A couple of days ago a Massachusetts Senate Candidate allegedly called the Boston bombings a “godless act.” He has since come out and said that he actually said “gutless” not “godless.” Perhaps he did actually say gutless even though he was quoted in at least one news report saying:

“I don’t have any doubt in my mind that they are going to identify the person or people responsible for this horrific, cowardly and godless act. I think there is going to be so much evidence available to the investigators that they will be able to put the pieces together.”

He made his clarification statement very quickly, and it doesn’t matter what he said originally. It’s good that he recognized that a big portion of his constituency is in fact “godless” and it wouldn’t pay for him to be insulting them in such an off-hand manner.

A recent survey from the Pew Forum shows that one in five U.S. Citizens has no religious preference and the number of “nones” is steadily growing. In fact, we now have a “none” in Congress from Arizona. Dave Muscato the Communications Director of the American Atheists is asking for assistance in getting the word out that Atheists object to politicians that describe heinous events like the Boston Marathon bombings as “godless.” “Godless” citizens such as Atheists don’t appreciate being excluded and shut out of the community by such slurs.

He asks that we assist by writing a short paragraph that includes the following three things:

1) Who you are and whom you represent or speak on behalf of (e.g. Matt Dillahunty is President of Atheist Community of Austin)

2) Why you’re hurt by the exclusion from the memorial and/or use of “godless” as a pejorative

3) What you would like to see happen as a solution.

He’s like us to send our replies to BostonResponse@gmail.com.

Here is mine:

My name is Donald Lacey. I’m the Arizona State Director for American Atheists, the Organizer of Tucson Atheists, a Board Member of FreeThought Arizona, the Secretary of the Secular Coalition for Arizona, the Editor of the Tucson Citizen FreeThought Blog, and Podcaster on Desert Air Podcast. I represent the freethinking community in Tucson, Arizona and, more generally, the Atheists of Arizona.

I object to the use of “godless” as a pejorative. Godless Americans are as moral as those with belief in God or gods. There are godless Atheists living good lives without the threat of eternal punishment and doing good things for people daily without the promise of heavenly rewards. Having morals and living an ethical life are not dependent on belief in God or gods. Imagine how marginalized Atheists felt just five years ago when Elizabeth Dole launched her “giant killer” attack on opponent by associating her with an Atheist group only to see the opponent, Kay Hagen, treat the implied godlessness as so offensive that it justified bringing a lawsuit. Both candidates displayed bigotry. Hopefully, we’re in a better place now but we still have a ways to go.

I’d like to see more people respond to the off-hand insults and let the politicians know that they are distancing themselves from a large portion of their constituencies. I’d like to see a growing “freethinking” community that must be considered when someone pursues political office due to the fact that the community is ready and able to respond quickly and publically to such insults with clear reasoned logic. Finally, I’d like to stop politicians from using Atheist and “godless” as insults.

“Religion – religion, at best – at Best – is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better – fine. But you don’t need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled. Religion is like a lift in the shoe, and I say just don’t ask me to wear your shoes. And let’s not go down and nail lifts onto the natives’ feet.” – George Carlin, October 11, 1975 on the first episode of Saturday Night Live.

I just returned from Austin, TX and the 50^th Anniversary of the American Atheists. It is normally held on Easter weekend as it was this year. Activities began on Thursday and ended on Easter Sunday. This year there were 938 attendees. It was a diverse group, too. That’s not too surprising given that the American Atheists was started by a woman.

Madalyn Murray O’Hair is responsible for the creation of the organization in 1963. She was in Austin, TX at the time. Then, she was “the most hated woman in America.” People hated her but she got needed things done and was outspoken and controversial. There were a lot of firsts associated with Madalyn. She was the first guest on the Phil Donahue show. On another appearance on the Phil Donahue show in a debate with “The Chaplain of Bourbon Street,” Bob Harrington, she said, “If America wakes up, what America will do is kick Christianity out.” Additionally, she tried to straighten out the preacher on the definition of Atheism but Bob continued to talk over her. Her cantankerous manner got her an interview in Playboy along with appearances on Merv Griffin and The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. However, her most famous “first” was the fact that she was to first to address the United States Supreme Court as an Atheist. She started her opening statement with, “Your petitioners are atheists…” Also included in her statement was the following excerpt which was silk screened on the back of this year’s convention T-shirt:

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated.”

