Second Amendment

[severin]

Can someone explain to me what the Second Amendment actually means?

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

I thought militias went out with the Civil War? The NRA quotes this all the time but does it actually give the individual the right to have a gun for purposes other than national security? I know those wicked Canadians are constantly threatening to invade, but apart from that, it's not clear.

I should say that I'm English, which is why I'm asking.

[Mr Manifesto]

There's a poster here, Suddenly, who has a good take on interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

Interpretation is probably more productive than simply saying 'the 2nd amendment is out of date, let's bin it'. I imagine you can't change the constitution in the US without some kind of referendum (though frankly I have no idea how you'd change the constitution, I just know it's bloody hard), and I doubt that it would get the popular support needed to change it.

I mean, how many massacres has the US seen, and there's still no popular support for ditching the second.

[DavidJames]

You will get lots of answers to this and it may seem confusing so I'll try to summarize them. Back in those days the people used words that had different meaning then they do today. For example, the phrase you quoted "well regulated", would be correctly defined today as "not regulated" and the word "militia" would mean "pretty much anyone". Additionally, their sentence structure was different, So the phrase translated with the current definitions would read:

The right of the people to own guns shall not be infringedPERIOD

You will note that the '.' used back then should also be replace with the word, in uppercase, to assure the meaning of the previous sentence is fully understood. This is not to suggest the founders hadn't fully anticipated the Internet communication concept of capital letters conveying emphasis or "shouting", because as you also may not be aware, the founders were inerrant and infallible and realized nothing could change in the future which would require modification to the original Amendments.

Of course, others may disagree :)

[Suddenly]

Generally it has been held by the courts that the right to bear arms must be in some context with a militia.

It is pretty well established that to be covered by the second amendment a weapon must be of the general type used by a militia.

The grey area today is whether the ownership must actually be in the context of militia membership. There is a split of federal circuits as to this question that the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to resolve.

One theory is a "collective rights" theory that holds for the 2nd to apply the gun owner must actually belong to a state militia, and his gun ownership must be for that purpose. Thus, the right to arms only exists when part of a group (militia), thus "collective rights."

The other theory is the "individual rights" theory this holds that actual militia membership is not necesary for the second amendment to apply. Thus, the right exists outside a group, and thus "individual right."

There is a thread somewhere where this is put in more detail.

[Supercharts]

The word 'militia' at the time the BOR was written meant the public body of armed citizens. The necessity to have an armed militia requires that the people not be denied the right of ownership of arms.
The Continental Army did not provide 'arms' to the citizens. Those who fought used their own arms.

[Kodiak]

"Amendment II --

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.

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."
"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.


http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/waffen/violent-smiley-043.gif

[VicDaring]

Thanks severin,

Nothing I love more than a good rousing 2nd ammendment debate.

Gun nuts vs. peaceniks...yip-freakin'-eee

FWIW, I have little interest in the "framers' intentions" on this or any other Constitutional issue. Just so happens it was the Intention of the Framers that blacks were counted as 3/5 of a human being, slavery was okay, only white male property owners could vote, and even they couldn't be trustred to elect US Senators.

The Constitution should be applied relative to the impact on contemporary society.

Yikes. Went into a little rant there.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"Amendment II --

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.

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."
"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Everybody has an opinion. Same with Volokh. I've been an editor on a law review and taught classes in law. So what? His statements have no more binding authority in law than mine, or Franko's for that matter.

Plus, his last sentence makes little sense. What justification clause in the 1st amendment? Furthermore, who is completely denying gun rights? Restricting the right to "Militia" related activities is hardly an outright denial that a right exists, its just a restriction, be it a rather large one. His next to last sentence makes little sense as well. That types of clauses may exist in law does not somehow require that all of them are going to be construed with identical weight w/r/t the rest of a sentence. That's silly.

His opinion is contrary to the case law. _Miller_ clearly places a restriction on gun ownership. The only debate is the magnitude of the restriction, as I summarized above.

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. CruikshankI'm pretty confident that such a mention is dicta in the first two cases. Offhand comments not directly related to the issue to be decided have no force in law, as they are not made within the court's grant of power under the constitution. The third I'll just suspect absent knowledge of context. There is no cite for me to look it up.

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller
This right is restricted by the "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"" test spelled out by Miller. You are arguing with the strawman that these cases ban all personal rights to own a gun. They don't. The argument is that personal right only exists where some relationship to militia activity exists. Miller stands for the proposition that the weapon itself must be of a type commonly used for militia type purposes. The question remaining today is whether or not ownership of a gun that passes the "Miller test" is protected by the second amendment even if the person owning it does not do so in relation to actual militia activity. The circuits are split on this....

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331
This is one half of the split I mentioned above. Read the whole case and you will see that the above text fits in with what I am saying. In Emerson, the court limited Miller to only speak to types of weapons. It doesn't contradict Miller, or overrule it. The principle that a weapon must in type have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is not disturbed. The Emerson court refuses to take the next step and find that Miller implies that for the second amendment to apply a person must be engaged in some sort of militia activity. Then if you read the other half of the split, the Rybar case I mention in an above post, that court does take the next step and refuses to find second amendment protection because while the guns (they were machine guns) passed the "Miller" test, the owner had no relationship whatsoever to a militia.

Here's a segment from _U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996):

In support, Rybar cites, paradoxically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a firearms-registration requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. Rybar draws on that holding, relying on the Miller Court's observation that the sawed-off shotgun in question had not been shown to bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Brief of Appellant at 24-25; Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Drawing from that language the contra positive implication, Rybar suggests that because the military utility of the machine guns proscribed by Section(s) 922(o) is clear, a result contrary to that reached in Miller is required, and the statute is therefore invalid under the Second Amendment.

[70] Rybar's reliance on Miller is misplaced. The language Rybar cites is taken from the following passage:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

[71] 307 U.S. at 178.

[72] We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.

[73] Nonetheless, Rybar attempts to place himself within the penumbra of membership in the "militia" specified by the Second Amendment by quoting from 10 U.S.C. Section(s) 311(a):

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are . . . citizens of the United States . . . .

[74] Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Nor can claimed membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia suffice. See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).


This is the split. Emerson goes with a relatively "individual right" in that participation in militia is not necessary. Rybar takes the opposite view, embracing the so called "collective" right.

Both views still follow Miller, in that only guns of the type commonly used for militia purposes are protected by the second amendment.

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999Are you serious? If 88% of people believe 2+2=73 that doesn't make it so. Plus, I'd love to see the actual question. Thanks to certain groups uses of ellipses, I wonder how many people know the actual text of the second amendment?

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

This would be great if the federal courts were bound by state courts, or if law was a question of statistics rather than binding authority. It isn't. It is just a footnote in a case that is part of a circuit split.

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.
Authorship doesn't automatically confer authority. Furthermore, like a said before, this statement is not really contradictory to the "collective" right theory. The "collective" right as stated in Rybar does confer a right on the individual, it just conditions that right on membership in a militia. The right is not held collectively but individually. However, that individual right is conditioned by membership is a "collective" group, In that "I" have a right to own a gun, as long as it is in the context of militia membership."



"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice
Maybe in your opinion. I have serious doubts that the "debates" you mention have ever settled down. Furthermore, the 14th amendment and decisions about the commerce clause have dramatically changed the nature of federal power over domestic concerns. These insights seem simply out of date.

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.
Yes. The whole so called "collective" versus "individual" rights argument is simply an argument over whether or not the test in Miller extends beyond the type of gun to require that the ownership interest be realted to militia purposes. That is it. That's all the argument is.

Either way, you definately have an individual right under the second amendment to own a gun that is of a type suitable for militia purposes, if the ownership interest relates to militia activity. (The so-called "collective rights view")

Some circuits hold that only the type of weapon is important, the owner need not actually be involved in the militia. (individual rights view)

Legally, that is the question. Confusion results when people use the words "collective" and "individual" both as terms of art as explained above and with their common meanings.

"Collective" in the above context includes a (restriced) individual right, and the "individual" right still is affected by a collective flavor, in that the right is justified by a showing the weapon is of a type used for the collective defense.

What a mess.

[Suddenly]

I'll also add that this was debated over the last page of this recent thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27556&perpage=40&highlight=Miller&pagenumber=6

[Tony]

Originally posted by VicDaring


The Constitution should be applied relative to the impact on contemporary society.




No it shouldn't, that would give censors ammo to attack the firsts amendment and freespeech. Is that what you want? Censorship?

[VicDaring]

1st Ammendment's pretty clear.

"Congress shall make no law..."

No justification required.

[Tony]

Originally posted by VicDaring
1st Ammendment's pretty clear.

"Congress shall make no law..."

No justification required.


:roll: :roll:

The second amendment is clear to, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

[DavidJames]

"The second amendment is clear to, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"."

Except in the actuall ammendment, "....." are real words, with real meanings, which of course can be ignore and abused as we see fit :D

[VicDaring]

See why I love this so much?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Except in the actuall ammendment, "....." are real words, with real meanings, which of course can be ignore and abused as we see fit :D

Its the same with the 1st amendment.

[DavidJames]

"Its the same with the 1st amendment"

I'm not sure what you mean. The sentence structure of the first and second amendments are formed differently. I suggest reading Suddenly's excellent post above, very carefully and with an open mind, for an explanation.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Its the same with the 1st amendment"

I'm not sure what you mean. The sentence structure of the first and second amendments are formed differently. I suggest reading Suddenly's excellent post above, very carefully and with an open mind, for an explanation.


Im talking about VicDaring's post:

1st Ammendment's pretty clear.

"Congress shall make no law..."

No justification required.

He did the same thing I did. He left out the part that is open to "interpretation".

[severin]

Blimey, I had no idea it was all so confused. It sounds a bit like the Bible - open to (mis)interpretation and manipulation to suit individual needs.

I suppose part of the problem is that even if guns were made illegal today, there would still be plenty of people with unregistered firearms. Then there's the issue of hunting - Americans would give up the right to kill things even less readily than we would in the UK (although there is a very tiny chance that hunting with dogs may be banned here).

There was a farmer in the UK who shot (in the back) and killed an intruder in his farmhouse - he went to prison for a few years.

I read somewhere that in the US, if you own a gun, you are more likely to shoot a member of your family or friend by accident than in intruder - can anyone substantiate this?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by severin
I read somewhere that in the US, if you own a gun, you are more likely to shoot a member of your family or friend by accident than in intruder - can anyone substantiate this?
I don't have statistics to back this up, but from my experience as a newspaper junkie, I can say apocraphally that this is true. In reading the crime section I see stories at least once of twice a week where the person who is shot is someone known to the shooter (although not necessarily a friend). Stories where a person has shot an unknown intruder are much more rare, and almost always take place in stores where the store employee shoots a robber. More commonly, the robber shoots the store employee. Quite common are the "crimes of passion" type shootings where a man (or much more rarely, a woman) shoots a spouse/lover for infidelity or suspected infidelity, plus lots of stories of police finding "bullet riddled bodies", usually meaning gang killings.

Pro-gun folks will tell you this is because newspapers don't report gun defense cases, but in my experience, those kind of stories make headlines in the Wild West state of Texas, whereas "man shoots wife" stories get relegated to the crime blotter. Today, the one of the stories (or paragraphs rather, since these things are not interesting enough to get whole stories) was about a nine-year-old girl struck with a stray bullet. That seems like a clear cut case of having too many guns in our society. We don't even know who fired it but it shows that guns are so common and widely used that you can be hit at random and it makes page 38 of the local news. Outside of Houston, no one would ever know it happened. What's wrong with this picture?

[severin]

The NRA never seems to make the connection though. Cold dead hands etc. Charlton Heston is one scary man.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tricky
What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong is your implication that the stray bullet victim, store owner victim, etc. occurred w/ legally bought and used firearms.

Gangbangers and robbers aren't the typoical gun owners, and are forbidden from owning or using them.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by WildCat

What's wrong is your implication that the stray bullet victim, store owner victim, etc. occurred w/ legally bought and used firearms.

Gangbangers and robbers aren't the typical gun owners, and are forbidden from owning or using them.
And you don't know if the bullet was fired by a "robber" or "gangbanger" either. It could have come from a legally bought firearm. It was a stray bullet. They don't come with return addresses. There are simply so many bullets flying around in our society that people get hit at random. That is not an indictment of who shot or whether it was legally owned or anything other than the fact that in America, guns are everywhere. When guns are everywhere, you have to expect a lot of people to get shot. In countries where guns aren't everywhere, not so many people get shot. This is not rocket science.

And by the way. Robbers and gangbangers are not forbidden from owning or using firearms unless they are caught using them illegally. A "legal gun owner" could just as easily be a robber as one who had previously been caught. Many gang members have no criminal record either.

[severin]

Gangbang obvious has a different meaning in the US. Over here it means orgy/group sex.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by severin
Gangbang obvious has a different meaning in the US. Over here it means orgy/group sex.

It means that here as well. There is an additional use of the word that relates to the act of being involved in street gang activity.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
I read somewhere that in the US, if you own a gun, you are more likely to shoot a member of your family or friend by accident than in intruder - can anyone substantiate this?

This may be the result of a study done by Arthur L. Kellerman, called Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home (314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60, 1986). The study claimed that guns in the home are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal, however the methodology employed in the study was far from sound. As noted by author/advocate Guy Smith in his rebuttal to Kellerman's claims:

Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad). Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminal activities. In his critique of this “study”, Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were “inaccurate”, and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities.

Others have, similarly, refuted Kellerman's claims.

I would be most curious to see objective data which would substantiate what you've read (and also to know precisely the source you were reading). If it were dependent upon this study in particular, there is insufficient or flawed evidence presented to substantiate the claim.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html), there were, nationwide, a total of 824 accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999, and 776 in 2000 ('00 = most recent data available). Unfortunately, the URL I provided does not break those numbers down any further, so it's not possible to isolate figures for accidental deaths of family members or bystanders versus those self-inflicted (accidentally, as suicide is categorized separately as being intentional), let alone the location of the incidents and whether or not they occurred in the home.

Researchers like John Lott and Gary Kleck have authored studies claiming millions of defensive gun uses each year (IIRC, Kleck claims 2.5 million DGUs, for example, and Lott 2.1 million), and critics have pointed out fatal flaws in their respective methodologies, with which I mostly agree; I'm skeptical of the extremely high numbers. Government estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest a much lower number of defensive gun uses annually, roughly 100,000 each year -- but even at that it's still a survey, not 100% accurate.

What I would like to see is an objective comparison of empirical data on this matter, rather than politically-motivated rhetoric or "studies" skewed to achieve a desired result -- which appear all too commonly on both sides of the argument. I also wish I were capable of expanding upon what I've presented above. I'm no statistician, and do not have access to the sort of data I'd like in order to perform a comparison between defensive gun usage and its result and injuries/deaths which occur in the home versus successful deterrent of an attacker (whether resulting in discharge of the firearm or not). I personally find it difficult to believe that a firearm in the home is more dangerous to its owner(s) or other members of the household than an unwanted intruder. Then again, I'm a responsible, experienced firearms owner, and realize there is certainly no shortage of Darwin Award candidates in this country.

[Iamme]

severin---It means that the Constitution is outdated, and needs to be rewritten! That clause about passing peace pipes only to the right, has to go.:D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Wolverine
I personally find it difficult to believe that a firearm in the home is more dangerous to its owner(s) or other members of the household than an unwanted intruder.
Excellent post, Wolverine. It is gratifying to see gun owners speak with such impartial honesty.

Let me suggest something as relating to the section above (totally without supporting evidence). It is almost certainly true that on a day that an intruder comes in a gun owners home, the firearm is much more dangerous to the intruder than the home owner. However, since the number of days when an intruder doesn't enter the home are vastly greater than the number of days when one does, the smaller odds of injuring a family member win out in absolute numbers by virtue of being in effect more often.

It's sort of like the old saying "75% of all accidents happen withing ten miles of home". Sure, that is certainly true, but considering that a very high percentage of driving happens in that radius, it does not really say that driving near home is more dangerous, just that more accidents happen in the areas where you are more likely to drive. Similarly, more gun accidents happen to family members because they are there all the time.

[Evolver]

The pro-gun side often say that most criminals are using stolen or unregistered guns. Where are they getting them?

My proposal: If a crime is committed with a gun, the legal owner should be tried as an accomplice. If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to make secure it properly when you are not using it. This goes for gun manufacturers and dealers as well.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Evolver
The pro-gun side often say that most criminals are using stolen or unregistered guns. Where are they getting them?

My proposal: If a crime is committed with a gun, the legal owner should be tried as an accomplice. If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to make secure it properly when you are not using it. This goes for gun manufacturers and dealers as well.
Although I agree with you emotionally, logically and legally I cannot go for this. Just like I disagree with laws that allow parents to be prosecuted when their kids download music from the internet, I don't believe that legal gun owners can be held liable for what might happen to their guns after they are stolen. I want to go for a solution that makes it harder for people (especially careless ones) to get guns, thereby slowly reducing the number of guns in circulation. Perhaps a person who wishes to buy a gun must show the disposition of every gun he has owned in the past. People who have had guns stolen would have to jump through multiple hoops, like showing the security features they have adopted, before they could replace them. This is a very long term solution and is fraught with pitfalls, but I feel it is the best way to attack the problem without punishing those who currently own guns legally.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tricky

Although I agree with you emotionally, logically and legally I cannot go for this. Just like I disagree with laws that allow parents to be prosecuted when their kids download music from the internet, I don't believe that legal gun owners can be held liable for what might happen to their guns after they are stolen. I want to go for a solution that makes it harder for people (especially careless ones) to get guns, thereby slowly reducing the number of guns in circulation. this is a very long term solution and is fraught with pitfalls, but I feel it is the best way to attack the problem without punishing those who currently own guns legally.

