First off, ‘evlgreg on Thu’, when they wrote “arms” it was because that was their word for weapon. They weren’t thinking of lasers, but rather of daggers and swords, which were also arms.

There seem to be only extremist view being put forth so far. I believe it is time for a centrist view.
In the recent DC v. Heller case, the USSC clearly labeled the second amendment a personal right. Liberals need to recognize this, and change their argument accordingly. On the other hand, conservatives need to recognize that there is not an unrestricted right to arms ownership. Even Scalia has said that reasonable limitations such as restriction of firearm ownership by felons, by the mentally ill, in certain locations, by placing conditions and qualifications on their sale, etc. In this sense it is similar to most other rights in that it is not universal – just like how the freedom of speech guaranteed in the first amendment is limited by defamation laws.

Now that we’ve established that the right to bear arms in a personal right that can be limited, the argument goes to what can be limited and from whom. The “what” category is more divisive, so I will concentrate on that division. This is where that pesky but oh-so-important word comes in; reasonable.

What is reasonable? Is it limited to the arms that were available at the time of the writing of the Constitution? I dare say not! Reductio Ad Absurdum would show that this is not the case as many common kitchen knives made out of alloys would then be liable to restrictions because of their dangers. Is it limited to common-issue weapons for the military? Well, historically, there were no standing armies in times of peace, and each state militia had their own standards. This could not have been the framers intent. So then, is it limited to any kind of weapon? In other words, is there no limit on the types of weapons that can be owned? The DC v. Heller case said that banning handguns was unconstitutional because a) it was an entire class of weapons, and b) they could reasonably be used for self defense. Again, reductio ad absurdum would show that armed nuclear weapons would be unreasonable for personal self defense. This means that there must exist a limit somewhere, a line if you will, on what is reasonable. So what is this line?

That’s the question of the century, and one that I will not pretend to have an answer to.
My guess would be that it would vary with the social perception of what is reasonable for self defense. And that would raise the question of, what is society? Is it every city, state, or the nation as a whole? But this is an incomplete thought that has many problems with it. But it’s a starting point to build my thoughts off of.

I’m sorry, but does no one else find it hilarious that we’re now discussing the 2nd amendment’s protection of ray guns?

Did anyone read the second amendment and notice the founding fathers did not protect the right to bear “muskets” or “pistols” or even “firearms”? They knew that the population was not limited to hunting weapons, or weapons that were in existence at the time the document was written. Times change and they knew that. The purpose of the wording was to ensure the population could have weapons similar to the government forces, which BY LAW are not allowed to be deployed inside the United States. I suppose one justification is that there can never be an uprising of the people against the government, because the people ARE the government and if the people are revolting then the representation system is not working. An unjust power should not be able to command the Army against it’s own people. To prevent this, the PEOPLE should be allowed to keep weapons similar to what any standard infantry man of his time would have. Back then a musket, today an M16, tomorrow a “ray gun”. The second amendment says nothing about hunting, it is there to protect the population against an army and the most effective way to keep that deterrent in place is to give the population the same small arms weapons as the army. If we only give the weapons to the army, and we give command of the army to someone who does NOT do the will of the people, what are you going to do when they cancel the next election? The pen may be mightier than the sword, but try telling that to the 200 million political dissidents in Russia, Somalia, China, Germany etc. that have been killed by their own government in the last 150 years.

Can anybody who supports a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons actually articulate any reasons as to why they feel that citizens should be prohibited from buying them? How does a pistol grip make a rifle more dangerous? How is a having a 30 round magazine more dangerous than having three ten round magazines? How does a folding stock make a rifle more dangerous? How does a bayonet lug make a rifle more dangerous? How is an AR-15 or a semiautomatic AK-47 that uses smaller and less powerful rounds than most hunters use (.30-30 or 30-06 being among the most common rounds for deer hunting) too dangerous to own? How often are semi automatic assault weapons used in crime (here’s a hint: more homicides are committed with knives and blunt objects than with assault weapons)?

The 2nd Amendment reads as this: “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.”

It pretty clearly lays out the right to bear arms as a mechanism for protecting the State, not because some people just think guns are fun. This was the product of a time without a standing army, and so private ownership of weapons was a necessity in case they were called up for war. It was also written in a time when firearm technology had not changed a great deal (in terms of weapon firing rate, size, and accuracy) for some time – I think the Framers would probably see that a bolt action hunting rifle does not belong in the same category as an automatic (or even semi-automatic) assault weapon.

