The Second Amendment

[CraigD]

…The other extreme is to say that the right to bear arms is *only* for members of the militia, and unless you're a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard you have no such right. Given the terminology and the facts of the day, there turns out to be a *very* strong argument that this is the way it should be interpreted.

I believe this is one of the most common misconceptions about the very-weirdly phrased 2nd Amendment.

 

Most current dictionaries give the following 3 definitions of “militia”:

1) A military unit consisting of mostly non-career soldiers – essentially, the US military in every large deployment prior to about 1985;

2) A military reserve and auxiliary – our modern-day national guards and reserves;

3) The collection of people eligible for military service – today, every person between 18 and 40-something.

In addition, there’s a very recent, common usage, that seldom appears in dictionaries:

4) A paramilitary society, possibly criminal – as in “the Montana Freemen, a right-wing gun militia”

 

There are at least a couple of reasons to believe only the 3rd definition was in common usage when the 2nd amendment was written and ratified:

1) “Militia” is a pure plural Latin noun. Although current dictionaries generally indicate that it has either no number, or is both singular and plural (like “sheep”), most literate English speaking people in the late 18th centrury would have been sufficiently Latin-aware to be uncomfortable using a plural noun in the singular, eg: “enlist in the militia”, rather than “till the militia could have

time to rally and embody”.

2) Documents of the consistently use it in this sense. In particular, the Federalist Papers never refer to a “militia unit” of an army or call an army a militia, but consistently refer to the militia as the source of soldiers for armies.

 

In light of this, I believe it’s clear that the class referred to by the 2nd Amendment are all people who could serve in the US military – all but the very young, the very old, the infirmed or disabled, and conscientious objectors.

 

That said, I personally believe the Congress and the various states should repeal the 2nd Amendment. The reasoning behind was applicable only to militaries through the early 20th century, where soldiers were expected to be trained prior to enlistment, and possibly bring their own weapons. Current US military doctrine calls for even the most highly skilled specialists to obtain their training from the military, and does not require or permit them enlistees to bring their own weapons.

 

Laws governing the ownership and use of weapons should be reasoned in terms of relevant factors, such as self-protection, private security, and sporting. As the federal government has no legitimate interest in these activities, these laws should be left to state and local government.

[Fishteacher73]

Doesn't the phrase "well regulated" entail essentailly gun control? Tossing assault rifles out willy-nilly at a gun show could hardly be construed as "well regulated".

[CraigD]

Doesn't the phrase "well regulated" entail essentailly gun control? Tossing assault rifles out willy-nilly at a gun show could hardly be construed as "well regulated".

You’re right, the wording of the 2nd Amendment suggests, but doesn’t directly require, that not only guns but any person capable of using one be “well regulated.”

 

Concerning assault rifles, however: The 2nd Amendment contains unusual wording to explain why it is included in the constitution, clearly justifying the right to keep and bear arms as a measure to support a military – not self-protection, police functions, or sport. By this reasoning, any weapon that has small military value - handguns, sporting arms, etc – is arguably not protected, while one that have great military value - assault rifles, light and heavy machine guns, grenade and missile launchers, artillery, antiaircraft systems, armored fighting vehicles, aircraft, and even nuclear weapons – is.

 

Its facility in producing reasonable but clearly silly interpretations like this is, IMHO, supports the proposition that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, and should be repealed.

[GAHD]

On this subject, but off at the same time:

 

I heard from sombody recently that good old Adolf instituted gun-controll in several nations prior to invading, the logic being that any resistance could be blunted from lack of firepower.

 

Anyone else hearof this?

[nkt]

Hitler didn't need to. The previous liberal government had passed tight gun control laws, including full registration, so when Hitler wanted to collect them off the Jews and other undesirables, there was a nice list.

 

In fact, to my knowledge, Hitler didn't really need to pass many laws to do what he wanted, he just used the powers that had already been made available to him through "Emergency" laws that were already in place.

 

This is why wiping out hundreds of freedoms for millions of people because a handful of terrorists might abuse it is such a very bad idea. No one should be able to kill a country fom the inside, but that is the easiest way to do it. Blow up a few things in the name of something, and what how the reaction removes that thing, and the fallout removes thousands of other things at the same time, which is normally what the terrorists were actually aiming at...

[Buffy]

This is a very popular line of argument from those who insist on the extreme "no-gun-restrictions-whatsoever" side of the argument. This has been pretty well discounted by historians, and when you think about it, it doesn't make sense to think that a few Jews or Dutch or French would have helped turn back the ruthless Nazi's who always shot first and asked questions later. Here's a web page that goes through a more detailed refutation than I'm willing to post here:

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

 

Conversely, Saddam had some pretty restrictive gun control laws, look how easy its made it for us to put down the resistance...on the other hand, if we just did what the Nazi's did and shoot everyone that looked at us funny, we'd have "pacified" Iraq a long time ago...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[GAHD]

I was referring more to countries other than Germany, Poland and such.

[Buffy]

I was referring more to countries other than Germany, Poland and such.

