Centrist is as Centrist does – An Exercise
The Moderate Voice is a vehicle for civil discussion of controversial issues. It is about exploring the Grey areas.
So in that spirit I propose a centrist exercise. I offer a controversial topic and invite comments on how to reconcile the opposing points of view.
This involves clarifying definitions, making distinctions between means versus ends, dealing with ambiguity, recognizing practical realities, making compromises, thinking nonpartisan and bi-partisan, considering cost and short and long term implications…
Some folks may find it difficult to function in this environment. For them the issues are a matter of honor, or ideology, or God’s word, or some other context that can only be resolved as right and wrong, black and white, Win or lose. If you’re able and willing to respect the validity of an opposing point of view, please participate.
Some defenders of the Second Amendment interpret it to mean absolutely no regulation of gun ownership. Some believe that the phrase “well regulated Militia” implies some restraint is reasonable. What compromises would you propose to a receptive audience of moderate Democrats and Republican Congressman who want to propose a new and modern set of regulations on gun ownership and sales?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
32 Responses to “Centrist is as Centrist does – An Exercise”
I came across these comments from Paul Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., and the new president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
…by using labels like “pro-gun Democratsâ€? to describe candidates like Jim Webb, falls back into one of the good-bad traps of political discourse…Concerns for gun violence prevention and public safety should not be categorized as pro-gun versus anti-gun.
What’s “anti-gun� about wanting background checks to make sure that those with criminal records aren’t buying guns legally?
What’s “anti-gun� about restricting bulk sales of handguns, a sure sign that someone wants to sell those guns illegally on the secondary market?
Why isn’t it “pro-gun� to want to crack down on the 1 percent of gun dealers who sell 57 percent of the guns that end up being used illegally; or to support more financing for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?
When a candidate says he wants to enforce “the gun laws on the books,â€? why don’t we see that as being opposed to the gun lobby’s efforts to weaken “the laws on the booksâ€??…
Only every other person gets to own guns.
A perfect compromise.
Andrew,
Do you have any reasonable thoughts about this?
Paul,
I think a lot of it comes down to people not wanting to go on a slippery slope. It’s a shame too. Especially since the recent election points out that while people do have preferences on some political questions, there is a point when the people with the nuanced position go “OK. That’s enough. No further” Dakota’s abortion vote being a shining example of that. ‘Slippery Slope’ may be a fallacy.
As to the second amendment, I have a radical idea: Any kind of gun is OK, but you have to volunteer your time and some ammunition once a year or so to take part in militia type drilling and training. Say, for just a day or two. It’s win/win. Minimal cost since people are volunteering, and maximal effect since you now have a significant sized force to deputize in an emrgency.
It is a question of inertia. One must pay a fee to obtain a license to drive a large, low velocity metallic object through the streets, and one must pass a test showing some minimum competence in the use of said machine. I think it makes sense to require the same level of competence if one wishes to be able to launch light weight, high velocity metallic objects from a small machine. From a high school physics level there is no difference in terms of inertia between a car (high mass, low velocity) and a bullet (low mass, high velocity). The devastation that can be caused by either is similar, both can be used as weapons for good or ill, and both van be used to kill small and large game. Regulate guns in exactly the same way we do cars.
bellisaurius,
I appreciate your novel yet obvious interpretation of the second amendment.
The Founders did go out of their way to use the phrase “well regulated militia” when they could have more easily said that gun ownership will not be interferred with.
Paul in Austin,
At some point we have to confront the fact that a centrist or compromise position on many issues is somewhat laughable or irrelevant. If some people say that 2+2=3 and some others say that 2+2=4, we don’t compromise and say the moderate position is 2+2=3.5.
Now, with politics, people may fervently believe that 2+2=3 and others 2+2=5, and the compromise, 2+2=4, does indeed turn out to be correct.
However, this isn’t really how our system works. This is how extremist moderates really, really want it to work, but it really, really doesn’t. We don’t have debates. We have elections. The winner of the election sets policy, usually by changing existing policy, but, critically, only if the policy is significantly different from what is desired. There is no deciding things from first or basic principles in a magical vacuum of logic and moderation.
