Your Interpretation/Opinion of the Second Amendment

[The V O I D]

My interpretation? Simple. It means that everyone is allowed to have guns, and should not be oppressed to the point where they can't have any.
My opinion? Yet again, simple. I think the right to Bear Arms is what makes the US pretty much immune to any form of permanent take over from any external or internal force. By internal force, I mean the big corporations that could practically buy the US Government. OK, so I think that's it.

[Big Jim P]

Except for the detail that the number you're touting is for defensive gun uses and you're comparing them to gun homicides... This is comparing apples to oranges. Instead the number that "DGUs" should be compared to is its counter part, which isn't gun homicides it is "offensive" gun use, i.e. crimes committed with a gun. As an example, lets use 2011 where " a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm"...

Last I checked 478,000 is considerably more than 80,000.

It's also considerably less than 1,000,000 or 2,000,000.
Which is the middle-end and high-end estimates, respectively, Jim didn't mention.

Dyas chart only mentioned homicides, so I went with the lower estimates. Had he mentioned overall gun crimes (which he did once I cited DGU estimates), I would have used the mid to high end estimates. Thanks for covering it.

[Esternial]

I don't see why it's relevant. Due to the fact it's considered so ambiguous this Amendment should have been replaced a long time ago with a more modern phrasing.

[Risottia]

Hello, NSG. Today, we're gonna talk about an essential part of American culture: effin' guns. Or, more specifically, the right to own them.

The Amendment, adopted on December 15, 1791, reads 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.¹

I think it means:
A government needs to have a military, and this military shoud be in the form of a militia (that is, conscripted citizens) instead of professionals (as the British Empire). To have a functioning (well-regulated) militia, we need citizens to be able to own and carry weapons. That's why the government shall not make laws restricting in an unreasonable way ("well-regulated" implies that "reasonable restrictions" can and should be applied, withing the purpose of State security) the right of every citizen to own and carry weapons - unlike what happens in countries ruled by aristocracies, where some people are allowed to carry weapons and some are not.

[The Conez Imperium]

I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned the gun culture of a current America. For me the question is not 'If ordinary citizens are allowed to posses firearms', it is 'is this law really necessary?'.

[Big Jim P]

I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned the gun culture of a current America. For me the question is not 'If ordinary citizens are allowed to posses firearms', it is 'is this law really necessary?'.

They envisioned an America where every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was armed. As for is the law being necessary, yes, to insure an individuals right the the best means of self-defense.

[The Conez Imperium]

I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned the gun culture of a current America. For me the question is not 'If ordinary citizens are allowed to posses firearms', it is 'is this law really necessary?'.

They envisioned an America where every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was armed. As for is the law being necessary, yes, to insure an individuals right the the best means of self-defense.

What kind of person would envision a society where everybody can be a judge, jury and executioner ?

[Dyakovo]

It's also considerably less than 1,000,000 or 2,000,000.
Which is the middle-end and high-end estimates, respectively, Jim didn't mention.

Dyas chart only mentioned homicides, so I went with the lower estimates. Had he mentioned overall gun crimes (which he did once I cited DGU estimates), I would have used the mid to high end estimates. Thanks for covering it.

Yeah, I already saw those estimates on the Wikipedia page. From Wikipedia: "Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year."
In other words: The high-end estimates are bullshit.

[Big Jim P]

Dyas chart only mentioned homicides, so I went with the lower estimates. Had he mentioned overall gun crimes (which he did once I cited DGU estimates), I would have used the mid to high end estimates. Thanks for covering it.

Yeah, I already saw those estimates on the Wikipedia page. From Wikipedia: "Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year."
In other words: The high-end estimates are bullshit.

Disputed, yes. Proven false? Not quite.

[Spirit of Hope]

They envisioned an America where every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was armed. As for is the law being necessary, yes, to insure an individuals right the the best means of self-defense.

What kind of person would envision a society where everybody can be a judge, jury and executioner ?

How does a citizen being armed make them a "judge, jury, and executioner"? Any lethal use of a gun for self defense (and probably any time the gun is discharged) is going to get an investigation, and there very well may be a conviction if a jury finds the defendant didn't act in self defense, or didn't act reasonably. Plus there are around only 400 justified homicides in the US every year, so it isn't exactly like they happen all that often.

The amendment was ratified back when the US feared large and powerful central governments. You have to understand they just out threw of being ruled by a monarch with all the power. The Articles of Confederation were too weak so they thew it out and now they were ratifying the current US government, one with a stronger central government. The US people feared that a government that was powerful and oppressive might come to be in the US so they wanted a means to rise up if needed. Thus the need for a militia and an armed population.

The militia part has come to be the National Guard as the right to raise a militia is a state power and can only be controlled by the state and the right to arm yourself is as it is.

You also need to get that at the time the US was wilderness. Everyone not in a city owned a gun because they had to to live. Want food? Need a gun. Defense from natives? Guns. Want to petition a new government? More guns.

The Founding Fathers could have never seen the average US citizen to own a weapon that can kill with such accuracy and power back then. They had muskets. You could fire three shots a minute if you were skilled and even then you would probably miss.

My opinion? Keep it as it is. We don't NEED assault rifles but if that gets taken away it's one step to taking away another thing... And another and another and another.

One problem with that is if you look at what happened on the ocean. The United States allowed the free sale of cannons, usually to arm merchant ships for defense against pirates. This sale was at times restricted, but usually because of international politics and the fear of merchant ships firing on another nations Navy, but it was never completely revoked. The most prominent example being the barring of armed ships to sail to the Caribbean just prior to the Quasi War with France.

What is even more important was that these merchant ships were not viewed as a "naval militia." Laws were debated about creating or supporting the creation of a naval militia, and they were completely different from laws about arming merchant ships. Of the two big ideas debated one focused on protection of american fishing rights, the other on encouraging privateers to be built.

[WestRedMaple]

Problem being the Supreme Court in two decisions within the last decade disagrees with that interpretation a and that for the first century or so of the nations history it was interpreted as an individual right.

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

---

How so?

The militia units fared horribly when faced with British regular army troops. They lacked the training and discipline necessary.

---

You did. Now you just whine about it instead of showing this 'right of the militia' you claim, because you couldn't find any such thing (there's a good reason for this: doesn't exist)

Uh-huh.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

sauce
Go ahead. Snip it out again and claim that it doesn't exist.

---

New York is like that. A guy I used to fly with applied for one. He was rejected, and told that his life needed to be under a specific, ongoing threat. Someone tried to murder you once? Doesn't count, it was only once. Assaulted, robbed, car-jacked, and raped on a weekly basis, but by different people each time? Doesn't count, that's not a specific threat, just a series of coincidences.

Don't lie.

---

One of the many reasons New York is a shithole, and I am leaving.

One problem. He's lying.

---

Come back to Texas where we are civilized.

Uh-huh. Civilized... Sure...

State	State Population	Gun Murders (total)	Gun Murders (rate)
New York	19,378,102	517	2.7
Texas	25,145,561	805	3.2

Sad to see that you've given up even any pretense of trying to hold an honest discussion.

Unable to meet my challenge, you post an unrelated link again. Following that, a link to information on New York which in no way contradicts my statement.

So you didn't really have anything to contribute to begin with, but then you blatantly lie about me, and that is a clear sign you have no interest in an honest, adult discussion of the topic.

[WestRedMaple]

Problem being the Supreme Court in two decisions within the last decade disagrees with that interpretation a and that for the first century or so of the nations history it was interpreted as an individual right.

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

---

How so?

The militia units fared horribly when faced with British regular army troops. They lacked the training and discipline necessary.

---

You did. Now you just whine about it instead of showing this 'right of the militia' you claim, because you couldn't find any such thing (there's a good reason for this: doesn't exist)

Uh-huh.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

sauce
Go ahead. Snip it out again and claim that it doesn't exist.

---

New York is like that. A guy I used to fly with applied for one. He was rejected, and told that his life needed to be under a specific, ongoing threat. Someone tried to murder you once? Doesn't count, it was only once. Assaulted, robbed, car-jacked, and raped on a weekly basis, but by different people each time? Doesn't count, that's not a specific threat, just a series of coincidences.

Don't lie.

---

One of the many reasons New York is a shithole, and I am leaving.

One problem. He's lying.

---

Come back to Texas where we are civilized.

Uh-huh. Civilized... Sure...

State	State Population	Gun Murders (total)	Gun Murders (rate)
New York	19,378,102	517	2.7
Texas	25,145,561	805	3.2

Sad to see that you've given up even any pretense of trying to hold an honest discussion.

Unable to meet my challenge, you post an unrelated link again. Following that, a link to information on New York which in no way contradicts my statement.

So you didn't really have anything to contribute to begin with, but en you blatantly lie about me, and that is a clear sign you have no interest in an honest, adult discussion of the topic.

[Dyakovo]

Okay? And that has what to do with what I actually said?

---

The militia units fared horribly when faced with British regular army troops. They lacked the training and discipline necessary.

---

Uh-huh.

sauce
Go ahead. Snip it out again and claim that it doesn't exist.

---

Don't lie.

---

One problem. He's lying.

---

Uh-huh. Civilized... Sure...

State	State Population	Gun Murders (total)	Gun Murders (rate)
New York	19,378,102	517	2.7
Texas	25,145,561	805	3.2

Sad to see that you've given up even any pretense of trying to hold an honest discussion.

Unable to meet my challenge, you post an unrelated link again. Following that, a link to information on New York which in no way contradicts my statement.

So you didn't really have anything to contribute to begin with, but then you blatantly lie about me, and that is a clear sign you have no interest in an honest, adult discussion of the topic.

Yeah... We're done here. kthanxbai.

[Spirit of Hope]

Dyas chart only mentioned homicides, so I went with the lower estimates. Had he mentioned overall gun crimes (which he did once I cited DGU estimates), I would have used the mid to high end estimates. Thanks for covering it.

Yeah, I already saw those estimates on the Wikipedia page. From Wikipedia: "Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year."
In other words: The high-end estimates are bullshit.

And a number of researchers have a problem with the NCVS because it involves federal agents going around asking the questions, usually while after mentioning that some DGU could be a crime. There is a high chance that some people might lie about a DGU under those circumstances.

[Big Jim P]

They envisioned an America where every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was armed. As for is the law being necessary, yes, to insure an individuals right the the best means of self-defense.

What kind of person would envision a society where everybody can be a judge, jury and executioner ?

I would think that they envisioned a society where a man could protect himself, his family, his property and his community (all the way up the the national community).

[WestRedMaple]

Well what makes you an expert on Constitutional Law? The Supreme Court is the final word on Constitutional Law, and is made up of 9 very nice people with lot of experience interpreting Constitutional Law.

Who have been known to make mistakes. See the Dred Scott decision.

I note you bring up the Supreme Courts opinion when it favors your argument.
Also note that the article explicitly points out that that view only really began to hold sway after 1939, and did not really exist before that time.

Which does not alter the point I was making, i.e. that a reasonable argument can be made for the second amendment granting a collective right, not an individual can be made. This would be a counter to WRM's claim.

---

Everything about Sonia Sotomayor makes me nauseous. She's a threat.

Especially the facts that she's, well, a she and that she's latino...

Oh, so now you are completely backing off your earlier claim about some right of a militia

Of course, you're still pretending that you've addressed my post, when you actually have been steadfastly refusing to do so

[Avenio]

I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned the gun culture of a current America. For me the question is not 'If ordinary citizens are allowed to posses firearms', it is 'is this law really necessary?'.

They envisioned an America where every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was armed.

They also 'envisioned' a culture where everyone wore powdered wigs, didn't bathe much and life travelled at the speed of a horse through a nearly entirely rural country. Very little of the way of life they 'envisioned' exists today, nor should it really be taken into account in governing a society they could barely even begin to comprehend.

[Narland]

They envisioned an America where every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was armed. As for is the law being necessary, yes, to insure an individuals right the the best means of self-defense.

What kind of person would envision a society where everybody can be a judge, jury and executioner ?

A very secure person in a very polite society.

[WestRedMaple]

Sad to see that you've given up even any pretense of trying to hold an honest discussion.

Unable to meet my challenge, you post an unrelated link again. Following that, a link to information on New York which in no way contradicts my statement.

So you didn't really have anything to contribute to begin with, but then you blatantly lie about me, and that is a clear sign you have no interest in an honest, adult discussion of the topic.

Yeah... We're done here. kthanxbai.

You were done a long time ago, but it is nice to see you realize it now

[WestRedMaple]

They envisioned an America where every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 was armed. As for is the law being necessary, yes, to insure an individuals right the the best means of self-defense.

What kind of person would envision a society where everybody can be a judge, jury and executioner ?

No mention of any such thing was in the post to which you're replying, so why ask?

[Shilya]

What annoys me so much about this is the excess amount of commas. I mean, where do you separate those issues here? What of that is fluff, what is essential right? Was the word "and" only invented in the 19th century? Particulary this part

being necessary to the security of a free State

irks me a lot. Whose security? Is it in relation to the milita, or the arms, or both? Is it just fluff, i.e. explanation why, or a limitation?

The rulings are somewhat more clear (and I don't see a problem with them), but that should be cleaned up properly. Draft a new amendment to replace it, with unambigous text, so this debate can finally end.

[Dyakovo]

What kind of person would envision a society where everybody can be a judge, jury and executioner ?

A very secure person in a very polite society.

The "an armed society is a polite society" nonsense is bullshit.

[Avenio]

A very secure person in a very polite society.

The "an armed society is a polite society" nonsense is bullshit.

Yep. If you need the assurance that both you and your neighbours can and are willing to kill you at any moment in order to prevent you from murdering them and looting their property or what have you, then you're neither really all that civil or polite. That's the set of a Clint Eastwood movie, not a civilization.

[Dyakovo]

The "an armed society is a polite society" nonsense is bullshit.

Yep. If you need the assurance that both you and your neighbours can and are willing to kill you at any moment in order to prevent you from murdering them and looting their property or what have you, then you're neither really all that civil or polite. That's the set of a Clint Eastwood movie, not a civilization.

Indeed. The idea is predicated on the ideal being the Wild West as depicted in Westerns...

[Noraika]

A very secure person in a very polite society.

The "an armed society is a polite society" nonsense is bullshit.

Agreed.
An armed society is a polite society only on the premise of unilateral fear of consequences of one’s actions, or even for the misunderstanding of said actions. A society based around fear is also the society of suspicion of the intentions of all people around a person, and the fear of offending an individual around them. To put it very simply, an armed society is a fearful society.