Gun Control Laws

[Inspector]

If you're basing these two things on a reading of the constitution as opposed to other documents from the 1770's, we can agree to disagree.

Oh, I completely missed your post here. Sorry about that!

I'm not sure what you disagree on. Rather than agreeing to disagree, I'd rather you enlighten me as to your position.

As to mine, I shall elucidate as follows:

The first is clear in and of itself, within the constitution. As I said before,

It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Is says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It's unfortunate that they chose to word it such that it vaguely could be interpreted to imply that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was somehow dependent on militias. Because not only did they not believe that, but the sensible interpretation is that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a pre-existing right, assumed by the writers of the document, and they are just putting double emphasis on the fact that it shall not be infringed. Ah, but that would imply all sorts of things about the constitution not being an exhaustive list of rights and that the state can't simply feel free to infringe anything not specifically listed and that our government was by its very establishment supposed to be limited to the protection of individual rights and so on and so forth. There may even be an inconvenient amendment to this effect. Ah, but I prattle on...

The important part is that, whatever the implication, the literal writing says quite clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - militia or no militia. And barring amendment, so it will remain.

The second "well regulated" referred to, in the language of the Militia Act of 1792, "arms, ammunition and accoutrements." "Well," meaning good quality or at least completeness. Militias were indeed state entities, and may well have been strictly controlled by the state, but "well regulated" doesn't refer to this fact.

That's to say, the right to bear arms as we understand it today was intended to be covered by the 10th amendment, not the second.

I agree completely here. They didn't even see the necessity of enumerating it; they took the right of the people to keep and bear arms at a total given, being sane people living in a saner climate. I just mean that if we are to take the unfortunate wording for what it is worth, that it at least balances out.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Inspector

[FeatherFall]

Sorry to move away from the constitution for a moment, but I have a question.

Can anyone hope for a more effective gun control policy than the one put in place at VPI? We know of only one person who broke the rules, which means that the number of people obeying the law approached 100%. What other laws/ordinances have this level of compliance?

Granted, there could be more people in the institute who did have guns that we don't know about. Is this a valid approach to the problem?

[Catherine]

I said this in the "massacre" thread, but I think it bears repeating here.

I think it's a mistake to argue this point based on the impact one thinks it would have on crime (because really the future impact is unknowable). Rather, there is a principle involved in which rational men should be afforded the opportunity to reasonable personal defense regardless of whether crime rates would go up or down. The government's restriction (regarding firearm ownership) on the lives of rational men based on the actions of a very small minority of criminals and/or mental persons is an affront to that principle.

Right, I totally agree. I did make a point to say this in my original post, as I think it is the biggest issue in the entire argument.

The gun control debate is NOT one about numbers. It is one about morality, regardless of what happens to the crime rates.

Saying that there are statistics in support of it was merely a sidenote - as in, if liberals want their numbers, they can have them - because even still, the moral way will still prove the best way.

But I do agree that statistics have no place in this (or any other) argument.

[softwareNerd]

Rather than agreeing to disagree, I'd rather you enlighten me as to your position.

I apologize for the abruptness of that post.

I agree that the individuals have a right to bear arms. However, it is pretty easy to read the 2nd amendment meaning "people have the right to bear arms, because (and only because) they need to be in the militia". Such an interpretation would imply that if one is not a person who can be potentially called up by the militia, there is no reason for the government to allow one to bear arms. From such an interpretation, it would also follow that any arms that are not specific to the purpose of being a member of a militia may also be banned. So, while the right remains with the people, it is essentially the right of an individual qua militia-member.

The clear intention of the 2nd amendment is to protect the right of individuals qua militiamen.

The question then becomes: does it support only qua militia-man, or does it imply that other valid reasons to bear arms also exist. To me, it appears to offer a little hint of support to the notion that people have the right to bear arms, and that right should not be abridged, particularly because they may also need those arms in their role as militia-men. And this is what you said (re: "pre-existing right") in your post above, and I agree entirely.

The second "well regulated" referred to, in the language of the Militia Act of 1792, "arms, ammunition and accoutrements." "Well," meaning good quality or at least completeness. Militias were indeed state entities, and may well have been strictly controlled by the state, but "well regulated" doesn't refer to this fact.

Where in the act is "well" or "regulated" mentioned? Not that I doubt your interpretation, but I cannot see the proof.

[Catherine]

I agree that the individuals have a right to bear arms. However, it is pretty easy to read the 2nd amendment meaning "people have the right to bear arms, because (and only because) they need to be in the militia". Such an interpretation would imply that if one is not a person who can be potentially called up by the militia, there is no reason for the government to allow one to bear arms. From such an interpretation, it would also follow that any arms that are not specific to the purpose of being a member of a militia may also be banned. So, while the right remains with the people, it is essentially the right of an individual qua militia-member.

