Right to bear arms (10 Feb '95)

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

I’ve been perusing the archives, and I enjoyed the balanced insight you brought to the 2nd amendment debate in this column. However, I’d like to push further in a certain direction of research here:

To quote from the column: “They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns.”

This used to seem a reasonably gun-control argument to me, that a standing police force for the purpose of defending the citizens against crime largely negated the need for private gun ownership. However, some years ago I read an opposing opinion which indicated that “statistics show…” that for the most part the functional role played by police organizations ends up being the post-facto situation-control and investigation of a crime that already occured, and that statistically speaking only very rarely are they able to use their arms and force to stop a crime in-progress. This makes some sense to me, but I haven’t found any good well-analyzed statistics which back this sentiment up. Could you shed some light on the reality of this issue? If it’s true that they can’t really defend you, is that reason enough to arm the populace on logical grounds, constitutional debates notwithstanding?

2

It’s pretty obvivous that the police won’t be at your house when a crime is committed. How wonderful it would be if that were the case.

Whether that signals that people need guns to defend themselves until the police arrive, I’ll leave for others. Gladly.

3

In Britain, research showed that a police officer on the beat would only come across a crime being committed on average once every six years:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980204/debtext/80204-31.htm

Hansard (proceedings of British Parliament) 4 Feb 1998 : Column 1082

Of course maybe if our police had more guns, things would be different.

4

Yes, more guns IS the answer! Give everyone guns to defend themselves and keep telling them that the bogeyman is around the corner. That way we can keep everybody armed and frightened and see just how much senseless rage and murder can go on in one society. More guns = More peace. Makes sense…

5

Yes folks its true, the local police are not in the business of crime prevention, but crime maintenance. As far as the 2nd amendment goes, its purpose wasn’t intended to crime protection or crime deterent (although it is an added benefit as is the “sportsman” aspect), but to give the people arms with which to fight against a tyranical government. The founders realized that ANY government could be subverted by those with evil on their minds. It would seem that the last 100 years of history would make that point.

6

“but to give the people arms with which to fight against a tyranical government” …so what are people waiting for?

7

Some people aren’t waiting. I’m sure you recall a few news stories out of this fine state of mine? Of course, if you take up arms against the government, it’s pretty reasonable to expect that the government will take up arms against you, too.

8

I have edited the OP to include a link to the column being discussed.

I agree that most burglars have enough brains not to commit robberies while the police are watching. Thus, the police officer on the beat is unlikely to see a crime in action. However, the other side of that coin, is that the police on the beat tend to act as a deterrent. There are not a lot of burglaries committed in well-lighted, well-patrolled areas. Drivers slow down to the speed limit when they see a patrol car. In short, the police force acts as a deterrent, and the low statistic of police happening upon a crime in action is telling.

Now, let’s add:

  • Many homes and banks today are equipped with alarm systems that notify the police if there is a crime occurring, so that there is some likelihood of police arriving at the scene. (I presume this situation is omitted from the Hansard’s statistic, I didn’t read it all the way through.) As Cecil notes, this is a factor that was not present in Revolutionary Days.

  • It is not true that the police only come upon the crime after the event. One thinks of hostage situations, for instance. One thinks of the recent serial shooters in Washington DC – if more citizens had carried weapons, would they have been caught any faster? That’s a clear case of the police providing a preventative action – sadly, not until many people were already killed, but that situation would not have been any better if we relied on individual citizens with weapons to protect themselves.

9

Not, strictly speaking, true. The point to a well-regulated militia is that it obviates the need for a large standing army, which the founders believed to be a tool of despots to enforce personal rule, as, for instance, in the case of the Stuart monarchs of the 17th century. If the people are NOT armed, and the central government HAS a large standing army, the people are unable to resist easily the will of the central government.

This thought process is somewhat out of date because the Constitution also provided for a method for removing an obnoxious central government, one that, so far, no central government has seriously attempted to subvert; namely, the electoral process.