Sure, and I think that there's at least something to the argument that if there'd been more guns in people's houses that it would have killed a few more Germans, but not very many: a .30-.30 is no match for a Panzer or a Stuka, lemme tell you. Legitimate historians do recognize the potential but it was pea-shooter versus atom-bomb, and there is *no* evidence that there was any attempt by the Nazi's to use "registration records" to round up people or confiscate guns (most countries simply restricted ownership, they did not have the money or the man power to do record keeping on registration (the Nazi's *did* in Germany though, but again they didn't "round up registrants" either, they didn't have to)). The Soviets also had severe restrictions on gun ownership, but when it came to Stalingrad, everyone was given a gun (and had a gun to their backs too...).

 

This specific issue is by the way the exact exemption that the Second Amendment is calling out: the notion that home owned guns for the purpose of national defense. This desire still has to be balanced against the issue of wide availability of more lethal guns requires an actuarial increase in the cost as expressed in additional accidental and intentional gun deaths.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

And all this time, I thought a gun was designed to shoot a bullet at a target.

Wow! :hihi:

 

I had never thought that was the purpose of a gun! :evil:

 

I still need a bit of help though. Why on the entire globe would it have even crossed anybody's mind to design any sort of contraption to shoot any sort of a projectile at any whatsoever target? :)

[bayarea02]

And this was Vallejo, which is a sleepy little working class suburb,

 

 

vallejos crime rate is higher then comptons, far from sleepy suburb.

[Tarantism]

actually, bay-person- compton's crime rate has dropped enormously in recent years.

 

i think that the people down there get a bad rap (pun not intended) becuase of the riots in the early 90's

 

now, im not saying that its all fun and daisys there, but perhaps other comparisons are needed,

[TheBigDog]

What I find despicable about gun control laws is that they turn law abiding citizens in to criminals. There never seem to be grandfather clauses to these laws. One day I am a responsible gun owner, the next day I am a criminal because my gun has been banned. This is regardless of my use of the weapon. Being a law abiding citizen I have my guns properly registered so the authorities require me to turn it in, often without compensation, or disable it.

 

A criminal uses his firearm for illegal purposes and doesn't register ownership. So the most predicable effect of the laws is disarming people who were not the problem to begin with, or forcing them to be criminals because they choose to keep what is already theirs.

 

There can be upside to gun control, but they are usually written by people with a deeper agenda.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

vallejos crime rate is higher then comptons, far from sleepy suburb.

Not according to national murder rate figures for 2003, where Compton is ranked number 5 and Vallejo is 188, right after Witchita and Portland, OR....

 

You may be thinking of Richmond, California which is just the other side of the Carquinez Bridge from Vallejo, which is ranked 9 on that list, and may well be worse than Compton today. No doubts about that!

 

Compton may get a bad rap, but its still not safe for greys after dark...

 

Bad,

Buffy

[bayarea02]

Not according to national murder rate figures for 2003, where Compton is ranked number 5 and Vallejo is 188, right after Witchita and Portland, OR....

 

You may be thinking of Richmond, California which is just the other side of the Carquinez Bridge from Vallejo, which is ranked 9 on that list, and may well be worse than Compton today. No doubts about that!

 

Compton may get a bad rap, but its still not safe for greys after dark...

 

Bad,

Buffy

 

richmond is the most dangerous city in california in 2005.vallejo crime rate is higher then comptons, check the 2005 crime rates vallejo is higher, i live in vallejo.

[Buffy]

richmond is the most dangerous city in california in 2005.vallejo crime rate is higher then comptons, check the 2005 crime rates vallejo is higher, i live in vallejo.

I'm having trouble finding data on 2005. I've found this 2005 "most dangerous" cities abbreviated list that has both Compton and Richmond, but no mention of Vallejo. I know Vallejo well enough to know there are areas that I don't want to go to, but it doesn't hold a candle to the triangle of death in Richmond or just about anywhere in Compton in my book. Have you got a data reference or even a murder rate figure for Vallejo for 2005?

 

Data demon,

Buffy

[bayarea02]

I'm having trouble finding data on 2005. I've found this 2005 "most dangerous" cities abbreviated list that has both Compton and Richmond, but no mention of Vallejo. I know Vallejo well enough to know there are areas that I don't want to go to, but it doesn't hold a candle to the triangle of death in Richmond or just about anywhere in Compton in my book. Have you got a data reference or even a murder rate figure for Vallejo for 2005?

 

Data demon,

Buffy

 

1 out of every 7,000 people in vallejo will get murdered(15),compton is on that list because it goes by cities with more then 100,000 population,less then 100,000 and more then a million compton and richmond are under 100,000 vallejo is 116,000 thats why vallejo is not on the list.

[Buffy]

1 out of every 7,000 people in vallejo will get murdered

Okay, so that's 16 murders for 2005 (116k/7k = 16.57) for a murder rate of 14.28 per 100,000

 

According to Wiki there were 68 murders in Compton, CA in 2005 and with a population of 93,000 (2000 census) that's a murder rate of 73.11 per 100,000.

 

According to the CBS affiliate in San Francisco there were40 murders in Richmond, CA in 2005 and with a population of 99,000 (2000 census) that's a murder rate of 40.4 per 100,000.

 

Are there other numbers you have?

 

Cheers,

Buffy