Mr. Topfer: To clarify, are you supporting private ownership of fully automatic guns?

As a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment, I find myself to be in agreement with (some of) your posts (the ones about gun ownership, not the Catholic catechism).

Just for the record:

I am anti-abortion.
I think that reasonable requirements can be made of gun owners, while supporting the right to own guns.

I find the various positions taken by those on this thread to be interesting and insightful. To me, it is living proof that you cannot successfully fit people into the neat little compartments of “liberal” and “conservative”.

This statement coming from a gay, gun owning, second amendment supporting, near pacifist, pro-life, occasionally anti-war Episcopalian… I would ask what that would label me, but would probably be afraid of the answer

Mr. Thomas,

You ask if I am “supporting private ownership of fully automatic guns?”

I would support that in principle, as it is currently permitted in at least one state in the U.S. (Arizona). It is subject to significant government oversight and such weapons (fully-automatic) are not usable in any practical sense for legitimate purposes beyond training in their use and target shooting in the role of the militia. In practice, I would think most people would find the appropriate administrative procedures to regulate their availability overly burdensome.

Selectable-fire weapons are somewhat less problematic as they can be used legitimately (in semi-automatic mode) for both hunting and target shooting and as part of an unorganized militia (hereafter called by me simply a militia), but are not generally conducive to use as a weapon of self-defense. I would be somewhat more supportive for those selectable-fire firearms in which the selector mechanism can be readily removed and which, in so doing, are automatically rendered semi-auto only. As a practical matter, a semi-automatic rifle is typically adequate for use in a militia context as well as for all other legitimate purposes (some self-defense situations, hunting, target shooting).

Of course, I am an unreconstructed classical liberal (Old Whig, in F. A. Hayek’s terminology, or what some might refer to as a libertarian, although the latter only in the “small l” sense), so I would also support the imposition of very serious consequences on anyone who used any such instrument criminally, even if the criminality were merely negligent use or handling. (Parenthetically, I also support the carrying of swords, particularly the small sword or rapier, and, although trained in the practice, do not support the legalizing participation in dueling. I think Heinlein, if not exactly correct, was not far from truth in observing that “an armed society is a polite society.”)

I trust that adequately clarifies my position.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

(Parenthetical Post Script, or, PPS) I have taken no offense, but the appropriate spelling of my surname in standard Roman alphabet is Toepfer. The umlauted German vowels—ä, ö and ü—are, for spelling purposes, completely equivalent to the Roman alphabet diphthongs ae, oe and ue, respectively. They do however have very specific German pronunciations that are not obvious to a non-speaker of German.

PPPS: Lest it lead to confusion, the Highland business attire in which my photographic avatar depicts me is wholly attributable to my being Scottish by marriage only as I am ethnically ¾ German-American and ¼ French-Canadian.

Mr. Toepfer,

The absence of the ‘e’ in post #31 was not intentional and merely a typographic error.

I think I might even be able to agree with your stance on automatic weapons- “in principle”, given a high level of oversight and regulations. In actuality, I find I must admit an outright ban on fully automatic weapons would be best because of the “burdensome administrative procedures” you mention.

Personally, I own approximately a dozen guns (most of which were inherited and only 3 of which I purchased personally). Growing up in the mountains and foothills of East Tennessee, I was brought up to respect firearms and to learn how to use them proficiently.

In learning to hunt game, my father made me use a single-shot, bolt action shotgun.  He was of the opinion that if I could not hit my target on the first shot, I would probably not do any better the second time around.

Mr. Thomas,

As I said, I took no offense, as many English speakers, particularly Americans, are simply unaware of the umlaut. So, no apology or explanation was necessary.

I would tend to agree with almost everything you stated. The sole comment with which I would take issue is that legal requirements which are administratively burdensome are, if properly constructed a sufficient inhibition, in and of themselves, to the dilletante. My own view of the proper role of government does not permit it (government) to decide that something which is not intrinsically evil can be proscribed simply because it requires substantial costs of regulation. Therefore, I would take exception to the direction from which your statement comes at the problem, namely with “an outright ban on fully automatic weapons would be best because of the ‘burdensome administrative procedures’ you mention.”

I also believe that everyone who derives any non-universal benefit from government, in this case the opportunity to exercise a right to own and use a very dangerous weapon (although it ought to be applied much more universally in our society), should be required to bear the cost of doing so, most especially when what is desired is to do something that is “uncommon.” We can discuss further what I mean by uncommon, but I think owning and safely using automatic weapons fits any reasonable definition we might come up with. I believe this because, after 63 years of living in this country on this planet, it has become apparent to me that many of the problems we have as a society are the direct result of attempting to solve two or more highly unrelated “problems” by conflating those “problems” with a further unrelated piece of law (legislative or administrative). This is a situation sufficiently pervasive that I have come to see its occurrence as symptomatic of what I call Töpfer’s Law of Systematic Perverse Results. Stated simply this is that:

Systematically perverse results from the application of the law (frequently resulting in people being treated unequally under the law) are very often the result of the inappropriate conflation of solutions in the law to problems that are fundamentally unrelated.

If everyone were required to bear the actual cost of non-universal government services, it would be possible for people (at least those who recognize that their personal resources are finite) to make rational decisions about how to do things which, instead, various groups of their fellow citizens attempt to compel them to do via punitive law. All too frequently, the results are at least perverse, and frequently counter-productive, owing to the law of unintended consequences.

