In August of 2004, the Bush Administration's justice department submitted a legal opinion that the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects an "individual's" right, not a "collective right".

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

This has drawn the ire of gun control (and gun banning) groups who have long asserted that the second amendment's reference to "the people" actually refers to the state's militias as realized by today's "national guard".

The question for debate is:

Does the second amendment in your view protect the rights of an individual? To what extent?

Does the second amendment in your view protect the rights of an individual? To what extent?

Does it? It seems not to, in practice, at least in many states.

Does the text specify individual 'people' or collective 'people'? The text does not specify, and therefore can be argued either way.

My opinion? States should have the right to keep that right as a 'people' or defer that right to individual 'people'. Personally, I believe that gun carry laws reduce crime, and that responsible gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns. However, I don't think, for example, that it would be a wise idea to allow widespread concealed carry laws in Washington, DC. In short, the gun laws in Montana should probably be different than the gun laws in Massachussets.

edited to add: the link makes a pretty good argument for the rights being delegated to individual 'people', I recommend reading it.

This issue like many other has been absorbed into the collective issues represented in our two party political system. The conservative party making such a ruling does not surprise me as its something they work, as in being pro-gun.

My stance on it is for regulation of course, as in most the arguments people make for all out free guns dont make much sense. One is for the people to protect themselves, but if you did not have guns period, you would then have to opt for a knife, i still would rather have knives being its hard to do mass killing from a tower with a knife, but its a moot point in regards to reality anymore. Another issue is about the people defending themselves from the government, one i dont really understand, but just for the sake of it all, you cant own a missile destroyer or a tank or rocket launcher, so i dont see much of a point in that one anymore either, and for the most part, its those people that bring it on themselves when government interaction comes, and dont care to much for any laws of the land, much like a drug dealer, but it of course can be viewed differently.

most the things people do with guns dont bare much need to occur, like hunting for joy, and or shooting massive amounts of led into the land or other objects, and overall making destruction to the environment without any direct need, or more or less just for joy or fun out of boredom. Another aspect is how our gun drenched world and then nation or society and its problems take to the gun. We find like in issues with school shootings, the pro-gun person thinks that having armed guards would stop it, and overall feels that guns could be good in a society if we were more like a military base, so overall its like selling out freedom to just keep a gun really, in that you would have to be armed and trained to kill, and this overall would not stop any issues guns enflame, it would just send the rate of homicide related even higher though the roof its already going through, i think we have the highest gun related homicide rate on the earth actually. No one can bring much fact to the table on this issue, most of it dwells from a perception that is using opinion, or feeling or what not to form its position and using such for fact. I dont see how gun laws take away guns from the people, or having regulation does such either. If a person sees nothing wrong with a human having a collection of machine guns or being able to purchase a .32 at a gas station for 50$ with just a photo i.d should not then reject the idea of that person being able to obtain a WMD right?

of course its relative again and in ignorance also, so for me its just about keeping regulation up, then working the issue of weapon density in the world to get it to a level that can be managed before various other laws can be applied. We do it in many other places and so on, both parties do, and pro-gun people probably support issues that would be the same as being anti-gun. I would not say i am anti-gun, but i feel like transportation and many other aspects of our materialism, or stuff out biology allows for has become abused really, just like this one, and like many issues, it has ignorance, relativity of perception and lack of fact dictating how it goes in regard of law, just like how the constitution is being used in such, what does it say again

Does the second amendment in your view protect the rights of an individual? To what extent?I am gratified to see that the government has come around to the view that it is an individual's right. The militias were originally a non-government organization and not until over 120 years had passed that militias became an arm of the state governments. So we are finally returning to the original premise of the amendment, which are individual's rights.

I can see SWM28WDC's point of view. Different regions of the US have a different mind set in regards to this issue. I am certain that I would not want to go to NYC if they had the same rules as Montana right now. Though I feel that the attitudes towards individual ownership and carry issues are shaped by the laws in this area. People in Montana and other places learn the proper use of firearms and in general have little problems with them in private hands, New Yorkers on the other hand, not having access to firearms have developed a different attitude in that regard. Which is right, both sides think the otherside has a bizarre way of dealing with the issue? Seems to be a kind of a chicken and egg debate.

As for nileriver that you can't own a tank, or rocket launcher, since when? I know of several of my friends with those and much more all very legally. There are many ways that individuals can and do own missiles, artillery pieces, automatic weapons, etc. Have those pieces of equipment been used to harm people, not that I have heard of.

As for guns being dangerous, yes they can be that is a fact. I recall an incident a number of years ago where an individual used a gallon of gas to set a night club in New York City on fire and managed to murder 50 people. Does that mean that purchase of gas should be controlled?

I like that argument, someone also has managed to kill people with double e piano wire, to i guess that should be checked for, or maybe just a rock or there bare hands. One simple thing i will draw on, is that over the length of time vietnam went on in relation to just u.s deaths in that war, we have more gun related deaths in america in that time frame total, but you dont get a combat patch for it Again, i was opting the position of regulation, not banning weapons. Its just like illegal drugs on some scene from star wars were striking it down makes it more difficult to control. the pro-gun person is only interested in guns being how they want, nothing else. If you can then opt to say, well maybe certain people or areas should not have guns, its still then going against the rights of a person right? what makes them any different, any person is at risk to use a gun incorrectly, this is evident, not just my thought on it.

Gun saturations levels the world over are immense, and every year, some new guns are produced in high quantity, then dispersed into humanity, and any issues they may come to play a role in. Again, i cannot go and buy a functional m1a2 main battle tank and related sabot rounds and go have fun can i, i get my hands on a functional armed 82mm rocket launcher can i, but some people would opt to let silenced .45 caliber machineguns be owned by private hands, that weapon has no particular use save to kill things, mostly people i would imagine, and something like that should be controlled.

Again, weapons for the most part are abused. Most people these days hunt for fun, you can see this in hunting magazines, and in the town i actually live in hunting is something done for hobby, not for need anymore. People shoot things up and who knows what all kinds of effects this will have, or affects really on a giving ecology, or even throwing down sunflower seed shells, so that is another act of ignorance for fun, and it will take its toll on people at large, not just them.
I also do not think the gun product can be refurbished overall, or that no programs have been derived for such a need on a large scale. I cant argue with what the constitution reflects in this scenario, but to just say firearms could be inferred of that time also then could it not, to play that way, we should only have weapons of that era right? of course the constitution is worded in such a fashion that people can make it out to some scenario, heck we use it to oppress people in america and people still think america was founded directly on a religion, so its useless to argue that point really.

If we allow for just free roam for firearms, all the negative acts they are involved in will continue to happen again and again, like they do, its the same thing people bring up when talking about why welfare needs to be reformed, guns need control, more so today then yesterday, and again, the issue of how the firearms play out in context of the social realm is something that debated on fact but fiction like many things really.

