# Anti-gun control folks, a question **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967 "2005-04-25T03:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/21 "2005-04-25T15:41:56Z")
> [@Soul Brother Number Two](#): > > The whole idea of personal defense is baffling to me. First off, a shotgun is pretty effective protection against burglars and such. Second, how many concealed carry folks and the like have actually successfully “defended” themselves? You might have a point, except that the [low end estimates](http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt) for the number of DGU (Defensive Gun Use) incidents in the US is 108,000/year, and most estimates place the number considerably higher than that at upwards of a million. So it seems that people are getting some protection from their guns after all. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/22 "2005-04-25T15:59:56Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > It’s unlikely that any lawyer would support Dred Scott, even in its original context, today. But Dred Scott is no longer good law because the US Constitution has been amended since that decision to ban slavery and make all people equal regardless of race. I don’t want to weigh in on the gun issue, but i’m not sure this is the best way to make your case. After all, _Plessy v. Ferguson_ was decided by the Supreme Court after the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted. And it was then essentially overturned by _Brown v. Board of Education_. The issue of what constitutes legal equality by race was not put to rest by Constitutional amendments. Recent and current debates and Supreme Court decisions over affirmative action show that the question is still a live one. The problem is that, until laws can be written that take account of every possible circumstance, permutation and combination of human experience, we’re going to need courts to interpret how the written laws should be applied in particular cases. Of course, this is also a problem for **Isosleepy** ’s argument. As **ElvisL1ves** points out, Supreme Court decisions are, in fact, the law until reversed by the Court or rendered moot by new legislation. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/23 "2005-04-25T16:09:36Z")
To continue Weirddave’s thoughts: > [@Soul Brother Number Two](#): > > We all are aware of the statistics around handguns and gun ownership, how they kill way more family members and friends than they do intruders or attackers. Then we should also all be aware that this misperception comes from a hgorribly (that’s right, “_hgorribly_”) flawed study by Arthur Kellerman published in the New England Journal of medicine in 1996. And what Kellerman said wasn’t actually “family members & friends,” but “58% of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances.” Notably, lumped in with the “acquaintances” were rival gang members known to their slayers. and Kellerman’s statistics were generated from a mere 43 deaths in two cities infamous for gang activity during a peak period of same. His selection of these cities, loosely and unconventionally defined terminology and the period “studied,” are an excellent example of choosing data to fit a preconceived notion. The results of this “study” were preordained. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/24 "2005-04-25T16:29:24Z")
> [@Soul Brother Number Two](#): > > Second, duffer, if they, Satan or whomever, are “coming” for me, I don’t see where a personal gun repository is going to help much. To me, that sounds like paranoid and ridiculous, not to mention desperate, rationalization. Meanwhile, a police officer here in the Bay Area lays close to death because despite body armor, he was mortally wounded by a teenager with a semi-automatic pistol. (insert roll-eyes smiley here) Maybe i will weigh in on the actual gun debate after all. Those who support the Second Amendment would argue that your example is silly, because banning guns only keeps them out of the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens. They would argue that, even if semi-automatic pistols were banned, the teenager in your story probably still would have had one. There is a certain logic to this, and since moving to the US i’ve become more persuaded by this type of argument than i ever was before. Of course, what this argument doesn’t account for is that fact that plenty of other western countries have very restrictive firearms policies, and these policies don’t result in those societies being overrun by criminals with guns. The thing is, though, the cat’s out of the bag in the US. There are already so many guns around that any ban is likely to only affect law-abiding people. Personally, i think society would be better off with no guns at all—none for the criminials, none for the citizens, none for the police. None. Period. But that’s not going to happen, and is nothing but a pipe dream. In the current climate, and given current political realities, i think the best option for those who want to reduce gun violence is to take up the issue raised by **SteveMB** : > [@Steve MB](#): > > As the Master put it, “The framers… did not propose to have armed gangs of self-appointed militiamen roaming the streets”. It’s reasonable to infer from the militia clause that the government may limit the right to keep and bear arms to loyal law-abiding citizens (as opposed to rebels and thugs) – but that’s pretty much it. For me, one of the biggest problems emerging from some pro-gun people in America is not so much their support for the right to have a gun, but their support for the right to have a gun RIGHT NOW. I have no time for anyone who argues against