According to FindLaw.com, the second amendment in the Bill of Rights states
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
With all of this debate about gun control due to the recent school shootings, I've heard a lot of the reasons for and against permitting a continuation of legal gun ownership: "Guns are necessary for personal protection" and "Guns don't kill people - people do"; "If we didn't have guns, there would be no need for protection of that sort" and "Hollywood minimizes the perceived risk of firearms in the minds of today's youth"; "The fact that we're making such a big deal of arms control keeps it in the forefronts of everyone's thoughts and therefore increases the chances of mishaps" and "Reverse psychology will increase the incidence of deaths by firearms upon their government prohibition".
I see both sides of it, I really do - but if we go back to the original text of the constitution, this debate is put to bed by the time the first comma rolls around. What's the giveaway, you ask? "MILITIA". Do we have any need to protect ourselves against the invasion of foreign nations on US soil? Is there any chance we will be called to defend our neighborhoods and counties directly, that we'll be called to run out the front door with our AK 47s and Winchesters to defend the local Wal-Mart from blood-thirsty muslim extremists on any given day of the week? The chances are slim, my friend - as are the chances of civilians' claims to bear arms winning over the direct text of the second amendment in court.
Why isn't there any substantial precedent concerning gun control in the supreme court? Because the major firearms unions and providers know they will lose if the text is brought up, and so they haven't allowed their arguments to reach a national decision. The second amendment was written in a time where foreign invasion was likely, when the government needed to ensure the protection of its citizens by a swiftly assembled, battle-ready militia, when a standing army would be neither available nor capable of reaching a crucial location in time, and when international and national intelligence was insufficient in finding the right information before it was too late. These conditions do not describe the United States today. Period.
Is there any question about whether the average citizen should be allowed the possession of firearms according to the second amendment? I don't think so. Trigger-happy hicks should stop arguing about it unless they want their alleged "rights" to be completely eliminated as they should have been long ago.
Most of the trigger happy people live in cities. Us hicks (as you insultingly lable us sort of Barack Obama elitist style), perhaps have more guns but we seldom use them to shoot people. Generally us hicks are considerably more civilized then you urban scum (my equally insulting lable for city dwelling elitists) and not only do we not shoot each other as often but we also have considerably lower crime rates for other crimes too. Perhaps because the fact that we have so many guns explains our lower crime rates because criminals generally fear being shot or perhaps it is that we do a far better job of educating our children then you urban scum and as a result most of our children grow up to be responsible citizens that can be trusted to responsibly own a gun without committing crimes against their fellows. Maybe you urban scum could get off your elitist high horse and learn something from us. Onwards to your badly flawed argument.
Most Constitutional scholars that I have read, discount the phrase in front of the first comma. They argue, correctly I believe, that with or without that first phrase, the second half of the Amendment stands because it is a right reserved totally unto the people regardless of whether the State chooses to form a militia.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The key words are "right of the people" . It does not matter if the state forms a militia or not.
As it happens, the Congress has chosen to establish a militia. Here is the current law:
US CODE: Title 10,311. 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.
So it seems almost all men between the ages of 17 and 45 are in the militia and at least until Congress changes the law, your argument is moot for at least these men.
Of course the second Amendment was mainly intended to keep the Federal Government from disarming the State Governments and effectively rendering them no longer free States. Until the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War, there might (I would argue probably not but I am not going into that right now) have been an argument that while the Federal Government could not infringe the rights of the people the States could enact such laws.
But the 14th Amendment makes it clear that any powers that the Federal Government are prohibited from exercising against the people also prohibit the States from exercising those powers against the people. Here are the relevant words from the 14th Amendment:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Geez. Defensive much? The first half of your rebuttal was just one large insult over one (poorly chosen) word. Get off it... When I think of hick I think of an uneducated hillbilly who thinks anybody who lives in a city is somehow dumber than they are (because they don't know how to hunt and/or perform other woodsy tasks), when in reality they react in such a way because they are intimidated by what the hicks see as a potentially more book smart individual. I also think of a racist, or fundamentalist when I think of the word hick. I think the author was trying to address the "trigger happy hicks" that think it's necessary to have a militia and guns buried out in their yard. I sincerely doubt he was addressing people who live in more rural areas who use their guns for hunting... But hey, if you want to associate yourself with hicks, go right ahead.
Furthermore, the only thing your children would be "better educated" about would be either how to handle a firearm and/or why they shouldn't play with them, which only comes from being raised around them, not because you have some hyper-hick intelligence. Also, just because your kids are taught to handle firearms properly does NOT automatically mean they are going to use them properly. There are plenty of kids who go out and take daddy's gun to go shoot their neighbor's cows for "fun", to shoot game illegally (red-tailed hawks), or fire them off in the air during 4th of July. It's all in good fun isn't it? Maybe to some folks, but it's stupid and dangerous... I also doubt that there is any statistical evidence to prove the reason for a lower crime rate in these rural areas is becaus criminals have a magical perception to be able to tell who's carrying a firearm and who isn't. Please.