In 1963, the justices of the Supreme Court voted in favor of her petition 8 to 1—a decisive victory for the separation of church and state.

Madalyn Murray O’Hair was born on April 13^th, 1919. She was a World War II veteran who served in the field of cryptography. She was college educated and trained in law. She worked as a psychiatric social worker for 17 years and was a supervisor at the Baltimore city public welfare department in 1960. Her Atheist activism started with a lawsuit against the Baltimore City Public School System for requiring her son to participate in Bible readings in the school he was attending. Her case reached the Supreme Court in 1963. Please note, she was not the only one that filed suit against such practices. Her case was combined with Abington School District v. Schempp and school prayer was previously eliminated by the court’s ruling on the case Engel v. Vitale in 1962. However, she was a lightning rod for controversy and unapologetically outspoken. She created the American Atheists and her “empire” had its own printing press and a loyal following.

In 1963 in an interview, Madalyn said that it would take one crazy person to end her life. That crazy person turned out to be David Waters, an ex-convict who served as the American Atheists office manager. He had been caught stealing from the organization and was fired. He took revenge on Madalyn, her younger son, and granddaughter by kidnapping them and squeezing what he could out of the American Atheists bank accounts. After 30 days of holding the family, he strangled them and disposed of the bodies. Ultimately, the disappearance of the trio would be solved but their bodies—dismembered, burned, and sealed in barrels—would not be found for five and a half years. The entire story can be found here. It is estimated that Madalyn Murray O’Hair was brutally murdered on September 29, 1995.

I didn’t know Madalyn but I know people that knew her. Some of the current leaders of American Atheists knew her well. Most that knew her, respected her. She was remembered by many. She knew that, “There is no God. There’s no heaven. There’s no hell. There are no angels. When you die, you go in the ground; the worms eat you.” The people that searched for her, found her, and attended her burial expressed the deepest sorrow for her. She got her wish when she said:

”I hope I live my life in such a manner that when I die, someone cares – even if it is only my dogs. I think I want some human being somewhere to weep for me.”

– Madalyn Murray O’Hair

 …and they did.

Jim Wilson has been waiting to drop the hammer on Kirk Cameron for a while now:

Kirk Cameron  made the news again. From the Crocoduck to the banana, everything he gets involved in is a show case of Christian ignorance and gullibility. Hours ago, the former child actor and star of Growing Pains—a family sitcom from the eighties—made a recent post on his twitter account. The post discusses a massive Ten Commandments monument at a hotel in Odessa, Texas.  Cameron states:

“Check out this huge stone monument at the front door of the hotel I checked into tonight in Odessa. This is the #1 city for jobs in the US (lots of new found oil)! Try to tell this hotel owner in West Texas to remove these commandments and I’m pretty sure a good ol’ boy down here would be willing to make an exception for the 6th commandment just for you… Don’t mess with Texas!…”

The sixth commandment is the one stating that “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”.

Cameron is confused. Secularists such as those in FreeThought Arizona are against displaying Ten Commandments monuments and all other religious monuments in government spaces. We are not against displays in private homes or hotels. However the appearance of religious monuments on government property implies a preference of the religious over the nonreligious and tax money should not be going to the promotion of religious superstition of any kind. No one is challenging the right of private citizens to post religious nonsense on homes or businesses.

Any business owner can be as overtly religious as they please. While they are forbidden from religious discrimination in public accommodations, they can post all the crosses, Ten Commandments monuments, and Ichthys symbols they desire. While it could cost them business from the Freethinking community, that same community would stand with them in opposition to those that might try to remove those things due to our strong desire to preserve freedom of speech.

Kirk Cameron’s celebration of the willingness of “good o’ boys” to ignore their own Bible and kill people is a bit scuzzy but it’s worse if he is implying that it should apply to people who wish to remove such monuments from government places as well. He could be saying that in the wilds of west Texas, they have rugged gun toting “good ol’ boys” who don’t listen to the namby-pamby, politically correct rules such as separation of church and state where bullying Atheists and gay kids is so common that young people are often terrified to come out to their own families. This should not be celebrated… especially from the guy from Growing Pains.