10

In response to CK Dextern Haven and whatnot, to play the other side of the coin yet again…

In a hostage situation, the argument of the “gun rights save lives” camp would be that the hostage situation needn’t have occurred if the victims were armed to begin with… and that police “dealing” with a hostage situation is still basically ex post facto response as opposed to “defending” in a way that obviates the need for personal weaponry.

As for the DC area shootings - while people carrying handguns wouldn’t have stopped it - police carrying them didn’t either. That case is more a matter that it could only be solved by detective work as opposed to brute force.

Of course my whole question deviates from a pure 2nd amendment argument - I also believe the 2nd amendment doesn’t contain any language that indicates personal defense against crime - I’m just thinking in practical modern terms. As a side note, many state constitutions have entries similar to the 2nd amendment, and some of those do explicitly state defense against crime as a reason - but the federal one does not.

Not that I neccesarily advocate this side of things, but I’m just presenting what would be their logical argument to move this forward.

11

“A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Back in the 1700’s “well-regulated” also meant “well-armed.”
The militia is composed of the people (we, the people) as opposed to a standing army, which indeed DID exist when the constitution took effect.
This is still (just barely) a free state, and we do now need security.
I think the meaning of “shall not be infringed” is clear enough.

If any citizens on the four planes used for terror on 9-11 were legally carrying weapons (firearms) the loss of life and property would have been substantially reduced.

Personally, I think the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were pretty smart guys, and now, over two-hundred years later their decisions are just as valid, and we should be glad for their foresight.

IMNSHO

12

Am I right in understanding that you’re seriously advocating passengers being allowed to bring guns onto commercial aircraft?

13

A citizenry armed with rifles could have fought against a tyranical government 200 years ago. In today’s world, if the government (military) is going to drop a “bunker-buster” and you have your Winchester '94 as a defense, who is going to win? What about David Koresh vs the FBI? Was there ever ANY question who would win? The FIRST amendment “freedom of the press” has been interpreted in the present day to include radio, television, etc. Continuing this reasoning to the SECOND Amendment, should we now interpret the “right to bear arms” as the right of the citizens to own bazookas, tanks, H-Bombs, etc ?

14

Well, there’s many reasons the militia clause doesn’t really apply anymore, and our extremely-armed standing army is one of them. The same framers who wrote the 2nd amendment wrote in numerous places (unfortunately not in law) that they thought a standing army was a bad thing, and that the US shouldn’t have a standing army - rather that the people should be armed and knowledgeable in the art of war, and if the US needed an army to defend the nation from agression, it could rely on the militia of the people.

In other words, the 2nd ammendment’s standing militia was, in their view, a reasonable alternative to a standing army for defensive purposes, and the nation shouldn’t need a standing army because such an army would be used for aggression and/or to control the populace.

For these reasons and many others, I don’t think many of the framers’ original intents apply much in modern times, although perhaps we never should have arrived at this point. The more I’ve looked into this issue in the past few days while this post was going, however, the more I’m inclined to believe that the spirit the 2nd ammendment was written in, if applied today, would warrant personal handgun ownership by all private citizens (except felons, the mentally incompetent, etc). To wit, here’s a lengthy quote from a non-founder, which Thomas Jefferson liked enough to quote it himself. There are many direct quotes from the founders in this vein, but this one is much more eloquent:

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime.” - Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson

15

But “Militia” is not the same as “the people”. It’s not just the second amendment that needs reading. Start with Article I, Section 8 and then skip to Article II, Section 2. There’s a clear indication that under those sections what’s being defined is what is now our National Guard, that is, federal forces attached to individual States.

The parsing of the second amendment makes things clear. First, unparsed:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, let’s parse it out:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state…”

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”

“shall not be infringed.”

In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s more than one subject being discussed. Also, in Articles I and II, while there is mention of what a Militia’s are and how they could be used, they made no provision for who could make them up. The second Amendment solved that and gave us the right, as individuals, to keep and bear arms.

And perhaps most important are the words, “shall not be infringed”. Three little words with an unequivocal meaning. The amendment does not give the Congress, the Judiciary or the Executive any power to infringe or even regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

Nor can any individual state regulate or otherwise “infringe”. Amendment XIV, Sec 1 says that the States may not abridge the priveleges and immunities given us by the Constitution. Also stated in Article IV Section 2.

