There is no government rights to arming militias. Do you understand how ridiculous that would be when the RIGHTS in the US Constitution apply only to the people and not to the government? Have you missed the part that says, "The right of the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? It certainly doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution, that the rights of the GOVERNMENT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

BTW I didn't backtrack on anything. The right to keep and bear arms, recognizes that we posses the right to safety and security using firearms.

EdR

The unfortunate reality of the situation is that since Dunblane, gun crime (in particular with pistols - the type that were banned) has increased.

Although they complied with the law, many British handgun owners were reluctant to hand their guns over, doing so because they had to and not through their own choice. They were sport shooters and they were giving up their hobby. All that happened was the sport they enjoyed got banned and nothing happened to gun crime except it got worse.

Statistics show that all over the world and throughout the last century, there is zero correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime, but there is a track record to show spikes in gun crime following outright bans. Gun bans simply don't work.

Now, for America, we see the other end of the scale - no licensing, no traceability. Problems exist through lack of any kind of effective management of who is and is not allowed to own a gun. Giving a mentally ill person a gun because he's still within his 2nd amendment right is worrying to say the least.

Perhaps the way forward is to realise this:
Gun bans are ineffective and no type of gun is worse than another, but proper legislation to manage their usage is necessary.

Statements like "ban guns" or "ban AR-15s" serve only to highlight the ignorance of the person making them, as neither will address the root cause of the problem. There are millions of responsible, sane, well mannered AR-15 owners. The gun is not the problem.
The problem exists in the attitude - when power over others becomes the focus, and rights defeat rationale.

The gun control debate tends to evoke very polarised responses, but the truth is balance and evidence based decisions are what is required.

Yes! Only law abiding citizens will obey the law, just as criminals DON'T obey the law...whether it is turning in a gun, or robbing, or murder, etc etc!


Some parts of America have licensing and traceability (California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut ...um... not sure how many other places) And giving a gun to a mentally ill person (or a criminal) is not allowed by any law that i know of. Or certainly SHOULD be, if not already. It seems to me that gun bans are intended to disarm law abiding citizens. There are many existing firearms laws as it is, but those laws are very lightly enforced, if that.


Here i disagree...

with military training, an armed person would be capable of INCREDIBLE damage with an AR-15... the more "high capacity" magazines that he/she has, the more destruction that he/she can inflict. And he/she could teach others those exact skills. If you consider all of the famous mass shootings using semi automatic rifles, i don't think any of those shooters even had direct military training!

If forced to use a "bolt action" hunting rifle, the RATE of destruction would be slowed down greatly.

This is the argument for banning the AR-15 (and other semi-automatic "assault" rifles) but as you already said - law abiding citizens will not use firearms for criminal purposes in the first place!


One small disagreement... i think it is not so much "evidence based decisions" as much as i see a government intention of attaining a monopoly on power. America's founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment as a check of the government by the people. Mao Tse Tung said it famously "Power comes from the barrel of a gun"

Otherwise Labyrinth, agree with your posting!

oh... did my last post get censored?

weird...now i see it...

I didn't mean to suggest it was purely for the actual enlisted persons in the army, though I do think you can't deny that there has to be some kind of military connection, because it literally says there is one. My reading, personally, is that the idea was to have a standby population of well-prepared and trained people that could be conscripted when necessary, e.g., if Britain attacks, or whatever.

My main point with respect to this thread is that, however you do decide to read the amendment, you are obligated to attend to the full provision when you interpret its meaning. Here it is, without ellipses: "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." You, following many many others on the right, seem to fully ignore or downplay the first clause. That clause sets out the aim of people having the right that they have, gives it its context, setting out the practical limits of the right.

Upshot? The less that some kind of 'arms' have to do with ensuring the security of a free state, the less obvious it is that these are the kinds of 'arms' that fall under the scope of the amendment. Example: a Panzer tank with a militarized main gun isn't covered under the amendment, despite the fact that it counts as an 'arm' -- because it has nothing to do with having a population of well-regulated quasi-reservists. I think that logic should also be applied to assault weapons, for a start.


