The militia part is only one aspect of the 2nd. And it’s an entire debate that hinges around the various permutations of the original amendment, the writings of the folks who drafted it, and how it’s been historically interpreted. The second half of the 2nd is about an individual right to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with the first half (IMHO…this is where the debate, and trust me it’s been debated to death on this board). Whether in modern times it’s still important for individuals to keep and bear arms is a question only a society can decide. The Australians decided one way. Much of Europe has decided in similar ways. In the US we still lean the other way, with some restrictions. Obviously, our current President wants to shift that, but unfortunately for him and others of like mind, he can’t do that unilaterally…it’s going to take a shift in our society and the willingness of that society to accept the cost in lives per year verse doing away with one of our fundamental rights. No one man, even the President can decide that himself…which is why the answer to the OP here is that his options are pretty limited in what he can do on his own. Even with the backing of Congress his options would be limited wrt trying to do what Australia did. That would really take going through the process in place for doing away with an Amendment (in this case the 2nd), and then pushing through the legislature to put such a ban and such a by back in place. It’s do-able using the system we have…but to do that you’d need to have the backing of a large majority of Americans. And it’s not there. Not yet anyway.
Check with the Department of Justice, Mr. President. According to a report released earlier this year, “firearm-related” homicides fell by 39 percent between 1993 and 2011. At the same time that the number of firearms increased substantially.
Or check with the FBI. Violent crime rates are going down, at the same time gun sales have increased.
Oh, but surely this president wouldn’t tell untruths for political gain, would he?
I’m pretty sure he means compared to those other nations he mentioned, not in comparison to our own past. Facts are facts, and when you compare the number of deaths due to fire arms in the US to most other nations, we come out pretty poorly…in some cases 1-2 orders of magnitude difference.
One of the funniest arguments made during the health care debate of last year was that if all deaths by gunshot and car crash were excluded, the US would have the #1 life expectancy in the world.
Here is a handy chart of the two.
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/icucI_sYACFM.jpg
See. Obama was lying. Gunshot deaths are clearly on this chart. Not off of it.
So your preference is that more Brits should be getting shot?
I would think that the extremely low rate of gun homicides in England should be a source of pride, not to mention a sense of public safety.
Please do. And when you do your comparison, you might note that Switzerland, like all civilized countries, ** has strong gun laws** governing the ownership and transportation of all guns and ammunition, and handguns are extremely restricted – the kinds of laws that would have the lunatics at the NRA calling for revolution.
How would you know until you tried it? State and city laws are practically meaningless; guns simply get brought in from where they’re abundant and easy to get.
Maybe under the same theory where the Third Amendment says you don’t have to provide room and board to a soldier and his horse. The point being that some amendments like the First are timeless statements of general principle, while others are specific enough to be antiquated; the Second Amendment doesn’t deal with generic principles, it deals with guns, and more specifically, it deals with guns in the context of protecting a new nation in case those damn Redcoats come back, or anyone else like them. That objective has now been perverted into national carnage.
We still import plenty of Chinese guns. Sure, the lower receiver has to be manufactured here and you have to buy domestically made furniture (stock, grip, forward grip, etc.) and magazines but they are readily available. They aren’t that much cheaper than the low end domestically made stuff.
The rest of this thread leads me to believe that this is going to end up in great debates pretty soon.
Yeah, I thought it might stay GQ until post 9.
That’s a fine statement of policy, but you can’t argue away constitutional provisions because they’re no longer important. You have to repeal them, and The People have not seen fit to do so (to my disappointment).
If all motor vehicles were banned in England we would have the lowest road traffic accident rate in the world.
If all knives were confiscated we would have the lowest rate of deaths by stabbing in the world.
If all medicines were banned we would have the lowest rate of deaths by overdose in the world.
Would I be proud of such ‘achievements’? Of course not. I would think that these were ludicrous overreactions to everyday dangers. Just so with the almost total elimination of firearms. This isn’t something to be proud of. It’s a deep disgrace to a nation with a long history of independence and intolerance of governmental overregulation.
Lacking the protections of a written constitution such as that of the US we have allowed an hysterical press and ever-encroaching governments to eat away at our freedoms as responsible citizens. Our ancestors would be ashamed of us.
This is false. It deals with arms. The rest of your post is not GQ material.
