[maxelson]

Well, of COURSE they are...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by The Jackalope:
So I guess that the best way to ban firearms is to ban knowledge then. That seems to be the track here, because I am getting all kinds of odd theories like "The Second Amendment doesn't exist anymore because there are no more militias"...which shows that knowledge is missing at least some places.

Please, read some history before such goofy arguments are being made.

Ban firearms? You folks always assume that when someone questions the gun-rights groups' interpretation (lies) of the second amendment, they must be trying to swoop down in their black helicopters and take your guns out of your compound.

It belies the lazy thinking underlying your arguments. Your first motive is that you just lub your guns. Your interpretation of the constitution then follows from that.

This is the kind of thinking that goes:

"I like X, X is cool, therefore X must be my legal right."

Hogwash. That's the MTV view of the Bill of Rights. Just because you like it doesn't mean it's your Constitutional right. Use your mind as an analytical tool, not an emotional one, every so often.

The status of the Second Amendment is independent of how much you like guns or how important you think they are.

And the status of the Second Amendment is basically non-existent right now. The Supreme Court has never once used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun control law. The only times they've even used it to address a gun control law was to say it didn't apply because the gun wasn't being used in the context of a militia, or to say that it's not a restriction on state law. Both utterly contradicting the gun-groups' assertions about it.

The gun-groups' propaganda about the Second Amendment is a Big Lie �, and probably the biggest lie kicking around right now about the Constitution.

Perhaps you and your McVeigh-worshipping groups have a different, radical interpretation of the Second Amendment. Great. I love radicals. But don't pretend that it's the current standing precedent. It's not.

[zigzag]

IMO, the most instructive posts here are from people (e.g. Simey and boardsurfer) who have serious experience with firearms yet recognize that arming every homeowner and teenage make-out artist is a foolish notion.

Guns have legitimate uses, including hunting. Most gun-owners, like most car-owners, are responsible. It's the irresponsible ones that we have to worry about. Therefore, as a society, we have to impose reasonable safeguards against the irresponsible ones. I don't think that registration, required training, or brief waiting periods are unreasonable safeguards when it comes to deadly weapons. If I were an avid hunter or gun user (I have only shot handguns at targets for amusement - I was shocked at how powerful they are, and do not want the average citizen carrying one), I would like nothing better than to know that the threat from irresponsible owners was reduced even if it could never be completely eliminated.

I agree that guns don't kill, people do. But common sense dictates that people are unpredictable and that easy access to guns results in more shootings, accidental or otherwise, so it makes sense to use reasonable means to reduce the risk.

Similarly, the fact that criminals will still obtain guns doesn't relieve us of the need to apply reasonable regulations. People drive without licenses or insurance, but we still do our best to prevent it.

I don't buy the Second Amendment argument. The Second Amendment contemplated a Militia defending the new state against a foreign sovereign, a now archaic concept. For those who are worried about arming themselves against the U.S. government, I've got news for you: you wouldn't stand a chance. Be that as it may, reasonable regulations would not prevent you from owning firearms and engaging in survivalist fantasies unless you are a felon or are incompetent, in which case you shouldn't have one anyway.

Yeah, I know it means more government bureaucracy, and I don't like the idea of that either. But that's the reality of modern life. We can't all pretend that we're living in The Wild West.

That said, I'm open to calm, rational counter-arguments. The "You can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" stuff is for Hollywood.

[nana4]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Similarly, the fact that criminals will still obtain guns doesn't relieve us of the need to apply reasonable regulations. People drive without licenses or insurance, but we still do our best to prevent it.

Yes, but you don't see the government banning certain types of cars because they are too powerful do you?

A handgun is not powerful at all compared to a 12 gauge shotgun or 30-06 rifle. If it scared you, that's good. A gun is not a toy. It is a tool.

As for the 2nd Amendment, it is a question of interpretation. Thank god we still have it. Unlike the British slaves.


"How the British maximize crime

Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are 6 times higher than in New York City?
Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the U.S.?
Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an antisocial act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?
Joyce Lee Malcolm blames the rocketing rates of violent and armed crimes in England on "government policies that have gone badly wrong." Her careful research in "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," just released by Harvard University Press, leads to this conclusion: "Government created a hapless, passive citizenry, then took upon itself the impossible task of protecting it. Its failure could not be more flagrant."

snip

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose 53 percent."

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...1-58411660.htm

Less guns, less crime? Don't think so.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by nana4:
Yes, but you don't see the government banning certain types of cars because they are too powerful do you?

I don't believe I suggested that certain types of weapons should be banned because they are more powerful than others. I simply noted that the handguns that I've used are extremely powerful and I wouldn't want every citizen carrying one.

I'm not sure how I feel about the outright banning of certain weapons, but I'm not persuaded that there is no place for regulation of them. Regulation does not necessarily mean outright bans.