On a side note, i opt for making most everything "green", in full spectrum of humanity, so its not just something i apply to guns. Again, i am not for the banning of firearms, as it would not work right now, but i do not see a future for people in them actually. I also advocate the bias in the issue, the lack of fact on understanding, and of course its overall place in the relativity of perception on the issue and just more on the ignorance humanity lives in of a great deal.

So nileriver, because you see no use for guns, they should be regulated and/or banned. Well each to his own, but please excuse us that disagree, just because you see no need for them does not mean the rest of the country needs to be in lock step with you.

As for Vietnam, well the teenage males that did not get drafted and sent to Vietnam had a higher death rate due to automobile accidents than the same aged teenage males that went over there. So which should be banned, guns or cars?

I do not hunt, nor do I spray the countryside with lead. I happen to like to target shoot. There are millions of Americans that do that. Are we dangerous? I guess that depends on who you ask. If you do not target shoot, that is your choice, but why deny of my rights under the Bill of Rights to my hobby? Am I hurting anybody with my weapons? Am I denying the rights of others? I don't think so.

Does the second amendment in your view protect the rights of an individual? To what extent?

No.


Has there ever been a more parsed and argued sentence in the history of this country? Aside from being poorly worded, it has created a crapstorm for successive generations. There seem to be as many ways to interpret the Constitution as there are amendments (originalism, modernism, instrumentalism, literalism, etc.) I just use common sense.

As for the meaning of “the people”, the entire Constitution starts with the declaration “we the people”, and I don’t think they were talking about the individual guys in the room. “The people” refers to the republic and the totality of the country (sort of like the royal “we” in Jolly Ole England). The language in the Constitution used to refer to individuals is “person” (e.g. “No person shall be held to answer…” or “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”). It does not say “the people shall be held to answer”, that would mean something entirely different. Ergo, the 2nd Amendment does not state that it is the right of individual “persons” to keep and bear arms, but the “people”, i.e. the republic/country.

But, of course, this amendment has been argued to death, and gun-rights advocates will never accept anything less than full, unfettered access to all the lethal weaponry they can get their sweaty hands on.

And just as a side note; if gun advocates want a literal interpretation, then I say they should each be allowed one muzzle-loader each. I'd love to see a gang member try to look cool with one of those.

Edited to add: The governor of CA felt it necessary to create a law making .50 caliber guns illegal to own in the state. I wasn't aware that these freaking cannons were such a problem!

The gun control fanatics would like it if you did not understand the thinking that went behind the formation of the 2nd Amendment. A few quotes:



The militia makes up the "whole of the people". Individuals have a right to bear arms. As you see the founding fathers used the word people pretty much the way we do. Their definition of militia varied greatly.

I bet you're not using AK-47 to practice target shooting. Nor M-16 or any other automatic weapon. Probably you're not taking a rocket-propelled grenades with you to the shooting range.
I have no problem with a person owning a hunting rifle or a pistol; it becomes a whole different story with automatic weapons designed to inflict maximum damage in a shortest possible amount of time.
Creators of the Bill of Rights lived during completely different times; back then, "arms" referred to muskets and one-shot pistols.

I target shoot with a M16 and it's a heckuva lot of fun. It's not fully automatic, either but it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. I also hunt and own a hand gun for personal self protection. I have had a full background check, not a felon, not crazy, and I qualified at a shooting range. How many people do you know that can pull out a piece of paper like that?

Most gun haters have this illusion that if we register guns or if we ban guns, somehow the bad people of this world will all at once obey the law and not use them. As they have discovered in Britian and in Australia, violent crime has gone up dramatically because the common person does not have a way to protect themselves. Both countries are taking steps to allow guns back into the hands of private citizens.

Whatever the intent of the 2nd ammendment when written, it has evolved into legal gun ownership for the private individual. You don't want a gun, you don't like guns ............. don't get one. Restrictions and banning don't stop crime - as it is, if a convicted felon has one, it's a great excuse to put him under arrest.

You are certainly not crazy now, but where's the guarantee that you won't become crazy one day? "Blowing things up" is also "heckuva lot of fun". As well as riding around in a tank. It's not enough of a justification.
Handgun is more than enough for personal protection. You don't expect to fight platoon of criminals and burglars, do you?
If, however, some people believe that owning automatic weapons will somehow ensure than the government doesn't turn its back on people, they're misguided... as history shows (from Stalin's purges of (armed) Army ranks to Waco and Ruby Ridge) - the government always wins.

See, I don’t have a problem with individuals having rifles. Have a dozen, have a hundred, have a gazillion, I could care less. They’re hard to hide, hard to use in crimes. Knock yourself out and have a veritable orgy of rifles. BUT, handguns and automatic weapons have one purpose, and one purpose only – to kill people. There is absolutely no convincing reason for individuals to own or carry handguns or automatic weapons.

There was a police officer at a neighborhood watch meeting I attended who told us the best home protection was a dog, but if you had to have a gun, don’t bother with a pistol, get an old-fashioned pump action shotgun; the sound of (whaddya call that sound…) “racking the slide” (?) will scare off most any home invader.

If restrictions and banning don’t stop crime, they certainly curtail it or make it more difficult. There are restrictions on every other borderline aspect of behavior (drinking, drugs, prostitution); why not possession of a compact, easily-hidden, death-dealing device? As for using the old NRA saw “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns”, I say hogwash; what about all those regular Joes out there that get a load on and shoot the wife and kids? Or the angry teenager who blows away the bully at school? Or the PO’d wife who shoots her cheating husband and his bimbo? Or the whackjob who thinks there’s some kind of government conspiracy and decides to wage his own private war? Or the testosterone-overloaded yahoo who proudly “shows” his gun to a buddy and accidentally blows his brains out? Surely you can’t believe that every shooting death related on the nightly news is an aberration?

Edited to correct quote author

Entirely untrue, at least concerning handguns....if you refuse to be a victim. If you wish to place your faith in humanity, or the prompt response of the police *cough*, then handguns are not for you. But that's one of the upsides to our freedoms.......you don't ever have to own a gun, touch a gun or see a gun, but I can own one, because I choose to place my trust in myself rather than others when it comes to protecting my family and home.

Of course, some law enforcement mouthpieces encourage people to acquire less than lethal methods of home and personal protection, there are quite a few unstable people out there and once in awhile they do stupid things.....like shooting themselves, their TV's or family members.

I have a CCL and carry my .40 Springfield XD compact most places I go. It's a conscious decision I made long ago after seeing too many people become victims.


Heh....tell that to the formerly breathing intruder that takes a couple .40 hollowpoints. BTW, a semi-automatic pistols has a really neat slide racking sound too!


Why do you say hogwash? Can you somehow prove that banning or restricting handguns will take them out of the hands of criminals? Do you have any statistics that show a large percentage of violent criminals legally buying handguns?

I'll defend the right your opinion to the high heavens..........but surely you can see the rational behind the opposing view right?

You know what? At least I am willing to compromise, unlike gun-rights folks, who want all or nothing, just like a demanding 2-year old!