Now go to court and reap your jail sentence. Any prosecutor and any judge will holler about 200 years of precedents that say otherwise. “Precedent” comes from the legal doctrine of stare decisis which basically says that courts should follow that which has already been decided previously. But there’s a fly in the ointment: It was already decided, right there in the second amendment.

There’s also a nice little provision, Article V, that tells us:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States…”

Article V clearly intends to give us a way of changing the Constitution if we feel it necessary to do so. And also, by default, eliminates any other avenue of doing so. Amendments XVIII and XXI, respectively, both created and then repealed Prohibition and yet alcohol manufacture and sale is not a specifically guaranteed Constitutional right. Should a right that IS specifically inferred upon us require anything less than a full blown Amendment to alter or repeal that right? Remember the words, “shall not be infringed”?

How far has the evil gone under the guidance of the liberals?

How about the Lautenberg Amendment, which attached federal penalties to anyone who had ever, in the past or in the present or future, been or will be convicted of any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, not restricting but rescinding, their second amendment rights? Going back to our Constitution, Article I Section 9, we see that it prohibits any * ex post facto* laws. That means you can’t create any law to punish someone retroactively. Nor does BATFE (They added ‘explosives’ via the Homeland Security Dept) allow for any rehabilitation of these rights. Actually it does, but right on their website they also say that since Congress has never once funded the provision, don’t bother putting in any paperwork.

Does any of this mean that a killer should be allowed to have a weapon? No. What it does mean is that the liberals need to stop crying about how unfairly we treat these people and simply ensure they are never again in a position to own one. Every time a killer prompts one illegal action against legal gun ownership, that is just another pile of victims the killers have created. -Rod-

16

<< How far has the evil gone under the guidance of the liberals? >>

Yeah, goddam liberals, having to react in extremis because the right-wing loonies argue that ANY weapons should be allowed to anyone, including children, the mentally deficient, and known felons. And that there’s nothing wrong with allowing AK47s, hand grenades, and small thermonuclear weapons… all first amendment protections. And we don’t need a police force either, vigilante justice worked just fine for my pa.

If we could only go back to the good ol’ days before the goddam liberals forced civil rights legislation down our throats. The good ol’ days when a man was a man and defended his family his own self, including the right to beat up his wife when he chooses.\

[/sarcasm]

17

PMS? Drugs? Lack of backbone?

Machine guns are legal, btw… just illegally regulated in the context of the Constitution. Check it out: www.atf.treas.gov -Rod-

18

Come on, you really think our government is tyrannical? Wait 4 years and you get a new one. Try living in China or Iraq or even the UK…

19

There are certain words and phrases that trigger an automatic eye-roll with me. “Facist war-monger”, “Capitalist running-dog” and “male chauvanist pig” come to mind. I’m sure these words ment something originally…but they have taken on additional meanings and usage that overshadow whatever it may
have been. “Liberal” and “Conservative” are becoming such words. It seems to me that most people use them as pseudonyms for the Democratic and Republican parties. I believe in personal liberties, so I’m liberal. I think we should not waste our natural resources, so I’m conservative. But if you talk
politically…I’m for gun ownership…pro-choice…pro-death penalty…I decide issues based on facts as I understand them, not as part of some political power-struggle. (Oddly enough, rather than see this as an example of personal freedom, vocal proponents of either party act as if I lack commitment to anything, ride the fence, etc. Apparently by not supporting some particular group I “waste” my vote by not being part of a group that supports some of my ideas. So much for individual choice.)
I think people have a right, to own firearms. No, I don’t think they should have access to them in all situations (on airlines for example). I do worry about the fact that most people would rather give the government the power (and responsibility) to regulate behavior. Children should be taught fire is dangerous, as are snakes, guns, and pesticides. Respect, not fear, is the way to properly treat those things/situations in life that may be dangerous… because fear leads to hate, and hate leads to the Dark Side… :slight_smile:

20

I think you left out some commas–but USAPatriot put them back in.