As for cars, as I understand it, certain types of cars are not considered "street legal", although I don't know if that pertains to horsepower. In any case, as someone else pointed out, the car-gun analogy ends at the point at which intent enters in: cars are involved in accidents, but are relatively rarely used as deadly weapons. And you can't carry a car into a school or onto a plane.

A handgun is not powerful at all compared to a 12 gauge shotgun or 30-06 rifle. If it scared you, that's good. A gun is not a toy. It is a tool.

No argument there.

As for the 2nd Amendment, it is a question of interpretation. Thank god we still have it. Unlike the British slaves . . .

"Slaves"? That wouldn't be an exaggeration, would it?

I would be interested in reading the book cited in the opinion piece, but I give the opinion piece itself no weight whatsoever. It is merely a loose collection of selected facts and hyperbole such as the following:

"American prosecutors now follow British ones in restricting self-defense to reasonable force as defined by prosecutors. Be forewarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger."

I believe this is a gross mischaracterization. "Reasonable force", AFAIK, has almost always been the standard in self-defense cases. Whether the intruder is armed, etc. is simply a matter of evidence in determining whether the force used was reasonable. If you have reason to believe that the intruder presents a deadly threat, you can shoot him, even if it turns out that you were mistaken. I believe that this has always been the case. If anyone has contrary information, I'd be happy to consider it.

[Lawyers and cops are fond of telling people that if they ever shoot a trespasser, they should (1) drag some part of the guy's body over the threshold of the house, and (2) make sure he is dead. The first in order to establish an "intrusion", the second in order to eliminate the only other witness.]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Xtopolop:


Had either of the two girls known at least the most basic of knife tactics, they would have been able to kill the man in his sleep (carotid artery).

Who cares about the gun if you have a chance to stab someone anywhere you want while they're asleep? They had a chance to attack their assailant while he was in bed and they failed to kill him. It's not like he was ready for the attack, and he overpowered them, they were simply inept with a knife.

While this shows that by taking some initiative, you are better off, it also goes to show that one should be at least knowledgeable about guns/knives/whathaveyou even if you are against them or don't plan on ever using one.

True, but none of this is counter to my point. I keep seeing this kidnapping case misrepresented with "well what if they had been armed and tried to fight back?' type scenarios, usually coming to some foregone conclusion that this would have been a bad thing.

Well once one has all the facts (notice they aren't mentioned in the originally linked to CNN article) then you know they WERE armed at one point during the abduction. With a knife and with a whiskey bottle.

No, they weren't 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Girls' who had training to know exactly where to stab the guy. (Good grief, I hope we never get to the point where we live in a world where that�s even a mandatory requirement for 16-17 year old girls) But the point is, they weren't passive. They did fight back. And successfully as far as buying the time needed to save their own lives. Another fact; they were partially blindfolded with some sort of tape and bound up to a degree when they attacked the guy. I'd really like to see most anyone in those circumstances who was untrained be as effective with a knife as maybe they dream they would be.

Given the actual facts, not wishful thinking, not a preconceived notion of self-defense using deadly weapons always being ineffective, there�s just no way this case is any anti-gun or anti self defense argument.

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Ban firearms? You folks always assume that when someone questions the gun-rights groups' interpretation (lies) of the second amendment, they must be trying to swoop down in their black helicopters and take your guns out of your compound.

It belies the lazy thinking underlying your arguments. Your first motive is that you just lub your guns. Your interpretation of the constitution then follows from that.

This is the kind of thinking that goes:

"I like X, X is cool, therefore X must be my legal right."

Hogwash. That's the MTV view of the Bill of Rights. Just because you like it doesn't mean it's your Constitutional right. Use your mind as an analytical tool, not an emotional one, every so often.

The status of the Second Amendment is independent of how much you like guns or how important you think they are.

And the status of the Second Amendment is basically non-existent right now. The Supreme Court has never once used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun control law. The only times they've even used it to address a gun control law was to say it didn't apply because the gun wasn't being used in the context of a militia, or to say that it's not a restriction on state law. Both utterly contradicting the gun-groups' assertions about it.

The gun-groups' propaganda about the Second Amendment is a Big Lie �, and probably the biggest lie kicking around right now about the Constitution.

Perhaps you and your McVeigh-worshipping groups have a different, radical interpretation of the Second Amendment. Great. I love radicals. But don't pretend that it's the current standing precedent. It's not.

You are about as rational and funnny as Dachau. Again, feel free to read some history and writings of the people that actually wrote the Bill of Rights, then you can at least pretend to know what you are talking about. If you really feel that the Bill of Rights is up to "interpretation", then you already have lost site of the fact that people are not given ANY rights by it, but have these rights by just being human beings, and governments or groups of people have no right to take those rights away from anyone...including the right to self-defense, weather it be from thuggish individuals or corrupt governments of any level (city, state, federal, or foreign).