I hate guns; can't stand the sight of them, the sound of them, or even the thought of them. I've had one pointed in my face twice in my life (both handguns, mind you), and I'm lucky it happened in the 70's and not today, or I'd be dead. I knew someone who committed suicide with a handgun. I detest, loathe, abhor guns...they make my skin crawl, BUT maybe you missed the part about long guns in my previous post? Have as many as you want. But, I don't see any rationale for owning handguns...unless, of course, you need to conceal them so no one will know you're "packing" and then we're back to my original argument; that they are only meant as human-killing devices.

So, I'm all for restricting them as much as possible and making them as hard as possible to get. If someone is then determined enough to jump through all the hoops to buy a handgun, then more power to 'em.

By your logic, does this following section protect the free speech of "groups" rather than individuals??

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The courts have held that the first amendment is an individual right and the opinion of our current justice department is that the second protects individual rights as well.

The constitution is pretty silent with respect to technology. The first amendment was not designed to only protect unamplified speech and material created by printing press technology available in the 1700's. The same is true for the second amendments and for all others with respect to technological advances in firearms, communication, and items like surveillance equipment.

And in closing, the reference to "sweaty hands" is pretty unnecessary, thank you.

Well, I'm a gun rights guy, and I don't think the mentally unstable, criminals or underage people should be allowed to buy a handgun........nice broad brush. I guess I could say that all anti-gun folks want to ban guns outright.


Very observant of you....of course I wish to conceal my handguns, I don't want anybody who thinks that defending yourself is 'icky' having a conniption fit because we see things differently. If you don't assault me, my family or an innocent person in my presence, you'll never know I'm packing.

Of course you want to erect as many hoops to jump through as possible because it might actually deter somebody from buying a gun......just one step on the way to your utopia of nobody owning handguns.........except the bad guys. I have yet to hear your plan for disarming them.......
In my experience, anti-gun folks tend to be pro-abortion. But while they ridicule someone for thinking that massive barriers to gun ownership is a 'slippery slope', they will say the exact same thing when it comes to abortion, or any other hot button issue. (Not implying any of this to Daffygirl, just an overall observation on my part).

It protects the rights of individuals to own and use, if need be, firearms. I don't think there's any more to say. Americans have the right to bear arms, no one's forced to, it's a personal choice.

There are so many things that can be deemed human-killing devices that we come into contact everyday. A gun, like a car, is a tool, there are several uses for it, not the least of which is killing someone [defensively]. A car's main purpose is obviously to move you from point A to point B, but God only knows how many vehicular manslaughter cases there are every year. So where do you make the distinction? How far do you goin restricting "human killing devices", there are so many. My point is that the device used to kill someone is not important. Banning or restricting the use of guns does nothing. What is important is the person who is doing the killing, whether guns are around or not, if that person has the capacity to kill, he/she doesn't need a gun to do it.

CP

From close ties to law enforcement, when you buy a gun illegally it's much easier. No back ground checks - reciepts to track it..............you can even buy one with the serial numbers filed off. That's the deal.................when you are planning on doing something BAD, the law is the last thing that stops you.

I can just see this shocked and injured person getting held up and them sputtering, "But, but, but........you're not SUPPOSED to have a gun! It's ILLEGAL!"

But you anti gunners will yell to the top of your lungs about the 2nd Amendment and every reason why the rest of us shouldn't have them. It isn't good enough for you to not have them, you've got to wedge us into a situation that has failed and failed and failed again. When the private individual can't arm themselves, crime (especially violent crime) goes up.

Me, a nice day, a bag full of cheap fruit and a pond.............the smell of cordite and then wrap up the day with the odor of solvent and ram oil. Just doesn't get any better!

Given your history, I can understand your pathological dislike for guns. However, the issue is our constitutional right to own them. I find it curious that you are ok with rifles that can kill accurately at extended ranges of many hundreds of yards, but have a huge problem with pistols with limited effective ranges and power? Perhaps you can help me understand where you're coming from on that one?

I'm not aware of any guaranteed constitutional right that requires citizens to "jump through hoops". Should we approach the first amendment that way too? Free speech rights only after literacy tests perhaps? Do you think that would fly at the USSC?

I have read your claim (and several other poster's) that certain guns are "human killing devices" as if certain other types are not.

All guns, from the small pistols, to the semi autos, to "hunting rifles", expensive hunting shotguns and sophisticated target rifles are WEAPONS. Their killing ability is what makes them that. All guns were designed for that purpose. Without sounding flippant, if they weren't lethal, they'd not be useful for self protection.

I own quite a few guns myself, including handguns and I really think the 2nd Amendment was intended to refer to individuals as protection against a tyrannical government should that ever come to pass. But, I'm not really too concerned about that and I'm not a hunter but I do enjoy going out from time to time target shooting and teaching my kids how to properly handle a gun. And yes, I'm a member of the NRA because of some of the gun safety programs they sponsor.

I do however favor some of the restrictions on certain kinds of gun ownership that have been placed at the local level. An AR-15 (semi-auto version of an M-16) might be fine for some areas of the country, but in an urban area like the City of Los Angeles they aren't a good idea at all. Those kinds of weapons are the weapons of choice for gang bangers and other bad guys and they can do a whole lot of damge in a very short period of time. Making them illegal to possess in the city isn't going to keep them out completely, the bad guys will still get a hold of them, but it does give law enforcement a tool for preventing a drive-by. In Los Angeles if a police officer pulls over a car for a broken tail-light and the people in that car are carrying an AK-47, those people are going to jail and someone is going to wake up the next day who wouldn't have otherwise. I think that's a good thing.

This argument has gone on for decades, and neither side will change their minds. I will end my participation on this thread with the following:



I found this story interesting; Colt (the man responsible for getting us into this mess) essentially had a worthless item on his hands when he invented the revolver, so he conceived a bright idea to engender interest. Some might say he was the first marketing genius.

Hunting buffalo with a revolver!
ConservPat-name one other purpose a handgun serves. Please. Cars, tools, knives, they all have other, non-lethal purposes.

Certainly. Rifles can be and are used for hunting. While I don't think there are too many Americans out there that have to go out and shoot dinner, I acknowledge that there is a legitimate history and use for rifles rather than gang-banging and shooting people (not to say it hasn't or won't happen). I don't like rifles, either, but they're easier to control and harder to conceal.
Edited to fix quote attribution (sorry Aquilla)...having a heckuva time today with keeping quotes straight.

In relation to gun deaths and legality, you have to understand that the majority of the gun related deaths you reference, nearly none could've been stopped by legislation. Consider that:
1. Nearly all of gun related crime is committed with and unlicensed weapon.
2. Legislation such as the Brady bill neither significantly reduced gun related crimes (specifically those discussed in the legislation) nor did it protect registered and legally armed Americans.
3. As it stands right now, in order to procure weapons legally in the US, there is a process that generally slows or prevents criminals from purchasing them legally. This forces the majority of them to find them by other avenues, of which legislation would not control.

