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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
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.
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.
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!!!"
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.
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 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
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 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.
'well regulated milita' probably includes terrorists cells?
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.
Not necessarily.
Think of what the country would be like if you had no local police or state police; you are also in a country that includes other nations (Indians) some of them hostile.
One of the most important functions of a militia would be to provide for local security and peace.
We have to be careful about attributing modern viewpoints to the founders, or pretending they all thought the same way. None of them subscribed to libertarianism as we know it, although some (Jefferson) were closer than others (Adams). It isn't that they didn't believe in individual liberty -- they did. But they also had a stronger attachement than we do in the idea of community liberty.
It's interesting to read about the operation of militias in the Revolution. They operated in a primitive democratic way, choosing their leaders from the respected men of the community; nor did those leaders excercise autocratic powers. When not actually in battle, matters of strategy and tactics were debated and even voted upon. This practice infuriated Washington at first, who saw it as undisciplined. However he adjusted his style of command to this, and was a better commander because of it. The lessons he learned from this also helped him form an effective working relationship with the Continental Congress (Adams was particularly nettlesome), an example which was very important in the development of the US Constitution.
In any case, militias were not mobs or random collections of individuals. They were the defensive organ of the community. It is not that they had no discipline, they had a different kind of discipline, one of community responsibility, reputation, and mutual reliance.
Community liberty is not incompatible with individual liberty, but sometimes they do conflict, especially when the more influential in the community are able to claim greater protection. In the late 19th century, the national guard was used against strikers in Andrew Carnegie's steel mills.
The right of private firearm ownership is not, in my opinion, not directly covered by the Second Amendment, which I believe is about the right of communities to arm themselves. Most quotations from the founders that are used to support private firearm ownership are more accurately read in that light.
However, that doesn't mean it is not protected by the Bill of Rights. After all, there is constitutional right of privacy that can be asserted against the government, even though the legal concept of privacy did not exist at the time. The right to privacy is implicit in the third, fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendemnts. The fact that this is implicit makes it no less enforceable, because of the ninth amendment.
Personal firearm ownership is implicit in the second amendment. That it cannot be taken away unreasonably is implicit in the due process clause of the fifth amendment. That this implicit right has equal force as other rights is established in the ninth.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
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
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.
... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ... " -Thomas Jefferson
What we should be asking is "WHY?" Why does the government want an unarmed population? The founding fathers made it clear that the purpose of our government was to protect rights. They also warn about modifications to the 2nd amendment.
"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." - Thomas Jefferson
"[H]owever weak our country may be, I hope we shall never sacrifice our liberties." - Alexander Hamilton
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the government moving to the left. This has already happened in England and Australia. After Great Britain banned most guns in 1997, making armed self-defense punishable as murder, violence skyrocketed because criminals know that law abiding citizens have been disarmed. Armed crime rose 10% in 1998. The Sunday Times of London reported on the new black market in guns: "Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style execution." There has been such a heavy increase in the use of knives for violent attacks that new laws have been passed giving police the power to search anyone for knives in designated areas.
Where are we going? Who is taking us there? Should we be kicking and screaming?
"Lame" - Galaxar
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
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
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.
Depends on who wins. If it happened today, would the British call the people who carried out the Boston Tea Party "terrorists?"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
for the lazy
Well said.
I find most vocal gun rights advocates leave out the "well regulated militia" clause if the second amendment. I've always been amazed at how poorly that amendment parses. My reading is the same as yours - citizens may have firearms so that they mey function as part of an organized "militia," or protective group. All of the functions which militias performed two hundred years ago have been taken over by standing govenrmental bodies. In fact, the writing most likely applies to the state national guards - you don't get much more of a well-regulated militia than that.
I still believe in the right to own firearms, and have owned several in my lifetime, though none in operational condition at the moment, but I don't agree that the constitution gives the sweeping endorsement it once did.
I'm sure there will be those who ignore reality and say that without personal firearms we are at the mercy of the federal government. I've got bad news for them - there isn't a consumer-led army in the world that could take over the US govenrment, on US soil, defended by the US military. (That is, of course, ignoring the possibility that most/all of the military turns against the CIC and standing legislatures - but then we woouldbe fighting with the military, not against it.)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
Unorganized fails the "well regulated" test. The 2nd is talking about the national guard, not the boy scouts.
Because (1) gun bans violate essential liberties and (2) gun bans don't work. They don't. Get over it. Guns bans have never been shown to be causally linked to a decrease in murder or violence. If you have some formal evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy see it.
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
"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
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=10&sec=311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, 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.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
This left the states in the position of being able to assemble a force to protect civil order (a police force), but no right to arm it. The second amendment was written to address this problem by ensuring that, since the people have the right to be armed, the states could assemble an armed militia from the general population.
Its not certain exactly what rights this converys to the general population. It has never been tested by the Supreme Court. But it may be that if a state or locality decides to ban firearms, they cannot then create an armed police force. Their right (state or local law enforcement) to bear arms is derived from their right as a member of the general population to do so.
Have gnu, will travel.
What do you need most modern technology for? A car? A microwave? A swimming pool? A golf club? A compound bow? A knife? A chain saw? You don't NEED any of these things. You want them because they make a certain task easier and more convenient, but then, so does a gun. Just because a few people don't know how to obey the law is no reason to make my life more difficult.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Just like, if torture worked (which it doesn't), I would not support torture.
Some folks think safety is more important than liberty. I disagree with them. I think that liberty is more important than safety, although I don't even agree that it has to be one or the other.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
What doesn't make sense here?
Your first sentence. I know lots of people with guns who don't kill people. I know of people without guns who do kill people.
Also your last sentence. Expecting that banning guns will protect people from gun violence is like expecting that declaring your city a "nuclear free zone" (and I've seen the signs at some cities' limits) will protect it in case of nuclear attack.
The only reason that banning guns could possibly make a difference in protecting people (as you put it, "Black leaders want to protect blacks from gun violence") is if they're a naturally violent society to start with. They may still get into fights but with only less-lethal weapons at hand, they don't kill each other as much. A non-violent society should have no problem with people carrying whatever weapons they want, because they'll only be used in defense against the rare individual who exhibits aberrant violent behaviour.
-- Alastair
(stupid criminal: "Dang, I was gonna go kill a couple people today, but now my Glock-17 is illegal. I better go hand it in to the proper authorities.")
The only people who would turn in their guns are the law-abiding citizens, who then become perfect (read: "unarmed") targets for criminals.
And all the murder-rate talk is a smokescreen anyways. The second amendment is in place to protect CITIZENS from a tyrannical GOVERNMENT. It's no coincidence that as the US Government becomes incrementally more tyrannical more efforts are being made by it to disarm its citizens.
And today, finally, I think someone is going to understand my sig (below).
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
"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
Thank you for making this point.
We could all roll around in bubbles with cameras recording our every move, and I'm sure that would make this a safer society, but that would be...horrible.
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.
"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.
Yes, one should. One would see countries like Switzerland and Israel where people have easy access to guns, and a murder rate much lower than in the U.S.
We Americans stab and bludgeon each other to death more than most other nations commit total muders.
In the U.S. firearms are used in only 71% of murders. With a base homicide of 5.6 per 100,000 people, that give 1.6 non-gun murders per 100,000.
According to stats here (a bit old, admittedly), that's more than the total muder rate in Denmakr, Austria, Switerland, France, England, Belgium, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Norway, New Zeland, Ierland, the Netherland, Spain, Greece, or Kuwait.
If all guns disappeared from the U.S. tomorrow, and we pretended that guns were never used defensively and that people wouldn't turn to other methods of killing each other, the U.S. would still have about two and half times the murder rate of Japan (0.62/100,000).
Our problem with violence does not rest in our guns.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The well-regulated militia clause actually is not part of the important phrasing.
:D the "well regulated militia" is not the key clause of the second amendment, merely explaining why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"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"
A well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state. Therefor, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's what it says, to use a more.. modern.. parsing.
While I would readily agree that it is significantly LESS neccessary today than at the drafting of the bill of rights, I must point out that that does not guarentee it may not be as relevant, or even moreso, at some point in the future. Further, an out-right ban on firearms would do amazingly little to curtail gun violence in this country (one need look no further than DC, NYC, or.. well, New Jersey entirely to see how ineffective massive gun control laws are -- criminals simply do not turn over firearms, and even if every gun currently in this country was destroyed tomorrow it is mind-blowingly simple to smuggle them across our porous borders. Think how many tons of cocaine make it across every year. Now smuggle something that a dog can't smell. Bam.)
And FYI -- no, a citizen-army could not win against the US military in a conventional war..
but foreign insurgent forces seem to do pretty damned well against them. Now imagine, rather than rag-tag groups from 3rd world nations with AK's, you have disgruntled americans with hunting rifles and AR-15s. You lose the language barrier between "good guys" and "bad guys", you lose the culture barrier. You lose the effect that being "somewhere else" has on our troops -- face it, you're more likely to blow stuff up if it's not YOUR stuff, or your FAMILY's stuff, or your COMMUNITY's stuff.
regardless that's beside the point -- the real creamy filling is the first two things I typed
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
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.
Well, it doesn't follow that their right "as a member of the general population". In fact it's clear that the police right to bear arms does not in practice flow from any individual right of the officers. They can have their guns taken away, and if they don't have a carry permit they can't walk around armed.
Let's say we assume that there is no second amendment right to individual firearm posession. The second amendment allows the "people" to be armed; if not as individuals, then this must certainly grant communities to arm chosen memebers of the community. Otherwise, the "people" aren't armed at all. The power exercised over the National Guard by the central government means that the existence of the Guard cannot be used, as many do, to prove that the Second Amdendment can be satisfied with no privately or locally controlled firearms.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsaf ety/statistics.htm
"* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"
Go ahead, and kill your selfs with your stupid guns, so that so-calles "terrorists" don't have to bother.
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
What do you need a book for?
I don't have to justify my rights to you, that's the nature of rights.
However, to assist your understanding: Human beings have a need to defend themselves against the small percentage of them who commit violent acts. Using a firearm is an effective way to effect such a defense.
Of late it's become fashionable in some circles to argue that this defense should be solely collective, that an individual right to self-defense is very limited; that if you are threatened, you only have the right to call a government employee to come help you. (And if that employee arives too late to help - as they usually will if you're being immediately threatened? Well, then that's just too bad.)
Arugments that the right of self-defense is less individual than the right of free speech are nonsensical. I stand firmly in favor of each person's right to defend themselves, and that has to include access to tools for effective self-defense - for the right to keep and bear arms.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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
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...
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
Now, I'm not sure if the stats for "numbers of homicides" means individual deaths, or "incidents" (which may involve multiple deaths). An interesting way to break down the stats would be to look at the number of deaths per "incident" for each type of weapon (or non-weapon). I think you'll find that statistically there are a *lot* more deaths per "incident" when guns are involved.
If you're going down that road, you'd better also look at the number of "incidents" in which the use (typically, brandishing) of a firearm prevented someone from getting harmed. Speaking as someone for whom that has been personally helpful, I can tell you it's a very meaningful aspect of the issue. You would also want to take into account places like Australia, which have seen a jump in good old fashioned beatings and knifings since the confiscatory gun ban there took place some years back.
But I don't give a rat's ass about the overall stats. I've used my gun, without killing anyone, to protect my family from a violent person. I won't bother with the details here unless it's worth getting into - but you can google for some stats on self defense, deterrence, and related issues. It's much more significant than your comment would imply that you know.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you want to compare licensing guns to licensing cars, then here is a good point.
The government only licenses cars and drivers for use on public roads. I can go out and buy any vehicle I want, and as long as I only use it on private property, the government doesn't care. I don't need brake lights, airbags or anything else the government requires, as long as I only use the vehicle on private property. It is once I take it onto public roads that the government cares.
This should be true for guns as well. What I do on my private property on my business, as long as I don't endanger people around me. So in a residential neighborhood I should be able to keep any firearm I like, but not discharge them (as it poses a danger to those around me). However, if I am out in the middle of nowhere (again on private property) I should be able to discharge any firearm I like. However, if I want to carry a loaded weapon with me in public, the state government should be able.
In my state this is true. If I wanted to carry a concealed handgun, I would have to pass a background check, go through a safety course and pass a test. In addition, once I was issued a license I would be subject to a stricter set of rules when carrying the weapon.
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 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.
Problem being, what if it's your infirm grandmother, defending herself against a big guy breaking into her house with a knife? Yes, it would be harder for her to kill the bad guy. Considering that (if she can't run away, and we assume that if he's going after a little old lady he's beyond being talked out of this) it's kill him or be killed or seriously injured herself, that's not a good thing.
And that's not a rare case. Estimates of defensive firearms uses range from 108,000 to 2.5 million, depending on whose numbers you believe. The DOJ puts it about about 1.5 million per year. That's about 500 per 100,000 population - about two orders of magnitude more people will use guns defensively, than will be murdered by any means. Even if you take the 108,000 figure, you get 36 per 100,000, six and a half times the total murder rate and nine times the rate of homicides commited by firearm.
It means the number of deaths. A mass murder is multiple homicides.
If you want to commit mass murder, guns are not the way. Bombs or fire, that's the ticket. For a high body count you need to blow up or set fire to a building, not go on a shooting rampage.
On the other hand, if someone does go on a shooting rampage, you'd better hope you're in a state with concealed carry laws and that someone will shoot back. (It was only after the infamous Luby's massacre that Texas, followed by other states, changed the law to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on their person.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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 /.
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.
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.
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.
Dear poster,
Currently, a bunch of poor, under-educated fighters are beating the U.S. military using propane tanks, styrofoam, gasoline, and an abudnant supply of military ordinance. Most of them are not residents of the country they are doing this in; they are operatives from foreign countries who have been trained on how to establish support from the locals.
One of their greatest weaknesses is that despite the fact that the country they operate in was, until recently, the 4th most heavily armed country in the world, they have difficulty in aquiring military-grade munitions. Thankfully, they are turning more and more to homemade explosives, indicating that the supply of military-grade is dwindling. I say thankfully because this is my second tour, and it indicates that my third will not be as violent as the first two.
If you think the U.S. military is invincible you are wrong. If you think that it would be very very hard to beat without munitions, you would be right. Simply choose between legal posession of firearms (which is a habit less dangerous than legal posession of cars, swimming pools, or alcohol) versus the ability of your government to oppress you at any time with no recourse of any kind.
Thanks,
A US Servicemember
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.
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."
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
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
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
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.
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
I don't even understand this mentality. How can someone cite this as though it were worse than other places. Guess what, I bet people in Japan are more likely to die by choking on fish than those in the US. Who cares? The mechanism is not important. Are kids in the US more likely to commit suicide or be murdered than other countries and does this statistic correlate across countries that have more handgun availability? The answer, for anyone who bothers to look, is "no." So if we make guns harder to obtain more people will kill themselves with poison and more people will die from drive by pipe bombs. How is this beneficial if you don't have some sort of psychological aversion to guns that does not extend to these other instruments?
Gun bans don't prevent violence and most studies show they slightly increase it. If you're interested in stopping violence why not look to the phenomenon that do strongly correlate with violence and look to passing laws regarding those?