2nd amendment

[Raeyh]

Some people like bees, that doesn't give them leave to carry bees around with them wherever they go. If someone next to me was carrying a jar filled with buzzing killer bees, I would be nervous. Guns are like that, only more dangerous.

Why? Unlike bees, firearms are inanimate objects. If I drop my Glock, it's not going to go off, but if I drop a jar of bees, who knows if/how many people might be stung when the jar shatters on the ground.

Firearms have been known to discharge when dropped.

[Greed and Death]

Some people like bees, that doesn't give them leave to carry bees around with them wherever they go. If someone next to me was carrying a jar filled with buzzing killer bees, I would be nervous. Guns are like that, only more dangerous.

Why? Unlike bees, firearms are inanimate objects. If I drop my Glock, it's not going to go off, but if I drop a jar of bees, who knows if/how many people might be stung when the jar shatters on the ground.

If you were and idiot waiving your glock around with the round chambered and the safety off it might go off if you dropped.

[Gun Manufacturers]

In a wal-mart in arizona i saw a regular joe with a .44 on his hip.

that is the kind of stuff that is unnecessary and extremely dangerous.

Somehow if this regular Joe has a security guard's uniform on him it is safe. Never mind his training was a 20 minute gun safety video with no range time.
Where as the regular Joe had to fulfill 8 hours of training and 2 hours of range time, with continuing training every 2 years.

Some how the uniform makes it more safe and makes the wearer require less training.

Don't you know, that cheap tin security guard badge automatically grants the wearer the firearms proficiency skill at 88% + 2% per level.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Why? Unlike bees, firearms are inanimate objects. If I drop my Glock, it's not going to go off, but if I drop a jar of bees, who knows if/how many people might be stung when the jar shatters on the ground.

Firearms have been known to discharge when dropped.

Most decent firearms nowadays have a mechanism to prevent that. Granted, something like a Jennings or Lorcin might still go off if dropped, but then again something like a Jennings or Lorcin aren't decent firearms.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Why? Unlike bees, firearms are inanimate objects. If I drop my Glock, it's not going to go off, but if I drop a jar of bees, who knows if/how many people might be stung when the jar shatters on the ground.

If you were and idiot waiving your glock around with the round chambered and the safety off it might go off if you dropped.

All of the Glock's safeties are internal, and the Glock's safeties prevents it from going off unless the trigger is pulled.

http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv01.htm

BTW, the only time there's a round chambered in my Glock is right before I start putting rounds downrange.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Upon recent consideration, I've done a proverbial 180 on my view of civilian gun ownership in the United States.

Despite seeing no purpose for it in a rational, just nation, put simply, the United States is not such a nation.

We, the vast majority, the American workers live under the occupation of a government that serves the interests only of our exploiters. "Democracy" is a farce.

Further, along with my ideology, there inevitably will come a time in which the workers of the United States gain proper consciousness and seek revolution against their exploiters. When that happens, I'd like them to be armed as good as possible.

So, in terms of my ideology, an armed American Proletariat is, in the long run, a very good thing.

At least per a matter of strategy, the First and Second Amendments are invaluable in securing the workers' liberation.

So... Far, far left (recently converted) Second Amendment Supporter here.

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from earlier>

Granting gun rights to the South's recently freed slaves was just one goal of the 14th Amendment. More generally, as noted by Thomas, it was crucially important to ensure that African-Americans - indeed, all Americans - be entitled to equal protection under the law.

The South, in its relentless drive to deprive free blacks an abolitionists of their fundamental rights, had acted in such a way as to prove that the States could not be trusted to protect the rights of their citizens; thus, the principal argument advanced against incorporation during the initial debate over the Bill of Rights before the 1st United States Congress was no longer valid. It was now obvious that, just as the Federal Constitution carried with it guarantees that every State would maintain a republican form of government (Article IV, Section 4), it would be necessary to mandate that every State extend to its citizens those legal rights to which all Americans were entitled.

