a liberal, youre a slighty confused libertarian.

illspirit
September 1, 2007, 05:08 PM
This idea is kind of long, so in practice one would probably want to expand upon the basic concept in the short version here.

First, the setup, based loosely on the Miller case:

------------

"Imagine that the Bush administration and his big-oil cronies in the 109th Congress wrote a law banning a powerfully compelling book about global warming. Their reasoning was that because they felt global warming is a hoax, it isn't protected by the First Amendment. After the law is passed, an environmental activist is arrested for reading the book, but dies just as her legal challenge reaches the Supreme Court.

"Being that she wasn't there to argue her case, the Supreme Court states that 'In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or reading of books about global warming has any reasonable relationship to a free press, we cannot say that the First Amendment guarantees the right to own and read such a book,' and remanded it back to the lower court for fact finding.

"Now imagine that, following the Supreme Court's non-ruling, several Circuit Courts misinterpreted that case as being "settled," and suppressed or ignored all evidence on further challenges that the Supreme Court never heard. Imagine that each time someone else was arrested for reading about global warming, they were denied due process, and simply found guilty based on the chain of events above."

-----

Let that sink in for a moment, then ask them:

"If all that happened, would you agree or disagree that the First Amendment does not protect the right to read any book?"

When they shout 'NOO!!' in response, tell them to replace books with guns, and the First Amendment with the Second..

ilcylic
September 2, 2007, 03:09 AM
MattB000: I've heard that one a lot, actually.

Heck, I'm 6'5" and 240 lbs, and people have said it would happen to me!

I've offered to let them test this theory, with me even willing to use just a paint ball gun, so no one gets more than a few bruises, but no one has taken me up on it yet. Actually, none of them have taken me up on it when I offered to let them shoot at me, instead, either. Oh well. :D

squinty
September 2, 2007, 03:42 AM
Well, it's entirely appropriate to frame the debate in liberal terms because the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. So it's more than just a semantic trick. The ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment is bizarrely out of step with their interpretation of every other amendment in the bill of rights, and the RKBA should not be solely a conservative cause. We need more pro-gun liberals!

Sage of Seattle
September 2, 2007, 03:28 PM
"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote? Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?"

I would take it a step further and say something like the following:


Anti: "Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."

Gunnie: "So you're saying that civic rights should be limited? Well, it is well known [whether or not it is, but I believe the following to be true] that the First Amendment was passed mainly to protect political speech, not just speech in general. So tell me: what's the name of the local sheriff? [provide the name] Name the two state senators. [at the state, not federal level. provide the names] Name a few U.S. territories or protectorates. [name some] Can't do it? You fail. You now no longer have any First Amendment rights."

jlbraun
September 2, 2007, 04:15 PM
Which makes you... MORE DEADLY THAN ANYTHING IN MY COLLECTION! lol

Riiiiight. Moving along then...

kludge
September 2, 2007, 06:07 PM
illspirit, very insightful, really.

tosler
September 2, 2007, 07:05 PM
Actually, I thought that parts of the ACLU's interpretation of the RKBA was rather well-thought-out and accurate, oddly enough. I was quite surprised. Their "collective ownership" parts are crap, but this part is the underpin to the rest:

"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

I thought this was very nicely put, and explains why we have a very long process ahead of us to get the RKBA re-instated. Most people against gun control do agree that some control of heavy weaponry / artillery is warranted. As soon as that point is reached, the RKBA is abrogated and becomes a privilege (the government says what arms you may or may not have.)

Democracy sucks, people. Two wolves and a sheep voting what's for lunch. We're supposed to be a Constitutional Republic.

I may split this into another thread.

squinty
September 2, 2007, 11:09 PM
"If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

But that question isn't left open by the constitution.

benEzra
September 3, 2007, 01:28 AM
"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."
"Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own child porn or classified nuclear weapons manuals. Yet these, like novels, encyclopedias, and repair manuals, are books.

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict books, but how much to restrict them. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

The thing is, that kind of specious argument can be made for pretty much any of the bill of rights.

"Child sacrifice and ritual prostitution are illegal, so Congress can outlaw going to church."

