Why do you support gun ownership?

[plarq]

No Gun Area could be enforced in some city district, just like No Smoking Area. I don't think US need to cut down gun business or gun holders, just keep them out of CBD.

 

[IglooDame]

No Gun Area could be enforced in some city district, just like No Smoking Area. I don't think US need to cut down gun business or gun holders, just keep them out of CBD.

I'm curious as to how it could be enforced. Smoking is a pretty obvious activity, difficult to hide, and as far as I know people don't smoke with malicious intent - people carrying guns intending to rob or murder (i.e. break other laws) are certainly going to ignore one more law. All you do with no-gun zones is make law-abiding citizens more obviously defenseless and thus better targets for criminals.

@McManus: You've made my day. And kudos to you, for keeping an open mind about it.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

People need guns to fight the goverment. I am a revolutionary!!!!!

 

[IglooDame]

Shouldn't the very fact that the Constitution doesn't actually allow for your regular citizen to have\carry a firearm be the end of this arguement?

Or at the very least can we atleast ban the overly crazy weapons.

The Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, not collective rights. They don't apply to publishing companies, religious organizations, hotel owners, or corporate boards of directors, they apply to individuals. I don't think "the people" would be defined one way in the First, Fourth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments and another way in the Second Amendment.

Secondly let's take a quick look at some other relevant parts of the US Constitution.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Now, here's my take - The Feds are the only ones allowed to raise an army or call up the militia (the states are prohibited from keeping troops in time of peace), and they are charged with defending the country/states against invasion or domestic violence. One could make the argument that the state National Guards are collectively unconstitutional, but I won't, at least right now anyway.

So... Do you think the framers of the constitution thought "but wait, we don't say in there anywhere that the militia can keep guns, and we're worried that Congress might take the militia's guns away?"

I'm kind of thinking this out as I go here, having just this morning reread the same bits that I've quoted above, so I'd welcome other viewpoints.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

As a private gun owner and someone who has much experance with weapons I'd have to say guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns to make it eazy for sure, yet I don't think a weapon is the problem as much as it's owner.

 

[Colonel]

The Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, not collective rights. They don't apply to publishing companies, religious organizations, hotel owners, or corporate boards of directors, they apply to individuals. I don't think "the people" would be defined one way in the First, Fourth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments and another way in the Second Amendment.

Uh wth does this have to do with the arguement at hand, I am appling this to citizens.
If you read the second amendment, which you seemed to not quote, read it correctly noticeing the placing of commas, effectively the second portion of the sentence stateing right of the people to keep and bear arms is dependant upon the first portion of the sentence, so effectively you would need to be in a militia in order to own and use a gun. In order for it to just simply state right to bear arms you have to take out the whole milita to free state part.

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.

 

[Blazer6]

I guess that doesn't matter since buying guns has been just another business, or your definition did not stand the test of time.

 

[cgannon64]

This may be a uniquely American statement, but I find the question "Why support gun ownership?" absurd.

 

[IglooDame]

The Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, not collective rights. They don't apply to publishing companies, religious organizations, hotel owners, or corporate boards of directors, they apply to individuals. I don't think "the people" would be defined one way in the First, Fourth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments and another way in the Second Amendment.

Uh wth does this have to do with the arguement at hand, I am appling this to citizens.
If you read the second amendment, which you seemed to not quote, read it correctly noticeing the placing of commas, effectively the second portion of the sentence stateing right of the people to keep and bear arms is dependant upon the first portion of the sentence, so effectively you would need to be in a militia in order to own and use a gun. In order for it to just simply state right to bear arms you have to take out the whole milita to free state part.

Yes, I didn't quote the Second Amendment out of fear that people would notice the comma.

There's another way to read it, and indeed substantial justification to read it differently than you do. Here, let's quote it again, just for kicks:

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.

Here's my reading, and that of a lot of other people, some of them Founding Fathers or their contemporaries: A free State like ours needs a well-regulated militia. That being the case, no infringement on the right of the people (see my comments regarding interpreting "people" above) to keep and bear Arms is allowed, because denying the private ownership of arms will detract from the ability to maintain the militia.

In other words, the militia portion was a declaration of the collective purpose (of defense of the free state), and the clause following was the method the framers (in-part) chose, to ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

 

[El_Machinae]

I read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as the definition of Militia in that sentence.

 

[cgannon64]

You know, that whole "militia" thing is very ambiguous. Read alone - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - does not imply, at all, that average citizens need guns; that only comes with the non sequitur of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That is, of course, if you interpret militia as something like the National Guard: operated by the federal government, with special rights. You could also interpret it as an NGO, or even an organization of sleeper cells, ready to come into action when the government does something egregiously wrong.

So, is it just me, or if it weren't for the "right of the people" clause, does that amendment either not advocate popular gun ownership at all, or advocate some kind of benign terrorism?

 

[bhsup]

Even if you take the reading that it only guarantees the right if you are a part of an organize militia, that doesn't automatically mean it is denied for everyone else. It would be silent on that issue, which would be where my State constitution's guarantee comes into play. I'm golden either way.

 

[cgannon64]

That's true.

I'd be interested to know if any countergovernment group ever pulled out that clause to defend their actions.

 

[azzaman333]

Why do you support gun ownership?

The people who really want guns will get them even if its illegel.

 

[IglooDame]

Even if you take the reading that it only guarantees the right if you are a part of an organize militia, that doesn't automatically mean it is denied for everyone else. It would be silent on that issue, which would be where my State constitution's guarantee comes into play. I'm golden either way.

Interesting point.

If anyone (in the US) is wondering what their state constitution has to say about the matter, this link lists "bear arms"-related sections for all US states.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Though how much people pay attention to them is debatable; Chicago residents might dispute that "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has any attention paid to it.

 

[MobBoss]

In the military the word militia is used in a couple of confusing ways.

You have the Active Army.
You have the Army Reserve.
You have the National Guard (the armed militia)
In some states you have the state militia (regulated militia typically made up of military retirees, but not necessarily so)
And you also have the plain old militia (civilians armed with their own guns)

This has always been how I have understood it to be.

 

[El_Machinae]

You know, that whole "militia" thing is very ambiguous.

I treat the parts with-in the commas as able to be removed from the sentence (much like you can do with brackets). Removing the parts between the commas, and read the complete sentence.

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.

A well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

It all makes sense.

 

[IglooDame]

I treat the parts with-in the commas as able to be removed from the sentence (much like you can do with brackets). Removing the parts between the commas, and read the complete sentence.

It all makes sense.

To you, maybe, but you've just brought my comprehension processes to a halt.

 

[El_Machinae]

The bits in the commas refer to Militia, separately. That's the way I read it, anyway.

 

[IglooDame]

The bits in the commas refer to Militia, separately. That's the way I read it, anyway.

I pretty much take the second comma as a semicolon and ignore the third comma. To me that's the only way the structure of the sentence makes any sense - you can infringe a right, but how would you infringe a militia?