According to Thomas, this was the reason why the 39th United States Congress added the Privileges or Immunities Clause to the 14th Amendment. From his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) (echoing themes Thomas also sounded in his dissent from Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999):

As the Court explains, if this case were litigated before the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption in 1868, the answer to that question would be simple. In Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), this Court held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall recalled that the founding generation added the first eight Amendments to the Constitution in response to Antifederalist concerns regarding the extent of federal — not state — power, and held that if “the framers of these amendments [had] intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments,” “they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.” Id., at 250. Finding no such language in the Bill, Chief Justice Marshall held that it did not in any way restrict state authority. Id., at 248–250; see Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 551–552 (1833) (reaffirming Barron’s holding); Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 609–610 (1845) (same).

This is the same point I made in my first post. Continuing...

After the [civil] war, a series of constitutional amendments were adopted to repair the Nation from the damage slavery had caused. The provision at issue here, §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, significantly altered our system of government. The first sentence of that section provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This unambiguously overruled this Court’s contrary holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), that the Constitution did not recognize black Americans as citizens of the United States or their own State. Id., at 405–406. The meaning of §1’s next sentence has divided this Court for many years. That sentence begins with the command that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” On its face, this appears to grant the persons just made United States citizens a certain collection of rights — i.e., privileges or immunities — attributable to that status.

Unfortunately, just five years after the 14th Amendment was put into place, the Supreme Court all but read the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the Consitution in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Freeman Miller essentially expressed disbelief that Congress would actually want to change the fundamental character of the Republic by so limiting the power of the States:

Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?

All this and more must follow, if the proposition of the plaintiffs in error be sound. For not only are these rights subject to the control of Congress whenever in its discretion any of them are supposed to be abridged by State legislation, but that body may also pass laws in advance, limiting and restricting the exercise of legislative power by the States, in their most ordinary and usual functions, as in its judgment it may think proper on all such subjects. And still further, such a construction followed by the reversal of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in these cases, would constitute this court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States, on the civil rights of their own citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time of the adoption of this amendment. The argument we admit is not always the most conclusive which is drawn from the consequences urged against the adoption of a particular construction of an instrument. But when, as in the case before us, these consequences are so serious, so far-reaching and pervading, so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions; when the effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress, in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; when in fact it radically changes the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people; the argument has a force that is irresistible, in the absence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt.

We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.

Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the States as such, and that they are left to the State governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no State can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.

Thus, at a stroke, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially ignored the plain meaning - not to mention clear intent - of the 39th United States Congress in enacting the 14th Amendment; for indeed "radically chang[ing] the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people" was exactly what Congress intended in the 14th Amendment: The sorry history of the Southern States in subverting liberty and violating the "natural" (or "common law") rights of their people had forced it to reverse its 1789 decision to leave it to the States to decide which civil rights their citizens would enjoy.

The system had failed; it needed to be fixed. The 14th Amendment was supposed to be that fix, yet the U.S. Supreme Court, entranced by the older principal of "States' rights" (really, absolute State sovereignty), refused to accept what had happened and - for the second time in a generation - radically rewrote the highest law of the land.

It was this decision that opened the door to so much grief and suffering, especially in the South; and its consequences remain with us today. For while we have seen the doctrine of incorporation advanced through a different legal argument (in essence, through the Due Process Clause), in doing this we have staked the right of Americans on far shakier ground. Indeed, with conservative jurists generally opposing the use of the Due Process Clause in this way while liberal jurists support such a use, with this difference of opinion deeply politicized, and with the current Supreme Court balanced on the edge of a knife between the two factions, the future of liberty in America today stands very much in doubt - and all because of this opinion.

But in 1873, all of this remained in the future; in his dissent, Justice Stephen J. Field, understanding the significance of Miller's words, wrote caustically of what the Court had done with this decision:

In the Dred Scott case this subject of citizenship of the United States was fully and elaborately discussed. The exposition in the opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis has been generally accepted by the profession of the country as the one containing the soundest views of constitutional law. And he held that, under the Constitution, citizenship of the United States in reference to natives was dependent upon citizenship in the several States, under their constitutions and laws. The Chief Justice, in that case, and a majority of the court with him, held that the words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' were synonymous terms; that the people of the respective States were the parties to the Constitution; that these people consisted of the free inhabitants of those States; that they had provided in their Constitution for the adoption of a uniform rule of naturalization; that they and their descendants and persons naturalized were the only persons who could be citizens of the United States, and that it was not in the power of any State to invest any other person with citizenship so that he could enjoy the privileges of a citizen under the Constitution, and that therefore the descendants of persons brought to this country and sold as slaves were not, and could not be citizens within the meaning of the Constitution.