So, the question is not what is the compromise position for gun laws should be; it is whether or not the current policies are a problem issue for the winning party. And nationally, guns are not really on the agenda for Congressional Democrats or President Bush. The status quo is working fine.
So, the exercise of arriving at a compromise position on guns is an irrelevant centrist fantasy. The results of such an exercise have no chance of real application, nor should they.
As an irrelevant aside, I am rather “pro-gun” (though anti-NRA). My main concern is SA versus SA/DA versus DAO. Now THAT is an issue worth of debate.
I’m more or less on the Paul in Austin side. I don’t have problems with people owning guns, and even if I did, there are more than 250 million guns out there, and they’re not all going away. I do think near-military-grade weapons should be severely restricted, and I support strong licensing processes. Mostly, though, I want to concentrate on the gun shows and rogue store owners who transfer arsenals to criminals, through nefariousness or negligence.
Andrew,
That was a disappointing comment
If your criteria is to avoid irrelevant centrist fantasy and exercises that have no chance of real application why are you a regular commenter on a moderate blog?
Regrettably the realist position on gun control is considered extreme (or non moderate). I can’t imagine in what universe everyone walking around with a firearm in their pocket is a good idea.
The most stated objection goes after the straw man of banning guns entirely. I’m sure there are a few people who feel that way but it is not really what we are talking about.
There is the notion that citizens with guns provide a check on government power. (much like it does in Iraq I guess).
My opinion seems moderate enough to me.
So, the exercise of arriving at a compromise position on guns is an irrelevant centrist fantasy.
Your comment is silly. We can all think of a range of options between having absolutely no restriction on guns and an absolute ban them. You might also remember that the second amendment doesn’t say guns it says arms which refers to weapons in general. Are you arguing that there should be an absolute right to own any weapon?
You totally didn’t understand what I said. Perhaps my fault.
My point is not that there isn’t a moderate position on guns. Obviously there is. (It’s surely very close to the status quo, because no one is making very much noise about the issue right now.) My point is that we do not arrive at policy by determination of moderates. Indeed, such a determination is almost certainly bound to fail because the radicals on both sides will have problems with such a determination. Radicals who care much, much more about the issue.
Paul, so sorry to disappoint you. I comment to educate people that moderate outcomes are not arrived at by being moderate in the US and A. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of how our political system works. For the past 6 years, being a moderate at any cost has meant being an enabler of the right wing and led to immoderate outcomes.
It is truly arrogant for centrists to think that they are the ones to provide the best solutions for us all.
Moderate outcomes are arrived at by negotiation by willing participants.
Which is what this post was intended to mimic.
Andrew, I can almost never understand what you are saying or why you are saying it.
Paul, I’ll try to be more clear:
I first fell in love with the classic DA/SA SIG design, but then I shot a 1911 and fell in love with the feel and can understand why everyone loves them. Once you’re over the idea of carrying cocked and locked, the light SA is wonderful. On the other hand, a DAO pistol combines the accessibility of a safety-less design and offers consistent pull.
I would love to support a “moderate” position on firearms regulation if I thought that the laws could be uniform throughout the country. On balance, the laws in effect in Connecticut are a pretty good compromise between the goals of respecting the right to keep and bear arms, and taking workable measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. We have to obtain a permit to own handguns legally. But obtaining it is a one-time process. After that, you simply renew every four years and notify the State Police if you change your address. The permit is also a permit to carry. There is no requirement to demonstrate “need.” It’s close to shall-issue, but there is a “suitability” clause that lets the local police deny someone who is a known troublemaker, but who doesn’t actually have a criminal record. Such a denial can be appealed to a review board composed of members from law enforcement as well as gun collecting groups and the state NRA affiliate. On the concealed carry issue, I think this is a good compromise between the two sides. One change I would like to see is beefing up the training requirement to something more like what’s in effect in Texas (state-certified instructors, written exam on the laws covering justifiable use of daily force, state-prescribed life fire qualification), but try telling anybody in Connecticut that Texas had a better training requirement for concealed carry.