I can't tell where you're at now. I can only say that I have given you some reasons to think your views are not persuasive:

(a) I suggested that you're not counting people, and therefore, that your position forces you into an argument where real people don't count. Initially, the reason why I suggested that you're 'not counting' people because you decided to artificially focus on two cases of knife-related deaths that aren't relevant to cultural gun-craziness (i.e., my argument). My worry comes out quite vividly just now when you are apparently willing to deny the very existence of accidental deaths by guns, just because their existence isn't consistent with a fantastical NRA trope.

(b) When the arguments you have made succeed, they only succeed in making a case for widescale instruments for self-defense. And self-defense is indeed very important in civil society. However, 'self-defense' is not synonymous with 'guns'. The sense that they are by default equivalent is an idea you basically have to be hypnotized to believe, and I think it is part of your culture that needs to be abandoned.

(c) Guns fail to provide self-defense, when they do fail, because the threat of instant catastrophic harm from a distance gives people a rational incentivize to 'act crazy', fostering a culture of brinksmanship that would not exist if the favored means of self-defense were weaker in one or more of those ways. But once you accept that gun-craziness is a real cultural issue, it anulls any idea that 'the good man with the gun' protects anybody in a duel. After all, from the perspective of the crazy person, the good man with the gun is the first one who has to die.

(d) If my view about (c) is wrong, it isn't going to be shown by just repeating that the second amendment exists the way that you think it does. I agree that it exists, and is broadly taken to exist, in the way you think it does. But the topic of the thread is whether it *ought* to exist in the way you think it does -- whether it ought to mean what you and your governing institutions think it means. And I think it has been interpreted in a way that incentivizes crazy. Hence, that's the sense in which I think we need to "get rid of" the second amendment -- meaning, I think you ought to get rid of a certain popular unrestrained reading of it which ignores the first clause.

Both true in essence. Gun laws are about disarming the masses, because it is the only form of control that can be exerted. Compliance is key. Non-compliance can be punished, but only when it is discovered. Therefore banning guns from the law abiding means only people who intend to use them to exert power will have them (illegally or in the name of government).

As for the AR-15 point, while semi auto may mean less training/faster shooting, my point is that if someone wants to do harm, they will. If they want to use a gun to make a ranged attack, they will. No law will stop them unless it preemptively accounts for their state of mind, which blurs the line on civil rights. But what I mean is, a marksman could use a bolt action rifle to kill many people at greater range than an AR15, take longer to discover, defeat body armour.... it's morbid to think about. Yes, the AR15 has been used in mass shootings, but actually accounts for less than 1% of US gun crime, so banning it to make a serious impact would be virtually pointless. Over 80% happens with handguns, so that would be more effective as a ban, but still the main target is guns like the AR15. The focus shouldn't be on trying to ban one type of gun, it should be on ensuring all guns are used responsibly - the focus being on sport shooting, hunting and pest control, and as a last measure only, self defense.

Technically, a requirement for licensing would "infringe" on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, by the fact that a lesser law could usurp a Constitutional right. However, there are a number of cities and states that require either a license to own, or register a firearm. (-Not to be confused with conceal carry laws.) None of these laws have proven to be effective against gun violence, just as outright gun bans aren't effective against gun violence.


Good read here;
https://time.com/5645747/gun-violence-mental-illness/

I'll add that mental illness comes in a very wide variety of forms, not all mentally ill patients are dangerous or ever likely to use a gun to kill others. But in the gun control debate we are made to conclude that all mental illness is dangerous and patients should be disarmed for the sake of public safety. This is wrong! Finally keep in mind what gun control advocates define as mental illness.

https://theconversation.com/mental-illness-and-gun-laws-what-you-may-not-know-about-the-complexities-92337


Question for you, of all the shootings, in the U.S, in the last few years, how many of them did the gunman use an AR-15 or other "assault rifle"?

Good read here too;
https://fee.org/articles/are-ar-15-rifles-a-public-safety-threat-heres-what-the-data-say/

As Tench Coxe wrote, concerning the 2nd Am, "Every terrible implement of the solider is the birthright of an American"
This would mean that by today's standards, we have a right to own an AR-15 just as much as we have the right to own a Smith & Wesson revolver, Or an M1911, (Both of which were also used extensively by the military)

An AR-15 or AK-47 or any other rifle, in the hands of a law abiding citizen is just as an effective deterrent to crime as the hand gun.

