2nd Amendment Supporters

Gentlemen:

I would like to open a can of worms. I read an interesting article yesterday regarding educated people and their political beliefs. Basically, the message was that educated people, in general, tend to lean towards one side of the political spectrum. I must say that I am very impressed with this site primarily because of the high level of intelligence of its members.

Now, I'm just wondering how many of you support the second amendment? Personally, I believe that guns DO NOT kill people. Abortion clinics kill people. Do you believe that 2nd amendment is an individual right? If not, why not?

 

I am not astute enough politically to argue well the 2nd Amendment. But I do not think outlawing handguns or so called assault weapons is necessary to cause a reduction in crime.

Here in my area the sheriff's department issues ,after a background check and a bit of coursework, a license to carry concealed a handgun. I don't know of any evidence showing that such who legally carry these guns commit crimes. We have a local gunclub where members compete with handguns. I don't know of any evidence that these use their guns to commit crimes. Taking away the guns of such people IMO will not reduce crime.

I don't think that I would necessarily be opposed to more care given to the issue of who owns guns. IN my area recently it has become a requirement that transactions at gun shows only are made after a background check.

I also think that more assured and exacting punishments prescribed for those who use guns to commit crimes might cause a reduction in gun related crime.

The so called assault weapons as the AR15 can only with special licenses be possessed in a full auto form. In the semi auto even with a high cap mag these IMO are no more deadly than uncle Charlie's duck gun stuffed with buckshot. Yet the barrel and stock of that shotgun can be cut and the gun carried concealed filled with buckshot and can do great harm.

So, I guess unless ALL guns were outlawed no one would be wholly safe from guns.

Yes I know guns also cause accidents in the hands of the careless. But so does liquor in the bellies of drivers.

 

What I would like to know is why Canada seems to have more guns than America, yet Canadians have a lower murder rate than we do in the U.S. Is it the fact that everyone in the great white north is to busy looking for tukes, and eating back bacon? Or is it that their news is more upbeat and positive?

 

1. This refers to a militia, and people as a whole, which does NOT refer to an individual.
2. Subsequent sections (e.g. Amendment V) specifically refers to individuals.

From this I infer that the right was granted to form and organize state sponsored militia (such as police forces and the National Guard) not giving individuals the right to own and carry assault and other high-powered automatic weapons.

 

I live in the state (Massachusetts) that has the most restrictive gun-control laws in the country, and I can tell you from personal experience that they are worthless. Our elected lawyers....err...I mean "representatives" can't grasp the simple concept that criminals, by definition, break the law, so therefore gun-control laws don't mean anything to them.

Anyone who supports gun-control should read this study that was published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.

After that paper was published, noted criminologist Marvin Wolfgang had this to say;

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. I hate guns ...[but Kleck and Gertz] have provided an almost clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years....I cannot further debate it."

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

First off, the militia is referring to "the people as a whole", which means everyone. Not very hard to comprehend, IMO.

Anyway, assuming you're correct, don't you find it a bit odd that the 9 other Amendments in the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, while the 2nd is only supposed to refer to the government?

Classic rhetoric. The private ownership of full-automatic weapons has been outlawed, with a few exceptions, since 1934. I've been a cop for 16 years, and have only seen one full-auto weapon on the street, and that was an illegally converted TEC-9.

Your description of "high-powered" can mean almost anything. A few years ago, the Sarah Brady crowd introduced legislation that would have outlawed any firearm capable of penetrating a bullet-proof vest. Sounds great, right? Wrong. Any deer-hunting rifle is more than capable of penetrating a Kevlar vest, so your grandfather's lever-action .30-30 would have been sent to the scrap heap.

If our politicians really want to tackle the gun problem, they need to severely punish those who use guns in crime, not punish law-abiding citizens who want top protect their families.

 

What I may believe really doesn't matter. The Courts have consistantly denied that the 2nd amendment creates an individual right to bear firearms.

The constitution is not a religious text. Everyone does not interpret it for himself. It is a political document whose legal meaning is by definition the same for all citizens. Must be, in fact, if it is to function at all.

One can argue however one wishes, it's still a free country, but ultimately, the constitution is what the Justices say it is.

 

Actually, the courts have been quite ambigious in that regard. See Sanford v. Scott, United States v. Cruikshank, United States v. Miller, United States v. Emerson.

 

If the right to bear arms is a right for the organized militia it is asinine in that the government would be granting itself the right to bear arms to protect itself from itself.

If it is a right belonging to the unorganized militia, ie all the people, then it is a right of all the people. I don't think there is one iota of evidence to indicate that the drafters intended anything other than it being an individual right. Carrying a firearm to protect you and your neighbors from badasses would at the time have been considered a militia function and probably still is.

As an outsider, I think the court interpretations of the constitution often tend to the bizarre. Hasn't the Supreme Court avoided this issue like the plague because the judges, by making the correct decision, would open things up more than they would care to?

 

Personally I support all of the amendments. Having read each and everyone fairly thoroughly, I have yet to see a reference on the 2nd amendment that gives any individual the right to bear an AK-47. (not that owning one is a bad thing, but lets face it, it is more a testosterone thing than one of self-defense).

A show of hands: (other than Bruce who is a cop and has obviously been in these situations), how many of you have ever had to use a gun to defend yourselves? How many of you have actually shot someone and faced the aftermath of what you have done both from a moral, ethical, and legal standpoint?

 

Well, I don't entirely agree with Bruce on this, but I am not sure it matters, since his interpretation and mine will lead to the same result.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared fairly early on that the 2nd amendment does not restrict the rights of state governments to restrict the bearing of firearms; the restriction, if it is a restriction, is against congress alone. Now, that means that it ISN'T a federal right granted to the people, at least not in the sense that right to trial by jury or right to travel from state to state is.