The first clause of the fourteenth amendment changes this whole subject, and removes it from the region of discussion and doubt. It recognizes in express terms, if it does not create, citizens of the United States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth, or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws of any State or the condition of their ancestry. A citizen of a State is now only a citizen of the United States residing in that State. The fundamental rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to him as a free man and a free citizen, now belong to him as a citizen of the United States, and are not dependent upon his citizenship of any State. The exercise of these rights and privileges, and the degree of enjoyment received from such exercise, are always more or less affected by the condition and the local institutions of the State, or city, or town where he resides. They are thus affected in a State by the wisdom of its laws, the ability of its officers, the officiency of its magistrates, the education and morals of its people, and by many other considerations. This is a result which follows from the constitution of society, and can never be avoided, but in no other way can they be affected by the action of the State, or by the residence of the citizen therein. They do not derive their existence from its legislation, and cannot be destroyed by its power.

The amendment does not attempt to confer any new privileges or immunities upon citizens, or to enumerate or define those already existing. It assumes that there are such privileges and immunities which belong of right to citizens as such, and ordains that they shall not be abridged by State legislation. If this inhibition has no reference to privileges and immunities of this character, but only refers, as held by the majority of the court in their opinion, to such privileges and immunities as were before its adoption specially designated in the Constitution or necessarily implied as belonging to citizens of the United States, it was a vain and idle enactment, which accomplished nothing, and most unnecessarily excited Congress and the people on its passage. With privileges and immunities thus designated or implied no State could ever have interfered by its laws, and no new constitutional provision was required to inhibit such interference. The supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the United States always controlled any State legislation of that character. But if the amendment refers to the natural and inalienable rights which belong to all citizens, the inhibition has a profound significance and consequence.

Justice Fields' words strike at the heart of the matter: Before the 14th Amendment, we were citizens of our respective States; our status as American citizens flowed from the States' recognition of our citizenship. By inference, then, given the sovereign nature of States, our citizenship - and thus our rights - were necessarily given to us by the States and not the Federal government; as such, that citizenship - and by extension, our fundamental rights - could just as easily be taken from us by these very same States, any time they chose.

The 14th Amendment changed all of that: By making us citizens of the United States first and foremost, it reduced our State "citizenship" to mere residency; consequently, as we were all now American citizens, our rights stemmed from that source and could now no longer be taken from us by the States. Wherever we might travel, wherever we might take up residence, whatever State we might call home, we would always remain American citizens, and would thus be entitled to the rights of American citizens, and the several States would, by their submission to our Constitution, would be required to observe those rights.

It was a radical construction; it was a radical notion; it was a dramatic change from what had been the case before the War of the Rebellion. But it was also exactly what the 39th United States Congress intended in its passage of the 14th Amendment, because the system that had been in place before the war had failed.

Per Thomas, in McDonald:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803) (Marshall, C. J.). Because the Court’s Privileges or Immunities Clause precedents have presumed just that, I set them aside for the moment and begin with the text.

As indicated above, Justice Thomas has been the most outspoken Justice we have seen on the Court since Hugo Black in criticizing the Court's decisions in the Slaughter-House Cases (cf. above) and their antecedents. In McDonald, the N.R.A. explicitly asked the Court to set aside United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), something Thomas supported; his concurring opinion is intended to advance the argument that this, in fact, is what the court should have done in McDonald. While the Court did not elect to do so, many legal scholars have noted that nobody - left or right - took issue with Thomas' scathing indictment of Cruikshank; rather, the Court simply ruled that no reversal of Cruikshank was necessary in McDonald, and thus the principal of stare decisis (shorthand for Stare decisis et non quieta movere: literally, "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed") dictated that no reversal should be forthcoming at this time.

Continuing with Thomas' concurrence:

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that “[n]o State . . . shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “‘written to be understood by the voters.’” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (quoting United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)). Thus, the objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of ratification would have understood the Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3).