Owning a gun should come with more responsibilities than owning say, a toaster. My solution may be a bit draconian, but damn, I know a guy who routinely keeps his pistol in his gym bag, which I've seen open and unattended in his workplace, where alot of employees seem to come and go daily. If his gun were stolen and used in a murder, I don't think this bonehead would be blameless.

And again, if someone wants to own a gun, that's fine with me. But they must do everything they can to keep it out of the wrong hands.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Evolver

If his gun were stolen and used in a murder, I don't think this bonehead would be blameless.

how moronic. would he or his gun have caused the muder? of course not. the person who actually pulled the trigger caused the murder. if he would be charged with a crime, it would be for an unsecured weapon, which, in the US at least, is not a crime to the best of my knowledge. if comeone purchases a handgun legally and uses it in a crime, should the gun store owner be culpable? should a car owner who's car is stolen and said vehicle is used in a fatal hit and run be culpable?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


how moronic. would he or his gun have caused the muder? of course not. the person who actually pulled the trigger caused the murder. if he would be charged with a crime, it would be for an unsecured weapon, which, in the US at least, is not a crime to the best of my knowledge. if comeone purchases a handgun legally and uses it in a crime, should the gun store owner be culpable? should a car owner who's car is stolen and said vehicle is used in a fatal hit and run be culpable?

If you cannot secure your gun, you are not responsible enough to own one.
And I said they should be charged as an accomplice, notthe actual murderer. Then, maybe, the gun owners might take their responsibility seriously.
When a gun has other uses than shooting things, like say, driving to work on it, then perhaps your textbook NRA stooge (sorry, Shemp) argument may have relevance.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Evolver


If you cannot secure your gun, you are not responsible enough to own one.
And I said they should be charged as an accomplice, notthe actual murderer. Then, maybe, the gun owners might take their responsibility seriously.
When a gun has other uses than shooting things, like say, driving to work on it, then perhaps your textbook NRA stooge (sorry, Shemp) argument may have relevance.

textbook NRA stooge? i can throw that around, too. why don't you go kill some jews, Hitler? make sure you disarm them, first. your argument would have been reasonable until you threw in the ad-hom.

[severin]

Which costs more - a powerful burglar alarm or a gun?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


textbook NRA stooge? i can throw that around, too. why don't you go kill some jews, Hitler? make sure you disarm them, first. your argument would have been reasonable until you threw in the ad-hom.

I believe you threw in the car=gun/apple=orange arguement. This is what the NRA teaches it's minions to spout.
Ad-hom, how about "How moronic."
Pot. Meet kettle. It's black.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
why don't you go kill some jews, Hitler?
Well I guess that's the end of THAT debate.

[Evolver]

Ok, let's try again:
NRA slogan: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."
If there are so many stolen guns out there, why are so many NRA members still warm and alive?

[severin]

Before you can drive a car, you have to do a driving course and a test. Maybe, people who want to have guns should be required by law to do a course in responsible gun ownership. It wouldn't stop illegal gun use but it might stop accidents. Surely any sane adult would not object to waiting a while before getting a gun if it meant greater safety for everyone. And background checks should be kept forever.

[Richard G]

How about anyone found guilty of stealing a firearm gets the death penalty?

[severin]

The death penaltyreally works as a deterrent, doesn't it, that's why you have so little crime in the US. But let's no go there, that's a whole other can o' worms.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
Which costs more - a powerful burglar alarm or a gun?

Very subjective.

If by "powerful" you mean an alarm system which includes monitoring, such as ADT's home security systems, you have to purchase the equipment, have it installed, and then pay a monthly fee to the company for service. A simple, good quality firearm well-suited for home defense, such as a 12-gauge shotgun, can be had for $250 or less, new. In that case, the gun is cheaper. Or, if you had your heart set on a presentation grade Les Baer custom .45ACP with your name engraved on it, that'd be over $6k, where the alarm would likely cost less.

At the risk of stating the obvious, however, it's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of what will be the best solution for someone in their own environment. Personally, I have no use for an alarm system at this time. Others may abhor firearms and wish to install a security system instead. Some would not want any part of either.

A system like ADT's is kind of cool. It'll automatically alert authorities if your house is on fire. It will not, however, give you much protection from an attacker that's entered your home seeking to do harm. In a situation like mine, where I live out in the country and law enforcement might take up to 15 minutes to arrive on scene if I were in imminent danger, I don't see it doing me much good. Personal choice.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
Before you can drive a car, you have to do a driving course and a test. Maybe, people who want to have guns should be required by law to do a course in responsible gun ownership.

That is the law in some areas of the country. I object to such practices, and consider it a matter of personal responsibility. Driving is a privilege, not a right. We've had several such discussions on the forum in the past.

It wouldn't stop illegal gun use but it might stop accidents.

I suspect much like licensing drivers helps stop traffic accidents.
There are numerous firearms safety resources already at one's disposal. Accidental firearms deaths have been in steady decline over recent years. Using the CDC stats from 2000 as a guide, 724 accidental deaths from a population of 275,264,999 Americans -- even if we use a conservative estimate of 60,000,000 gun owners in the US, that translates to 0.0012%. For the same period, there were 43,354 accidental motor vehicle deaths.

Surely any sane adult would not object to waiting a while before getting a gun if it meant greater safety for everyone.

In order for a waiting period to prevent a crime of passion or rage, several criteria must be met.

First, the person intent on committing the crime must not own or have access to a gun and there must be no other weapon available or acceptable to the potential offender.

Second, the person must have no record that would prevent him from legally obtaining a firearm. Waiting periods would only apply to those who were willing to submit themselves to a background check and could successfully pass. Others would choose another means to secure a gun.

Third, the potential assailant must seek to obtain the gun through a licensed dealer who would conduct the background check and institute the waiting period prescribed by law.

Fourth, some mechanism or rationale must cause the assailant to change his mind about committing the crime before the arbitrarily chosen “cooling off” period expired. One would have to assume that the inability to obtain the desired weapon – a gun – would result in the desired behavior, rather than further enrage the individual.

In other words, advocates of cooling off periods assume that an individual enraged to the point of committing a violent crime would simply change his (or her) mind if he had to wait to obtain a firearm, that such a person would not consider an alternative method or weapon to carry out his criminal intent and that once denied immediate possession of a firearm, the irate offender would not seek to acquire one through some other means. Source (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1645)

And background checks should be kept forever.

I agree.

[corplinx]

you guys have all fallen for a troll

I was suspicious after his first post which sounded faux-curious and his later posts just confirmed it.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Tricky
Similarly, more gun accidents happen to family members because they are there all the time.

I understand your point.

What I dislike about the phrasing of such "statistics" is that it seeks to shock readers emotionally rather than paint a truly objective representation of the subject matter. I'm sure that, statistically, I'm X times more likely to be stabbed in my own home because I own many knives. But, something my shotgun and 8" Sabatier chef's knife have in common is that neither is magically going to leap from its safe place of storage to maliciously attack me. :)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by corplinx
you guys have all fallen for a troll

I was suspicious after his first post which sounded faux-curious and his later posts just confirmed it.

Guess we'll find out.

I don't have anything better to do at the moment. :o

[severin]

Wolverine - when I said it should be harder to get a gun, I wasn't thinking about a 'cooling off period', I was thinking more in terms of more stringent background checks. However, if I were thinking of shooting my no good cheating rat of a husband, I might well have got over the idea after a couple of weeks.

I agree that plenty of car accidents happen despite having to take drivers lessons. The European Union is thinking of introducing a law that people have to retake their driving tests every ten years. Maybe something similar could be introduced with guns - you have to go to a sensible gun owners refresher class. Difficult to institute, granted. And no answer to illegal gun use, but even so, if it would stop one child being killed a year, it would be worth it.

I suspect that many people own guns to make them feel safer - but does this mean they might take risks they would otherwise not if they were unarmed? If someone is pointing a gun at you, you wouldn't necessarily have time to get yours.

I've never seen a hand gun and I hope I never do.

[Tony]

Originally posted by severin

I've never seen a hand gun and I hope I never do.



Awwww, poor wittle thing. Big, meany guns got you scared? Im sure mommy and daddy gub-mint can keep you safe. :rolleyes:

[muckraker]

If gun ownership is an individual constitutional right (and not subject to being member of a militia), what is the constitutional justification for forbidding ex-felons, or the insane, from owning guns?

the government can't restrain free speech, eliminate trial by jury, or prohibit the free exercise of religion for ex-cons and crazy people, so how can we violate this particular constitutional right?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Evolver

If you cannot secure your gun, you are not responsible enough to own one.

Says who? I haven't heard of any law like this. Until there is a law such as this, it is just you trying to force your own emotionally charged moral viewpoint on others.

And I said they should be charged as an accomplice, notthe actual murderer. Then, maybe, the gun owners might take their responsibility seriously.
I think the word you are groping for is accessory, not accomplice. Accomplice implies deliberate intent to aid the crime. If your intent is to punish firearm owners for owning firearms, you might have better luck with a wrongful death suit.


When a gun has other uses than shooting things, like say, driving to work on it, then perhaps your textbook NRA stooge (sorry, Shemp) argument may have relevance.
Though it's quite natural to fear what you do not understand, it is still regrettable when law-abiding citizens are forced to pay the price for the phobias of the tyrannical minority.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by muckraker
If gun ownership is an individual constitutional right (and not subject to being member of a militia), what is the constitutional justification for forbidding ex-felons, or the insane, from owning guns?

the government can't restrain free speech, eliminate trial by jury, or prohibit the free exercise of religion for ex-cons and crazy people, so how can we violate this particular constitutional right?

Because pro-gun people are wishy-washy. I see no reason to take away a person's second amendment rights if they serve all of their jailtime for their crime.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by severin
The death penaltyreally works as a deterrent, doesn't it, that's why you have so little crime in the US. But let's no go there, that's a whole other can o' worms.

There'd be no repeat offenders though...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by muckraker
If gun ownership is an individual constitutional right (and not subject to being member of a militia), what is the constitutional justification for forbidding ex-felons, or the insane, from owning guns? Big "if" there. The circuits are split as to this. Plus, it is accepted that there is "some" relation to a militia, as spelled out in the Miller case.

Lets ignore that and assume that there is no requirement to join a militia w/r/t second amendment right.

the government can't restrain free speech, eliminate trial by jury, or prohibit the free exercise of religion for ex-cons and crazy people, so how can we violate this particular constitutional right?

No right is absolute, all are subject to reasonable regulation. The government restrains free speech by noise stautes and other such things, such as not screaming fire in a crowded theatre and the like. Religion is restricted in that no matter the religious reason, human sacrifice is still illegal.

Felons are a special case as legally beccoming a felon equates to the forfeiture of all rights, a leftover from the days when all felonies were punishable by death.

Groups can be singled out for special restriction only under very compelling circumstances.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Says who? I haven't heard of any law like this. Until there is a law such as this, it is just you trying to force your own emotionally charged moral viewpoint on others.


I never said it was a law. This was my proposal I threw out there.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I think the word you are groping for is accessory, not accomplice. Accomplice implies deliberate intent to aid the crime. If your intent is to punish firearm owners for owning firearms, you might have better luck with a wrongful death suit.



Fair enough, accessory. I do not want to punish firearm owners for owning firearms. I have many friends who own them. I have used them myself. I would punish proven irresponsible gun owners.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Though it's quite natural to fear what you do not understand, it is still regrettable when law-abiding citizens are forced to pay the price for the phobias of the tyrannical minority.

I have no phobia of guns. I do, however have a phobia of idiots with guns. Small distinction, I know, but there is a difference.



:wink: And I'll volunteer to decide who's an idiot and who's not.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Evolver
I have no phobia of guns. I do, however have a phobia of idiots with guns. Small distinction, I know, but there is a difference.

Would a citizen with a clean criminal and mental health record who had successfully passed a "gun-use and safety course" or its equivalent (military training, for example) qualify as a "non-idiot"?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Would a citizen with a clean criminal and mental health record who had successfully passed a "gun-use and safety course" or its equivalent (military training, for example) qualify as a "non-idiot"?

Most likely yes. If he doesn't use his "gun-use and safety course" information, and leaves his gun out where others could easily take it, then he would be an idiot. But again, most likely, not.

As I stated previously, I know many people who own guns, and keep them properly secured when not in use. I have no problem with them. I also know a few who leave the guns lying about the house where kids are playing, or, as I mentioned earlier, poking out of a gym bag. they are idiots, and should not own guns.

How this can be discerned before issuing a license, I don't know. Perhaps there is a psychic :wink: out there who could screen them.

[severin]

Thank you for being so patronising, Tony.

The main reason I have never seen a handgun is that I'm English. We are not, on the whole, a gun-toting nation. The only reason I've even seen a shotgun is that I grew up in the country. Puny as it was, I have fired an air rifle so no, I am not afraid of guns per se.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by severin
Thank you for being so patronising, Tony.

The main reason I have never seen a handgun is that I'm English. We are not, on the whole, a gun-toting nation. The only reason I've even seen a shotgun is that I grew up in the country. Puny as it was, I have fired an air rifle so no, I am not afraid of guns per se.

I've met members of your elite military and even members of your Olympic shooting teams. They represent your country well and carry on your country's legacy of fine marksmanship with honor and distinction.

[severin]

Our soldiers have guns? Blimey, I never knew that. And as to our shooting teams - a few individuals are hardly representative of a population.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by severin
Our soldiers have guns? Blimey, I never knew that. And as to our shooting teams - a few individuals are hardly representative of a population.

I in no way meant to imply that they were.

My point was that there are lawful ways to familiarize youself with firearms if you want to, regardless of where you live. If you prefer not to - that's fine too.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
Wolverine - when I said it should be harder to get a gun, I wasn't thinking about a 'cooling off period', I was thinking more in terms of more stringent background checks.

Could I ask you to provide an example? Just curious.

I suspect that many people own guns to make them feel safer - but does this mean they might take risks they would otherwise not if they were unarmed? If someone is pointing a gun at you, you wouldn't necessarily have time to get yours.

This, also, is extremely subjective. There are many what-if scenarios which might arise in self/home defense. All the more reason for those who choose to own guns to receive appropriate training in this area. There are many organizations which provide such courses, as well as excellent books on the role of firearm in personal protection, all of which illustrate what to do and what not to do.

[severin]

No, I can't provide examples because I don't know what existing checks are. I just meant that, whatever they are, they don't seem to work.

Responsible people will always be responsible - it's the rest who need checking up on.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wolverine
There are many organizations which provide such courses, as well as excellent books on the role of firearm in personal protection, all of which illustrate what to do and what not to do.

NRA Trains Record Number of Police, Military, and Civilian Instructors (http://www.nra.org/display_content/show_content.cfm?mod_id=58&id=0)

[severin]

The reason I started this thread was to learn about gun law in the US. I'm asking questions and making suggestions to that end, not because I think I have the solution.

Dinner time now.


Well Winston Churchill would say that, wouldn't he.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Kodiak


NRA Trains Record Number of Police, Military, and Civilian Instructors (http://www.nra.org/display_content/show_content.cfm?mod_id=58&id=0)

Wasn't that originally the point of the NRA, to further gun safety and education?

It is unfortunate that they are regarded more as a political organization now. An organizarion simply dedicated to gun safety issues and education would be a valuable thing, but because of the political stuff everything they do seems tainted with suspicion of bias.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Wasn't that originally the point of the NRA, to further gun safety and education?

It is unfortunate that they are regarded more as a political organization now. An organizarion simply dedicated to gun safety issues and education would be a valuable thing, but because of the political stuff everything they do seems tainted with suspicion of bias.

Whats wrong with like-minded citizens banding together to further a cause? The NRA makes no bones about its pro 2nd amendment bias.

So long as they are public and can stand up to skeptical scrutiny, I will continue to be a proud member.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
No, I can't provide examples because I don't know what existing checks are.

If you're interested, here's a detail of the background check process on a federal level (called the National Insta Check System [NICS]) conducted via the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#top). Some states require additional background investigation be performed by state offices before a puchaser may receive their firearm(s).

I just meant that, whatever they are, they don't seem to work.

Example, please? Again, just curious.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Whats wrong with like-minded citizens banding together to further a cause? The NRA makes no bones about its pro 2nd amendment bias.

So long as they are public and can stand up to skeptical scrutiny, I will continue to be a proud member.

I never said it was wrong.

I just think their political activities impede the effectiveness of their education and safety programs, as their obvious bias against gun regulation makes them less then credible when they speak on issues relating to gun safety. They have a political reason to make guns seem safer than they are. Whether they do or not is another story, but they have removed themselves from any claim of being a neutral authority.

