[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Razor

You do a good job of providing well-researched counterpoints and balancing discussions with reasoned discourse. However, given your tendency to point out such inconsistencies, crying foul when the shoe is on the other foot, even if it was in the course of making a broader example, rings a bit hollow.

I will do a better job with my sources in the future.

Originally Posted by Razor

As for more compromise by the gun supporters, given your background in history I'm surprised you aren't pointing out the many compromises made over the last century (e.g., 1934, 1968, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1994), with little to no give by the gun control crowd. Pete regularly points out that never ending compromise has a real result of eventually abandoning one's position.

I believe that you are misreading my posts on this topic. I've been pretty clear that opponents of gun control should flatly refuse to discuss further infringements upon the Second Amendment.

My point has been (and remains) that in addition to saying no to more gun control, opponents of gun control might profit from bringing other ideas to the table, that is, ideas aimed at reducing gun violence but without more gun control.

Like it or not, public policy (good or bad) is the outcome of a political process that centers around discourse, advocacy, and, ultimately, the raw power of who can marshal the most votes. IMO, for Americans to, on the one hand, sing the praises of the framers and then ignore the central reality that they dealt with throughout their public lives is an open invitation to not be taken seriously by anyone with a library card.

Originally Posted by Razor

What are the restrictions on free speech or press? Oh yeah, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded room, and you can't lie about someone's character (unless you're a prominent public figure that is materially affected by the lie, or you're saying you're a member of the military).

There are many laws that some argue constitute severe infringements upon the First Amendment and the concept of "free speech." For example, there are vibrant debates emanating from Pr0n Valley about what types of acts can and cannot be depicted in pornographic media. Academics grouse, complain, and rebel against the constraints of USC Code Title XVII. As media become increasingly digital there are also debates about ownership and usage of software, movies, sound recordings, games, books, and libraries.

Originally Posted by Razor

Unreasonable searches? The officer needs probable cause for a warrantless search unless it entails a counterintelligence-related investigation that includes contact with foreign nationals.

Have you ever been stopped and frisked because you fit a profile? Have you been the focus of a display of overwhelming force because your skin is a different color from everyone else walking in a residential area? Ever have a police helicopter shine a light into your house because you don't look the same as your neighbors? These events happen often to certain groups and some nod their heads in approval. Yet, if there's the least hint that a similar standard may be used on other groups, people say TYRANNY.

Originally Posted by Razor

Self-incrimination, due process, double jeopardy, eminent domain? Well, if you were directly involved in or directly supporting terrorism, you can be detained for an unspecified period of time.

In municipalities like Los Angeles and Santa Monica, the issue of eminent domain is increasingly controversial. Local governments have forced out residents for the sake of the "public good." That is, people are being turned out of houses that their family has owned for decades with all parties understanding that, given the conditions of the housing market, will translate into downward social mobility.

Originally Posted by Razor

Trial by jury? See above.

Do we hold ourselves to the spirit and the letter of the BoR when it comes to the presumed innocence of a suspect? How many posts in how many threads on this BB have some suggested that a trial is not necessary? Do such expressions, as understandable as they may be, bolster the conceptualization of the BoR? Or do such comments feed into a wider dynamic in which the jury pool is increasingly compromised by a saturation of information that should not be disclosed until it comes to light as part of the legal process?

Originally Posted by Razor

So tell me, which Constitutionally-protected (and Supreme Court reaffirmed) individual right has seen the most compromised--and hence the most restriction--since its inception, and more specifically in the last century? How many more concessions are gun owners expected to make in the name of reasonable compromise? What other component of our right to own and carry a firearm must we sacrifice to "bring something to the table other than a list of no's"?

Again, as noted, I think you're misreading my position. My argument is that in addition to saying "No, the right to bear arms is non negotiable," gun owners could use their expertise to act as consultants rather than as advocates.

For example, gun owners could bring to the discussion insights on how growing up with guns in a home have contributed to a sense of personal responsibility and self confidence. They might also inform gun control advocates of how the presence of fire arms may lead to greater opportunities to non violent conflict resolution (beyond saying "an armed society is a polite society). They could also provide input on the development of technologies that make firearms more secure without unduly compromising the privacy concerns of law abiding gun owners.

Here's an example of the latter. Almost every laptop computer has a "Kensington security slot." Would it be possible to develop similar solutions that could be used on portable personal electronic devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones) as well as fire arms? As a lock could be used on a range of everyday products, there would be no way of knowing if a consumer were locking up a ThinkPad or a firearm.

As no lock is perfect, additional security features could be built in--biometric locks, RFF devices to help locate stolen property, ink gel packs that have synthetic DNA that will stain the skin of thieves. Such devices might be activated only after property has been lost or stolen, and up to that point no one would know who owned them or what was being locked up.

If this concept is not technologically feasible, does that mean that one could not find ones that are? Would bringing such solutions to market help bolster the argument that the private sector is more adept, efficient, and responsive than the federal government when it comes to addressing the demands of the market?

One closing point. It is my view that Second Amendement advocates who talk about the original intent of the framers do themselves a profound disservice by decoupling the debate over gun control from other debates centering around the BoR. To me, a political and intellectual line of argumentation that holds the entire BoR as an irreducible whole will allow for broader coalitions that might be more effective politically. Also, this approach will, I believe, prove more sustainable historiographically.

Granted, this idea will require tough choices. It is anyone's guess if a left of center feminist bisexual pornographer from San Francisco who wants to stream video of herself performing a number of lurid acts can make common cause with a politically conservative heterosexual guy from the Bible Belt.

Yet, as I see it, Hamilton provided for these types of day/night pairings. American political history is filled with examples of cross-matched coalitions working well enough. That is, until one group starts to focus on a single topic, and to make holding the line on that single issue a symbol for everything else.

This is not to say that there is no place for taking a hard line in a political debate. Everyone must decide for themselves the point beyond which they say "No." My concern remains that saying "No" too soon will push the conversation to that point when it may not otherwise reach that line if people were more willing to negotiate from the jump.

My two cents.