I am neither a collector nor a hunter, but do own a shotgun for skeet shooting and also own a handgun (that was handed down to me and rarely leaves it's case/triggerlock). However, I never have believed or seen significant objective information that would lead me to believe that legislation stops criminals from committing gun related crime...

This doesn't even discuss the fact that gun legislation often squeezes out American small arms dealers and the tax revenue generated. These are often small business operating completely within the parameters of the law, selling to law abiding gun owners, whom make their livings via this industry. What happens when we "create" more gun laws? ? ? ....

I think this quote says it all. Frankly, I don't like smoking in bars but don't make an attempt to pull cigarrettes out of the mouths of people smoking. I understand that second hand smoke is probably far more daunting than any legally purchased firearm in the United States, yet believe that I chose to walk into that "smoking" establishment and that these are free people.

That being said... you're feelings aren't at stake here. What we're discussing is whether gun control laws really save lives. How many crimes in the US were commited by legally purchased and registered fire arms? Many people that own hand guns aren't prepared or properly trained to carry these guns, but the vast majority that are procured legally will never be used outside of the firing range (if that). What we need to discuss is how to stop the underground sale of firearms. How do you get the people off the corners selling guns???... The guy that uses his shotgun bought at the local gun store to shoot clay pigeons is not only paying taxes, but supporting small businesses...

The point is that unless it's a legally registered firearm and it's a non-modified automatic weapon, they're going to jail anyway. There's no city in the America that allows people to drive around with unlicensed automatic weapons. Fact.

My original post addressed this point. The issue has been batted back and forth between the 5th circuit (which has ruled on the side of individual rights) and the 9th circuit (the same court that ruled that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional and who's most recent adoption of the "collective" view was rejected by 6 dissenting judges).

I'll post the original reference again. It's worth reading before jumping into this debate.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

The USSC may take up this issue but they may decide to stay away as well. As it stands today, the department of justice has rendered the opinion that the 2nd amendment protects individual, not collective rights...

There is no place in America that allows the possession of an unlicensed fully automatic weapon, that's federal law. But, we're not talking about fully automatic weapons, rather a certain class of semi-automatic weapons. I can drive around LA until the cows come home with my "unlicensed" Ruger 10-22 semi-automatic rifle and not have any problems if I get stopped because it's not in the class of weapons that LA has banned. If have a semi-automatic AR-15 however, I am in trouble.

Target shooting. Now that that's out of the way, I think you missed the point of my post. I don't doubt, in fact I mention, that cars are not meant to kill, I used them as an example to prove my point, which is...



CP

Why is a handgun needed to shoot targets? Couldn't you just as easily use a rifle, a paint gun, a BB gun or a bow and arrow? For that matter, why do you need live ammo to shoot targets...it isn't as if you have to "kill" the bullseye. No, the handgun has only one purpose-killing humans.

And besides, I don't see the gun companies marketing handguns as "target shooters".

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You asked for me to name another purpose for a handgun, I did, I'm not debating the reason for it. That part of the arguement should be over, you wanted another use, I gave it to you. I'm not saying that guns should be less restricted because they aren't mainly used to kill people, they are, that's not my point, a point which I will reiterate...



CP

I ask again, what good could a handgun possibly be for self defense if it were not a deadly weapon?

Targets? They are used for practice. In case one needs to use the weapon and fire it at a live target.

You already stated that you don't believe (in spite of the overwhelming current legal opinion) that the constitution guarantees our individual rights. But, do you believe that a person has a fundamental right to self defense? Defense of their family? Defense of their property?

Are you actually serious????? I didn't think there would be a cognizant, adult person alive who didn't know that the sporting world of competitive shooting included pistols.

And you couldn't be more wrong about marketing handguns as "target shooters".

Beretta
Les Baer
High Standard
SigArms
Springfield
Bullseye pistol

Let's take a hobby of your's and find ways you can do without parts or all of it.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was never of any doubt to me....the DOJ brief finally inserted some common sense into the keep and bear arms debate.

Does the second amendment in your view protect the rights of an individual? To what extent?

Yes, as far as I can tell. Of course, when the amendment was created, AK-47s and M16s were not available. Who knows what the founding fathers would say nowadays.

Guns are made for one purpose, and one purpose alone: to kill. Arguing self-defense, sports enjoyment, etc. are all simply byproducts of the threat that guns kill. "Target practice"? What are you practicing for? When a gun is produced by a criminal, dangerous things can occur. When another gun is produced by a good-intentioned citizen, the dangerous situation escalates even moreso.

That said, banning guns would be equally stupid. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s virtual handgun ban resulted in a rise of 200% in homicide rates, compared to 12% nationwide. (source: JustFacts.org).

I despise guns. I'm a crack shot, but I still despise them.

In a humorous note (and off-topic), Utah is currently arguing about the loosening of liquor laws. Ironically, those who argue for gun control laws favor looser liquor laws, while those who argue for gun rights opt for stricter alcohol limitations. I just thought this was interesting.

Interesting side note: all of those gun manufacturer websites are blocked by the district of columbia's government wan content filter, but not jackdaniels.com.

How much is the bet for? I would need to inform you that you lose no matter what. I do legally fire automatic weapons including the above, and I also legally fire much larger weapons such as cannons for several reasons. Have even done so on the California State Capitol grounds, and was paid for it by the State of California.

I read a lot about how the arms referred to muskets and one-shot pistols. Well if that is what the government was still using then that statement would make sense, but times have changed and so have the weapons.

The last time I checked pistol shooting is even an Olympic event. Please correct me if I am wrong.

All of the founding fathers wrote that gun ownership for individuals ensured a free and open government. I would not trust a government that does not trust it's citizens with firearms.

May I add a post of mine from an earlier Second Amendment debate on 'America's Debate'?


Based on this logic, one could make two amendments from the Second.

"Although a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

AND...

"Because a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Believe me... I think that both meanings of the Second Amendment suggested here were intended.

Does the second amendment in your view protect the rights of an individual? To what extent?

Yes, though I think that the connection to the well-regulated militia part has been muddied through the years by the romanticisation of the rugged individualism of the Old West.

I think that fundamentally people wear guns less because they feel a positive benefit to doing so (though undoubtedly some do) than because being armed helps them to lose the negative disbenefit of feeling afraid while they don't have one.

It might be an ideal to want guns to be far less prevalent - the fear that makes people want a gun is usually that someone else will have one and they won't. If there were few guns around, that fear would be less because you wouldn't assume a hostile person was necessarily armed, where at the moment that is a perfectly reasonable assumption in the USA on balance of probabilities. I have to say that I probably would want to own and carry a gun if I lived in the USA for any length of time, and I'm relieved I don't have to here.

In point of fact, gun crimes went up in the UK after the handgun ban, but shootings did not significantly increase in any sustained way over the same period. This has less to do with the ban itself and mostly to do with cheap availability of imitation guns, a sudden increase in Eastern European guns from the Balkans after the wars there finished causing a big price drop in illegal guns (which would have happened ban or no ban) and the same "gangsta" inner city drugs culture that's caused problems in the USA; the vast majority of all gun crimes and shootings are drug-related here these days.