"The Shriners have to get a permit to throw a parade, so Congress can abolish the right of free assembly any time it chooses."

Same argument, and just as disingenuous.

sacp81170a
September 3, 2007, 12:14 PM
"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

How disingenuous of them to include a WMD with small arms. The argument that we have a right to own nuclear warheads and nerve gas ignores the rights of our neighbors to be safe from items whose very nature poses a danger to their lives. No one argues that the right to use your property as you see fit allows you to start a toxic waste dump in your basement or store ebola in your refrigerator. WMD's should be regulated because of the danger they pose by their very existence. On the other hand, my safe full of guns can sit and quietly rust over a period of centuries and no on will be harmed unless someone makes a conscious decision to pull a trigger.

The two classes of weapons get lumped together for the purpose of denying our basic civil rights. Don't let 'em do it. :barf:

tosler
September 3, 2007, 12:15 PM
You are correct, the Constitution forbids any kind of legal infringement on the RKBA.

The problem is, America is running as a democracy, and the vast majority of people, including most gun owners (and of course the NRA), believes that artillery and heavy weaponry (bombs, mortars, missiles, nukes) ought to be regulated.

The RKBA allows us to own the above items. There is no way around it that I know of. You can finagle around that fact with legalese, but then you are no better (in principle) than the ACLU.

Please tell me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, the RKBA allows me to own a 105MM howitzer without restriction. Anybody that says others would seem to be advocating a limited suspension of the RKBA.

Once we limit the RKBA in any way, then the whole thing becomes untenable. It becomes a grey line that can be altered at the whim of government, media, or voters.

The ACLU's argument is disingenious, but it happens to be true.

Also, it is not legal to own child porn. The 1st amendment is therefore abrogated. The socialist left has simply done a better job propagandizing the populace against guns. Once the guns are gone, then the other rights are easy prey.

Trost

tosler
September 3, 2007, 04:55 PM
There is a legal term which I do not remember which refers to something that creates an unacceptable risk for an unacceptably large number of people, and is therefore outlawable even if it would otherwise be legal according to someone's normal rights.

You can, in principle, ban ebola / smallpox / nuclear weapons using this principle.

Two arguments.

1) Say you ban nukes. Where do you draw the line? A SAM can kill many hundreds of people if fired against a civilian airliner. A large caliber artillery shell can kill tens of people in a crowded area. A properly-operated machine gun can kill tens or hundreds of people in a very short period of time. A micro-nuke might easily fall within this scale. Where's the line? Many of these weapons are necessary for conducting effective guerrilla warfare against a tyrannical government or China. A clean micro-nuke doesn't even leave much environment radioactivity behind, which many current military munitions do because of the widespread use of DU.

2) Let's say you effectively handle "WMDs". Where does that leave you? Most people, including gun owners, seem to think civilians should not be allowed to own artillery without regulation, yet that is unquestionably allowed under the second amendment. More people probably would support unrestricted civilian machine gun ownership, but I don't think the figures would be much different.

I do not believe the second amendment can be up for vote, and be anything more than an amusing statement of archaic sentiment.

Awkward questions, to be sure!

Trost

bill larry
September 3, 2007, 05:56 PM
JLBraun, I think your idea is great. I think some here are missing the point...if you use their own "pc" language against them, they will have nothing to say. You are taking the words out of their mouths.

Sir Aardvark
September 3, 2007, 06:56 PM
"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms."

Well... when the constitution was written they did not have bazookas, missiles, or nuclear weapons - but they did have firearms.

Autolycus
October 24, 2007, 03:33 AM
I dont understand. How you assume that only gun control is a leftist cause and a liberal thing.

Some of you who dislike politically correct terms are not exactly understanding what politically correct means.

Autolycus
October 24, 2007, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by velojym: The left is fond of phrasing things to reflect perceived inadequacies in ethnic minorities. They really believe nobody would hire blacks without 'affirmative action' (they must really think black folks are inferior), and that other brown people are incapable of learning english.
Naturally, they'll claim their opposition is racist... but are we?