EdR

Lets assume you are correct. What exactly is this military connection? The classic idea of a militia is, they are armed civilians that could be called upon during times of emergencies to either supplement or bolster a regular army, ergo, you needed armed citizens. If that's the case, and we know that it is, then it would also be necessary that the people have the right to own firearms. And thats exactly what the 2nd Am states.


I would contend that you're ignoring and downplaying the second part. The first part of the 2nd Am. is not a qualifier, or a stipulator. The first part outlines it's purpose. "A well regulated Militia" does not mean to regulate the militia, as in government regulation. This would be inconsistent with the Constitution and contradictory to the second part of the 2nd Am. Well regulated means well armed, well trained (or well acquainted with their own arms) Militia means armed citizens and the purpose of it all; Being necessary to the security of a free state....Note that it does not say being necessary to the security of THE State. It specifically says "A free state" or another way to say it is; a state of freedom. There you have it; Well trained, armed citizens, being necessary to the security of a state of freedom. It dovetails nicely, without contradiction, to the second part which describes the right itself; The RIGHT of the PEOPLE (Note the use of the word PEOPLE at this point) To keep and bear arms, with one stipulation that the right shall not be infringed.


Where exactly do you find that in the amendment, (or the Constitution) of what is covered or what is not covered?


My "focus" on the two cases of knife related death was in response to your "Culture of violence" remark which is false and doesn't account for why violent crime exists even in your country. Violence is a serious problem everywhere, not just in America. But you've also asserted that it's because we have arms that we have a culture of violence.

These two deaths involved two separate innocent Canadians who died by the hands of two very evil Canadians reveals that you didn't count real people youself. Rather you glossed over everything because they didn't include a firearm in the story. Has it occurred to you that of the thousands of violent crimes in Canada, I pointed out two knife related stories? If America has a culture of violence then a culture of violence also exists in Canada because I can point to thousands of such stories from Canada.... In any event, you can't argue that violent crime doesn't exist in Canada.


Apparently you didn't read the citations. The NRA didn't print this stuff. They compiled the data from other sources, including Universities, and peer reviewed articles.

Don't put words in my mouth and say that I deny the VERY existence of accidental deaths by guns. I don't believe that guns should be confiscated from all of society because of the tragic accidental death of a loved one. If thats your best solution, you better start banning cars because a lot more people die in car accidents. You better start banning electricity in homes because someone may drop a blow drier in the bath tub.


No one said self defense was synonymous with guns. (Just as crime isn't synonymous with guns) Firearms play an important role in self defense that no other self defense tool can provide, Answer this, how does an 80 yr old grandmother defend herself if she is alone in her home when an intruder breaks in? How does a man in a wheelchair defend himself if he is accosted by a violent thug? Shall we give them baseball bats to defend themselves? Shall we just wait for the cops to show? You were so concerned about who I would count.


Evidence?? How do you explain that there are millions of law abiding gun owners in America and we haven't annihilated each other by now??? If we are to believe what you say, there should be daily duels in the streets.


No doubt that (c) is wrong. It's intellectually wrong and it's factually wrong.
Excuses like "culture of violence" or "culture of brinksmanship" are nothing but strawman fallacies with an end conclusion that to solve it, they should get rid of the gun. But to get rid of the gun in America, they have to get rid of the 2nd Am. It's not just the first part or clause you want to get rid of, it's all of it! Especially the part that says; 'The right of the people-!"

EdR

I would say that is right -- it's a plausible account, and conforms generally to the one I introduced earlier. But notice that, if you take it seriously, you also have corresponding burdens to ask prudential questions about what sorts of arms fit the purpose of a well-regulated militia. Some arms don't serve that purpose in a way that would be consistent with individual ownership. Nukes and automatic weapons, most obviously.


My contention is that it is a qualifier by virtue of setting out its purpose, in the same way that every law begins with a preamble that naturally guides how it must be interpreted juridically.


I think "a well-regulated Militia" means a well-regulated Militia. It's very strange that you would think otherwise.