Also, since you seem to want some sort of attack on what the NRA stands for, I submit for your enjoyment:

"Pro 2nd amendment" bias? More like "try to convince people to ignore the first clause of the 2nd Amendment so we can use the federal courts to prevent individual states from enacting weapons regulation" bias. I'm pro 2nd Amendment. The whole thing though, not just certain parts.

The reason why the Supreme Court has yet to step up and decide the current circuit split is because most of the conservative members are strict textualists and they know darn well that the so - called "individual rights" view is nothing but a false contrapositive of the holding in Miller, and to find for that they would have to suscribe to the view that the first clause is somehow a throwaway, and they won't because of their textualist bent. So they leave well enough alone because they don't want to put the final nail in the gun nut coffin.

[severin]

And Charlton Heston doing the mad-eyes "cold dead hands" rant doesn't help their cause much, either.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
And Charlton Heston doing the mad-eyes "cold dead hands" rant doesn't help their cause much, either.

Thankfully, he's now out of the picture.

[severin]

Why, did he die?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
Why, did he die?

No, he stepped down from his NRA position this past April.

Story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-26-heston-nra_x.htm)

As an NRA member, the decision to appoint him a figurehead always drove me nuts, and I wrote the organization more than once voicing my disapproval.

BTW, did you see my previous question?

[severin]

Was that because his hands are now too shaky to hold a gun?

What question - the request for examples? As I said before, I don't have any, I'm trying to learn.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
Was that because his hands are now too shaky to hold a gun?

I suspect it had more to do with the fact that Heston was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2002.

What question - the request for examples? As I said before, I don't have any, I'm trying to learn.

My most recent question addressing your comment about background checks not working. I noted your earlier statement that you didn't have any examples of what sort of more stringent checks you'd like to see, being unfamiliar with the process (for which I provided a resource).

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I never said it was wrong.

I just think their political activities impede the effectiveness of their education and safety programs, as their obvious bias against gun regulation makes them less then credible when they speak on issues relating to gun safety.

Which regulation? (You are aware of the multiple regulations that the NRA has supported in the past. Right?)

They have a political reason to make guns seem safer than they are. Whether they do or not is another story, but they have removed themselves from any claim of being a neutral authority.

Seem safer? Is it about reality or not? The only responsibility the NRA has is to stick with the facts, not to worry about peoples feelings. :rolleyes:

[AmateurScientist]

I have been reluctant to post in this thread, as these Second Amendment rights debates tend to get bogged down in so much political rhetoric and persons attacks.

Nevertheless, I must state that I find Supercharts' and Kodiak's understandings and statements of the issues most persuasive.

In the United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) case others have mentioned, the issue was whether possession of a saw-off shotgun was guaranteed a citizen by the Second Amendment. The court decided the question in the negative on the ground that such a weapon was not one that had been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id. at 178. In doing so, the court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. It is interesting to note that this case was decided during a historical period when the expansion of federal powers under the Commerce Clause was unprecedented and virtually unchecked.

I wonder if the case would be decided the same today, especially in light of the court's momentus decision in the opposite direction in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which struck down the Gun Free Zones Act of 1990. The relevant portion of that act forbade "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone." Amazingly, and contrary to the wholesale trend in constitutional law in the 20th Century, the more conservative Supreme Court in 1995 struck down the statute on the ground that it was an unconstitutionally excessive exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, which had previously been used in the 20th Century to justify federal intrusion into nearly every aspect of daily life. Basically, the court said that regulating where persons may exercise the right to possess a firearm on private, state or public property is exclusively within state control.

A more recent case, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98 (1997), has touched upon the Second Amendment, albeit only tangentially. That case, its majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia, struck down certain provisions of the so-called Brady Act, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968, this country's most substantial federal legislation regulating the distribution of firearms, and by extension the lawful possession of them.

In rejecting the minority's view, Scalia relied upon the "Necessary and Proper" clause of Article I, Section 8, which allows Congress to enact laws that, among other things, carry out the execution of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Again, Scalia found the Printz case to be a Commerce Clause case, and held Congress exceeded its authority in mandating that state and local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) carry out certain duties imposed upon them by the Brady Act. Basically, in a very convoluted opinion, Scalia said that Congress cannot commandeer state and local officials and press them into federal service for the enforcement of federal law and regulation.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he stated his belief that Printz is really a Tenth Amendment case. He opines that because the federal government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers, it cannot regulate purely intrastate matters. He believes the sale of firearms in purely intrastate, point of sale transactions, is one of those matters beyond the scope of Congressional authority. Thomas remarks in a footnote that in the Miller case cited above, "The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."

Thomas also expresses apparent support for the notion that the right expressed in the Second Amendment is a personal right, as the NRA contends. Here is his second footnote, in its entirety, from the Printz concurring opinion:

Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right 162 (1994); S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984); Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L. J. 1236 (1994); Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 1193 (1992); Cottrol & Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L. J. 309 (1991); Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 637 (1989); Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983). Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. See, e.g., Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1365 (1993); Williams, Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 551 (1991); Brown, Guns, Cowboys, Philadelphia Mayors, and Civic Republicanism: On Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 661 (1989); Cress, An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, 71 J. Am. Hist. 22 (1984). Although somewhat overlooked in our jurisprudence, the Amendment has certainly engendered considerable academic, as well as public, debate.

These are the last words of Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, which I find interesting and provocative:

Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries §1890, p. 746 (1833). In the meantime, I join the Court's opinion striking down the challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

The Justice Story he mentions is Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the United States Supreme Court at age 32 by President James Madison, and who essentially founded the Harvard Law School. Justice Story wrote the majority opinion in the famous case involving the Amistad. At the time of his death, Story was considered to be our country's greatest jurist.

Other comments on the Second Amendment by Justice Story:


One of the most influential early commentators on the U.S. Constitution was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833), he has the following to say about the Second Amendment:

"§ 1889. The next amendment is "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.

"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time ofanding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [FN1] And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. [FN2]

"§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the [English] bill of rights ofll of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." [FN3] But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege."

Footnotes:

1.

1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App.300; Rawle on Const. ch.10, p.125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219,220.
2.

It would be well for Americans to reflect upon the passage in Tacitus, (Hist.IV ch.74): "Nam neque quies sine armis, neque arma sine stipendis, neque stipendia tributis, haberi queunt." Is there any escape from a large standing army, but in a well disciplined militia? There is much wholesome instruction on this subject in 1. Black.Comm. ch.13, p.408 to 417.
3.

5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. p.110; 1 Black.Comm. 143, 144.

And now some commentary from the late 20th Century:

Story's passage on the Second Amendment supports the proposition that the phrase "well regulated" militia does not mean regulated as not mean regulated as we, citizens living under the omnipresent regulation of the post-New Deal federal government understand "regulation." Instead, "well regulated" in this context, means "properly functioning" and "uniformly equipped." Note how Story laments Jacksonian America's growing indifference and hostility to maintaining a well regulated militia -- not on political or philosophical grounds, but rather because Americans were getting lazy! In fact, I'd say he was prescient, in respect to the last sentence of § 1890. As for § 1891, history repeats itself, as we in the US have allowed our RKBA to become undermined under various pretenses, such as "the war on crime," or the specious argument that of all rights of "the people" enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment alone applies to states, not individuals.

Commentary Copyright 1998-2000 David S. Markowitz

from David Markowitz' Page (http://www.building-tux.com/dsmjd/rkba/story.htm)

I have to agree with Supercharts that "well regulated militia" clearly meant at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights the entire body of able bodied men (at least the white men of the time) between the ages of 18 and 45. This is confirmed by the enactment by Congress of The Militia Act of 1792. It required all able-bodied men, ages 18-45, to enlist in the militia of their respective home states. Each man was required to supply his own musket, bayonet, belt, and cartridges. It served as the pathway to the creation and preservation of the military reserve and guard units we know today.

I find it odd that given the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller, the Second Amendment would seem to support the right of individuals to keep and maintain their own private military arms, such as M-16s, AK-47s, M-60 machine guns, SAWs, handgrenades, and all sorts of other small arms that constitute "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

This is completely at odds with the anti-gun rhetoric which is often debated on the House and Senate floors denouncing the private ownership of so-called "assault rifles." The strawman argument they most often use is that hunters do not use M-16s to hunt deer. They ignore that the Second Amendment was never intended to protect the rights of hunters engaged in hunting. It is and always was intended to protect the citizenry from foreign invasions and domestic threats, including military coups and other tyrannical abuses of a centralized government.

I have to side with the "gun nuts" and the kooky private militia people on this. They happen to be right on principle. Gun murders and accidental shootings are absolutely beside the point.

Freedom is never free. All rights come with costs. As has been so ably demonstrated elsewhere in this thread, the private ownership and use of automobiles, since their introduction, has been a far greater threat to the lives and safety of citizens of the U.S., both those culpable in bringing about their own harm, and the completely innocent, than private ownership of guns has ever been. I've never heard anyone attempt to argue seriously that automobiles should be banned.

How many times must the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people do" be repeated? Substitute "cars" for "guns" and the argument becomes equally valid. The most often heard counterargument, that cars are not designed primarily to hurt or kill people, but guns are, misses the point. The lawful use of guns is not to hurt or kill innoncent people; it's to deter harm or to stop it from being committed on innocent victims of violence. Both automobiles and guns may be used unlawfully to seriously injure or kill persons. The negligent or reckless use of either may result in serious bodily harm or death to others. So?

AS

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes lets take the second amendment- oh soo literally- and never apply it to specific context. Also lets not recognize the fact that its a law made what? 200 plus years ago, and is not essential for democracy. Soon everyone can have any sort of gun they want, as well as tanks, missiles and artillery pieces. Nobody will ever commit a crime--knowing his or her neighbor, armed with nukes, can blow up a city.

Also if you guys aren't scared of the "gubnet", why this fuss about the gubnet taking your guns? Just fight it off, Branch Davidian style. (Those poor martyrs). I mean you're not scared of the big, bad, gubnet are ya?

Also isn't it obvious that outlawing guns would lead to a disaster on a massive scale? Without having guns for protection people are easy prey for all sorts of predators, "gubnet" tyrants and crime lords. That's why Japan, Britain, and France are tyrannies, despite outlawing guns, and that's why their crime rate is so high.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yes lets take the second amendment- oh soo literally- and never apply it to specific context. Also lets not recognize the fact that its a law made what? 200 plus years ago, and is not essential for democracy.



Given the historical moment during which our country was founded, and how it was founded, the framers of the constitution most certainly did consider gun ownership to be essential for democracy.

Our nation's birth was unique. It is not too hard to understand why its devotion to private gun ownership should be unique as well.


That's why Japan, Britain, and France are tyrannies, despite outlawing guns, and that's why their crime rate is so high.

See comments above. Also, Japanese culture is very, very different from most Western cultures. It is a country of remarkably uniformly law-abiding citizens. Japan values collective order and prosperity over individual freedom.

The U.S., by contrast, holds individual liberty and freedom paramount to everything else, except for national security. That, and the history of how our nation was founded, naturally lead toward distrust and suspicion of government. Guns in the hands of the people are a nice countermeasure to assuage such distrust and suspicion.

As for violent crime in other Western cultures, it certainly exists. Despite the relative absence of guns, plenty of violence occurs in the U.K. and in France. How about the abhorrent bouts of mass violence which sometimes occur at soccer games, for but one example? We don't see anything comparable at U.S. sporting events. The only conclusion I can gather from these disparate facts is that our cultures are simply different.

Guns don't cause violence. People cause violence. Take away guns and you take away gun violence. Other forms of it will remain. Violence wasn't invented with gunpowder. Anti-gun persons seem to believe it was.

AS

[Wolverine]

Excellent posts, AS.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Amature I wish to first off say the post above was not directed at you, they were directed at the pro-gun fanatics/extremists, as I think you made some fairly good points. I'm sorry about the confusion. However I think in the end your arguments are still unsufficient and your irrelevant.

First off you say "guns don't kill people, people do." In a sense you are right, but that misses the point. The point is its a matter of degree, and guns make it far easier to kill a person. That's like saying "terrorists don't kill people: people kill people." "Marxism doesn't fail: people fail."

Secon, all the mentioned countries may still have murder, but much less then the US overall. You can point to rare incidents of violence, but they are exactly that: rare. Like protests in China.

Your main point seems to be that we need guns to balance the government. I maintain such a protection is an illusion and not worth the cost. Militias in the past have never been a match for a professional army. Only rarely in history has a militia been strong enough to stand up to an army, and only under extraordinary conditions.

The Russian revolution occured right after a war, in a relatively backwards state.

The America, a continent away.

And the French during a time of crisis, with the soldiers turning against the army (and a relatively unarmed population).


This gap between professional armies and militias has only increased in time, not decreased. Modern day weapons require more logistics and training then any civilian can get. And they are far too expensive for any civilian to afford. Add to that how much more organized an army is, how much better its communications are, how they don't have to worry about feeding their families while out fighting or endangering them, etc. And the results are obvious.

Japan and Britain may have a different culture then the US, but this consistency over various cultures should prove the rule imo. The rule is less guns does not equal more tyranny or more crime. Quite the contrary it seems to be.

And if push comes to shove I doubt the American people could stand against the American military. All modern day rebelions, unless they had foreign aid, have failed. And this has been in relatively backwards and unstable nations. I can't imagine such ever succeeding in the first world. Can you imagine a group of rebels taking out the Chinese government?Neither could I. And the US government would be harder.

This is why Orwell said, and I agree, fighting totalitarianism from the inside is pointless. You must either avoid it, wait it out, or use outside force.

So if the argument is that the law was made in order to protect civilians from government tyranny, the law has obviously outlived its usefulness. It ultimately comes down to a matter of value judgment, and I simply do not see the benefit of protection against possible tyranny in the future, as worth the cost; deaths caused by guns now. The danger of guns, in the wrong person's hands represents a greater threat then plausible tyranny imo.


That law is outdated, in the past militias found it very difficult to stand against professional armies, at the present it is almost impossible and such would almost certainly do more harm then good. As modern day examples in regards to the Branch Davidians, and Kurd Rebels should teach us. And those people had weapons more powerful then most civilians either want or would feel safe having on the street. Also in the former, the government used kids gloves, in the latter, it was in the third world. Yet both didn't even have a chance.

The point is then that guns DO kill people; AND people kill people. But guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people.

[Kodiak]

AS...

All I can come up with is "WOW!"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Suddenly
"Pro 2nd amendment" bias? More like "try to convince people to ignore the first clause of the 2nd Amendment so we can use the federal courts to prevent individual states from enacting weapons regulation" bias. I'm pro 2nd Amendment. The whole thing though, not just certain parts.

It has been argued that the justification clause does not in any way limit or restrict the rights clause, but even if it did, it has been clearly shown that a"well regulated militia" referred to all able-bodied citizens armed with firearms usable for the common defense.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
That's why Japan, Britain, and France are tyrannies, despite outlawing guns...

Japan, Britian, and France are not tyrannies due solely to the benevolence of their governments. That changes, and they have no recourse.

America, on the other hand, is not a tyranny because the will of the governed is reinforced by a constitution which limits the government and provides for an armed citizenry equiped to depose any such tyranny that may arise.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Excellent posts, AS.

Thanks, buddy, even if you did make fun of my Guardian .32 ACP.

Thanks to you too, Kodiak.

AS

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Japan, Britian, and France are not tyrannies due solely to the benevolence of their governments. .

They were too busy being tyrants to their neighbors and colonies who didnt have the arms to defend themselves.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Thanks, buddy, even if you did make fun of my Guardian .32 ACP.

Hey! I didn't make fun of it.
IIRC, I stated my displeasure with that caliber, and at the most, referred to it as "ugly"... ;)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Amature I wish to first off say the post above was not directed at you, they were directed at the pro-gun fanatics/extremists, as I think you made some fairly good points. I'm sorry about the confusion. However I think in the end your arguments are still unsufficient and your irrelevant.



Irrelevant? No. The issue here is the Second Amendment. It's not "should a civilized society allow its citizens to own guns" in general? Your arguments about the relative lack of guns in other countries is irrelevant, as they all lack a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.


First off you say "guns don't kill people, people do." In a sense you are right, but that misses the point. The point is its a matter of degree, and guns make it far easier to kill a person. That's like saying "terrorists don't kill people: people kill people." "Marxism doesn't fail: people fail."


Ummm....terrorists are people.

A gun left alone has never killed anyone. Despite anti-gun rhetoric and the ridiculous defense used by ignorant teenagers and others who "accidentally" kill their friends or relatives while playing with their daddies' guns, guns do not simply "go off." They discharge because someone pulled their triggers, released their hammers, or dropped them--in each case with a chambered round and with the safety off (although accidental discharges in this last manner are very rare).

Guns are a very convenient way to kill people. So are cars. So are javelins used at track meets. So are tent stakes. So are kitchen skillets.


Secon, all the mentioned countries may still have murder, but much less then the US overall. You can point to rare incidents of violence, but they are exactly that: rare. Like protests in China.


BS. Murder was not invented in the U.S. Gun murders are relatively rare outside the U.S., but outside the U.S. persons simply find other means for accomplishing the same. Violent crime exists everywhere on the planet, and always has, and always will. Humans, like most other predatory and territorial animals, are violent creatures by nature, under the right circumstances. Civilization will never remove certain natural impulses from humans, despite the silly hopeful wishes of so many idealists and peaceniks.