Laws that restrict the number of firearms you can purchase at a time will be very hard on collectors. I have purchased entire collections from estates on several occasions, and, over time, re-sold many to other collectors. But sometimes you have to move quickly when a collection becomes available. I have bought up to 55 firearms at a time. A “one gun a month” law would mean that such a purchase would take me over four years.
The federal “assault weapons” ban has expired, but state-level bans are still in effect in several states, and the details are different, so the likelihood of manufacturers developing lines that comply in these states is low. Gun control groups are fond of pointing out that .223 AR-type rifles “have no application in hunting,” but these firearms are very popular among target shooters. With the federal ban sunset, shooters in the states that still have bans are going to be at a real disadvantage competitively as new models are introduced that are available to their competition from other states, but not to them.
Mostly, I’m annoyed at people who propose “sensible laws” without having any notion of what is already the law. Do people know that in New Jersey you have to obtain a separate permit from the police for every handgun purchase? That is can take up to six months to obtain that permit — and never less than one month, no matter how recently you applied before? That the police require two written references for every permit? That you can’t obtain the references yourself, but must supply the names and addresses and wait for the police to write to them and get the replies back? And, that if you move to a different town within New Jersey, you start all over again with the six month wait for the initial permit?
Do the advocates of “sensible laws” who have stood in the way of simplifying the process for obtaining a carry permit in Delaware realize that is already legal for a Pennsylvania resident who holds a Florida permit to carry a concealed weapon in Delaware, but not legal for a Delaware resident who has a Florida permit? Do the residents of Los Angeles county in California, where concealed carry permits are impossible to obtain, realize that it is perfectly legal for residents of Orange County, where the process is straigtforward, to carry concealed weapons in LA county, but that there is no way that a resident of LA county can carry a weapon in Orange County?
This is a tiny, tiny sample of the crazy patchwork of laws and procedures. If we could reach a middle ground and then put it into practice throughout the country, I’d certainly support it.
I don’t know if it is centrist but here is my take on the second amendment, first part one “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State;�
The reason for the first part was to allow a citizen army. At a time when autocrats routinely used large standing armies to repress rebellious citizenry our founders were suspicious of a president with an army at his disposal. This provision provides for a national defense and at the same time keeps the army small and not the tool of a possible dictator. Militias require regulations in order to become proficient at learning how to use and maintain arms as well as learning military operations. So the amendment implies some type of regulation. For me this would mean at least demonstrating gun safety, including safe storage of firearms, in order to be considered “regulated militia“. This would also mean that you could restrict gun ownership to people who would be militia material, excluding people with mental health problems or a criminal background for example. Licensing to show you have learned gun safety and handling would be fine, except that the government could not issue the license, the government might have an interest in denying licenses or only giving licenses to their political supporters. Licensing can answer some of the questions on weapons purchasing, background checks, and waiting periods.
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.�
This part is to deny government the exclusive access to armed force, the citizens also have arms making them far more difficult to intimidate with a military. A situation where the army is used against citizens is not far fetched, the Bonus march was put down by the US army and strikers were killed by Colorado national guardsman. But there are some practical considerations here. Rocket propelled grenades or artillery pieces are weapons you can’t safely stored in a home, the explosive potential makes a home fire an extremely dangerous situation. Fully automatic [machine guns] weapons are fine in the hands of a “militia� member but can be stolen so a restriction on home storage is valid here also. That does not mean a ban on fully automatic assault guns, if gun owners formed a militia and had a well secured [locked and patrolled] armory then I see no reason why they could not store and shoot their guns at a secure site.
There are some issues not specifically covered by the amendment, concealed carry for example. You have the right to bear arms but I don’t see the need to bear [concealed ] arms at a high school football game and a business or property owner should have the right to exclude arms from their property. So I guess the bottom line is that regulation is a part of the amendment but a ban, including a ban on firearms by a municipality, is not following the constitution.
So would the gun owners community prefer a standardized national policy on gun ownership and registration, rather than a patchwork of state and local rules?
Is there a gun owners consensus about restricting the sale of assault weapons?
What if guns were unregulated but ammunition was carefully controlled and chemically treated for tracing it’s source?