waiting periods and criminal record checks, or who argues that gun shows should be free-market free-for-alls where the only requirement for buying a weapon is having the ready cash. As **SteveMB** suggests, the government has an interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of “rebels and thugs.” For me, the key failure of US gun law is that, in many cases, it fails to do this, and indeed shows very little interest in doing this. In my opinion, the best way to fight gun violence right now, in a pragmatic way that is likely to do some immmediate good, is for the anti-gun crowd to join with responsible gun owners in asking simply that the purchase of a gun _anywhere in the United States_ require a reasonable waiting period so that a check can be done of the person’s criminal history. I would also support other changes that slow down the process a bit and keep closer track of who guns are sold to. We need to do much more to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Of course, this runs up against another thorny constitutional issue—that of states’ right. As far as i know, many of the laws related to purchasing a weapon are determined on a state by state basis, meaning that America’s gun laws are really only as repsonsible as the least responsible state. Not sure how to solve this problem, other than by federal legislation. But of course, that opens up a whole other hornets’ nest. Finally, there needs to be harsh penalties for anyone whose misuse of a firearm causes injury or death to another person. I’m not talking about murderers and armed robbers here—obviously, those people should be subject to appropriate penalties. I’m talking about people who claim to be law-abiding gun owners, but who leave their weapons unlocked and loaded in the house, or fail to follow other basic firearm safety. Owning a gun might be a right in the US, but, as conservatives are so fond of saying, with your rights come some responsibilities. And, given how dangerous guns are when used improperly, i think the penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be commensurately harsh. ---
**Author:** ![Cynical\_Optimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Cynical\_Optimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cynical_Optimist)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/25 "2005-04-25T17:18:23Z")
As far as I know, the most recent case invoking the second amendment wasn’t passed in 1939, but in 1990: [Verdugo-Urquidez](http://tech.clayton.edu/mshapiro/Para%201107%20Criminal%20Litigation/United%20States%20v%20Verdugo-Urquidez.htm). > [@](#): > > That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to “the people.” Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase “simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,” Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the people of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” Which, although a fourth amendment case, revolved around just who exactly “the People” are. There is no question that individuals have the right to trial by juries, peaceful assembly, and to elect the House of Represenatives (for example). States are not people, and people are not states. The separation is quite specific. As to why the ACLU still refers to the earlier case, I suspect it’s more a matter of having different priorities (specifically Patriot Act related nonsense) rather than anti-gun bias. I find this especially believable in light of the fact that major organizations like the NRA are already fighting that battle, why duplicate effort? Changing their stance now would (theoretically) require them to argue second amendment cases, and with funds limited as they are, they’ve decided to take a pass on such matters. Disappointing perhaps, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? What I’ve never understood about the “collective right” position is why would the framers bother specifying that armed forces may be armed? Was there a history of militaries being forbidden weapons by their own governments? Why bother mentioning “the people” at all? The [text itself](http://www.ulster.net/~jperz/unabridged.htm) seems to indicate that there is no such dependancy: > [@](#): > > No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. Granted, this isn’t legally binding but there does seem to be alot more in favor of the individual than the collective interpretation on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Soul\_Brother\_Number\_Two](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/soul_brother_number_two/32/3515_2.png) [@Soul\_Brother\_Number\_Two](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soul_Brother_Number_Two)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/26 "2005-04-25T17:21:07Z")
Weirddave and UncleBeer, thanks for your responses. I am more than willing to examine any and all cites, when I have time, (weirddave, your link isn’t working). My question to Dave is: how many of those cases occurred at the person’s home, where a shotgun would serve the same purpose? In other words, in how many of those 108 thousand (or more) cases was it necessary to possess a handgun and/or to have a concealed carry permit? And to Beer, is that the only study that correlated death by gun to friends and family, or is it the only hgorribly flawed one? I’m happy to admit that study could be flawed, but the argument, that guns kill way more family members et al. than they do intruders or attackers, goes back much further than 1996. mhendo, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I am in agreement with your statement that misuse of a firearm should carry harsh penalties. But the “only outlaws