I do agree that the Court has been somewhat ambiguous concerning the exact meaning of the "well-regulated militia" clause, seeming at times to say that the right to bear arms is a "collective" right and not a "personal" right. Frankly, I have never heard of a "collective" right in any other context, so I really don't know what they mean.

There is also no doubt that even the federal government CAN place restrictions on firearms, for instance, the assault weapons ban and federal licensing of automatic machine guns. Indeed, the federal regulatory scheme is pervasive and designed to LIMIT access to at least certain weapons by certain individuals.

In any event, my initial impression from five minutes' research is that the Supreme Court HAS failed over 200 years of jurisprudence, to declare the existance of any such personal constitutional right.

This issue needs more research than I can give it at the moment. Nevertheless, I think it deserves further research. If this post is still alive in the next few days, I will be glad to report back.

 

The problem with the gun-control crowd is that if you give them an inch, they'll try to take 10 miles. Agreeing to any further limitations would be an extreme slippery slope.

Fortunately, I've never had to shoot anyone in the line of duty, but I know several cops who have. Their reactions range from matter-of-fact to being quite disturbed by the incident. However, one thing is constant with all of them.....they're all happy that they survived.

 

Did a federal militia even exist at the time the constitution was written? Weren't all militias controlled by individual states? Wasn't the whole purpose of revising the articles of confederation which later turned into the writting of the constitution so that more power could be granted to the central government? (At the time the federal convernment' powers were so limited they couldn't effectively function.)

In which case, it seems to me that this amendment is about supporting the continued existence of the state controlled militias. Whether or not this also confers individual rights is something that is beyond my analysis abilities because I don't know enough about the what could have been intended at the time it was written.

 

What is a militia:

In the main body a militia is descirbed as:

It is not individuals, and it is not an unorganized group, nor is it under the control of the federal government, but is a state organized and supervised body.


Again the II Amendment addresses the people as a militia's right to bear arms.

 

I support the 2nd Amendment because it is one of the bases for our laws. That said, I do not support some people's interpretation of it.

The 2nd Amendment protects citizens and their rights to bear arms. But this isn't unlimited, just as the 1st Amendment doesn't protect all speech (like libel or obscenity), or all assemblies (like riots). Gun control laws are left to the legislative branch, while the judicial branch determines when/if they violate the 2nd Amendment.

Taken to extremes, people who are absolutely against any form of gun control are, by definition, in favor of anyone owning any type of "arms" (as the 2nd Amendment terms them). Therefore, a terrorist owning a nuclear weapon should be okay. If the 2nd Amendment is to be applied unfettered, then everything is in-bounds--no exceptions. If not, if exceptions are made, then you have to quit whining about gun control.

Typically, gun control opponents aren't really against gun control. Not absolutely, anyway. They're usually in favor of certain "arms" not being available to the general public, and are often in favor of certain types of people (like felons) being prevented from legally owning "arms." Imagine a paroled Charles Manson with a Sidewinder missile and you get my drift.

Personally, I'm in favor of very strict gun control laws, far more strict than we currently enjoy. I look at other Western democracies with strict laws and very low violence rates as models. I'm also in favor of the 2nd Amendment, and look to our government to cut that balance.

Finally, regarding the old saw that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," fine. But no one ever stood on top of a bell tower and rained havoc and death onto a crowded college campus with a knife or a club. The kids at Columbine wouldn't have gotten very far with a stick, or even a sword. And what about this one: "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns"? Well, we'll know who they are, won't we? Oh, and law enforcement officials won't be facing so much firepower if we outlaw not just the owning of these instruments of death, but their manufacture and sale, too. That leaves home-made zip guns, which don't pose nearly the threat brought by an Uzi with a large clip.

 

From the wisdom of our great Founding Fathers:

George Mason (during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution - 1788) had this to say: “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.”

And, from Samuel Adams during Massachusett’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788): “...The said Constitution be never construed ...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, Richard Henry Lee stated it this way: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves ... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...”.

And, Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government.”

And, in the same line of thought, James Madison in The Federalist 46 (1788), had this to say: “Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

 

Bruce,

In most cases where there is a gun fight (in your experience) how often are the guns you are fighting against legal vs stolen.

 

That type of argument is very popular with the anti-gun crowd, and it's a load of crap. Every gun owner that I know is in favor of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I have no desire to see guns in the hands of convicted felons, drug users, the mentally ill, etc.

Well, Timothy McVeigh and Mohammed Atta & his crew certainly rained down a lot of havoc and death without using a single gun.

Also, so-called "high capacity" weapons (UZI, AR-15, AK-47, etc.) are used in about 1/10th of one percent of all violent crime. Contrary to what Sarah Brady might have you believe, they just aren't popular with criminals.

Oh, and Rich, I know you're now retired from the Air Force, but it's called a magazine, not a clip.

 

They're always illegal, since I've never had an incident where a licensed gun owner commits a crime with a gun.

The guns themselves are usually stolen, but a lot of times they were bought legally in another state, then reported stolen, but actually sold on the street. Back in the late 80's, there was a guy in Boston that would travel to, I think, Georgia, buy a load of guns, then sell them on the street & report them stolen. I think he was up to 25 guns or so when he was finally caught.

 

nosborne,

IMO, the arguments over whether the 2nd amendment applies to individuals become moot when you consider that our federal rights are negative rights. Individuals would have the right to bear arms without a 2nd amendment.