So, I would propose that the costs associated with the extra regulation of the ownership of automatic weapons be paid by those who (a) are legally qualified to own such a weapon, and (b) are prepared to pay the costs (as measured by accounting standards) of meeting the rational requirements for the licensing, safe possession, storage and use of them.

Other than that, I have no quibbles whatsoever with your position, nor with that of your father. His were eminently sane, reasonable and realistic requirements.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Dear Shawn,

Regarding the definition of a “gun” as pertains to second amendment…and how it would relate today (this is an ongoing debate, determined by Caesar)

for a historical answer, regarding principles of original intent and colonial/common law history:
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Homeland-Security-Americans-Revitalize/dp/0967175925
and
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin11.htm

Basically it boils down to what a “well-regulated militia” and individual in such can afford, how the said weapon can be integrated in an all-volunteer unit, and if it inclusion is at all effective. If a technology is deemed needed but cannot be provisioned by the individual or unit, then in keeping the militia “well-regulated” the government may assist in procurement and training, similar to the national guard. However, this has been the path of federalization. You have to read the Vieira’s historical and legal arguments to really understand it. At least this is how Vieira argues the orginal function and development of “well-regulated” state militia per 2nd Amendment.

“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.”

though it sounds like I am a huge “whig” on 2nd Amendment rights (sic., the ‘right to rebel’)... I really am not. I believe tyranny falls upon a people for a reason and it is better to submit as a form of collective penance. But there are always exceptions under dire circumstances (example of Moses and the slave-driver). Still it is mostly adiaphora for me. How our “Caesar” defines current policing and military organization is not sinful. It may be sinful depending upon application, however.

Theoretically, our “Caesar” is the constitution as ratified by the “states”. The states represent the delegated soveriegnty of the people in their jurisidiction which is then delegated to the federal government. Not exactly a “king”, divine right, or monarchical order. This means each of us participates in the role of magistrate to some degree—hence, selective service registration, right to vote, right to run for elected office, serve on a jury, etc.. Understanding the intent of our “Caesar” is always challenging, especially when we share in this authority. I find Vieira’s historical breakdown enlightening. Of course, things have changed and so has our jural methods.

Here is a more straighforward history of gun ownership from wiki on the Second amendment. Common Law precident is included. Interesting stuff. Wish I knew more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Hi All,

I should also say that as a former DC resident, I am very, very much opposed to the way in which the gun-rights lobby has used its power in the Congress for political reasons while usurping the authority of local residents.  That is simply wrong!  And the ONLY place that it can happen is in DC.  No other community in the US would have to endure legislators with no constituents making laws against their wishes.  The residents of DC have made it very clear that they wish to regulate gun ownership.  If that is a problem, it should be taken to the courts (which I know that it was), but not used as political leverage by legislators from entirely different states.  Now it is being used as leverage to deny DC residents representation in Congress.  And from the people who call themselves Republicans!  Very hypocritical.

In Christ,
Shawn

P.S.  Now, I’ve opened up a can of worms! 

Perhaps it’s not so much an issue of Left vs. Right but “Centralist vs. Decentralist”? I would definately locate gun ownership in the ‘decentralist’ category. Recall the path toward absolutist monarchism… Plow down the castles and forts of the barons, deprive the nobles of swords, etc..until the King has a sole monopoly of violence in the realm. Allowing states to have national guards and ‘well-regulated militias’ is a baronical approach to government. I think the Federalist papers even compared state soveriegnty as a kind of feudalism, and the executive power as a monarchism.

Where does abortion fit in? In the course of history, haven’t centrists tended toward mandatory birth control? The question surrounding abortion is if the baby is an individual life, endowed with natural rights. Of course, conservatives tend to have a “high view” of the individual, and see the child as indeed a life, endowed with innate rights. Likewise, these same conservatives value gun ownership as a counter-weight to big government/big police.

I don’t think there’s necessarily a contradiction between gun ownership and anti-abortion, especially when weighed on an axis of power (centralism vs. decentralism, or collectivism vs. individualism).

Another thought—while there may be many things which belong to Caesar, things which we owe due diligence in (defense for country during “Just War”, for example), and perhaps the organization of self-defense in society (police, military) remains adiaphora or belongs more properly to “postive law”, there is this backdrop question of “sovereignty” related to 2nd Amendment. Does the Constitution disavow divine right and the entire premise of sovereignty be in error? This seems closely linked to 2nd Amendment since the “right to bear arms against tyranny” implies a definate right to rebel, and this seems to oppose Anglican teachings on passive resistance/obedience? Second Amendment also implies, as does the Declaration of Independence, (two documents which interperet eachother) that sovereignty rests in the individual who ‘consents to be governed’ by social compact via citizenship.

How far can we subscribe to these documents without subscribing to their premises? If we have pledged solemn oaths to humanist, irreligious contracts, then how do we live with this?America is a strange creature. We have been a christian nation (in terms of being a baptized, confessing people), yet our state is non-christian, perhaps even unitarian in creed. Sovereignty is not even easy to locate as it dwells in our law and the general citizenry who surrender their liberty to let an elected government represent their authority. It is not a clear-cut situation. So speaking about Caesar in general and how to treat postive vs. natural law is tricky because obedience to the sovereign is diffused.

here’s something interesting:

1571 Articles of Faith

Article 37.
“The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars”