Ah, it looks that way now, but my Predict-O-Meter is buzzing furiously and warning me that we're on the verge of traveling full circle ;)
Based on applying logic. That means giving the ol' noggon a shake, maybe drinking a cup of coffee, to get the motor up and running.
Everybody has a logical argument, is the problem - the arguments of Handgun Control, Inc. follow perfectly logically from their premises, if you accept those premises to begin with. They feel that the exchange of less personal freedom for less risk of gun violence is a worthwhile trade-off; you feel that the exchange of more freedom for a greater risk of gun violence is a worthwhile trade. But in either case, it's not a matter of the law or of logic - it's a matter of personal values choices. You value freedom, they value safety, and no logic of yours is going to persuade them to exchange their values for yours. I presume that the same is true for you, because, let's face it - they're right, to a certain extent. It is absolutely undeniable that societies with fewer guns have less gun violence, but that doesn't persuade you because you rightly point out that they have less personal freedom, and you value freedom more than less gun violence.
But these are values choices, as I said, and persuading someone that their values are all fouled up is a damn hard row to hoe. And it's exactly those values that ultimately dictate to one where the line on freedoms should be drawn - not the Constitution, not logic, not reason, but your personal values choices. Certainly, logical arguments abound, but only in service of the values we already hold dear. And if this rhetoric on values choices sounds awfully familiar, it should ;)
Common sense does indeed say that, but it doesn't say that the federal government should be the one to prevent the most extreme types of weapons from being available to anyone. Furthermore, nothing in the Constitution grants the feds the power to do that in the first place.
Fine, but the problem is that nothing in the Constitution explicitly states that anyone has the power to act in service of what we both recognize is common sense. You can, I suppose, point to the Tenth Amendement and claim that it grants the states the power to restrict those freedoms. I can equally well point to the Ninth and say that I have the right to be free of state interference in this matter, and point also to the absolute language of the Second in support of that, so hands off my nuke, Mr. County Sheriff. And then where does that leave us? Back to the 14'th Amendment in the courts, that's where.
If you really believe that, then what business do the courts have getting involved at all? If it's a "political" question, then it should be resolved by the political branches.
Judicial rhetoric aside, the courts have been involved in political issues from the beginning, and they always will be. They like to pretend that they're apolitical, and we like to pretend that we believe them, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this is actually the case. The illusion that the courts are apolitical is critical to what legitimacy they have, but it is only an illusion - if it were true that the courts were apolitical, we wouldn't see such nasty political fights over judicial nominations. But it is still a useful illusion - we need some sort of mechanism for dispute resolution, and so we tolerate the pretense of the courts, and, in fact, actively participate in it. Then, when it suits us to pull back the curtain, we accuse the judges who make rulings that we don't like of being improperly mired in politics, and blame them for failing to properly settle disputes that we never should have brought to them in the first place. And since both sides get to do that quite regularly, everybody's happy.
But if you want someone to blame, blame Congress for being all too willing to avoid taking stands on controversial political issues, and punting off to the courts instead. No matter how this issue resolves itself, someone is going to be unhappy about Judge Moore's fate - in fact, a lot of someones are going to be very unhappy. And Congress has absolutely no interest in getting involved in a giant tar-pit of a mess like that, not when they can simply let the courts take the blame for however it works out. Then, the Congressmen from the happy side can praise the impartial administration of the law by the courts, and the unhappy side can accuse the judges of being improperly mired in political concerns, and everyone gets to strike an appropriate public pose for the folks back home. But there is no way they're going to step in and fix it themselves, even though they could. Not a chance. Getting re-elected is much more important to them than any potential long-term benefits that might come about from resolving controversial political issues.
Cynical? You bet. But in your gut, you know it's true...
No, that's not it at all. Yes, of course, I personally prefer the freedom-over-security view, but that has nothing to do with the constitutional argument. When I said "applying logic", I didn't mean logic in an abstract sense; I meant using logic as a tool for getting further meaning out of the words contained in the Constitution.
Let's look at your earlier statement again: "The language of the Constitution is pretty clear that we can't forbid all types of weapon in the hands of the citizenry, and common sense tells us that we can't allow all types of weapons to be available to the citizenry." So in other words, we should follow the language of the document to its fullest unless "common sense" dictates otherwise. So the question we're left with is, Does common sense require the federal government to be the one limiting the possession of extreme weapons? The answer, as I think we can both agree, is no, since the states are competent to legislate in such matters.
Fine, but the problem is that nothing in the Constitution explicitly states that anyone has the power to act in service of what we both recognize is common sense. You can, I suppose, point to the Tenth Amendement and claim that it grants the states the power to restrict those freedoms. I can equally well point to the Ninth and say that I have the right to be free of state interference in this matter, and point also to the absolute language of the Second in support of that, so hands off my nuke, Mr. County Sheriff. And then where does that leave us?
That leaves us with the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, or to the states. Leaving aside (for the moment) the question of how the 14th amendment impacts upon that question, there neither is nor has been any dispute in legal circles that prior to the 14th amendment, the BOR applied only to the federal government. In short, we know it for a fact.
So then you could say that leaves us with the question of what to do with the 14th amendment - which of course, I'm happy to do if you like, but it would take longer as it's a bit more complicated. But my point here is to illustrate that we can objectively know what the Constitution says, even when doing involves a little bit of work.
Judicial rhetoric aside, the courts have been involved in political issues from the beginning, and they always will be. They like to pretend that they're apolitical, and we like to pretend that we believe them, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this is actually the case. The illusion that the courts are apolitical is critical to what legitimacy they have, but it is only an illusion - if it were true that the courts were apolitical, we wouldn't see such nasty political fights over judicial nominations. But it is still a useful illusion - we need some sort of mechanism for dispute resolution, and so we tolerate the pretense of the courts, and, in fact, actively participate in it.
Man, do you see what you're saying here? You're saying that our whole system of justice is based on an illusion, and that therefore Justice Moore is morally obligated, by his Oath, to obey the dictates of the 11th Circuit court. Forgive me if I don't find this convincing. Now I know that the courts often succumb to politicization, but dude, that's not something we should be encouraging! In fact, that's exactly the problem that I and others have been pointing to. The extent to which they allow themselves to be politicized is directly proportional to the extent to which they're neglecting their obligations under the Constitution, and inversely proportional to the respect their rulings deserve.