---

At the time of Reconstruction, the terms “privileges” and “immunities” had an established meaning as synonyms for “rights.” The two words, standing alone or paired together, were used interchangeably with the words “rights,” “liberties,” and “freedoms,” and had been since the time of Blackstone. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *129 (describing the “rights and liberties” of Englishmen as “private immunities” and “civil privileges”). A number of antebellum judicial decisions used the terms in this manner. See, e.g., Magill v. Brown, 16 F. Cas. 408, 428 (No. 8,952) (CC ED Pa. 1833) (Baldwin, J.) (“The words ‘privileges and immunities’ relate to the rights of persons, place or property; a privilege is a peculiar right, a private law, conceded to particular persons or places”). In addition, dictionary definitions confirm that the public shared this understanding. See, e.g., N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 1039 (C. Goodrich & N. Porter rev. 1865) (defining “privilege” as “a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all” and listing among its synonyms the words “immunity,” “franchise,” “right,” and “liberty”); id., at 661 (defining “immunity” as “[f]reedom from an obligation” or “particular privilege”); id., at 1140 (defining “right” as “[p]rivilege or immunity granted by authority”).

---

The group of rights-bearers to whom the Privileges or Immunities Clause applies is, of course, “citizens.” By the time of Reconstruction, it had long been established that both the States and the Federal Government existed to preserve their citizens’ inalienable rights, and that these rights were considered “privileges” or “immunities” of citizenship. This tradition begins with our country’s English roots. Parliament declared the basic liberties of English citizens in a series of documents ranging from the Magna Carta to the Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights. See 1 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 8-16, 19-21, 41-46 (1971) (hereinafter Schwartz). These fundamental rights, according to the English tradition, belonged to all people but became legally enforceable only when recognized in legal texts, including acts of Parliament and the decisions of common-law judges. See B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 77-79 (1967). These rights included many that later would be set forth in our Federal Bill of Rights, such as the right to petition for redress of grievances, the right to a jury trial, and the right of “Protestants” to “have arms for their defence.” English Bill of Rights (1689), reprinted in 1 Schwartz 41, 43.

As English subjects, the colonists considered themselves to be vested with the same fundamental rights as other Englishmen. They consistently claimed the rights of English citizenship in their founding documents, repeatedly referring to these rights as “privileges” and “immunities.” For example, a Maryland law provided that

“[A]ll the Inhabitants of this Province being Christians (Slaves excepted) Shall have and enjoy all such rights liberties immunities priviledges and free customs within this Province as any naturall born subject of England hath or ought to have or enjoy in the Realm of England . . . .” Md. Act for the Liberties of the People (1639), in id., at 68 (emphasis added).

---

The text examined so far demonstrates three points about the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in §1. First, “privileges” and “immunities” were synonyms for “rights.” Second, both the States and the Federal Government had long recognized the inalienable rights of their citizens. Third, Article IV, §2 of the Constitution protected traveling citizens against state discrimination with respect to the fundamental rights of state citizenship. Two questions still remain, both provoked by the textual similarity between §1’s Privileges or Immunities Clause and Article IV, §2. The first involves the nature of the rights at stake: Are the privileges or immunities of “citizens of the United States” recognized by §1 the same as the privileges and immunities of “citizens in the several States” to which Article IV, §2 refers? The second involves the restriction imposed on the States: Does §1, like Article IV, §2, prohibit only discrimination with respect to certain rights if the State chooses to recognize them, or does it require States to recognize those rights? I address each question in turn. Cite as: 561 U. S. ____ (2010)

I start with the nature of the rights that §1’s Privileges or Immunities Clause protects. Section 1 overruled Dred Scott’s holding that blacks were not citizens of either the United States or their own State and, thus, did not enjoy “the privileges and immunities of citizens” embodied in the Constitution. 19 How., at 417. The Court in Dred Scott did not distinguish between privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and citizens in the several States, instead referring to the rights of citizens generally. It did, however, give examples of what the rights of citizens were — the constitutionally enumerated rights of “the full liberty of speech” and the right “to keep and carry arms.” Ibid.

Section 1 protects the rights of citizens “of the United States” specifically. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the privileges and immunities of such citizens included individual rights enumerated in the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms.

. . .

Evidence from the political branches in the years leading to the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption demonstrates broad public understanding that the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship included rights set forth in the Constitution, just as [Daniel] Webster and his allies had argued. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation granting amnesty to former Confederates, guaranteeing “to all and to every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason . . . with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.” 15 Stat. 712.

