The Freedom To Protect Yourself, Your Family, and Your Community
Written by Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA executive director.
America's 80 million gun owners could give 80 million answers to this question. To hunters, guns mean a day with family and friends, enjoying the beauty of the outdoors. To gun collectors, they provide a connection to the inventors, craftsmen, warriors and pioneers of days gone by. To competitive shooters, they provide an opportunity for self-mastery, through the discipline of training and the forge of competition.
Most important, though, is that guns provide an effective means of exercising the God-given, individual right of self-defense. To America's founders, that right was a hallmark of individual freedom in our new nation. Thomas Jefferson-an avid gun collector and hunter-said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms," and Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe."
While the founders were mainly concerned with "invaders and plunderers" of the political kind, the right is equally important in protecting individuals from the violent "invaders and plunderers" on our streets. In the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized this, declaring that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
Indeed, the most comprehensive study of gun use to date, by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found that Americans use guns for self-defense against crime more than two million times per year. Certainly today, with 40 states having adopted laws that allow honest citizens to carry handguns for protection outside the home, guns mean much of what they meant to our founders: the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your community.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I believe people should be allowed to carry guns in the United States. It is our right to bear arms. But isn't there a new line that has to be drawn?
The Second Amendment clearly states: 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.
The amendment states the right to bear arms to protect the state. We shall be allowed "to keep and bear arms", "being necessary to the security of a free state", are phrases from the Second Amendment. It clearly states the population can own a gun to protect their state. Laws also allow people to carry guns for self defense. For instance, a burglar enters your home and tries to rob you or harm you. You are allowed to defend yourself with a gun. But is it really necessary to carry guns on the street? My answer is yes. Yes only because guns may be concealed on a person who is on a public street or walkway which does not prohibit the concealment of weapons. These guns protect others from robbers and gangs.
Should guns be allowed in public? My answer is no. No only because guns are the very things that are involved in gang killings, drive-by's, and multiple other crimes. If the concealment of guns in public was outlawed, less people could be injured on the streets. Less people carrying guns equals less shootouts resulting in deaths of innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Here is a scenario:
1. You are going home and are mugged. Your suitcase/purse had a gun in it for your personal defense. The next day the gun turns up in police custody with the mugger. You are called down to the police station and are told the gun was used in a homicide .
2. Same scenario, except there is a new "NO GUNS IN PUBLIC" restriction and the mugger cannot use your gun to commit a homicide.
This can happen. New laws would help prevent scenario 1 part 1 from happening.
Another reason guns shouldn't be on streets...people are irresponsible. Someone could accidently shoot off a round and kill someone. It was an accident, but was your fault for screwing around.
You can carry a gun in public. It's legal ...if it's concealed. It's your choice, however, if you decide to unload it on the crowd around you. These things happen, and they will continue to happen without proper law enactments. My proposal:
1. No person shall knowing possess a weapon in public without proper documentation of legal ownership.
A. If you want to hunt/shoot at a range/attend gun show, then go to http://www.(this is an example).gov and register to hunt/shoot. Please print off receipt from range and be prepared to present it. Infringement is fine an jail time.
B. If you do not possess any computer device, then visit a sporting goods store or the hunting / shooting range to arrange for a hunt/shoot and get receipt. Infringements (see Article 1 Section A).
C. The weapon will be properly concealed in your motor vehicle--no motorcycles-- and will be on safe , unloaded, and locked up. Infringements (Article 1 Section A).
2. No person may carry a gun outside of their home unless:
A. (Article 1 Section A-C).
B. For the common defense of your property.
C. The defense of the state.
D. Infringements (Article 1 Section A).
3. All public places will install metal detectors and have on-guard security at detectors at all times. Detectors will be paid for by state, but periodical maintaining and guards will be paid for by company/corporation.
* Infringements= Substantial Fine.
Now of course there are loop holes, but it will be better written and figured out by legislatures, plus, this is only an outline.
the law you propose would in effect disarm me through most of my day. I am not a big man, and in a fist fight couldn't take out a criminal easily.
However with a gun I'm more than equal to him. Also guns do not just discharge rounds. They need a stimulus to fire. The only time I worry about a gun on a person who is law abiding and sane is when they are on fire. Also most guns while holstered are pointing down. This makes them easier to draw. That means if it fires there may be a foot injury but no one is likely to die.
With your mugger scenario. What if the man had held the mugger at gun point and turned him into the cops. Then not only would you have not had the mugging commited, but the homicide would have been avoided too. That is two crimes that were not commited.