So because I would rather see a woman shoot her attacker dead than be raped then strangled with her own pantyhose, I somehow have a compound, worship McVeigh, and have some kind of strange translation problem with my brain. Wow. I had no idea. What a radical thought!

Sorry, I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, not the 'rights' of the colective or state. It is no different from such arguments against collectivist thought as Frederick Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, L Neil Smith, or quite a few others. It's called Liberty...something that, again I point out, isn't for the cowardly.

If you want it laid out in very good and easy to understand terms, I recommend this flash animation about the philosophy of liberty, and this comic of Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. Get back to me when you aren't frothing at the mouth there, old bean.

[phazertwo]

Originally posted by The_Equivocator:
Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

The study can be found <a href="http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp" target="_blank">here</a> and was conducted by the Research and Statistics Section at the request of the Firearms Control Task Group, Department of Justice Canada. Information was collected between January and April, 1995.


US
Suicide Rate: 12/100,000 (30,810)
Suicide with Firearm Rate: 7.1/100,000 (18,526)
Homicide Rate: 9.3/100,000 (24,273)
Homicide with Firearm Rate: 6.4/100,000 (16,704)
Accidents with Firearms: 1,441
Firearms Ownership Rate: 85,385/100,000 (222 m.)

Britain
Suicide Rate: 8.6/100,000 (4,284)
Suicide with Firearm Rate: 0.4/100,000 (191)
Homicide Rate: 1.3/100,000 (675)
Homicide with Firearm Rate: 0.14/100,000 (74)
Accidents with Firearms: 8
Firearms Ownership Rate: 3,307/100,000 (1.7 m)

The Brits know what's going on. Stop telling me that guns protect people. Look at the numbers. The more you raise the regulations on guns, the more homicide rates drop. The numbers for Japan are similar to those of Britain, except lower... and they prohibit handguns all-together.

I have to run to an eye appointment, now... but expect more later.

<small>[ 08-01-2002, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: The_Equivocator ]</small>

That is because Americans put to much trust in the people around them. I would bet that 4 of 10 firearms in the US are not properly locked up, and or the key is not properly hidden. For my, i have a 1000fps air rifle under my bed, in a extream situation, it would put someone out of the picture at 20ft. plenty of room, i also have a 7.62x54 R Polish M44. this is locked properly, and my dad has one key on his key ring, and the other in his safty deposit box. So, unless he wants the guns out, they stay where they are (except my air rifle). Any way, i know someone else said it, "bad guys" buy off the balck market, and the guns that they use oten times are ilegle anyway.
PZ
P.S. I am not sure, but i think i remember that some time ago there was a big meltdown of guns in london, or may be all of england. i don't know, please enliten me on this subject

[phazertwo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Think about it. If you had any faith in the criminal justice system, why would you feel the need to arm yourself?


because you hunt, or ski shoot as a rec. sport. there are lots of reasons to have a gun, not carry one but have one. Here in colorado in the Samll town i live in (between denver and boulder) u feel perfectly safe. everytime we have had a problem, the cops show up at the click of you fingers. The problem is gun toting ass holes that don't respect what a fire arm stands for. and no power isn't what a fire arm stands for. A fire arm isn't really much to be proud of (unless its a vintage, or maybe a grandparent used it in WWI or WWII or any other war for that matter) but if i had a shot gun, i would brag about the gun, i would brag about how many clay pigons i can hit! or how well i did at the acuracy tuniment. bottom line, guns r not for ass holes, but people that respect the law, and it is way too easy for a "Ass hole" to get a gun now days.
PZ

[maxelson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by phazertwo:

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Think about it. If you had any faith in the criminal justice system, why would you feel the need to arm yourself?


because you hunt, or ski shoot as a rec. sport. there are lots of reasons to have a gun, not carry one but have one. Here in colorado in the Samll town i live in (between denver and boulder) u feel perfectly safe. everytime we have had a problem, the cops show up at the click of you fingers. The problem is gun toting ass holes that don't respect what a fire arm stands for. and no power isn't what a fire arm stands for. A fire arm isn't really much to be proud of (unless its a vintage, or maybe a grandparent used it in WWI or WWII or any other war for that matter) but if i had a shot gun, i would brag about the gun, i would brag about how many clay pigons i can hit! or how well i did at the acuracy tuniment. bottom line, guns r not for ass holes, but people that respect the law, and it is way too easy for a "Ass hole" to get a gun now days.
PZ

ahem...
"...because you may hunt or skeet shoot as a recreational sport.
There are lots of reasons to own a gun (as opposed to carry).
I live in a small town in Colorado (between Denver and Boulder) where one feels perfectly safe. If there are problems, the cops show up at a snap of the fingers.
The problems stem from gun toting *******s who have no respect for firearms and what they represent. Power is not what a firearm represents.
A firearm isn't really much to be proud of (outside of the realm of the occasional antique or heirloom). Skill with a firearm is another matter.
Bottom line: guns are not for *******s, but for law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, it is entirely too easy for an ******* to obtain a gun nowadays."