I don't believe it's the straightforward, linear "see what hapens when you have gun control" relationship imagined by some anti-gun control people in America. I can't speak for Australia though.

On the particular issue of concealed carry - wouldn't you be even less likely to be held up or shot if you were openly carrying with a hip, leg or waist holster in plain view (like in cowboy films)? Surely there would have to be more than a certain number of people carrying concealed guns to make the balance of probabilities seem not worth the risk to the potential criminal? And what use is any gun, concealed or otherwise, if it isn't already in your hand when another one is being pointed at you? Do people imagine they can be that quick on the draw? I'm not kidding, and I am genuinely curious - this is one aspect of US attitudes to guns I just don't "get".

Ultimately though, it really does seem to be true that it isn't the gun that's dangerous, but the person. The one fact that stayed with me from Bowling for Columbine were the comparative gun ownership and gun death rates. (With time, the rest of the film was humourous but way too skewed to be taken as objective.) Other countries have similarly liberal (no pun intended) gun laws and comparable levels of gun owenrship, but have nothing like the gun murder and suicide rates seen in the USA. It seems you just like killing yourselves and each other with them.

In this context, I can't help but think that the Second Amendment is one part of the Constitution that doesn't need reinterpretation, but re-writing or even deletion. You may not be able to trust your government, but they aren't killing 11,000 of you year in, year out - you are doing that yourselves. It seems like it's the American people that can't be trusted not to kill you, not your government.

More than an element of devil's advocate here , but I'm looking for responses less in the vein of "well your country is even worse" than "no, silly, you don't understand - let me explain why it really works for us."

By law in Switzerland, most Swiss men MUST have a M-57 rifle in their house, which is kept ready to use in case of foreign invasion. This arises because every Swiss man is in the Swiss Army and the slightly weird 'fortress Switzerland' mentality they all have.

Out of a population of 6 million, 2 million own a gun and will have been trained to use it.

However gun crime rates are so low that the Swiss government doesn't even bother collecting statistics. Politicians do not have bodyguards and there are no gun controls within buildings.

So I have to agree with Julian there - it aint the guns that are the problem...

My impression of the reasoning goes like this:

There have been cases of hostage-taking or shooting sprees wherein possesion of a gun on his person probably could have saved a victim's life, or at least given him a fighting chance. There was such a case in a cafeteria restaurant not too far from my hometown a few years ago.

In some of these cases, people owned guns but left them in their car because they couldn't legally take them into the facility. Subsequently, (for instance) a psychopath crashes his pick-up truck into the front of the building, gets out, and starts shooting people one-by-one while they cower behind overturned tables.

The horror of such an incident is compounded in many peoples' minds by the fact that if they hadn't left their gun in the car, some victims could have saved themselves and probably others. Instead they had to cower in terror and await their death like everyone else. This provokes very strong outrage to folks who see gun ownership as practically a God-given right.

So when a person carries a gun for personal protection, they aren't necessarily thinking they can outdraw a bad guy in an one-on-one ambush situation - they're probably thinking that the gun will come in handy in a situation where they'd have more time to use it.

For myself, I don't carry and probably never would. But I have no discomfort around guns in general and I can understand the mindset (as irrational as it seems to me).

Oddly, in the U.S. we tend to ban the exact weapons the amendment was meant to protect (assault rifles) and do little to curb the weapons that have little to do with "the security of the state" (sidearms/handguns). So we've already interpreted the amendment as not applying to individuals. We deny individuals the right to "keep and bear arms...necessary to the security of a free State."

Regardless of whether the second amendment addresses individuals, loosely-controlled local militias or "guard units", one thing is clear. The second amendment has nothing to do with "personal protection" (handguns). It's clearly meant to apply to weapons of war. There's nothing there about my right to carry a gun to protect myself or anyone else from thieves or murderers.

One interesting thing about this debate is how "original intent" arguments are used by both liberals and conservatives as it suits their cause. In this particular case, "original intent" seems to be on the side of the "liberal" view and the more progressive interpretation (ignoring the part of the amendment that describes it's original purpose) supports the view of handgun owners.

Hello,

I am a brand-new member to this forum. I came across it quite by accident while doing some independent research about the origins of the 2nd Amendment, what influenced it, what it was considered back during its formation and after the reformation following the Civil War.

I found out some very interesting things that you might just as interesting.

During the Formation (1783-1789), the Founders were most influenced in their thinking by other successful republics in history, most notably Rome and Switzerland, which both encourage(d) citizens to keep privately owned arms. Arms were very common in early America, and the Founders were determined to keep them in the hands of ‘the people’ at all costs. Almost all serious Constitutional scholars that I have read consider “the people” in the 2nd Amendment to be considered the same individualistic “the people” in all the other amendments. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right. After all, the Constitution starts out with “We, the People” not, “We, the States”.

But here’s the rub: the word ‘regulated’ means something different today than what it meant 200+ years ago. “Regulated” in the colonial sense (and to some extent, still in modern England today), means “well-functioning” or “functioning in good order”. Therefore, with the definition in the Constitution of Militia being “all the people” it stands to reason that the individuals within the individual states would report for Militia duty once a month to practice military drill and marksmanship so to be “in good working order”.

This is exactly what came to pass. Citizens took their Militia duties seriously (they had to, since the neutrality earned by our victory over Britain, though well-earned, was not a sure thing. Britain constantly threatened us; outright hated us, for well over a hundred years). Citizens would report once a month, dutifully, to fulfill their Militia obligations. Since there were no armories, citizens were expected to take their required arms home with them and store them at home, along with all their powder, shot, bayonet (if any), gear, etc. In some cases, men took their weaponry to church with them, storing them outside until services were over, then continuing on to drill. Furthermore, if a citizen were so poor that he could not afford any weaponry, the State provided arms to him at little cost, his to keep until arms could be purchased by the citizen. The 2nd Amendment was a core fundamental, political right.

Fast forward to just after the Civil War. Reconstructionists, not wanting a repeat of what they just went through, and knowing they could not disarm the entire Confederacy without sparking fighting anew, recast the 2nd Amendment as a core civil right, portraying the arms owner as the stalwart defender of hearth, family and property against criminals. Militia drill still continued in most places, and nothing much had changed on the surface.

The idea that the National Guard, funded by Federal Money, drilling on Federal land, armed and equipped out of Federal armories and storehouses and subject to Federal law in time of war being some sort of “State” Militia is a thinly-veiled farce. A ‘State Militia’, by definition, owes it’s allegiance to its state of origin and no other entity. In theory and in reality, the National Guard is an auxiliary to the Federal Army. It is portrayed as a ‘State’ Militia so that it can be used against the citizens of the United States without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents active-duty Federal troops being used against civilians to enforce civilian law. In other words, active duty troops cannot arrest you for either a misdemeanor or a felony, provided that it does not take place on Federal property.

