So, the second amendment has long been the source of controversy and debate in the United States. The news media's insistent coverage of violent crime, which is actually fairly uncommon in most places, has helped to cement in the American collective psyche an unnecessarily hefty fear of violent crime. This has affected the debate on the second amendment in a great variety of ways on both sides of the debate.
First, let's look at the two most prevalent sides of the debate. For length and simplicity, this debate has been greatly simplified. I have left out, for example, whether the framers of the constitution would have been able to predict machine guns and sniper rifles and so on.
One side argues that the wording of the second amendment seems to suggest that guns should be restrcited to militias and military use only. Guns in the hands of the common man, they argue, lead to crime, danger, and badness. If we simply restrict the flow of guns to the public, then crime will go down. In short: guns are best left in the hands of the police and the military.
The other side of the debate has a different perspective. They say, the wording in the amendment means that citizens have the right and privilege of gun ownership. Guns do not cause violent crime, they argue; rather, peoples inability to deal with conflict without shooting at each other leads to violent crime. This side often points to the long history of gun ownership and hunting in the U.S.A.
Me? I think that the wording of the amendment clearly states that people should be allowed to own guns (see below.) In addition to the amendment itself, if we look at the amendment in the corrrect historical context, the authors of the amendment had just fought off a corrupt government using citizens armed with their own guns. People largely depended on guns to hunt. And so, it seems clear to me that the authors of the second amendment would have encouraged gun ownership, for any of a number of reasons.
What do you think? Here is what the amendment says. Emphasis is added by me.
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.
Seems pretty clear to me. Say what you will: we're allowed to have guns, as long as we obtain and keep them within the law. What do you think? Discuss!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
I am in complete agreement. And as for the whole militia idea (this is where the anti-gunners come in and say, "Well that is regarding an army only! Citizens can't own guns like that!")...What was the definition of a militia at that time--a group of armed CITIZENS.
I agree. Back then any able bodied man was part of the local militia.
There has also been studies by the NRA stating that the more guns the less crime. There has been over 6 million guns sold since 1980 and violent crimes have been on the decrease since.
It is also proven that the cities with anti gun laws tend to have more violent crimes then areas without gun restrictions.
And in Great Britian they restricted private gun use for all citizens and their crime rates have sky rocketed. I mean if you were a robber with a knife or an illegal gun, knowing that your victim is not armed, wouldn't it make things a lot easier for you?
www.chevy.com
Yes. Exactly. And over at my latest blog post (http://www.progressiveu.org/102455-the-gathering-storm-schumer-and-biden-part-1), I'm defending that issue right now. Regarding your last question, there's a thought provoking political sign I once saw, that read like this:
CRIMINALS for GUN CONTROL:
Why should we risk the chance of being injured on the job?
That's hilarious! I support shoot-to-kill legislation for home intruders, too. Sure it isn't a perfect solution, but why should homeowners get in trouble for defending their property?
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
The context of the amendment is not something of permissibility of weapons and militias. The context is the permissibility of violently defending oneself. The only debate is whether this is by means of government or something less "democratic" ie Waco, TX.
I propose to you it is the later; in the ten Bills of Rights business at hand was all that was attended to. I am sure that the futility of exchanging glancing blows of a rhetorical stand off between two armed factions was something they were well aware of.
Interestingly that is not a disputed subject. The NRA and friends do not protest outside military bases, drug dealers do not protest the DEA, local police does not protest the FBI.
Do not loose the superficial nature of this. No one actually intends to uphold the second amendment. Felons are not allowed to posses weapons. It is a crime for drug dealers to own weapons despite their lack of police protection. That in essence makes the Bill of Right meaningless. Laws of prohibition cannot supersede laws of right; we assume that all things are naturally permissible, we make laws which prohibit somethings, the things we cannot prohibit in the drafting of law are clearly defined. By clearly defined I mean non-rhetorically, non-arbitrarily and completely.
If I were to create a group portrait of ten people, I could do it in a variety of ways. It would be inappropriate to paint eight or nine in detail and represent the other two as smears. If anything -- perhaps I do not know what they look like exactly -- I would leave the canvas blank, maybe sketch them in pencil, maybe draw them in the shadows. I would not prominently place my ugliest estimation of their likeness. We can assume that uncle Fester really is that ugly.
We now arguing whether or not the Bill should be repealled. This is where the slippery slope begins, democrats become conservatives, republicans liberals, the cement that binds us won't let us go. A tautology is something is always true. To say that the government has the right to impose law is to say that "government is government". We do not write laws for other countries, other governments -- at least not in this format. We have no need to define natural law -- at least not in such a document. There is plenty of space on the paper but no room to make irrelevant propositions or poorly thought out concepts.
I would accept the bill of rights exists as a government document declaring to its subjects what it will do if laws are broken. The language to make that statement need not be vague however. To say that "we will not attack you if have guns or a militia" -- OK that may be the case, in fact it seems really that they were quite serious about this. Uncle Fester is front and center in full detail.
This is far more troubling than it would seem. On the one hand it puts guns on the street. On the other it punishes you if you have them -- especially if you are a minority or in opposition to government tyranny (that is government creating conflict where one did not exist). It also creates doubt in whether or not the other "rights" are defined or not -- is the Bill of Right a bone fide legal document?
"The 2nd amendment is not about guns, it is the very statement of a coercive government."
No one likes guns. To make that statement however is to destroy the validity of the rest of the document to save one ugly amendment from being removed. The disintegration of civil rights is an ever present threat even if it is not being advanced by those who do not respect them on principle.
This amendment is not necessary to own guns.
im not against guns but im sure that gun cantrol can be managed better. i believe some people manipulate the second amendment considering the time period it was written in. the english army doesnt just break down your door anymore and take your house. however, is there a reason for why a gun needs to leave your house if one is a gun owner?