[nana4]

Originally posted by The_Equivocator:
Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

The Brits know what's going on. Stop telling me that guns protect people. Look at the numbers. The more you raise the regulations on guns, the more homicide rates drop. The numbers for Japan are similar to those of Britain, except lower... and they prohibit handguns all-together.

Why didn't you include the numbers for Switzerland I wonder? Perhaps because they have far less restrictions than the UK, and yet the homicide via firearm rate is almost identical? There is no correlation between less guns and less crimes. In fact the opposite of more guns, less crime is being proven true in the USA everyday. With concealed carry permits being introduced the rate of violent crime has dropped dramatically.

Perhaps you now going to try and say that firearm availability increases the overall rate of suicide? If people want to top themselves, there are other options than a gun, as can be seen in the figures you provided.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by The Jackalope:
If you really feel that the Bill of Rights is up to "interpretation", then you already have lost site of the fact that people are not given ANY rights by it, but have these rights by just being human beings, and governments or groups of people have no right to take those rights away from anyone...including the right to self-defense, weather it be from thuggish individuals or corrupt governments of any level (city, state, federal, or foreign).

I don't mean to speak for BRussell, who knows more about 2nd Amendment law than I do, but I want to point out the general reality that as long as laws rely on language, they will be subject to "interpretation", and the 2nd Amendment is no different. The 2nd Amendment might derive from noble principles (e.g. natural rights, etc.), but, as written, it is subject to interpretation.

One of the basic rules of statutory interpretation is to read a statute as a whole. This means that in order to interpret the "shall not be infringed" language, one must consider the "well-regulated Militia" and other language at the same time. You can't isolate one clause from the other. Thus my conclusion that the 2nd Amendment does not provide for an unrestricted right to bear arms. Others will come to different conclusions, but if they ignore the rules of statutory interpretation, they're not going to get very far in the courts.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by nana4:
In fact the opposite of more guns, less crime is being proven true in the USA everyday. With concealed carry permits being introduced the rate of violent crime has dropped dramatically.

If true (which locales and data are you referring to?), is this a function of concealed carry permits, or of favorable economic conditions? If I'm not mistaken, New York City, for instance, does not have concealed carry, yet its crime rates have dropped significantly over the past decade, correlating with favorable economic conditions. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the rate of violent crime has been on the increase over the past year or so, at least in the major cities, as economic conditions have deteriorated.

I'm not dismissing the idea that concealed carry has a positive effect, I just want to know what the evidence is.

[TNproud2b]

here's an interesting tidbit...

Taiwan's murder rate is higher than the U.S. rate -- although possession of a firearm in Taiwan is a capital offense. South Africa has very restrictive "gun control" laws, yet its homicide rate is double the U.S. rate.

[The_Equivocator]

Originally posted by nana4:
Perhaps you now going to try and say that firearm availability increases the overall rate of suicide? If people want to top themselves, there are other options than a gun, as can be seen in the figures you provided.

Why the hell would I say that? I don't think banning guns would have any effect on the number of suicides in the US. Most people who attempt to commit suicide don't do it with a gun. There are far easier ways to off oneself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

OK, this is pretty funny.

ATLANTA (AP) - An antique .38-caliber pistol accidentally discharged as it was being handled by Rep. Bob Barr ( news, bio, voting record) during a reception in his honor. The bullet hit a glass door, and no one was hurt.


Georgia lobbyist Bruce Widener said Tuesday that he had removed the magazine from his 1908 Colt but did not clear the chamber before handing the weapon to Barr, a board member of the National Rifle Association.

Repeat after me:

"there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon," "there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon," "there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon."

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, this is pretty funny.



Repeat after me:

"there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon," "there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon," "there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon."

Absolutely...Those two were idiots for not opening the chamber and checking it to make sure it was empty. And to have the finger on the trigger...oi....



Whenever I hand one of my pistols to a friend so they can have a look, the magazine comes out, then the action is pulled back and chamber checked...firearm always gets handed to them pointed downwards with the chamber open. Is that so damn hard??

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by zigzag:


I don't mean to speak for BRussell, who knows more about 2nd Amendment law than I do, but I want to point out the general reality that as long as laws rely on language, they will be subject to "interpretation", and the 2nd Amendment is no different. The 2nd Amendment might derive from noble principles (e.g. natural rights, etc.), but, as written, it is subject to interpretation.

One of the basic rules of statutory interpretation is to read a statute as a whole. This means that in order to interpret the "shall not be infringed" language, one must consider the "well-regulated Militia" and other language at the same time. You can't isolate one clause from the other. Thus my conclusion that the 2nd Amendment does not provide for an unrestricted right to bear arms. Others will come to different conclusions, but if they ignore the rules of statutory interpretation, they're not going to get very far in the courts.