GBW, if legislators were to obey the Constitution to the letter of the law, there would be no public safety limitations on free speech (no shouting “fire” in a crowded theater), there probably wouldn’t be as much legal protection for citizens’ privacy (this is right that is not specifically laid out in the Constitution, and can only be found by deriving it from several amendments), etc. Sometimes there needs to be a pragmatic decision – and surely one of those should be that private citizens must not be allowed to own weapons that go above and beyond the call of duty for hunting, or even self-defense.

I don’t think anybody argues that the constitution is wrong, but I’m pretty sure people could come up with a number of cogent reasons why people like you shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a gun, a computer, or oxygen.

Clarification: The AK-47s used for hunting that I was referring to are semi-auto versions of the weapon, not the full-auto versions. That is, the “assault weapon” version of the gun, not the “assault rifle” version. The problem with the AK is that it’s not particularly accurate in its common incarnation, so it’s not very well suited to hunting.

And one more thing about anti-gun legislators: they’re not only acting illegally (in terms of the Constitution), they’re twisting the arms of legal gun-owners. That is, law-abiding citizens are forced to comply with the illegal legislation (an oxymoron on the surface, but it happens a lot) or become criminals. The anti-gunners would then point to defiant formerly law-abiding citizens as further “proof” that their illegal laws are correct. A blindly law-abiding citizen can’t preserve his rights in the face of that, and committing civil disobedience in the case of firearms would get one killed by a government out of control (BATFE and FBI). The irony is that people in power don’t need to have their own guns because they have security who do the dirty work of protection for them. Kind of like that hypocritical racist Rosie O’Donnell, who railed against handguns and backpedaled when it came to light that her kid’s bodyguard carried a concealed handgun.

I have yet to hear one cogent and compelling reason from anyone for restricting 2nd Amendment rights.

When did this thread become an argument over guerilla war and “disarming the American public”? Having read the article a second time, I still can’t find any mention of anyone being disarmed. The article does incorrectly mention the “Clinton gun ban,” which as best as I can figure refers to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. This act didn’t outlaw guns. It prohibited the sale of semi-automatic rifles derived from military assault rifles. People who are against the assault weapons ban must REALLY like guns, because I’ve racked my brain, and I can’t come up with a single valid reason for anyone who’s not in the military to own an assault rifle. Are you going to hunt Bambi with your AK-47? I think not.

No one is saying that rifles and shotguns need to be banned. Hunting and using guns for sport is not illegal, nor should it be made illegal. Handguns, on the other hand, serve only one purpose, to kill human beings. It’s hand guns that people like the Brady campaign want to get rid of. Can you don’t defend your home just as easily with a shotgun than with a Gloch?

Some of you have said that banning guns only aids criminals. If handguns were illegal and the assault weapons band were renewed, criminals in possession of a handgun or assault rifle would have another serious charge against them in a court. When they’re convicted, they would stay behind bars longer, keeping them off the streets and keeping us safer.

Are you guys dumb? Are you fucking stupid? Do you honestly believe that any militia with a few bb-guns could possibly stand up to the US war machine? If you think a 2nd civil war without some massive coup from the military could possibly last longer than a week than I don’t know what to tell you: the US can and would bomb the shit out of any such effort.

A few facts to keep this discussion going:

Kennesaw, Georgia saw an 89% drop in burglaries following the passage of a law that mandated that every home have a gun. Yes, this town has a law on the books mandating gun ownership.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics there were 419,640 reported firearms crimes in 2005. This figure represents 9% of all violent crime. Depending on which study one examines, there are between 760,000-3.6 million defense uses of a firearm every year.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has over 135,000 concealed handgun permit holders. That’s more than 2% of the population. Chances are that we all encounter permit holders on a regular basis.

The state of Utah permits the carrying of concealed weapons to licensed students. Predictions that dispute will be solved with guns rather than fists and that there will be Wild West style shootouts have been wrong. In fact every time a law passes that allows for the carrying of weapons opponents of the legislation tend to predict more gun violence, but such fears have never manifested themselves in practice.