The only thing that needs to be interpreted is the nature of the relationship between that Militia and unregulated ownership of weapons capable of instantaneous catastrophic harm from a distance. That's a question of fit, and in my view, you have settled on the wrong fit, because the legal meaning of 'arms' only applies to the extent that it fits the explicit purpose of the amendment settled in the first clause. I take it as uncontroversial that, e.g., biological weapons, militarized Panzers, nukes, automatic weapons, etc. are arms, but they aren't the sort of arms that matter to the law, given its set purposes. The right of the people to arms is not to THOSE sorts of arms, because their having of that right would subvert the design of an institutionally well-regulated Militia. So, I recognize the right, but can't help but notice that it has a naturally restricted scope.

Anyway, the determination of what is or is not covered, semantically, is settled by the best theoretical explanation of what the law says. Insofar as your interpretation results in absurdity, it can't be the best one. So, just to be clear: do you believe the American people have the right to Panzers? Can you see any intuitive sense in which that might be hard to square against the need for a well-regulated militia?


Two events don't make a culture. A culture includes a whole woven pattern of signs, patterns, signals, values, directives, legislative priorities, roles, etc.; of treating the gun as a symbol of masculinity (for instance), as a casual and unreflective substitute for self-defence (as you inferentially did at the outset). If you don't appreciate the difference between a 'culture of' something and one or two instances of it, you're probably not going to understand the central point being made, and so be helpless in defending against it.


As I've said, I won't be reading anything the NRA puts out. If you want me to read particular papers, you can post them here.


Okay, so then you believe that sometimes guns kill people.


Your admission of this is a good step forward. It also moots your argument about the Greyhound.


The main evidence is the exaggerated amount of gun violence proportionate to your population. 100,000 injured or dead in 2013, if Wikipedia is to be believed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

But yes, there are lots of reasons for people not to want to kill each other. Some are economic, some moral. The point is that the net result of you having the culture you have is that you have a culture of fear, and actualized force against other people is one result of that. Increasingly, suicide is another.


I don't want you to get rid of any of the clauses. I want you to interpret the amendment in its fullness without suffering brain fog on the first clause.

I can argue that there is no specific limit to the types of arms we can own, Lets re-read that quote by Tench Coxe "Every terrible implement of the solider is the birthright of an American". Now why would this guy say this?

If we applied the classic meaning of a Militia, that is, armed citizens who can be called upon to supplement an Army, then we could surmise that the militia and the military would be very well armed in military strength, to defend the country. In reality, it isn't that the people have no right to own a nuke, I just seriously doubt that anyone could afford one, even if they made available the uranium or plutonium. What is consistent with individual ownership is not within the types of arms, but rather in the arms that are available and affordable to purchase.


The purpose is quite clear, "Being necessary to the security of a free state"


What exactly do you think a Well regulated Militia means? That only a militia can keep and bear arms? Then I'd ask you this; Who are the militia?


You have a contradiction. If only the "Militia" has the right to own arms, then why does the second part specifically state, "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms?" You can't explain why the word PEOPLE was used. If the right applies only to a Militia, it would make no sense to include the word PEOPLE and confuse the masses. It is completely consistent from beginning to end, if you can understand that the Militia ARE the people.

Next point, your term of "unregulated" is inconsistent with the Constitution in general. The Constitution recognizes the unlimited rights of the people and the limits of Gov't power. One such limit found in the 2nd Am is the "Shall not infringe" part. Now ask yourself, if only a Militia has the right to keep and bear arms, why would it be necessary for the 'Shall not infringe' part be included?


You can't have it both ways. If the 'Militia' is a military force, then these types of arms would be necessary and perhaps required of a military force expected to defend a nation. It's not that we can't own such arms, but it's not the type of arms you're going to find at your local gun store, -which brings up another point. Why would you want to use a Militia to supplement your Army if they cannot have access to the same types of arms required to defend the country??


I submit your interpretation is absurd. Do the American people have the right to own a tank? If you can find one for sale, and afford it, Yes! Absolutely! And some people actually do. There is no law preventing any American from owning a tank.


Two events out of thousands....


Why do you insist in putting words in my mouth? Guns are inanimate objects and cannot do anything. But it's easy for you to blame an inanimate object then to blame the person, if your goal is to get rid of the inanimate object.


