Why would you leave a gun where a little kid can get it?Follow

I can't really imagine an argument in which making firearms inoperable by outlawing sale of ammuntion would not violate the 2nd Amendment.

The problem stems from two different approaches at looking at the 2nd ammendment:



The first is the idea that the militia is "well regulated", which generally means "controlled" or "ruled". This implies that the purpose of the people keeping arms is so they can serve in a military capacity when the government has need for them. This would indicate that since we have a standing military today, there's no need for "the people" to keep and bear arms.

The second is the idea that it's about "the people" having this right, regardless of whether there's a military need at any given time. Additionally, there's that word "free" in "free state". Remember that the founders intended (and initially created) a very weak federal system. The intent was that the federal government would have no military or police power at all. Thus, "the people" would choose to serve or not serve at any given time, thus ensuring that they could not be oppressed by said government (else why not just say the "security of the state", instead of a "free state"?). One could easily interpret the fact that we now do have a standing federal military *and* standing federal police forces as more need for the right to keep and bear arms as private citizens, not less.


I tend to fall in the second catagory on this issue. I simply don't think that our current military system matches that of the "well regulated militia" envisoned by the framers of the constitution. This doesn't mean that today's private ownership of firearms matches it either, but clearly the intent was to ensure that "the people" were able to use their weapons to protect themselves and their families both as a local force of armed citizens *and* in a military capacity when needed (that's what a militia is after all). I don't think that "security" should be blanketly interpreted to mean only military action at the direction of the federal government.


Ultimately, the clear component of a "militia", whether well regulated or not, is that it is composed of private citizens who own and maintain their own weapons. That's what distiguishes a militia from an army. A militia specifically serves the dual purpose of being able to serve in war time and *also* having those weapons available for private use. A militia is not required to hand over their weapons when they aren't serving their country directly, so neither should the private gun owners of today. We can go around in circles trying to guess the purpose to which a private citizen would need a weapon when not actively serving in said militia, but the ammendment clearly grants that right.

At least that's my take on it.

Apparently, only the good guys have the aim to do this. Bad guys can unload 10 fully automatic weapons at the good guy, who will always be able to duck behind a sapling and remain unscathed. The good guy will then proceed to disable all foes with a single round from his semi-automatic handgun at 50 yards.


Don't you watch any movies?

I think his point was something like this:-

Look look mommy that bad country are violent too, don't tke my guns off me whhaaa whhaaa whhaaa i know they kill the population of a small town every year and i don't really need one but it mine all mine and i wants it... my precious.

Who cares what they intended? We should figure out what the best policy (fewest violent deaths per 100,000) is and do that. The Constitution isn't Holy Writ, and the founding fathers didn't get it all right.

Edited, Tue Jan 31 09:01:03 2006 by Vorpalfist

I won't quote all the people who I am replying to, because it would be too many, but I think most everyone heretofore misunderstands this amendment.

The Framers of the Constitution's intent in this amendment is two fold:
The primary intent is to insure that the people are the last check and balance built into the constitution. That if the Government should fail to insure the people's freedom from internal or external forces that the people are enabled to protect and/or restore their freedoms themselves by being armed and able to form free militias. The secondary intent is to insure that people had rifles for hunting in order to feed their families and survive.

This is not my interpretation of the amendment, rather it is the framers of the constitutions clearly written and spoken intent at the time it was written. This amendment is a direct response to British actions prior to the Revolutionary War, stripping weapons from the free populous to prevent them from fighting for their freedoms, and causing people to starve and actually creating more support for the revolution than had existed prior. Defending your home from criminals was not really a factor in the writing of this Amendment.

The primary purpose being a final check against the loss of American freedoms is a perspective you have to think about to understand. Yes, having this final check for freedom comes at a cost, a cost in lives lost due to guns being in the wrong hands. However, do we really want to give up this final check in order to protect these lives? It is a tough call.

Would it make a difference in your view, if you believe like I do that handguns should not be protected by the Amendment, but automatic rifles and other rifles should be, because of their use for the primary and secondary purpose of the Amendment, which handguns do not serve well.

The US supreme court ruled just a couple years after the amendment was passed, that Cannons were not included in this protection and that it is limited to the standad militia weapons one man can carry.




Edited, Tue Jan 31 09:06:16 2006 by fhrugby

The interpretation of the law by the courts follows certain guidelines, one of which is that when the Law, whether it is legislative or constitutional, is not clear on a certain point, the judge(s) should look at the intent of the law’s constructors at the time it was written. If the Law is clear on a subject, then the intent is not to be used, even if it is different that what the law says. Thus when it is unclear on something, the courts can use the legislature's intent in writing the law as grounds for their decision.


I will try to find a copy of that case, but what I remember it was some guy, not a militia, who kept a loaded cannon on his front lawn in northern Virgina aimed at his front gate, he did not take kindly to uninvited guests (mother-in-law issues perhaps?) Thus the militia owned cannons were not addressed, just that the common man could not keep a cannon at his house.

The federalist papers are among the documents that precede and explain the intent of the Constitution.
Some interesting excerpts:

- Noah Webster, in the first Federalist pamphlet, attempting to calm Pennsylvania anti-Federalists wrote:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

- The Federalist Papers called the state militias, comprised of the armed populace not a nationla guard which did not exist, as the ultimate check on government. As James Madison predicted that no federal government could become tyrannical, because if it did, "there would be plans of resistance and an appeal to trial by force. A federal standing army would surely lose that appeal, because it would be opposed by a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands." "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over almost every other nation," Madison contrasted the American government with the European dictatorships, "which are afraid to trust the people with arms."

The federalist papers go on like this. It was the fear of the various states that a dictator could ursurp the constitution and take control and the Bill of Rights included the right to bear arms in order to help prevent this, and without this right the constitution and federal government might not come into existance as so many states were against it.



Edited, Tue Jan 31 10:46:13 2006 by fhrugby

I have to agree with that, the founding fathers spent alot of time debating the constitution and they foresaw alot of problems including a possible civil war which actually came into being.

I guess it's all a matter of perception. I choose to read it that if I wanted to own a registered weapon, then I match the requirements layed out in that amendment. If the part about the milita is important as a requirement I have to meet before I can own a gun, I'll join a local gun club.

To meet the criteria of being regulated, I think you should license gun owners. Cars are dangerous so we need a license to drive. Guns are dangerous so we could have a license to shoot.

In my mind, a militia could be any group of trained gun owners known to the government. I guess in the olden days, it could be a colonial town. These days, it could be gun clubs or even the NRA.

I should point out that I don't own a gun and have only fired one a few times in my life. But just shudder to think the government could tell me I never can own one or can take them away from my friends who are responisble gun owners.

I don't think many people advocate a complete disarment of the nation. Now, before anyone goes correcting me, I'm sure some folks do but most people seem okay with with hunting rifles, shotguns and things of that nature. It's handguns in particular that get people riled up with semi-automatic carbine "assault rifle" dealies coming in a close second.

I'm not looking to debate whether or not either should be outlawed, just mentioning that even people adamantly opposed to handguns tend to say that long barrel firearms are acceptable with proper licensing and care.

I can, it will be from a combination of activist groups, too many people (not enough hunting space) and lead poisoning.

Also, there are now alternatives that are every bit as sporting but are cheaper and safer.









Edited, Tue Jan 31 14:03:47 2006 by Elinda