A vehicle can be burgularized of a firearm easier than a person can be robbed of one. Its not wise to require people to leave a gun unattended. An unloaded gun does no one any good.
As to the metal detectors.
Scenario. I'm a criminal intent on killing anyone i can find in a no gun zone. I approach a school /office/ government building and see a security guard at his desk reading a news paper. I shoot him in the face. I'm now safe to kill all I want.
Yeah that was a really effective deterrent. A uniformed armored guard that has to sit by a door all day in the off chance something may happen. Because I know I'm at my most diligent when bored out of my mind. And hardest to find when wearing a uniform telling the world my job.
I mean this thing was the epitome of poor planning. Sorry to say it but I don't think I'd elect you to a public office.
It's pretty clear that without guns we wouldn't be having these USA specific, random shootings that we do - not by criminals as you claim - but by ordinary folk that go "postal" and of course most recently, by an eight-year old school kid that decided to pick up a gun and shoot his dad. See for example, today's post at StopTheWorldIWannaGetOff.com
Are there more killings each year by "ordinary" folks or by criminals and thugs? And what business did an 8 year old have even having access to a gun unsupervised? That's not the constitution 's fault. That's the parent's fault. You're not going to get rid of the guns . Face it. So don't try and take mine so that I'm a helpless victim.
Actually we will get rid of guns . It's just a question of time. Just as gay marriage will be legalised - just as the right have lost, and will continue to lose every significant social battle, including slavery and granting women the vote. The bibles will also go and we will all grow up... the world will move forward... And you will be lost, just as the dinosaurs were... evolve people... evolve - or be lost to the legers of history.
The world will always evolve, and with that so will our crimes. If we get rid of guns , that's just dandy. Now what will happen when people illegally contract and/or make guns? What do we do then? How do we move forward when we cannot bear a substantial personal defense. We cannot, and will not, move forward without guns. It has been our history to use weaponry for the edge, for the power over a country's populace. Face it! This world has always had weapons, and it always will. Guns will always continue because we have the right to defend ourselves and families from tyranny and harm.
While you might be correct that guns will be banned, though I certainly hope not, to say we will get rid of guns is misguided and ignorant. If you, for one second think that criminals will be denied guns just because they are legally banned, you are not in touch with reality. Look at the drug war . Cocaine is illegal today for use by anyone, but you don't see that slowing down the use of it, do you?
And thank you so very much for resorting no name calling and insults. It only serves to validate my point and paint you as an extremist who cannot be swayed by facts or logic. You're making the job of those who need to "evolve" much easier. And maybe when YOU grow up, you'll see what I mean.
Exactly what king George told the colonists...
I don't like the idea of repealing the Second. It was put second for a reason! The reason seems distant now (in the 'west'), but it is still clear in much of the world. A government should not have the right to render its citizens powerless. Tyrants arise constantly and seek power. Civil disobedience begins non-violently and I pray that it never comes to gun fire, but I am not so naive as to believe that "it" could never happen. Just look at how quickly GWB was able to restrict our freedoms. If a government ever moved towards repealing the second amendment, I would go out and buy some guns.
That said, I do not believe the Brady Campaign is part of a slippery slope.
I can't imagine that the American founding fathers intended that the United States would end up with more gun violence than comparable countries. However, that is what has happened. In other countries there are tight restrictions on guns and there are many fewer gun deaths. It therefore makes sense for Americans to find ways of reducing gun violence within the constitutional limits that are imposed.
M. Glass
There is NO comparable Country ..The USA is unique to it's own LAW...What are we independant from if not the rest of the Worlds' thinking...Who is it that built a Country to be the envy of the Nation ,those who all want a piece of the pie...American pie...We have been the Country who now has to spread the wealth..Wher are the rest of you & your wealth ?? Pass some our way...The World used the USA to handle their problems...I give & give ,yet you want my gun....Cut it out ....
You are right. The US has a disproportionate number of innocent people hurt by guns - a state of affairs that Americans should not tolerate.
As to the founders - dueling was still common. I am not sure that we can predict what aspects of our modern society would shock them the most. Fortunately, we do know that it was not their intention to create a static, unchanging country. They were not moral absolutists and were well aware of the dangers therein.
WELL said ,they were aware of the dangers therin,and at the same time they wrote the second ammendment....Sounds like foreknowledge...Todays ELITE & intellectuals have a long way to go to catch the smarts of our fathers...
There hasn't been any change in the intelligence of the human race. Our founding fathers had a unique opportunity for a group of the elite to sit down, without a lot of interference from the common man, and engineer the best way to run a country. That could never happen today. We are extraordinarily fortunate that, at the time, the elite of the new world were being oppressed by the elite of the old and were thus motivated to create a system where the elite don't hold all the power. Power to the people!