Cathi Herrod of the very religious political lobbying group, CAP (The Center for Arizona Policy), just sent out another letter to motivate her followers. She is watching the recent political discourse about marriage and wondering why anyone following the debate would “support the true definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Based on her email, she seems to believe that the conversation leaves out the meaning and purpose of marriage. She then points out that “the reality is that marriage is the engine that drives our country.” She believes that marriage creates the ideal environment for personal independence, wealth creation, and the nurturing of future generations. She then goes on and uses the 41 year marriage of “Joe and Sarah” to demonstrate her point. Joe and Sarah stayed married a long time and raised two kids. One of their kids decided to adopt and isn’t this a wonderful result? Of course it is, Cathi and no one is arguing that marriage is a bad thing. In fact, most are arguing that it is such a wonderful thing that everyone should be allowed to participate. Going back to Cathi’s story, how will allowing a same sex couple to marry prevent future Joes and Sarahs from having future storybook marriages with great kids and adopted grand kids?

So far, Cathi and the marriage equality folks are on the same page—both believe marriage is a fine institution. Cathi wants to limit it to only one man and one woman but doesn’t make a convincing case for that position. There is more in the email.

She quotes statistics from a study performed at Princeton University that says kids raised in an intact house do better in school and generally have better lives. Lest we forget, Cathi likes kids with the possible exception of kids that turn out to be gay. Last year, she killed an anti-bullying bill on the off chance that it would protect gay kids from harassment. Here’s the VIDEO. In the reporting of Cathi’s action on the anti-bullying bill, they call her a “heavy weight lobbyist.”

She’s calling for prayers. She wants her people to join her at the Sandra Day O’Connor Federal District Court Houses to meet for a prayer vigil. Go for it! Because praying works SO well and by all means let’s do it in public in accordance with the Bible (Matthew 6:5) “When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get.”

The freethinking community of Tucson is not a homogeneous organization. It contains at least as many opinions as there are members. Some leaders within the community refer to their job as “herding cats” but others say it’s more like “herding butterflies.” Cats are limited to two dimensions, after all. However, there does appear to be a bias toward one end of the political spectrum.

Jim Wilson ponders the question, “Why do Freethinkers tend to be so liberal?”

Nonbelievers, Skeptics, Atheists and Secular Humanists tend to hang out at the left side of American politics and many unabashedly identify as liberals, progressives, or support the Left. Other political philosophies can be found, however.  There are Free-Marketers, Ayn Rand fans, and Libertarians along with the occasional self-identified conservative. Some gravitate toward philosophies that fall outside the conventional political spectrum which indicates that it is not necessary to be left-leaning to be an Atheist or Skeptic. Apparently, Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics from all over the political spectrum are less visible than their left leaning compatriots. Still, many Atheists are liberals and progressives; why is that?

Perhaps the conservative movement has declared Freethinkers to be an enemy.  The Right Wing conservative media outlets and think tanks have painted Atheists, Secularists, Secular Humanists, Evolutionists, and Intellectuals as the bad guys.  They believe Freethinkers are communists and un-American. Some go as far as blaming Freethinkers for the attacks on September 11^th.  Many conservatives believe Freethinkers are responsible for many of America’s problems and they long for the times when Freethinkers were less visible and less vocal.  They align themselves with ideologues such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Santorum. The Right Wing has become the home for those who want: religious monuments in government buildings, teacher led prayers in public schools, and science classes that teach the Biblical creation myth instead of science. They are antagonistic to church and state separation, and favor using government to promote religious values.  Above all, the Right Wing is most likely to affiliate itself with the type of moral guardians who vocally oppose birth control, reproductive choice, and marriage equality.

Maybe it’s within the personality of the Freethinker. We live in a very religious society and people who reject religious views tend to be the sort who question other mainstream values such as those associated with marriage, family life, sexuality, artistic expression, etc.  Reactionary elements within the Right Wing demonize and alienate this personality type while the Left embraces it.   Our politics are dominated by two catch-all political parties and Freethinkers such as Atheist, Agnostics, Skeptics, and Scientists are not welcomed by the Right Wing and by necessity identify with the Left.

While the conservative and liberal political philosophies are not ideal, Freethinkers and non-believers tend to be more sympathetic to the liberal side of the so-called “culture war.” Political issues outside the social arena such as the economy or military intervention are areas where Freethinkers and non-believers often disagree and result in interesting discussions at many of our gatherings.