I just want to comment on several of your yes, defensive arguments.
First, you said that "Generally us hicks are considerably more civilized then you urban scum"....what exactly does this mean, more civilized? That seems pretty elitist to me and is completely hypocritical to your argument. (And side note: Obama's comment was completely misunderstood and he is actually appealing to people of all ethnic groups, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds and places of residence. You can't believe everything that the media tells you because they are trying to get viewers so they are going to attack anything that any candidate says that can be twisted at all).
Next, you said that "we do a far better job of educating our children"...is this proven or is this your own elitist thought? Have you thought about the factors that may be going into this? For example, people living in more wealthy suburbs, outside of the cities often are born with better opportunities and thus better schools and parents who are around more because they don't have to work 3 jobs. So obviously it is going to be tougher for the inner city child to do well in school versus a rich child coming from a suburb.
I think what the author meant was that you only really hear about school shootings and similar events in small, rural towns, which you cannot deny, is true. That does not mean, however, that there is more crime in these areas, instead it is probably the opposite. It is true that cities have higher crime but this is also because there are larger populations and all of the other factors I talked about earlier like socioeconomic factors. Please read up on violence before making your outrageous claims.
I think taking a class in Sociology should be made mandatory for everyone. It would really enlighten a lot of folks and make them think about other peoples' situations and look at things from a different perspective than their own. I don't think jackbenimble has had one of those, or else he wouldn't be so quick to judge and place himself on a pedestal above "urban scum".
I was not the one who wrote the blog that started the name calling.
As far as civilized goes, I was referring to the crime rate and the failure of cities to educate their children.
Urban crime rates are much higher than rural crime rates. According to the FBI, 83% of the population lives in Metropolitan statistical areas and they account for over 90% of the violent crime. In contrast, 10.5% of the population lived in non-metropolitan counties and they accounted for ony 4.5% of violent crime. A person living in an urban area was more than twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime. That is an indicator of civilization.
And take a look at high school dropout rates. Lots of cities have high school graduation rates that have fallen below 50%. Rural America does not have anything close to this problem with graduation rates that are typically above 80%. Rural America does a much better job of educating its children. Again that is a measure of civilization.
Compared to rural America, urban America is like a third world country. It is lawless, violent and ignorant.
With respect to Barrack Obama, I heard his original words and his explanations. I don't need your or the media to interpret them for me. They were elitist, insulting and disingenuous.
As far as shootings go, Columbine Highschool is an urban suburb of Denver and it was local urban kids that committed the crime. The Virginia Tech massacre was committed by a kid who was raised in Detroit, Washington DC and a Virginia suburb of Washington DC so even though VTech is rural, it was victimized by an urbanite. Likewise, the fairly recent Coplorado Spring Church shooting was committed by an urban kid from Denver and was stopped by a "trigger happy hick" who was fortunately armed. There have been some rural shooting events too. Kooks can happen anywhere.
All of these high profile events are trivial in terms of numbers compared to the killings that urban people inflict on each other day.
Okay, I am not justifying crime in urban areas, because obviously it is a problem. However, you are missing the point that the urban populations have much higher POPULATION densities, this means that obviously there will be higher rates of crime in these areas. Therefore, doesn't it makes since that since"83% of the population lives in Metropolitan statistical areas" that they "account for over 90% of the violent crime?"
Nothing occurs in a vaccuum and for you to say that urban people are less civilized is ignoring important, underlying societal factors. As I said before, rural and urban populations have very different issues, which may cause the differing rates in crime and violence. More people in urban areas live below the poverty line, resulting in less money going to the schools, leading to worse education, causing a cyclical problem. Also, it has been shown that divorce is more frequent between couples struggling financially, meaning that many of these children have less familial support as single parents are forced to work multiple jobs. This results in less supervision and more opportunities to seek support for peers, even gangs. All of these factors result in crime and must be dealt with, not ignored. So, you saying that "rural America does a much better job of educating its children," is true because they have more opportunites due to more funding for education, familial support, etc, not because the people are more civilized.
My mother was working on her PHD in anthropology from Harvard when I was 6 to 8 years old. I grew up steeped in anthropology. I helped her do grave rubbings of headstones around Boston and in the outlying areas to study the spread of ideas (headstone carving styles) from the urban areas to rural areas. My mother taught at Harvard for several years and then went on to be the first woman and the first non-medical doctor tenured into the Vanderbilt Medical School. Anthropology was the subject of daily discussion in my home and I am sure I have forgotten more about anthropology then you know. And I have met several of the greats such as Dr Leaky, Jane Goodall and in the related field of behavior psychology, BF Skinner.