He could severely curtail prosecution in the War on Drugs. This should reduce violent crime overall, including firearm violence.
Not sure it is a whole lot better here(with the exception of handguns and such, if you call that better). I heave a 6 acre farm, and am prohibited from owning a chicken (the founding fathers neglected to include the right to rear chickens). And the criminal justice system has turned into a beast that must be fed.
In Canada, Chinese made M14s sell for less than half of anything available in the US. At least they did until that kid shot up all the cops in New Brunswick last week.
Deleted. Thought I was in GD.
Lower receiver, furniture, and magazines must be domestic… So just the upper then?
I think recent political activity (I actually forget which) has caused limits on purchasing certain Russian made ammo as well.
The M1’s from South Korea that were banned were actually made in US, for the US and Korean troops, and were trying to be reimported.
He’s already done that.
Well, I read that whole thing & it did not say anything about Obama or any actual policy change he made or instituted. Not even the Executive branch.
Yes, it had dropped a little, not really all that much and nothing has been done about the thousands in prison because of zero tolerance etc. policies at the lower court levels.
First of all, my apologies for being one of the guilty parties who has been possibly turning this GQ into GD. If it had been entirely about Obama’s executive powers on gun control, I might have stayed out of it, but when editorial comments are posted that strike me as ridiculous, I feel inclined to point out why they are ridiculous. This would be another one.
“It deals with arms”? Good, then based on your generic “arms” interpretation please tell us how the Second Amendment, incorporating as it does the timeless wisdom of the Founding Fathers, reconciles “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” with the right of the people to keep and bear **nuclear **arms? We’re dealing with basic principles, after all. I await your constitutional analysis.
The difference between the first and the second isn’t that one is unlimited and the other is not. No right is absolute.
With freedom of speech/press - there are limits - as long as it doesn’t unreasonably infringe upon the rights intended to be protected.
Congress passed the CAN-SPAM laws - which obviously infringed upon the rights of individuals to spread their message - as it is obvious that when something costs you nothing to send - you don’t really have free speech at all. It is in no way intended to go after the content of the speech - which is generally what the first amendment is designed to protect.
With the second amendment - the idea that this is some absolute right to bear any arms is simply ridiculous - just as it would be to allow any form of speech - such as 210 decibels at 3:00 in the morning. Of course you can’t put unreasonable regulations in place either - if all they are really designed to do is prevent people from owning guns (I am assuming that is what the second amendment means - cause basically that has been what the Supreme Court has decided in recent years). We do have restrictions on guns that we don’t on the press - and I don’t think most individuals think a 14 year old should be able to buy a gun - while almost everyone would support the right of a 14 year old to have a blog.
Kinda generalizing and summing up 200+ years of precedent, but come on - anyone who thinks the second amendment is somehow discriminated against is arguing for ridiculous ramifications from such a policy - that as far as I am aware of - even the NRA doesn’t support.
I am pretty sure the framers didn’t intend for the second amendment to apply to nuclear weapons and I’m pretty sure they would apply 1st amendment protection to email. Why? Because they weren’t idiots and only ideologues believe the whole legislating from the bench thing.
That being said - there are already lots of protections for gun owners written into the laws - and so no Obama can’t start taking away everyone’s guns tomorrow. As others have pointed out - he can pretty much do what he wants if the executive branch has that power. Where that power begins and ends - I don’t know.
Please share why you think the statement, that relies on the actual text of the amendment rather than your supplanting of the word “guns”, is ridiculous.
First - do you concede that your previous statement was false?
Second - this is very simple. There is no ‘right of the people to keep and bear nuclear arms’. Based on the 2nd amendment, the federal government and through incorporation, the several state governments recognize that there is pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. Nuclear arms are not “arms” in the context of the 2nd amendment.
In what way are nuclear weapons not arms?
Heller discusses the scope of arms in the context of the 2nd amendment. It should really be required reading before anyone makes a claim as to what the law actually is. Rather than dig through the actual opinion, I’ll copy from the wiki:
(my bold)
Arms in this context would be those that would be used by the militia, in common use for lawful purposes. Those that would not be included may be those that are ‘dangerous and unusual’. This is similar phrasing as the 8th amendment, so a weapon must both be dangerous AND unusual to fall outside the scope of the 2nd (for this criteria to be applicable). One or the other would not be sufficient.