How do we keep guns out of the hands of people who become temporarily deranged like at Columbine?
As a member of the NRA, I am FOR gun control — the amount we’ve already got is just fine, no more is needed. Enforcing the existing laws would be a GOOD thing versus trying to cook up more stupid laws to make gun crimes even more illegal than they are since they don’t serve as a deterrent (in my opinion) AT ALL.
As for concealed carry, I firmly believe that as long as somebody is an able minded and able bodied, law abiding, adult Citizen, CCW is perfectly fine. I believe there are more “good guys” than “bad guys” in America, and if more law abiding Citizens would carry, the “good guys” would win most, if not all gun battles. Sooner or later, the bad guys would stop starting gun battles once their body counts reached the unnaceptable levels to them.
In a perfect world, a law abiding Citizen would have no need for guns, but we all know this isn’t a perfect world, nor will it ever be unless you subscribe to the New Testament’s promise that one day we will enjoy 1000 years of “perfect worlddom”, which I do.
Therefore; once I see Jesus come back to Earth again, I’ll lay down my weapons…
No civilian needs armor piercing ammunition. They don’t need ammo designed to do as much damage to the human body as possible. They don’t need fully automatic weapons or weapons that are readily modifiable to be so. They don’t need .50 caliber sniper rifles.
Background checks are completely reasonable. As a compromise solution it would be nice to come up with a system where the serial number of a weapon would be associated with the striations and marks that are used in ballistics testing so that if a weapon is used in a crime it wouldn’t have had to have been used previously in a crime in order to be identified. The compromise comes in by having some kind of limitation where this database couldn’t be searchable for any other reason because I can guess that the more absolutist gun rights people wouldn’t like it without some privacy safeguards in place.
Jim S, why not, to most of the above?
Extremely oversized SUVs kill many more people in a year than armor piercing ammunition or .50 sniper rifles (which have never been used in a murder, as far as I can know. Furthermore, SUVs are not in the Constitution, and banning them and making people buy minivans would save far more lives than any of the gun control measures you propose. To say nothing of the gas we could save!
Jim S, a militia is military unit, sniper rifles, assault guns etc are weapons a military would have. The amendment specifically mentions “militia� as “being necessary for the common defense�. The idea is to have an armed citizenry, that the state would not exclusively have access to force [arms]. You can say this amendment no longer makes sense, but remember our founders were revolutionaries, not librarians, and citizens having the military power to stand up to the government was the reason for the amendment. To do away with a sniper rifle you have to repeal the amendment. My problem with gun laws is that there is no training required in safety or storage to own a firearm in most states. . If you had a licensing system you could do the background checks and training. Possessing a firearm without a license could carry severe [years of imprisonment] penalties for possession. Many criminals would avoid guns in that regardless of the crime merely possessing them with out a license would mean long jail time.
What’s the difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle?
Gun control advocates would have a lot more credibility if they knew the first thing about firearms.
One commenter noted that he thought that armor-piercing ammunition should be banned. Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is already banned by federal law. Banning all armor-piercing ammunition would outlaw a lot of rifle ammunition. You simply cannot go moose hunting with ammunition that is designed so that it won’t pierce standard police body armor. (This is the reason that the military body armor used in Iraq contains heavy, rigid plates; it’s designed to protect against rifle fire.)
Again, it’s a case of those advocating a gun control law not knowing what the law already is, or not having basic technical knowledge about firearms. And they often don’t want to listen to those who do know; we’re accused of “not caring about crime victims.” Or “shilling for the NRA” (to which I do not belong.)
Geez Helen, that pointy teflon coated bullet is so much scarier (and not actually armor piercing, but that’s besides the point) than that friendly looking rounded FMJ bullet that actually pierces any body armor quite easily!
In some countries don’t they require some sort of military training to carry a weapon? I personally think that the National Guard is becoming way too federalized, as it’s technically the modern equivalent of state militias and is controlled by governors. This is a real remnant of the Founder’s distrust for central authority, and I’m not sure why they are now under control of the Pentagon.