What was my argument about the Greyhound again? Oh yeah, I brought it up to show you that theres no such thing as a culture of violence.


I believe I already did, but you still haven't acknowledged (or maybe it's brain fog) why the second part specifically uses the word "PEOPLE"

EdR

I live in Australia and each state has its own rifle and firearms legislations on this matter. I work on the land myself and do have livestock so this is in some sad cases a must. However since the Tassie idiot [no name] did something stupid with semi auto, all guns are now under tighter restrictions regarding calibres, types and magazine compacity no semi auto's of any sort except (class D) pistols must have a licence for all guns similar to drivers with photo ID and with classification A, B, C, & D.

As an Latino American I probably can't speak for the rest of the world and those with different opinions but this one is my Opinion. I believe the chose to Own a gun or not is a right for anyone to own one. Humans have been killing one another for years and it will never stop regardless with or without guns. From the invention of the spear to the bow and arrow and so one. I can honestly say that with all that is going on in America today is scary. I don't into the city at all.

And if I always being my Pistol. I had the best fire arms training when I was just a kid in high school and in JROTC and the 4-H Club shooting team and know I am a proud member of the NRA . And saying this I can honestly say banning or getting rid of guns does not work what so ever.

If you ask me I find a Car is just as Dangerous as much as a gun is.

This is just my Opinion

Well I live in Australia and 90% of firearms are now owned by farmers and recreational shooters its the last 10% or so that are still illegal. Mainly hand guns and a few still left over semi auto's from the Govt buy back scheme in 1996. If this can work both in the UK, and Australia why not the US?? Because the NRA uses the constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment to bear Arms. If anyone bothered to read it fully it this relates to both the Civil War and the British Empire re King George the 3rd. Whom implied a tariff embargo against then - The Commonwealth of The Americas'. 1775 to 1783. This happened at the same France was attacking England and parts of mainland Europe leading to the failed Russian invasion in 1810-12 lead by Napoleon. Whom then sold the French part of Americas' back to the then recently formed American Government. These were Florida, to Alabama, etc.. So Napoleon had US support and finance against the British. As we all know now this failed at Waterloo. Then when the Civil War broke out 1861-65. The 2nd amendment was used to bolster individual States against each other hence the South v's the North over the Slavery Act. The NRA still uses this "Right" (Am/Act) to build its membership base and make consumers buy products from arm dealers. Q) who uses a 30.30 semi auto or MAC 10 sub, or AK 47, SKS 59, to shoot deer, foxes and other feral animals or humanly put down an animal in pain NO ONE I KNOW!! These are fully militarized weapons not guns for sport shooting or other uses. Try buying any of these off the shop shelf in 90% of countries with strict Gun Laws. Look at Canada and Europe and Australia and now New Zealand, with a mad Aussie doing the massacre there.

It doesn't work. In Australia the gun buy back scheme was made mandatory, meaning that your options were, give up your gun and the Gov't would give you a little bit of cash or if you don't give up your guns, the Govt will confiscate your gun, throw you in jail, and severely fine you. So, you really didn't have an option here. You either complied or you faced incarceration under the law.
In the US, the 2nd Am right to keep and bear arms prevents such threats to our liberties.

For that reason, in the US, gun buy back schemes are voluntary. But gun buy back schemes also tend to be fraught with problems.
The first problem is they do not reduce crime. The people who tend to return guns are law abiding, which means they do not do crimes, which also means their guns aren't used in crimes.
Next, Criminals do not typically participate in gun buy back schemes because they want guns, so they can continue in their illegal activities. But worse, it's been known that during gun buy back events, criminals will stand in line attempting to buy guns, by offering people more for their guns then the program pays out, and they pay in cash where in many buy back events, the govt gives out gift cards for firearms.
And finally, many of the guns returned for money do not operate. The point of the buy back is supposedly to get guns off the street, but guns that do not function cannot shoot anyone.


Heres the entire 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."

So which part refers to the Civil War or the British Empire?


The answer to your question, who uses a 30.30, MAC10 AK SKS..... The simple answer is, None of your business. Americans have a right to own any firearm for any reason they deem fit, and do not have to answer to anyone as to why we can own that firearm. Our 2nd Am right to keep and bear arms has no stipulations or limitations.

EdR