Ok, sorry these aren't my words, but they cover this entire ground.


The 2nd Amendment: A Historical Understanding

by Bruce Gold

The Bill of Rights, like any historical document, can only be understood in its historical context. In placing it in context we must remember that the men who wrote it lived in a small and in many ways backward agricultural country. America in that era was not a superpower with the political options of a superpower. It was a rough frontier country still importing most of its manufactured goods. The men who wrote the constitution were men well accustomed to the hard world of agriculture, animal husbandry and poor communications over appalling roads.

In short, these were practical men of affairs and men of the frontier. When they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they were struggling to establish the foundations on which a successful government could be built. They were also men with bitter recent experiences of bad government and the brutal realities of civil and revolutionary war that bad government had brought in its train.

These historical circumstances are obvious. Almost too obvious to mention - yet it's surprising how many modern commentaries or analyses start from the assumption that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were engaging in an esoteric theoretical exercise in political theory. Or worse yet amusing themselves with a complex post-modern exercise in textual elaboration.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are historical as well as legal documents. They can only be understood from a perspective that embraces the historical context that surrounded them. This viewpoint emphasizes that these are practical documents written by men intent on the establishment of a successful system of government. The preamble to the Bill of Rights reinforces this understanding. It states:

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Clearly the amendments were being produced because some of the states were concerned about how power was distributed and wanted the matter clarified. "Declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being added to affirm what was and prescribe what should be. In short, the preamble makes it clear that its framers were dealing with issues of governmental power.

The controversial and "elusive" 2nd Amendment is best understood from this perspective. That it is an attempt by practical men to "declare and restrict" relationships of power. The Amendment states:

"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".

OK - Simple enough, a regulated Militia is necessary and the people's right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be messed with.

So what is the difficulty in understanding this Amendment? The difficulty is that to our modern sensibilities these two statements, one about a Militia and the other about people's rights seems ambiguous. Indeed, we might ask, why should they be connected at all? But since they obviously are connected which of the two parts should have priority? Should it be read that since a Militia is necessary therefore people (in the Militia) should have arms i.e.- should it be read as a collective right? Or should it be read as two statements - one about a Militia, a military organisation, another about an individual right to arms? As I shall explain below both of these "obvious" modern interpretations are in error. To see why this is we must examine the arguments supporting these interpretations and the actual historical context in which the document was made.

The collective rights argument can be made, but it rests on an assumption. It assumes that a Militia of 1791 is the same as a "Militia" in the year 2000. That is, it assumes that they are both uniformed bodies of troops (full time or part time) under the direct command of the government through government-appointed officers. Under this interpretation the right to bear arms means that there is a "right" to establish military organisations under government control and that "the people" enrolled in those military organisations have the right to weapons. Hence no individual private "right" to arms exists. Under this interpretation, the Amendment merely refers to the "right" of government troops to arm themselves.

This is the essence of the "collective rights" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. However, as an argument it has two serious problems. First, the assumption that the Militia of 1791 is the same as America's contemporary military organisations (full or part time) is just plain wrong. Second, the argument, reduced to its basic structure, is bizarre. The argument asserts that people have the "right" to bear arms because government formed and controlled military organisations are required.

OK, but why would this be necessary? The government clearly - then as now- has the right to raise and equip troops. Why in the name of wonder would "the peoples" right to arms come into it?

Essentially, the argument here is that the US Army (full or part time) can only be armed if the government delegates the "right to bear arms" to the whole population! This assumes that the government can only have armed troops if it delegates the right to bear arms to "everyone" but that they can only exercise that right as part of the government's army!

This is bizarre. This is bizarre. First, the government already has the Constitutional authority to arm its troops (and a host of other organisations paramilitary and otherwise!). There is no need to especially empower government to do this. It is a normal function of government already established by the Constitution. The Constitution itself asserts that the government has the right to "make war". One would presume this implies that the troops would be armed! Second, why in the name of wonder would all citizens (the people) have the right to arms if only members of a serving military (full or part time) actually exercise that right, or were intended to actually exercise that right?

This is so loopy an interpretation that one is driven to the assumption that either these guys were on "funny weed" or that's not what they meant.

Fortunately, we are saved from that somewhat disrespectful speculation by the other flaw in the "collective rights" argument. That is - the nature of the Militia.

Here we need to step back for a little historical perspective. The America of 1791 was not a superpower. National pride aside, it was a backward, recently colonial frontier. Its entire history had been one of war and threats of war. The French in the north, the Spanish in the south and the Indian Nations had all threaten the initial settlements. Moreover the colonies, from their various origins, had been "independent states" loosely tied together by their collective master the British Crown. In every case they had begun their precarious existence without a standing army of any kind. (Not unusual, in the early colonial period even the British Crown tended to raise its armies "at need" and disband them after the crisis had passed.) The colonies had followed their English traditions and organised their defence around a governor's guard (usually very small - more a personal defence force than an army), an organised "watch" to perform police duties (police in the modern sense are a hundred years in the future) and a levee en masse of every able bodied man in times of emergency.