[As a side note: There are no more Army Reserve Special Forces units anymore that I am aware of. They have been reclassed as National Guard after the Governors of all 50 states asked that they be reclassed so that they could field counter-insurgency units against their own citizens, if the need arose without violating the Posse Comitatus Act].

It is also hard to believe that the National Guard, formed in 1917, is the same “Militia” referred to in the 2nd Amendment, written in 1789. The Founders knew that a Militia would never be a 1-to-1 match for a professional army and, disregarding Militia-only victories of King’s Mountain and others, acted accordingly. Their idea was that the weight of numbers would dissuade any outside invader, or give a potentially-tyrannical government pause before mistreating its’ citizens. In that respect, it worked.

Up until the 1930’s, the 2nd Amendment was taken to mean exactly what it was intended to mean: That all males between the ages of 16 to 60 were to be considered “The Militia” and were therefore entitled to own and keep, without restriction, all the weaponry used by active duty forces in a standing army. This included fully-automatic weapons, short rifles and shotguns, explosives and cannon, and Militia duties continued to be performed. In some cases, the troops themselves providing much more equipment and ammunition than normal with the States facing with tough times or budget shortfalls.

No restrictive Federal gun legislation existed until the National Firearms Act of 1934. FDR’s Progressives couldn’t let go thousands of Treasury Agents idled by the repeal of Prohibition, so they decided to make work for them by targeting firearms. They knew that the 2nd Amendment would bar an outright ban, so they couched it in Title 15 of the USC, which covers trade and interstate commerce and portrayed it as a ‘revenue generating measure’, which it was not. It taxed existing legal products between 1000% and 2000%, depending on how much the firearm cost, thereby guaranteeing noncompliance and giving Treasury something to do. In 1935, exactly ONE firearm was registered. Surprisingly, the most resistance to the original bill was from minorities and women, who either could not afford to pay the tax or were too small to handle larger firearms (Original NFA34 included all handguns) for self defense. NFA34 banned nothing, but it did levy excessive taxes, violating Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

When it was challenged in court, SCOTUS only heard one side of the story, since Miller (or his attorney), the guy who was being prosecuted, had won in every single court up till that point, did not show up and neither Mr. Miller, nor his attorney were ever heard from again. SCOTUS, being packed with FDR appointees, were “mislead” by the US Solicitor General, and upheld NFA34.

Proponents of the ‘States Rights’ theory are in for a rude awakening, since if we push that view to it’s final conclusion Constitutionally, the National Guard is found to be unconstitutional and must be dissolved or absorbed into the Reserves, leaving the States to form their own Militias. Since, under the “States Rights” theory, firearms will be tougher to obtain by the private citizen, the state itself must provide weapons of military usefulness to the citizens to be kept at their house, with drill once a month, same as it originally was, with the Militia’s loyalty reserved for the State alone. That would include fully automatic weaponry, tanks, cannon, and, ultimately, nuclear weapons.

The individual rights view holds the same problem for those in favor of gun control, since any restrictions are unconstitutional, violate state constitutions or can’t pass the “strict scrutiny” or “rational basis” tests.

• Banning a firearm on the basis of it being ‘solely designed to kill people’ is nonsensical, since ALL firearms are designed to kill.

• Banning a firearm because it takes a detachable magazine that “holds a large amount of cartridges” (however we define “large”) is equally as nonsensical since the firearm doesn’t know the difference between a magazine that holds 6 rounds and one that holds 60 rounds, and would include firearms that date back to the Civil War.

• Banning a firearm because it has no ‘sporting purpose’ runs counter to the reasons the 2nd Amendment was included in the first place. “Arms” includes ALL arms, and handing the power to decide what is ‘sporting’ and what is not to the Secretary of the Treasury and having him decide what can and cannot be imported or sold is completely arbitrary and circumvents the legislative process, violating the spirit of the law and common sense (however one defines ‘sporting purpose’, a term coined by ReichsMinister of Propaganda: Joseph Goebbels).

• Banning a semi-automatic firearm because ‘it sprays bullets very fast over a wide area’ doesn’t pass either, since, being a semi-auto, it fires only as fast as you pull the trigger, which is no different than any other firearm.

• Banning a firearm because it has some arbitrary cosmetic feature, like a pistol grip, is ludicrous, since it reduces the legislative process to a picture-book mentality. Also, according to official BATF testimony, cosmetic features do not make a firearm any more or less lethal; it is the cartridge that makes it lethal. You might as well ban a firearm because it uses gunpowder.

• Banning because a firearm has a provision for a bayonet won’t work, since any firearm that has a barrel can accept a bayonet, and despite the FBI, or any governmental Law Enforcement Agency being able to cite even one example of a violent crime being committed by a criminal with a bayonet affixed to a rifle (grenade launchers fall into this category as well).

• Banning ‘assault weapons’ because they are criminal’s weapons of choice is total fantasy. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, as far back as I have researched (1985) list ‘assault weapons’ as being used in only 0.8% of ALL crimes involving firearms, not just violent ones, which is counter to what we have been led to believe by public officials such as Police Chiefs, Mayors and Senators.

• Banning a firearm because it is a ‘sniper rifle’ and very accurate defies reason, since it means that civilians can only own and operate inaccurate weapons, which is a vicarious liability nightmare, not to mention a public menace. The term “sniper” defines a mission, not a rifle. Any accurate rifle, therefore, could be considered a ‘sniper rifle’.

• Banning a long arm because it is more easily concealed because it has a collapsible stock is logically impossible without banning handguns, since any handgun is infinitely more concealable than any long arm with a folding stock.

• Banning ‘assault weapons’ because they are “only designed to kill” runs counter to reason and history, since the cartridges they are chambered for are medium power cartridges designed to wound, and, according to the Commander of the US Army Ballistics and Wound Laboratory, any firearms manufacturer who advertised their products (‘assault weapons’) based solely on their massive killing power would be liable under the Truth in Advertising laws. Our current issue cartridge, the 5.56mm NATO, is not even eligible to be used during deer season because of its marginal terminal ballistics.

• Banning an ‘assault weapon’ because it is an ‘offensive weapon’, then allowing a provision for Police to have unrestricted access to them. The only reason Police have a need for weapons in the first place is in their duties defending the public. Using this logic, every citizen is entitled to the same weaponry as the Police since their lives are no less precious.


I have tried to be as brief and as arbitrary as possible, however, those who wish to ban firearms of any kind are fighting history, common sense, the Constitution and even a moral requirement to defend one’s family and self. With over 300 million firearms in the United States (estimate only), collecting up all the firearms is a pipe dream.

