Jason Alexander on the public ownership of assault weapons like the one used in Colorado.

[onehandle]

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

This is an extended tweet, which are often re-sent in their entirety and not for profit, so I posted the entire statement.

[Igel]

1. Cause and effect.

The militia is "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service."

It's not just those called up. It can be limited to a body of citizens called up for service. But they're still the same people, drawn from the same body of people. It's independent of government. That's the nature of natural rights.

The 2nd amendment says that the people have a right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia is needed to provide security. Well-regulated means equipped and trained, presumably in the use of their weapons. More on that in a sec.

You can't have a militia called up from the full set of able-bodied male citizens that's equipped and trained in how to use firearms (or swords, or jacknifes, or maces) if the first time they see a weapon is after they're called up. Militias are called up for emergencies. You don't call something that you predict and plan for a year in advance an "emergency." (Well, not unless you're Congress and you know that in 3 years you'll need a certain bill and wait until the week before so you can pass an emergency resolution. Most of us call that gross negligence. Some call it standard operation procedure and smile.)

However, that still overlooks the fact that there's a basic right in the 2nd amendment. The reason given for the right, a justification, is the militia. But ultimately the right isn't the government's, to have a trained militia sitting around. The right is for the people to provide for their own collective defense. That entails individual defense.

And don't try to pull a bait-and-switch. The militia is well regulated, and in context that can't mean "provisioned with lots of rules and supervision." It's hard to see how the people's right to bear arms leads to a specifically well-supervised militia. It's easy to see how the people's right to bear arms leads to a specifically well-equipped militia, and from there to a well-trained militia. One makes the 2nd amendment's text almost incoherent. The other two are perfectly coherent.

And the text doesn't say, "A militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear well-regulated arms shall not be infringed." You can't just move modifiers areound because you need them moved to make the text conform to your interpretation. Start with text first, and work from there. No "go faux PoMo." We're not Judoon, we shouldn't sound like them. (Sorry, gratuitious Dr. Who reference.)

========

One problem is that nobody wants a militia these days. The idea of politicians and professionals trusting citizens to be part of a grass-roots armed militia is absurd. We don't trust our fellow citizens. We suspect them and belittle them, try to call them non-people and subhuman or children, but we don't trust them. You don't trust the police to always be the good guys? Well, guess what--they trust you no more than that, at best.

But if you're going to have a citizen's militia--and I'm in it, by default, even though I own no gun--then those who would be in it have a right to be well-regulated. Well-equipped, and to know how to use their arms. If you're going to have one, it should have access to suitable arms. If you're being invaded by people throwing lead slugs, maces won't do it. You may not need tanks an AA batteries (I'd have trouble keeping either in my driveway, the danged HOA would object) but semi-automatic weapons and ammonium nitrate are enough to stop tanks. We saw that, and that was with a small percentage of the populace opposed to us. Imagine if the "Iraqi resistance" had clubs and maces, and no more.

For the record, government isn't always kind and beneficent. Usually they're not--sometimes it's in petty things, sometimes it's gutwrenching. They can often change quickly, either through a coup or through a policy change that's driven by "need" and "urgency." (R) or (D), the presidents are men and the politicians look out for themselves. Both have no trouble expanding their own authority, usually citing "need" and always because it's "urgent." Think if it as a precaution rather than paranoia, and just one more application of the precautionary principle.

=========

There are non-assault weapons that pack more of a punch than most assault weapons. Most can shoot as far, and fire as many rounds per minute. They don't usually have high-capacity magazines, but assault weapons don't need the high-capacity magazines. And the high-capacity mags aren't always the best thing nor does swapping out low-capacity magazines constitute much of a hindrance if you've a few minutes' practice time. The clear-cut, crystal-clear distinction you draw just doesn't exist. It's a convenient, self-serving, fiction.

It's like looking at a girl dressed in black leather with steel studs and chains versus an all-American apple-pie kind of girl. When they're laying their boyfriends, they have the same equipment underneath, and the usual difference is largely cosmetic and one of attitude. We might condemn the bad-ass chic, but it's the attitude we don't like. In fact, some "clean cut" girls might have an attitude worse than the bad-ass looking girl. It's just hard to compel conformity of attitude--it's much easier to ban bad-ass looks in school and pretend we've changed what's underneath. As if.

When you try to ban assault weapons, the only non-cosmetic, functional aspect of the ban is the magazine capacity. But again, that can be worked around easily. They're not assault rifles, they're semi-automatic. Like a lot of hunting rifles. Like most pistols. And if we're going to have a citizen's militia, semi-automatic weapons are reasonable to have. They don't all look bad-ass.

But even if we ultimately decide we don't want a citizen's militia, we should still be clear about what we're talking about and empower others to understand us clearly and ourselves to understand others. We shouldn't twist words because we want to make others believe as we do. Nor should we posit nonexistent distinctions because they're necessary and certainly must exist if we're right, as we know we are.