<p>
</p>
<p>Not to mention that they would have to admit that “arms” means all arms that are of use to a military - i.e. automatic weapons, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, explosives, mortars and small artillery, etc. and that they must be made available to males aged 17-45 :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is “shall not be infringed” not clear 
</p>
<p>Icarus,
is pretty clear.
is clear. It’s the part in between which isn’t. Does “the People” refer to individuals, or “the People” as a body politic? In other parts of the Bill of Rights when referring to an individual the term “person” is used. Next: what does “bear arms” mean?<br>
(Wikipedia)
</code></pre>
<p>Yeah. Not clear.</p>
<p>
More like the notion that “gun nuts” (nice way to marginalize the other side in a debate, isn’t it?) can protect themselves from homicidal criminals.</p>
<p>If you are going to try to use your opponent’s argument against them, get the argument right. Don’t use Strawman arguments.</p>
<p>Even this is a side argument when addressing the 2nd Amendment. The “security of a free state” is the reason for the law. Self-defense, recreation, collecting, and gun-crime are side effects of preventing tyrrany and hostile take-overs.</p>
<p>On a self-defense note–If we had semi-automatic, magazine fed, 6+ shot tazers, I, personally, would gladly use that over a handgun (I don’t fancy the whole death thing). As the situation is, a handgun is the most potent self-defense weapon available to most people. When it comes to the “me or them” situation, I would want the greatest advantage possible in order to assure that I could survive the encounter.</p>
<p>“I suspect the vast majority will consciously decide this freedom is worth the cost.”</p>
<p>I bet someone can point to the data: How many Americans own vs. don’t own guns? </p>
<p>I realize that this isn’t the same question as: How many Americans think the collective gun homicides are worth it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here you go…
[DA:</a> Easton shooting self-defense – themorningcall.com](<a href=“http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_3shooting.6170564dec06,0,5983352.story?coll=all_tab01_layout]DA:”>http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_3shooting.6170564dec06,0,5983352.story?coll=all_tab01_layout)</p>
<p>I realize this is just a drop in the sea of debate, but this kind of stuff actually does happen.</p>
<p>^ and they are allowed to do so… everyone is allowed to protect themselves and others from crime. Some people just understand that a gun is the best way to do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this argument is that if you admit that even one other amendment in the bill of rights that uses “the people” refers to individuals, you will be forced to admit that the 2nd applies to individuals as well. Unfortunately for you, this would mean that the 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments would refer to collective rights.</p>
<p>The bill of rights mentions the “United States,” “the States,” and “the people.” It seems fairly obvious which levels are addressed by each term. (Specifically, see the 10th.)</p>
<p>Vossron: [Guns[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp]Just”>Gun Control – Just Facts]Just</a> Facts.com –> Gun Control](<a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm]Guns[/url”>Guns)</p>
<p>59.1m gun owners, 49% live in households with a firearm - Gallup</p>
<p>That’s a pretty comprehensive look at polling and demographic information about the topic. There’s a lot of good and interesting data in there.</p>
<p>[Journal</a> of Criminal Law and Criminology](<a href=“http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm]Journal”>http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm)</p>
<p>“The study states: “Eleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable adjusted estimate of [Defensive Gun Use] frequency. Two surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the Cambridge Reports and the Time/ CNN. Neither asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question of all [respondents]; thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been among those [respondents] not asked the [Defensive Gun Use] question. All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year.” [Table 1 lists these studies and various facts about their methodologies. Eight of the 11 studies mentioned above were nationwide surveys. Among these, the range of defensive gun uses per year is 764,000 - 3,609,000. The 9th nationwide survey is the one this study is based upon. It was conducted with the most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year.]”</p>
<p>If the 2nd Amendment’s use of the “the people” does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to me as a citizen, does the 1st Amendment’s use of “the people” guarantee my right to peaceably assemble?</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has already held that when the Constitution says the term “people” it means the “people” not the “states”.</p>
<p>Over 73% of the American “people” understand this since they believe A2 states the personal right.</p>