My comments stand. Up above, you made a bunch of excuses. I agree that urban poor have trouble with getting a decent education for a variety of reasons. What you basically did was layout all of the reasons such as higher rates of divorce, greater income inequality, etc, etc, that make urban areas less civilized and pretend like they were some sort of excuse for not being civilized when in fact they are the proof.
We have plenty of rural poor. We manage to do a much job of providing their children with an equal opportunity at a decent education and we probably get a better educational outcome too.
But I don't really believe urban people are scum. I just threw that out to show how rude it was of the blog author to suggest that we were "hicks". And then he compounded the insult of hanging that label on us by suggesting that if we did not share his very debateable opinion about the 2nd Amendment, we should just "shut-up". The idea that the millions of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment rights should just 'shut-up" because somebody who's legal argument was childish has a different opinion is insulting and un-American. Of course I pushed back.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your comments - I'm writing an article on this issue just now for a school paper and this is research you can't get anywhere else. Rest assured, I'll leave the excess adjectives and "politically incorrect" terms out!
As a United States citizen residing in Malaysia, where both citizens and expats are arrested (no questions asked) for the possession of an unloaded firearm or ammunition, I must first say that I feel much safer commuting around the city than I ever would in the United States, rural or urban. Yes, there are still knife threats and physical violence, but these attacks are much easier avoided (with the help of a little common sense) than any violent crimes involving firearms. I travel across the city almost every day by taxi, bus, and train, and I have never felt myself in physical danger. That said, the fairly recent holdup of a currency exchange counter at KLIA airport was shocking to both the local and expatriate community. We are all a bit shaken up, and police are still trying to discover how a small group was able to obtain information on the counter schedule ($1.05 million US was stolen in sing. dollars, so I assume Singapore-level security was used) and able conduct such a seamless ambush. Overall, however, I have felt safer in these last two years than I ever have in my four year residence in suburban-rural Texas, urban San Diego, and outlying-suburban Chicago.
Secondly, it's proven that owning a gun increases your chances of violent crimes by an appalling factor of 2.7. The popular argument against this is 1) as long as you know how to handle a gun, you'll be alright the majority of the time, and 2) it's for protection against others who already own guns. As stated earlier, just because people are around guns and know how to use them doesn't mean that they'll use this knowledge responsibly, and aren't you perpetuating the problem by purchasing a firearm? Your decision can lead others to believe they need to protect themselves from people like you, at which point more people will believe that they need to own a gun for protection against this second group, and so on, until we're all armed to the teeth, quiver at our shadows for fear of rogue gunmen, and reach a stalemate in which no one feels safe and there can be no realistic solution without even more violent crime.
Finally, I'd like to question the reason why you cherish your second amendment so adamantly. Is it really for protection? Is it honestly because you think you can educate your children easier in the awesome presence of its ability to liquidate life? (Yes, more poor taste in adjectives and tone - sue me) Or is it something else - the extra time you'd be cursed with when you couldn't go out hunting, a practice that contributes to the 1100 fatal firearms accidents or the 200,000 non-fatal accidents annually?
All I'm saying is that since guns are no longer necessary for the original purpose, and since their elimination has so many more pros than cons, would it kill us (no pun intended) to take out one more cause of premature death?
I'm not sure what you think the original purpose was but I'm pretty sure it was to guarantee our freedom. That purpose is as valid today as it was the day the Constitution was written.
I'm guessing you are pretty young. I'll turn 50 this year. In my life I have seen a lot change. Some has changed for the better and some has changed for the worse. Our government is one of the things that is changing for the worse. It is getting steadily more controlling at the same time it is getting steadily more venial and incompetent. Year by year it is more controlled by corporations and less responsive to the people. I believe we are on a steady path towards fascism and both the right and the left are leading us in that direction.
Sooner or later our government is going to be insufferable. I think that the more guns that are in the hands of citizens the farther in the future that day will be. I cherish my right to own and bear arms precisely because I don't ever want to see the day that I will feel the serious need to ever use one.
As far as your statistics about gun crimes above I don't have the time to refute you. But I assure you that for ever statistic you can cite that there are dozens that would point people towards the opposite conclusion. Safe people are armed people. Unarmed people are victims.
If you really want to learn something about the pro-gun side of this argument, search ProgU for lancekates. I'm not sure if he blogs here anymore but he covered this topic with incredible thouroughness last fall and I'm sure his stuff is around.