Your main point seems to be that we need guns to balance the government. I maintain such a protection is an illusion and not worth the cost.


We'll never know unless the U.S. exeriences a huge invasion from a foreign invader, or the Government begins attacking its citizens on a wide scale, or factions of the U.S. military attempt a coup, will we? Perhaps the armed portions of the citizenry might play a substantial role in repelling the attack.

My main point is that the Second Amendment was enacted precisely to provide the citizenry a means of protecting the basic liberties and rights guaranteed by the constitution and upon which this nation was founded. Three main threats to such liberties were recognized at the time: 1) foreign invasion; 2) insurrection; and 3) tyrannical use of force against the citizenry by the government (or its military).

Those three threats remain today, just as they have to other societies throughout the history of human civilization. To contend that somehow modern civilization has advanced to the degree that all modern democracies are now benevolent and would never attempt to do its own citizens harm is to be completely ignorant of both ancient and modern history, and/or utterly foolish.

Dare I do it? Mention Nazis or fascists? How do you think they came to power? They did it with the willing cooperation of their countries' citizens, who had been democratically governed immediately before their seizing power. Never mind that the mostly peasant populace of post-revolution Russia willingly embraced communism and its promise of a better life for them. Never mind that the communist government very quickly evolved into totalitarianism and culminated in the most oppressive and murderous regime under Josef Stalin that the modern world has ever seen.

Think that none of those things could ever happen in modern America? Hmmmm.... Who predicted Hitler's phenomenal rise to power and near total domination of continental Europe, both east and west? Who predicted Stalin's suppression of all his opposition by mass murder and exile?

Today America faces the ever-present threat to civil liberties of its own citizens willingly trading them for a sense of greater security. One of the liberties so many of its citizens so often and so passionately argue should be abolished is the right to bear arms. It is perhaps the most important one, however, as an unarmed citizenry is literally defenseless from the three threats enumerated above. Once the citizenry is rendered defenseless, all liberties may be taken away, with or without force.

This sounds extremist and paranoid, I readily admit. Nevertheless, our nation was founded by extremists and radicals. They were rebels. They had every right to be paranoid. They understood far better than we do today why trust in the benevolence of government can be so dangerous and misplaced. Health skepticism and wariness is utterly American and utterly justified after even a cursory look at history.

I'm all for keeping the Second Amendment. Yes, we have to put up with "gun nuts" and extremist private militia groups. Yes, we have to accept that many guns end up in the hands of those who would misuse them for crime. Yes, we have to put up with accidental shootings. You take the good with the bad.

Freedom of the press, for another example of a fundamental liberty, means that the Weekly World News and The National Enquirer can print their ridiculous and patently false stories, and that Larry Flynt can publish Hustler, and that porno mills in Los Angeles can use and abuse young women hoping to make it in Hollywood. You wouldn't seriously argue that those blights mean we should scrap that part of the First Amendment, would you?

Why then, should gun crime and violence be used as justifications for disarming the populace who chooses to be armed? Why should it be used to eviscerate much of the intent of the Second Amendment in the first place, which was to place military weapons in the hands of the citizenry (in the form of federal bans on "assault rifles" and machine guns without special and highly restricted licenses)?

I don't get it. The anti-gun lobby sounds far too much like the flag burning amendment proponents. It simply misses the point of liberties guaranteed by the constitution and why they are so essential to our nation's freedom. It misunderstands or ignores the founders' concerns about factionalism and oppression by and tyranny of the majority.

Even if the majority of Americans ever decides to scrap the right to bear arms, it will be the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons. Spout rhetoric all you want, watch "Bowling for Columbine" until you wear out your DVD, and cry over the innocent kids killed by stray bullets in bad neighborhoods, but those things will never change the sound historical and modern reasons for the enactment and vigilant protection of the Second Amendment and its intended purpose.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Hey! I didn't make fun of it.
IIRC, I stated my displeasure with that caliber, and at the most, referred to it as "ugly"... ;)

OK. I certainly don't prefer that caliber either, although it's great for concealment in a pocket (now NAA makes it in a slightly larger .380 version).

Ugly? Uglier than a Glock, or any number of other polymer guns? Doubtful. Uglier than my blued West German (circa 1973) Walther PPK/S in a 9 mm kurtz (OK, same as .380)? Absolutely. That's a beautiful gun. It's a work of art and a fine testament to the superiority of German engineering and workmanship in so many manufactured goods. It also shoots like a dream. I love it and hope I never wear it out.

AS

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


OK. I certainly don't prefer that caliber either, although it's great for concealment in a pocket (now NAA makes it in a slightly larger .380 version).

Ugly? Uglier than a Glock, or any number of other polymer guns? Doubtful. Uglier than my blued West German (circa 1973) Walther PPK/S in a 9 mm kurtz (OK, same as .380)? Absolutely. That's a beautiful gun. It's a work of art and a fine testament to the superiority of German engineering and workmanship in so many manufactured goods. It also shoots like a dream. I love it and hope I never wear it out.

AS

My personal favorite: Ruger SP101 in .38+P

[Tmy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Your main point seems to be that we need guns to balance the government. I maintain such a protection is an illusion and not worth the cost. Militias in the past have never been a match for a professional army. Only rarely in history has a militia been strong enough to stand up to an army, and only under extraordinary conditions.



Dont think a well armed public can fight back a powerful army?


Take a look at Iraq. Well armed Iraqis are already annoying the US military enough that politicans are openly discussing pulling back the US involvement.

If every other Palistinian had a gun do you think Israelie military would gave as much control (as little as they do have) over Palistine.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It has been argued that the justification clause does not in any way limit or restrict the rights clause, but even if it did, it has been clearly shown that a"well regulated militia" referred to all able-bodied citizens armed with firearms usable for the common defense.

Clearly shown? Better go tell the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:

We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.

[73] Nonetheless, Rybar attempts to place himself within the penumbra of membership in the "militia" specified by the Second Amendment by quoting from 10 U.S.C. Section(s) 311(a):

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are . . . citizens of the United States . . . .

[74] Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Nor can claimed membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia suffice. See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).


That whole "Everyone is in the militia" argument didn't get very far with that court did it?

We can kick around hundred year old scholars, and try to analogize cases that deal with federal power until we are blue in the face, but the Supreme Court has yet to get to the question. As AS points out, recent gun cases have been decided on issues other than the Second Amendment. We can try to draw parallels, but in the end commerce clause cases are not second amendment cases.

A.S. gets into Lopez and Printz, while those cases do show a curb on federal power, it isn't a very large one. Lopez is mostly relevant as a "sign of change" type case in that the commerce power has some limit. Heck , in the case itself they mention several new deal era cases, most emphatically Wickard v. Filburn, (better known as "that silly wheat case) and clearly state that these are still good law. They do not speak to the second amendment. The best that can be done in that regard is a passing mention in concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in Prinz. Thus you have dicta in a concurring opinion by a justice that I'd hope even conservatives admit isn't exactly their brightest star. It would carry more weight if Scalia or even Renquist would have said it rather than Thomas.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by John Harrison


Which regulation? (You are aware of the multiple regulations that the NRA has supported in the past. Right?)

Bias against regulation in general does not equal opposition to every regulation. The NRA aren't idiots or complete idealouges. They do actively lobby for gun rights, period.



Seem safer? Is it about reality or not? The only responsibility the NRA has is to stick with the facts, not to worry about peoples feelings. :rolleyes:

No, as a political lobbying organization, when the NRA speaks it is only rational to consider their comments as persuasive, rather than informitive. In other words they are going to discuss and describe data in such a way not to inform, but to persuade the listener.

If I want to know about labor unions, I'm going to look suspiciously at data provided by Michael Moore, just as if the NRA tells me about guns, I'm going to be suspicious as well.

When you get into politics that is what happens.

[xouper]

Since Miller died and did not show up to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the case was decided by default. Can anyone say for certain that case would not have been decided the other way if Miller had actually presented his case?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Kodiak


My personal favorite: Ruger SP101 in .38+P

That is a nice gun. I briefly owned a nice factory nickel plated S&W J-frame .38 snubby. It was easy to carry, but I just didn't like the trigger using double action. It was very fatiguing to my finger to shoot at the range, so I never got comfortable with it. I sold it to a friend, who later gave it away.

I really like my Walther, which is comparable in power to my old .38. Of course, yours in a .38+P does have more stopping power.

AS

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


That is a nice gun. I briefly owned a nice factory nickel plated S&W J-frame .38 snubby. It was easy to carry, but I just didn't like the trigger using double action. It was very fatiguing to my finger to shoot at the range, so I never got comfortable with it. I sold it to a friend, who later gave it away.

I really like my Walther, which is comparable in power to my old .38. Of course, yours in a .38+P does have more stopping power.

AS

If I had the money, my next firearm purchase would be the HK Mark 23 .45 ACP Semi Auto Pistol, but I don't have the necessary $2300.00...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
Since Miller died and did not show up to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the case was decided by default. Can anyone say for certain that case would not have been decided the other way if Miller had actually presented his case?

Only the named defendant died. His co-defendant was still alive. At that point in time the right to counsel was a different story, with the Gideon case still in the future. The co-defendent could have been there or sent counsel. He didn't.

Appeals are a completely different kettle of fish than a trial. If you do not show up for trial, as a defendant, you still do not lose by default. In most states the case is stayed until you can be brought in by force. In some juristictions there is a trial without a defendant, but the state must still meet their burden.

Default happens only in civil cases.

Miller was not decided by default. The only difference is that Miller and Layton (the co-defendant) did not present an argument. This in practice doesn't mean a whole lot. The Court decides the case based on what they think the law is, not based on which argument they like better. The government's brief in Miller painted a much more restrictive picture than did the court's opinion.

The court found that there must be a relationship between the gun ownership and membership in the militia. Since they right off the bat found that the sawed off shotgun was not the type of weapon used in a militia, they didn't go any further.

The point a brief would have been most helpful with for Miller is w/r/t the finding of law that a sawed off shotgun is not a weapon commonly associated with militia membership. However, if this would have been successful this would have likely meant the court would then move on to decide if anything further must be shown w/r/t a militia. It could have went either way. The court could have gone on to be quite specific that the gun must be owned for purposes of actual state militia membership.

Or, they could have said that only type is important. Nobody knows. All we are left with is a general principle and a finding.

A brief from Miller's side may have changed things, but there is a chance that the changes would have made Miller more restrictive than it currently is.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Kodiak


If I had the money, my next firearm purchase would be the HK Mark 23 .45 ACP Semi Auto Pistol, but I don't have the necessary $2300.00...

Too big for my tastes. Hell, if you are going to have a shiny new H&K, I'd go for the P2000 in a .40 S&W. 21.87 oz. and its pretty compact.

AS

[severin]

Well said, Dialectic Materialist.

[xouper]

Suddenly: Miller was not decided by default.To quote the ruling, "''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''

How is that not a default ruling? They didn't have any evidence to consider because MIller never presented any. If Miller had presented valid evidence that such a shotgun was currently in use by some militias (which he certainly could have had he showed up), then why would the court not have ruled in his favor?

Notice also that the court did not rule that only militias can keep and bear arms. They did not rule that the Second Amendment is a collective right rather than an individual right. They only said that the kind of arms that the people can keep and bear should be the kind used by a militia. How can this not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. As AS already pointed out, this ruling would seem to make bans on assault rifles unconstitutional.

[DanishDynamite]

AmateurScientist:Freedom of the press, for another example of a fundamental liberty, means that the Weekly World News and The National Enquirer can print their ridiculous and patently false stories, and that Larry Flynt can publish Hustler, and that porno mills in Los Angeles can use and abuse young women hoping to make it in Hollywood. You wouldn't seriously argue that those blights mean we should scrap that part of the First Amendment, would you?No, but that is because freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy. The freedom to own a particular type of technology is not.
Why then, should gun crime and violence be used as justifications for disarming the populace who chooses to be armed? Why should it be used to eviscerate much of the intent of the Second Amendment in the first place, which was to place military weapons in the hands of the citizenry (in the form of federal bans on "assault rifles" and machine guns without special and highly restricted licenses)?Because they provide additional reasons why this anachronistic right should be done away with.
I don't get it. The anti-gun lobby sounds far too much like the flag burning amendment proponents. It simply misses the point of liberties guaranteed by the constitution and why they are so essential to our nation's freedom. It misunderstands or ignores the founders' concerns about factionalism and oppression by and tyranny of the majority.The right to bear arms is not essential to a democracy (or a constitutionally limited republic, before a pedantic comes along). Hell, even the existence of a constitution is not required.
Even if the majority of Americans ever decides to scrap the right to bear arms, it will be the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons. Spout rhetoric all you want, watch "Bowling for Columbine" until you wear out your DVD, and cry over the innocent kids killed by stray bullets in bad neighborhoods, but those things will never change the sound historical and modern reasons for the enactment and vigilant protection of the Second Amendment and its intended purpose.I can perhaps understand how this right was included in the US Constitution, given how the US had to wrest independence from a colonial power. However, I don't see how you can think there are still "sound modern reasons" for this right. The idea that an armed population could make one whit of difference if the men and women of the military somehow decided to be a tool of oppression against the citizenry, is ludicrous.

[severin]

Do you have to show your gun permit when you buy bullets?

[severin]

Danish Dynamite - the term 'frontier mentality' comes to mind. And of course, thos naughty Canadians could invade at any moment.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
To quote the ruling, "''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''

How is that not a default ruling? They didn't have any evidence to consider because MIller never presented any. If Miller had presented valid evidence that such a shotgun was currently in use by some militias (which he certainly could have had he showed up), then why would the court not have ruled in his favor?

It is not a default ruling because in a defult ruling there would be no opinion. They would simply say that the other side wins. You are confusing default, which is a term of art, with the general complaint that the presentation of his case was harmed by his failure to have counsel (remember the co-defendant?), and as I pointed out you are possibly right on that point.

You are overetimating the significance though. The lack of evidence only affects this particular case, and has nothing to do with the point of law. The point of law drawn from this case is that: For the second amendment to apply, the ownership must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia," and one aspect of that relationship relates to the type of weapon.

That is the whole point of law. What is not a point of law is the following: A "shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length" is not a type of weapon used in a militia.

The significance of the lack of evidence language is that in this case there is no basis on which to find that such a gun is of that type. Look at the last sentence, the part about "Judicial Notice." What that means is that such a fact is not so obvious that it can be assumed by the court. If in a later case the defendant can show such a gun is used for militia purposes, the outcome would be different. (Save the "innocent until proven guilty" argument that popped into your head. That applies only to elements of a crime. In this circumstance they are arguing the constitutionality of a statute, and the burdens are not the same.)

I addressed what would happen if Miller would have been able to produce such evidence in my earlier post. The court would have then continued the analysis and maybe made a more definitive statement of law. It does not mean he would have won. But even if he did win, the point of law wouldn't change, just the outcome. When assessing the legal effect of an appellate opinion (which I often have occasion to do) the reasoning of the court behind the decision is far more important than who wins.

Notice also that the court did not rule that only militias can keep and bear arms. They did not rule that the Second Amendment is a collective right rather than an individual right. They only said that the kind of arms that the people can keep and bear should be the kind used by a militia. How can this not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. As AS already pointed out, this ruling would seem to make bans on assault rifles unconstitutional.

They never really got to the issues you mention because they didn't need to. If the shotgun question was answered differently, they may have. They stated a general principle that for the second amendment to apply, the weapons must have a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. However, since they are not of a type where that is possible, they went no further. From above:

"''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

They are saying that to satisfy proposition "A" (having some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia) one must show element "B" (the weapon in question is of a type that is commonly used in a militia).

In other words, If not B then not A, as B is a necessary condition for A.

The court never said B was the only necessary condition for A, just that it was necessary. They had no need to get into any other necessary conditions, so the question was left unanswered.

Taking "If not B than not A" to mean "If B then A" is a false contrapositive. There can be other necessary conditions for A.

So, saying that Miller holds that: If the weapon is of a type used in a militia then it "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia" is a false contrapositive, As Miller actualy says that if the weapon is not of that type, it does not have a reasonable relationship...

Miller neither establishes nor does it preclude additional necessary conditions. They never got that far.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
AmateurScientist:No, but that is because freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy. The freedom to own a particular type of technology is not.


Owning a snow cone machine isn’t fundamental to democracy either, does that mean we should not have the right to own them? I don’t get it, where does this absurd idea that rights should be dependant on whether they are "fundamental to democracy" or not come from?

Because they provide additional reasons why this anachronistic right should be done away with.

No they don’t. That's like saying 911 provided additional reasons to do away with certain civil liberties.

The right to bear arms is not essential to a democracy (or a constitutionally limited republic, before a pedantic comes along). Hell, even the existence of a constitution is not required.

Lets just do away with everything that isn’t "essential to a democracy".

I can perhaps understand how this right was included in the US Constitution, given how the US had to wrest independence from a colonial power. However, I don't see how you can think there are still "sound modern reasons" for this right. The idea that an armed population could make one whit of difference if the men and women of the military somehow decided to be a tool of oppression against the citizenry, is ludicrous.

This is just dumb. I think the idea of you being able to defend yourself against a gang of thugs is ludicrous. Therefore, lets cut off your arms.