will have [hand]guns” idea doesn’t hold much water for me, yet anyway. I’m guessing that ammo would be much much harder to get hold of, if handguns were illegal. And if some kinds of ammo worked for both, it would be somewhat easy to make the buyer jump through a bunch of hoops before he or she could purchase it. How many drug addicts/street criminals make their own loads? Anyway, ammo will become a hot black market item, especially for stuff like Tec-9’s which is what the kid who shot the cop had, and would, I imagine, be out of the price range of many many people who misuse handguns. It will certainly cut way back on the incidence of handgun crimes, especially over time. That’s what I’m thinking right now. But I have a somewhat open mind, really I do, and I’m also willing to admit that I can be wrong. Lord knows I’ve had to do it a lot during this vale of tears. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/27 "2005-04-25T17:41:01Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > For me, one of the biggest problems emerging from some pro-gun people in America is not so much their support for the right to have a gun, but their support for the right to have a gun RIGHT NOW. Time for the obligatory Simpsons quote. Homer: “_Five days_? But I’m angry _now_!” > [@Cynical Optimist](#): > > No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. It’s in the very same sentence. Read a little more closely. Or, perhaps you have a way to explain why the FF’s would have put that part in there? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/28 "2005-04-25T17:47:06Z")
[Fixed link](http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt). And just FTR, you’d be wrong about the Tec-9. They are cheap pieces of shit and use 9mm ammo, probably the most common caliber on the planet. There is nothing about either the gun or ammo which would make me believe it’ll ever be anything but cheap. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/29 "2005-04-25T18:28:27Z")
**Soul Brother Number Two,** it is notable that even if we were to illegalize handguns, handgun ammo would probably still be produced for rifles. There are many carbines (rifles) that shoot handgun ammunition. The Beretta Cx4, for instance, shoots 9mm Parabellum (the same load that a Tec-9 fires). There are several .45ACP carbines, as well. As for the argument about firearms in the home being more likely to kill family members than criminals, you can find further information from [this link](http://gunfacts.info/index.html) . On this site it states that 71% of the victims in murders with a firearm or other gun crime were already involved in illegal activites. For the record, criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck estimates in a 1997 that 2.5 million crimes are prevented by a firearm. Of course, this is difficult to determine as incidents where a crime was prevented by the mere display of a firearm are rarely reported to the police. As far as concealed hanguns stopping crime, a recent case in February of this year involved a fifty year old man with a concealed handgun prevented another individual, armed with an AK-47 clone from killing his son. You can read more about this [here.](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149250,00.html) A principal in Pearl, Mississippi disarmed a student with his handgun, although he had to run to his car to get it. The principal formerly carried on school grounds, until it became illegal in 1995. The armed student had already killed two people before the principal returned with his handgun. It doesn’t take much effort to find more examples of a pistol or concealed weapon being used in crime prevention. The most reported examples, of course, are shopkeepers defending their places of business with a gun secured under the counter. **ElvisL1ves** , the founding fathers included that portion of the Second Amendment in order to justify why it was necessary that the people (which, by the away, always refers to every single citizen in the U.S. wherever it is found in the Bill of Rights) have a right to bear arms. The statement that “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” is not a condition or qualifier for the rest of the Amendment, and I question the reading comprehension of anyone who thinks that it is. ---
**Author:** ![Cynical\_Optimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Cynical\_Optimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cynical_Optimist)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/30 "2005-04-25T18:39:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s in the very same sentence. Read a little more closely. Or, perhaps you have a way to explain why the FF’s would have put that part in there? So why did the founders mention “the people” at all? _“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.”_ would clearly give the meaning you want, although why the founders would feel the need to specify that armed forces may be armed remains unanswered. The linked article gives the reasoning, both in modern and contemporary context, that one does not depend upon the other. The court has ruled that “the people” has a meaning distinct from “the states”. To me it’s clear that states may maintain armed forces and people can own firearms, just as the first amendment prevents congress from restricting speech as well as religion. They’re not dependant; congress can no more censor the atheist than the most devout. Both groups of people can peacefully assemble as well. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/31 "2005-04-25T18:48:47Z")
> [@](#): > > And to Beer, is that the only study that correlated death by gun to friends and family, or is it the only hgorribly flawed one? I’m happy to admit that study could be flawed, but the argument, that guns kill way more family members et al. than they do intruders or attackers, goes back much further than 1996. It’s the one most often quoted when this factoid comes up, thus it’s the one I’m most familiar with. I believe there is one other popular study indicating the same trend, albeit with agreatly reduced ratio. I’ll look for that and some citations for the Kellerman study, too. > [@](#): > > it is notable that even if we were to illegalize handguns, handgun ammo would probably still be produced for rifles. There are many carbines (rifles) that shoot handgun ammunition. The Beretta Cx4, for instance, shoots 9mm Parabellum (the same load that a Tec-9 fires). There are several .45ACP carbines, as well. So does the über-scary Ruger PC9 ([http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=4701&return=Y](http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=4701&return=Y)) Not to mention that the components to manufacture ammunition at home would be around for quite some time, too. All one needs is primers, lead, powder and a casing. Eventually the casings might become unobtainable, but it is possible to make low-powered cartridges almost entirely from plastic, glue and paper. The equipment required assemble the components is, if one isn’t particularly concerned about a high-degree of accuracy, is laughably simple. Not to mention it is the same as that required to manufacture long gun cartridges. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/32 "2005-04-25T19:44:32Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I don’t want to weigh in on the gun issue, but i’m not sure this is the best way to make your case. > > After all, _Plessy v. Ferguson_ was decided by the Supreme Court after the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were enacted. And it was then essentially overturned by _Brown v. Board of Education_. The issue of what constitutes legal equality by race was not put to rest by Constitutional amendments. Recent and current debates and Supreme Court decisions over affirmative action show that the question is still a live one. Plessy v. Ferguson did not reaffirm Dred Scott, becauser it was on a different issue. Plessy said that “separate but equal” facilities satisfied the constitutional requirements for racial equality, which is problematic, but far from what Dred Scott decided, i.e., that people of African descent could not sue in the courts and could not escape from slavery, even by being taken to a free state. Dred Scott was not concerned with racial equality of any kind: it laid down that the races were not equal, and the black race was legally far inferior to the white race. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/33 "2005-04-25T19:54:19Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Plessy v. Ferguson did not reaffirm Dred Scott, becauser it was on a different issue. Plessy said that “separate but equal” facilities satisfied the constitutional requirements for racial equality, which is problematic, but far from what Dred Scott decided, i.e., that people of African descent could not sue in the courts and could not escape from slavery, even by being taken to a free state. Dred Scott was not concerned with racial equality of any kind: it laid down that the races were not equal, and the black race was legally far inferior to the white race. Sigh. I never said that _Plessy v. Ferguson_ affirmed _Dred Scott_. I’m well aware of the issues in both of these cases. My point was that your argument about the Constitutional Amendments making “all people equal” was not the best way to make your case, because even after the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments officially gave equality to African Americans, decisions like _Plessy v. Ferguson_ and _Brown v. Board of Education_ demonstrate that the issue of what exactly constitutes equality is still a matter for debate, and is still sometimes decided by the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/34 "2005-04-25T20:15:26Z")
> [@Mr. Krebbs](#): > > the founding fathers included that portion of the Second Amendment in order to justify why it was necessary that the people (which, by the away, always refers to every single citizen in the U.S. wherever it is found in the Bill of Rights) have a right to bear arms. Odd, then, that they did not find that step necessary in any other part of the Constitution. Isn’t it plain that they wanted the reason to be crystal clear to anyone who might be tempted to read more into it than was there? > [@](#): > > The statement that “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” is not a condition or qualifier for the rest of the Amendment, and I question the reading comprehension of anyone who thinks that it is. Then perhaps you ought to review a basic grammar text. If it wasn’t a qualifier, it wouldn’t be there. If the meaning was the same without it, it wouldn’t have been put in there, would it? > [@Cynical Optimist](#): > > “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” would clearly give the meaning you want It doesn’t matter what I want. That’s what it says. To make it mean anything else, you have to ignore half of it. > [@](#): > > although why the founders would feel the need to specify that armed forces may be armed remains unanswered. Perhaps you could review the same grammar text. That isn’t what they specified. They specified the existence and regulation of a militia to defend the security of the State. Plain English. Any other interpretation is wishful thinking. It also, since at least 1939 and _Miller_, is the law of the land. You don’t have to like it, but to deny it exists is foolish. If you don’t like it, go get an amendment started, or quit whining. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/35 "2005-04-25T20:52:24Z")