As time went on and the colonies grew this initial arrangement was supplemented by garrisons of regular British troops, part time colonial reserves - of various levels of service and organisation- and Indian alliances. By the time of the Revolution the old practice of levee en masse was going out of use, at least in the more settled areas. Wars, for example the French and Indian War (1755-60), were conducted by regular British Troops supported by American "Militia" regiments mobilised for the war.

con't...

[The Jackalope]

more...

However, the early levee en masse tradition of the Militia, what might be called the "people's militia" continued. (We might note here that the Militia of formed bodies of troops was sometimes called the "regular", "standing" or "formed" Militia. The levee en masse Militia was often referred to as the "unorganised" Militia. The fact that there were two "types" of Militia both referred to as "the Militia" can be confusing.) As late as the 1860's we see Americans, North and South, responding to a military emergency by spontaneously forming regiments and electing their own officers. This is normally presented as a quaint example of Civil War enthusiasm. However, in reality this is the living continuation of the old levee en masse tradition of the American citizen soldier.

Back to the argument

Once we understand the nature of the "Militia" in 1791 and the levee en masse tradition of the colonial military system the meaning of the 2nd Amendment becomes obvious.

First, as the amendment itself states, there is a need for a Militia i.e. a military force. Nothing new here, the need for an organised military force has been part of the American (colonial) reality since get go.

The Militia must be well regulated. Well again, nothing new, this force was intended for use not window dressing and the colonies very lives had often depended on it. Hence "well regulated" i.e. Equipped, trained, adequately led etc.

But why should this be tied to "the people"? Couldn't the government just hand out guns, and the authority to use them, to its troops? The government's current regular army and its para-military forces such as the FBI and BATF are armed in this manner. Why not just do that under the "war making" powers vested in government by the Constitution?

Well yes, the government could have proceeded in this manner. The government then, as now, has the authority to arm its troops. Yet clearly they did not do so or for that matter wish to do so or the 2nd Amendment would never have mentioned "the people." Indeed one would wonder why there was even a need for a 2nd Amendment?

The reasons they tied the need for a Militia to an individual right to arms is both practical and political. Practically - the US, at this period in history, is a small, poor agricultural nation up to its ears in the task of nation-building and settling a frontier. It simply could not afford a regular army of any size. An army capable of "defending" the whole US was so out of all proportion to the country's resources as to be unthinkable.

The second reason is political. Americans of this period had a deep distrust of regular (standing) armies. A distrust they gained the hard way, through bitter experience. As English colonists under the Crown they shared England's history and political traditions. Centuries of Royal abuse of the Royal (government) armies had sensitised the British political tradition to the danger of armies at the immediate beck and call of the King. (The rise of Parliament and the decline of absolute monarchy can be traced in the struggle of the Crown to maintain armies and the struggle of Parliament to choke them off with lack of funding.)

The colonists (now Americans) had also had the bitter experience of a hostile Crown using its regular army (the garrison in America) to suppress dissent, impose the Crown's will and ultimately to make war on the American people.

Having fought a long and bitter war against an over-powerful government (the Crown) the whole thrust of the American political experiment was to limit, balance and restrain government power. Large regular armies under central control were simply out of the question.

Hence "the people" themselves would be the basis of the military system. The regular army would be reduced to a tiny force that was both politically safe and affordable. The need for a military would be filled by a Militia. "Regular" militia would be made up of formed bodies of troops permanently organised under their own officers (often part time). There would also be the mass of the people, the "citizen's Militia" which continued the old levee en masse system, the calling out of every able bodied man for the emergency. In short the "every man Militia" of early colonial tradition and the frontier continued to be the foundation on which the American military system stood.

Under this system the necessity of the "people's right" to keep and bear arms becomes obvious. A semi-professional Militia force would have little time to train and was unlikely to have much in the way of surplus arms. Such a force would necessarily be dependent on the people already being skilled with arms and in many cases providing their own arms, especially during a rapid expansion in an emergency. (Again, we find examples of soldiers, especially officers, providing their own arms well into the Civil War era.) This would apply even more strongly to the traditional levee en masse, every man to the fort tradition, of the frontier. If these men were unarmed or unskilled in arms this final layback reserve of military strength would be militarily useless.

These historical understandings explain the 2nd Amendment. A "well regulated Militia" was required because that was the basis of the country's military establishment. This could only be supplied by "the people" and would only be of use if the people were equipped and skilled with arms. To deprive "the people" (individuals) of the right to keep and bear arms would have undercut the whole military system of the country. This would have forced the government into a choice between an unaffordable, politically unacceptable regular army or defencelessness. Hence the individual right to keep and bear arms was essential, indeed number two on the list of essential things to affirm in the Bill of Rights.