The left will claim what opposition is racist? And are we? You assume that everyone here is on the same side.

Autolycus
October 24, 2007, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Fletcher: I think this is a play on the same kind of junk liberals complain about whenever some sort of restriction is placed on voting or what have you. No matter what it is, it is somehow "disenfranchising minorities".
Its not junk. Do you understand what restrictions on voting does? You make it sound as if your indifferent to the fact that minorities dont get an equal vote in many regards.

ConfuseUs
January 28, 2008, 02:16 AM
"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."
Response: "Isn't that the equivalent to requiring a literacy test in order to vote? Doesn't that disenfranchise minorities?"

I would change that to:

"Gun owners should have to pass a test in order to own a gun."

"Well then public schools should require all students to learn how to safely handle guns. Otherwise only the wealthy elite would be able to afford the education necessary to pass the test."

serrano
January 29, 2008, 02:39 AM
Which they'll probably counter with: "But guns are useless against tanks and stuff!"
Response: "So you're saying our victory in Iraq is imminent then? After all, the insurgents only have small arms and crude, home-made bombs."


I actually used this just this weekend at my grandmother's house - my many aunts are all very anti-gun - they just folded their arms and let out a huff.


"Why do you need a gun?"
It's a free country; I don't need to justify my life decisions to anyone.


I don't like this answer - I think the last one you posted is much stronger, although it may not necessarily be why you choose to own a gun(s).


"Guns are for cops and the military only."
The Bill of Rights was intended for protection against such corruptible groups.

Vader
February 10, 2008, 12:17 PM
deleted

chrlefxtrt
February 10, 2008, 04:54 PM
Liberal response for anything on this board:

It's different guns are bad.


You will find it difficult to ever change a liberal's mind. You should always concentrate on the folks riding on the fence. How can you ever win an argument with someone that refuses to use logic?

Sapanther
February 21, 2008, 10:23 PM
[My ghetto qoute system]


"chrlefxtrt
Liberal response for anything on this board:
It's different guns are bad.


You will find it difficult to ever change a liberal's mind. You should always concentrate on the folks riding on the fence. How can you ever win an argument with someone that refuses to use logic? "

:fire::banghead::cuss:
change Liberal to Anti please ... just because someone is Liberal doesn't mean they are anti gun ... the right doesn't have a monoply on the 2A ...



ETA: could someone PM me the location of the qoute button, can't seem to find it

Warren
February 22, 2008, 05:56 AM
ETA: could someone PM me the location of the qoute button, can't seem to find it

There isn't one. In an ironic twist, a huge group of people that can be counted on to use firearms in a responsible manner, could not quite manage the same with a tiny quote button.

When you hit the reply button the little dialogue balloon next to the envelope will give you quote tags when clicked on. Just paste the text you want between the two quote tags and you are good to go.

BBroadside
May 19, 2008, 09:41 PM
tosler wrote: "Please tell me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, the RKBA allows me to own a 105MM howitzer without restriction. Anybody that says others would seem to be advocating a limited suspension of the RKBA."

The reasoning I heard was that late 18th Century terminology would have described a fighting implement that could be borne (carried by a single person) as an "arm", and one that could not (a crew-served weapon) as a "weapon of war". This wouldn't allow the regulation of, say, an M72 Light Anti-tank Weapon, but anything above a certain weight could be regulated under Article I Section 8 Clause 16.

Not sure everyone would agree though.

alexanderplatz
May 20, 2008, 02:04 PM
So what was the legal status of artillery in the 1700s? Were individual citizens allowed to own cannon, or were they soley the domain of governments?

brighamr
May 20, 2008, 02:25 PM
jlbraun - perfectly articulated response.

OP - great thread. Gives me good ideas for the next anti I run into.

Ske1etor
May 20, 2008, 02:55 PM
"Gun owners are infantile and paranoid."

Response : Who is more paranoid? Me, a firearm owner or you, the guy who wants to ban and destroy all firearms because he doesn't trust law abiding citizens?

BBroadside
May 20, 2008, 10:11 PM
Good question from alexanderplatz: "So what was the legal status of artillery in the 1700s? Were individual citizens allowed to own cannon, or were they soley the domain of governments?"