<p>I think we’ve covered this before in this post. It seems there is a desire to re-plow the same ground.</p>
<p>Actually, the Supreme Court said this:
and this:
</p>
<p>Interpretation of the Constitution is not a popularity contest, to be won by the side with the best spinmeisters. A majority of its Republicans viewers of Fox News “agreed” in 2003 that WMD’s had been found in Iraq. Does that make it true?</p>
<p>An even larger issue than the Constitution is The Will of the People. No matter how the Supreme Court rules, if a sufficient number of people (through their representatives) disagree, the Constitution can be changed. Of course, that sufficient number may not be attainable. I know, we all know this. I suspect that the gun nuts would have a better chance of making such a change than would the control freaks.</p>
<p>If the Supreme Court affirms the 2nd Amendment as a personal right, it would take a national majority to change that. A national majority that does not exist right now. A Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment would take 38 states. That would take a “popularity contest.” As individuals, we don’t have any influence over the Supreme Court’s Constitutional interpretation. National opinion is an important metric from a public policy standpoint, which is something that we, as individuals, have considerably more influence over. This public opinion is also more directly mirrored in state legislatures than in the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>If those Constitutional amendments in the first SCOTUS excerpt apply to a class of people, do they not also apply to the individuals that make up that community? I believe that if the framers had wanted the arms to be kept and born by a militia, they would have said exactly that.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, all this talk is simply blather. There will be no doing away with the second amendment, no matter how much some of us would like to see all those violent weapons gone forever from private hands. </p>
<p>There are far too many gun owners in this country (I forget the percentage, but it is majority who own guns, not majority who don’t), and there would be a national revolt if there was even so much of a whisper of abolishing A2. </p>
<p>The rest of us are just wasting our breath, but that’s our right in a democracy.</p>
<p>Or to put it another way, Ninja - if the framers had wanted to assure an individual’s right to possess firearms without qualification I suppose they would have said exactly that. But they didn’t.</p>
<p>Remember, the term “bear arms” means “engage in combat” - not “own a gun” (or at least that’s what it meant in 1789.) The problem is that people are looking to divine the meaning of words which had a particular significance in the context in which they were used - and the context has changed. If the founders were to show up today, see a society where the country’s defense is not in the hands of well regulated militias anymore, would they agree that they really meant to enshrine in the Constitution the right for every self-aggrandizing yahoo to own an AK-47, even though today that “right” has nothing to do with “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” anymore? How about a howitzer, or a tank, or a nuke? </p>
<p>That’s why the “strict constructionist” argument is a rational dead end. By ascribing a talismanic value to words, which, as this discussion has illustrated, may not even have the same meaning over a span of hundreds of years, regardless of context, you can lose contact with the intent of the framers of the document. If it weren’t for the gun nuts being unwilling to rely on the actual risk and benefit of allowing virtually unfettered access to their beloved guns to ensure the success of their goal, and seizing the second amendment as a thumb on the scales of the argument, the second amendment would be no more of an issue today than the third amendment is.</p>
<p>The reason the gun nuts are so rabid about having the second amendment read their way is that if the Supes don’t give them that gift, a Constitutional Amendment to give every individual the right to own a gun would never pass today either. So we’ve got people on either side arguing that words which were written over 200 years ago, and had different meaning in the context of the day than they do now, should be “interpreted” to have a ruling effect on our nation that neither side could get sufficient support to enact today.</p>
<p>I do believe the phrase is “keep and bear arms,” not just “bear arms.” You also have to argue against Title X, if you are going to argue that the “militia” has disappeared.</p>
<p>I think many of the founding fathers would be horrified to see such a strong federal military, since they were largely against any standing, federal military organization. If anything, they would likely be more fearful of the huge federal government becomming abusive of its powers now than they were when they wrote the Constitution. (Yes, those are normative arguments.) That doesn’t really help the gun-control argument now does it? There is a reason that the “gun-nuts” like to quote the founding fathers and politicians of that time. Many of them thought it essential that citizens be armed.</p>