[Tony]

Originally posted by severin
Danish Dynamite - the term 'frontier mentality' comes to mind. And of course, thos naughty Canadians could invade at any moment.

Your naiveté is amusing but pathetic. This is the second incredibly naive thing you have said in this post.

[xouper]

DanishDynamite: ... freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy. The freedom to own a particular type of technology is not.I have no illusion that you and I will ever agree on this point, but "the freedom to own a particular type of technology" is fundamental to the notion of personal liberty. Fundamental rights do not have to be justified only in terms of democracy. In fact they aren't. I have a fundamental right to defend myself, with a firearm if I so choose. That individual right is also acknowledged by the Constitution of the State of Michigan where I currently reside.

Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution reads: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

[severin]

Tony - <yawn>

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:Owning a snow cone machine isn’t fundamental to democracy either, does that mean we should not have the right to own them? No. You should have the right to own anything which isn't prohibited by a law passed via the democratic process.
I don’t get it, where does this absurd idea that rights should be dependant on whether they are "fundamental to democracy" or not?From AmateurScientist's post.
No they don’t. That's like saying 911 provided additional reasons to do away with certain civil liberties.No. Given that there is nothing fundamental about the right to own arms (or toasters or leisure suits), it is normal procedure, when considering a law against something, to consider the pros and cons.
Lets just do away with everything that isn’t "essential to a democracy". Indeed.
This is just dumb. I think the idea of you being able to defend yourself against a gang of thugs is ludicrous. Therefore, lets cut off your arms. :confused:

[DanishDynamite]

xouper:I have no illusion that you and I will ever agree on this point,I know, but it can be fun debating it. :)
but "the freedom to own a particular type of technology" is fundamental to the notion of personal liberty. How?
Fundamental rights do not have to be justified only in terms of democracy. In fact they aren't. I have a fundamental right to defend myself, with a firearm if I so choose. Yes, the right to self-defense is indeed fundamental. We agree completely. And the right to use a gun, a knife or any other implement in the vicinity to do so, is perfectly alright, if indeed your life is in danger. This, however, has nothing to do with declaing the right to own guns as a fundamental right. It isn't.
That individual right is also acknowledged by the Constitution of the State of Michigan where I currently reside.

Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution reads: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." I don't doubt it.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist



My main point is that the Second Amendment was enacted precisely to provide the citizenry a means of protecting the basic liberties and rights guaranteed by the constitution and upon which this nation was founded. Three main threats to such liberties were recognized at the time: 1) foreign invasion; 2) insurrection; and 3) tyrannical use of force against the citizenry by the government (or its military).
AS


I finally read that thread! Many excellent posts.

I have a question. How many times in the 20th ce the American citizens used their guns in order to resist to "the tyrannical use of force against the citizenry by the government (or its military)".

If the citizens have never exercised this right was because they haven't experienced a major violation of their rights?

What would constitute according to your opinion a major violation that it would justify the use of the guns by the citizens?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Tony:No. You should have the right to own anything which isn't prohibited by a law passed via the democratic process.


The "democratic process"? You mean, the majority dictating to the minority how to live their lives? Sorry, that is the fundamental flaw with democracy and the very reason why the US isnt one. The constitution is to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority.

From AmateurScientist's post.

Huh?

No.

Yes.

Given that there is nothing fundamental about the right to own arms (or toasters or leisure suits), it is normal procedure, when considering a law against something, to consider the pros and cons.

Self defense IS a fundamental and human right. Just because you dont recognize it as such doesnt make it so.

:confused:

What's wrong?

[DanishDynamite]

Tony:The "democratic process"? You mean, the majority dictating to the minority how to live their lives? Sorry, that is the fundamental flaw with democracy and the very reason why the US isnt one. The constitution is to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority.Indeed and we are discussing whether a right written in the constitution should be there or not. It should be there if it is fundamental right relevant to a democracy. It shouldn't be there if it isn't. If isn't fundamental, the "right" is subject to the normal democratic process.
Huh?Double "Huh?".
Self defense IS a fundamental and human right. Just because you dont recognize it as such doesnt make it so. I just said it was fundamental.
What's wrong? I don't understand your point.

[DanishDynamite]

Cleo, poochy, what happened to your avatar? And what exactly does your new avatar show?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Indeed and we are discussing whether a right written in the constitution should be there or not. It should be there if it is fundamental right relevant to a democracy. It shouldn't be there if it isn't. If isn't fundamental, the "right" is subject to the normal democratic process.

The relevancy of a right to a political system ( democracy in our case) is judged by its mileage.

Do they use this right? This is the fundamental question.

edited to add DD concentrate to our discussion :)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
Do you have to show your gun permit when you buy bullets?

This varies from state to state.

Most states do not require permits to own firearms. Here in Texas, for example, no permit is required for purchase of arms or ammunition -- the only permit one must acquire is a CHL (Concealed Handgun License), if one wishes to legally carry a concealed handgun. In this state, you must be 18 years of age to purchase long guns (rifles and shotguns) and corresponding ammunition, and 21 years of age to purchase a handgun. The only thing required to purchase ammunition is proof of age demonstrated via driver's license or other photo ID.

To contrast, in Illinois, residents must acquire a FOID card (http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm) (Firearms Owner Identification), and present that card whenever seeking to purchase firearms or ammunition.

This page (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=state) contains a clickable map of the United States, where you may, if interested, view the gun laws in each state.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
AmateurScientist:No, but that is because freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy. The freedom to own a particular type of technology is not.



Read Justice Story's comments on the Second Amendment, which I posted on the 2nd page of this thread, and which I will repeat here (proper attribution is provided on Page 2 of this thread):

One of the most influential early commentators on the U.S. Constitution was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833), he has the following to say about the Second Amendment:

"§ 1889. The next amendment is "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.

"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time ofanding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [FN1] And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. [FN2]

"§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the [English] bill of rights ofll of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." [FN3] But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege."



Because they provide additional reasons why this anachronistic right should be done away with.


The right of the people to protect themselves from invasion, insurrection, or military coup is never anachronistic. Once it's done away with, those threats become even more threatening and imminent.


The right to bear arms is not essential to a democracy (or a constitutionally limited republic, before a pedantic comes along). Hell, even the existence of a constitution is not required.


I never said either was essential to a democracy. Both are essential and integral to the formation and continuation of the United States of America's unique federal system, however. It is premised upon the individual's being endowed with certain unalienable rights, and upon the people's granting to the state certain enumerated powers. All others they retain. The right to defend one's self is one of those rights the people retained, and indeed one they guaranteed by placing it right up front in the Bill of Rights.


I can perhaps understand how this right was included in the US Constitution, given how the US had to wrest independence from a colonial power. However, I don't see how you can think there are still "sound modern reasons" for this right.


Modern reasons?

--Hitler's rise to power in Germany
--The ease with which the Germans occupied nearly all of continental Europe
--The continued existence of dictatorial, murderous regimes on the planet
--the loud cries for a ban on weapons from within the U.S.
--the U.S. Government's fondness for sloganeering and declarations of a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Crime" and the public's ready acceptance of them
--anti-self defense rhetoric and propaganda
--the constant barrage by the media of images and stories of violence against children and other innocents by guns (it's not by guns, it's by people)
--the cultural divide between the average civilian and the military culture in the U.S.
--the natural inclination for any government to expand its powers ("benevolence" notwithstanding)
--the resultant erosion of individual liberties whenever government powers expand


The idea that an armed population could make one whit of difference if the men and women of the military somehow decided to be a tool of oppression against the citizenry, is ludicrous.

Probably sounded pretty ludicrous in the colonies in 1775 too. Or in 1861, when 11 states seceded from the union and kept a bloody war going for 4 years.

The idea of the Soviet Union simply dissolving voluntarily almost overnight most certainly was unthinkable from 1945 thoughout the 1980s, no?

You forget that the U.S. is very large and diverse geographically. A military coup in this country, although very unlikely at present, would be difficult to achieve at any time. Pockets of resistance throughout the cities and the country would prove to be quite a thorn in the sides of anyone attempting such a thing, modern military weapons notwithstanding.

Small arms are the weapons of guerillas. Guerilla resistance has indeed been quite effective against heavy military armaments in modern times. Vietnam, Honduras, El Salvador, 1970s Afghanistan, and now Iraq come to mind.

AS

[severin]

'It is unlawful to sell or give to a minor, without written consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian, a firearm or ammunition.'

This is the law in Arizona (I haven't checked the other states yet). So does this mean that a twelve year old can buy a gun with a letter from the parents? And how is it checked that the letter isn't forged?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
It should be there if it is fundamental right relevant to a democracy. It shouldn't be there if it isn't. If isn't fundamental, the "right" is subject to the normal democratic process.


This is crap, where are you getting this? Please show me the constitutional evidence you have for this view. What you advocate isnt democracy, but a dictatorship of the majority.

I just said it was fundamental.

You did? Then tell me how an unarmed person is supposed to defend themselves against criminals with guns?

I don't understand your point.

Its an anology, what about it do you not understand?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Modern reasons?

--Hitler's rise to power in Germany
--The ease with which the Germans occupied nearly all of continental Europe
AS

Amateur Scientist

There is nothing to indicate that if German people were armed, Nazism wouldn't turn to the phaenomenon we experienced.

Let me post my favorite quote of Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy in America.

" No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country,and however powerful a man may be, it's hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires"

( quoted almost verbatim because I quoted it by memory since I have learned it by heart....)

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by severin
'It is unlawful to sell or give to a minor, without written consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian, a firearm or ammunition.'

This is the law in Arizona (I haven't checked the other states yet). So does this mean that a twelve year old can buy a gun with a letter from the parents?

No. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (federal law) mandated that the nationwide cutoff age for purchase of long guns is 18. I don't know how long that statute has been on the books in Arizona, and what its limitations are, but to the best of my knowledge it is superceded by federal law. I will research the matter.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Tony:Indeed and we are discussing whether a right written in the constitution should be there or not. It should be there if it is fundamental right relevant to a democracy. It shouldn't be there if it isn't. If isn't fundamental, the "right" is subject to the normal democratic process.
Double "Huh?".
I just said it was fundamental.
I don't understand your point.

We aren't discussing just any democracy. We are discussing the radically new at the time form of America's constitutional republic.

Unlike more traditional democratically controlled governments, it placed individual liberties above and beyond the reach of government's power to take them away. It was a radical idea, and perhaps remains alien to most non-Americans.

The right to defend one's self isn't necesarily essential to forming or functioning under a democracy. It is recognized as a necessary check upon the tendency of government to seize ever more powers from the people, however. It is a check against factionalism and tyranny by the majority, which is at odds with traditional notions of democracy.

Tyranny by majority and by government were the primary ills the founders of the United States sought to guard and protect against. Achieving a mere democracy was not their aim. Forging a new nation founded upon a constitution guaranteeing certain unalienable rights to its people, and keeping it, was the intent of the founders.

The keeping it part is the hardest part of what the founders did. Benjamin Franklin recognized this when asked by Mrs. Powell what had they wrought in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention in his reply, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

President Andrew Jackson, paraphrasing John Philpot Curran, said, "eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty."

Franklin, again, said quite aptly even before our country was founded, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The Second Amendment simply cannot be understood outside the historical context in which it was framed. Its continued importance can be understand by a thoughtful examination of recent, modern history.

AS

[DanishDynamite]

AmateurScientist:Read Justice Story's comments on the Second Amendment, which I posted on the 2nd page of this thread, and which I will repeat here (proper attribution is provided on Page 2 of this thread):Read them and I'm not impressed. From his comments:
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. Crapola. The military is the natural defence against foreign invasions. The National Guard (TMK) is the defence against domestic insurrrections. And domestic usurpations of power can only be done with cooperation of the majority of the military and in any case, if such were the case, an armed population would be of little consequence.
The right of the people to protect themselves from invasion, insurrection, or military coup is never anachronistic. Once it's done away with, those threats become even more threatening and imminent.No one is dismissing that right.
I never said either was essential to a democracy. Both are essential and integral to the formation and continuation of the United States of America's unique federal system, however. It is premised upon the individual's being endowed with certain unalienable rights, and upon the people's granting to the state certain enumerated powers. All others they retain. The right to defend one's self is one of those rights the people retained, and indeed one they guaranteed by placing it right up front in the Bill of Rights.The right to bear arms is not in any way essential to the continuation of the USA. And I've already said that that the right to self-defense is fundamental.
Modern reasons?

--Hitler's rise to power in GermanyHow would an armed populace have made any difference? Perhaps it would have accellerated his rise?
--The ease with which the Germans occupied nearly all of continental EuropeRelevance? Other countries had militaries as well.
--The continued existence of dictatorial, murderous regimes on the planetGuns are everywhere in Iraq. Howcome there was no succesful uprising?
--the loud cries for a ban on weapons from within the U.S.:confused:
--the U.S. Government's fondness for sloganeering and declarations of a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Crime" and the public's ready acceptance of them:confused:
--anti-self defense rhetoric and propaganda:confused:
--the constant barrage by the media of images and stories of violence against children and other innocents by guns (it's not by guns, it's by people)What do all these things have to do with anything under discussion? Please explain. I won't comment the rest individually as I don't see their relevance.
Probably sounded pretty ludicrous in the colonies in 1775 too. Or in 1861, when 11 states seceded from the union and kept a bloody war going for 4 years.There was TMK no military in 1775. And please show me that armed citizens made a difference in 1861 and that they fought against a tyrannical government.
The idea of the Soviet Union simply dissolving voluntarily almost overnight most certainly was unthinkable from 1945 thoughout the 1980s, no?Yes. Your point?
You forget that the U.S. is very large and diverse geographically. A military coup in this country, although very unlikely at present, would be difficult to achieve at any time. Pockets of resistance throughout the cities and the country would prove to be quite a thorn in the sides of anyone attempting such a thing, modern military weapons notwithstanding. I lived in the Philippines for quite a number of years. During the majority of these years, the country was under martial law, effectivel a dictatorship under Marcos. And yet, there were tons of handguns floating about the place all this time. Odd how there was no uprising. In fact, Marcos was only thrown out when there was a "velvet revolution" (nons lying down in front of tanks, etc).
Small arms are the weapons of guerillas. Guerilla resistance has indeed been quite effective against heavy military armaments in modern times. Vietnam, Honduras, El Salvador, 1970s Afghanistan, and now Iraq come to mind.They are not effective when the military is sufficiently brutal.

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:The relevancy of a right to a political system ( democracy in our case) is judged by its mileage.

Do they use this right? This is the fundamental question.They use the right, but how is that relevant to whether they should have the right?
edited to add DD concentrate to our discussion :) [/B]Okay, poochie.:)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Amateur Scientist

There is nothing to indicate that if German people were armed, Nazism wouldn't turn to the phaenomenon we experienced.



It's not the German people I was referring to. It's the peoples they conquered so easily. Had the invading Germans met heavy resistance from the populations they invaded, perhaps they would have had a very different war on their hands.



Let me post my favorite quote of Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy in America.

" No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country,and however powerful a man may be, it's hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires"

( quoted almost verbatim because I quoted it by memory since I have learned it by heart....)

De Tocqueville admired and revered America. His quote can easily be adapted to support precisely why the constitutional guarantees of certain enumerated liberties found their way into the U.S. Bill of Rights. The tyranny of the majority of which de Tocqueville refers is the greatest threat to those liberties.

AS

[xouper]

Cleopatra: I have a question. How many times in the 20th ce the American citizens used their guns in order to resist to "the tyrannical use of force against the citizenry by the government (or its military)".Ruby Ridge (Idaho) comes to mind as an example.

[DanishDynamite]

AmateurScientist:We aren't discussing just any democracy. We are discussing the radically new at the time form of America's constitutional republic. No, we are discussing the relevance of Amendment two today.
Unlike more traditional democratically controlled governments, it placed individual liberties above and beyond the reach of government's power to take them away. It was a radical idea, and perhaps remains alien to most non-Americans.Get over yourself. The idea was indeed pioneering back in the 1700's but no more.
The right to defend one's self isn't necesarily essential to forming or functioning under a democracy. It is recognized as a necessary check upon the tendency of government to seize ever more powers from the people, however. It is a check against factionalism and tyranny by the majority, which is at odds with traditional notions of democracy. I mostly agree.
Tyranny by majority and by government were the primary ills the founders of the United States sought to guard and protect against. Achieving a mere democracy was not their aim. Forging a new nation founded upon a constitution guaranteeing certain unalienable rights to its people, and keeping it, was the intent of the founders. Kudos to them.
The keeping it part is the hardest part of what the founders did. Benjamin Franklin recognized this when asked by Mrs. Powell what had they wrought in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention in his reply, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

President Andrew Jackson, paraphrasing John Philpot Curran, said, "eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty."

Franklin, again, said quite aptly even before our country was founded, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."I have no problem with any of those fine statements. What do they have to do with gun control?
The Second Amendment simply cannot be understood outside the historical context in which it was framed. Its continued importance can be understand by a thoughtful examination of recent, modern history.I agree with your first sentence. I have yet to see evidence for the second.

[Wolverine]

severin:

These statutes of Arizona law shed more light on the subject:
(emphases mine)

13-3111

A. Except as provided in subsection B, an unemancipated person who is under eighteen years of age and who is unaccompanied by a parent, grandparent or guardian, or a certified hunter safety instructor or certified firearms safety instructor acting with the consent of the unemancipated person's parent or guardian, shall not knowingly carry or possess on his person, within his immediate control, or in or on a means of transportation a firearm in any place that is open to the public or on any street or highway or on any private property except private property owned or leased by the minor or the minor's parent, grandparent or guardian.

B. This section does not apply to a person who is fourteen, fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age and who is any of the following:

1. Engaged in lawful hunting or shooting events or marksmanship practice at established ranges or other areas where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited.

2. Engaged in lawful transportation of an unloaded firearm for the purpose of lawful hunting.

3. Engaged in lawful transportation of an unloaded firearm between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for the purpose of shooting events or marksmanship practice at established ranges or other areas where the discharge of a firearm is not prohibited.

4. Engaged in activities requiring the use of a firearm that are related to the production of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products, poultry products, or ratites or in the production or storage of agricultural commodities.

... and ...

13-3109

A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, a person who sells or gives to a minor, without written consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian, a firearm, ammunition or a toy pistol by which dangerous and explosive substances may be discharged is guilty of a class 6 felony.

B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require reporting sales of firearms, nor shall registration of firearms or firearms sales be required.

C. The temporary transfer of firearms and ammunition by firearms safety instructors, hunter safety instructors, competition coaches or their assistants shall be allowed if the minor's parent or guardian has given consent for the minor to participate in activities such as firearms or hunting safety courses, firearms competition or training. With the consent of the minor's parent or guardian, the temporary transfer of firearms and ammunition by an adult accompanying minors engaged in hunting or formal or informal target shooting activities shall be allowed for those purposes.

AZ law (like other states) places strict limitations on minors' ability to possess firearms. The portion we've reviewed should not be misconstrued to conclude that it's legal for a minor to purchase firearms or ammunition; rather, it's acceptable under certain circumstances for a minor to temporarily receive possession of a firearm for explicit, specific purposes.

Hope this helps.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Japan, Britian, and France are not tyrannies due solely to the benevolence of their governments. That changes, and they have no recourse.

America, on the other hand, is not a tyranny because the will of the governed is reinforced by a constitution which limits the government and provides for an armed citizenry equiped to depose any such tyranny that may arise.




Actually they are, though not because any specific citizens are benevolent. But because the system encourages it.


Also you miss my point. My point is that an armed rebelion would fail, and likely cause needless deaths. There will be no Second American Revolution.

[xouper]

xouper: but "the freedom to own a particular type of technology" is fundamental to the notion of personal liberty.

DanishDynamite: How?Yer kidding. If you don't even get that most simple of notions, then I don't know where to begin trying to explain it to you. Apparently you have very different notions of liberty and freedom than I do.

Yes, the right to self-defense is indeed fundamental. We agree completely. And the right to use a gun, a knife or any other implement in the vicinity to do so, is perfectly alright, if indeed your life is in danger. This, however, has nothing to do with declaing the right to own guns as a fundamental right. It isn't.Like I said, we disagree on that point.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
AmateurScientist:Read them and I'm not impressed. From his comments:
Crapola. The military is the natural defence against foreign invasions. The National Guard (TMK) is the defence against domestic insurrrections.


No it isn't. The National Guard is subject to being federalized by the President, and frequently has been in recent large military operations. The militia is the very antithesis of a standing army and is the defense against domestic military takeovers.


And domestic usurpations of power can only be done with cooperation of the majority of the military and in any case, if such were the case, an armed population would be of little consequence.


Um, are you familiar with the American Civil War? The southern states seceded and formed their own military from within the ranks of the people and from soldiers and sailors who resigned from the U.S. military. Most brought their own weapons to the fight, at least in the beginning.


No one is dismissing that right.
The right to bear arms is not in any way essential to the continuation of the USA.


Perhaps not to the continuation of the U.S. under a more totalitarian government. My examples of Nazi Germany and the like were meant to illustrate how idealistic notions of modern benevolence are illusory at best. Attempts to conquer and dominate regions are not anachronistic, as your and others' arguments seem to suggest.


And I've already said that that the right to self-defense is fundamental.
How would an armed populace have made any difference? Perhaps it would have accellerated his rise?
Relevance? Other countries had militaries as well.
Guns are everywhere in Iraq. Howcome there was no succesful uprising?
:confused:
:confused:
:confused:
What do all these things have to do with anything under discussion? Please explain. I won't comment the rest individually as I don't see their relevance.
[/B]

Please see above. They were meant to counter arguments that benevolence predominates today and to show that domestic resistance can indeed make a difference in the face of modern military power.


There was TMK no military in 1775.


Precisely. And they successfully defeated a well-armed and well-trained British military. Aren't you making my point for me?


And please show me that armed citizens made a difference in 1861 and that they fought against a tyrannical government.


See above. The CSA military forces were formed almost overnight from the citizenry which supplied its own weapons. They fought against their former government, whom they saw as an invading force in their newly formed confederacy.

AS

[DanishDynamite]

xouper:Yer kidding. If you don't even get that most simple of notions, then I don't know where to begin trying to explain it to you. Apparently you have very different notions of liberty and freedom than I do.Sorry to be a bother. The right of self-defense is fundamental. The right to own particular types of weapons (anthrax, nukes, etc) is not. Kindly explain what it is that I am not getting.
Like I said, we disagree on that point. And probably always will. :)

[DanishDynamite]

AmateurScientist:No it isn't. The National Guard is subject to being federalized by the President, and frequently has been in recent large military operations. The militia is the very antithesis of a standing army and is the defense against domestic military takeovers.Thank you for your update.
Um, are you familiar with the American Civil War? The southern states seceded and formed their own military from within the ranks of the people and from soldiers and sailors who resigned from the U.S. military. Most brought their own weapons to the fight, at least in the beginning.Exactly. "...formed their own military from within the ranks of the people and from soldiers and sailors who resigned from the U.S. military. Most brought their own weapons to the fight..."
Perhaps not to the continuation of the U.S. under a more totalitarian government. My examples of Nazi Germany and the like were meant to illustrate how idealistic notions of modern benevolence are illusory at best. Attempts to conquer and dominate regions are not anachronistic, as your and others' arguments seem to suggest.Your illusion is that an armed populace can make the slightest difference. What makes you think this will be the case? Some will be pro the new setup. Some will be con. There is no organization of either. And there is no precedent in history, that I know of, to show that armed citizens make a difference.
Please see above. They were meant to counter arguments that benevolence predominates today and to show that domestic resistance can indeed make a difference in the face of modern military power.Which they failed to do.
Precisely. And they successfully defeated a well-armed and well-trained British military. Aren't you making my point for me?No. Your point, as I understand it, is that an armed populace today is a barrier against the takeover of the US by a tyrannical government. This is obviously not the case.
See above. The CSA military forces were formed almost overnight from the citizenry which supplied its own weapons. They fought against their former government, whom they saw as an invading force in their newly formed confederacy.The CSA force was formed, according to your own words, "from soldiers and sailors who resigned from the U.S. military. Most brought their own weapons to the fight".

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Your illusion is that an armed populace can make the slightest difference. What makes you think this will be the case? Some will be pro the new setup. Some will be con. There is no organization of either. And there is no precedent in history, that I know of, to show that armed citizens make a difference.



The Viet Cong comes to mind as a modern example. They made quite a difference. Ask any U.S. Army or Marine veteran of the Vietnam conflict in the bush.

I'm sure there are others. I don't care to research it further at the moment.


No. Your point, as I understand it, is that an armed populace today is a barrier against the takeover of the US by a tyrannical government. This is obviously not the case.


How is this obvious? Wouldn't factions within the U.S. presumably rebel against the tyrannical government, including many National Guard units, around whom many other citizens could organize themselves with their own arms?




The CSA force was formed, according to your own words, "from soldiers and sailors who resigned from the U.S. military. Most brought their own weapons to the fight".

DD, that is not at all what I said. Yours is a prime example of quoting someone out of context and changing the meaning entirely.

I said that the CSA formed its own military from the ranks of the people and from the resigned soldiers and sailors from the USA. The ranks of the people used their own weapons, which they probably wouldn't have owned if not for the 2nd Amendment.

Let me throw out a new argument. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in civil cases that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crime. Where does that leave the citizens? Clearly, it leaves them with the responsibility to defend themselves, or fail to do so at their peril.

An armed populace is one which can defend itself from criminal attackers.

This is hardly an anachronistic notion.

AS

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ummm....terrorists are people.

You're missing the point. Suppose we use "nerve gas" instead of gun. "Nerve gas doesn't kill people, people do." Do you really think that's a good argument for allowing nerve gas into the market?

How about guns on plains? I mean afterall guns don't hijack....people do.

A gun left alone has never killed anyone.

Straw man. Anyone actually say that?

"Well nerve gas left alone has never killed anyone, a gun left alone on a plane never hijacked it."



Guns are a very convenient way to kill people. So are cars. So are javelins used at track meets. So are tent stakes. So are kitchen skillets.


Yes but cars, and javelins are a lot harder. Given what you are implying, that for lack of gun people will use things like "cars and javelines" to murder, we should see a rise of such murders in countries with no guns. We don't.

Most gun related murders are caused in the heat of the moment. Such is easy with a gun, harder with a knife or javeline. The latter usually gives the person more time to cool down.


In any event I cannot imagine "drive by shootings" being replaced by "drive by javelines."


BS. Murder was not invented in the U.S.

Attacking straw men like the above proves nothing. You talk a lot about "anti-gun rhetoric" but what the heck is the above?

Maybe now you'll utilize the "You too" fallacy?



Gun murders are relatively rare outside the U.S., but outside the U.S. persons simply find other means for accomplishing the same.

You really need some proof for this, as stats indicates the US has more murders then any other industralized nation.



Humans, like most other predatory and territorial animals, are violent creatures by nature, under the right circumstances.

And so you wish to give them more efficient means to kill eachother, not less? If that's an argument for gun proliferation, it's a non sequitur.



Civilization will never remove certain natural impulses from humans, despite the silly hopeful wishes of so many idealists and peaceniks.

Did anyone say remove or reduce?

Human beings are likewise always ignorant and stupid at some level, that doesn't mean we remove education.



We'll never know unless the U.S. exeriences a huge invasion from a foreign invader, or the Government begins attacking its citizens on a wide scale, or factions of the U.S. military attempt a coup, will we? Perhaps the armed portions of the citizenry might play a substantial role in repelling the attack.

We'll never know for sure, but we can infer what is likely from history. And history shows us that barring extraordinary circumstance, militias tend to play little or no role constructive role. Especially now at days. In fact, what role they do play tends to do more harm then good, as it usually involves the "threatened" government commencing some sort of slaughter.

We also have no evidence at all our own government would ever be involved with the above.

Are we really to allow for gun proliferation based on the far off, hypothetical chance of not only the government becoming tyrranical, but also of some rag-tag militia saving the day? That to me sounds like a right-wing fantasy, not reality.

Also isn't what you suggest above, basically terrorist action? I ask because a lot of right-wing pro-gun advocates tend to be absolutists. And they say "terrorism is always wrong" but I guess if it comes to the supposed Second American Revolution that rule goes right out of the window. Absolutists my foot.


BTW, I would like you to know that Marxist revolutionary groups also agree with gun proliferation, groups like the Sparticus League, as they believe that an armed working class will play a key role in their upcoming revolution.

Now let me ask you two things: 1) What are the chances of this revolution happening in the US? 2) What are the chances that it will ever succeed?


The answer to both is very, very, very low. So low that it seems ridiculous that people would spend a good portion of their lives preparing for it. But is this not essentially what the pro-gun lobby is doing? Except that their "Revolution" would be more right-wing, not left?

My main point is that the Second Amendment was enacted precisely to provide the citizenry a means of protecting the basic liberties and rights guaranteed by the constitution and upon which this nation was founded. Three main threats to such liberties were recognized at the time: 1) foreign invasion; 2) insurrection; and 3) tyrannical use of force against the citizenry by the government (or its military).

Those three threats remain today, just as they have to other societies throughout the history of human civilization. To contend that somehow modern civilization has advanced to the degree that all modern democracies are now benevolent and would never attempt to do its own citizens harm is to be completely ignorant of both ancient and modern history, and/or utterly foolish.


Yes, but you miss the point. My point is not that such threats no longer exists (though they are far fetched), my point is that if they even came, it is unlikely a militia would be worth it weight in salt in turning the tide of anything.

All military information and events in history seem to indicate as much. Did the Kurds overthrow Saddam? Did the Branch Davidians do anything to hurt the feds? Are the Marxist groups in south america, which are both fanatical, ruthless, organized and in a rural area doing much at all?

If they all fail so miserably what makes you think you will succeed? If anything, I would say the Marxists and Kurds would have an even better chance then an american militia, as their government and militaries were not nearly as strong and their areas were far less developed (giving them more places to hide) and not only do they fail, they fail miserably. And not only that, they needlessly get people killed and have usually invoked more hatred from the common people then anything.

Dare I do it? Mention Nazis or fascists? How do you think they came to power? They did it with the willing cooperation of their countries' citizens, who had been democratically governed immediately before their seizing power.

I know this. In fact Hitler was the most popular leader of Europe during his time. Given that, do you think a "insurrection" would have really been so popular? Or do you think it would have simply met with fierce hatred?

Also the Nazis were not in a country with a democratic tradition, it had only recently been given a propped up version. Democracy there was thus hardly as established as it is in the US. Not only that but Germany had just lost a war and been in a major depression. Given that, I doubt gun rights would have done a damn thing. People liked Hitler, they liked the Nazis, and so would have willingly given their guns away at Hitler's request. So much for rebelion.


Think that none of those things could ever happen in modern America?

1) Unlikely.

2) Even more unlikely that a militia would play a serious role in changing the course of events.



Hmmmm.... Who predicted Hitler's phenomenal rise to power and near total domination of continental Europe, both east and west? Who predicted Stalin's suppression of all his opposition by mass murder and exile?

Did any of the above countries have a democratic tradition, or were they used to tyranny? Of course nobody predicted the above, but even a blind man can see that it was far more likely there, then here.

Today America faces the ever-present threat to civil liberties of its own citizens willingly trading them for a sense of greater security. One of the liberties so many of its citizens so often and so passionately argue should be abolished is the right to bear arms. It is perhaps the most important one, however, as an unarmed citizenry is literally defenseless from the three threats enumerated above. Once the citizenry is rendered defenseless, all liberties may be taken away, with or without force.


That sounds like paranoid hyperbole. Freedoms in America are stronger then ever, as is our democracy. You are exagerating both the extent and effect of certain new laws. Now at days we can show damn near anything on TV, even a woman with a fetus growing out of her head and cartoon characters taking dumps, we have a president mocked 24/7 everywhere, and book stores containing literature entitled "Communism and Terrorism" by Leon Trotsky. Does it really seem that given that, it is likely at all that we are sinking into dictatorship?

Are you really getting ready to got out and fight soon?

Because if so, I must say you worry me. And that paranoi alone is reason to take guns out of the hands of certain dangerous and radical people.

Nevertheless, our nation was founded by extremists and radicals. They were rebels.

No, compared to most revolutionary movements our American Revolution was pretty damn calm and moderate. We kept most of the people in power in power, changed very little of the social fabric and faught a government not yet established. That is one reason why it did so well.

Now at days, no revolution would be the same. And one must remember they fought not taxation but taxation without representation. You have representation, utilize that, not violence. Otherwise you are just fighting against the will of the majority, rule of law and democracy, and why should I agree with some radical who fights against that, just because he doesn't like how it turned out? Just because he did not get his way in the elections?

Yes the above does sound extremist and dangerous, and if that is your argument against gun control, I must say it does far more to convince me to side for then against.



They had every right to be paranoid. They understood far better than we do today why trust in the benevolence of government can be so dangerous and misplaced. Health skepticism and wariness is utterly American and utterly justified after even a cursory look at history.

Is this why Wahsington lead an army to the Northern Colonies to squash the whiskey rebelion?

No they did not preach that government was inherently bad, well not all. What was mainly preached was that tyrannical government was bad. Our government is democratic, so your argument does not hold.

I'm all for keeping the Second Amendment. Yes, we have to put up with "gun nuts" and extremist private militia groups. Yes, we have to accept that many guns end up in the hands of those who would misuse them for crime. Yes, we have to put up with accidental shootings. You take the good with the bad.

In this day and age, I'm sorry but I think that criminals, reckless ill-tempered people, psychotics, gun nuts, radical right/left wing groups and private militia nuts who think they are going to play a key in some upcoming Second American Revolution constitute more of a danger to my life, liberty and happiness then some hypothetical government threat that may arise in the future. To me, risking all that is not worth the cost in lives or security. Nor the supposed benefit of having a militia, that in times of crisis, will likely do more harm then good.

You wouldn't seriously argue that those blights mean we should scrap that part of the First Amendment, would you?

False analogy. Freedom of the press is essential for a democracy. Gun rights are not. We consider many nations democratic that have a free press, but no gun rights. But would you consider a nation democratic that had gun rights and no free press?

Why then, should gun crime and violence be used as justifications for disarming the populace who chooses to be armed? Why should it be used to eviscerate much of the intent of the Second Amendment in the first place, which was to place military weapons in the hands of the citizenry (in the form of federal bans on "assault rifles" and machine guns without special and highly restricted licenses)?


Because gun rights are not essential for a democracy. This makes it then a question of values, not democratic norms. And I see much more value in the security which comes from gun control, especially when I look at some of those scary gun nuts and phenomenons like an ex-boyfriend that stalked one of my high school teachers with a gun, then I see in arming ourselves for some upcoming rebelion. And actually, the fact that so many americans see such a rebelion as inevitable or necessary is actually what makes me want to outlaw or at least control the proliferation of guns most of all.


Even if the majority of Americans ever decides to scrap the right to bear arms, it will be the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons.


Ok given the above, Japan, Birtain, Frances and I believe even Israel's decision to outlaw guns was a wrong choice that weakened their democracy, do you really believe that? Would you really be more scared of the government there, then here?



Secondly, your points seem to contradict eachother. On the one hand, you imply that getting rid of guns would do little to curb violence and murder in the US. Or threat of gun nuts. Because people can just as well use cars and javelines and human nature is violent ( the human nature part argues more for gun control then against imo). But at the same time maintain that gun ownership is essential to preserving our freedom, by allowing us to fight off the government.

Essentially then, outlawing guns does little to curb murder, because it does not hamper an individual's power to kill much. But it does hinder our ability to fight off the government i.e. kill.


But why can't we just fight off the government then with "javelines" and "cars"? Obviously because those things are not as powerful or lethal as guns. You know this. You whole talk of necessary rebelion assumes this. Yet when it comes to crime and militia threats you go to great lengths to deny this.

To me one can only get around that by positing the most superfluous, ad hoc rationals.


I ask myself now though, what am I more afraid of: radical militias, ruthless criminals and unstable people in my daily life, or the federal government? The answer is by far the former not the latter. And until that changes, I support gun control.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Viet Cong comes to mind as a modern example. They made quite a difference. Ask any U.S. Army or Marine veteran of the Vietnam conflict in the bush.


The Viet Cong were aided by an established local government, a super-power, the world's most populated nation, by virtue of being a continent away, being popular, and in extraordinarily rural and forested terrain. All of which can very much help a gorilla war. Keep in mind also that the US could have won, and likely was only willing to pull out because the Viet Cong, unlike an american militia, would pose no serious threat to the government. Meaning our military hardly pulled out all the stops (though it could have easily won, if the US government really wanted to.)
And the Viet Cong had to rely on the army of North Vietnam to overthrow their government anyways.


Conditions in america would be radically different, and harder then in Vietnam. Under such conditions, I doubt a militia here would even have a chance. It;s chance of success is equivalent to thatof winning the suoer lotto imo, and its chance of doing more harm then good, about 50/50. Especially since many militias appear to support dubious causes and are composed of unstable people.

[Suddenly]

"My 2 Bit Opinion"


I've always wondered, why, when there is such an indication that the framers thought highly of the right to bear arms that the Second Amendment is couched in such weak terms.

I came up with a theory. It isn't any reading of the second amendment that should get the pro-gun crowd up in arms, rather the wildly expansive interpretation of the commerce clause.

The framers pretty clearly did not anticipate a federal government that would have the power to regulate day to day lives to the extent that they could pass any sort of weapons ban. The federal government, unlike the states, lacks a general police power (the general power to pass laws for public safety, morality and welfare). The commerce clause was intended as an administrative deal, to make sure states played nice with each other, and to facilitate trade. There was no need for a strong right to bear arms, as there was no (to them at that time) realistic way for such a right to be banned. So they settled for the weak militia wording.

For 150 years, almost no one cared.

Then, all heck broke loose when the Supreme Court up and said (more or less) if it has to do with any kind of commerce, it will get across a border sooner or later, so the feds can regulate anything. They then looked over their shoulder and said "Is that what you want Mr. Roosevelt? Wanna drop that stupid packing plan?"

Thus, the feds since then have had a quasi-police power, as long as they can somehow work money and interstate into it, they can regulate it. On the good side, we have the civil rights act of 1964. On the bad side we just pretty much just pulled a fast one on the original intent of the framers. If they had anyway of suspecting that Congress would have the power it has today, I suggest the second amendment would read more like:

"Leave the F*CK*NG GUNS ALONE!!!! No, Seriously. LEAVE THEM ALONE."

Maybe not in those exact words, but pretty close.

But, lo and behold, the 2nd doesn't say that, so we have this mess.

[xouper]

DialecticMaterialist: ... I support gun control.Thank you for expressing your opinions. I do not find them at all persuasive. But thanks, anyway. :)

[epepke]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Actually they are, though not because any specific citizens are benevolent. But because the system encourages it.

Hmmm...

I've probably missed a couple, but in the history of the Second Amendment the French have had a monarchy, two empires, five republics, and one military occupation.

Which one is the system that avoids tyranny?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Thank you for expressing your opinions. I do not find them at all persuasive. But thanks, anyway.


Nor I yours. But you are welcome. ;)

[DialecticMaterialist]

've probably missed a couple, but in the history of the Second Amendment the French have had a monarchy, two empires, five republics, and one military occupation.

Which one is the system that avoids tyranny?



The last one: democracy.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

It's not the German people I was referring to. It's the peoples they conquered so easily. Had the invading Germans met heavy resistance from the populations they invaded, perhaps they would have had a very different war on their hands.

Ok thanks for the clarification but still people under German Occupation resisted and they resisted fiercly. Greece for example has the greatest rates in loses during WWII ( in relation to its population) exactly because of the resistence but the battle was not equal.

You are mostly right to insist that we must try to understand the Second Amendment in its historical context but I believe that this is where the weakest point in your argumentation hides.

One have to prove that the society and its needs that created this right exist in our days too.

Do you suggest that the American society of today has the same needs with the American Society of 18th ce?

Also, I asked again and only xouper brought me an example ( I didn't know about it-I googled and it appeared to me as a case of self-defense) how many times groups of people in the States used their weapons in order to protect their Rights?

What would constitute a major violation of Civil Rights today. What would make you or xouper use your guns apart from protecting yourself from crime?

But AS the essence of the matter hides somewhere else it's not about the protection of civil rights, you mentioned it yourself ( I was amazed that you didn't refer to it to your previous posts--you have built a very solid argumentation but you left this one out so far...)

The real issue about guns AS is what you said here addressing to DD:

Let me throw out a new argument. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in civil cases that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crime. Where does that leave the citizens? Clearly, it leaves them with the responsibility to defend themselves, or fail to do so at their peril.

And I am asking you:

As a free citizen and an educated person do you accept for yourself the role of the cop?

If we accept that citizens are responsible for their protection are you pro the abolition of the police force?

A last remark on a different tone:

xouper: It's true that we might never agree but these discussion are very useful for us the Europeans that we tend to forget that USA is a Federation with a totally different History than ours, also we tend to forget that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted only in its historical context.

[LW]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Greece for example has the greatest rates in loses during WWII ( in relation to its population) exactly because of the resistence but the battle was not equal.


Just popping in to comment that I'm very surprised about this sentence, since I'm under the impression that Poland, Yugoslavia, Byelorussia, and Ukraine had the greatest percentage of losses wrt. the population size, each losing more than 10% of pre-war population.

How do you define the rates?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also you miss my point. My point is that an armed rebelion would fail, and likely cause needless deaths. There will be no Second American Revolution.

Be sure to keep that crystal ball of yours polished, Sylvia...

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Ok thanks for the clarification but still people under German Occupation resisted and they resisted fiercly. Greece for example has the greatest rates in loses during WWII ( in relation to its population) exactly because of the resistence but the battle was not equal.



The organized resistance forces did in fact make a difference and helped the Allies in defeating the Germans. You are right. Of course, they did it with guns, not flowers.


You are mostly right to insist that we must try to understand the Second Amendment in its historical context but I believe that this is where the weakest point in your argumentation hides.


Those so willing to toss it aside as an anachronism apparently have forgotten all the history they ever knew. American civilization is not the end or final result of civilization evolving to an ideal. Although we may be living in the heyday of America's power and influence, there will certainly come a day when America's greatness will wane, and it too will fade into relative weakness and irrelevance, just as all other great political powers have in the past.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again, despite what DM apparently has concluded about me, I'm not paranoid about any particular individuals or about government in general. I don't think for a second that anyone is after me or that my government has a plot against me or my neighbors. On the other hand, those in power will nearly always seek to retain it, and even expand its reach. This is a fundamental truth about human nature and the natural inclinations of those in positions of power. History has shown us quite clearly, time and time again, that even benevolent governments eventually dissolve into not so benevolent governments, and eventually they abuse their citizens. Abuses can take many forms, including overtaxation, or perhaps the gradual or sudden reduction in freedoms.

DM apparently dismisses or ignores some recent horrible abuses our own benevolent government has committed against its citizens and residents in the most recent century. The internment of persons of Japanese descent who were lawful Americans during WWII, the medical experiments involving black persons at Tuskegee, and the recent holding of suspected terrorists without bond, without counsel, and without filing formal charges are such abuses which readily come to mind.

I am not so foolish as to believe that our government is above committing such abuses, or similar ones, in the future. They will always come with justifications, just as the Nazis justified their atrocities.

I'm no believer or proponent in a second American revolution, as DM attributes to me. That's the worst straw man argument I've seen in this thread and I find it to be paranoid and without any basis. It's also insulting.

My defense of the Second Amendment has mostly been in its historical context, and in noting that believing that the times we live in today are somehow fundamentally different is utterly foolish. It's very much akin to believing that we live in the "end times," as so many nutty Christians assert.

Just because our civilization is more technologically advanced than any before it, does not mean we have risen above human impulses or the apparently natural ebbs and flows of great civilizations. Modern Western civilization is hardly the first great civilization, nor is it the most influential. It, too, will surely fall, as it must, and as all others have fallen before it.

No one knows how it will fall, and no one knows when. The Second Amendment, in its own way, is merely one measure in place to protect America's populace from threats to it from within or without. Our founders were mostly concerned with threats from political leaders and the armies they commanded. Although no such immediate threat openly exists today, we can never be sure it will not in the future, and dismissing it outright is foolish in light of world history.

For the record, I do not believe there is any government plot to suppress the liberties of American citizens. The founders were prescient enough to recognize that the American citizens would willingly give them up, one by one, when they felt their security threatened. That is exactly what is happening with the Second Amendment. Americans want to trade a liberty for security. Many also wish to abandon the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments as well, as they believe that all they do is protect the rights of criminals.

We have already given away plenty of liberties at airports, and at courthouses and federal buildings. Ashcroft and others of like mind would have us trade liberty for security in countless other ways as well. DM may look forward to the day when we all must show our papers to the American Stasi upon request, but I for one do not.


One have to prove that the society and its needs that created this right exist in our days too.

Do you suggest that the American society of today has the same needs with the American Society of 18th ce?


No, not in general, but see above, and remember history. It's full of lessons for us all.

Despite what DM apparently insinuates (and sounds increasingly hysterical about), I'm certainly no member of a private militia, I'm no "survivalist," and I'm not a "gun nut." Only in the past few years have I purchased a handgun, as I have a friend who has carried for years, and I happen to practice law in two fields wherein my clients or their opponents can get rather violent. In my opinion, representing persons who are divorcing, especially when the custody of children is involved, can be very dangerous. I knew an attorney who was murdered at his office by a man as a result of his representation of a young woman who was the man's former girlfriend, and I know a man whose parents were gunned down just outside our courthouse after a custody hearing. Some of my criminal clients are "gangstas," and many routinely shoot at or rob others with knives or guns. I've been threatened by my clients more than once, as have many of my local colleagues.

I have colleagues who have had angry clients or relatives of clients show up in their offices unannounced, ready to take out their frustrations on someone. One was held at knifepoint in his own office for more than an hour.

In such situations, having ready access to a firearm can indeed save one's life, or the life of someone nearby.


The real issue about guns AS is what you said here addressing to DD:

And I am asking you:

As a free citizen and an educated person do you accept for yourself the role of the cop?


No. I'm not a criminal investigator. That's primarily what cops do. They patrol, they investigate, they assist citizens in distress, they arrest offenders, and they testify in court.

Although one may feel safer in the presence of police on the street, the simply fact is that they do not prevent crime, and they do not prevent violent crime. Those who rely on police to prevent violence from occurring to themselves are fooling themselves.


If we accept that citizens are responsible for their protection are you pro the abolition of the police force?



Of course not. Advocating the abolition of police does not follow at all from my defense of the right to keep and bear arms.

AS

[Cleopatra]

Very interesting post Amateur Scientist.

Maybe I was wrong but is there a tone of pessimism in your post regarding the future or it was just my idea?

I believe that what distinguishes the western political systems ( the various forms of democracy) is their ability to fix their mistakes "By themselves".

Also, don't forget that the Founding Fouthers knew very well the dangers that the building of an Empire would bring.

The number 70 of the Federalist was composed by Hamilton in 1788 the year that the final volumes of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire of Gibbon were published! In number 70 he lists the lessons that his newborn country could learn from History, so from this point of view you belong to the long tradition that wants our future to be determined by the examination of the past.Very American approach and this is a compliment. :)

What Hamilton couldn't imagine thought (who could? ) was the tremendous abruption with the spirit of Enlightment that Nazism would cause and this is the reason why I quoted De Tocqueville yesterday to show you that dictators aren't born by parthenogenesis.

Hitler didn't do what he did alone. Somebody brought him into power and somebody followed him into the disaster. So, my point is that if somebody (I am talking hypothetically as you do, I do not see any conspiracy theories here) does it again it will be because the people will have given him this power to do it.

It's not the arms that will help you resist Amateur Scientist but the resistence will come from people-- allow me to add here without wanting to compliment you-- like you.

People that know about History and they participate in the common affairs are every dictator's nightmare.Dictators have nothing to fear from majorities that they trade progress with the right to hold a gun.

I do want people to continue to have the right to bare arms but I want them to choose not to because this is will make them more critical towards authorities and more demanding.

I second your experiences with clients, only a month ago a colleague was shot dead in court by a lunatic just because the victim represented the murderer's wife in their divorce case. The colleague was 45 years old, father of 3 children, an excellent scientist and an honest lawyer, I am not sure I could protect him if I was carrying a gun although I must admit that all of us who witnessed the event discussed afterwards that we might have saved him if somebody was carrying a gun ( I strongly doubt it).

Lunatics will always exist in societies and the way to combat the organised crime is a reform of the legal system along with a social reform in various levels but the state, instead of come forward and take the "brave" measurments it puts a gun in your hand and it asks "you" to protect yourself.

This is what worried me most. As you pointed out the Governments trade Liberty for Security without providing this security.

Although one may feel safer in the presence of police on the street, the simply fact is that they do not prevent crime, and they do not prevent violent crime. Those who rely on police to prevent violence from occurring to themselves are fooling themselves.

As I said it's not the Police that prevents violence and crime BUT Police is the medium of imposing the rules in modern societies.

If the government account me responsible for my safety then the role of the Police in the society must be revised.

I think that we are in a basic agreement. I have realized from your posts that you are within the spirit of Secular Humanism as it was represented by Enlightment. Of course I belong there too.

Come on AS, it' easier for a humanist that has a gun to leave it than for a humanist who doesn't have one to put it in his pocket :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Maybe I was wrong but is there a tone of pessimism in your post regarding the future or it was just my idea?

You say pessimism, I say skepticism.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I believe that what distinguishes the western political systems ( the various forms of democracy) is their ability to fix their mistakes "By themselves".

Revolt and revolution by the populace are two of the possible "fixes". Others include things like voting, secession, amendment, and recall.

[xouper]

The following two comments by AmateurScientist should be in the FAQ:

Q: Why not give up your anachronistic right to bear arms and let the police do their job protecting citizens from criminals?

AmateurScientist: The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in civil cases that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crime. Where does that leave the citizens? Clearly, it leaves them with the responsibility to defend themselves, or fail to do so at their peril.

An armed populace is one which can defend itself from criminal attackers. This is hardly an anachronistic notion.AmateurScientist: No. I'm not a criminal investigator. That's primarily what cops do. They patrol, they investigate, they assist citizens in distress, they arrest offenders, and they testify in court.

Although one may feel safer in the presence of police on the street, the simply fact is that they do not prevent crime, and they do not prevent violent crime. Those who rely on police to prevent violence from occurring to themselves are fooling themselves.Well said, AS.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Very interesting post Amateur Scientist.

Maybe I was wrong but is there a tone of pessimism in your post regarding the future or it was just my idea?



Thanks, Cleo. No, not pessimism, just fatalism. I firmly believe in the inevitability of the decline of the American Century or two, just as the once mighty British Empire upon whom the set never set eventually faded recently, the Third Reich failed to materialize beyond a futile attempt to hold onto Europe briefly, the Napoleonic Empire collapsed, the Ottoman Empire ended, the Roman Empire eventually crumbled, the Hellenic influence faded, and Alexander's own attempt to rule the civilized world ended shortly after his untimely death.

Americans today are just as foolish in their assumption that ours is the pinnacle of civilization, that it is the most perfect of all, and that the world will eventually come around to our way of life. Some day, they presume, we will all hold hands, drink Coca Cola, and sing Kumba Ya.