FreeThought Arizona has members and guest speakers from all over the political spectrum.  Many guest speakers identify themselves as liberal or progressive but some prominent ones do not. All that is necessary is that they support science, reason, and the separation of church and state.

On March 10^th the Tucson FreeThought Community (Freethought Arizona, Tucson Atheists and Skeptics of Tucson), will be hosting a performance by humorous singer/song writer Roy Zimmerman.  The performance will take place at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson Located at 4831 E 22^nd Street.

Roy has been performing satirical folk music since the early eighties, as both a solo artist and a member of the Fore (a group who had the distinction of playing the national conventions of both major parties in 1996).  Roy’s music focuses on political and social issues, and his songs about religious topics have made him quite popular in the FreeThought Community.  Here are a few examples:

1.  Jerry Falwell’s God
2.  I want a Marriage like they had in the Bible
3.  Creation Science 101

Zimmerman’s lyrics often come from an admittedly liberal or progressive point of view and may alienate some more conservative listeners. However, Roy’s performances are fun, enjoyable and often hilarious. The Tucson FreeThought Community is proud to sponsor this fine entertainer along with other entertainers and speakers from a wide variety of view points.

Come and join us for this fun night of song with Roy Zimmer on March 10^th at the Unitarian Universalist Church.  Hope to see you there!

It gives me great pleasure to post this blog entry. Cathi Herod and her homophobic minions were handed a defeat in Phoenix last Tuesday. I posted a blog on the “Red Herring” tactic being employed by the Center for Arizona policy. It took a couple of days to write and I may even have lost a friend over the posting but it’s good to see that reason won out over irrational bigotry in our state capital. At issue was the passing of the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code. Here is the declaration of policy as posted in the original blog entry:

It is declared to be among the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and for it to be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, OR DISABILITY in places of public accommodation and employment and it is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and is unlawful for employers doing business with the City of Phoenix that are vendors, suppliers or contractors and employ more than thirty-five persons to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation OR GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION.

As you can see, the intention was to add to the list of folks that companies are not allowed to discriminate against in their public accommodations and employment. For some reason, the CAP believes that companies have a constitutional right to discriminate against people of different sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability and should be free to do so in their public accommodations and hiring.

The note I got from the CAP states that, “On Tuesday this week, approximately 500 people packed into a downtown Phoenix auditorium and witnessed injustice.”Cathi Herod also thoughtfully provided this LINK (local Phoenix news coverage of the vote). Now, Cathi is on the war path claiming that her legal concerns were not addressed by the council. She’s identifying the council members that voted for the measure and reminded her loyal subjects that “elections matter.” The most pleasing part of her note on the subject was the part where she turns her ire on many of the people protesting against the measure alongside her. She states in her note, “I must share my deep disappointment with how some who opposed the ordinance handled their statements.” She further stated that people on her side were:

“using God’s name in a mean-spirited, bigoted way to oppose the ordinance. Or perhaps you heard some oppose the ordinance in ways that I am sure were grievous to God and grievous to those sitting in the audience. A public hearing seldom is the venue in which one should stand up and speak condemnation on others from a supposed Scriptural standpoint. Regrettably, the misguided words of a few who spoke out against the ordinance greatly hurt our testimony.”

How are you supposed to come out against a provision which expands equality without appearing to be “mean-spirited” or “bigoted?” Telling an entire class of people that you’re not entitled to equality is by definition “mean-spirited.”

In any case, good job Phoenix! Way to stand up for human decency against the tyranny of religious bigotry! And Cathi, keep criticizing your supporters we can use the help.

I’ve been sitting on this submission for a little while now for a couple of reasons. Jim Wilson gave it to me after one of our Desert AIR Podcast recording sessions. He makes valid points in the article but I was reluctant to post it due to the fact that I felt it was a personal rebuke of an offhand comment I had made. We were talking about Brother Jed’s pending visit to the campus of U of A and I joked that wouldn’t it be great if we could get one of those speech jamming devices. It was a joke of course not to be taken seriously but unfortunately sometimes jokes are taken more seriously than intended. Now, Jed is gone and by his own reports he doesn’t have any complaints about how he was treated by the Atheists at the University of Arizona.