<p>If you want to use the Miller decision and argue that ONLY common military weapons can be kept, you would be forced to allow short-barreled M4s, AK-47s (the real kind, not the semi-auto only ones the media likes to call “AK-47s”), shotguns, MP5s, and M9 pistols (to name a few)…but that single-shot black powder rifle (used for hunting) would have to go. I doubt that is your intent.</p>
<p>Kluge, I have a hard time believing the people can somehow “keep” or store the right to “engage in combat.” How exactly would an unarmed populace engage in combat against a state? From what I’ve read, the founders believed in personal ownership of firearms. Just as the 1st Amendment was given the “Fire” rider, laws regulating the 2nd Amendment should be handled by the courts. I think it is unlikely that the legality of possessing a nuclear weapon would qualify. </p>
<p>As we have seen in recent, tanks and howitzers are not effective weapons of war against the United States. The more pointed question would be the legality of RPGs, automatic weapons (real AK-47s, machine guns), and other weapons of guerilla war. US vs. Miller was a condemnation of an impractical firearm, not the individual right to own a firearm.</p>
<p>US vs. Miller - “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense… And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” </p>
<p>“…of the kind in common use at the time.” Short barrelled shotguns were not US standard issue then, thats why the shotgun has nothing to do with the militia. An assault rifle with a retractable stock is standard issue now.</p>
<p>“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” - George Washington</p>
<p>“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334</p>
<p>“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” - George Washington</p>
<p>“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers</p>
<p>It’s not my 'intent" to force the language of the second amendment into any box that favors my predisposition of what the best outcome would be. My “intent” is to show that the context of the society in which the second amendment was drafted is relevant to a rational analysis of what it should be interpreted to mean in 2007. And frankly, once the “well regulated militias” ceased to exist, the context of the amendment ceased to exist. I think the most rational analysis of the amendment is that it did guarantee a personal right - in fact, an obligation - to maintain readiness to “bear arms” - i.e., participate as an active member of the militia as they existed at the time of the Amendment’s enactment. Once those militias ceased to exist and to fulfill the function they served in that day and age, and that obligation no longer exists, it’s not clear that the right, which no longer serves that purpose, should continue to have an independent, unmoored existence. To paraphrase the Supreme Court, In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [gun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.</p>
<p>That’s why I posted about 10 pages ago that anyone who volunteers to serve in the National Guard should be viewed to have a right to own any gun they want. Anyone else? Well, they’re not participating in the militia, are they? In 1789, if you were part of “the people”, you had to serve; that’s the context in which the amendment was written. Once that context changed, you’re really perverting the intent of the framers to create a right out of the subordinate part of the amendment which has somehow come adrift of the reason for the amendment in the first place.</p>
<p>Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13 of the US code defines one component of the national militia as all able-bodied male citizens age 17-45 who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. This definition is echoed in US vs. Miller. </p>
<p>If by this definition, the militia still exists, would the 2nd Amendment not still apply to these people?</p>
<p>When we finally get the Court’s decision, will the “loser” here, e.g., ninja or kluge, believe that the Court got it wrong, or admit that s/he is wrong? Can you two say in advance? I, for one, have agreed and disagreed with at least one of the points each of you have made, and as one not well versed in constitutional law, I don’t have an opinion about what A2 actually says, though I do land on one side of the argument, and <em>hope</em> for a particular outcome.</p>
<p>Maybe it works in Switzerland because they really are a well regulated militia. I don’t know. I do know that gun ownership seems to lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths here. Some by accident, some crimes of opportunity, some crimes of passion. Maybe the founding fathers had the right idea for their time, but not for ours.</p>
<p>Personally, I’d like to see gun ownership with a lot more safeguards. I don’t want to see more incidents like Columbine or Virginia Tech or the most recent one in the mall wherever it was, where clearly troubled kids had easy access to firearms.</p>