You really don’t know a goddamn thing about my position.
**Don’t we have an obligation as a society to look at ways to curb gun violence?
**
Yeah, we do.
And the best way to do that is to make concealed carry legal in all 50 states.
We already have moderate regulations, which criminals completely ignore. Why do you think passing more laws for them to ignore will make anything better?
I’m not going to give my opinions on the gun control debate, just my opinions (and they’re worth what you pay for them) on the language of the Amendment, and why the Libertarian crowd might think the way they do.
Let’s start with the text.
[QUOTE=Second Amendment]
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.
[/quote]
Conjecture on my part here: Well-regulated, in the case of a militia, could very well have meant “well-trained” or “well disciplined.” But really, linguistically speaking, there isn’t much sense in arguing over the meaning of that word.
The first part of the amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” is hardly a complete sentence. It is most definitely a dependent clause, the purpose of which is to give the rationale for the independent clause–“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Nothing in that clause confers any additional authority to the Federal government–and why would it? That’s not the reason the Bill of Rights was passed.
A more modern rendition of the Second Amendment might be something along the lines of this: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary in order to secure a free society, the right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be violated.”
Now, go down further and read the Tenth Amendment.
I’m not entirely sure what the Supreme Court’s opinion is on this Amendment, but I do know what the Libertarian interpretation of it is. Paraphrasing: “The federal government is prohibited from doing ANYTHING that isn’t specifically allowed.” Kind of like a black hole firewall rule in the I.T. industry. Since regulated weapons isn’t specifically allowed, the Libertarian interpretation of the Constitution would say that it’s automatically prohibited by the Tenth Amendment, even if there wasn’t a Second Amendment.
That all said (well, written), it’s important to note that originally, the restrictions in the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, not the states. That’s why you have such a difference from state to state with gun laws. In states like Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska, people do not need any sort of license to carry a gun on their person–concealed or otherwise. Other states have much stricter laws, and hand-gun permits are on a “may issue” basis (meaning you have to justify your reasons to the issuer). Other states require permits, but on a “shall issue” basis if you meet the requirements for it.
It was a legitimate argument to be made that the individual states, subject to their own constitutions, may or may not have a right to regulate weapons (Maine, for example, does not. It’s constitution says “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”(Article 1, Section 16))
The Supreme Court has now ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that the 14the Amendment obliges the states to recognize it as such. However, they also said that it did not prohibit “reasonable” regulation, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit laws against yelling “fire” in a theater.
The issue of gun violence goes far deeper than the availability of guns. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have some of the most permissive attitudes on guns in the country, and are also among the least violent. In fact, these three states are almost always near the top in terms of having the lowest overall crime rates in the United States. Then there are others that have strict laws that have higher than average crime rates (Chicago, D.C.).
The right wing likes to point the first three out as successes of an armed population, and examples like Chicago and D.C. as examples of failed gun control. For every example the right provides, there is usually a counter-example from the left, and a counter-counter example from the right, and so on, and so forth. The conclusion that I think is to be drawn is that there are far more factors at play in violent crime than merely the availability of weapons or the type of weapons available.
As to my own opinion on gun control… I say, “the only reason those bastards would want to disarm the population is because they all know that they’re so crooked they deserve to be shot.”
Actually, while I lean toward permissiveness with gun laws (as I do with just about everything), I’m not so closed minded to say I can’t see the other side of the issue. I grew up in Maine; everyone here owns guns (except me, I’m not really an enthusiast or an outdoors-man), and as I said, violent crime has always been a rarity here. I realize that if I had grown up elsewhere, my opinions might very well have been different.
You do realise the UK has a significantly larger population per sq mile headcount than the US don’t you? Try comparing the violent crime rates of England and Wales against a similarly heavily populated area in the US, rather than the overall population, and see what figures you come up with. I bet it’s higher than 2%.
Scotland’s figures are notable because 3 of that 3.4% will have occurred in Glasgow on Saturday nights.
I guess the other thread on what ‘well regulated’ wasn’t enough to completely explore the question, ehe? Or is John Mace being pitted for being a ‘gun lover’? 
Who would have known? He wouldn’t be the first person that springs to my mind when I hear that term.
I didn’t see anyone link to this other thread (it’s on the front page, along with the thread on what ‘well regulated’ means), so here it is if anyone wants to look themselves. Not seeing much that’s pit worth in there, certainly not John’s initial comment, but I guess we need yet another thread, this time in the Pit so people can grumble freely on this tired subject.
I can’t imagine why anyone would consider serious engagement with you on this subject to be futile. I mean, with such an obvious effort on your part to understand the other side, you present yourself as the epitome of open mindedness on the subject. Surely a paragon of virtue that anyone should emulate if he wishes to draw the opposing side into rational discussion.
It’s those other people who insist on demonizing the other side who are the problem, and I’m totally behind your effort to Pit them.
I was in your country for less than a week and saw guns three times.
Do I detect a faint note of sarcasm?
Works for your username too.
I don’t have a cite to hand, and I have to go to work now, but that’s a statistic from 13 years ago, and violent crime has fallen drastically here in the meantime.
If you want a cite, I can look for one later.
Wait what??
Which is it the guns or the population density?
You are aware that many of America’s highest population densities (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C.) have strict gun control laws?
You are also aware that gun ownership rates are substantially higher in rural America than suburban or urban America.
Double post
No need. 13 years old or not, it proves the point that prevalence of legal gun ownership does not directly correlate to prevalence of violent crime. Which is all I am interested in. Don’t really care which particular country is worse.
The good thing is, most people who have guns tend to hurt themselves with it eventually
:eek: Damn, considering there are more guns in the US than there are citizens, that must mean hundreds of millions of people are hurt with guns every…what? Year? And I’ve never heard of even millions being hurt with their own fire arm. It must be a huge cover up by the pro-gun folks, right?
…
…
You haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about.
Yogsosoth may be on to something there. Pretty much everyone that shoots a semiautomatic handgun has gotten a slide pinch at some point. And I’ve got to say, it does hurt. I managed to get my most recent one only a few months ago.
So maybe he’s not a complete moron.
Then again, he probably is.
Ok, I’ll buy that. I’ve been hit by brass before as well…and that can hurt. But it’s like saying ‘most people who have hammers tend to hurt themselves with <them> eventually’. Somehow, I don’t think he meant having the slide pinch someone, or getting someones ejected brass down ones shirt (ouchy!!).
Regardless, I fail to see how this is a ‘good thing’, but I’m sure he’ll be along to straighten all this out…
Really, you are comparing apples to oranges, so considering it was also a Daily Fail quote(from a 13 yr old stat, at that), I don’t know why I replied. The point I was hoping to make was, all things being equal apart from the density of population, the less dense place is going to be less violent. Which conveniently brings us onto your next blathering.
Remember that bit about less density = less violence? Now you’re telling me that the places with the least population have the bigger share of the guns in the USA. If that is true, it speaks volumes about the amount of gun hoarders and paranoid nutjobs who must be living in those rural areas. Or do they all have significant bear and raccoon problems?