Here’s Jim Wilson’s article:

Years ago I worked in a call center environment doing some of the most monotonous work the white collar service sector had to offer. I often found that most irritating calls were not those from people who were angry with the company but those of people whose phones caused me to hear an echo of my own voice while working with them.  The echo would quickly derail my train of thought and leave me fumbling for words.   Recently in Japan, scientists have taken experiences such as mine and turned them into a marketable device.  It’s a speech-jamming gun that causes unsuspecting loudmouths to hear an echo of their own words, delayed at .02 seconds.  The echo completely throws their brain for a loop, silencing their speech (More information on this device can be found here:  http://phys.org/news/2012-03-speechjammer-gun-quash-human-utterances.html).

Most of us have had times when we wished we had such a device to point at some obnoxious individual in our vicinity.  Maybe it’s someone who won’t stop chatting in a movie theater or family member who won’t stop going on about the playoffs.  Then again maybe it’s some full-time professional or semi-professional nuisance, like the professional conspiracy theorist, the lying politician, the dishonest salesman, or the racist bigots holding a rally down the street that you would like to point this device at.  Some people are simply jerks and morons who say horrible mean-spirited things.  Some may do it just for the attention, while others may truly be trying to promote their own nasty world view.  The Phelps family, which is famous for protesting the funerals of fallen American soldiers, think that “God hates America” for its tolerance of homosexuality is an excellent example.

The temptation to stifle their speech with a speech-jamming device or even government action, is very strong but it is the wrong approach.  We need to allow people to say whatever hate-filled, bigoted, and crazy moronic things they wish.  Silencing people only legitimizes their cause.  Many of the most hate-filled people out there fancy themselves as victims of persecution.  Doing anything to validate their claims will only make them stronger.  For example, I recently heard it argued that the Bible must be an accurate depiction of reality because it is banned in multiple countries.   This argument makes absolutely no sense but it is a great example of how silencing someone allows them to play the victim card.  In another example, countless people flocked to show support for the bigoted management of Chic-Fil-A after some cities threatened to forbid the restaurant chain from operating within their limits.  In short, silencing people turns them into martyrs to rally around.

It can also lead to the individuals or points of view that one is attempting to silence getting even more attention than they otherwise would.  Attempts to ban the Phelps from protesting in various locations inevitably results in the group getting free publicity and more of the attention they so desperately wanted in the first place.  This greatly parallels the phenomenon known as the “Streisand Effect” in which an individual or group’s attempt to suppress information leads to that information gaining greater circulation and publicity.  The phenomenon is named for Barbara Streisand who tried to prevent pictures of her home from circulating which ultimately led to a greater circulation of the photos.  More information on this can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect.

Silencing ideas also makes these ideas more interesting to those who are unfamiliar with them.  As children many of us were fascinated with R-rated movies or gangster rap music because our parents forbade it.  Some developed an interest in doing illegal drugs largely because they are forbidden.  Removing the mystique that surrounds the forbidden makes it more mundane.  It also opens it up to criticism.  When racists and neo-Nazis are allowed to publicly share what they believe it allows the rest of us to respond by pointing out just how stupid and harmful such ideas really are.

Sometimes the jerks may actually have a point or two or contribute to the conversation.  I know a few people today who years ago would like to have silenced the speech of Atheists and yet they are now Atheists themselves.  Allowing one’s beliefs to be scrutinized by people who disagree makes it possible for one to purge incorrect ideas and to form a more accurate and mature worldview.  Sometimes the most irritating people do have a valid point or two which often makes them even more irritating.  Even the most despicable people may bring some useful insight to the conversation or at the very least they may serve as a useful example of what is wrong with their way of thinking.  Either way, the market place of ideas is enriched when more a diverse array of people participate in it.

Free speech is meaningless when we only apply it to those we agree with. That is why all ideas should be allowed to compete without the threat of being silenced or without government support or favoritism.   I support free speech at all levels of society. That is why I will resist the temptation to buy the Japanese speech jamming device.