Numerous studies suggest that gun control laws have no effect on crime rates in the U.S. And just to be clear, not all studies on gun control that reach conclusions in favor of gun rights are were conducted by pro gun researches such as Gary Kleck and John Lott. Interestingly, under the Carter administration Sociologist and noted gun control advocate James Wright was awarded a grant to conduct research that the administration believed would reveal data that supported Carter Administration’s gun control agenda. Surprisingly Professor Wright’s findings found no correlation between gun control and lowered crime in the United States.

Daniel Shays,
I’d hardly call revolting against unfair taxes a “shitty reason.” How do you think the US was founded? Taxes can have severe effects on people. Perhaps you’ve heard of poll taxes? I’m for people being taxed fairly and in proportion, not for the poor to be taken advantage of, as in Shays case.

As far as your second point, what is your take on the global community turning a blind eye to innocent brown people being mowed down in such places as Rwanda, Darfur, by the US, etc. The UN is supposed to be put in place to assist in such situations, but when the people running it are motivated by their own prejudices, what are we supposed to do?

“Think the American public couldn’t take on our own military? Look at the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of those insurgents even know how to shoot properly and they have us so distracted that we can’t accomplish much else.”
how ethnocentric of you

also do all of you realize that there hasn’t been a single skirmish on US soil in 143 years (pearl harbor is hardly US soil, and 9/11 was a single attack). why would there be one now

I never took a Women’s Studies class.

Also, I’m here trying to defend against all sorts of injustices (classism, racism, etc.) and you pick out solely women’s issues?? Is it because my anonymous internet name is Liz? I’m not saying all the things the found fathers said were bad, I’m saying they didn’t even recognize or practice what they said everyone should. Besides, they stole their ideas from everyone else at the time and weren’t even really revolutionaries were they? A revolutionary at the time would have ended slavery.

And get over anonymous posters sounding conceited. It’s called the Internet. Welcome to it.

Liz, I generally agree with what you’re saying, but DAMN if you don’t say it in the most obnoxious, unlikable way possible. Nobody likes a know-it-all, especially an undergrad who claims to be smarter than all the founding fathers combined. So your Intro To Women’s Studies professor told you that 18th century conditions for women were less than ideal, and that means you get to sneer at everyone from Jefferson to Hamilton and throw out everything they ever accomplished?

I don’t like gun proliferation any more than you do, but GET A FUCKING GRIP AND GET OVER YOURSELF.

Warsong, David and Goliath? I can’t believe anyone would trot out that silly bible story in earnest defense of their argument.

As far as defense, fine if that’s a right that is so cherished, people should be able to defend themselves against oppression and hatred. But since we apparently live in a more civilized time, people should be able to use their words as weapons, not to casually dispatch “bad guys” as JD and some others seem so eager to do. Guns which make killing so easy should be kept out of the hands of anybody eager to do harm to anyone, and like you said knives and swords are perfectly serviceable, but perhaps all that blood and gore would lead to a few less casual murders. Furthermore, what do we have the police for if not to protect us? Militias only made sense when we didn’t have adequate means to protect our loved ones. If everyone is so concerned about self-defense then turn to developing non-lethal alternatives to guns like mace and safer tasers.

It’s funny that everyone reveres the founding fathers so greatly. They were hypocrites who did not even practice what they preached about innate rights. They owned slaves, disenfranchised women, continued the genocide of American Indians, and favored landowning white men over other white men. What an elitist club of fancy rich white guys! If you want to honor the words of racist, sexist, classist pigs go right ahead, but that might make you one too.

Liz, it is painfully obvious that you know nothing about the constitution, or anything at all about the founding fathers of this nation.

Just for your edification: the founding fathers of this country were God fearing men who respected life above all else. They were neither murderers, illiterate, nor violent except when pushed beyond human endurace. If the more intelligent college graduate today were half as well read, with half the reasoning power of those men over 230 years ago, we would not be in the trouble we now face in this modern ‘enlightened’ age.

Before Guns were invented, there were Fists, Rocks, Sticks, Clubs, Spears, Knives, Swords, Bows and Arrows, Shields (used as weapons), and, Slings…to name a few. To give one example of what we do not know today: Slings were one of the most Powerful Weapons in any Arsenal (a simple device with two Leather Thongs, and, a Pouch between): the origin of the word “Bullet,” for Lead projectiles invented by Roman “Slingers.” The fight between David and Goliath has been mistaken as an accident, when in fact they sent a “Slinger” Marksman out to a Knife fight with a Giant. The projectile, a smooth, round River Rock, pierced his Skull and killed him instantly, as expected.