There are a couple of further historical points that underline this insistence on an individual right to arms. The men who organised the American government had all experienced a "lawful government" that ignored their rights and which had responded to complaints with arrogant force. Indeed the Crown had taken the position that the Americans had no rights (A large part of the colonist's grievances were based on the fact that the King was engaging in direct divine right rule of the Colonies through his Governors, a practice that the rise of Parliament had stopped in Britain.) Grievances and complaints, no matter how humble and respectful, were simply treated as disloyalty and dismissed. An experience that convinced the Americans of the futility of mere reasoning and petitions in the face of a willfully despotic government.

Americans of this generation were well aware that their success in the Revolution had rested on them having the means to revolt i.e. arms. Further, the Crown had responded to their civil disobedience with direct attempts to disarm the colonists i.e. Lexington and Concord. Hence the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had a keen awareness of the political implications of armed vs. unarmed. Their intense last straw reaction to the British attempt to seize their arms was based on the realisation that a loss of arms meant that the colonists would be helpless. Helpless before the Crown, or the Indians, or bandits or anyone else who wanted to take a swipe at them. This condition of unarmed defencelessness and the subservience to any armed party that it implied was the match that set off the Revolution. It is also a major driving force in the current desire of many Americans to retain their arms.

In the colonial period, to men representing semi-autonomous states and very nervous about an over-powerful Federal Government, the right of individuals to arms was essential. Hence the need they felt to re-assert the individual right to keep and bear arms by including it in certain "declaratory and restrictive clauses" designed to prevent the Federal Government from any "abuse of its powers."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by The Jackalope:
You are about as rational and funnny as Dachau. Again, feel free to read some history and writings of the people that actually wrote the Bill of Rights, then you can at least pretend to know what you are talking about. If you really feel that the Bill of Rights is up to "interpretation", then you already have lost site of the fact that people are not given ANY rights by it, but have these rights by just being human beings, and governments or groups of people have no right to take those rights away from anyone...including the right to self-defense, weather it be from thuggish individuals or corrupt governments of any level (city, state, federal, or foreign).

So because I would rather see a woman shoot her attacker dead than be raped then strangled with her own pantyhose, I somehow have a compound, worship McVeigh, and have some kind of strange translation problem with my brain. Wow. I had no idea. What a radical thought!

Sorry, I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, not the 'rights' of the colective or state. It is no different from such arguments against collectivist thought as Frederick Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, L Neil Smith, or quite a few others. It's called Liberty...something that, again I point out, isn't for the cowardly.

If you want it laid out in very good and easy to understand terms, I recommend this flash animation about the philosophy of liberty, and this comic of Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. Get back to me when you aren't frothing at the mouth there, old bean.

"The Bill of Rights can't be interpreted." I don't even know what that means. How is the constitutionality of laws decided then. Oh, I think I understand... What you mean is that OTHERS aren't allowed to interpret the Constitution, only you and your gun buddies are.

If you don't admire McVeigh, I'd be interested in hearing your honest thoughts about him. I believe we''ve been through this about him before, and you had some positive things to say about him.

He should in fact be your poster child. He felt the gov't was oppressing him, and so he killed them. Isn't that exactly the right you say is enshrined in the Second Amendment.

You emphasize that the well-regulated militia is not necessary, and that individuals need the right to kill gov't officials and politicians. Russ Weston, who lived out near me and tried to kill Trent Lott and some other oppressive politicians is another one. What in the world is wrong with what he did? It doesn't matter that he acted alone and outside the context of any well-regulated group, right? That's the whole point!

(BTW - I read that article you found a link to on one of your gun web sites. I actually agreed with most of what he said, whoever he is.

What I found interesting is that he came to the same conclusion that I suggested earlier in this thread - that we used to have militias because we distrusted standing armies. But now we have a huge standing army, and don't use militias anymore.

So how can you reach any conclusion other than that the Second Amendment has been made an anachronism by the fact that we don't use militias? It's the logical conclusion from the article you copied and pasted!

Anyway, at least I got you to come back at me this time, rather than hiding after making a post.

[nana4]

Originally posted by zigzag:


If true (which locales and data are you referring to?), is this a function of concealed carry permits, or of favorable economic conditions? If I'm not mistaken, New York City, for instance, does not have concealed carry, yet its crime rates have dropped significantly over the past decade, correlating with favorable economic conditions. On the other hand, it's my understanding that the rate of violent crime has been on the increase over the past year or so, at least in the major cities, as economic conditions have deteriorated.

I'm not dismissing the idea that concealed carry has a positive effect, I just want to know what the evidence is.

"More guns, Less crime" by John Lott.

Yes NYC does not have CCW, in fact it is incredibly difficult to get a pistol permit for home defence. I believe much of the crime reduction has been due to the zero-tolerance policing implemented by Guiliani? Anyway, I think we agree that much crime is caused by economic and social factors rather than the availability of firearms.