I think the spirit of the 2nd Ammendment was to prevent the rise of fascism. It wasn’t very well thought out, considering how it was worded, but the idea was to prevent “tyranny,” as they called it. And it doesn’t matter what laws are passed, Americans are going to misuse guns, becuase so many of Americans are idiots. It doesn’t matter what laws are passed; there will always be Americans who shoot themselves, or who leave their weapons loaded so that others (often children) shoot themselves. Very few crimes have been prevented by civilians who are armed. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/36 "2005-04-25T20:55:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **ElvisL1ves** > > Isn’t it plain that they wanted the reason to be crystal clear to anyone who might be tempted to read more into it than was there? That was probably the intent. However, very little of the Constitution is crystal clear to us in modern times, which is why we require the Supreme Court to interpret it for us. While I cannot say why the founding fathers chose to include this particular aside to the Second Amendment, I would like to direct two questions to **ElvisL1ves** : 1. Given that most of your ilk tend to intrepret “a well-regulated militia” as being regulated by the government, why would the founding fathers choose to grant the government rights in the Bill of Rights? Keep in mind that the rest of the Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it **cannot** do. 2. Why was the language “the right of the people” used in the Second Amendment? Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, “the people” means each and every citizen of the United States. This is argued sufficiently in [this post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6090561&postcount=57) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/37 "2005-04-25T20:57:46Z")
> [@etmiller](#): > > I think the spirit of the 2nd Ammendment was to prevent the rise of fascism. I know the framers of the Constitution were pretty smart, but i’ve never seen them credited with quite this much prescience before. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/38 "2005-04-25T21:06:43Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I know the framers of the Constitution were pretty smart, but i’ve never seen them credited with quite this much prescience before. Well, yes, it wasn’t facism _per se_, but loyalism, but the value of the 2nd ammendment extends to fascism if we value our freedom. It also extends to theocracy. God help us if it should ever go that far, but it seems to be coming pretty close. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/39 "2005-04-25T21:09:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **etmiller** > > I think the spirit of the 2nd Ammendment was to prevent the rise of fascism. It wasn’t very well thought out, considering how it was worded, but the idea was to prevent “tyranny,” as they called it. Great. Thanks for enlightening us. > [@](#): > > And it doesn’t matter what laws are passed, Americans are going to misuse guns, becuase so many of Americans are idiots. It doesn’t matter what laws are passed; there will always be Americans who shoot themselves, or who leave their weapons loaded so that others (often children) shoot themselves. Given the wording here, I am inferring that you are not American yourself. I take it idiocy is a much rarer thing, wherever you’re from? And for the record, accidental gun deaths are pretty rare. According to the CDC, an American is four times more likely to drown and 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident. Children under 13 are 11 times more likely drown than to be accidentally killed by a gun (only 65 children under 13 were accidentally killed by a firearm in 2001). > [@](#): > > Very few crimes have been prevented by civilians who are armed. Care to refute my statistics for 2.5 million crimes prevented annually with some facts? Otherwise, take your bullshit elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967/40 "2005-04-25T21:38:04Z")
Picking on a guest? Tsk, tsk. Post the whole quote, **mhendo** : “I think the spirit of the 2nd Ammendment was to prevent the rise of fascism. It wasn’t very well thought out, considering how it was worded, but the idea was to prevent “tyranny,” as they called it.” **etmiller** is absolutely correct. The founders were concerned with setting up the USA in such a way to prevent tyranny. Fascism can certainly be called tyranny. It’s exactly the sort of thing they were trying to prevent. Sure, they couldn’t have predicted Hitler’s Germany exactly, but it’s just the sort of thing we need an armed populace for to prevent. **James Monroe** : > [@](#): > > “… of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms… If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into **tyranny**.” > [@](#): > > “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against **tyranny** in government.” **Thomas Jefferson** : > [@](#): > > “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear ar as a last resort, to protect themselves against **tyranny** in government.” **Rev. Nicholas Collin** : > [@](#): > > “While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of nobilie spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of **tyranny**.” > > - Fayetteville NC Gazette 10-12-1789 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gun-control-folks-a-question/300967.md?page=3)