And what power would the people have without a gun to back them up ???
You seem to have me mistaken for an opponent of gun ownership.
What about a community that decides to employ a police force to protect them, and upon the advice of that force decides, democratically, to put put some kind of constitutionally-acceptable limitation on individual gun ownership? Is that not our right as a community? Where does a national organization get the right to come into my neighborhood and tell us how to protect ourselves?
Adam, I understand where you are coming from. The rub is what's constitutionally acceptable. I tend to feel that "shall not be infringed" really does mean what it says.
Generally, what some forget (or never knew in the first place) is that the bill of rights (and the constitution, generally) is established precisely to limit democratically-elected governments. It surprises me that Americans think they can legislate various infringments of the first, or second, or fourth amendments simply because the majority of the people want such legislation. We tend to view democratically-made decisions as the epitome of civilization ... and conveninently forget that "mob rule" is also democratic. The bill of rights protects those fundamental human rights from democracy ... whether that be a voting electorate or a mob.
The very the purpose of these fundamentally basic rights - worship, speech, petitioning the government, gun ownership, etc. - is that they never be infringed democratically.
Well argued. I would put forth that the rights as stated (each in one sentence) are actually too broad to be as pure as you propose. We do limit the constitutional rights all the time and have since the day they were written. I propose that the purpose of the rights is to ensure that we continue to have exactly this kind of debate - that laws regarding these subjects are never taken lightly.
There must be detailed laws regarding these issues because there are gray areas, the classics being: yelling "fire" in a crowd, owning military "arms" that are beyond the imagination of the constitutional framers, and religious practices that break laws or trample on community standards. There are many more examples of increasing nuance. Such an expansion was used on the Fourth to protect our electronic communications - a continual gray area.
Our constitution is great because of our ability to interpret it. I strongly reject the idea that it is a dead document.
Also, the rights themselves are full of qualitative statements that were included expressly to be interpreted latter by the governed, most obviously in the 4th through 8th.
As to the second, you are correct in pointing to the word infringed. The amendment is very strongly worded, but what do you make of the part regarding well regulated militias? The framers were thinking about a very different world than we live in now. I agreed with the older interpretation of the phrasing, that "the right of the people" conferred a collective right rather than an individual right of each person. However, I am a strong believer in the primacy of the Supreme Court in these matters and thus accept their expanded interpretation.
This is where the discussion is lost on all too many who view the world in somewhat unrealistically rosy glasses. Backing up a bit now. Throughout history, the strong and advantaged have often taken from others (eg. weak and disandvantaged) via coersion. Barbaric. "Civilization", however, made life better for most everyone but the barbarians. While civilizations are characterized by division of labor, etc., they are also predicated upon sharing and upon agreements by those members of society ... agreements on what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, and on what is lawful and unlawful. Civilizations work because "good" people contribute and are rewarded (generally) for doing so. But there remain those "bad" people who still take advantage (when they are allowed to) via coersion. It is this reality, in part, on which the guarantee to arms was predicated. Arms were guaranteed so good people (civilized people) could protect themselves from bad people. Not only "could" protect themselves, but WOULD protect themselves (thus reducing the bad people in society). We all work to educate and train our fellow citizens, and to reward good behavior with gifts, honor, or a simple pat on the back. We also work together (and establish criminal justice and rule of law) to punish bad people. We pretty much all agree that murder and rape and robbery are bad and cannot be tolerated. What the right to arms guarantees is that we as individuals, as first responders, have the power (we have the natural right, as well as the legal authority) to defend ourselves, families, and community via force of arms (it would be swords or clubs if firearms did not exist). Security of a free state plays full into this, because the natural right to self defense cannot be decoupled from the right (and the necessity) to community and even national defense. A well-regulated militia is a group of armed citizens (individuals) coming together in a time of need ... to dispell unlawful insurrections, to prevent looting after a natural disaster, or to repel an invading military force. That militia is in agreement as to their purpose ... and that purpose is a good one because it maintains law and order, and promotes the safety and security of communities, states, and nations.