This I don't know. I've heard it asserted (http://libertas.vox.com/library/post/in-concord-cannon-law.html) that they could be owned by anyone, and I don't see any reason to disagree, but that doesn't mean the founders thought owning crew-served weapons should necessarily be a protected right. The aforementioned link talks about people bearing cannon, but they can't be carried. So there is some vagueness that requires some sensitive interpretation.

Part of the problem is that the idea of the state has changed so much over time. States had very few employees. Per the Federalist Papers (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm), the militia consisted of the entire body of armed citizens, yet the sole power to appoint militia officers rested with state governments. Militia members wouldn't have earned a dime in salary, of course, but I don't know about officers. Furthermore, authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia lies with the Federal government (Article I Section 8).

With crew-served weapons, there is a little subtlety going on. A private citizen (individual militia member) couldn't operate a cannon on his own, at least not in a way that would make it an effective battlefield device. He'd need a crew, and I see no reason to think he'd have the authority to pick his crew. Army privates don't pick who is in their squad. Basically, a state-appointed officer (probably a well-respected neighbor, in the 18th Century) would be picking whoever he thought would reasonably serve in the cannon crew.

The point is, when more than one person is operating a weapon, responsibility is much more complicated than someone pointing a musket or swinging a sword. If someone misses with a musket and hits a friendly soldier, you know who to blame. With a cannon...? I have no clue. It stands to reason that even if someone could go out and buy a cannon in 1790 (which I think they could) they wouldn't have complete freedom to move it wherever they wanted, or take it out for practice with their unorganized undisciplined buddies, or whatever.

The small number of private cannon-owners were probably quite well-coordinated with the militia officers, which isn't the same thing as belonging to a semi-professional National Guard, but also isn't the same as the way muskets and pistols and fowlers would have been regulated (which is to say, almost not at all).

When the Supreme Court considers the big pending RKBA case, I hope they make some decision along the lines of: any weapon small enough to be carried, that doesn't have a brain* (e.g., a Stinger missile), should be pretty much unregulated. I think laws regarding other weapons should be left at the status quo, except that I believe states should have the right to arm their non-professional state guards (which can't be taken under Federal/Presidential command) about like National Guards (which aren't much different from regular Army, in Constitutional terms, especially considering the President can send them to any country on earth without a declaration of war, or so much as a how-do-you-do).

I believe every state should pass a law creating a permanent state militia officer class (basically well-trained gun-owners, especially those with military/police training/experience). This is not supposed to be an innovation but a return to James Madison's vision. These officers would be responsible for the deployment, training, etc. associated with heavy weapons held at the level of the state militia. For an individual to buy these weapons would constitute a donation, more or less, to the militia. Not a transfer of ownership, and not to the state government (but rather, to their peers among the citizenry), but if the weapon is moved and fired by a state-organized crew, individualism is out of place.

Really, I don't think it is Constitutional for a group of individuals to arms themselves like a small army without recognizing the authority of their state-appointed officers. If they don't have any officers (and they generally don't, really), it's not entirely their fault since states are pretty vague about this. I think they distinction between individual self-defense and collective military defense was probably so obvious the founders glossed over it. So if you want M16-type weapons for your gun club, I think you're on good Constitutional ground as the document was intended; if you want a 155mm howitzer, you need to be in some chain of command terminating with your governor.

Like it or not, the Federal government does have some say here - they can prescribe organization and discipline for your state militias beyond the level of individuals carrying individual weapons. The states train and command them. (And all of this is just my humble opinion.)

* Electronically-guided weapons are a Constitutional nightmare, IMHO. There is no precedent for them. If you fire a guided missile, you're not picking your target - an engineer at some military contractor is, in a strange way. Individual responsibility is messy at best. I just don't think there is an absolute Constitutional right to owning a particular computer chip. I point this out because finessing this matter by limiting the definition of arms to weapons that can be borne still allows a whole lot of modern technology which is not even lineally descended from what the framers would have considered.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Framing" gun control debates in liberal terms shuts down leftists. Examples inside." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!