The Center for Arizona Policy just sent out an email urging Phoenix citizens to contact their city council and tell them to vote no on “the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code.” According to the release, the pending amendment will put young children in the crosshairs of sexual predators if transsexuals are allowed to use the women’s public restrooms. Businesses will suffer and churches will be in peril. Cathi Herod hopes that you’ll be squicked out by the prospect of a transgender individual using a women’s public restroom. Aside from being a “Red Herring” argument, no one should care if the feet in the next stall are facing toward the toilet or away. The vote for the amendment will happen on the 26^th of February. You can go onto their web site and make up your own mind but I’m sure they’d rather you just to take the CAP’s word for it that it’s a bad bill and we should do everything in our power to stop it.

As much as Cathi and the Center for Arizona policy would like you to think that it’s all about who can use what restroom, the fact of the matter is that the ordinance in question is simply adding gender identity to the list of things you can’t discriminate against and expands protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s about tolerance and fairness and could very well help the economy of Phoenix.

Here is the Declaration of policy:

It is declared to be among the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and for it to be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, OR DISABILITY in places of public accommodation and employment and it is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and is unlawful for employers doing business with the City of Phoenix that are vendors, suppliers or contractors and employ more than thirty-five persons to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation OR GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION

Here are the talking points expressed in the email

• Churches should not be forced to hire people who disagree with their religious beliefs. Yet under this law, city government will force Phoenix’s religious institutions to either compromise their beliefs, or face criminal prosecution. 
• The Bathroom Bill creates a “sue first and ask questions later” mentality.
• No matter your views on homosexuality, under the Bathroom Bill you will face the threat of frivolous lawsuits.
• It is irresponsible for the City Council to put every child, business owner, church, and religious organization at risk because of a political agenda from a vocal minority.
• Despite Mayor Stanton’s campaign commitment to transparency, the Bathroom Bill has been rushed through city government in order to hide the true atrocities buried in this law. 

Somehow this “bathroom bill,” as they call it, will negatively impact every Phoenix Business—regardless of their views on the issue and will put churches at risk by preventing them from following their faith.

What are restrooms like in churches these days? Is it common to have a men’s room, women’s room, and unisex “family” facility or do they have a “one holer” with a lock on the door? Does every Phoenix business have separate facilities? Of course not! Larger businesses do but the smaller ones have a single toilet. The larger bathrooms consist of sinks with individual stalls.

That’s a lot of bathroom talk for an ordinance aimed at discrimination. Equality Arizona President Rebecca Winiger contends that all the bathroom talk is bogus. “This legislation will have no effect on the bathroom that any individual – transgendered or otherwise – is currently allowed to use.”

Cathi is urging her minions to pray for the ordinance’s defeat but prayers aren’t enough. They also ask you to call politicians and express your deeply held fear of equality to protect the right to discriminate against people on basis of sexual orientation. Apparently a “family value” such as homophobia is just too valuable to trust with simply prayers to the all-powerful creator of the universe.

Jim Wilson has a question:

I know a few anti-gun zealots who would like the populace to be completely unarmed. I cannot help but completely disagree with them. Like most Americans I think law abiding people should be free to have guns, knives, swords, and etcetera for the purposes of self-defense, hunting, and peaceful recreation.

At the same time so many of my fellow American’s are happy to point the Second Amendment of the Constitution and declare it to be absolute and scream at the mere suggestion that we restrict people’s ability to buy assault weapons or high capacity ammunition magazine. I’m put off by both sides in the gun debate as more often than not absolutist gun nuts and gun abolitionist both seem to be driven more by ideological rigidity than a willingness to examine the issue.

I recognize that in practice the Second Amendment is not considered absolute by the majority of people on either side. Most gun rights advocates will not argue that the Second Amendment does not grant ordinary Americans the right to own ground-to-air missiles, weaponized anthrax, rocket propelled grenades, Apache helicopters, or nuclear bombs. For better or worse, most actually see it as a good thing that the government maintains a monopoly on these arms and they are not often accused of being inconsistent. There seems to be some sort of unspoken agreement that the line between what weapons we do or don’t have the right to own needs to be drawn somewhere. The question is, how do we determine where?

Perhaps it is the case that things like assault rifles are close to the line that is to be drawn. Or perhaps there is no line and we really should allow ordinary people to run around with tanks and cruise missiles. One friend of mine suggested that we will inevitably draw the line where the Supreme Court justice with the best persuasive skills says we should. So I’ll ask our readers, “How far does the right to bear arms extend?”