And finally, from a statement you made above to Nitrogen: "To me, guns rights represent the freedom to threaten terrible violence." I think that view is a rather common one, but I also think it is predicated on a misunderstanding of what freedom is, what rule of law is, and what gun rights are. It is argued that humans (and all other living things) have a natural right to self defense via force. But few would argue that we have any sort of right to offense. The second amendment in no way whatsoever authorizes or gives any right to offense or to "threaten terrible violence" as you put it (by "threaten" I presume you mean "offensive violence"). The second amendment protects the right to own and carry arms (knives, saps, guns, whatever) for the purpose of lawful use of force ... be that to stop a common criminal in your home, a group of terrorist/insurrectionists such as the KKK of days gone by or the Timothy McVeighs of modern history, be that keeping the peace when our professional police force cannot, or be that repeling an invading force. And even ... even ... as 20th century Russia and Germany have taught us is sometimes necessary, resisting and overthrowing outwardly tyrranical governments.
I appreciate your answer. There are many points we could discuss further. I am forced to pick one for now.
I should have said, "what guns mean to me," rather than gun rights. It was my attempt to answer the actual question posed at the top of the thread. I did not mean to limit it to offensive violence, indeed defense violence is the more common threat, but you can't offer one without the other. Obviously, there are consequences for following through on a threat, but the threat is tacit in the possession of a weapon. I see the right to threaten violence as absolutely protected by the second amendment. How can there be a right to use a weapon but not threaten the use of it?
I am sorry for having gotten so long winded. You chose an interesting one ... in your view that guns and gun rights protect a right to threaten violence. I disagree, although depending on how we parse the characteristics of "threat" and "deterrent." So, on one hand, I can see your view that guns might represent the ability to threaten violence. In other words, it might be said that "the homeowner's pistol represented a threat to the burglar." But although these claims can be made, I think a more honest approach is to explore the differences between what "threaten" and "deter" connote. I will argue that the history and the intent of the second amendment (and the purpose of gun ownership) aligns more closely with deterrence than with threat.
Webster's unabridged defines "deter" as "to discourage, to prevent, or to hinder" (eg. the presence of the police officer deterred the thief). Threaten is defined as a "declaration of an intention to inflict injury or punishment, or to indicate impending evil or mischief" (eg. the thief threatened to stab me if I did not turn over my wallet). Take personal defensive weapons, for example. Forty-eight states have laws that allowed licensed, concealed carry of loaded defensive weapons, while about half the states allow open (visible) carry of a gun (some require a license, others don't). I bring up open carry because the more common concealed part complicates my point. Take two men, strangers, walking down the sidewalk in Burlington, Vermont (where it is legal to carry a firearm openly, without any restrictive license). Each of the men have a holstered Colt 1911 on their hip. At this point, neither of the men are threatening violence (nor, of course, do they have any right to). They each walk into the same jewelry store, and browse around. Suddenly, one of the men pulls his pistol, points it at the teller, and demands "give me the money or I will shoot you." At this point, that man is threatening violence, which he of course has no right to do. So the other armed man quickly draws his gun and stops this threat of criminal violence with a well-placed head shot. This action is lawful because state statutes declare that the use of lethal force is authorized to prevent death or grave bodily injury of yourself and others, or to stop the commission of a forcible felony. I would argue that the second man represented a deterrent instead of a threat. Two men, two guns, two actions ... one a threat, and the other a deterrent.
To distill this down to the personal, I would simply say that I feel threatened in the presence of someone with an accessible weapon. I assess my safety in terms of my judgements about the person and the weapon in question. A distressed or angry person with only his fists is not a big threat. A uniformed police officer with her holster snapped is also not a big threat. You can say that an unkempt man in urine stained pants is carrying a deterrent, rather than a threat, but I would be deterred from more than just unlawful activities - I would feel threatened.
It is an inflammatory issue, but why do you present a case where a person dies by gun violence, and why are you explicit about the type of wound? The gun rights movement suffers from the impression that many people have fantasies about getting to use a gun to stop a crime. The eagerness does not inspire confidence. Wouldn't your argument be stronger if the robber chose not to even attempt the crime because of the second armed man?
It is the feeling of security that we are talking about. Many people feel more secure when they have an effective weapon. Many people feel more secure when the strangers around them don't have effective weapons. The discussion of whether people are actually safer is on a different thread.
I think you are suggesting an unworkable distinction when you navigate between the words deterrent and threat. A gun encased in lucite is not a deterrent because it is not a threat. A lock on a box is a deterrent to crime without being a threat. I don't think that a weapon has any function as a deterrent beyond the threat of its use. I will call a gun a threat if and when I feel threatened. This is a very personal definition that is only of use to me, but is the basis of my answer to the question of what guns mean to me.
Adam,
You stated, "I would simply say that I feel threatened in the presence of someone with an accessible weapon." But then you state that a uniformed police officer is not a threat. Statistically, that police officer is more likely to commit a crime with that gun than I am as a licensed carry permit holder. And your other example about an unkempt man in urine stained clothes reeks (no pun intended) of possible mental illness, which means it's not legal for him to have a gun in the first place.
