Slashdot Mirror
Second Amendment Questioned
dheera writes "Attorneys in Washington, DC question the scope of the Second Amendment in the first case in nearly 70 years, citing that the right to bear arms only applies to 'a well regulated militia.' 'We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms,' said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general."
What the hell does the second amendment have to do with my rights ONLINE? I'm still allowed to shoot people in games over the internet, regardless of what the handgun rights are here in DC.
The United States Department of Justice says that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
What a 'well regulated' militia is. Probably has to be set up to defend nat'l safety.
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
Hi. Like the man said, 'from my cold dead hands.' Guns aren't just for the military, cops, and gang-bangers -- we have 'em to make sure that our government doesn't herd us into cattle-cars, and send us off to the thermal depolymerizor en masse. We've already got Extrordinary Rendition, what's after that?
I have '666' in my NRA membership number.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
But I'm an army of one...
Federalist 29
"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." - Alexander Hamilton
Federalist 46
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."-James Madison
Even accepting their argument that the 2nd amendment applies only to militias, federal law is pretty black-letter on the matter: the unorganized militia is clearly defined in federal law, and includes pretty much the entire populace.
That being said, the 2nd amendment is the _only_ place in the Bill of Rights where "the people" are defined as a collective body, rather than individuals. And even then, only in the 9th Circuit's realm.
People always get it wrong when it comes to the 2nd Amendment:
http://thatvideosite.com/view/1835.html
... do you guys (/girls) have the right to walk around town with a japanese sword hanging on your belt?
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
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.
Well then, I'm glad I live next to VMI, which happens to be more than just a school--it's also a "well regulated militia."
I'm assuming then, the NRA meets that definition nicely. :)
..don't panic
This is a great subject for debate on Slashdot. I look forward to getting this issue settled, once and for all!
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Anybody want to form a militia with me?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
>It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
WTF are you talking about? One day guns are banned. Wow I get into my car and run over the person I dont like. Better yet I stab them. Even better yet, I wii chuck them to death.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
As a non-American I am all in favour of lots of guns there. Because of the huge number of shootings the GSW medical tech has improved immensely. Doctors from all over the world go to the US to learn about it. If they don't get shot they return home with valuable skills. Of course there aren't so many shooting at home but still could come in handy. So keep that 2nd Amendment, I say.
What's wrong with everyone having the right to equally defend themselves from criminals and others who wish to do them harm?
i think there's little argument that the 2nd amendment was articulated to guarantee the ability of a free people to defend themselves against and even overthrow an unjust aggressor or ruling entity.
Which is fine...except that if the ruling entity--or those on its payroll--is the only one with weapons of war, then the 2nd amendment doesn't mean diddly to the commoners. Why do we have the "bill of rights," anyhow? It certainly isn't there to protect the rights of the rulers over their subjects. The 2nd amendment is meaningless unless it guarantees the right of private citizens to "keep and carry arms wherever they [go]" (quoth the majority in Dred Scott, horrified that blacks would be able to "keep and carry arms wherever they went" if they were recognized as citizens).
The 2nd Amendment states a right (keep and bear arms) that cannot be infringed. That's it -- no infringement, period. The introductory phrase states a reason for stating this right, but "shall not be infringed" is an absolute. Note it doesn't grant the right; it considers that right, along with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and others to be inherent, above government powers, and says the government will not infringe on them.
The mass ownership of guns is one of the leading causes of terror and misery in our society.
Really? How do you come to this conclusion?
I would think that assholes behind the wheel of the giant SUVs provide me with more terror and misery than anything else I can think of off hand. In fact, I get quite a bit of amusement out of shooting computers with my gun, not feelings of terror. Maybe the computers I shoot feel terror?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Close, but not quite. Our society considers it right and proper for everyone to carry a device designed to defend against other people killing us.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Jerry Pournelle mentioned in a panel debate at Baycon 2006 that the colonial government provided guns and ammo to the citizens (whether they wanted it or not) in case self-defense against a common enemy was needed and that was the original definition of "a well regulated militia". If so, maybe the government today should require every 18-year-old to serve two years in the military and let them keep their gun after their service. You kill three birds with one bullet: everyone in time will have the proper training for using their gun (which should reduce accidents), be armed for self-defense (which should reduce crime) and the whole stupid 2nd Amendment will be gone. Just an idea.
That is bullshit, and I'll tell you why. The courts have established that "Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals".
Just reading about the case history behind this makes me spitting mad. It takes a stong constitution to even read that entire compilation.
Everyone has the right to defend their safety. In my eyes, everyone has the responsibility to defend their safety.
In the phrase "A well regulated militia" regulated = equipped.
The idea was that in the event of tyranny or invasion the people could form up and defend themselves. We are guaranteed the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. To pursue life one must be able to defend it. That is why we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
By now I would have expected the noise about gun control to die down. It's a losing issue for democrats, and gun ownership may well be the only thing that recently stopped the USA from falling into fascist totalitarianism.
They ask the question, "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?" The answer is, Yes. The constitution was made to be altered, revised and rewritten as needed by the society that it governed. In that way it could continue to be relevant and not just a piece of paper. Does that mean that we should abolish this particular amendment? I personally think no, not at this time. At some point in the future however when we have all reached a more enlightened state it may no longer be nessesary to have an armed population. I also find it quite comforting to know that no leader in his right mind would want to invade a country where the amount of firearms available outnumbers the population by a factor of three or more. (thinks of Iraq) My point stands.
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
It says something of the grandparent's personal character that when he sees a gun he thinks, "that's for killing" as opposed to "that's for safeguarding."
Yeah, you're right. In fact Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and other dictators of history agree. What's going on in Iraq right now proves that a few yuppies with guns can keep an unwanted government out of control. If our government was to become tyrannical, it would be our only recourse.
The 2nd Amendment was actually supposed to confer the "right to bare arms", and was actually intended to protect the tee-shirt and tank top industry. See how important spelling is now, kids?
Oh no... it's the future.
Riiight. Because the criminals who already have guns illegally would give these up as soon such a ban was passed?
We live in a dangerous world. It is the right of the people to arm themselves. We cannot expect the government to always be able to protect us from people who wish to do us harm. Such thinking is naieve.
Originally, the reason why this amendment was added to the Constitution was so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government.
You can't have it both ways.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
the fact of the matter is, parents are really fucking stupid.. guns will never magically disapear one day, so we're obviously going to need to just properly educate kids and even adults on why everyone doesn't really need to own a gun.. but if you are, here's how to be safe about it..
continuing my thought about the existence of guns being inevitable, i wouldn't want to ban the right to protect myself in anyway.. 3 years ago i would of said fuck guns and anything related to them.. but the world doesn't seem to be getting any safer.. whether its the people, or the government that want to kill ya..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with protecting yourself from criminals or with hunting and everything to do with keeping your government in check.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The amendment means exactly what it says, who'd a thunk it?
Just watch.
All of the guys who were cheering Newt Gingrich last week when he said we should revisit our first amendment rights are going to be the loudest in screaming, "But I have a RIGHT to bear arms!!!"
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
Each state (and Washington DC) should able to interpret "well regulated militia" itself. A well regulated militia in Texas might be any private citizen wanting own a firearm. In New York, a well regulated militia might be the national guard only with no private ownership of firearms. If you want to want to own guns, you would have to live in a gun friendly state.
I think solves the underlying problem nicely. Firearms are a problem in major urban centers but not a big problem in rural states. Each state crafts its own rules. There will be states with tight rules and loose ones.
It's a bit like having a calculator or a sheet of paper and a pen.
It's much easier to do math - and so you're more likely to do it - when you have a calculator in your hand.
If, on the other hand, you have to dig out the paper, the pen, and engage brain, you're less likely to do it.
So, we have a situation now where many people - especially in violent inner city areas - have in their hands a device which with the pull of a trigger can immediately kill at ranges from point blank to a few hundred meters.
Compare this to a situation where people don't have such a device - but have much less efficient devices, like cars (bulky, hard to maneover), knives (not much of a ranged attack, much less lethal, very messy) and Wii controllers (weak straps, could fail in use).
I don't think so. Guerrilla warfare seems to working just fine for Iraq's sectarian groups and insurgents, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda.
Throughout the Constitution, the wording is very specific. When referring to individual rights, the term "The People" is used. When referring to state rights, the term "The States" is used. Unless you believe the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY EXCEPTION to this rule, it is most definitely an individual right as it says "... the right of The People ..."
If the meaning of "The People" is changed to indicate a state right, ALL our rights will be lost. Suddenly, speech, religion, assembly, redress, etc, will be State rights and everything that makes this country worthwhile will go into the shitter.
If the government can abuse a law, eventually the government will abuse a law. Maybe not right away, but a few years down the road it will happen. A good example of this is the seizing of property without due process. At first they were seizing property of convicted drug dealers. Then they started seizing the property of unconvicted drug dealers. After getting away with this obvious violation of the Constitution, they started seizing property of people with the thinnest thread of a connection to drugs, e.g. a guy had his car seized because his passenger had a joint in his possession.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The United States Department of Justice says that the 2nd amendment is an individual right
The United Stated Department of Justice also says that the Patriot Act is legal and a wonderful, necessary tool.
The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. It's not their job to "interpret" law or the constitution. It is their job to execute the law of the land. Did you flunk middle school and high school history/civics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_power s_under_the_United_States_Constitution#Executive_p ower
Christ. Half the problem with this country is American's basic inability to understand the simplest concepts of the US government.
Please help metamoderate.
The constitution already has a mechanism for amendment. If we decide to drop the Second Amendment, we can ratify a second amendment (no pun intended) that revokes the current one.
We did that with prohibition.
What we have now (and ongoing) is a question over what the terms actually mean today. That's a subtle question on many levels, esp. in a country where you have millions of people who live in cities with substantial police forces, and other people who live in rural counties where there may be one deputy on duty and it will take him 2 hours to answer a summons for help.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
What kind of military WOULDN'T bear arms? I can't imagine what the founding fathers would have been thinking by including language to ensure that the nation's military had arms. They included this in the Bill of Rights which, to me anyway, would make sense to be for regular, ordinary citizens - not specifically for individuals involved in the military. It makes better sense given the social and political climate of the time that they intended for the citizens themselves to be armed as a hedge against government tyranny. After all, it's harder for a government to oppress a people if those people are armed. Meanings other than that one don't seem to fit the overall mood of the rest of the Constitution as it was originally written. Nor do they fit in a purely historical sense. I just don't see precedent for a mindset in the founding fathers that would indicate that they DIDN'T intend average citizens to keep and bear arms.
This assertion being made by these lawyers seems a bit ridiculous to me.
*This message not endorsed by the NRA or its affiliates*
The second that a civil war starts up, the arms manufacturers will have representatives in there with glossy catalogues full of RPGs, anti-tank/personell mines and generous finance terms.
Deleted
The first Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which said, in part:
So you see, militia was only meant to restrict who possessed firearms on a basis of race and sex, not based on military service.
-Peter
Right, because your grand-daddy's rifle is really going to help against tanks and automatic weaponry.
You obviously haven't seen "Red Dawn". Wolverriiiiine!!!!
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
I have mod points, but, though i don't agree with you, I didn't mod you down. Anyone who did is a hypocrite, assuming they're a believer in individual rights. The funny thing is, I consider myself a very liberal/progressive/what-have-you sort of person, but I'm also a beliver in the second ammendment. It's not as cut and dry as "guns cause terror"; not even Michael Moore makes that connection (in bowling for columbine, he notes that canadians own as many guns as we do, and yet we have much more gun related violence).
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
I always thought of this section as: "Your Rights" Online as opposed to "Your Rights Online"
You must be a big fan of the total banning of guns in the UK. Now that no one has guns, they've turned it into the perfect utopian society without crimes or violence.
BTW, that's called sarcasm. Since they've banned guns, that catchy NRA slogan has become a reality (if it's a crime to have guns, only criminals will have guns). The UK has the fastest growing rate of gun crimes in all of western civilization.
-- Will program for bandwidth
"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've noticed there has been a trend to re-structure the sentence of the 2nd Ammendment and interpret it on the basis of a "well regulated militia" and then equate this to the National Guard and thus declare the 2nd Ammendment fullfilled.
This is incorrect, and is not what is said above. There are two aspects to the above statement.
1) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stae
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
What we have is a stacking of concepts. A militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Militias draw from the people, both arms and manpower. Therefore, it is necessary for the people to retain the right to bear arms or there is no means to call up a militia.
If you remove the right to bear arms from U.S. citizens then you have no means to call up and organize a militia. You will have a bunch of unarmed men unable to defend their country. This is well understood within the context of the Constitution being written. A simple test can be done to express such.
Apply both interpretations, which one would fit and fulfill the needs of the time. If we apply the traditional interpretation everything fits. However, if we apply the re-interpretation you find yourself in a place in which the American Revolution would never have existed. Let' remove all guns from ownership by the colonials. The only guns are now owned and in the hands of the British Army and the regulated militias under the British. The colonials now are completely unarmed facing both the regulars of the British Army and the militias under the British.
Clearly there is no way that this was the intention of the authors of the Constitution. And if the courts ever decided to re-interpret such ammendments it is the right of every arms bearing American and the duty of every U.S. soldier (if you've ever served you swore an oath to protect this country from powers both foreign and domestic) to kill those judges and remove that segment of government from power.
The 2nd ammendment is our assurety against tyranny. It is the last and final line in our "checks and balances" within the government.
- Saj
The second amendment has nothing to do with deterrence of wackos bent on shooting you. It is all about the checks and balances found within the US government. Each branch of the gov has the ability to check and balance the others. This prevents one branch from becoming dominant, thereby keeping the power evenly distributed. The second amendment provides the same structure between the people and the government, as clearly defined in the Federalist Papers comment above. The Founding Fathers were always concerned with tyrants rising to power, so right was "protected" by the Bill of Rights. Note the right was not granted. One of the unique principles of the US Constitution is that it establishes that the government derives its power from the governed, not the other way around. This means the government cannot "grant" any right. It is simply beyond the scope of its power. Therefore, without the permission of the majority, it cannot take away any right of the people. Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Imagine, for a moment, if the people in 1776 were denied the right to bear arms. Would the Revolutionary War have taken place? Would the tyranny imposed by the British monarch have ended? I suspect the world would be very different. The United States is the longest lived republic for a reason, and that reason is that the power the government holds is balanced by the people, through elections and the fact they can refresh the tree of liberty as necessary
The US military is the best in the world, but put them in a country where AK-47s, RPGs, and plastique are easy to obtain and that country can effectively harrass them until they leave. Not that I'm advocating widespread RPG ownership in our country, but it would certainly make those Canadians think twice before invading us.
Nothing at all.
However, that wasn't the issue.
The point I made was about a society where it's legally permitted to carry killing devices.
One particular issue involved in that is crime and self-defence, but it's not *the* issue.
Say, for example, that somebody gets the Supreme Court to decide that only well regulated militias have the right to arms, and then to interpret "regulated" to mean federally regulated. Would that mean that cops can no longer carry guns?
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Why do we need to define the phrase now? You can refer to dictionaries that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was authored, and you can review how the phrase was used in other contemporary writings. Through the 18th and much of the 19th centuries the phrase "well regulated" was used to mean properly functioning.
And how about the definition of Militia? That term was defined in the Militia Act of 1792, and federal law currently defines the unorganized militia.
I know you think it is ridiculous. But, we CAN be invaded by another country and have to use weapons to defend ourselves while we wait for protection, it isn't just defending yourself from your neighbor. Then there are gangs. Were it banned, only people that will have weapons will be gang members, and judging by the massive amount of gang members receiving military training and taking it back to the streets; that is pretty messed up.
So there is one way out, to go to every street, every home, and turn it upside-down looking for weapons, to put police on every street, and impose an 8PM curfew. We have to do this fairly often, as gangs would gather weapons again fairly easily. This is symbolic, it is a massive hurdle in the movement to take away all of our freedoms. If they dont let you defend yourself, why would they let you have privacy or free speech...what are you gonna do? throw rocks? protest? riot? Heh, I thought you guys were nerds. You obviously weren't paying attention to the movies.
On the other hand, maybe this will help the credible militias, add more people less prone to 'go off the deep end' and establish a unified purpose of defense; holding off enemies until the proper authorities arrive.
"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482 "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803. "It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. "A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. "[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. "Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
the Political Inquirer
Its the ONLY way to be sure. ;)
A pull of a trigger sounds so easy
It's not the physical action being easy which is the deciding factor.
It's the will to kill that is the deciding factor.
And regarding "a few hundred meters", I submit that those who have mastered the rifle to such a degree would be far less likely to use it to wantonly slay people.
I do not mean this as an attack against your character in any way, but for you to portray knives as "much less lethal" belies an egregious ignorance in matters of self defense. A knife in even untrained hands can indeed be wholly lethal in a matter of seconds. It's quiet, doesn't run out of ammo, and is often far easier to conceal.
If a potentially violent (healthy) subject is at 21 feet or less brandishing a knife, it is considered a lethal threat by most police training. This is because such a subject can close that gap before you can draw and fire - and if hopped up on drugs, may close the gap regardless of if you've hit them.
So it's really a question of tactical context as to which is "king" that day
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
So I should trust you, your spouse and your children based on this single post on slashdot? Even if I own a gun, it wouldn't be practical to carry it with me all the time. For example, my company might ask me to check in my AK47 before entering the workplace. I don't want one of my thousands of coworkers - possibly your relative - to go bezerk and mow me down with a gun he somehow smuggled through the back entrance.
Coming late to the discussion but felt like I had to say something....
guns are not the problem....fear of your neighbor is.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
These numbers are all from the CDC.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h tml
My queries are for the years 1999-2002 (all they have), the entire U.S., all races, both sexes, all ages. (four year totals)
Unintentional death by falling : 57,760
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 24,079
Unintentional Drowning : 13,739
Unintentional death by burning : 13,642
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 3,164
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 3,099
You can also break it down by age range. If we're worried about the teen years, we can look at ages 12-18. (four year totals)
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 1,561
Unintentional Drowning : 1,495
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 494
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 453
Unintentional death by burning : 423
Unintentional death by falling : 306
Younger still, ages 1-11: (four year totals)
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 2,118
Unintentional Drowning : 2,870
Unintentional death by burning : 1,920
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 371
Unintentional death by falling : 292
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 164
Accident-wise, young kids have a lot more to worry about than guns. And teenagers are almost as likely to die on their bicycles. God forbid they're bicycling to the swimming pool... or even worse, *walking* to the swimming pool ... but yes, there are gun accidents.
Non-accidental deaths:
It's interesting to note that more than half of violent deaths attributed to firearms are suicide. Whenever you read an article in the media that mentions the number of gun deaths it's a good bet that they're including suicides.
Now I, personally, don't mind if people kill themselves. More power to them. I do agree that that there is a lower barrier to entry when using a gun and understand that depressed people might not be the best people to own guns, but gun control isn't really the solution to depression.
So, anyway, taking out suicides leaves us with:
As compared to
So, more people are definitely intentionally killed by guns than by any other single cause, roughly 11K people per year.
But...
How many times are guns used defensively? Since defensive gun use isn't something that is reported (like an offensive gun use is), numbers are harder to find. Here is the page I have bookmarked with the only numbers I've ever seen. (refers to Gary Kleck's survey and a DOJ-sponsored study, and has a table of the results of 13 other surveys). (Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU - and, no, he's not an NRA member. http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-klec k.php)
Summary: Kleck thinks defensive gun use happens 2.5M times per year, other surveys listed range between 770K and 3.6M. The DOJ study thinks it's 1.5M times per year.
Let's aim low and go with 1M defensive uses per year. The question posed at the book club was "when does the ratio become w
You can have my long-range .50 anti-material sniper rifle when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
One of my favorite pages on the subject, a mere eleven years old.
In general, if you're going to question any of the documents our founding fathers put together, get constitutional scholars and historians, not people who don't realize that words change their meanings over the centuries. ("Militia" == "The National Guard" now, so therefore the constitution was talking about the national guard! Er...) And remember: the founders weren't idiots. They had debates over these things for years. They didn't just whip them up in an afternoon.
A couple things to note:
1) Washington has some of the strongest gun laws in the country, along with some of the highest rates of violent crime. Hmm, is it possible that strict(er) gun laws aren't the answer? Anytime someone in DC talks says "X" about gun violence, I instantly see merit in "not X." Physician, heal thyself before you throw stones in your glass house, or something.
2) Criminals are called criminals because they don't follow the law. Let that roll around in your head a little. Will making guns illegal(er) mean that criminals won't get them? People always say "If guns are outlawed, then you can arrest anyone with a gun! w00t!" Yeah... 'cause criminals are too dumb to ever think of HIDING them. Make guns illegal and you'll never see one--until you're woken up one night with one in your face.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
From Cornell
The US Code:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311
311. Militia: composition and classes
(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, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Seems to me that people with light arms are holding the US Army to a standstill in Iraq. Don't you want the right to hold your own army at bay if the President refuses to uphold the Constitution? Or do you trust your President completely?
K.
Yes, but the possession of these devices is already prohibited in many violent inner cities. It's not legal for the average person to possess a working firearm in Washington, DC. That has obviously helped a tremendous amount in lowering the crime rate there....
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
I've always contended that the purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn't so that every idiot can own a gun, but that it was designed so that people could overthrow the government by force if the government wasn't properly representing them. Think of it as the last resort escape clause. The government isn't doing it's job properly, but democracy isn't working properly either... By using our 2nd amendment rights, we can arm ourselves and overthrow the government. Unfortunately, we can't realistically do this any more because the weapons we would need to do so are all illegal (but perhaps that's unconstitutional... of course... I wouldn't want every crazy organized militia to have ICBMs and all of that... but I suppose I'll choose freedom and liberty over safety and security).
Read my blog posts on usability.
"we have a situation now where many people - especially in violent inner city areas - have in their hands a device which with the pull of a trigger can immediately kill . . ."
So you're suggesting that a person willing to ignore the statutes against murder will be deterred by a law banning firearms? Are you instead assuming that said legislation will magically make all firearms disappear? In case you haven't noticed, we've been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades now, and thousands of pounds of such substances flow into this country every year. Will a "war on guns" be more successful, or will it simply harm the law abiding citizens?
P.S.
"ranges from point blank to a few hundred meters."
I'd like to see some inner city ghetto punk that could kill at "a few hundred meters"
But lets pretend, just for a second.
If what they claim is true, then by definition:
See the problem? Every male above the age of 18 is registered with Selective Service and is therefore a member of the militia of the U.S., by whichever definition you wish to use for the word.
So in effect, even if what they were claiming were true, which it's clearly not, then they are simply arguing that women cannot own guns! That's the only people who their claim would effect.
Actually, that's not true. If their claim were true, then it would be unconstitutional to prohibit convicts from owning a firearm, because they are still part of the Selective Service regardless of their legal status, and "the right...shall not be infringed." Honestly, that means it's unconstitutional for the courts to restrict their right to bear arms, even with the correct interpretation of the amendment. Strictly reading the letter of the Constitution, you can take away their right to breathe, before you can forbid them from carrying a firearm, even while they are encarcerated. But even bending it a little, as soon as they are released, they, by Constitutional right, should be permitted^H^H^Hhave the unrevokable right to purchase a gun from the closest pawnshop, should they wish. And, in fact, for just that reason, they are able to "restore" their right after any parole time they might still be serving.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
"...If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?..."
The UK has the fastest growing rate of gun crimes in all of western civilization.
Yes. The reason the rates increase so much, is because the actual numbers are so low.
Gun Death Rates per Nation
If you're trying to be honest about the statistics, avoid harping too much about relative increases in rates - that's like bragging about your brother growing richer faster at a rate faster than Bill Gates.
Ryan Fenton
Sorry, I don't trust ANY x-number person court to decide this issue. And, you can bet your sweet bippie that whichever way the SCotUS would rule on this, half the country is going to argue about it anyway, so let's just avoid it and work it out the way our government was supposed to work. I'm tired of this coming up, and everyone backing away from it. Let's just put it to Congress to amend the Constitution, and clarify it. That way, we can get the debate going WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE, get PEOPLE TO TALK TO THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, clarify what it OUGHT TO MEAN IN THE 21st CENTURY, and settle it for another couple hundred years. I'm a HUGE proponent of an individual's right to keep and bear whatever weapons he can afford, but our government is a democratic republic, if the majority of the people (and the companies that represent them -- don't get me started) can sway Congress to kill this right, then so be it. THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. I can't stand the fact that our Congress won't touch it because it's such a "hot" issue. It's their stupid jobs! When there's this much confusion about law, the law needs to be re-worked. It's that simple. (There are case studies out there from other countries that have effectively killed the right of personal defense, and we can study these efforts, which would -- or maybe rather *should* -- be outside the scope of our Supreme Court. Again, don't get me started.)
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Police don't exist to keep you from harm, individually. If some guy is breaking into your house, intent on murdering you and raping your wife, you don't get to say "Hold on, chap, the police will be here in just a moment, and as they are here to serve and protect me, you must murder and rape them in my family's stead". They exist to enforce laws against those who are breaking them, and in the example - those who have broken them, after the fact. They will get you justice, sure, but not until after a crime has been committed.
I'd trust my gun over a 5 minute police response time. Do you have more faith in the strength of your ground-level windows, and your plywood door than that?
It says something of the grandparent's personal character that when he sees a gun he thinks, "that's for killing" as opposed to "that's for safeguarding."
You're right, it shows he's smarter than the average person, because he's able to understand that an object can have more than one function.
By definition, if you have two guys with guns, and one is defending himself, the other one is trying to kill him.
If everyone was running around only using guns to defend themselves, we wouldn't need guns to defend ourselves now, would we?
paintball
If they disallow gun ownership I'll move to the country where it's allowed. You see, lack of gun ownership is very convenient if you want to build a police state. You can ram through unruly crowds on a tank, completely invincible. If, on the other hand, people have guns - persons of power will feel a lot less comfortable after committing large scale atrocities against their own people. This applies both locally and on a federal level. Just because there can be a dude with a sniper rifle sitting on the roof.
As far as I'm concerned, guns are the only remaining guarantee of democratic rights that citizens of this country still have. Guns are a great equalizer of power between those in power and those without.
At least if we go by what SCOTUS has done in the base with the first amendment right of free speech.
The right of free expression has been held not trump the power Congress has to establish copyrights, for example.
In a number of cases, the right of free speech has not been held to immunize news gathering organizations against responsibilty for private damages or wrongs (torts).
The government can regulate the manner of speech if (a) the regulation is content neutral, (b) there is a important public interest (such as protecting people from annoying intrusions like telemarketing calls) and (c) the means chosen are reasonable.
The government can even regulate the content of speech (obsencity, divulging military secrets) if (a) there is a compelling public interest at stake and (b) the regulations are narrowly tailored -- they restrict no more than is absolutely necessary. The recent slashdot article on the court overturning a law which was supposed to regulate obscene video games is an example of the latter: the law restricted games that were neither obscene nor indecent.
So -- interpreting the Second Amendment as a right to private firearm ownership does not preclude all government restriction of firearm use or posession. SCOTUS could choose to allow narrowly tailored restrictions in some situations. For example, if you set up an outdoor shooting range on your property, localities could restrict you from using it in the early mornign hours because of the public nuisance the noise creates. In fact, the nuisance impinges on a different constitutional right: that of privacy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"The reason the rates increase so much, is because the actual numbers are so low."
And they were much lower a few decades ago when anyone could buy a gun over the counter, no questions asked, and anyone with $2.50 to spare could buy a license to carry it in public.
Britain is rapidly turning into a police state; it's no surprise that a government which pretty much brought about the conclusion of eighty years of gun banning should also want to eliminate trial by jury, the right to silence and habeus corpus, and to cover the country with cameras and force everyone to carry 'license to exist' cards.
So I should trust you, your spouse and your children based on this single post on slashdot?
You trust me not to mow you down with my car, right?
for the lazy
Damned right we should be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The summary(and to a lesser extent TFA) also gives the misleading impression that the individual rights approach is the settled interpretation and that the District of Columbia is challenging that by asserting it as a state right; that is inaccurate. The Supreme Court precedent is not very clear*, and the federal circuit courts are split with more following the state right approach rather than the individual right approach.
*Though it arguably leans toward either a state-right approach or a fairly narrowly-purposed individual-right approach, consider US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):
That part is forgotten ( and violated ) by most every governmental offical out there. And has been since almost day one.
its sad, wrong, offensive, and any official that doesn't abide by it should be removed from office immediately.
The 2nd revolution is coming.. its time to choose sides and get ready.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
People with guns kill people. Black people with guns kill people. Black leaders want to protect blacks from gun violence. Black leaders support bans on guns.
What doesn't make sense here?
Regarding firearms: I recall a press report where some small towns instituted a curfew that required women to be armed when out after dark. Although prosecutions for going unarmed seem unlikely the incidence of rape in public places is somewhat diminished. This recent story is about a town with an ordinance proposed that requires a firearm in every home http://www.fox12news.com/Global/story.asp?S=543703 3 . Several towns require this. Here's an older story about one in Georgia with rather predictable results: http://tinyurl.com/yldlze . From that article:
Numerically, there are about as many firearms in America as there are Americans : http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/08/16/almos t-every-american-has-a-gun/ . I recall seeing pistols, rifles and shotguns on sale in a gas station in Flagstaff, Arizona. While product placement right next to the tequila was probably inappropriate, the sight was not shocking to the locals.
Are citizens not allowed arms in your country? Why? What could possibly be the reason for that?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The US Army does not have enough tanks to cover the contry. If it actually came down to it, you would not have a tank in your neighborhood, but your friendly local cop at your door. And him I can defend against.
You'll have a 500 lb bomb dropped from 20,000 feet.
Or a missile fired from an unmanned drone.
paintball
Unorganized fails the "well regulated" test. The 2nd is talking about the national guard, not the boy scouts.
"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." SHALL NOT reads just like a commandment. I see no need for interpretation. Any idiot knows a milita is made up of
INDIVIDUALS, not people in an organized 'army'. Harrumph.
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. to me the only part that matters is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms". if the people have a right then it is implicit that it shouldn't be infringed upon, otherwise why would one be writing a bill of rights.
lose != loose
I appreciate the idea of guns as a power equalizer. George Orwell described them as inherently democratic, as they give "claws to the weak." Comes from his essay You and the Atomic Bomb. A very interesting read fwiw, particularly (although this is somewhat OT) because you can see him developing the ideas that become 1984. Cheers.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
Human history is repleat with tyranny, and it will be always so. The physically strong will always threaten the physically weak (caveman days). The intellectually clever, will always threaten the common people (nowadays). Arms (sword, gun, light sabre) are mere instruments of equalization, no different than speech (free) or the right to vote (non-electronically of course). Individuals (the people) must have recourse to equalize and maintain against tyranny. Crime is symptomatic with the forces of tyranny. Criminals are essentially persons who have (had to) compromise their true humanity. Tyrants and crimnals all grow from the same basic human defect, enlightenment will help but this is the burden of humanity as we evolve forward to greatness. If the day comes where one can no longer defend themselves, their family, their country, then humanity is lost and we will be led by the smarter cows to the slaughter.
Should you trust your coworkers with Lithium-Ion batteries? I am sure a berserker could rig one (or several) to explode some way. Do you extensively check your employees (TSA-style) to ensure that they have not brought anything dangerous (liquid explosives, dangerous chemical compounds, etc.) into the workplace? Do you ensure that they do not have any pocketknives (a deadly weapon) on them?
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
What really angers me about the 'need firearms to protect us from the government' people is that they don't understand what they are really saying. "We need guns so the government doesn't take away our rights" they say.
That's saying that you don't have to comply with the will over the democratically elected government. It's saying that if you don't like the law, yu're going to become a terrorist. That you would rather just become a terrorist than elect people who are going to protect your rights in the first place.
The people who scream bloody murder about the government taking away the guns they need to protect their rights from the government tend to the VERY SAME PEOPLE who ELECT OFFICIALS WHO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!
How many times have you heard someone say "We need guns to protect our rights!" and then say "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear!"
How about instead of letting people say "Elect me, and I won't take away your guns!", you elect people who say "Elect me, and I'll repeal the Patriot Act!"
People who argue that they need guns to protect their rights from the government are just gun nuts. The 'protect us from the government' argument is a red herring. If their RIGHTS were really what is important to them, they'd vote for people who wanted to protect their rights instead of people who wanted to protect their guns.
But that's not what happens. Search you without a warrant? Listen in to your phone calls? Arrest and detain you, even if you're a US citizen, without access to courts or a lawyer? Torture people? Sure, we'll reelect that guy, as long as he promises we can keep our guns!
Using the right to bear arms to protect your rights is useless if you're willing to trade away all your other rights just to keep your gun. Then what are you protecting?
paintball
Rights are guaranteed, not granted. There is a major fundamental difference between the two concepts that far too many people don't get. The Bill of Rights is not a gift or a privilege. It protection mechanism that enforces limitations on the power of the government in order to protect the citizenry from those in power.
+0 Meh
There should be mandatory gun training and licencing, such way possibly misusers can be rated as such at earlier ages. Education of gun use, storage and respect would make for less accidents related to shooting. Respect, care and understanding of guns, I think should bring the amount of gun related violence. At least so I think. Often people who don't respect the car and road, do get in more accidents then those who don't(poor mans argument of analogy, sorry). Since 2nd amendment is so essential, in schools it should not be glossed over but rather taught and excersized like a freedom of speech. In controlled environment of course. In the end it will make country stronger. I am not in any way affiliated with gun industry, just a nerd north of the border. Constitution of the USA should be practiced and engrained into youngsters in every way possible, besides writing bullshit essays, why america is great. Since constitution is what made america great. Capitalism also, as white men relxed their control of such in post colonial times, but secondary to constitution.
"another lesson of this war is that the era of the automatic rifle as basic small arm may be ending." - the "War Nerd".
I think that if intelligent unmanned drones become prevalent (currently drones require a large operations staff), we will finally run in to the issue of reducing the number of autonomous moral agents. If the second amendment is no longer effective due to the asymmetry of modern military versus individuals, then the remaining key is autonomous morality.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
I guess if you live where everybody is crazy and armed you would need a gun. I give thanks I do not live in such a place.
... That's where South America starts
PenGun
The Peace Arch
"I do not mean this as an attack against your character in any way, but for you to portray knives as "much less lethal" belies an egregious ignorance in matters of self defense. A knife in even untrained hands can indeed be wholly lethal in a matter of seconds. It's quiet, doesn't run out of ammo, and is often far easier to conceal."
:)
Ninjas never used guns, only smoking gun powder in escape.
What will help lowering amount of animosity in Washington DC, from what i gather from my highly unreliable sources is having representation, of the city in its own matters. People who live there.
"No, that's ignorant! You're being ignorant!"
Speak for yourself. And even if you dont own any currently, its rather simple to produce them in your garage.
Anyone who claim we dont have the right, is wrong. its in black and white.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And that's exactly why you should own a gun -- so you can shoot him before he gets the chance! After all, don't you realize that if he really is bent on killing you he'll be able to find himself a gun regardless of its legality?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
and you think taxes are high now?
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. Maybe this is something that belongs on the semantic web.
It doesn't matter what any lawyers or anti-gun nuts argue, there will always be a hardcore group that says "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands." Just make sure you aren't caught in the crossfire when that day comes.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Where are all the liberal slashdotters who only know one quote (which they misquote, and most likely misattribute), namely,r $605)
;-)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It was the Motto printed on the front of a propaganda book Ben Franklin published, but did not write. (Story, and picture here: http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReade
The purpose of the book was to convince the king to give the colonists money to buy guns for the Indian tribes allied with them. (The French were arming the Indian tribes allied to them, the bastards
that most of law enforcement is in support of the 2nd amendment (or at least we assume). I would expect a good portion of them to refuse to carry out such an action.
Comparing Slashdot to Digg is like comparing televisions to telescopes. They do entirely different things.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
"A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state."
What was your username again? -BOFH
You obviously have never studied martial arts and have little familiarity with the practice of law enforcement.
Practitioners of these fields generally regard knives to be *more* dangerous in close-quarters than both handguns and (especially) long guns. They regard it as a guarantee that even an experienced hand-to-hand fighter will get cut in a knife-fight, whereas although it's still very dangerous, it's not regarded as certain that one will get shot when fighting at close range.
A single cut of a knife can kill a person if the cut is in the right place, particularly around the neck: cut the esophagus to prevent further breathing; cut an artery in the jugular on either side of the neck and the person will bleed to death. Cutting an artery elsewhere achieves the same goal: the inner-leg is one such place.
Knives can be extremely dangerous, and swords even moreso.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a cop. But I have several years practice in tang soo do, have dabbled in a couple other, similar styles, and used to read "Black Belt" magazine fairly-regularly.)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I too have always read it as "Your Rights Online", or slightly reworded, "Your Online Rights" -- the rights you have regarding the internet, not any random rights as discussed on the internet. Indeed, why include "online"? It would just be "Your Rights" if it was about any kind of rights.
If it was about rights in general, it would remind me of people who google for "tv listings web site" rather than "tv listings", or call information and ask for "phone number for Joe Schmoe".
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
Mandatory gun laws have also been used in Kennesaw, GA. Crime plummeted after almost everyone was required to keep a gun in their home.
Yes, the real weapons you list and many you didn't are legally owned by a considerable number of Americans, and they don't run around abusing them.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I have two serious questions:
Why are all these people trying to shred the constitution of it's power NOT BEHIND BARS?!
Why are they not at least ON TRIAL?
What the hell is the matter with this country anymore?
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Yes, by killing them.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
But the gun doesn't do anything to protect you and I can't decide if the fact that you think it does do makes you foolish or dangerous.
That's just silly. Here's an experiment for you: walk down a dark street in a dangerous part of time after dark, totally unarmed. Now walk down that same street, waving a gun in your hand.
I think there's a wee bit of difference in the danger level between those two scenerios. And bizarrely -- the gun protected you without it even having to be fired!
See also: Nuclear Weapon Strategy.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Well, "recognized" would be better than either "granted" or "guaranteed".
The problem with "guranteed" is that the way rights are put in the Constitution doesn't guarantee that right; it only restricts the government from acting in a way that infringes the right. In that sense it more resembles a grant with respect to the scope of government action. In a few cases, the rights under the Bill of Rights are grants, for example the right against self-incrimination. There is no right to withhold evidence in a civil suit after all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Parent hits the heart of the topic exactly. Of course in all actuality if guns are outlawed all civilians who will be willing to use them will have them already, but that is neither here nor there.