Now, as to the 2nd Amendment, it was first ‘reiterated’ by Ur Nammu, King of Ur, in 2300 BC, when he restored the “Right to keep and Bear Arms” for Orphans, Widows and Small Businessmen, in the City of Ur, about 60 Kilometers North East of Basrah, in Iraq, about 400 kilometers South of my current location.

But, Ur Nammu didn’t invent the Right, or corollaries derived therefrom, nor did his ancestors, it is and has been the birthright of every living thing in the Universe since the beginning of Time, and, expires only at the grave…for every creature, “great or small.”

It is the Fundamental Right that enables the Natural “Right of Self Defense,” which is the fundamental right of the Natural “Right to life.” This natural progression was recognized by every one of the Founding Fathers, who thought it so ‘natural’ (known and understood) that it need not be mentioned in the Constitution, or, the Bill of Rights.

If you do nothing else, please read a few things written by the men you so casually disparage: their brilliance will astound you.

Liz, it is painful to hear the explanation of how a liberal operates. You may be a pure liberal, but I have heard thousands of times from the liberals who ignore the 2nd Amendment by saying how it was meant for the 18th Century and was now irrelevant.

Liz,

Your description of what the left wants is frightening and painful on many levels. I think you would have been far better off arguing that left-wingers are in fact trying to reinterpret the constitution instead of arguing that “certain parts of the constitution, the non-peaceful parts, are simply wrong, have never been right, and must be ignored/changed.”

After the last 8 years of having a conservative, incompetent president who had no issue walking all over the constitution, I find it surprising that a liberal would state that parts of the constitution can and should be “ignored.” Absurd. Integrity of the Constitution requires adherence to what it says, and if the nation wants to move in a different direction, then it should be “changed” without the possibility of ignoring it. Before long, we’ll have to start ignoring inefficient constitutional previsions like due process or maybe ignore free speech protection (because in a peaceful world, people should keep harsh words to themselves).

Also, I think you have a completely misconstrued view of what the majority of liberals are trying to do. I think there are very few liberals who are dumb enough to propose simply ignoring aspects of the constitution. In fact, the most recent case in the fight over gun rights (DC v. Heller), the main argument from the left was precisely over interpretation of the second amendment.

All of that aside, your arguments reek of naivety and simple foolishness. The concept that without guns, violence will subside completely ignores the entirety of human history. Violence can occur with or without weapons. The question becomes that if violence comes to my door, will my government let me protect myself?

I think Jim Jones has left wingers all wrong. I suppose I cannot speak for all of us, but I see it this way: The “founding fathers” were not perfect. They thought slavery was okay, they thought violence/murder was okay, they made the second amendment. I think the patriarchy of western society is simply too violent and a lot of this is reflected in the documents that birthed this bloodthirsty country. Therefore, left wingers are not arguing that we must reinterpret the constitution to fit our ideals. We are saying that certain parts of the constitution, the non-peaceful parts, are simply wrong, have never been right, and must be ignored/changed. But it would be pretty much impossible to get the second amendment erased, so some people resort to reinterpreting it because this is the only option they have to enact change.

Whatever happened to a good old-fashioned knife fight rumble?

Exactly! More guns = less school shootings. Every single kid in those schools should have been armed! Especially the 16 and 17 year olds! I’m so glad we agree.

As a federal prisoner arrested for gun violence, there is a 66% chance (2 out of 3) that I got my gun legally. I want to thank brave Americans like Larry Pratt for helping to secure my God-given right to guns!

As an American, a patriot and a long-time Williamsburg resident (currently residing elsewhere), I have to say that I am extremely grateful for my right of access to guns.

Eric and Dylan make an excellent point. Guns are crucial to our society and safety.

We agree with Mr. Pratt. Americans need better access to guns in their homes and neighborhoods! More guns, easier access, everyone is better off.

Jim,

I did not say that the 2nd Amendment’s common law heritage makes it irrelevant, or incorrect. What I did say was that we cannot ignore that history, and what it meant for the Framers’ intentions. If you ignore that history, it would be a sad exercise in dangerous ignorance.

I’ll agree that the 1st Amendment does not explicitly say “separation of church and state”. It actually reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. Clearly there is an intent to separate the government from religion, even though it is not fully drawn out.