Records from the 39th Congress further support this understanding.

What Thomas is arguing is, in essence, that the use of the phrase "privileges or immunities" in the 14th Amendment has a very specific meaning that, at the time the Amendment was enacted and ratified (i.e., in the wake of the War of the Rebellion), was widely understood to be a direct reference to the "natural" (or "common law") rights of free men, including such rights as freedom or religion, freedom or speech, and the right to bear arms.

Which brings us to how this affects our understanding of the 2nd Amendment. In the antebellum legal matrix - in which Americans were first and foremost citizens of their respective States and only secondarily American citizens, the right to bear arms might theoretically be based on Militia membership, as the Militias were fundamentally creatures of the States; under that system, the 2nd Amendment only served to ensure that the Federal government could not interfere with the authority of the States to constitute and organize the Militia however they saw fit. Thus, the State of Georgia (to cite one example) could define the Militia as being comprised of all able-bodied white males if it wished, and deny gun rights to anyone (or everyone) else.

But in the new legal matrix, under which Americans were first and foremost citizens of the United States, no State could exercise such a power without rendering the 2nd Amendment meaningless; States might still command and be responsible for Militias, but no longer could they take away the right of any man (or woman, assuming that the Equal Protection Clause applies to women as well as men [a position with which Judge Robert Bork in particular does not concur, BTW]) to bear arms all the same.

Yet, at the same time, neither did the change implemented by the 14th Amendment grant to the Federal government any more power than it had once held to restrict gun rights on its own; rather, all that happened was that the Federal prohibition against limitations on the right to bear arms became a State limitation as well. Rather, all States ended up being forced to abide by the same rules in place the Federal government faced with respect to gun rights for residents of D.C., which is why District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ended up taking on such significance.

---

tl&dr: I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas that the Privileges or Immunities Clause fully incorporates the Bill of Rights into State and local law, including the right to bear arms. This change in our law - implemented with the 14th Amendment - radically changed our system by making Federal rights enforceable at the State level. In doing this, Congress essentially rendered any possible argument about gun rights being conditional on Militia status moot by essentially making every right contained within the Bill of Rights (including the right to bear arms) individual and universal - and thus taking the issue of who could own and carry a gun out of the hands of government at all levels.

<more to come>

[Alien Space Bats]

In a wal-mart in arizona i saw a regular joe with a .44 on his hip.

that is the kind of stuff that is unnecessary and extremely dangerous.

This is why I prefer concealed carry rules to laws allowing open carry.

Allowing people to carry openly invites a subtle form of intimidation that is not conducive to the needs of civil society.

Of course, I realize that this is the sort of thing that varies from culture to culture; Israel, for example (rightly) criminalizes concealed weapons and makes open display legal - a combination that has the desired effect of making Israelis feel safer.

In America, however, the existence of so many gun-phobic citizens makes concealed carry necessary for the sake of domestic tranquility, while militating against open carry.

[Safed]

In a wal-mart in arizona i saw a regular joe with a .44 on his hip.

that is the kind of stuff that is unnecessary and extremely dangerous.

This is why I prefer concealed carry rules to laws allowing open carry.

Allowing people to carry openly invites a subtle form of intimidation that is not conducive to the needs of civil society.

Of course, I realize that this is the sort of thing that varies from culture to culture; Israel, for example (rightly) criminalizes concealed weapons and makes open display legal - a combination that has the desired effect of making Israelis feel safer.

In America, however, the existence of so many gun-phobic citizens makes concealed carry necessary for the sake of domestic tranquility, while militating against open carry.

I think at least an end to concealed carry, does not the existence of so many gun phobic people not tell you something? Especially with Florida's new law, that allows murder if you can then claim you felt threatened.

[Khadgar]

I've honestly never gotten concealed carry laws. Isn't the idea of owning a gun protection? By the time you have to draw your gun and fire, protection is out the window. At that point it's down to luck. Open carry makes more sense to me.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I've honestly never gotten concealed carry laws. Isn't the idea of owning a gun protection? By the time you have to draw your gun and fire, protection is out the window. At that point it's down to luck. Open carry makes more sense to me.