I have to admit I’ve never been around guns much, so correct me if I’m wrong — but in general I’m under the impression that most gun owners have a good understanding of how to use it and be safe, but not so great on actual tactics and identifying dangerous situations.
I’ve often thought that gun registration should be limited to those people that have joined either the Guard or military at some point in their life (or have a qualified reason to have one like being old or disabled). For the Guard they could have a very limited membership for gun owners where they just go over small arms and basic tactics/training how to read a situation and require annual or semi-annual 8 hour days.
While it’s doubtful we’ll ever be invaded and have to pick up arms, a program like this could theoretically help with situations like Katrina.
Also I think the crazed gunman story like Columbine is — like most things in politics — way too influential on policy.
In general I’m under the impression that most automobile owners have a good understanding of how to use it and be safe, but not so great on actual tactics and identifying dangerous situations.
Mikkel:
Bear in mind that there are some locales in this country (Washington DC, Chicago and some of its suburbs) where, even with training that exceeds what is provided to police officers, even if you are the person who provides training at that level, it is still impossible to own a pistol (legally) for self defense in your own home.
Any genuinely “moderate” gun control position should restore the self-defense rights of those citizens disenfranchised by current law.
A “moderate” gun control policy cannot be New York City’s policy (three separate in-person visits to police headquarters in Manhattan, even if you live in another borough, processing that takes months, no guarantee you’ll be approved: you must demonstrate “need” even in your home, and over $300 in costs per firearm. A moderate policy can’t be like Vermont’s either (no state gun laws; no one needs a permit to carry concealed.) It would have to be somewhere in between, and would gain the support of gun owners only if it restored rights in the extreme areas. I think somewhere between Connecticut’s laws and Texas’s laws is about right. I also think that there is no chance whatsoever that Mayor Bloomberg would support such a change.
Helen I didn’t even know it was legal to deny everyone gun possession inside their own homes. In fact I was under the impression that in basically all locales most people are allowed to have guns in public as long as they aren’t concealed.
Helen has a good point, what if we interpreted the amendment on freedom of speech like the second amendment? In some areas you would have to “show a need� for free speech. In other states you could speak freely but have restrictions on the topics you could speak on. As you traveled the rules would change, in one state your “save the whales� bumper sticker would be legal, in other states you would be pulled over and arrested. To further compound things you free speech rights in one county would not be recognized in another. There does need to be a uniform understanding of just how this amendment is to be interpreted.
Mikkel:
Your impressions are incorrect. I guess I’m beating a dead horse, but gun owners are frustrated that many people who advocate “more gun control” don’t know what the laws already are. If we talked about “just gun control” (just in the sense of “justice”, not “mere”), maybe we could get somewhere.
My post didn’t even mention the situation in New Jersey where a “smart gun” law was enacted in 2002. It outlaws the sale of any pistol not equipped with technology to recognize the registered owner — starting 3 years after such technology is developed. Obviously, with such a small potential market, only a very few firearms with such technology will ever be offered for sale. Gun owners feel the same way about this as drivers would if they were told that only a very few models of automobiles would be available. We’re all different sizes, have different size hands, some of us are right-handed and some left-handed, etc. The law doesn’t even have a meaningful exemption for competitive shooters. The women’s nation pistol champion lived in New Jersey when the law was passed; obviously she is going to have to move, if she hasn’t already.
This will destroy New Jersey’s gun clubs and shooting sports tradition. The clubs consist of individuals who shoot in all disciplines: pistol, rifle, shotgun. Most clubs support a youth team that uses .22 caliber rifles. Many young New Jerseyans have attended college on athletic scholarships in rifle after training at one of the clubs. A New Jerseyan won an Olympic gold medal in rifle in 2004. Some will argue that these are rifle events, and unrelated to pistol shooting. But the clubs are made up of people from all of the shooting disciplines, and there will be far fewer people maintaining the clubs and supporting the young shooters if most of the disciplines are destroyed.
Would a national requirement to maintain active membership in a gun club/militia organization help provide the balance between freedom to own guns and keeping them out of the hands of predators?
We already have national membership in a very large gun club. US Code: