Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms

[Gilby]

Discussion started in the Earth Day thread.

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Why do people assume that the constitution gives people the right to bear arms? The second amendment says: "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.". Does that mean that everyone has the right to bear arms? I think not. It means that there is aloud to be a militia, and they are aloud to have guns.

Originally Posted by Gilby

Um, everybody is the militia, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Originally Posted by peleschramm

Everybody is the militia? I can tell you that I sure as hell am not part of the militia, I don't know about you. Also, the keyword is well regulated. I don't know of any well regulated militia that EVERYONE is a member of. Could this mean a sort of police force? Or possibly just an army? Or even if you want to stretch it, a militia that is WELL REGULATED and is led by people that volunteer to fight if there is a need and is organized. I know plenty of people that aren't part of this well regulated militia and still own weapons.

The constitution words this "people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed" as if it were suggesting that this would only be the case if they were part of this well regulated militia, which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist.

The constitution does not protect anyones right to bear arms. Nor does it protect most people's. (Only those in this well regulated militia, if you have not caught on)

You are right that the second amendment does not give the rights to anyone. Thought it was thought that it was clear that the federal government was limited in it's powers, the Bill of Rights were created because some people thought that over time, the federal government would eventually usurp the rights of the people and the states. History has shown that they were right, but that not even the Bill of Rights could stop the federal government from doing so.

The preamble of the Bill of Rights, set forth this purpose:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

In other words, the Bill of Rights was made to limit the federal government.

You question the meaning of the term militia. The founding fathers were against having a standing army because of the imperialism and threat to liberty that could happen and therefore preferred a militia in which they could call forth the militia when we needed to defend against invasions. This means that every able bodied person should be ready with their arms for when a defense is needed. The phrase "well regulated" means a level of preparedness, in that they are well trained and ready to be called on.

The last part of the amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," gives us a clue as to it actually being a right of the people, but it does not give that right to us. Governments don't give rights, as each person has inalienable rights, and one such right is the right to self defense of one's person and property. Having the arms to provide proper defense then is an individual right.

Here is that inalienable right written in the 1776 Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights section of the Constitution:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

There is a nice preamble in that one too.

[harper]

Historical accounts of the development of the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights provide several examples of the concerns of the framers. One was that the Constitution as a document only outlined what the federal government could do. No where in it were any descriptions of what it ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY could not EVER do. Hence, the Bill of Rights. A couple of the states refused to ratify the Constitution without it.

Supreme Court rulings on the second amendment consistently hold that it is an individual right. The argument is made by comparing the wording of the second amendment to the wording used elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Were the second amendment suddenly to become a collective right then the rest of the Constitution would have to be re-interpreted.

The second amendment, although under high-profile, irrational, and continuous attack for almost 80 years, is still not the most abused and neglected amendment of the Bill of Rights. That dubious honor must go to the tenth amendment.

[unibikeling]

I dont really care about the 2nd ammendment, minus the fact it gives us defense, and hunting. Defense, that ones obvious, and hunting, i dont know. I only think you should hunt if your going to use the animal.

the 2nd ammendment was made for minute men. They had the right to bear firearms, so they could fight in wars if needed, which they did. Yeah, thats fact though, everything else is really opinion.

[tobbogonist]

i am sorry, bear arms

it will never loose its amusment value.



i know it is old but come on, a country that gives its people a right to have the arms of a different species!!

[harper]

Originally Posted by tobbogonist

i know it is old but come on, a country that gives its people a right to have the arms of a different species!!

The results of cloning and stem cell research?

[johnfoss]

So what are "arms"? In those days I assume it mostly meant rifles and swords. Should it extend to assault rifles, anti-aircraft batteries, mortars, etc?

Is this assumed to be an inalienable right of every citizen? What about children and the menatally ill? And convicted criminals?

Just stirring things up a tad.

And for all the people from outside this country who think it would be so simple to just "get rid of all the guns," uh, no. It doesn't work that way. Even if we agreed to disallow private gun ownership (which is extremely unlikely in any scenario), as is always mentioned, you would remove all the legal guns and then have only the illegal guns. They can't be made to go away. It's too late, they're already here and they've been building up for over 200 years!

However. I have a problem with what may be interpreted as an inalienable right to bear arms (own and use multiple guns), while I *do not* have an inalienable right to use a motor vehicle on public roadways. Sure, both are dangerous, and nobody seems to have a problem understanding why we license test and drivers before setting them lose. Why not do something similar with guns?

[harper]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

However. I have a problem with what may be interpreted as an inalienable right to bear arms (own and use multiple guns), while I *do not* have an inalienable right to use a motor vehicle on public roadways. Sure, both are dangerous, and nobody seems to have a problem understanding why we license test and drivers before setting them lose. Why not do something similar with guns?

This is the often made comparison between apples and oranges.

Vehicles are designed to transport people and firearms are designed to kill people. Vehicles, however, are much more effective killing machines. Not more efficient, more effective.

The right to bear arms is an inalienable right granted by your maker (in whatever form that takes) and further ensured by the Bill of Rights preventing the US government from seizing that right. Driving a vehicle is a privilege granted to you by the governing body that regulates the roads on which you drive.

Firearms and vehicles are in no way similar. The laws that govern them are, not surprisingly, very different.

[MuniAddict]

I think the US should just ban ALL weapons, and disband the military completely. Then we should all hold hands, sing Kumbiya, and ask the terroists pretty please to be nice and not kill us or anyone else. There, problem solved, and now all the other countries will love and respect us again!

[peleschramm]

I think that we should move to where I heard Britain is when it comes to the right to bear arms.

I heard (from my history teacher) that the British are allowed to own guns for sporting purposes only, and before each use, they must pick their gun up from the police station and drop it off after each shooting session. This way, if there was ever any gun-related crime, it would be very easy to track (assuming the firearm was legal). I also like it how the British police carry Nightsticks instead of handguns. Now I have only heard this from one source, and i could be wrong about how the British do it, but regardless, I think that is an excellent idea.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by harper

Vehicles, however, are much more effective killing machines. Not more efficient, more effective.

Yes, they are very fat projectiles.

Firearms and vehicles are in no way similar.

But they are, in (at least) one very important way. They are both deadly devices that require knowledge and training to use safely. I don't think you would argue that the reason for licensing and testing in vehicles is so the govt. can track who's using the roads. It's to try to cut down on the carnage that takes place upon them.

Has our maker endowed us with the inalienable right to shoot, but not to travel? Hmmm, but I guess that goes back to those darn roads again...

Anyway, my question still stands about what "arms" are. On the one hand, one can say it was left very generic on purpose. But on the other hand one can say it may not include any arms technology that didn't exist at the time of the document was written. So no automatic weapons. Well, that wouldn't change much. The biggest problems are generally with simple pistols.

[Naomi]

I think I will post some statistics, without much comment. I didn't have a lot of time to google so the years are different for the two cases. I just post the first figures google came up with.


1) UK. Guns difficult to get hold of. handguns banned.

Gun deaths in 2006/7 : 59

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm


2) USA Guns freely available to all

Gun deaths in 1999 : 28874

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

This site also gives a "gun deaths per 100,000 of population for several countries". I include those for the UK and the USA. The suicide figures are also interesting.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

............................Homicide........ Suicide ........ Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) ................. 3.98 ........ 5.92 ........ 0.36
England/Wales (2002) ......0.15 ........ 0.2 ........ 0.03
Scotland (2002) ............ .0.06 ........ 0.2 ........ 0.02

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.




Nao

[harper]

Originally Posted by Naomi

I think I will post some statistics, without much comment.

I think I'll do the same.

Lower limb amputees in Sri Lanka 2004: 461
People with peanut allergies: 1.3% of the general population

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Naomi

I think I will post some statistics

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

[UniBrier]

I think we can settle this with an old fashioned duel (but we’ll use paint ball guns because we’d hate to have one less of us).

Those for gun control get to use both hands. Those with weak arguments have to shoot from the hip.

We’ll do it at dawn, as long as we’ve all had our coffee first. We want wide-awake but jittery contestants.

[harper]

Originally Posted by UniBrier

Those for gun control get to use both hands. Those with weak arguments have to shoot from the hip.

Wait. This is the same group. You're going to have gun control advocates shoot each other?