In my state, people have been arrested for open carry, even though it isn't illegal (the charge is usually disturbing the peace). Here's an example.

http://articles.courant.com/2010-04-18/ ... ws-permits

[Raeyh]

I've honestly never gotten concealed carry laws. Isn't the idea of owning a gun protection? By the time you have to draw your gun and fire, protection is out the window. At that point it's down to luck. Open carry makes more sense to me.

If someone is going crazy shooting people up, you can get the shotgun hidden in the trunk of your car. Something to that effect.

[Unified Provinces]

In my opinion the main reason the 2nd amendment was written into the Constitution was because many people in America at the time lived in remote and rural areas, where hunting for food was a necessity. Also, guns of the period were extremely cumbersome and slow to load.
If a guy shot someone else, and there were other people around him, than he could have been easily stopped by people just piling on top of him.

Contrast that with today, with many modern weapons having Far better accuracy than a 18th century rifle, not to mention higher rates of fire and ammo capacity. Thus, the 2nd amendment is really just kept in the Constitution because it is historical. If the founding fathers were around today, they probably wouldn't have included a right to bear arms. (Just my opinion )

[The Waiting Fox]

I, personally, don't get it. Guns are dangerous, they are really, really dangerous, and what makes it even worse is that they are easy to handle; not everyone can be a marksman, but about everybody can get a decent killing shot with a hand gun in close range and with a rifle at medium- why on earth would people even want so many guns on the street? How many crimes does it really stop, and how many deaths does it cause?

[Tribecastan]

I, personally, don't get it. Guns are dangerous, they are really, really dangerous, and what makes it even worse is that they are easy to handle; not everyone can be a marksman, but about everybody can get a decent killing shot with a hand gun in close range and with a rifle at medium- why on earth would people even want so many guns on the street? and with current american gun control laws, why on earth would people want to give those weapons to so many untrained\unprofessional individuals?
How many crimes does it really stop, and how many deaths does it cause?

If having a gun is illegal then who do you think would have them? All the "bad" guys out in the world and the "good" guys would not. No protection what so ever. I think that to get a gun you should have to go through a gun lesson. There they teach you how to load, fire, clean, etc. Then you should be able to purchase a gun. That way people are educated and know what they are doing. If I want to protect myself I believe I have the right to do so. We shouldn't impend on others rights to satisfy ourselves. As always this is just my view and you can agree or not.

[The Waiting Fox]

If having a gun is illegal then who do you think would have them? All the "bad" guys out in the world and the "good" guys would not. No protection what so ever. I think that to get a gun you should have to go through a gun lesson. There they teach you how to load, fire, clean, etc. Then you should be able to purchase a gun. That way people are educated and know what they are doing. If I want to protect myself I believe I have the right to do so. We shouldn't impend on others rights to satisfy ourselves. As always this is just my view and you can agree or not.

I've heard about the "If we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" statement before, but it just doesn't hold up; countries with strict gun control laws have less violence that involve fire-arms, thus making the whole thing into a big pygmalion effect cycle: you carry guns in-order to protect yourself from people who have guns because gun control laws are easy - it's a circle of potential violence that can pop at any minute; and when a gun pops, it kills

[Galborg]

USA with lax gun laws has a higher murder rate than Britain with obscenely strict gun laws. Switzerland and Israel have compulsory gun-ownership, compulsory Militia duty and low murder rate. Could those low murder rates correlate with compulsory safety training during Militia duty?

American Revolution won because the Americans had guns. If the Yanks had sticks and the Brits had guns, which side would have won?

[Raeyh]

USA with lax gun laws has a higher murder rate than Britain with obscenely strict gun laws. Switzerland and Israel have compulsory gun-ownership, compulsory Militia duty and low murder rate. Could those low murder rates correlate with compulsory safety training during Militia duty?

American Revolution won because the Americans had guns. If the Yanks had sticks and the Brits had guns, which side would have won?

France.

[The Aryan Nations]

Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.

Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.

The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/)

The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.

I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.

Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.

tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?

it is, according to the SUPREME COURT, saying that americans have the right to own guns.

one argument was that

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

and

State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the now generally accepted individual rights model, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. While having influenced a number of past court cases, the "collective rights" model has been discarded by the U.S. Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

from wiki

you are arguing for the long past debunked collective rights. individual rights reign supreme.

why are you so against gun rights, liberals? an armed society is a polite society.