Now, you say that the “right to bear arms” is at least included in the Constitution – which is true, if you ignore some of the other words in that Amendment. It 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.” You too, draw conclusions that the Constitution does not explicitly point to. But if you’ll notice, I’m not criticizing you for not forming a militia – all I’ve said, and will always say, is that we need to use some common sense when we’re having these debates.

The Constitution is truly marvelous. The left wing always interprets it in interesting ways, as we’ve seen in posted comments here. One poster writes off the Second Amendment as no longer relevant because of where it came from (English common law). Yet the scholars of the left, generally unable to find the right to bear arms in the Constitution, nonetheless insist on treating “separation of church and state” as a principle set in stone: inviolate and absolute.

Whatever one may think of the Second Amendment, at least it is actually IN the Constitution, something that cannot be said for “separation of church and state,” which arose from the fertile mind of Justice Hugo Black and has been built up since in a series of judicial rulings. One may search the Constitution in vain for any mention of separation of church and state, but for the left, it stands as one of the most important “Constitutional” principles.

ReasonableGuy,

Thank you for being a perfect example of the wrong sort of person in this debate. If you’ll take a second look at my post, I was simply addressing the historical basis for the right to bear arms. If you’ll look at my second post again (and not make an illogical comparison to the Nazis), you’ll see that I haven’t argued for banning all weapons – but I do think there needs to be a limit somewhere.

We don’t need machine guns to defend ourselves. I’ve never felt like I would be safer if I owned an AK-47. But I do think that a person ought to be able to purchase some firearms.

It’s interesting that everyone keeps emphasizing the protection against criminals. What I’m worried about is the police and other government authorities having guns. Maybe we should take guns away from them too.

Furthermore, while I see that prohibition has terrible consequences, it is about something completely different. Drugs and alcohol are consumed by a person and that person owns their body. Guns, however, infringe on the rights of others by causing their death, and no one should be murdered.

Criminals are going to find guns even if they are banned. Remember what happened when alcohol was banned? Lets not repeat history. Even if the result of self defense with guns is death, would you rather have the innocent person die or the criminal? Think about it!

“According to Pratt, in any given year, upwards of 2 million guns are used in self-defense, but only 5 percent of these cases involve the actual firing of a gun, and even fewer cases result in the death of the assailants.”

Do the math. 5% of 2 million is 100,000. He doesn’t specify exactly how many fewer cases result in death, but any number in the tens of thousands seems high to me. Did you know that 40,000-ish deaths result from car accidents (depends on the year as to the exact numbers)? Doesn’t this mean that people wielding guns kills just as many people as car accidents? And driving a car is statistically one of the most dangerous things people can do. I’m afraid of other people owning guns. These numbers illustrate why.

auto accident statistics

Thank you ReasonableGuy! You just proved Godwin’s Law AGAIN!

Godwin’s Law: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

Nothing ends an argument faster than comparing your opponent to a Nazi. You are a master debater ReasonableGuy. I salute you.

So, when gun-control advocates make the case for limiting access to machine guns, automatic weapons, or some semi-automatics, please don’t make the leap to assume that means they want to take your bolt-action rifles and shotguns as well.

Gun ownership is far from being a “basic human right”. It is in our Constitution as a descendant of English common law, which included the right to bear arms for the protection of the state. It was a collective right that the Crown actually enforced and punished those without weapons, as they relied on citizen militias to form the English military until 1829 when a standing army was formed. The right to bear arms was NOT established so that people could own a gun for the fun of it – weapons were permitted so they could defend their home and country.

The same was true for the United States until the creation of effective state militias, that are now known as the National Guard, and the federal military. The 2nd Amendment’s original purpose is essentially null and void, unless those state and federal militaries fail to maintain our security.

Extending the right to bear arms to an individual realm is obvious, because that is how many people have interpreted the right for some time. However, that does not mean that it is an unlimited right – we need to draw the line somewhere. Other rights enumerated in the Constitution have limitations (such as free speech) for the sake of public safety; clearly the proliferation of weapons that will only become more advanced (read: dangerous) with time should be seen as a danger to the public well-being.

Perhaps it is impossible to ban all guns. But there is a lot we can and should do to reduce their lethality. This includes regulating what kind of ammunition everyday citizens can purchase, outright banning automatics and semi-automatics, and creating further safeties such as fingerprint scanners.

Jesus christ, is that a troll? Because it can only be read as a troll. It’s thinking like that that makes the US far-and-away the leaders of gun-related deaths per-capita in the world.