This is going to be long, but anyone in favor of UBC please read it. It may open your eyes.
So... to begin... would you agree with the posit that our forefathers' purpose in proposing and ratifying the Second Amendment was to make sure and to assure that the federal government would not be able to deprive the people of respective states of the ultimate means to resist the actions or policies of that federal government should they reach a point that they believed that federal government was acting in ways that it was not authorized, or established, to act in?
Do you agree with that posit as it is written? If not, are there ways in which it could be tweaked such that you would agree with it, or do you reject the essence of the idea it conveys completely? The bolded portion is important, I'm asking about what they thought was necessary or important and what they thought they were doing.
1. Do you think that it was reasonable of our forefathers to have the concern which they had and which prompted their enactment of the Second Amendment? For my part, I do.
2. If yes to the first question, do you think that the nature of our (i.e. the people's) relationship with the federal government has changed (from the Founders' time to now) in some fundamental way such that having that concern now is silly or otherwise not worth considering? I'm not asking you to balance how important it is relative to other concerns, just whether the concern still meets some threshold of reasonableness such that it should be taken into consideration when it comes to enacting public policy. For my part, the answer to the question is I do not. That is to say, I believe it is a reasonable concern which still warrants consideration.
How particular polices might address or affect the respective concerns is important when it comes to whether or not they prudently balance those concerns. For example, if we accept that a given policy would do absolutely nothing to reduce the risk (of bad people bad things), then it might not make sense to implement it even if its affect on the other concern (that people retain an ultimate means to resist government action should it reach a sufficient level of impropriety) is minimal. Likewise, if a given policy would in no way diminish people's ability to effectively resist government action should such resistance be necessary, then it might make sense to implement it if it would reduce the risk of bad people doing bad things. I'm going to assume that we're in agreement on that general concept. (Though, to be clear, this is without consideration of what the Constitution approves of.)
But I wonder if we're in agreement on this next point. It seems to me that the original concern of our Founders, the one that we agree still has at least some relevance, contemplates the possibility that the people of this nation might find themselves in open physical conflict with their government - that it's possible that might be necessary to prevent an unacceptable exercise of power by that government. Or, at least, this concern contemplates that the threat of such open physical conflict is needed to discourage an unacceptable exercise of power by that government.
If that's the case, then allowing the government to deny people in general the right to own arms in general is concerning - it negatively impacts their ability to resist (or threaten to resist) the government. But, doesn't allowing the government to decide what arms people may possess also negatively impact that ability? Further, doesn't allowing the government to decide who may or may not possess arms negatively impact that ability? Further still, doesn't providing the government with information regarding who may own what arms negatively impact that ability? Assuming it's possible that the government and the people might one day find themselves as enemies in battle (which is what I believe the Founders contemplated, and what I believe this concern that we've discussed continues to contemplate), does it not do harm to the people's position to let the government decide what arms they may have and who among them may have arms, and to let the government know who has what?
Those questions seem silly in the context where the government and the people are, at least in theory, allies. But the whole point here is that it's possible those entities won't always be allies. France and Germany are functional allies at this point. But would it not be reasonable for France to not like the idea of letting Germany tell it what arms it can have and how many it can have? Without regard to what arms France may need and what arms make sense for France to have, would it make sense for France to let Germany decide such things? And to know what arms France has and where they're likely located? France and Germany may not always be allies. Obviously these situations are far from identical, but the notion that it might be inadvisable to grant the other entity (i.e. Germany in that case, our government in this case) the decision making authority seems, to me, fairly consistently applicable.
So, the point I'm getting at is this: If we accept this concern as legitimate in general, then we must also accept that it's legitimate to be concerned about allowing the government to decide what arms may be had by who and to know what arms are had by who. Would you agree with me that allowing the government that authority impacts to some degree the people's ability to possibly resist that government? And that therefore, how it impacts that ability should be considered when we get to the balancing of conflicting interests? We may disagree on what amounts to the most reasonable balancing of those interests, but do you at least recognize why many people are concerned with the idea of background checks and limitations on what arms may be purchased? It's not just opposition for the sake of opposing something or because many of us want to make it as easy as possible for bad people to do bad things. Will you give me that?
The federal government is not the Cowboys and the people are not the Redskins. Even still, the idea of letting the federal government decide what arms the people may have is unnerving in much the same way that the idea of letting the Cowboys decide what players the Redskins may have is unnerving (to Redskins fans). Further, the idea that the Redskins have to ask the Cowboys for permission to use certain plays, and that thus the Cowboys know what their plays might be, upsets the natural (and acceptable) balance of power between the two. The same might be said for the people having to ask the federal government for permission each time they hope to acquire a firearm. That upsets what is, to my thinking, a very important balance of power - a balance of power that I'd rather see err too far in favor of the people than in favor of the government.
--Leroy