Additionally, I have discovered that the main architect of the Gun Control Act of 1968, Congressman Thomas Dodd, was a prosecutor at the Nürnberg trials after the 2nd World War, prosecuting Nazi war criminals. His main job was research in the German ‘Federal Register’ (Reichsgesetzblatt). Apparently, according to official communications from the Law Librarian at the US Library of Congress, his personal copyof the Nazi Gun Laws of 1938 (which were the basis of the disarmament of German Jews and made possible their liquidation), was the basis for the Gun Control Act of 1968. Congressman Dodd apparently had an official translation done of this German law 4 months prior to GCA68 being passed.

Meaning: The Gun Control Act of 1968 has its roots in Nazi Germany, courtesy of the Democratic Party. The legacy of Hitler lives on.

*NB: Switzerland, that tiny federated Republic of dissimilar peoples, speaking 3 different languages and having almost no central government and widespread gun ownership, stood off the Nazi’s from 1939 through 1945. Despite the bad press the Swiss have had over the past several years with regards to banking (allowable by a neutral nation under international law), the view the Swiss had of the Nazis just before and during WW2 was quite dim. They detested Nazism and Fascism and told the Germans just that. The Nazi’s tried everything, short of outright invasion, to get them to join the Nazi cause. The Swisses shot down several German aircraft (bombers, fighters and reconnaissance aircraft) during WW2, were bombed repeatedly by the Luftwaffe and had fully 20% of their population armed to the teeth in their mountain strongholds, prepared to fight to the last cartridge to defend their country. There was an astonishing order given by the Swiss Supreme Commander, General Guisan, that stated that all Swiss soldiers were to disregard any and all ‘rumors of surrender or capitulation’, and were expected to fight to the last cartridge, and then the bayonet. The Swiss citizen/soldiers believed it. Due to Switzerland’s geography, there could be no retreat. They were prepared to die fighting rather than serve under Hitler. If Germany invaded, the surviving Swiss forces retreating from the border would seek refuge in the Rèduit National (literally, ‘National Redoubt’) or mountain fortress, centered on the St. Gotthard massif, so that the Swiss could still control transportation routes across the Alps. They were able to mobilize over ½ MILLION soldiers (militia) and have them in position in less than 48 hours precisely because they had every male between the ages of 16 to 60 armed with rifles of military usefulness and automatic weapons that they stored in plain view at home.

Swiss militia trained in marksmanship year round, had shooting contests constantly and generally lived a life reminiscent of Sparta. The Swiss trained to 400 meters, more than 4 times the distance of the Germans and were ALL excellent marksmen. Despite a population of over 75 million between Germany and Austria, and Switzerland having no more than 4 million, (of which no more than 20% were under arms at any given time) in a country smaller than New York State, the Swiss were never invaded. Contrasting this with France, who had the Maginot line, it still took France 7 weeks to mobilize reserves, much less have any time for training. Switzerland has stood for over 600 years precisely because of a policy of armed neutrality. The United States used them as a model. It is only relatively recently that we have allowed ourselves to be castrated.


Anyone wishing to see my list of sources for the above information is welcome to it. No tricks, numbers games or creative editing. Just let me know and I will email it to you. This goes for you all on both sides of the issue.

Are you sure you weren't prospecting or recruiting?

While I am a supporter of responsible gun ownership, I am a devout believer that Wayne LaPierre and his minions at the NRA have turned a HUGE portion of the membership into a fearful bunch of hate-mongering fascists.

I think he should cease mandating that the membership vote for a certain party and abstain from falsely claiming that ANY other party's list of candidates is out to strip the NRA'S membership of its right to bear arms.

He is simply lying about the agendas of many candidates. Many libertarians, democrats and independents who are actually NRA members, hunters and gun owners themselves, are innocent victims of his political alliance and power brokering.

I am just as strongly opposed to the over-zealous weasels at Handgun Control, Inc.

It seems your research has quite a lot of interpretive opinion ESPECIALLY where the word militia needs to fit Wayne's definition of what our founding fathers intended to say about private ownership of weaponry.

Otherwise, a good first post.

Looks to me like you covered all that matters!

PACPanzer,

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not recruiting, despite your suspicion. The definition of the word Militia, as I have cited above, is gathered from the following:

* The Second Amendment And States' Rights: A Thought Experiment, William and Mary Law Review, volume 36, 1995

* The Political Works of Andrew Fletcher, Esq., London, 1732 A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias

* Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69)

* Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition, Journal of Contemporary Law, vol. 20, 1994

* Origins of the Bill of Rights, Leonard W. Levy

* The Bill of Rights, Professor A. Reed Amar

* The Second Amendment as Teaching Tool in Constitutional Law Classes, Eugene Volokh, Robert J. Cottrol, Sanford Levinson, L.A. Powe, Jr., and Glenn Harlan Reynolds, published at 48 Journal of Legal Education 591 (1998)

* The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton

* That Every Man be Armed: The Origin of a Constitutional Right; Halbrook

* Target Switzerland: Armed Swiss Neutrality in WWII; Stephen P. Halbrook

I understand your skepticism. I am a skeptic as well, and I am also not pleased with the appeasers inside the NRA.

The 2nd Amendment says what it says. Since I am an absolutist and very distrustful of any government, including a Republican one, I believe we need to repeal all the gun legislation on the books. All of them. They accomplish nothing, and are disingenuous (revenue generating measure? Since when will anyone pay a 2000% tax on anything? I buy a rifle with a barrel 15.50 inches long, and I need to be fingerprinted by the FBI and have every orifice explored with an electron microscope, but if I buy one with a barrel 1/2 inch longer, all of a sudden I'm an upstanding citizen? You want to go around the 2nd Amendment, so you couch legislation designed to ensure noncompliance in Title 15? Liars, appeasers, nanny-state toadies...) Gun-prohibition legislation accomplishes nothing except the facilitation of tyranny and genocide, but the 'anti's' are so enamored with our nanny-statists or have such serious emotional issues, they're more than happy to sell out the Constitution to 'feel like they have done something, no matter how small'. Our crime rate was a fraction of what it is now back in 1912 and you could own what you wanted with no restrictions at all. For that matter, it was even lower in 1912 than it was 40 years ago, and we're at a 40-year low, according to the FBI's UCR (2004 edition).

I don't like being told how to vote, same as you, even if I might agree with them about who needs to be in office. I make my own decisions, find my own destiny and assume responsibility for my own actions. I am capable of making adult, informed decisions (my wife's opinion notwithstanding ). The NRA concentrates too much on 1783-1789 and not enough on 1812-1870, plus, instead of working with other groups like GOA and JPFO, they want to retain a lock on their access to the power players, and are willing to sell out the other groups (and you and me) to retain that power. The NRA was founded by a bunch of Civil War generals who got their pants shot off by Southerners who could by-God shoot! They wanted to train the mostly urban Northern boys how to shoot so they could have a reserve of decent marksmen if the need arose again. It morphed into a social shooting club closely associated with the Army and didn't even have an in-house lawyer until 1975. It became a political animal out of survival thanks to sell-outs like Dodd and Kennedy, and now that they have access to power, they want to keep it.