[nana4]

Sorry, I mean there is no CCW for ordinary citizens. If you are rich and famous and "know" the right people you can get one. It's as sickening as Rosie O'Connol bitching and whining about the evils of guns, and at the same time having her armed bodyguard carrying wherever she goes.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by The Jackalope:



Ok, sorry these aren't my words, but they cover this entire ground.


The 2nd Amendment: A Historical Understanding

by Bruce Gold . . .

This article just reinforces what I and BRussell have said - that the underlying intent of the 2nd Amendment, as written, is no longer relevant. The fact that the right was extended to individuals at that time, for practical reasons, doesn't mean that it extends to all individuals for all time.

It's pretty simple, as I see it: if the framers had intended the right to be absolute, for all time, they could have just said so, i.e. "The right of the people [or "The right of citizens"] to bear arms shall not be infringed."

[nana4]

Do you honestly think the framers were thinking that the people should hand their guns into the benevelont government in ~200 years time? The right exists, until the 2nd Amendement is removed from the Constitution. An unlikely scenario. And as has been said, the right to hunt for your food, and to protect the life and property of yourself and your neighbour, these are unremovable rights.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by nana4:
Do you honestly think the framers were thinking that the people should hand their guns into the benevelont government in ~200 years time? The right exists, until the 2nd Amendement is removed from the Constitution. An unlikely scenario. And as has been said, the right to hunt for your food, and to protect the life and property of yourself and your neighbour, these are unremovable rights.

It's not that the 2nd expired or something. It's that the premise upon which it was based, i.e. that the army would be composed of local militias of individuals with their own personal weapons, has now passed.

Maybe we should rethink the huge national standing army we have. I doubt many people would want to do that because people can't keep tanks and nukes and cruise missiles in their homes and bring them to duty with them. But until then, the foundation upon which the 2nd is based just doesn't exist anymore.

[finboy]

From one of the citations/links:

"*About 42% of the violent crimes and 33% of the property crimes
were reported to police. Seventy-eight percent of the almost 2
million completed or attempted motor vehicle thefts were
reported to law enforcement agencies."

Think about that for just a little bit. HOW THE F*CK DO THEY KNOW IF STUFF WASN'T REPORTED? Ahem.

I like the citizen and subject thing, but my favorite is

"Those who turn their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

[zigzag]

Originally posted by nana4:
Do you honestly think the framers were thinking that the people should hand their guns into the benevelont government in ~200 years time? The right exists, until the 2nd Amendement is removed from the Constitution. An unlikely scenario.

I can see the argument that even though the premise behind the 2nd Amendment no longer exists, the right remains until it is specifically rescinded. I don't agree with that view of it - I think the Amendment should be considered in context - but I can grasp the argument.

The basic problem is that, like much of what is in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment was poorly phrased. It would have been better in the long run if they had simply said "The right of any citizen to bear arms shall not be infringed." The "Militia" stuff really complicates it.

And as has been said, the right to hunt for your food, and to protect the life and property of yourself and your neighbour, these are unremovable rights.

A noble idea, perhaps, but I don't see it stated anywhere in the Constitution. There are all kinds of laws that infringe upon these rights that have withstood constitutional challenge. Hunting regulations, gun regulations, laws prohibiting the use of unreasonable force, etc.

[Xtopolop]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:


True, but none of this is counter to my point. I keep seeing this kidnapping case misrepresented with "well what if they had been armed and tried to fight back?' type scenarios, usually coming to some foregone conclusion that this would have been a bad thing.

Well once one has all the facts (notice they aren't mentioned in the originally linked to CNN article) then you know they WERE armed at one point during the abduction. With a knife and with a whiskey bottle.

No, they weren't 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Girls' who had training to know exactly where to stab the guy. (Good grief, I hope we never get to the point where we live in a world where that�s even a mandatory requirement for 16-17 year old girls) But the point is, they weren't passive. They did fight back. And successfully as far as buying the time needed to save their own lives. Another fact; they were partially blindfolded with some sort of tape and bound up to a degree when they attacked the guy. I'd really like to see most anyone in those circumstances who was untrained be as effective with a knife as maybe they dream they would be.

Given the actual facts, not wishful thinking, not a preconceived notion of self-defense using deadly weapons always being ineffective, there�s just no way this case is any anti-gun or anti self defense argument.

Yea, I was not so much arguing against your point. Your point seemed to be that being "passive against a nutcase gets people killed", whereas taking action works in some cases. And that CNN did not provide all the details about their escape. I was merely trying to point out that in their situation, they should have been competent enough to kill the man while he slept. They certainly shouldn't be trained killers at the tender age of 16, but they should know that there's a major artery in your neck, or at LEAST that severing the windpipe causes death. They escaped, however, and that was the important part. Self-defense is a whole other thread in of itself. Back to the anti/pro gun discussion.