The Assault Weapons Ban

I think we are already in agreement on the principles supporting some gun freedom and the necessities of some gun control, so where to draw the line? Con has suggested that the differences are essentially technocratic vs. populist. His technocratic argument is that assault weapons are not the weapons primarily used in gun violence so policy should focus elsewhere. Con does not offer policy changes we might adopt that might offer relief. Con argues that my concern that semi-automatic weapons, which are primarily used in gun violence, may be targeted altogether is essentially a populist argument that will be dismissed by the experts and therefore by people.I would not characterize my argument as populist so much as realpolitik. Populism is siding with the people against the elite ruling class. Although advocates of increased gun control are in the majority, I would hardly define the gun rights position as occupied by the elite. Realpolitik is a practical political assessment rather than promoting an ideal. If legislation prioritized issues by magnitude of impact, as Con suggests we do here, we would devote far fewer resources to preventing terrorism in favor of health and education. The fact is that terrorism by its nature commands the public's attention and forces legislatures to act even against public benefit. A technocrat might correctly argue that our security infrastructure is a disproportional burden. Realpolitik knows that any politician who tears down security is politically vulnerable in the wake of a new terrorist attack, and will probably lose office to a politician who is even less reasonable about proportional responses to terrorism. So it is with gun control. Con offers Roe vs. Wade as an example of a controversial issue that SCOTUS has not reversed. Realpolitik suggests that the reason the courts have not reversed is not due to SCOTUS reluctance to overturn precedent so much as it is that popular opinion supports legalized abortion in roughly the same degree as it did 40 years ago. If support for a ban on abortion ever returns to 55%, I expect that even a liberal SCOTUS would find an argument to ban abortion. That may be cynical, but that's also democracy. We see this again and again with gay marriage, marijuana, Obamacare, etc. Judges are politicians, too, and they want to want to be seen siding with majority.In round1, Con offered a "don't hate it because it's black" argument: don't ban weapons just because they have the superficial trappings of military use. May we then judge as assault weapon, not by the color of its skin so much as the contents of its character? The reason assault weapons have a bad rap is not because they are deadlier (they are not), but because they advertise themselves as anti-personnel weapons. Appliances like silencers, grenade launchers, and bayonet mounts are intended to project a message contrary to lawful use. They have little value in hunting, targeting, or home defense. They're designed for crowd control and intimidation. Gun advocates weaken their argument for the preservation of guns for lawful purposes when they embrace tools that exceed that legal mandate. I'm sure the NRA has offered some kind of rational purpose for every appliance listed on the '94 assault weapons ban, but the unstated and primary purpose is what concern the pubic: this gun is reserved for the purpose of killing many people. Justice Scalia may find the value of an armed militia compelling, but most folks look back on the history of self-appointed militias with dismay. Con mentioned the Klan. We also remember Patriot movement that bombed Oklahoma City, the Black Panthers, the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics. The fact is few of the people who arm themselves in the name of militia have interests or goals in common with the average peaceful American. In this respect, assault weapons are not the Trayvon Martin of guns. Rather, the men who stockpile assault weapons are the George Zimmerman of peacekeeping. The public may be divided about whether Zimmerman committed murder, but the vast majority wish the fool had stayed home or at least not patrolled with a loaded gun.Let's agree then that owning a gun is a serious right and a serious responsibility. Guns should be licensed and regulated like any automobile. Gun owners should be well-trained and well-practiced: to which end hunting and target shooting should be cheap and commonplace. Gun owners also have the responsibility to endorse controlled, considered, and lawful uses of guns. A gun tricked out with a bunch of anti-personnel gadgetry does not promote responsible, restricted use of guns. Those apparatus instead suggest that the gun owner also reserves the right to engage in mass killing under circumstances defined by the gun owner. This has never proved to be a serious requirement in our democracy, so it projects an unlawful intent. Let's reject the trinkets of threat in favor of serious gun ownership.