I suspect the British used to feel the same way, as did the Romans, the Greeks, and everyone else who held a dominant influence over much of the world at one time or another.



I believe that what distinguishes the western political systems ( the various forms of democracy) is their ability to fix their mistakes "By themselves".



Tsk tsk. Do you honestly believe democratic forms of government are the be all and end all of civilization? The only constant in the world, including in human civilization, is change.

Modern democracies, too, will one day be supplanted by other governments.


Also, don't forget that the Founding Fouthers knew very well the dangers that the building of an Empire would bring.

The number 70 of the Federalist was composed by Hamilton in 1788 the year that the final volumes of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire of Gibbon were published! In number 70 he lists the lessons that his newborn country could learn from History, so from this point of view you belong to the long tradition that wants our future to be determined by the examination of the past.Very American approach and this is a compliment. :)


Thanks, I agree. I fear that Benjamin Franklin was far more realistic about our own ability to hold onto our newly found freedoms. He fully recognized that people would gladly give them away, as they have done in the past, and are doing now. Once given away, they are very difficult to get back from a power hungry government. I fear that an inevitable decline of the society as it is today (in terms of freedoms, not morals), or the revolutionary change to another kind will be the unfortunate result. Time will tell.


What Hamilton couldn't imagine thought (who could? ) was the tremendous abruption with the spirit of Enlightment that Nazism would cause and this is the reason why I quoted De Tocqueville yesterday to show you that dictators aren't born by parthenogenesis.

Hitler didn't do what he did alone. Somebody brought him into power and somebody followed him into the disaster. So, my point is that if somebody (I am talking hypothetically as you do, I do not see any conspiracy theories here) does it again it will be because the people will have given him this power to do it.



Of course. Hitler was heralded and welcomed into power by a troubled nation. Rhetoric and scapegoating helped him in.

Our nation has been troubled by economic woes as well, and it will be again. Rhetoric and scapegoating often result from such crises, and any charismatic leader is capable of exploiting circumstances and becoming a leader. Any such leader has the capability of abrogating rights previously held by the citizenry, especially if he is popular and regarded as a savior by his countrymen. I bring up the subject of Hitler precisely to demonstrate that Americans are no more immune to the kind of magical sway he held over his countrymen than the pre-WWII Germans were.

We like to pretend that we are different, but we are not. Americans are human beings with human frailties and emotions just as the citizens of any other country. Without eternal vigilance against encroachment on our fundamental liberties, especially those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, our foolhardy citizens will give them away, one by one.

The loud cries for the repeal of the Second Amendment, or at least for a reading of it to remove the individual right granted by it, are but one example of such foolhardiness. The specific issue may be the right to keep and bear arms, but the larger picture is the ready willingness to give up liberties in favor of security. That is the greatest danger facing our republic today, just as it always has been.

I am far more afraid of complacency and indifference and hostility to the defense of such fundamental liberties than I am of any street criminal, or foreign or domestic terrorist, or private militia nutcase. I identify far more with Patrick Henry than with James Brady.


It's not the arms that will help you resist Amateur Scientist but the resistence will come from people-- allow me to add here without wanting to compliment you-- like you.

People that know about History and they participate in the common affairs are every dictator's nightmare.Dictators have nothing to fear from majorities that they trade progress with the right to hold a gun.



I agree. I'm not in favor of chucking the Second Amendment. The framers had a good point and a good reason for including it. Even today, anyone attempting to run a dictatorship in this country would have to factor in the 230,000,000 guns in private ownership in attempting to do so.

Those willing to get rid of the Second Amendment would also trade other liberties for security, I fear.


I do want people to continue to have the right to bare arms but I want them to choose not to because this is will make them more critical towards authorities and more demanding.


Well, for the record, I wish handguns did not exist in this country. On the other hand, I believe the framers of the constitution fully intended that private citizens would and should own military arms. Today, this would mean it would be perfectly legal, and indeed quite patriotic, to own an M-16 and some claymore mines and hand grenades.

I'm not necessarily advocating that we do that, but I believe that's what the framers had in mind. I can't stress it enough. They were afraid of the government itself, not of criminals roaming the streets. They were far more afraid of the standing military than the nut case on the next block.

Gun control advocates are blissfully ignorant of that notion.


Lunatics will always exist in societies and the way to combat the organised crime is a reform of the legal system along with a social reform in various levels but the state, instead of come forward and take the "brave" measurments it puts a gun in your hand and it asks "you" to protect yourself.


There is no way to rid society of lunatics or violence. If violence doesn't come from the populace, it is because it is being suppressed by the government by violent means.


This is what worried me most. As you pointed out the Governments trade Liberty for Security without providing this security.



In many cases, it's the people, not the government, who cry for more security. They gladly give up their liberties, even without having them forcefully taken away. That's the great danger to the American way of life.


As I said it's not the Police that prevents violence and crime BUT Police is the medium of imposing the rules in modern societies.

If the government account me responsible for my safety then the role of the Police in the society must be revised.


This is impossible without a police state intruding into our private lives beyond our comfort level. I prefer to be responsible for my safety myself. I don't want the government in my home or following me around all day doing it for me.


I think that we are in a basic agreement. I have realized from your posts that you are within the spirit of Secular Humanism as it was represented by Enlightment. Of course I belong there too.


Absolutely.



Come on AS, it' easier for a humanist that has a gun to leave it than for a humanist who doesn't have one to put it in his pocket :)

I don't know. Self-defense gun enthusiasts are fond of saying the best kind of gun is the one you are carrying at the moment. The point is that no one can protect himself with the gun he leaves at home.

AS

[Richard G]

We would like to interupt the debate with this brief, commercial message:

http://www.coneville.com/mauserlady/toys/mrsPrincess1.jpg

[Suddenly]

Thanks!! Where can I get one of those small red x's?

edited to add: You fixed it. I was expecting something foolish and pointless. Thank you for living up to my expectations. You see so little of that anymore. I blame modern marketing and constant bombardment of bombast that skews expectations.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Thanks!! Where can I get one of those small red x's?

edited to add: You fixed it. I was expecting something foolish and pointless. Thank you for living up to my expectations. You see so little of that anymore. I blame modern marketing and constant bombardment of bombast that skews expectations.

The only appropriate response, IMO:

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/reagan-square.gif

[severin]

A few points in reply to some of those raised above.

Bearing arms to prevent against foreign attack is no longer valid. As both Pearl Harbour and 9/11 showed, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War anticipated, attacks by foreign powers will not be land-based and guns will be of no use.

There a way to withstand oppressive government that was not available to the majority of the population when the 2nd Amendment was written. If you don't like the government, become the government. Stand for election.

I would not be happy living in a country where my rights to hold certain views would put my life in danger from those people who thought it was their right to own guns. For example, pro-abortionists being shot. Yes, this is a small example, but there is a serious point here: what is the right path to take when one person's rights impinge on another's life, freedom and pursuit of happiness etc? Should pro-choicers have to carry guns to pretect themselves?

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom but so is responsibility. Sometimes, we have to give away a small part of our rights to protect the greater rights of others. In the end, everyone benefits.

What are the legitimate reasons for owning a gun? A) for hunting. Is the right to kill animals for fun really so important to the fabric of society? B) for gun club membership etc. It's only a hobby. If it's that important, keep the gun at the club. C) for self-defence in the home. All gun-owners should be licensed, subject to in-depth background checks, given gun education and prevented by law from taking the gun out of the house.

Empires rise and fall. That's the nature of empires. America is just the latest, even if its empire is cultural and economic rather than territorial. Having a gun will not stop its eventual decline, whether by outside attack or collapse from within (insurrection, corrupt/inept government etc)

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by severin
I would not be happy living in a country where my rights to hold certain views would put my life in danger from those people who thought it was their right to own guns. For example, pro-abortionists being shot. Yes, this is a small example, but there is a serious point here: what is the right path to take when one person's rights impinge on another's life, freedom and pursuit of happiness etc? Should pro-choicers have to carry guns to pretect themselves?



Your country has a higher rate of assault than ours. The relative lack of guns in your country has done nothing to prevent or reduce incidents of violence.

Guns are not the harm to be protected against. People are. Guns are hardly the only instruments of violence or murder. Nearly any ordinary household item can be readily adapted into a deadly weapon. Just pick up any heavy object and smash it into the other person's skull. Pick up a rock. Nearly anything.



Empires rise and fall. That's the nature of empires. America is just the latest, even if its empire is cultural and economic rather than territorial. Having a gun will not stop its eventual decline, whether by outside attack or collapse from within (insurrection, corrupt/inept government etc)

Nope, can't stop America's eventual, inevitable fall. But eroding or abolishing the individual liberties in the Bill of Rights, one by one, beginning with the Second Amendment, will certainly hasten it.

AS

[Tony]

Originally posted by severin

Bearing arms to prevent against foreign attack is no longer valid. As both Pearl Harbour and 9/11 showed, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War anticipated, attacks by foreign powers will not be land-based and guns will be of no use.


Perhaps this is true, but it isnt an argument against ownership. Just like I tried to illustrate to DD earlier, you not being able to successfully defend yourself against 10 guys bigger than you is no reason to cut off your hands.

There a way to withstand oppressive government that was not available to the majority of the population when the 2nd Amendment was written. If you don't like the government, become the government. Stand for election.

So if a tyrannical dictator siezes power I should run for election? How is running for election under circumstances in which elections dont exist going to solve anything?

Should pro-choicers have to carry guns to pretect themselves?

Yes.

Sometimes, we have to give away a small part of our rights to protect the greater rights of others. In the end, everyone benefits.

No they dont, less freedom and more government control benefits no one. If this was true, the Patriot Act would be beneficial.

What are the legitimate reasons for owning a gun?

It doesnt matter, rights aren't subject to neccessity.

[severin]

Amateur Scientist:

True, almost anything can be a weapon. But a gun is one of the few with which you can kill someone easily and at a distance. Little thought or effort are required. It's just too easy.

And I think you'll find that your country has a higher rate offatal assault.

"Guns are not the harm to be protected against. People are." - No, people with guns are.

"But eroding or abolishing the individual liberties in the Bill of Rights, one by one, beginning with the Second Amendment, will certainly hasten it." - Depends how it's done. Taking away one dubious right is not necessarily the beginning of the end.

Incidentally, how do you quote someone else's post and make it come out in bol? On most boards people put them inside >< type brackets to indicate a quote, but that doesn't work here.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by severin
Amateur Scientist:

Incidentally, how do you quote someone else's post and make it come out in bol? On most boards people put them inside >< type brackets to indicate a quote, but that doesn't work here.

I do it manually. You just insert [B] at the beginning. At the end, you put in a [B], only put a "/" before the B, but inside the brackets. I didn't put it in here, because you wouldn't have seen the typing; it would have bolded everything.

You can do the same thing with "QUOTE" or with "i" for italics, or others.

AS

[epepke]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


The last one: democracy.

Ah, the current one, the one where most French seem to think that Chirac is a corrupt fool but don't think they can do anything about it.

Gotcha.

[epepke]

Originally posted by severin
[B]Amateur Scientist:

True, almost anything can be a weapon. But a gun is one of the few with which you can kill someone easily and at a distance. Little thought or effort are required. It's just too easy.

Um. Have you actually used a pistol to hit a target at a distance?

Unless you're talking about shotguns, but wait--those are perfectly legal in the UK, aren't they? I can even legally bring one over in checked baggage.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by epepke


Um. Have you actually used a pistol to hit a target at a distance?



Good point. Average distance of actual pistol combat is about 15 feet. Most other household items can be used at a similar distance with a simple forward lunge.


AS

[epepke]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Good point. Average distance of actual pistol combat is about 15 feet. Most other household items can be used at a similar distance with a simple forward lunge.

I'm glad you agree. I'm a pretty good shot. I can "pin the heart" on a Barney the Dinosaur poster at 20 meters with a Colt 1911. But that required a hell of a lot of training, starting with the pistol training I got at MIT with the old Victor 22.

I think that people get the idea, from watching too many Mannix re-runs, that you just have to point the pistol vaguely at a distant target, and it will fall down. Not even remotely true.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm glad you agree. I'm a pretty good shot. I can "pin the heart" on a Barney the Dinosaur poster at 20 meters with a Colt 1911. But that required a hell of a lot of training, starting with the pistol training I got at MIT with the old Victor 22.

I think that people get the idea, from watching too many Mannix re-runs, that you just have to point the pistol vaguely at a distant target, and it will fall down. Not even remotely true.

Well, when I was in the army, I was better at 25 meters with a .45 than I was with an M-16. At 300 m, however, my M-16 shooting was perfect.

BTW, when you quoted above about shooting at a distance, you were quoting Severin, not me. She mentioned my name, and it must have appeared to you that I said those remarks. I didn't.

AS

[xouper]

severin: Incidentally, how do you quote someone else's post and make it come out in bol? On most boards people put them inside >< type brackets to indicate a quote, but that doesn't work here. AmateurScientist already answered your question, but I thought I'd show off a little. I posted my answer in the Help Section at this link:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29732

If you have more questions about this, please ask them in that other thread.

[DanishDynamite]

AmateurScientist:The Viet Cong comes to mind as a modern example. They made quite a difference. Ask any U.S. Army or Marine veteran of the Vietnam conflict in the bush.

I'm sure there are others. I don't care to research it further at the moment.I think DialecticMaterialist addressed this one.
How is this obvious? Wouldn't factions within the U.S. presumably rebel against the tyrannical government, including many National Guard units, around whom many other citizens could organize themselves with their own arms?Well, perhaps "obvious" was a bit too definitive. Even near-zero probabilities can happen. However, things such as no precedent, no organization, no reason that individual gun owners would be on the same side, the vast superiority of the military in firepower, tactics, intel, etc, etc, make it unlikely that the population could have much influence against a determined military force.
DD, that is not at all what I said. Yours is a prime example of quoting someone out of context and changing the meaning entirely.I beg to differ. I quoted the context at the beginning of the very same post!
I said that the CSA formed its own military from the ranks of the people and from the resigned soldiers and sailors from the USA. The ranks of the people used their own weapons, which they probably wouldn't have owned if not for the 2nd Amendment.OK. Would you say that handguns privately owned today stand in the same relation to weapons of the military as they did then?
Let me throw out a new argument. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in civil cases that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crime. Where does that leave the citizens? Clearly, it leaves them with the responsibility to defend themselves, or fail to do so at their peril. It leaves them in almost exactly the same position which most European citizens currently enjoy. I say "almost" because most European countries today are not flooded by guns.
An armed populace is one which can defend itself from criminal attackers. Complete crapola and an argument not in line with your basic claim.
This is hardly an anachronistic notion.Indeed it is completely anachronistic as a look at other free, democratic nations shows.

AS [/B][/QUOTE]

[AmateurScientist]

DD,

Thanks for responding and for being reasonable and not insulting in your arguments. I appreciate debating with you, but I hope you will excuse and forgive me for discontinuing further debate in this thread and perhaps on this topic.

I've said most of what I could on the matter. As I mentioned in my first post, this topic tends to bring out a lot of invective and insults.

We can just leave it with our having differing opinions and perspectives on the matter, I hope.

See ya in another thread.

AS

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
[B]DD,

Thanks for responding and for being reasonable and not insulting in your arguments. I appreciate debating with you, but I hope you will excuse and forgive me for discontinuing further debate in this thread and perhaps on this topic.Completely.
I've said most of what I could on the matter. As I mentioned in my first post, this topic tends to bring out a lot of invective and insults.Again, I agree completely.
We can just leave it with our having differing opinions and perspectives on the matter, I hope.Certainly, we can. Untill next time. :)
See ya in another thread.See you AS. It's been a pleasure. And I mean that.

[AmateurScientist]

DD,

Oh yeah. Keep your hands off my guns!!!!

:D

AS

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
DD,

Oh yeah. Keep your hands off my guns!!!!

:D

AS :D

[Cleopatra]

LW

I haven't ignored your question, I will reply to it :)

[severin]

Epepke - Um. Have you actually used a pistol to hit a target at a distance?

Yes. Hard to get a bulls eye but not that hard to get close enough to do some damage, even with little practice. Hey, maybe I'm a natural shootist...

And I'm not saying that UK society is perfect - far from it. It's not us we are discussing.

[severin]

Oh, and thanks for the debate, guys. It's been very informative, which is what I hoped for. I've learned a lot.

Happy Halloween.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Well, perhaps "obvious" was a bit too definitive. Even near-zero probabilities can happen. However, things such as no precedent, no organization, no reason that individual gun owners would be on the same side, the vast superiority of the military in firepower, tactics, intel, etc, etc, make it unlikely that the population could have much influence against a determined military force.

Thanks, but I'd rather have the option of a fighting chance as opposed to relying on the benevolence of the government and the military.

I can see it now:

Thomas Paine, Samual Adams, Paul Revere, George Washington, et.al.: "The King would never take unfair advantage of us brave colonists here in the New World. The redcoats are sufficiently armed to protect us. Besides, they are our countrymen and fellow citizens. They would never fire on their own. Even if we did decide to revolt, we wouldn't have a chance in hell since some would run to Canada while others might even side with the government troops." :rolleyes: :rolleyes:




http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/waffen/violent-smiley-043.gif