While it may not be news for nerds, one could argue that it's certainly Stuff that Matters.
You do of course realize that the law in question was passed by Democrats in Washington DC, right?
I'm sure that the ass kicking that the GOP just got and the fact that we're likely to lose the white house in two years is influencing this as well. It's my suspicion that the GOP wants to get more work done so that the Democrats will have to work HARD to undo it and piss off a large base of voters before they can take us any further back than we are today.
In 1994, when Clinton passed the Brady Act and his gun ban it pissed off so many voters that the Demorats lost the House and Senate that fall. Bill Clinton himself acknowledged this in his 1995 state of the union address.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yes, by killing them.
No, by the threat of killing them. Why do you think countries having standing armies, even if there's no war going on? By your logic, the only reason to keep an army is to go out and kill people for absolutely no reason.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I don't recall anything in the constitution about altering and rewriting it. It can be amended to make changes, but the old stuff stays in there, like a revision history. We didn't change the text of the articles concerning voting, we added amendments that expanded the rights of the constitution.
It's an important difference because it lets us see which amendments worked and which ones did not. It lets us see what changes were made in case we want to roll them back.
It is also interesting to note that the only amendment to be repealed was prohibition. It is also the only amendment that takes rights away from the people. Look at how well banning things worked there!
The magic bit is the 10th and the ninth. Gives all rights not reserved to feds or forbidden to states to states or people. The SCOTUS just decided that abortion rights were forbidden to states.
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
"You see, lack of gun ownership is very convenient if you want to build a police state."
You're forgetting the flip-side of that statement: in a country that allows gun ownership, you're expected to be the police. The United States is a country where people are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want to own a gun, but they often want it as a penis extender, not to use it to secure public safety and promote domestic tranquility. Most gun owners still want the police to be around to get their hands dirty.
So presumably in the US, your government is kept in check and hasn't tried to infringe on peoples rights then?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I've lived here for thirty seven years. I don't recall a time, ever, when you could just walk into the UK version of wal-mart and buy a gun. I've never seen a real gun that wasn't held by a police officer at the airport (only seen that once), I've never heard a shot fired, or known anyone who has been shot, or knows anyone whose been shot, or seen a real shot fired.
So this huge rise in gun crime must still be pretty damned minimal. I'll take the UK gun crime rate over the US rate any day.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Following common usage, the framers of the Second Amendment used the phrase "bear arms" to refer to possession of weapons for military use... The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In... the conscientious objector provision, Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing arms" to refer solely to the possession of weapons for military use...
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military activities is echoed in other contemporary usages... Records of debates in the Continental and U.S. Congresses between 1774 and 1821 [include] 30 uses of the phrase "bear arms" or "bearing arms" (other than in discussing the proposed Second Amendment); in every single one of these uses, the phrase has an unambiguously military meaning...
Source: The Second Amendment Foundation
The phrase "the people" is unambiguously defined as individual citizens of the States in the Constitution by virtue of the fact that when the States are being designated, the phrase "the States" or "the several States" is used consistently.
All gun control legislation is geared toward either prohibiting or licensing your right to bear arms.
The government cannot license rights already admitted to be yours by the Constitution and retain legitimacy.
A further point of clarification may be necessary for some:
The Bill of Rights grants no rights to the people nor to the States. The Bill of Rights is a confession and warning on the part of the United States Constitution that central governments such as those it constitutes, have a tendency to take more rights than they have been granted, and enumerates the rights most likely to be stolen by the central government.
Seastead this.
it is amazing that a lot of the people in this country who think the patriot act is trampling our rights, also think that taking away our right to keep and bear arms is going to make things better.
BTW, that's called sarcasm. Since they've banned guns, that catchy NRA slogan has become a reality (if it's a crime to have guns, only criminals will have guns). The UK has the fastest growing rate of gun crimes in all of western civilization.
You should really read the Wikipedia Guns and crime article which largely debunks this:-
"In addition, it is widely claimed that the firearms crime rate in the United Kingdom has massively increased since an almost total ban on handguns in 1997/8, with violent gun crimes, including shootings to death, increasing year on year for over five years despite otherwise declining levels of reported crime levels. (Note however that victimisation levels have reportedly risen as has non-recorded crime due to apathy and lack of police response.) Some claim that this demonstrates a negative correlation between more restrictive gun laws and violent crimes involving firearms.
Such claims, though, overlook a number of other factors in play since the handgun ban, quite apart from the fact that prior to it less than 1% of the population actually owned handguns that were affected by the ban. There were two separate changes in police crime reporting rules (in 1998/99 and 2002/03), both of which had the effect of "adding" offences that would not previously have been included, while the removal of border controls within Europe has also made the illicit movement of firearms from one state to another more easy."
The article further goes on to state, in comparison between Australian gun crime and US:-
"Australia has always had tougher gun laws than the U.S. - despite that country's own frontier history and its cultural similarities to the United States. In 1998, 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the States the number exceeded 1,300. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia."
Elsewhere it notes that even at the so-called "increased gun crime" levels, the UK has had an average of 72 deaths per year since 1998 when the laws were tightened even further. The population of the UK is approximately 60 million, to the USA's 300 million - even taking that into account, the USA has at least four times the level of gun homicide incidents per capita than the UK.
The following data in another article corroborates this (emphasis mine):-
"Despite its high crime rate Britain has a low murder rate per capita, accounting for 853 murders in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics. The UK's population is more than 60 million, which translates into fewer than 1.3 murders per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 population. In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms compared to 6% in the United Kingdom. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York reporting 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 to London's 2.4 per 100,000, also in 2004."
I'm happy to live in a country where I cannot own a gun, and know that I am vastly less likely to get murdered. Gun possession by the general populace grants the illusion of security and a much greater risk of being killed during common domestic incidents, petty criminal action and mundane feuds.
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.
reading it, that says Militia, which most infer to mean the National Guard.
the national Guard was formed by the Militia Act of 1903, well after the 2nd Amendment was passed, so if the Militia mentioned in the Second amendment was the national guard wouldn't it have been created at the same time?
in truth, it was.
USC Code
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311 Prev | Next
311. Militia: composition and classes
(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, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
every single male between the ages of 17 and 45 who is a citizen of the US or intended to become a citizen is the Militia as defined by the second amendment.
if the US military and National guard fail in their duty to defend this country it is up to you to do it.
if you refuse its treason, giving comfort or aid to the enemy and you can either be:
A: be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
B: Put to Death.
if a foreign military is marching down the streets of New York, i doubt were going to bother with the fine and prison term, we will just put a bullet in the back of your head.
The term "miltia" was originally used to describe the body of citizenry eligible to use a weapon for the nations protection. It's usage was simliar to modern usage of the term "electorate" - or anyone who can vote. Words change meaning over time. Being called "ambitious" used to be an insult because it meant a person would do anything to get ahead (think of "ambi" as in ambidextrous"). An ambitious person saw any route as an equal one. Today people use it to mean "industrious". The term "militia" didn't mean an offical army in any discrete sense.
There is some difference between the law and practice in the US. While possessing blow while visiting a prostitute is illegal, prominent video of being arrested doing it is no bar to public office. Generally most people go about their business without much thought to the law, but more to what seems right socially. I think this is because there's just too much law to keep up with in any case.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Do you realize that UK is not the only country where guns are forbiden? (And the US is not the only country where they are allowed).
I haven't lived in the US, so I can't tell how would I feel in a country where guns are allowed. I can tell you, though, how it is living in a country (Spain) where guns are forbidden.
Basically, it is very, very, unusual to hear in the news that someone has been shot in a robbery, burglary... To put it in perspective: if someone gets shot, it usually makes the national news.
That's not to say that the number of crimes commited in Spain is any lower than in the US (although it probably is, but I doubt it has anything to do with gun control), it's just that:
Most robbers or burglars use knives. Yes, they are nearly as dangerous as guns, but the chances of you running away/hidding in a room (if things get ugly), are higher.
Criminals know that you won't have a gun. Yeah, it sucks. Yeah, they are in control and you don't like it. But let's admit it, they want the money. If they know that they are in control, there's a much lower chance that they'll get nervous and shot at you if you make a suspicios movement. Moreover, you don't have a gun, so the chances of you suddenly wanting to be a hero are also lower.
Do I think that banning guns in the US will reduce the criminality? No
Do I think that banning guns in the US would reduce the number of deaths? Yes
And going back to the UK. I don't really know what's wrong with them, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with gun control (for good or for worse). And I don't want to think what some teenagers would do if they could get guns easily (I have family in the UK, BTW).
Gun deaths and gun crimes are distinct, even though they are not mutually exclusive. You cite statistics related to gun deaths, but some number of those deaths will not be crime-related and many crimes involving guns do not result in death. So, in the context of gun-related crimes the cited statistics are meaningless.
It is meangingful to discuss an increase in gun-related crime rates in the U.K. If removing guns was effective at reducing crime, we should see a reduction in rates when guns are removed. Where we see an increase it indicates at best that removing guns was ineffective and at worst that removing the guns resulted in more crime. This is true regardless of the absolute numbers, since our rate is comparing one set of absolute numbers to the same set from another time period.
No, by my logic, the only reason to keep an army is to kill people, full stop. There are plenty of reasons for doing so, they just tend to be nefarious, and only serve the interests of the topmost strata of society. To the people whom these armies represent, yes, it looks like it is for "absolutely no reason."
Countries keep standing armies to intimidate (a) their own people (as in most developing countries, dictatorships, etc.), and (b) other countries' forces.
And both on the individual level with handguns, and on the state level with militaries, it only leads to an arms race, where people who want to do damage simply invest in bigger guns and better armour.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I think the past six years of Bush/Republican rule have shown the importance of this statement. If you want to defend your freedoms, you must be able to do it yourself for the politicians certainly have no interest in doing so.
The most cursoury glimps of any of the papers from the founders one can tell it was meant for people to bear arms, and not just for a military.
But lets look at the actual text:
"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."
No where does it say to protect us just from other countries. To ahve a frees tate the people must be armed, and this means freedom from ones own government as well. Even further it include freedon from having someone infringe your rights by coming into your home, assaulting you, or any numerious ways to protect yourself.
The second amendment is about arms, not guns. This means any weapon.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I own guns. I routinely (if not as often as I would like) fire guns. I have taken the California mandated Hunters Safety course. I have killed animals and consumed them, both of which have been in a much more
"humane" manner than something you would get at your local burger/chicken joint. I have been in the presence of more guns than you have apparently seen in your life, and I have never once seen gun violence against a human being nor heard of any person whom I had personally met be injured by guns.
I have, on the other hand, heard firsthand stories of three major incidents of ATV injuries, both intentional and unintentional. I realize this has minimal amounts to do with crime, but that was in the last year alone and should give you a point of reference. Your "I haven't seen it so it must not be there" statement scares me because you believe it to be true. When it does become a problem, when someone breaks into your home, what will you do? I will be trained, armed, and ready. Let us hope that that day never comes for either of us, but given the state of the world from the first tribe vs. tribe dispute until present day, it is in fact simply hope. I am not trying to tug at heartstrings, I am trying to give you my perspective. There is a rather nice post at the top of this article that describes the actual numbers in quite a bit of detail.
Our society considers it right and proper for everyone to carry a device designed to defend against other people killing us.
No, actually the device is designed to cause grievous harm to people or objects it's aimed at, possibly fatal if aimed appropriately for that purpose. A device designed to "defend against" people killing me would be a device that has no effect other than to neutralize an incoming attack. If someone develops the personal force field (ala Dune), and I carry it to avoid people killing me with firearms, I can't suddenly go after someone with it and kill them. OK, maybe I can, but I can suddenly go after someone with a hairbrush and kill them with it too, but it wasn't designed for that, and you've got to be a bit ingenious to pull it off.
A gun is not a defensive weapon. There are no defensive weapons, because weapons are designed to harm/kill by definition. The only defense anyone gets from owning a weapon, is from the mutually assured destruction principle, just on a smaller scale than the nukes we're used to that principle being applied to. Even land mines, which theoretically do not detonate unless someone moves to attack you, end up being an attack on the people in general when the conflict they were employed in is over, and you get farmers or hikers blowing themselves up just by tilling the land or going for a healthy stroll.
I support the right of gun ownership. I own none, but this country is getting to the point where I'm considering getting one, despite my SO's hatred of them. However, I think the people like you, that claim that owning a firearm is simply for defense and not for killing anyone are either ignorant or lying. If I end up purchasing a gun, it will be because I might be forced to kill someone before they can kill me, not so I can magically block the attacks of other people against me like I'm in some video game.
In Australia they did this; taking away millions of guns for hundreds of millions of dollars. What do ya know? Only criminals had guns. Who woulda guessed?
Of course, with such heros as Castro, Stalin, and well, every enemy America has ever had (especially if he kills his own) the Liberals LOVE the idea of doing the same, to us.
This isn't rhetoric; this is proven fact- Jane Fonda on the AA guns of the North Vietnamese, Ed Asner's idolitry of Stalin in a recent quote "He kept such good order!" and every cocktail party where Castro is missed. The party which they now occupy has a former KKK member....but no one ever seems to think about these things.
Only Homer Simpson votes Democratic these days...and take a guess which party will push the remove-all-guns idea? It ain't the Republicans.
Think people, THINK. Don't let the TV do it. Politics is more than headlines.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
... with that pedestrian death statistic. First, pedestrian deaths are always due to automobile mis-use (either accidental or intentional). Well, there may be one or two incidents of fatal falls taken by the very old per year, but they dont really change the stats.
So, those deaths should be chalked up with cars. Add to that the rest of the deaths caused by cars. Compare the number with deaths caused by guns.
Now, ask yourself what could happen if politicians really start paying attention to the numbers? Do you think they don't know about this stuff? I think it's pretty clear that they're focusing on guns because even slightly restricting cars in the USA is politically impossible.
Heck, they can't even get people to drive at a reasonable speed.
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
but you realise its just an arms race right? If someone breaks into your house, they will probably have a gun. if someone breaks into my house, they probably won't. In my case, arguabley its whoever punches hardest wins. In your case, its whoever shoots first. As the burglar is picking his moment, and your gun isn't always in your hands, I doubt you get first shot.
Worst likely case for me is I get knocked out and robbed. Worst likely case for you is a bullet through your head (plus robbery)
I'm not saying there is no gun crime in the UK, there is *some* gun crime everywhere on earth. last time I checked, we had way less gun crime per capita than the USA, and I'm happy with that.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Tell me about it, damn slow drivers always getting in my way.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
If you are trying to be honest with statistics, then include all violent crime deaths, not just gun deaths. A decrease in gun deaths that is more than made up for by an increase in knife and bomb deaths is not an improvement. In the end you are still dead.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
I am sick of my country being dragged into every god damn argument about guns in the USA. Misrepresenting our country, history and laws to justify your own sick obsession with handguns. Leave us out of it. Why not pick on an other country with gun controls? There are many but I guess you have difficulty misrepresenting their statistics for your own ends. That and they use one of those weird foreign languages.
"And they were much lower a few decades ago when anyone could buy a gun over the counter, no questions asked, and anyone with $2.50 to spare could buy a license to carry it in public."
Correlation and causation are not your strong points are they. The fact that even when it was easier to own firearms in the UK hardly anyone did makes your argument utterly ridiculous. The recent rapid increase in gun crime has gone hand in hand with the increase in popularity of US 'culture' (I use that term in the loosest possible sense obviously). I think that is more likely to have something to do with our increase in gun crime than these phantom guns people had all those decades ago.
We are so not turning into a police state. Stop getting your UK news from our gutter tabloids or your own piss poor popular media. Our police are much better regulated and trained than your own and they get away with far less crap. Licence to exist cards? Jesus Christ! As much as I am against ID cards your reaction to them just shows just how paranoid you are. And the CCTV camera big brother thing is just getting old. If you think the shitty black and white or grainy colour cameras the police use to watch for crowd trouble or identify criminals already caught as being at the scene of the crime can be used to track every one in the UK you are deluded. Not only that the local and central government divide is completely forgotten by Americans.
The poster you were replying to was spot on. If the UK has 1 gun murder in 2005 and 2 in 2006 that is a 100% increase. If the US has 100 gun crimes a year in 2005 and 101 in 2006 that is a 1% increase. Saying that gun crime is out of control in the UK because it has had a greater increase over the year in the example is idiotic.
Personally I think gun ownership in the USA should be completely freed up from all regulation. That way you can get back to shooting each other (your national pass time I believe) and leave the rest of the world alone.
That whole "the police aren't obligated to protect you, but you can't take the law into your own hands either" thing.
-- Will program for bandwidth
knowing that the right to a national guard is forever enshrined as a God given right.... This "they mean a national guard" argument is about the stupidest argument on either side. It's the constitution and the bill of rights. Think about it.
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Maybe it's just an American thing, but the idea of being forced by my country's laws to bend over and take it from any criminal who wants me to makes me want to throw up. I'd rather live with a higher death rate knowing that some of those deaths were of the criminal and others were on nonemasculated real men (and our countries are in the same ballpark for overall violent death rates btw).
Not to mention that the entire point of the 2nd amendment is conscription, so petty crime is a moot argument to begin with.
That's something the British used to believe. In fact, our belief in individual rights is based loosely on the British concept of rights and freedom (we revolted against your government because we were refused the same rights as any other British citizen). Alas, you have let your government take it away. It used to be considered an inherent right of a freeman to bear arms in your country. In fact, that was your badge of honor and solemn duty when you became a freeman.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Home intruders do not want to die. If I can own a gun, chances are someone will only break into my house when I'm not at home and then only to steal my stuff. Someone meaning to do my family harm might work up the courage to break into my house while I am there, but I will have the gun to defend myself.
Take away my gun and the criminal does not have to worry about being shot. He can now break into my house at any time, including when people are home. If he was only there to steal, well, he may decide to do more once he realizes the power he has over my family. If he intends to do me or my family harm, I will not have the gun to defend myself. So, if he brings a gun, he is in complete control the minute he enters.
Taking away my gun makes home intrusion (and worse) more likely at the same time it reduces my ability to defend my home.
A burglar will have a difficult time "picking his moment" if you restrict the information that leaves your house. We always leave lights and other devices on and even have some on timers, so it is impossible to tell whether someone is awake or asleep. When the burglar does pick his moment, he's going to have to make any noise while breaking a window or chain lock to gain entry. Then he's going to have to get to where I am without making any noise. And if he is just there to burgle, he's probably not going to go into the bedrooms anyway, for fear of being shot.
It would really be helpful if the current government would take away all of your guns. Once we have programmed all the electronic voting machines to put Steve Ballmer into the White House, it will be much easier to round up all you Linux-spreading terrorists.
Place nail here >+
You should own guns because there are bad people with guns who may use them against you. If you have a gun, you have the option to fight them. If you don't have a gun, you are at their mercy.
Gun laws are not effective in reducing bad people's access to guns. Many, if not most, bad people aren't supposed to have guns anyway because of previous bad behavior. Banning guns has no effect on them.
Private citizens in the USA have always had guns. This is a defining characteristic of the USA. It is a big deal. Mao knew what he was talking about when he said all power flows from the barrel of a gun. This is why it is best to distribute this power.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
The gov abandoned the idea of a state regulated militia in favor of a federally regulated national guard. If the right to bear arms only applies to a state regulated militia, then we lost our right to bear arms many years ago. If the DoJ interpretation of the 2nd amendment stands, then we still have it.
I don't think the Congress can "redefine" the militia away. If "militia" referred to private citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution then that should still apply until there is an amendment to the Constitution.
You make a huge assumption by suggesting that folks in favor of the Second Amendment are also in favor of the Patriot Act. I suggest (with little more evidence than you have for your position) that you are very wrong. I'm an NRA member, and anecdotally speaking, most members I talk to are quite concerned about (and opposed to parts of) the Patriot Act.
you quote and quote from Jefferson, and then demonize the left? Have you the brain worms!?
His ideal world was a communist anarchy, for crying out loud.
You can't take the sky from me...
It's obvious the original intent of the Founders had nothing to do with weapons. They wanted to outlaw the practice of removing people's arms for sport. A bunch of citizens running around with no arms is a bunch of unproductive citizens.
By the way, I find all of you armchair constitutional scholars amusing.
What?
Article I, Section 8 (in part):
The Congress shall have power . . .
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. . . .
Amendment XIV (in part):
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Congress has the exclusive power to organize the militias, NOT the states. Additionally, states cannot abridge Constitutional rights or powers. Aw, shucks!
I have the right to bear a AK47 (AK47 is arms) and defend this country against terrorist threats. This including busting a cap in Bin Ladens ass and put a bullet between his eyes.
And I have the right to defend myself against a oppressive and corrupt government. FYI, thats another purpose behind 2nd Amendment. The People have the right to form a militia to protect itself from oppressive forces of the government.
\
Um, you do realize that canada has a HIGHER gun / person ratio than the U.S.A right? just because there is thousands of times less murder in canada than in the U.S. doesn't mean that there are less guns. Last i heard, in "Bowling for Columbine" there where as many or MORE guns in canada than there were people.
Unless something has changed since then anyways.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
But the people who founded the US were terrified of having one. The Federalist Papers try to reassure people who opposed the Constitution because it might permit a standing army. Their fears are why the Constitution restricts military appropriations to a two-year term and leaves raising armies in the hands of Congress, not the executive.
The way things used to work was that when an army was needed, civilians with their own weapons would enter service as an amateur army, in both senses of the word. They didn't do that well compared to regulars, even then. Mark Twain wrote about someone's face being "as blank as the target after a militia shooting-match". But it is hard to tyrannize the people if they are your armed forces.
If think you need to spend more time away from the TV and more on the range ;-), your faith in the AK is overblown. You are a little too quick to dismiss the humble deer rifle.
Hunting rifles and ammo are deadlier than military rifles and ammo, Hunting ammo is designed to expand as it passes through tissue. The ammo used by hunters would result in a war crime if used by the military.
The difference between some deer rifles and some military rifles is largely cosmetic. A semiautomatic deer rifle may use the same ammo as the M16, but comes with a 5-round magazine rather than a 30-round magazine. The US Marine Corps M16A2 rifle abandons fully automatic operation and operates in a semiautomatic or a 3-round burst mode. Holding down that trigger as you say does little more than waste ammo and make noise, and Marines prefer to hit their targets. So. put a 30-round magazine, a simple sheet metal box, in the deer rifle and how does it differ from the M16A2. Well one round rather than three, sometimes, and well it has a wood look rather than an all black look. Oh, can't forget the bayonet lug, no bayonet for the deer rifle.
Regarding specialized rifles such as sniper rifles, the differences between bolt action hunting rifles and the more common lower end of the military spectrum is one of a heavier barrel and fine tuning. Nothing really beyond the reach of most civilian gunsmiths. The Remington Model 700 comes in deer rifle, police sniper, and military sniper variants. During Viet Nam many snipers literally carried civilian hunting rifles. I think some current units in Iraq may have "augmented" themselves with a Remington Model 700 from Walmart as well.
And how is this correct?
f ileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144
... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
You cannot state it by fiat - try addressing the errors pointed out by many here - especially in case law, and in the fundamental reading of the Amendment itself:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&
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.
Note the PROPER punctional at the Library of Congress - the extra commans after "Militia" and after "Arms" are rmoved, as they are absent in the proper rendering of the Amendment (LOC is authoritative on this).
Now its obvious that "milita" has to do with the security of a free state - but the "rights of the people..." are clearly what "shall not be infringed". Obvious.
As for "well regulated" - the proper meaning is from its usage at the time of the amendment:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. That means for a militia, each individual is properly armed. And further in the Constitution, "militia" back then meant what we mean now by "citizenry"
So where do you see the DC lawyers being a "correcct" reading - it blatently contravenes the quite obvious meaning of the law as written. So no - as I have pointed out (and you lack any presentment of evidence to back up your bald assumption) their reading is NOT a "correct" reading at all - its egregiously wrong. And so is your assumption absent any proof to the contrary.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Organized and unorganzied have nothing to do with "regulated". "Organized" just means they are part of regularly established units (ie. the National Guard - see 10 U.S.C. 311). The unorganized militia, if it ever was called out to act as a militia, would still be expected to follow regulated discipline established by law. "Well Regulated" does not negate private ownership of arms. It referes to the power of the Congress and State Legislature to proscribe the discipline and lawful purposes of the miltia (See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) . That is what differentiates a militia from an armed mob. Both can be privately (self) armed. How they act once assembled is the difference. If they act contrary to law and discipline (i.e. contrary to the Well Regulated part), then they are an armed mob.
What is most telling in respect to private ownership, is that the 2nd Amendment has never been interpreted as demanding anything but a right to private ownership, until the gun-control craze started in the last 30 years. That indicates that somebody is coming up with new and novel interpretations of the constitution in order to justify their new-fangled (unconstitutional) ideas. The construct in the 2nd amendment, "the right of the people", is exactly the same as the 4th amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures") and the 4th is clearly an indivdual right. Interpreting the 2nd Amendment to refere to a "collective" right is clearly rank revisionism.
If you think this should be differenct, then please use the democratic process to amend it. Please don't use unelected judges to "interpret" the constitution in new ways contrary to historical understanding. If the written words have no fixed meaning and you can "interpret" them to mean anything you like (even the opposite of historical understanding), then there is no point to having a written constitution.
So... you're implying that the he likes to kill people? Do you honestly believe this?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
In Morton Grove, 2 of 3 federal judges decided:r son and the dissents in silveira.c onlaw/quilici2.html
a) that the state constitutional right to bear arms has weasel words tha tmake it unenforceable. (textually, they were right.)
b) that only the supreme court has the authority to decide whether the second amendment is incorporated to the states, an issue which it has not revisited in 120 years, at a time when the first amendment was also not recognized as applying to the states.
The rest of the opinion is just blather, "dicta",and is not the holding of the case.
In the dicta, the court does get wrong Miller v US, which holds that before dismissing a case against a guy with a sawed-off shotgun, a hearing should be held to see if the shotgun is a militia weapon. (It is, as was shown by the use of the sawed-off shotgun against the Huk, Phillipene insurgents.) The Morton Grove court didn't understand that a pistol is a militia weapon - it is.
For a better case on the role of the Second Amendment in the states, see Emerson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silveira_v._Lockyer.
DC, however, is not in the states, so the second amendment issue is raised more directly.
Morton Grove's dissent might also be worth noting.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/
I'd rather live. I might die for an ideal, and I would certainly defend my family and friends with my life. But I would not die trying to stop someone from stealing my TV. Of course, it depends on the level of criminality in your country (I don't know how much of a problem robbers and burglars are in the US). Here in Spain it's low, and a gun wouldn't make much of a difference.
;).
P.S. I do think that petty crime is an argument. At least, it's the argument of those in favour of gun control (or that's what I thought). The 2nd amendment is not relevant in this time and age, and gun control would lower the number of deaths in the US.
But hey, it's your country. As long as you don't invade Spain, and don't shoot turists, you can keep your guns
The real question then becomes: if you're going to try an equalise incomes how you still incent people to work harder... what is the right balance between equalising incomes to decrease crime, but still make it worth people's while to work their capital...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Well, "stuff that matters" is also in the tagline. Nerds can be interested in many things -- that is part of being a nerd in some ways -- you know, developing a large understanding of a number of intellectual topics.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
>yu're going to become a terroris
Our founding fathers were terrorists, at least by our definitions, and we consider them heroes. (rightlfully so)
"Terrorist" is one of those overloaded terms that means many things in many circumstances... you just can't confer one meaning upon the other.
If you want talk about "terrorists", you have to do so in context, and that context has to be pretty clear or else you end up arguing against many things we wouldn't want to argue against.
Iraq is free? When did that happen?
Last I checked, they were hosting an occupying army and that up to 650,000 Iraqis were dead.
"Lame" - Galaxar
>that claim that owning a firearm is simply for defense and not for killing anyone are either ignorant or lying.
Perhaps his intention is to only use it for defense? He never said that anyone owning a firearm is for defense... just referring to himself
>If I end up purchasing a gun, it will be because I might be forced to kill someone before they can kill me,
Which would be defense. Killing your attacker just happens to be one type of defense. I, and most people, make a clear distinction between defensive killing and other killing. When people speak of killing in general, they usually refer to non-defensive killing. (Was the comandment, "thou shalt not kill", or "thou shalt not murder"? big difference)
>not so I can magically block the attacks of other people against me like I'm in some video game.
One of the scariest things for a burglar to hear is the sound of shotgun being cocked. That sound alone (maybe along with the sight of the shotgun) has repelled many a ne'er-do-well. Yes, it 's mutually assured destruction, survival of the fittest sort of thing... but when you boil it down, that's what you're left wth when someond else decides to flout the conventions of society in that sort of way.
Your government has done an excellent job of getting you to believe their bullshit.
Equating guns with drugs is fairly standard propaganda. You swallowed it whole.
-- Will program for bandwidth
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms." So America's founding fathers thought it necessary to make sure that future governments didn't prohibit their militaries from having weapons? Could someone please explain to me why they would consider this a) a threat to our liberties and b) a possible scenario. "Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?" If a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to our security, the second amendment asserts that we are not a free state. I might say this is an argument for shrinking the size of the military. On a side note, I think we should amend the 2nd amendment to allow exceptions to be made in cases where one individual having a weapon is a significant threat to a large number of others - WMDs and so forth. Presently, banning such *is* a violation of the 2nd amendment - one we tolerate, because it makes so much sense. If it makes so much sense, however, certainly amending the law of the land is a more proper response than ignoring it.
There's no obsession with handguns in america? He couldn't be "more wrong?" Are we living in the same country? What percentage of movies that we produce *don't* have a gun in them at some point? ...there's other facets of *freedom* than simply owning guns.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
IMHO they promote and encourage *mass* creation ASAP of "well regulated militias" in USA.
Are they *crazy*?!
Sigh. Can those who believe that guns can protect from internal movement into tyranny please state somewhere the point at which they themselves will turn to the gun to defend their freedoms? And please suggest what targets they will shoot at first? That way, when the government crosses that line, we can go have a look and see who's doing the shooting...
The thing is, guns are no protection from tyranny because they are only a method by which such regimes may be opposed. And they certainly aren't the only method. The trick by which all dictatorships have prospered is by manipulating the desires of their populace so that at no stage does change happy quickly and dramatically enough to enough people that folks are going to do something about it. They always ensure that a majority of the populace are loyal, and so, even if they had weapons, they'd be shooting each other instead of at them.
You underestimate the will to live. There is a large difference between "probably does not have a gun" and "definitely does not have a gun", especially when the criminal has a gun.
I'd be willing to bet that the high incidence of gun crime in the USA is mostly due to inner-city gang/drug related homicide, probably due to the "war on drugs." As such, I'm not sure that you can blame US gun violence on liberal gun laws.
If you live in the US, you can see that the government is scared shitless of doing direct harm to the people. That's the way it should be. American people, on the other hand, don't give a damn about their government doing harm to other countries and peoples. Less educated folks are gullible like children, they believe everything that is shown on TV. There's still a difference between tricking folks into believing that ridiculous things are being done for their own good and just doing things without asking, tricking or explaining, Politburo style.
I'm not saying there is no gun crime in the UK, there is *some* gun crime everywhere on earth. last time I checked, we had way less gun crime per capita than the USA, and I'm happy with that.
How's your violent crime, then? Our gun crime isn't really all that bad - once you factor out suicides and drug dealers shooting each other (stay out of the ghetto), it's really low. You could come here and never see a gun that wasn't at a gun range.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
News flash: just because you're protected from the federal government doing something to you, doesn't mean you're protected from the state government doing something to you.
The Bill of Rights, as originally drafted, were only restrictions on the federal government. Many states had their own established churches, for instance. This was perfectly allowed under the First Amendment; after all, it wasn't the federal Congress that was establishing a religion, but a state Congress.
After the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which declared that certain protections from federal government also applied to the states. Suddenly, all the state-sanctioned churches lost their government funding. State police were no longer allowed to search without warrants. States were forbidden from instituting cruel and unusual punishment. Etcetera.
But, interestingly enough, the Second Amendment has never been held by SCOTUS to be part of the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation effect. That means that any state or municipality can pass essentially any firearms law it wants, and still be on the right side of the Second Amendment fence.
"You must be a big fan of the total banning of guns in the UK"
Guns were never banned in the uk, "Score 5, Informative" I think clueless would be better.
1. If the U.S. founders and revolutionary army had put their fate in the hands of protest songs and peaceful sit-ins rather than armed rebellion, we might very well today still be paying our taxes to the U.K.
2. Iraq is a vivid demonstration of the effectiveness of armed citizen resistance. The Iraqi people are better armed than us.
I strongly support liberal social programs, but when it comes to certain essential personal freedoms I find they are hypocritical cowards.
Western liberals have developed a false sense of security through years of living under impotent administrations permitting open dissent and demonstration. They take this for granted, believing their disssent and peaceful demonstration have secured their rights.
In reality, we are always one election cycle away from tyranny.
Bush is no tyrant (*shock*, but hey, this is Slashdot). In fact he's downright moderate compared to some past wartime administrations. But if you doubt the difference a single election cycle can make, look no further than the 2000 elections. Had a statewide recount been conducted in Florida - had all the votes been counted - the world today would be a very different place.
Think long and hard before you give up the guaranteer of your liberty. Once you have, it is too late.
The good news is that since the irrational have created most of the world's problems, and are a primary component of the planetary overpopulation, the problem should eventually correct itself. It generally has, in the past. Mind you, it usually took with it most of civilization, but Slashdot keeps archives so we can recover fairly quickly.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
it's kind of difficult to mow someone down with a car and get away with it. Even with that, I don't exactly trust other people not to mow me down with their car. That's why I'm a very careful pedestrian.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
I think you just described their platform.
Libertas in infinitum
The 2nd is very, very relevant in this day and age, for the purposes of conscription. The fact that there exists an armed populace in the US comes into play in every single government decision involving the use of force. The arguments against the futility of the direct use of force against the standing US military are NOT new and unique to our "day and age". They were directly addressed by Jefferson in the federalist papers which outline the debate for the 2nd amendment in the first place.
It was admitted, even prior to the drafting, that self armed civilians could never directly overthrow the US government. The people arguing that such a thing is possible are simply ignorant, willfully or not, of the reality of the outcome of such tactics. Even during the formation of the US, it was a simple reality that small arms troops, no matter how overwhelming, cannot, ever, compete with a modest force that brings sufficient artillery to the field (as Pickett's famous charge at Gettysburg so graphically demonstrated). As the civilian conscripts will never amass an artillery, or it's modern equivelent including air power, capable of competing with the federal army, it's a forgone conclusion who would win, in any post gunpowder time period.
That being said, it does not render an armed populace obsolete. The point of an armed populace is that it is prohibitively expensive to use non overwhelming force against the populace. In other words, a small armed police force is not going to be able to contain a population center against their will unresisted. They must bring in the big guns in order to do so, and in doing so, they are making an overt military move against their own people. Whereas a small police occupation with little or no loss of life can be swept under the rug, any large movement against a populace is going to have very dire concequences for the initiating government. Asking the military to attack, in force, their own homes is a VERY dangerous proposition and invites a coup d'etat, splintering the military into factions. Under these conditions, the armed populace can then be conscripted to protect their homes and family and will fight alongside the regular army, as well as serve as a supply source. The oppressive government, under those conditions wouldn't have a chance.
This is not to say that such a scenario is very realistic... the fact being that it would never get that far. The government, understanding the expense and futility of such a scenario, would (one would hope) never initiate such force in the first place, instead opting to get it's way through the regular channels of congress and the courts, where the people have an opportunity to reject their oppressors through open debate, impeachment and voting instead of bullets.
Giving some modern examples of armed populace deterence to illustrate that such an expense is obsolete:
The fall of the soviet union was performed by the army factioning to such an extent that reconstructing the government according to the wishes of the factions that were backed by the people was the only non suicidal option.
Although the frontal assault against Iraq was performed with little resistance, it has proven EXTREMELY expensive to continue occupation in the midst of guerrila skirmishers. Whether the occupation is good or bad is beside my point, the point I am drawing attention to is that the armed populace is proving more effective, in terms of making it expensive for the occupation, than the regular army was capable of doing, because fighting embedded populace is is extremely difficult because it precludes the use of overwhelming force, as I said above.
In Waco Texas, the Branch Dividian sect shook up the entire country. The Federal Government rolled out tanks for the first time in history against their own citizens. Had these people been unarmed, it wouldn't hardly have been a story and injustices would have likely been swept under the rug. Because they were armed, the actions of the government were scrutinized careful
..so you think everyone in an office building should be armed at all times?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
His comment about the Peace Arch. That is located between British Columbia and Washington State.
He's saying that the USA is part of South America.
My mom says I'm cool.
Firearm ownership rights, on the federal level, have not deteriorated at all.
Importation rights sure have been affected...
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/071305openletter.htm
ATF will no longer approve ATF Form 6 applications for importation of any frames, receivers, or barrels for firearms that would be prohibited from importation if assembled. No exceptions to the statutory language, for example for "repair or replacement" of existing firearms, will be allowed.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The table with gun-related deaths statistics that you link to does not prove that total gun ban in the UK works.
The Netherlands, where gun ownership IS LEGAL, is on the bottom of the list with 0.7 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, very close to England's 0.45 (compare that to USA's 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people).
--
"How does this follow? What are you basing this assertion on?"
The federal constitution gives the president the right to command the militia to suppress insurrection and enforce the law. State and federal law in the Eighteenth Century took the view of not just "allowing" all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 to be in the militia, but laws such as the Militia Act of 1792 actually required all such freemen to have a rifle or a musket, a bayonette, and a minimum number of prepared cartridges, all in the name of using those weapons to support the state and/or federal governments. The states that ratified the federal constitution (and the subesquent Second Amendment) had things to say like (emphasis mine) "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and of their own State, or of the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals" (Pennsylvania ratifying convention).
But in general, one of the basic principles in the Declaration of Independence (and expanded upon in the Federalist Papers) is the right of a just state to exist and to defend itself, and of the duty of people in a republic (as well as states in a federation) to support said government.
It just doesn't follow for a republican government to duly enact a law and then expect neither a separate police power nor a posse comitatus to enforce that law. Otherwise what you would have us call "law" is merely "suggestion."
"Wait a second here. I would accept without proof that "some" people exhibit this behavior. But "most?" On what do you base that?"
The National Rifle Association repeats loudly and often that they are the largest constituant organization repesenting the interests of gun owners, and they neither seek the abolishment of police power outright, nor even the repeal of existing gun laws; their main goal is maintaining the status quo. This large lobbying group instead focuses solely on gun ownership while maintaining the shockingly low number of legal responsibilities for gun owners (or dealers or manufacturers), in stark contrast to their adopted their Minuteman icon, who reached for his rifle to fulfil his civic duty to defend his free state.
Now, if you wish to claim that the NRA does not rerpesent most gunowers, I accept that it is debatable, but certainly they represesnt most of the outspoken gunowners.
I also find it curoius how the relatively small number of "blue states," whose people tend to support more restrictive laws on gun ownership, tend to be over-represented in the list of 21 states that maintain at least some modicum of an independent state militia. Of the eighteen states that voted for John Kerry in 2004, ten of them are on that list. There seems to be a correlation between most of the people in the state supporting a minimum of gun ownership restrictions and a desire of those same people to rely solely on federal forces and dually-enlisted National Guard members for defense of the state in times of emergency.
Well I can't decide whether my question is half-funny or half-serious. Will (or does) the US's Second Amendment ever apply in space? I'm wondering what the policy is for having firearms aboard the ISS? And the proposed Moon Base? Being a supposed international effort, surely the americans will want some form of protection and security there, and since they'll undoubtably be funding the majority of it they'll have the running of it it their way, under their laws. I'm not an american by the way.
It's the asshats who claim that ...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, who are the entire problem here. Just who are "the people". And why aren't they the very same "the people" who are mentioned 3 other places in the Constitution?
Also, why do they want to take my guns away? I'd rather not find out.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Expanding on my last paragraph, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave us the spectacle of "mandatory trigger locks" Maryland deploying the Maryland Defense Force to assist "sportsman's paradse" Louisiana, which maintains no such organization. If that doesn't show that the classical militia ethos of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries is wholly divorced from the debate over gun ownership, I'm not sure what will.
It has been proven repeatedly - regardless of the Supreme Court's views - by the people who WROTE the Constitution that this is an individual right that applies to all citizens (male citizens, anyway, given the Founder's sexism at the time.)
Besides, who cares? You want to start another black market - this time in guns? Go right ahead. People who want to be armed will BE armed, regardless of what you do.
You couldn't stop drugs coming into the country, feel free to try to stop guns.
Suckers.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Not necessarily, but I don't think it's the government's job to decide.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
your gun crime is LOW?_ percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir
hmmm
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Think again. you appear to have *twenty seven* times as many firearms murders as the UK. So it seems that despite all the arguments about how you can defend yourselves better, in practice, you are way more likely to be shot.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I've considered submitting this as an "Ask Slashdot" article, but I may as well post it here.
Given how our country (especially the Executive branch, though Congress hasn't done well either) has been violating the laws and the constitution, and various other abuses (patent/copyrights, etc.), I've been trying to think of ways to amend the constitution that might do some good. I understand that constitutional amendments are of little use when the government ignores the constitution, but it's the best I can think of. Here are my ideas, in very rough form. I'd love to get some feedback...
1. Clause 1: No corporation, profitable organization, or agent thereof may lobby an elected official; or contribute monetary funds, or other gifts or services beyond those which are available to the general public.
Clause 2: No elected or appointed official may accept gifts (including services), except from individuals who are friends or family, and could not gain disproportionately from the official's duties. [Badly worded, I know... intended as strict anti-bribery.]
2. Congress may pass no law to serve or benefit corporations above citizens, or to insure or support a corporate organization or business. The terms of copyrights and patents are restricted to not more than 20 years. Copyrights and patents shall be further restricted to apply only to public distribution for commercial purposes.
3. The rights of the people shall have precedence over the rights of public corporations or businesses.
Clause 1: Corporations and business are not guaranteed the same rights as people.
Clause 2: Criminal misconduct or infringement of civil rights by corporations shall result in personal criminal liability.
Clause 3: Corporate organizations have no right to avoid self-incrimination.
4. (Anti-secrecy amendment)
Clause 1. Congress shall be kept informed of all governmental programs which are classified or otherwise not disclosed to the public.
Clause 2. Briefings to congress shall include full disclosure of all program details to at least the entire congressional oversight committee. All political parties which have representation in Congress shall be allowed a member on each oversight committee.
Clause 3. No legal proceedings shall be halted by state secrets or due to classified evidence. Superior or Supreme court judges can subpoena and review any secret material in a closed court. The determination that evidence is a secret of the state shall not prevent timely justice.
Clause 4. No secret evidence may be used in any legal proceeding, nor may secret evidence be introduced without full disclosure to all parties.
5. Clause 1: The presidency is limited to one term not to exceed four years.
Clause 2: Senators are limited to not more than 2 terms in office.
Clause 3: Representatives are limited to not more than 4 terms in office.
6. Possee Comitatus: military force may not be deployed for combat, peacekeeping, policing, or any other armed or non-humanitarian duty within the borders of the United States, except for defense against a military threat from a foreign people or government.
[Note: this precludes the use of military weaponry by non-military personnel, i.e. SWAT teams. Military force can be defined as the use of weaponry or equipment not legally available to civilians.]
7. No military force shall be deployed for combat duty outside the United States without a declaration of war by Congress.
8. Citizens and non-citizen residents are guaranteed the right of privacy; and own their private data and information, and may control the dissemination thereof.
9. All bills or articles introduced in Congress must address only a single subject and purpose. Riders are not allowed.
10. Clause 1: An individual's right to obtain, possess, and openly carry arms, including personal firearms, on public lands or their private property shall not be restricted, infringed, or abridged, except by due process of law for people
The second amendment has very little to do with "self defense" from crime, or anything like that.
The second amendment is to protect us from 2 things:
1) In the event of foreign invasion, the populace has the means to effectively fight.
2) In the event of a tyrannical (read Bush Administration) government the populace has the ability to overthrow the government.
The liberals arguing for gun control have been staring at the best reason to allow people to own guns for the last 6 years.
Anyone who argues that our liberties have been unduly restricted, infringed or otherwise violated should be 100% in favor of gun ownership.
It is there to give us the means to insure our liberties. It is the final check/balance provided by our constitution. If it all starts to go to hell, well we can revolt and at least have a fighting chance of winning. Without guns, that right is effectively revoked.
If the intent of the second amendment was just for the government to be able to arm the military, why's there a second amendment? Every other amendment in the bill of rights is about protecting liberties from the government. For example the forth amendment isn't what allows the government to search someone, it places limits on how they may do so. So why if all the other amendments are about ensuring the people have rights that the government can't mess with would the second be the one that's different?
That's the big problem that I have with the line of logic that the second amendment means the military. It's inconsistent with the rest of the bill of rights. The founders seemed to understand that government had the ability to give itself the right to do what it wants. The bill of rights was all about limiting that. Yes the government could pass a law allowing them to search your house, but only under certain circumstances and no, they couldn't pass a law saying you weren't free to speak your mind.
So it seems rather inconceivable that they'd say "Hey in with this list of rights for the people, let's stick in a right for the government to arm the military. In fact, let's make it #2 on the list."
That's not to say you can't argue that the second amendment is antiquated and should be gotten rid of, we have eliminated amendments in the past (prohibition) we could do so again. However if that's what you want, that's how you need to argue. You can't try and twist it and say "Well even though all the other amendments are protections of people's rights, and even though there's a great deal of literature from the time on the subject, I'm pretty sure the second amendment was only intended to apply to the military." That's talking nonsense. Clearly the second amendment was meant to apply to citizens, just as the first is. If you want to get rid of it, ok then that's a point for discussion but don't try and change what it is.
Imagine if someone tried that with the eighth. If someone claimed that it wasn't meant to apply to individuals, but only to the government. That what it meant was that the government wasn't REQUIRED to impose excessive bail or inflict cruel punishments, but that they could if they wanted. That this was really protecting the government's right to be lenient if they wanted, not to protect the individual from a tyrannical government. Well hell, it'd mean Bush was right and that the abuses of "enemy combatants" was perfectly ok!
I think it's a dangerous road to walk down to try and weaken constitutional protections. If there's a part of the Constitution that's outdated and needs changing, ok then let's do that. We've done it before, we can do it again. But none of this crap of trying to weaken the protections that are there. Maybe you're happy when they are doing it to the gun owners but we've seen what happens when they do it with other protections and that's not a road we want to walk down.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:
"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."
This simple sentence, framed very specifically by the framers of the Constitution, has caused much debate. The first half of the sentence gives the reason for their belief in this right. However, the second half of the sentence is not dependent on the first half. Take the following sentence as an example.
A well educated populace, being necessary to the well being of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.
People have the right to keep and bear books but is is the reason they have the right because a well educated populace is necessary to the well being of a free state or should only well educated people have the right?
The framers were not stupid people. They knew exactly what they were writing. It is only over time that we have changed the meaning of what they wrote. The vernacular of our language has changed. The Federalist Papers were quite clear that this was the right of each individual Citizen of the United States.
This really is a moot point, because a militia is defined in United States Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311. It has two components. The first is the "organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia." The second class of militia is "the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." Just because a militia is unorganized does not mean that it is not well regulated. The fact that United States law codifies an unorganized militia makes it well regulated. I, and most slashdot readers in the United States are members of the unorganized militia by default.
Also, no court that I am aware of, has ever ruled that the term "the people", in the United States Constitution, means anything other than an individual right. Look at everywhere in the Constitution where the term is used. It is very clear that each single instance reflects an individual right. Would the framers use the same term in the Second Amendment if they did not mean to recognize an individual right?
Also, the rights in the Constitution were so clear to them and they believed that they were bestowed by their Creator that they did not even put them in the original Constitution; however, many believed that they needed to be recognized formally and the Constitution was passed with the understanding that the Bill of Rights would soon follow to acknowledge those rights, not bestow them. The Constitution does not bestow rights to the people, it acknowledges that they exist and prohibits the United States Government from infringing upon them. The United States Constitution grants power to the United States Government and specifically limits that power. It does no more than that. Any law that runs contrary to that ideal is unconstitutional. But, courts sometimes forget that. As do many of the Citizens of the United States.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
It is interesting that Mexico and Brazil are listed right below the USA in gun-related deaths, when both of them have more restrictions on guns than the USA. Furthermore, Brazil and Mexico have the highest PER-CAPITA murder rates in the world. You came to an invalid conclusion when you declare that "Gun-licensed countries -- practically those with bans have far far lower crime. " "Crime" is actually much higher per-capita in many of these countries. It makes sense that "gun-related crime" could be a little lower. And, of course, you are always free to move from the USA to Brazil or Mexico if you think you'd be safer there.
This is a complicated argument which requires integrity and a real knowledge of statistics, and is not for the faint-hearted nor ignorant. The reason for the Second Amendment was to allow the citizenry to protect themselves from a despotic or tyrannical government, in line with the the rights defined in the Declaration of Independence that allows a citizenry to overthrow an unjust rule when reason doesn't work. No statistical analysis is sufficient to deprive us of our rights, but may point to other ways of reducing the problem of too many murders. For instance, a disproportionate number of murders here in Texas are committed by illegal aliens against illegal aliens. Maybe arresting and sending them back would reduce the problem?
I saw a cartoon recently that showed the 2nd Amendment being rewritten as: "A well-regulated Population, being necessary to the Police State, the right of the Government to Register and Ban arms shall not be infringed."
If you are hazy about the meaning of the Constitution, I recommend, "We Hold These Truths" by Mortimer Adler. If you are a US Citizen and don't know the Constitution, shame on you.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Our overall murder rate is about 3 times yours, but I did mention removing drug related murders, because you can mostly avoid those by not being a dealer/user. Overall, our crime rate is slightly below yours (look it up on that link you posted). Never mind that my original post was concerning the overall level of crime - we're fairly close, and at least I have the option to arm myself and deal with a mugger or burglar. You just have to sit there and take it.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
News for nerds, stuff that matters?
As a card carrying member of the NRA, this issue is of course very important to me. What I don't understand is why it is important to the slashdot community. Every year there are countless news stories that slashdot does not cover, surely including ones that are more relevant to a communit defined by its interest in computer technology.
The tone of the initial post, which says in part "...the right to bear arms only applies to 'a well regulated militia'..." demonstrates the reason why this topic can be found here, which is that this site is run by leftists who have bought into the rhetoric of the left which calls for the disarmament of the people as a pre-requisite of their disempowerment and disenfrancisement.
All I can say is that I will fight the forces of evil and oppression to my last dying breath. You want my guns? You'll have to kill me first, and I'm ready and willing to take as many of you with me as I can.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Yes, but doing random damage is one thing. Overthrowing a government without letting everything descend into anarchy is another.
Basilisk Digital
I, for one, welcome the debate, whatever the forum. Any chance we get to set the Liberals right and teach them how to actually read the Constitution and help them to understand that it does not bestow rights but prohibits the government from infringing on them is one we have to take.
On a personal note, dude, where do you live? I think I could stand beside you and take a few out too. I got your back, man.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
To say the government can have an army in the Bill of Rights would be very out of place and redundant. The Bill of Rights generally refers to the rights of the people, and the right of the government to have an army is a given.
If the gun nuts brought the same passion for freedom, the same skepticism for government intrustion, and the same unflagging vigilance to the other nine amendments as they do to the 2nd one, our country would be a much better place. But try getting them riled up about torture-induced confessions or preventing school-mandated prayer and that skepticism towards government vanishes. They're not really anti-government, but anti-anti-gun. They're very articulate and impressive one-trick ponies. So I give my money to the ACLU. It isn't perfect, but 9/10 is 9 times better than 1/10.
And people wonder why one of my fave t-shirts back in the day was one that had the barrel of a handgun pointed at the reader with the words "Come back to Detroit / We missed you the first time" on it.
I liked the sticker the father of a friend had on his front window, it shows a smoking gun with the words "any body found here at night will be found here in the morning."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Even if it turns out that the court rules that this applies to the militia and not to free citizens (which I doubt it will), there are workarounds.
In Idaho, for instance, all males between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the state militia. Would be simple to reword this to include everyone who could currently now keep and bear arms.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
If it's not a crime to have a gun, criminals *and* potential criminals will have guns. More people to defend oneself from.
And more people who want to protect themself from criminals will have guns too. I'd rather have to coice to defend myself in a free society than to depend on the police to defend me in the nanny state. "Oh mr criminal can you wait while I call the police?" Bang your dead. Someone who faces an armed populace are less likely to commit a criminal act, whereas an unarmed populace makes for easy targets for criminals. And remember some of those terrorists on 911 only used plastic knives, are you going to make them illegal too?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I wouldn't find it odd that people who are reading the article and its comments are the ones who consider the article validly posted.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
I'll take that :)
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means...
The Constitution is actually a limit on democracy more than anything else.
Actuall the USA Constitution is a limit on government. It specifically enumerates what government can do and is limited to that. Unfortunately the government has been way past the limits put on it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"it is the police and other government agents not allowing the people to "be the police" as you suggest.
That whole "the police aren't obligated to protect you, but you can't take the law into your own hands either" thing."
Is that it, or is it that gun owners don't wish to have the same restrictions placed upon them that the people have placed upon gun-carrying police officers?
"Being the police" and vigilantism isn't the same thing.
They are absolutley correct in saying that only memebers of the militia should have weapons. The only place their argument falls appart is the fact that the militia is more or less every able bodied person that is not in the army. So not only does the constitution protect the right to bear arms by Joe Blow Sixpack it says that it is a necessity that Joe Blow go train on the weekends with the militia.
civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular armythe entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service
The part that I think they find very scary is that by the Constitution the average citizen can not only arm themselves but form an army in defense of their community that is completely outside government control. As long as they don't go criminal there is not a damn thing anyone could do about it. It would definitely put a funny spin on things if gangs stopped being thugs and actually protected their communities.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress .... from keeping their own arms."
to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens
- Samuel Adams
Clearly Samuel Adams underestimated the stupidity of 21st century man. I'm pretty sure Churchill expected this...
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
- Winston Churchill
http://brandonbloom.name
So, how many deaths per year are caused by passive marijuanna smoking, and how many are there by "But, but, it wasn't supposed to be loaded!"?
Nada, none, zip, zilch, there's not one documented death by smoking hemp, er marijuana. However I know of one person who was killed while cleaning a .45. In the army a friend of mine had a fear, nightmare, that he would be killed by being shot by a gun. While stationed in Germany, where one of his grandmothers lived, he was cleaning weapons in the armory when the armorer who ran the armory was playing around, pointed the .45 at my friend and shot him. He "thought" it was unloaded.
This isn't to say I support bans on firearms, the only gun or other firearm control I agree with is personal control of where the firearm is aimed and how it is fired. Oh, and I also believe hemp shoud be legalized once again.
FalconShould there be a Law?
while the rest of your post is pretty insitefull the last bit there i dont think applies well to the gun debate as marijuanna is not a weapon.
Ah but hemp, aka marijuana, has been very important in war, the US government made and showed the movie Hemp For Victory to farmers to enncourage them to grow hemp during the Second World War. The cords of the parachute that George Bush Sr used when he bailed out of is plane when it was shot down in the Pacific during WWII were more than likely made from hemp.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The militia is made up traditionally of all able bodied men, that are NOT in the ARMY.
Throw in some women's lib and then suddenly the militia suddenly includes just about every person in the country that can hold a weapon.
The word "regulated" in the case of soldiers and militia means well trained, so what the Constitution is saying if you are not out with your buddies training with your guns on the weekends, then you are a piss poor citizen.
They can spin it every which way they want, trying to change the definitions, but their is well over a hundred years of precidence of militia, so they'll just end up loosing every time.
Just to be silly: there were no death by atomic bombs in the last 20 years, therefore atomic bombs are safe.
What is important is the rate of accident, not the absolute numbers.
How many car-related accidents is there for each car on the road?
How many car-related accidents is there for each driver's license?
How many car-related accidents is there for each hour of use?
Now your entire house of cards is crumbling down like it deserved. I don't care which side you're on, you're not on the side of truth right now.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Gun-licensed countries -- practically those with bans have far far lower crime.
Both of those links you provided were about deaths caused by guns NOT about crime rates being lower for countries that ban firearms. In the first page, Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List, crime doesn't even appear. On the second page the only place where "crime" appears is at the top where it says "Searching for U.S. Crime Stats? Check out StateMaster" and towards the bottum where it says " DEFINITION: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population." Neither of these sipport your aims instead they are totally different things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's ludicrous. The logical conclusion of that statement is that if a pedestrian somehow strays into the roadway and gets run over, then the driver misused their car by not causing it to decelerate from road speed to zero instantaneously.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Is that it, or is it that gun owners don't wish to have the same restrictions placed upon them that the people have placed upon gun-carrying police officers?
I don't see the point you're trying to make. Generic gun owners are more restricted than police officers in how they can use guns in public or in enforcing public law. And a gun-owning police officer is subject to the same laws as any other gun-owning citizen except that that they can act as a police officer when they witness a crime being commited in their jurisdiction. So I'd have to answer "It is that".In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court during 1939 had to decide whether a sawed-off shotgun was a legitimate military weapon, which Jack Miller had been convicted in violation of Federal Law prohibiting posession of sawed-off shotguns. The issue raised was whether the federal prohibition on individual possession of sawed-off shotguns violated the 2nd Amendment. Miller died between the time his case was granted certiorari and oral argument was held, thus his side did not present any argument on the issue.
If the Second Amendment is not a protection against government suppressing the rights of individuals, then why would the Supreme Court hear a case of an Individual arguing a Second Amendment right? Miller was not a state; if the Second Amendment is not a protection against the abridgement of the individual rights, then Miller had no standing and the Supreme Court would never have granted certiorari in the first place.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
check, free press - check, guns - check? . . .
I am the only one who feels that the USA is becoming "the land of the free" in name only?
Just in the last 5 years or so, many of our most basic rights have been substantially eroded.
Frankly, anyone who thinks for a minute the limited arms freedom we have in the country would allow the citizens to mount anything but a rouge campaign of terrorism if the military stood with the government in an attempt to establish a totalitarian state has smoked too much crack in their life. Your pistol, shotgun and Semi-auto AK-47 or AR-15 along with your neighbors in a disorganized insurgency means exactly nothing against a well trained fighting force. The Iraqi insurgency is far better armed than you (and is receiving state support) and is lucky to kill a US soldier a day while 1000's of insurgents perish every month. The right to bear arms doesn't safeguard our constitution one single iota. What safeguards our constitution is that our military supports and swears obligation to that constitution not elected leaders.
By your definition any limits on the ownership of weapons should be illegal. In fact you are advocating that there should be the ability of any citizen to purchase anti-air missiles, RPG's, Anti-tank rockets, claymore mines, anti-tank mines, C-4 and other military grade explosives, tanks, fighter jets, naval frigates. By your definition the only limit to ownership should be what the individual purchaser can afford.
If that isn't what you are advocating then you are making up your own interpretation and/or definitions. Either government has the power to limit the rights of ownership of "arms" (which includes all of the above) or they don't. There isn't some middle ground where you can say citizens can own X, but not Y because Y didn't exist at the time of the founders. You don't get to make up your own limiting definition of "arms" that only fits the items you think shouldn't be limited.
Lets face a reality, without the word regulated and Militia in the sentence there would be no limit to what people could own. But a group of Justices in the 1930's ruling on such regulation of, and control of the "Militia" (as a recognized concept from the founders time) ruled that in consideration of the words of the founders in not only the constitution, but their DEBATES (at the constitutional congress) on the amendments, and their personal writings showed that the second amendment wasn't meant to give free reign to any citizen (as editorialized in other laws of the time that restricted ownership based on sex and skin color) to own any weapon they wanted. What the court ruled is that at the time the founders didn't want the FEDERAL government to limit ownership of firearms to prevent the STATES from being able to raise a well armed and regulated militia (any study of the period of time would reveal that the militia was an obligation of white men of age at the time, and in fact many states required the ownership and maintenance of a long rifle by every white male in that class as part of that regulation of the militia). Because if the federal government had the ability to take away the individual states abilities to raise an armed force than there could be domination of the nation by a small group of northern states at the time or even a foreign invasion (as their was no national army outside wartime). For example, had the 2nd amendment not existed the Northern states would have used the federal authority they could muster, with their larger civilian populations and as a result voting power, to disarm the south and stop slavery before the Civil war ever started.
So either you believe in limits or you don't. You don't have to believe in no limits or making up your own definition of what "arms" are to support individual responsible ownership of firearms. And just because someone believes that limits are needed and supported by the framers doesn't mean that they want to take all your guns away. There is a middle ground on this issue and the only retards in the debate are ones that polarize the debate into two camps of either for or against.
Personally after having studied the framers intent and the courts previous ruling on the issue, and subsequent 60+ years of denial to hear further c
Seriously, what do you need a gun for?
Selfdefense. Against both criminals and a tyrannical government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yeah, a knife, a compound bow, and a chain saw can all be used as a weapon, but it also has a convenient use too.
But tell me, what convenient use does a gun have? Apart from as a weapon?
THe same thing as that compound bow for one. A good example I've used and seen guns used for is hunting for wild boar in Hog Valley, Florida around Ocala National Forest. Hunters know they need a hand gun even if they have a buzuka when boar hunting. It's also a good idea to have a trained pit bull.
Do you have a problem with having to get a license for it?
Yes I have a problem with it, the Second Admendment says nothing about licensing. If a robber or house invader invades my house I want protection, to be able to protect myself and my family, and I don't want to need a license to do this. I don't want to live in a nanny state or a police state.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You are clearly under a misapprehension here. You think that guns were removed. This is not the case; guns were banned. However, even before the ban was imposed, the number of people who actually owned guns was insignificant. Before the ban, vanishingly few people had guns. After the ban, vanishingly few people have guns. Very little removing was actually done, because there was almost nothing to remove.
The ban on handguns made no significant difference to the situation in the UK. Hardly anybody was even affected. It's not as if we had an American-style armed population, and then decided to ban handguns; we had a tiny number of people with legal guns, then one of them shot up a school, and so we banned them. The point wasn't to reduce crime, the point was for the government to be seen to be Doing Something in the face of a tabloid outcry over a whole bunch of dead children.
As it stands, the weapon of choice for the British rampaging psycho seems to be the katana; where an American would shoot up a crowded building with an assault rifle, our maniacs will take a samurai sword and start slashing. Street brawlers seem to go in for knives. A hardcore consisting mostly of drug traders does still carry firearms, and there seem to be a number of gunsmiths around who modify Brocock air-pistols to fire real ammunition, but as far as I'm aware this is still a niche market.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I do not believe your stance is a well-reasoned one, and the so called "rhetoric of the left" may have a more logical foundation than you are acknowledging. I am not an expert, but I would like to point out that there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that guns stolen from law-abiding households are a significant source of guns for criminals, and crime rates increase with the availability of stolen guns.
All I'm saying is that everyone is subject to the certain external costs of private gun ownership, kind of like second hand smoke. There are ways to fix this, gun bans are one (evidently very unpopular) solution, but there are others.
Completely and utterly wrong. The National Guard=The United States Military, it is controlled by the Federal Government in wartime just as it is right now in Iraq. State Governors control the national guard the rest of the time. I see nothing in there about state governments, but I do see THE PEOPLE mentioned here. At any rate, 'militia' had a very specific and unambiguous meaning in those times.
When the constitution was written, if your town or little piece of the country was threatened, all the men in your town got their guns together and went to the task at hand. You didn't 'enlist' like you do in the national guard, you didn't necessarily submit yourselves to the government's control (if you could help it, that is). It was completely ad hoc and nothing on the scale of a state wide organization (which like I said the national guard isn't really). That's the militia. The National Guard is the same as the Government's standing army (they just train less often most of the time).
So what the constitution says is that you can get all of the men in your town together with their guns and train and organize yourself as a military unit. So all those 'militias' in Iraq they want to get rid of? Yup, those are consitutionally protected under the original United States constitution. In (some of) the Iraqi's defense, giving up their militias would put them at the mercy of their enemies since the government can't protect them. Starting to see where this came from?
You have to put things in their proper perspective. Look at Europe in the Seventeenth century. The thirty years war wasn't really about governments versus governments (which were, along with their 'permanent' armies broke, ineffectual, decentralized and divided.) It was faith versus faith and tribe versus tribe. A lot like Iraq today.
In such a situation, it was your militia against the world. The government couldn't protect you even if it wanted to. People with a memory of such a situation would never have been willing to let the nations army be their sole source of protection (and they would feel more afraid than safe it had the power to be it). The concept of nationalism didn't exist like it did today. People had much more personal loyalties than they do today. Protestants had killed catholics and vice versa for centuries without regard any notion of being 'countrymen'. People wonder why a bunch of deeply religious protestants created the first truly secular government in history, this is why. It's all the wars of Europe. The founding fathers knew their history and their realpolitik very well.
So, saying the second amendment prohibits handgun ownership is a ridiculous exercise in the creative reparsing of eighteenth century grammar. It's like saying a law that establishes 'Catholics suck balls' as the national motto is fine because the Constitution says it's only unconstitutional to pass laws 'respecting the establishment of religion' (so DISrespecting it is just fine).
Sorry friend, but change the constitution or shut up about it. Just because it seems more ambiguous today doesn't mean it was when it was written.
They seem to be ignoring the second part of the Second Amendment.
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.
Well darn. There goes that one!
How does a collective have rights? Beats me.
Didn't you know the Borg has rights?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think you need to read what leads up to that; since they are referring to the treatment under colonial and state law in the 13 original states to prove that at the time the Constitution was framed, it could not have been intended that blacks would be citizens, it is fairly clear that they aren't referring to the applicability of the federal RKBA under the 2nd Amendment, but rather state-law rights existing in the 13 original states that provided citizens with similar rights, to show that the states forming the US could not have intended that blacks could be citizens because very many of the states (particularly the slave states) could not have intended to be obligated to submit to giving black citizens of other states they same rights as they provided, under state Constitution and laws, to their own white citizens through the action of the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 ("The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.")
Ah but blacks could be and some were citizens during the Revolutionary war. Only slaves could not be citizens but there were some free blacks previously then some blacks who fought in the War of Independence were freed, and they were citizens.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While there may be some debate about whether, in a general statistical sense, you are safer with a gun than without, that misses the point. What IS certain, however, is that if you posses a gun you are harder to victimize. There is also no question that virtually anywhere you go there will be people willing and able to hurt you.
The question is, why do I can't I choose to protect myself? Isn't is reasonable? After all, whether or not I shoot myself accidentally or let my gun fall into the wrong hands is something I have complete control over, whereas whether or not someone decides to go after me is something I have almost no control over.
Personally, I don't care if I win or not. If he kills me, fine. But I will never just stand there while someone makes a victim out of me. It happened to me once and it won't happen again. I don't like hunting, hell, I feel bad killing an insect, but next time one of us is probably going to die.
I am not afraid of dying. Heck, dying from a bullet wound isn't a bad way to go. Even when it's not quick, it's still pretty quick. Dying of cancer... that's scary. Do you know why? The fear and the feeling of powerlessness. That is how I felt after I had someone really threatened to kill me. That is no way to live, so I will accept the risk of self defense, whatever it may be.
If my hand is on my gun when I die, that is enough. I don't want anything from anyone except to live in peace, but I shall tolerate nothing less.
What the hell does the second amendment have to do with my rights ONLINE? I'm still allowed to shoot people in games over the internet, regardless of what the handgun rights are here in DC.
I can still buy guns online and I suppose that will go away soon now. So, this does affect my rights online.
As I feared, now that the republicans have done as much damage to the first amendment as they can, the democrats will pick up where they left off on the second.
Is it a little too conspiracy theory nutty of me to propose that they are really all in this together to just take power away from the people. That the democrats and republicans are pretty much the same when it comes to disdain for the constitution and the men who created it?
O.K., it's late, this irritates me and I'm not in the mood to start quoting sources but saying it makes me feel better.
What Would Zardoz Do?
The great thing about the Second Ammendment is that you don't need it until they try and take it away.
If the intention is to allow me to protect myself from the government, shouldn't I be allowed to buy anti-aircraft, anti-tank, and assault weapons?
The unintellectual capacity for this thread has been breached. I'm appalled at the amount of people here who wish to flush *their* constitutional rights down the toilet. It's a right of the people. Who is the government (which derives its power from the people) to take it away, and why are people welcoming it? As I'm sure it has been mentioned in one of 900 or so posts before mine, "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY." - Benjamin Franklin.
Also if not already mentioned, "Isn't it funny that those who preach nonviolence are the same ones who 'don't trust themselves' with a gun? Well, if they can't handle it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't. " -- Cancer Omega, 1997 From attrition.org/technical/firearms/index.html which reflects most of my opinions on gun control.
- scire
I know it's idealistic but I would like it if NO ONE other than police & Military had guns. Has anyone ever heard of a drive by stabbing? I won't have a gun in my house. It offends me that I "need to have a gun" because this nation has made it so easy for criminals to get them. The argument that we need to be able to defend ourselves against our government is ridiculous, how well does a machine gun do against a cruise missile?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Let me throw in my voice as a left-leaning liberal:
The second amendment is just as important as the first amendment.
I am not a member of the NRA. I am opposed to gun control. I am a liberal.
Contradictory? Sure. But I grew up in Alaska, where 10% of the population voted for Nader in 2000, and most own guns. The whole idea that left-leaning liberals are the only ones for gun control is idiotic. It's not about the left vs. right. It's about those who support individual liberties, and those who don't. Strangely, it's not left v. right, nor libertarian v. green, nor anything else that you can easily categorize.
If you think American politics is strictly Republican v. Democrat, or R. v. D. v. Libertarian (if you are "enlightened"), you are drinking the cool-aid. Really, it's those who are for progress, and those who wish to cling to the status-quo. There are many who wish to cling to the status-quo who are for gun control, and many who are for progress that are also for gun control.
As an idealistic left-leaning libertarian, I believe gun control is evil. Not just because it is against the second amendment, but because it strips personal rights. I believe the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preamble (as any English major would say). It's not a prerequisite.
Yet I am a liberal.
Being a leftist does not mean you do not believe in personal liberty. It means you believe we are all in this together: that we rise together, or we fall together. This doesn't apply to a country: it applies to the world. We rise together, or we fall together.
I believe in personal liberty, including the right to bear arms. (I have a pistol and a rifle, and the willingness and training to use them under the right circumstances.) I believe we have the right to say what we want, and to use our weapons to defend our right to say what we want.
Being a leftist means defending our rights, and being willing to stand up for our all our rights. That's why it's here on Slashdot. And if you think you have to be a Republican to respect the Constitution, you have another think coming. I know a lot of republicans *cough*Bush*cough* who don't respect the Constitution.
I am a leftist. And I love my Constitution. And I am willing to die defending it.
Are you?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Well said and the poularity of this article demonstrates your point. The notion that geeks should shun politics is simply failing to understand the nature of geeks. One important (almost definitional) trait of a geek is that they like to pull things apart in order to "fix" them.
Geeks had quite a bit of influence when it came to writing the US constitution.
Summarising the dust jacket of the linked book:
Thomas Jefferson, able to read and understand Newton's principa. He gave scientific lectures on fossils while he was VP and had many inventions to his name.
Ben Franklin, internationally renowned geek in his own lifetime.
John Adams had an impecable geek education, including areas such as "Pnewmaticks, Hydrostaticks, Mechanicks and Opticks".
James Madison was that most uncommon of beasts, a geek with lucid communication skills, he "peppered his Federalist Papers with references to physics, chemistry and the life sciences".
I have never been to the US, I picked up the book a few years ago because of my casual interest in the history of science. Regardless of where you live, geeks have influenced politics since the days of stonehenge style calendars. I don't see any reason to deliberately exlude ourselves now.
As for gun control, here in Australia anyone who keeps a gun in their bedside drawer for "self defense" is considered a dangerous gun nut. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and from experience can tell you it has not always been like that. These days the cultural objection towards people owning guns for "self-defense" is firmly set in legislation and the general population. It is so strong that the overwhelming majority (including myself) would kick anyone out of office who even suggested we go back to selling guns and ammo in supermarkets.
There are no absolutes in life, and that includes the US constitution and freedom. Geeks with graphs have shown gun cultures pay a price for their "freedom" (OTOH: Iraq demonstrates the principle of a well armed malitia rejecting the US government). Science, politics and lawyers can only go so far towards changing a culture, the "big picture" was best expressed by a US president: "We have nothing to fear except fear itself".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is a terrible confirmation of America moving towards a totalitarian state. The sad thing is, due to mandatory education dominated by the socialist left-wing establishment, most people agree with these arguments. They don't know the truth, that is, that without the right to bear arms there are no rights.
The whole point of that right was to show that the people, not the government, were the ultimate masters. It does not matter that the militias were federalized - this is proof of ever-increasing socialist totalitarianism.
As American society "progresses" more and more towards socialism, liberty becomes more and more doomed.
For interesting reading, check out this Web site. It shows how all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto are now a reality in America.
May god bless you then and may your aim be true.
If what they claim is true, then by definition:
This is a legal argument; you should use the legal definition. According to Cornell's wonderful handy reference, 10 USC 311 says (excerpting a bit):
Clear? Good; now please give me back my BFG-9000, officer.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The second amendment is about the right to protect yourself from your government. I don't think the founding fathers would have a problem with individuals owning missiles, tanks, or other weapons that put them at parity with a modern army, for just that reason.
You would have discovered the following:
There are two types of militia, civil milita (unorganized civilians bearing own arms) and state milita (national guard, state troopers, standing forces, whatever is organized for and paid (and bearing arms owned) by the state).
Well regulated meant only one, and possibly two things. You are reading "regulated" as in today's "regulations".
Regulated, in the 1787 terminology, refers to only one thing. "Disciplined and officered." No joke, a militia with a set structure, even if self organized, is a "well regulated militia". The irony is that the term can also be read to mean "well equiped, trained and supplied."
The ratification misdeeds do not even enter into it.
What I find ironic, is that you are all begging for scraps from the tables of lords and masters with loyalties to anyone but you. Washington DC is a crime capital under a declared "state of crime emergency" since July or August of 2006 (don't remember the exact date). And it isn't just guns, some british guy got knifed and killed in his own driveway, which makes the "protect yourself by staying home" or "don't go into the dangerous parts of DC after dark" completely idiotic.
Since most of you are socialist "democrats" or so called "liberals" (my how that term stopped meaning what it used to mean in Jefferson's day), perhaps this example comes closest to your hearts. Some time ago, in their home in Germantown (rich part of Wash, DC) Theresa Heinz Kerry got ROBBED while outside of their home. Yep, John Kerry's wife... the ketchup girl. Humorously, the news barely touched on it, presumably for fear that the properties there would stop soaring in price, and also that the DC 30year gun ban would go bust if even the big antigunners are being robbed at screwdriver point (making the gunban worthless, what next, piece of rock and treebranch ban?)
(Frankly, I didn't know there were any "safe" zones in that DC, I've watched drug deals and "hot merchandise" deals, going on within plain sight of police squad cars (and the cops within them), and it wasn't a sting, nobody got busted AND there were no headlines or sirens/lights the whole day I was there. I left severely perturbed by that sight. I called the cops about it, and got the run around, they took my statement and basically blew me off. Guess if shots weren't fired, or blood spilled, it wasn't worth their time, though how would "shots be fired" in a gun ban city?)
However, you are correct, the "founders" were two separate camps which are mistaught in history class, one was the rich fascistic overlords known as the "federalists" (a hijacking of the term that has stuck) and the other, the unprepared, populist/agrarian/Jeffersonian group, lead by the very vocal Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, were the ANTI Federalists (of whom you may hear little or nothing in high school history and if you are fortunate, a tad smidgen from a libertarian professor in college, IF you are lucky). James Madison watered down the actual text, but the states all ratified the text THEY felt was necessary. Do some research while the National Archives are still available to the public. It might open everyone's eyes, especially since we're geeks, we're supposed to be libertarians at heart, seeking knowledge and truth, instead of being gimme gimme beggars and weaklings.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Perhaps consider the intentions of the framers. Thomas Jefferson said that "a little revolution now and then is a good thing", and the "shot heard 'round the world" was in defense of a private cache of arms about to be confiscated by the British.
Jefferson, at least, saw revolution as another check against the government and weapons as a way to enable the citizenry to do this.
DATABASE WOW WOW
The US constitution was a best-effort. It was not written by god on a tablet. It's authors said it was deeply flawed and they hoped it would last 20 years. It needs an over-haul.
Because smart people can't agree on even the most basic intentions of the constitution's authors. Do people have a right to arms or not? What kinds of arms? It there a right to privacy or not? Even from the government? It is NOT CLEAR. And it won't EVER get any clearer.
Some people say that is the beauty of the document, it's flexibility and ability to be reinterpreted.
I say bullshit. I don't want to hear about *implied* rights. Spell it out clearly, in contemporary english, with no spin. We don't live in the dark ages, we can examine the ideas of the past and use what is useful.
I think we need to update the language of the constitution. Maybe we need a constitutional convention every 10 or 20 years as Jefferson suggested, to carefully clarify the language. Baby steps.
And do we want to add new rights? Should there be a right to euthanasia, a basic job, basic health care, an abortion, basic shelter, a basic education, porn? How about freedom FROM religion? We seem to *effectively* have some of these rights, but not literally. Why not?
Would someone please get Richard Stallman on this? And Linus Tovalds?
The interesting thing about Baltimore being #2, and D.C. #3 or #4 this year is that everyone got bumped down a notch because Memphis came from behind at the last minute to steal the crown as Most Dangerous; D.C. or Baltimore didn't really do anything different.
Although (and I live right outside DC, FYI) a lot of people here took this as some sort of good thing, it doesn't mean that the District got any safer necessarily, it just means that some other places got dramatically worse.
Pretty much everybody I know has a "crazy District story" involving close proximity to someone who was being shot/stabbed/mugged, and there has definitely not been any dramatic improvement there lately (in fact, if anything it's gotten worse, with previously 'safe' areas becoming more dangerous). When there is a particularly high-profile incident in a revenue-generating area of the city (Farragut, Georgetown, etc.) there will be a lot of additional police presence there for a while -- classic security theater -- in order to keep people from doing their drinking elsewhere, but nothing really changes. (And if you do get yourself shot, beaten, or stabbed in the District, you can look forward the ineptitude of the EMS service; truly a winning combination.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I think it's also worth pointing out that in addition to Open Carry (which I have never seen anyone in Fairfax doing, and I think would probably turn some heads -- although I'm glad the police are aware of the law in this regard) Fairfax has the same Concealed Carry law as the rest of Virginia. Once you have a permit (which is "Shall Issue," basically the State is obligated to issue you a permit unless there is a reason to prohibit you from having one, on application) you can carry a handgun on your person, concealed.
I suspect that the number of people carrying concealed handguns in Fairfax is far larger than the number of people carrying openly.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to individuals. It spells out what government cannot do. The individuals had these rights prior to the creation of government.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Consider the Second:It seems quite clear to me that the first phrase is a justification for the right about to be conferred. If the right was meant to be limited to the militia, why use "the people"? There is no other place in the Constitution where "the people" is used to confer a right on a particular subgroup of people. As has been pointed out many times, if the right was really meant to apply only to members of such an organized militia, why use that wording? Why not say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...'? The fact that this was not the phrasing chosen, and that "the people" was invoked specifically (as it is in other Amendments, where it has been clearly interpreted as referring to all citizens at the very least) seems quite clear.
You're correct there's no semicolon between "...state" and "the right...", but there cannot be, since the first part would be a dangling phrase. Perhaps for clarity, a different verb tense should have been chosen ("A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state; therefore the right of the people...") but one can hardly criticize the authors for wanting to maintain consistency with the tense of the rest of the document. The chosen wording is succinct, and when read in conjunction with the rest of the document's use of the term "the people," quite unambiguous. The minimalist interpretation you espouse would be quite ridiculous (disastrous, even) if applied elsewhere, there's no reason to single out the Second.
Also, your anecdotes about New York City as misleading at best. New York City has had a handgun ban for decades, and only recently has become relatively safe -- for a very long time, while the ban was in effect, it was extremely dangerous. That the City is now safe owes very little to the handgun ban, and far more to the increased resources devoted to policing in recent years, combined with economic and social trends. There's no causation there between 'gun ban' and 'crime decrease,' since the two events didn't follow each other. If a handgun ban really was the ticket to safety, then it would have happened right after the ban -- but it didn't.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I fail to see your point.
Looking around the world, I see societies with fewer social and economic problems, and which consequently have less crime, and I see societies with more social and economic problems, and more crime. Frankly, it seems quite independent of gun control laws.
Comparing Europe to the U.S. and saying that the difference in crime rates is due to gun control is naive and intellectually dishonest -- it neglects the vast social, economic, and cultural differences between places. Given the lack of effect of gun control measures at preventing crime within the United States -- which is far closer to a 'controlled experiment' than comparing the U.S. to another country -- I think it's far more likely that the crime in the U.S. has its origins elsewhere.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Well yes. Most people buy guns before they go insane and just happen to have access to them at an unfortunate moment. Even illegal dealers will not sell a gun to someone who is likely to get caught and tell it all. Anyway, if there are 10% of guns in US compared to now, an person is 10 times less likely to get a hold of one.
Is he actually going to warn me before shooting rather than just putting a bullet in the back of my head?
Would you accept a duel where you are armed with a pocket knife and a lithium battery and your opponent has a nice AK47? That is, even if games like Doom and shows like Law and Order gave you extensive preparations for using either of these items in combat.
That's a very difficult question to even attempt to answer. As soon as somebody might attempt to produce a statistic showing one way or the other, the validity of that statistic could be questioned on the grounds of structural racism.
It's impossible to get statistics about who commits more crimes by race, because we don't necessarily even know how many crimes are being committed, and we don't necessarily catch the perpetrator (or even visualize them closely enough to ascertain their race). The closest you could get would be the percentage or number of people arrested for crimes by race, or convicted, or incarcerated.
Most of those statistics (the ones I've ever seen) show a disproportionate number of minorities -- particularly black males -- being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. One commonly cited figure is the percentage of black men incarcerated vs white men. But this is not necessarily equal to the number of crimes committed, since it assumes that a white and black person have the same odds, after committing a crime, of being caught, arrested, successfully prosecuted and convicted, and sentenced to prison. This is where various aspects of alleged structural racism -- intentional or not -- come into play. Questions arise about the different types of crimes and law enforcement attention paid to them, and which are more likely to be committed by each group, plus different punishments for each. Example: given two people with an equivalent amount of powder cocaine and crack cocaine -- crack being less expensive and more popular with minorities in cities -- the crack has far stiffer penalties for possession per gram.
There have been studies done where people of different races did similar activities (sat outside a fast food joint, in the one I saw), in the same locations, and could consistently be assured of more police attention if they were a minority. While not entirely convincing, it provides some weight to theories that minorities are under more police scrutiny and are thus more likely to get caught in a similar crime (say property crime) than a non-minority.
In the end, it gets so tangled that it's basically impossible to say with certainty that any particular 'race' is more or less likely to commit a crime (and then we can go back and forth on whether races actually exist in any quantifiable way). What does seem to be almost common sense though, are that some 'racial' minority groups tend to live in areas where crime exists at a higher rate than in areas inhabited by majority-group members. Though this would tend to suggest that they are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crimes (by virtue of proximity), the relationship isn't necessarily causative -- there's no evidence (that I've ever seen) that would substantiate calling the minority groups the source of the crime per se, or that if they were replaced by a socioeconomically similar but 'racially' different group, that the net outcomes would be different.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
greetings and Salutations
This aspect of the gun control issue is always complicated, alas. However, my take on it is that we are comparing apples and oranges here, in that the populations of England and the US have so many differences as to make direct comparison difficult at best. for example:
a) America's population is approximately 5x that of England. While I do REALIXE this is not directly relevant to the "per capita" crime rate, it is relevant in that it is my observation that the more people one packs into an area, the greater the opportunities for social friction leading to violence.
b) America has a far more diverse mix of conflicting cultures than England has. As a simplistic example...when I listen to the BBC over the Net (which is a GREAT service, by the by), It is almost impossible to tell WHAT the race of the speaker is. England's school system does such a job of training to a sandard voice that it eliminates that variation almost completely. America does NOTHING to force folks to a common voice, so there is a tendency towards citizens placing their identity of origin ABOVE that of their identity as an American citizen. "CHinese-American" is a common label; "American-Chinese" is not.
c) America is a FAR younger culture than England...and youth is almost always more fiery than maturity.
d) While it is not a good thing, it is a fact that some of the cultural changes in America over the past 30 years have moved us towards being a collection of narcissistic people, rather than a collective society. There are too many factors that have caused this to discuss here, but, I believe it is rooted in the "do your own thing" society of the 60s, the glorification of violence and evil on television, and, too many parents who are unwilling to be as involved in their kids lives as they should be.
Regards
dave mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
There is another way of interpreting the 2nd amendment reference to a militia; that precisely because a government must maintain a defense force (the militia) , then the people (individuals), must have the right to bear arms, should the government become their oppressor, and use the militia against the people.
:wq
As many colonists felt England was doing, by using the Royal military to oppress English subjects in America.
No, actually i didnt lose, or win.
You need to get your facts straight before you make assumptions.
Oh, but wait, with your language, i doubt you could undertand it anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I am most amused by this debate. I find it amazing that the whole country rolled over like a good dog when the knife, sword, and club were criminalized despite their clear existence as "arms". If I have common sporting equipment (baseball bat, eppe[sword variant], knife [e.g. dive knife, hunting knife, etc) I can be declared "armed and dangerous" and yet I am somehow not protected by my right to "keep and bare arms".
Am I just being obtuse?
Not really.
Mos forms of legal erosion start way out in the conceptual boondocks. The water of compromise and common consent is forced under the foundation to rip away the necessary supports. One concession at a time we go from "defenders of democracy" to the modern inquisition at Gitmo. We slip gently from "free expression" to "free speech zones". The right to keep and bare arms to getting strip-searched for having nail-clippers or hair-gel in some allegedly sacrosanct setting.
Rome didn't "fall" it "settled". It was poisoned from within by fear, petty weaknesses, and the inexorable force that is "shifting public policies".
After careful consideration I would say that the second amendment can be translated into the following modern english:
Each member of society has the right to be, individually, _at_ _least_ as well armed as any member of the government that claimes to govern them.
Explicit in that concept is the simple fact that it is fundamentally in line with the founding fathers intent that I, or any other citizen, full well deserve to be able to "out-gun the local police" and so on.
Lets face it, the "hunting" facade is bull. The automatic weapon exists to facilitate killing a number of people in quick succession. That is it's purpose, and that is _why_ it should be legal.
In the criminal context, gun violence is an act of cowardliness. These people who go out into public and go "people hunting" or whatever invariably pick environments where there is little-to-no chance of taking return fire. They don't go people hunting at the police station, nor at the local gun-shop. They go to the MacKiddies fast food joint, and they don't do it in Texas. You walk into your local Old People's Buffet in Texas and start shooting, and Gran will haul her hog-leg out of her Granny Great-Purse and school you in manners. The simple logic of cowardliness says that "random" gun violence (as opposed to specific-cause-we're-feuding gun violence) is more likely as the gun carry prohibitions become more strict. It's safer for the gunman, and he knows it.
In the political sense, the right to keep and bare arms is explicable just from casual perusal of a junior High American History book. When "The Red-Coats" were an occupying force they did a lot of crappy things to the locals, just like we are doing a lot of crappy things to the locals out there in the territory we are occupying. Those crappy things included arresting people for gathering together, or having guns, or printing leaflets; and breaking into people's houses and generally wrecking the place while fishing for _anything_ that might seem suspicious. (etc) Those abuses directly translate into the Bill of Rights.
The bill of rights _Largely_ exists as a body of law that serves a _SINGLE_ unified purpose: to prevent "American Soil" from ever suffering another Occupying force, be that force Foreign or Domestic. That last word, "Domestic", doesn't just mean your neighbor, it most strenuously and explicitly includes "your president" and "those generals" and "the local sheriff" and "those DEA guys" and "the FBI/CIA/Homeland Security jack-booted thugs."
If a community is pushed so far as to need to say "Enough!", the constitution exists to make sure that they can do so in whatever language and to whatever degree of stridency they find necessary.
Which is as it is, because that is as it _should_ be.
But we have not learned from the past, and so we are beginning to suffer the classically prescribed doom of repetition.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I'm a nerd. A lot of my friends are nerds. I work full time for other nerds. Please believe me when I say that I've met my share of nerds that are not enlightened. In fact, I've met some pretty damn dumb nerds over the years.
Libertarian Ideals and Libertarian Party are not one and the same. Hence why the "party" split up because one group thought the other to be lazy, weak and ineffective.
I'm not a member of the libertarian "party" for that reason alone. The political party system is a joke. Hence I vote my conscience when I can, and that always makes me wish we had a REJECT option.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that you don't need it until the government tries to take it away.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
People kill. Guns hold NO responsibility. Neither does a kitchen knife hold guilt if some criminal breaks into your home and kills you with it. The criminal is too often absolved of guilt, with it being transfered to the item/weapon.
Look at London. Now they got themselves a "knife amnesty", because criminals began using knives (naturally silenced, without need for sound suppressors). What is next? Tree branches and rocks are "causing" crushing blows to back of skulls? Steel pipe amnesty?
If you want to see, go to a gun show. Perfect example of well behaved people, go to self regulated gun ranges, I've been to them all to experience it. Strange that nobody dies, and the few accidents are some idiot who didn't bother to study on the proper usage of the gear he/she is handling.
While I am not a member of the "gungho" culture, I must say I admire the ones that practice what they preach within that culture (they carry, they're safe, they're responsible, and very few have had "accidents" or committed a crime with them... and worth learning from... unlike the geeks of today, who let those in power tell them what to use, and how to use it, including their bodies.)
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Yeah, you aussies left yourselves disarmed. My great grandparents did that, and 10 years later they died at the hands of communists. I leave it to you, your head is in your hands, until you give it to the state, for they will gladly chop it off for profit.
By the way, I watch the gun news, since its an interesting "blindness" of our media as well as YOURS. They report "murders" like our "sudden school shooting spree" right before elections (interesting coincidence isn't it?) and it stopped as soon as democrats got elected.
Get serious fella, I checked the records of both men who did the "shootings" that lead to Rebecca Peters helping you ban your guns. They were both people who should've been behind bars, one even had a pages long record... but instead of prison, he was loose. Why?
I've been asking this question for ages. I ended up starting to read the NRA news, because at least they did research on the part you don't hear in the actual news "media". You know, that part where they searched the RECORDS of the criminals comitting CRIMES, and asking Why were they not behind bars where they belonged?!
I'm sure the gun ban freaks would love to ask THAT question. Otherwise expect to die by knife, and expect the news NOT to mention it... after all, it would rescind the gun bans.
But keep alive that socialist mentality. That way those of us who produce, have to produce for you people too. And I'm sick and tired of writing a check to feed you.
Maybe I'll quit at suck at the tit as well.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Would you accept a duel where the other guy had a machete and you were unarmed?
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Hunting rifles and ammo are deadlier than military rifles and ammo, Hunting ammo is designed to expand as it passes through tissue. The ammo used by hunters would result in a war crime if used by the military.
What a pile of rot. High explosive armour piercing rounds for the AK have been available in eastern europe for a long, long time, and they are a good deal worse than your dum dums. Also your hunting ammo is to all intents and purposes worthless against body armour; armour piercing doesn't deform much / at all on impact.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
The best reason for having guns is how the US was created - how can anyone say that the circumstances for needing to revolt against ones government cant occur if thats how said government was formed. It makes no sense. The way I see it is the people asking for the gun bans are shortsighted and probably cant comprehend, beyond the words on the pages of history books, what the founding fathers of this country did and what it meant. If we give up our right to determine our own futures we deserve whatever future we a given - good or bad.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
There are so many ways to refute this libel I hardly know where to begin.
A class of overlords must be a small minority, or there isn't any significant population to lord over. Despite this, the Federalists won the first three presidential elections.
You should read more of what the founders actually wrote. Even Alexander Hamilton, considered by many to be the major big government advocate among the Federalists, was greatly in favor of maintaining freedom.
The sort of totalitarianism represented by fascism was abhorrent to all the founders.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I must have missed the part where Pres Jefferson was a "Federalist". Washington was. Adams was. That's 1 and 2. Jefferson was a devout anti federalist. So was Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, both of whom sought to boycott the 1787 Con Con. George Wythe of VA went, and along with most of the other "signers of the declaration" (those who risked something for America's United States) voted NO. The only ones who were pro, and who also signed the declaration were Hamilton, Washington and Madison (Madison was turned to antifederalist later on by Jefferson, but sadly far too late to save this country from the totalitarian shift started by Hamilton.)
Hamilton was also pro child labor/slavery, and he admired seeing the poverty forcing children into long labor in england ("producing goods at low prices in that industrious nation").
And they didn't "win" the elections... The fact that Jefferson won the third one, may either be a fluke, or perhaps the truth was spoken in several books about Aaron Burr.. Aaron was FAR more anti big government than jefferson, and far more effective, Hamilton engaged on a major mud slinging campaign to prevent Burr from reaching the presidency, Jefferson, while effective, wasn't a strong enough president. Burr would have been. At this point, enraged, Burr began to react to Hamilton's slanderous comments, and eventually it lead to the duel where Hamilton's reign of heavy handedness ended, as all tyrant types, always do. With a bullet.
The electoral system has been under questioning for ages.
Seriously, your first mistake is not even knowing US history (other than the quick tripe taught in American History in high shool). Your second, is trying to absolve Hamilton of his abuses. If Aaron Burr had not shot Hamilton in 1804 in a duel, our country would've been conquered by a central bank from the onset, long before Jackson could've vetoed the second central bank, and far longer than it took for the Federal Reserve to be established for exactly that... to impoverish the populace by overspending and devaluation of currency.
I know you'll come up with some direct attacks on me, but do your reading, "libel" involves the comments NOT being true. I've done heavy research on this over the years, and, quite frankly, I am having trouble enduring the ignorance of US history I am seeing here in the USA.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Lets be crystal clear about this point. Guns are tools for killing/wounding, there can be no question about this.
The real question is, however, under what circumstance is wielding that power justified or even necessary? I believe it is my fundamental right, under clear and limited circumstances to kill another human being. I do not relish this right nor to I wish to ever have to exercise it. However, if in the course of my life I'm called to defend self or loved ones against grievous harm, the kind which justifies taking the life of another human, I want the tool proven most effective at killing. A gun.
I am not a muscular man nor schooled in hand to hand combat arts. However, I'm perfectly able to operate and maintain a firearm. The Constitution, beyond the 2nd amendment speaks of inalienable human rights (as well as government having no authority over them, enumerated or not). I contend it is my inalienable right to defend myself (and others) from harm, even if that means resorting to lethal force.
Though guns are specifically designed to kill/wound, they do not cause death/destruction. Simply put, it is the intent of the wielder of the weapon that gives cause to the act. I contend that for every gun related murder reported, thousands, if not millions of guns are responsibly owned and maintained my law abiding citizens with nary a single bullet ever directed towards a human.
It is already illegal to murder a person, but the crime still occurs. The argument that gun ownership makes it easier or predisposes one to commit murder is bunk. The type of person who considers murder as a viable option under any circumstance is not likely to be swayed by (a lack of) gun ownership. That person is a societal problem laws do not deter. Ban guns and now I, a law abiding citizen have a greatly reduced chance of repelling this person.