[The Aryan Nations]

USA with lax gun laws has a higher murder rate than Britain with obscenely strict gun laws. Switzerland and Israel have compulsory gun-ownership, compulsory Militia duty and low murder rate. Could those low murder rates correlate with compulsory safety training during Militia duty?

American Revolution won because the Americans had guns. If the Yanks had sticks and the Brits had guns, which side would have won?

France.

America did almost all of the actual fighting. and France would never have supported America without the victory at Saratoga.

If having a gun is illegal then who do you think would have them? All the "bad" guys out in the world and the "good" guys would not. No protection what so ever. I think that to get a gun you should have to go through a gun lesson. There they teach you how to load, fire, clean, etc. Then you should be able to purchase a gun. That way people are educated and know what they are doing. If I want to protect myself I believe I have the right to do so. We shouldn't impend on others rights to satisfy ourselves. As always this is just my view and you can agree or not.

I've heard about the "If we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" statement before, but it just doesn't hold up; countries with strict gun control laws have less violence that involve fire-arms, thus making the whole thing into a big pygmalion effect cycle: you carry guns in-order to protect yourself from people who have guns because gun control laws are easy - it's a circle of potential violence that can pop at any minute; and when a gun pops, it kills

the US has a high murder rate because of having guns... but Switzerland, which EVERY single male citizen owns a gun, has a negligible murder rate.

you forget the factors of poverty and immigrants.

[Spreewerke]

Why? Unlike bees, firearms are inanimate objects. If I drop my Glock, it's not going to go off, but if I drop a jar of bees, who knows if/how many people might be stung when the jar shatters on the ground.

If you were and idiot waiving your glock around with the round chambered and the safety off it might go off if you dropped.

GLOCKs don't have a safety and they have proven to be 99.99% (since nothing is perfect) drop-proof when it comes to accidental discharges. They tested this by dropping it on various surfaces and also by throwing them out of helicopters.

[Safed]

Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.

Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.

The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/&#41;

The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.

I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.

Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.

tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?

it is, according to the SUPREME COURT, saying that americans have the right to own guns.

one argument was that

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

and

State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the now generally accepted individual rights model, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. While having influenced a number of past court cases, the "collective rights" model has been discarded by the U.S. Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

from wiki

you are arguing for the long past debunked collective rights. individual rights reign supreme.

why are you so against gun rights, liberals? an armed society is a polite society.

An armed society is a polite society? Then why is it that the British are widely known as being at times overly polite, (no guns), whereas Americans have a global reputation of impoliteness and brashness (guns), not to mention the much larger relative crime and murder rate.

[Delator]

In a wal-mart in arizona i saw a regular joe with a .44 on his hip.

that is the kind of stuff that is unnecessary and extremely dangerous.

This is why I prefer concealed carry rules to laws allowing open carry.

Allowing people to carry openly invites a subtle form of intimidation that is not conducive to the needs of civil society.

I am of the opposite mind.

I consider anyone who feels the need to go about in public armed to already be of questionable mental capacity.

Is it subtle intimidation? Maybe...but I consider myself safer knowing which crazy people are armed and which ones aren't.

[Shady Deals]

I would recommend, if possible based on your location, simply go to a gun shop and/or shooting range and spend some time there. See what you can learn and ask if you can fire off a few rounds. Once you actually experience it, it very likely will change your mind. If it does not, then accept that you wasted some time and money and continue on with your life.

[Azakhia]

This is why I prefer concealed carry rules to laws allowing open carry.

Allowing people to carry openly invites a subtle form of intimidation that is not conducive to the needs of civil society.

I am of the opposite mind.

I consider anyone who feels the need to go about in public armed to already be of questionable mental capacity.

Is it subtle intimidation? Maybe...but I consider myself safer knowing which crazy people are armed and which ones aren't.

Thus the reason that police officers in the US carry their weapons off duty. It sure is not for the purpose of protecting the citizens in case of a crime in progress. Almost all US police forces have a rule prohibiting officers from taking enforcement actions while off duty. Yet, they encourage them to carry their weapons while off duty.