The clear intention of the 2nd amendment is to protect the right of individuals qua militiamen.

The question then becomes: does it support only qua militia-man, or does it imply that other valid reasons to bear arms also exist. To me, it appears to offer a little hint of support to the notion that people have the right to bear arms, and that right should not be abridged, particularly because they may also need those arms in their role as militia-men. And this is what you said (re: "pre-existing right") in your post above, and I agree entirely.

What the Bill of Rights actually reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I do see what you mean - "...the 2nd amendment is to protect the right of individuals qua militiamen" - but let's analyze that statement. A militia is, according to the OED:

Originally: the body of soldiers in the service of a sovereign or a state (obs.). Subsequently: a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, esp. to supplement a regular army in an emergency, freq. as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers.

A militia is different from a trained army, or a government-supported army, in that it is an army of civilians. To say that the right to bear arms was reserved only for those with the intent of joining the militia is too vague a statement - who can join a militia?, is anyone who intends to fight for a unified cause a "militia"?, and which "militias" are allowed to have these rights? (That is my problem with the word militia - it is too vague and too controversial.)

Considering the context in which the Bill of Rights was written, however, the signers obviously meant a militia whose purpose was to protect themselves against oppressors, or people who intended to use force against them - not to serve the government.

As strangely as it is worded, I think it's obvious that the right for an individual to bear arms was, for very good reasons, sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. (And if it wasn't, that's a problem with the Bill).

Edited May 8, 2007 by Catherine

[KendallJ]

One of the ways to put this into context is to look at the documents that were used by the founders in drafting the bill of rights. The Virginia Bill of Rights is one of those that alse has a 2nd Ammendment like clause and was used as a pattern. Here is what it says (emphasis mine)

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

This is a dual purpose clause, both discussing right to arms, and role of the military. However, it also gives a basis for which the term militia is used. That is, it says that a "citizen army" is the proper defense of a free state, not just that the people have a right to carry weapons, but that they should be "trained to arms".

[aequalsa]

One of the ways to put this into context is to look at the documents that were used by the founders in drafting the bill of rights. The Virginia Bill of Rights is one of those that alse has a 2nd Ammendment like clause and was used as a pattern.

That's what I was looking for. Thanks Kendall.

[Inspector]

Where in the act is "well" or "regulated" mentioned? Not that I doubt your interpretation, but I cannot see the proof.

Here is the section that was pulled from:

X. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States.

And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.

(bold mine)

It's talking about the inspection of military discipline, arms, accoutrement, and ammunition. This is the "general regulation of the militia."

[Marc K.]

Considering the context in which the Bill of Rights was written, however, the signers obviously meant a militia whose purpose was to protect themselves against oppressors, or people who intended to use force against them - not to serve the government.

I find this to be the essential observation.

And that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is necessary as a protection against their greatest potential oppressor -- the government itself.

[KendallJ]

I find this to be the essential observation.

And that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is necessary as a protection against their greatest potential oppressor -- the government itself.

It is the essential observation, but your 2nd phrase is implied at best. I've not seen a direct statement of it.

The implication derives from the couple of explicit statements:

a) standing armies are dangerous to liberty (presumably because they concentrate power at the disposal of the existing govt. to be potentially misused against it's own people.)

B. militias (i.e. volunteer citizen armies) are the "proper" mechanism to defend a free state. as opposed to regular armies.

Again, this suggests that the right to arms should be concentrated with the people, but it doesn't explicitly state it. I think in context, the case is pretty clear about what the intent was, but it is not clearly explicit. THe use of the concept of a "well regulated militia" is difficult to unpack.

Edited May 8, 2007 by KendallJ

[Inspector]

FYI, I've posted up just now on my blog with an article that is relevant to this topic, if anyone is interested.

[D'kian]

I'm curious to know, in your life how often have you felt personally threatened, where you would consider taking the life of another to stop the threat?

I was once robbed at gunpoint. Had I carried a gun at the time, I probably wouldn't have drawn it. For one thing, the other guy already had his gun out. Making a move to draw a gun might have gotten me shot. As it was the moron dind't even take all the valuables I carried, not by a long shot.

Overall I conducted myself well through the robbery and did whatever I could to protect myself and my property (and largely succeeded). I also learned a few things, like not traversing an empty residential street while carrying valuables, and like paying better attention to my surroundings.

Had I carried a gun and been prepared to use it, I just might have shot the robber. As things turned out he dind't try to kill me, but I couldn't have known that in advance. Being held up at gunpoint is life-threatening. If I could respond with deadly force I would.

The reason I can't is Mexican law does not allow individuals other than those in the police and armed forces to carry guns at all. Had I shot the robber I might not have been charged with murder, but I would have been charged with illegal posession of a deadly weapon at the very least.