Since we don't live in a world of force fields and phasers, the most effective method/tool of stopping one who is bent on causing me and mine bodily harm is the kill them with a gun.
Pyramid
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f4/dhakala/beara rms.jpg
a) America's population is approximately 5x that of England. While I do REALIXE this is not directly relevant to the "per capita" crime rate, it is relevant in that it is my observation that the more people one packs into an area, the greater the opportunities for social friction leading to violence.
America's population may be five times the size of the UK's, but it occupies forty times the space. The population density of the UK is eight times as high as the US.
b) America has a far more diverse mix of conflicting cultures than England has. As a simplistic example...when I listen to the BBC over the Net (which is a GREAT service, by the by), It is almost impossible to tell WHAT the race of the speaker is. England's school system does such a job of training to a sandard voice that it eliminates that variation almost completely. America does NOTHING to force folks to a common voice, so there is a tendency towards citizens placing their identity of origin ABOVE that of their identity as an American citizen. "CHinese-American" is a common label; "American-Chinese" is not.
That's really not true. There is a large variety of regional accents in the UK, just as there is in the US. This 'standard voice' you speak of really doesn't exist. What you're probably talking about is 'received pronunciation', which was the standard way of speaking for the upper-middle classes, and still exists to an extent today. However, it's not taught in any way in shcools and people just pick it up from their parents, although it's normally tempered with local regional accent as well. The US is similar in this regard.
As for cultures, the UK has inhabitants from most of the rest of the former British Empire; from Africa, the Caribbean and Asia. However, most non-local cultural diversity tends to be found in urban areas rather than rural. Urban areas account for about (IIRC) 80% of the population.
c) America is a FAR younger culture than England...and youth is almost always more fiery than maturity.
It's possible that's true with people, but I'm not sure you can apply that to countries.
>>It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Then why can't target shooters sue the firearm manufacturers for making a faulty product? I mean, if it's designed to kill people but it's only putting holes in paper targets, something must be wrong. It doesn't even aim itself or squeeze its own trigger!
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Falcon, I am very sorry to hear that you lost a friend
Thanks.
b) Accept the horrible truth that some people will die from guns, others will trip down stairs, and yet others will spontaneously combust this year. No amount of control or supervision can stop this. The only way to mitigate these risks is education, which is an imperfect solution.
I prefer b, above.
Just as soon as hemp is legal again, you, me, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should hang out and order a pizza. I hear Tommy's stuff is so good that he once lost it completely, and gave in to the "jungle fever".
Ah, TJ, Thomas Jefferson, was a big supporter of hemp. He once wrote that farmers should be required to grow hemp, however he never followed through with proposing such a law because he knew such a law woud violate farmers rights. He also invented and patented a gin mill, much like cotton mills, to make threads, cloth, from hemp. And he wrote the Declaration of Independence on paper made from hemp.
Jungle fever? With Sally? Thomas Jefferson was a contradiction. Though he owned slaves he was against slavery, and in early drafts of the DOI he included blacks and women as having the same rights as men. Eventually this was dropped because others of the Founding Fathers believed in slavery and would never go along with the DOI if it contained these rights for all.
FalconShould there be a Law?
> citing that the right to bear arms only applies to 'a well regulated militia.'
;>
Nitpicking on terribly poorly worded statement.
The second amendment states: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Which clearly guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to -the people-.
Arguing that the -goal- of the amendment, based on the stated desire to promote a strong militia, is to limit gun ownership to 'official' militiamen is reasonable, although I don't support that view. But the -language- clearly states that the right applies to the people.
You can state that the -intent- is that it should be restricted to a 'well-organized militia' and people may argue about whether you are right or wrong, but you can't 'cite' language that isn't in the document.
Breakdown of amendment:
'A well regulated Militia': what is the goal of the amendment?
'being necessary to the security of a free State': why do we want to have
a well-regulated militia?
'the right of the people': who has the right?
'to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.': what right do they have?
I'm not saying, "They can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands". I don't own any guns.
I'm saying, lawyers are -supposed- to be well-educated people, trained to think clearly and express themselves clearly. Unless, of course, they are intending to mislead someone... Nahh; D.C. lawyers are too ethical to do something like that
If I recal correctly, Franklin once brought a 13-year-old prostitute to one of the constitutional conventions, despite objections from Hamilton.
Now I hadn't heard of this, though it doens't supprize me Hamilton wold have a disagreement with Franklin. Hamilton supported a strong federal government whereas Franklin believe the states should have more power.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How in blazes can the idiots be kept unarmed, when they are the ones that will NOT be abiding by the blanket ban.
Plus, if you read statistics, most cops die from wounds suffered from their OWN handguns.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Will there be any shootings if we all have guns but are wise enough and raised with enough responsibility to know that if we commit a murder in a town full of armed citizens (parts of Idaho come to mind), we're likely to die before we get out of town?
Besides, most murders are NOT comitted with guns, and never were. Axes, knives, poison, cars, cans of gasoline, solvents, etc. Many ways people are murdered that rarely include guns. Guns are simply the way to fight back. Thus the world government needs to stifle them and reduce them ineffective.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
And I'll bring a knife or bottle neck, or my barehands.
Betcha I can kill you long before you "bruise" me, or *gasp* "shoot me". (And you'd be lucky that I am not a violent man, nor do I enjoy the sight of blood, except in my food (rare steaks)).
The one corollary to "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" is "don't bring a gun to a knife fight".
It tends to get you killed when you forget that statistics show a knife or club wielding goon can cover 21 feet while you take the gun from its holster, and if its a point blank fight, a knifeman can slice you open LONG before you've even reached the gun grip.
I studied a lot of defense tactics against armed goons, especially while unarmed or taken by surprise... I used to live in the big "gun wielding american cities".
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Interesting. I'm gonna buy a bow, since that means I'll never shoot anyone with it. How about slingshots?
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I'd guess that your main advantage is training, not tech. Tech may eventually give you a significant advantage in this situation, but we're not there yet. Looks like body armor is the best advantage you've got.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
psst! I built scratch made black powder rockets at age 12 with items I got at the local drug store and empty toilet paper or cigar tubes. And there are plenty of more effective and a lot more nasty things that can be built from VERY common items. American civilians have access to a lot more materials that may be used as weapons than the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Industrial and agricultural product supply houses would be at the top of the list, the local hardware or grocery store at the bottom. Take the average automobile: gasoline, oil/grease, sulfuric acid, lead, ceramics, antifreeze, rubber, vinyls, plastics, aluminum, glass, steel, and even platinum, you would probably be surprised to learn that there are plenty of materials in your automobile for several really nasty weapons. The stuff under your kitchen sink, in your laundry room, garden shed or beside your propane grill is very likely to be just as useful. Hell your own body provides excellent weapons materials most every day, spit, feces and urine can be used chemically or biologically as weapons. All it takes is: (A) A reason for one to do so (B) Basic knowledge of chemistry/biology and a little elbow grease (C) there is no C, see how easy it is! Not to mention that the nasty effects of a lot of these improvised devices/methods would make getting shot with a hunting rifle sound like a good way to go.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
http://hypersynergy.com/
And it felt good, I agree.
Cheers back!
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
The one corollary to "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" is "don't bring a gun to a knife fight".
Yeah, the thing I can't figure out from the Canadian's example is how bar fights are more likely to be deadly with handguns. I'm still working on accuracy with mine (I don't get out to the range often enough...) and I can't imagine one being able to hit anything with any accuracy if inebriated. Someone might prove me wrong with studies, but the slashing weapons seem much more harmful in the hands of a drunk, aside from the hands of a drunk. I'm not one to imbibe, but I would imagine my basic martial arts training wouldn't be forgotten were I in such a situation. The reason you drill it over and over is so it's second nature. I've always been taught that fights ought to last about 3 seconds and in such an event one does not aim to merely annoy the opponent.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Well, let me try to explain it again: The firearms are not the problem. The problem is that murders are committed or accidents happen. In this case we are discussing intentional deaths, so the problem is that murders happen. As the statistics for Brazil and Mexico show, if someone wants to commit murder, they will use tools which are handy. In the USA, guns are handy, so many murders are committed with guns.
Regarding accidental deaths: In the USA we have about two guns for every man, woman and child. If guns were the problem, our population would be decimated by now. A swimming pool in the household is 6 times more dangerous than a gun in the household. According to your view, we have a "car problem" and automobiles should be banned. Car accidents take 190 times as many lives as accidental gun deaths.
Our "right to bear arms" is a direct result of our becoming free of Britain. Our country was founded on the rights of Life (we have a natural right to live), Liberty (we have a natural right to use our life as we see fit as long as we don't infringe on anyone else's rights), and Happiness (which includes a natural right to gain and own property and pursue callings which satisfy us without limits as long as we don't infringe on other peoples' rights). Owning the means to protect these rights is an extension of these rights. These are very strong definitions. As a result of these definitions, we threw off conventions and behaviors that contradicted these principles (slavery is one example that is used too often as an irrelevant pointer to the imperfection of our Founder's, but that succumbed to the principles in the Declaration and Constitution).
Britain, even in the 20th Century, has one of the worst civil rights records of any civilized country. In the attempt to make people safe, Britain, in 1988 (for a single instance), confiscated lots of private property such as antique firearms, shotguns, hunting weapons, swords, crossbows, spears and so forth. I have friends who lost thousands of dollars worth of personal property without adequate compensation by having their collections confiscated. Britain is rapidly becoming Orwell's "1984". Cameras everywhere, mail privacy violated, personal privacy disregarded, etc.. IMO, if the British government decided to impose Martial Law tomorrow, the "subjects" wouldn't have the means or the will to resist. Incidentally, although homicides seem to have declined since the 1988 Weapons Act, violent crime is 'way up. It's like the myth of the frog in the pot; the temperature is rising and the British are getting cooked because there is no sudden indication that it is happening. Unfortunately, it is happening in the USA also, but we are probably about 30 years behind the British in depriving people of their rights, and our Constitution gives a clear standard by which to judge the actions of our government.
Lastly, I object to the "jumping to solutions" approach to problem-solving. Banning firearms implies that firearms are a "cause" of violent death. In scientific terms, a cause must be both necessary and sufficient to produce the result. It takes very little thinking ability to realize that guns by themselves do not produce violence or violent deaths, therefore banning guns cannot solve the violence problem. Our neighbor to the North, Canada, has a lower rate of gun ownership than the USA, but even then, Canada has a much lower rate of homicides per capita, and homicides with firearms are even lower on per-capita gun ownership. There is something in the Cultural makeup of Canadians that seems to inhibit violence. (I don't have any idea what it is, but the USA might benefit from a cultural infusion from Canada.) I doubt that this can be imposed on the USA through edict, but some Sociologists may have a different opinion.
A problem is usually defined two ways: First, a problem is defined as a discrepancy between the way things are and the way we want them to be. This definition is inadequate because it lacks precision. It works well for many problems when it
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
So says _Not The Bible_, anyway... :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
My friends, come - enter the 21st Century - the door is open for you. 18th Century thinking impedes you.
Ian D. K. Kelly
idkk Consultancy Ltd.
"Quality through Thought"
They did very well in killing up 3,000 civilians.
They made the system stronger.
paintball
>Your child is kidnapped by two individuals. One is captured. He will not talk. You are placed in a soundproof room with the kidnapper and one #2 pencil. Sharpened.
Err, try: "Your child is kidnapped. A person is captured who may or may not have a connection to the crime. He denies it. You are placed in a soundproof room with the kidnapper and one #2 pencil. Sharpened."
Life would be much easier if only bad guys got caught, if the police always knew who did a crime, and if captured criminals who did a crime were incredibly stoic.
Heck, rewrite it this way: "A father's child is kidnapped. You are captured, they think you did it. You are unable to give them clues to where the child is. They leave you in a soundproof room with the father and one #2 pencil in his hand. Sharpened."
A.
How about citing a single source that reads the 2nd amendment the way DC does contemporaneous with the framers? This interpretation doesn't appear until recently, when the gun grabbing began.
"But the societal context has changed, and so must our reading." Sure. And the framers couldn't possibly have foreseen the internet, an era of instant communication, Islamic extremism, nuclear weapons, and 24 hour global news. So why don't the liberals think the reading of the 1st Amendment should change with the societal context?
"Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA."
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Without getting too in depth with this, I want to say a few things.
First, it is not an arms race most of the time. A robber is generally in it for one of three reasons: money, thrill, or insanity. The chance of being shot tends to deter the first two. The third is dangerous no matter how you cut it.
Further, a robber is already breaking the law. Possessing a gun is quite possibly just one more thing to add on to the list of legality issues they have.
As far as the gun crime rate vs the USA, I haven't done a direct comparison in a few years, but a quick google search will (assuming it remains true, which I believe it does) yield that while the UK saw a drop in gun crime, they saw a massive influx of violent crimes. The exact opposite correlation (removal of gun control leading to lower violent crimes) can be seen in several places in the US. I submit that crime (and the effects thereof) are much more complicated than can be maintained by a single variable: i.e. the inclusion/removal of guns.
I have argued gun rights against many people for many years. What it comes down to generally is experience: people who have handled guns, fired guns, and even treated bullet wounds (several of my extended family members are in the medical professions) understand the trade off: perceived safety for direct control of a situation. If I ever have to defend myself with a firearm, at least I will have control of my situation. Giving up that control in the hopes that the government will protect you (especially in the US/UK where the government is proving to be pretty much useless on that front) is generally something that most people I know are not willing to do. Have someone else ask that of us is worrisome to say the least.
I don't expect to change a slashdotters (or anyone else's) mind on this topic directly. I can only ask that you do some solid pro-gun reading (try and avoid the idiot rednecks, I know it can be hard since they are the most vocal) and attempt to fire a firearm at some point. I think your perception will shift a bit.
I hope that this (and my previous) post have given you a deeper understanding of the pro-gun perspective, and I hope I have done that perspective justice. It is a right that is simply too important to lose by misunderstandings and lack of experience.
part of the megalopolis.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
The literal meaning is valid. Through it we know that the people who wrote it did not intend that only an army would get to have weapons, that having a weapon is a right of the people (not of the military). In fact, if you read further back behind the intent of the amendment, you can see that they actually intended to have an armed populace that could rise against the United States government should it become oppressive. Of course the statists in this country do not like that idea at all.
Notice that freedom of speech ends at the exact point where you transgress on the rights of others, like perjury to wrongfully convict (or acquit, in which case the victim is harmed), damage to reputation (libel/slander) and fire in a crowded theater (your speech immediately led to physical injury during the stampede). The anti-gun lobby wants to prohibit the possession of guns even when the owner is not using them to transgress on the rights of others (as is the case with the vast majority of guns). I believe we all recognize that using a gun in a manner that directly transgresses on the rights of others should be illegal.
Just for a little more information, did you know that most genocides and mass slaughters were carried out not long after the government disarmed the populace? Just ask the Jews and the Armenians, who were both disarmed prior to their slaughter.
The American attitude to gun scares me really - you have something like twenty-five times the muder with firearms rate (per capita) as the UK and still insist that there's no positive effect on gun bans. You honestly can't figure out why guns and cars are different (hot tip: guns are for the express intent of causing bodily harm and ultimately, save for range shooting, which really doesn't require anyone owning their own guns, every function of them is for this - in contrast, a car is primarily for transport and the bodily harm is a sideeffect) and why the idea of banning guns is much less ridiculous than that of banning cars.
3% of Swedish 10th graders report using illicit drugs other than cannabis in their lifetime vs 24% in the US. Just 8% of the Swedes reported using cannabis vs 41% in the US.
Besides the well established causal relationship between drug use and criminal activity, this also suggests either significantly different cultural values (e.g., greater propensity to obey authority figures) or better enforcement methods.
Ahhh, does little baby want to pack up his toys and go home? Regardless of whether or not you'll respond to me (and risk getting destroyed, again), here is some more information for your edification.
Who knows, maybe you'll think twice before blindly spouting off the miracle that is Sweden...
An absolute comparison of income
Sweden's poorest 10% actually does slightly worse than their counterpart in the US in real dollar terms (PPP adjusted) even after taxes and most subsidies are taken into account. What's more, virtually every economic group above it, especially at the median and above, does significantly better.
If you're unconvinced that absolute measures of poverty "matter"..
Read Page 22
See page 17
Evidence of Sweden's declining economic status. The average Swede has lost purchasing power over the past 20 years and this effect is particularly evident when compared against the rest of Europe. They've slipped from #4 to #18 from 1970 to 1998 (an absolute loss of 17 points vs the OED average of 100).
Swedish Egalitarianism between 1903 and 2004
Evidence that Sweden had much less economic disparity before their welfare state was created due to collapse of capital markets (as opposed to the "because" that you want to believe) and that they've, in fact, followed similar economic trends.
Economist overview of Swedish economy and growing discontent amongst Swedes
A balanced article in the Economist about some not so well known facts about the Swedish economy. For instance, although they report 6% unemployment officially, they have a ton of people that actually long-term unemployed and living off the system (e.g., long term sick leave). Reliable estimates put their true unemployment closer to 15-17%. What's more, 30% of the country works for the government.
They also point out that Sweden has created virtually no new net jobs in private industry since 1950.
Only 1 of Sweden's 50 largest companies was founded after 1970. Entrepreneurship (and even self-employment) are much lower in Sweden than most of the US and even Europe.
Sweden's problem with entrepreneurship
An article discussing some of the problems and statisics relating to Swedish entrepreneu
I know this post is old, but I had to reply to your comment. You saying that mass ownership of guns is one of the leading causes of terror and misery in our society made me want to give you another viewpoint. First, the cause of terror and misery is misguided people, not their tool of choice. Anyone that wises to terrorize will find a way to do it, guns or not (see Sept 11th).
Do you really think guns were created with the sole intent to kill other people? Is that the only purpose you think they serve? I grew up on a cattle farm in rural Virginia where the hospital and the police were easily an hour away from the farm, and there was no 911 service. I almost always carried a gun when I worked on the farm, especially when I had to go into the deep woods to repair the perimeter fence. Did I carry a gun to kill people or terrorize? Of course not! I carried it because there were many sightings of black bear and bobcats and even occasional coyotes, and being so far from help, I had to protect myself. We would also use guns to kill wild animals for food, such as squirrels, rabbits or deer. Also if we were harvesting one of our steers for food, we'd use a gun for that. Finally, being so far away from help, what if someone tries to break into your home to harm your family? It was a mile to the next neighbor's house so they weren't going to hear, and if you did get the number for the police looked up in the phone book (remember no 911 service), it was going to be an hour before someone got there to protect you. I certainly felt better knowing that in that situation, I could protect myself and my family with my gun, but having it as a means of self defense didn't mean that I ever used it to threaten or terrorize anybody.
Do I still own a gun? Yes, I do. Do I believe I should have the right to own a gun? Absolutely. I believe I should have the right to protect myself, and a gun ban at this point only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Do I terrorize people because I own a gun? I've only ever used my gun for peaceful purposes and protection, I've never threatened anyone with it, nor do I carry it outside my home other than on the farm. No, I don't terrorize.
My point is that your statement, while it may have some truth in some cities, is not applicable across all of society as you imply. I challenge you to honestly consider that fact and to have a more open mind about gun owners in the future.