They come across as a no-holds-barred, no-compromise gun rights group, but that just isn't so. Actions matter, not words, and if you look hard at what they have done, they have compromised yours and my rights away as sure as any slack-jawed pol ever could. They hate real no-holds-barred groups like GOA and JPFO because those groups won't play ball with the power players. They issue ultimatums that get results, and make NRA look bad.

Heh.. you got me on a soapbox. I'll get off now. Do me a favor and please don't compare me to LaPierre anymore. [If anything, compare me to the Swiss. My paternal line goes back at least to the year 1690 in a small town just inside the Swiss/German border called Dillendorf (as far as I have been able to go back as of this date... being able to speak and read German has some advantages, even if I can't get over to Switzerland to check out the archives). Family emmigrated here in 1905 and settled in the south. I inherited the shooting tradition from my Gran'pa and Father. My 4-year-old son already knows how to load, chamber, aim, fire, clear and make safe a 1911A1, even if his little hands can't hold my father's old sidearm, he can still tell me how to do it. Hopefully, he won't be poisoned by the nanny-state toadies and will take up the tradition as well.]

Just to save myself some work, here's my source list, just in case anyone is interested in where I got my information. It's quite a pile, and reading it will take some time.

1. The Constitution of the United States

2. The Bill of Rights

3. National Firearms Act of 1934, Title 26 USC

4. Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618

5. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, H.R. 1025

6. A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun

7. 48- Journal of Legal Education, 591 (1998), The Second Amendment as Teaching Tool in Constitutional Law Classes

8. Fact and Information sheet; Children and Guns, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

9. A History of the Fabian Society (extract from 100 Years of Fabian Socialism 1884-1984); Published by The Fabian Society of Great Britian

10. Raging against Self-Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality; by Dr. Sarah Thompson, M.D.

11. Round-robin discussion re: Gun control; The Hoover Institution, “Uncommon Knowledge” with Barrie Becker- Executive Director, Legal Community Against Violence; Joseph McNamara- Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Former Chief of Police for San Jose and Kansas City (MO); John Lott- John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago

12. Micro-Disarmament: The Consequences for Public Safety and Human Rights, Communist Gun Control; Bait ‘n Switch; Lawyers, Guns and Burglars; David B. Kopel- Criminologist, Member- Arizona Board of Regents and research Director of the Independence Institute

13. Essay: A Nation of Cowards; Jeffrey R. Snyder

14. U.S. v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), SCOTUS

15. U.S. v Emerson, Case No. 99-10331, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

16. U.S. v Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), SCOTUS

17. Current Firearms Legislation in the 108th Congress (2005) with analysis of each, GOA. (Full text of gun bills: TheOrator.com)

18. Nazi Firearms laws and the Disarming of the German Jews; 17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, No. 3, 483-535 (2000)

19. Points of Rebellion; Justice William O. Douglas, United States Supreme Court

20. Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769); Sir William Blackstone

21. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate, 97th Congress (Second Session-1982); Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary.

22. Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 2003; Federal Bureau of Investigation

23. Special Report, Project Megiddo; Federal Bureau of Investigation

24. The Posse Comitatus Act: A Principal in need of Renewal; Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol 75, #2, 1997

25. Of Holocausts and Gun Control; Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol 75, #3, 1997

26. Health, United States, 2004; US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control

27. The Second Amendment and States Rights, a Thought Experiment; 36 William and Mary Law Review, 1737-1768 (1995)

28. Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition; Journal of Contemporary Law, Vol 20, 1994

29. Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse; U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999

30. Guns and Violence; Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

31. The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton

32. The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction; Prof. Akhil Reed Amar

33. Origins of the Bill of Rights (Contemporary Law Series); Prof. Leonard W. Levy

34. Target Switzerland: Armed Swiss Neutrality in WWII; Stephen P. Halbrook

35. Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explanations on the Second Amendment; Robert J. Cottrol

36. That Every Man be Armed: The Origin of a Constitutional Right; Halbrook

37. Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny; Aaron Zelman

38. Slouching Towards Gomorrah; Judge Robert H. Bork

39. The Bias Against Guns; Prof. John R. Lott, Jr.

40. More Guns, Less Crime; Prof. John R. Lott, Jr.

41. Common Sense: The Rights of Man; Thomas Paine

All of these are easily found on the Web or through their respective Government agencies, the books easily found at any public library or bought from Amazon or Barnes & Nobel.

To those of you who think I'm some sort of agent provoceteur or recruiting for the NRA or some Neo-nazi organization, take a hard look at the sources listed above. Most of them, straight down the center, with a few to the left.

PS The only real difference between Communism and Fascism is that fascism has some semblance of respect for private property, at least in the national-scale sense (ie: factories, ore-processing companies, refineries). Other than that, there is little appreciable difference.

The question at hand is whether the 2nd Ammendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms.

Yes. All americans are members of the militia and the intention was to keep the militia well armed. The below is the *modern* US Code that legally makes all adult males members of the militia.

United States Code
Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311

"(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."

The Supreme Court case law even reflects this in its ruling supporting the ban on sawed off shotguns. The supreme court ruled that since shotguns were not military weapons they were not protected under the 2nd Ammendment. (And they were wrong about that but neither the defendant nor his lawyer even appeared for the hearing to be able to make their case.) Notice that they did not rule that the 2nd Ammendment is not an individual right but that shotguns are not military weapons. Thus, M-16s should be completely legal. I am in favor of restrictions on fully automatic weapons and I believe that is why the SC refuses to hear any 2nd Ammendment cases. If they did, they would have to rule against ALL gun control, even the machine gun laws allowing private citizens to own grenades and M-16s and even tanks if they could afford them (fully operational, armed tanks with depleted uranium shells).




---------------






I am a member of the NRA and although not as strong proponent of gun rights as them I must say, they didn't 'mandate' we vote for anyone. They simply pointed out for us how certain politicians voted regarding gun rights and suggested we vote for the ones who favored them. Mandate means that there are consequences if we don't. The NRA just informed us of political positions. If you have proof that they lied about these positions, show it.

Does the second amendment in your view protect the rights of an individual? To what extent?
I view the right to bare arms as a necessary evil. Gun ownership is more than just defending oneself from criminals. It is a way for "the people" to defend themselves in the unfortunate circumstance where government turns on the people. History and current news are full of examples of this.

The concept, I believe, of the Constitution is to restrict government powers by enumerating them, and spell out the rights of "the people" so we know when they are being infringed upon by government. I return again to the concept of "the people" having the power and not the government. The right to bare arms is no exception.

The 2nd amendment has brought about some of the most heated debates since it was imposed in 1776. The founding fathers implied into the constitution that this amendment protects the rights of the individual to the extent of owning it and even using it if in defense militia non withstanding. Personally I say give everyone a gun. There would be less crime, I mean would you go and try to steal from someone you know has a gun just like you? Would you try to kill someone that can tryand kill you right back? We were given the constitutional RIGHT to bear (own) arms as well as use them if we are attacked militarily or at home with a prospective burgalar.