And you are absolutely correct when you state, "[...]a weapon has any function as a deterrent beyond the threat of its use." That's exactly the point. It has been noted time and again that criminals are less likely to target someone they believe to be armed. It's just not worth the risk. So even though a gun was never drawn, and in many cases, not even seen, it served as an effective deterrent against crime, at least with regards to the individual thought to be carrying.
The point is seem to be advocating restrictions or banning of weapons based on a PERSONAL fear. I don't know if you honestly believe that law -abiding carry permit holders pose a threat to you, or society in general, but there is certainly no empirical data that supports that. But there is more than ample data that clearly points out that criminals and thugs pose a great risk to you, and more importantly, me ;-) but you want to deny me my right to counter that threat to the best of my ability? I don't think that is fair.
We seem to be in agreement, except for your statement, "... you want to deny me my right to counter that threat ..."
You expressed a similar sentiment in your other reply to me. I just disagree. I have no interest in denying your rights. I am a defender of rights, but it is all or none. You can't just pick the rights that you want, you have to accept the whole set.
It is the right of any community to pass laws within the jurisdiction of their piece of this country. The judiciary is then obliged to evaluate those laws for constitutionality. That all seems to be working.
There are overblown advocates on both sides of the issue that work hard to demonize opposing views. They distribute heavily spun information that is designed as propaganda rather than being informative. I would rather stop the shouting. We already have the system required. Its called the Constitution.
Adam, I just presented a case. You were the one who read too much into it, asigning me fantasies when none exist.
I do not feel threatened in the presence of someone with a firearm. Such fear would drive me insane, as I know there are 9 guns for every 10 people in the US. They are simply everywhere. I am not nervous around an armed police officer, nor nervous around a lawfully armed pistol carrier (concealed or open). I am not nervous around all the illegally armed criminals, either. That is because these people are all around us, every day. Aware, yes. My lawful carry of a concealed firearm is of absolutely no threat to any good person, but it's a deterrent to law-breakers.
I am safer when guns are in the hands of law-abiding people, be they police or my fellow citizens. Barack Obama, of all people, knows this too and that's why he's surrounded by firearms. 24/7, wherever he goes. I am threatened by guns only when they are used in a threatening manner by someone breaking the law. Personally, I hold these views in part because I know that feeling safe doesn't equate to being safe. Feeling safe comes from the naivete of living with blinders, and of believing that a paper "gun free zone" sign actually deters those intent on doing harm. Being safe comes from awareness, and the deterrent effect of lawfully borne arms.
I have no idea regarding your personal fantasies and I made no claim to. I was right that the issue would be inflammatory. Every debate has its nuts. Second amendment defenders get undercut by folks who cross the line into vigilanteism. I think your argument for guns as a deterrent would have been stronger if the happy ending didn't include one person dead without trial.
You are migrating the "Do guns make you safer?" debate onto this thread. I'm glad that you are comfortable around guns. Guns are not everywhere, nor am I naive for saying so. I am also not in a situation at all similar to Barack Obama, of all people. I feel safe, and I am safe. There are literally hundreds of things that are more likely to hurt me than not having a gun.
Adam, I am sorry to have written that scenario where an armed robber ended up killed by lawful defense. I didn't mean to inflame ... the case was purely hypothetical. But I feel that was somehow the turning point in our reasoned discussion, for now you seem to have become terse, and defensive. I trust I am wrong in that assessment.
If you wish to discuss vigilatism in a manner that we discussed threat and deterrence, then that would be fine with me. I didn't mean to migrate threads, but certainly, they are quite interrelated. What do guns mean to me? They make me safer. Two threads in one.
And I realize few of us are in a situation like Obama. But I reject fundamentally the classism, where it's good for the ruling class of politicians to have and maintain guns for their protection, while they deny them to the under-class. I reject that, and any freedom loving person, who believes that we are "created equal", should reject that.
Perhaps you could expand on your statement, "Feeling safe comes from the naivete of living with blinders ..." Was your intention to insult those of us who feel safe? If not, what was your purpose?
You use the declaration of independence and the powerful charge of classism to punch at a straw man.
Your "side" (an over-simplification) is unfairly linked to a minority of unstable gun owners who express eagerness to be in one of these violent confrontations (such as your hypothetical one) where their use of a gun on another person is justifiable. The vast majority of legal gun owners will carry the weapon for their whole lives without ever having occasion to use it (recreation aside). Civilians who go looking for trouble are actually crossing the line into criminal behavior. The expression of such ideas needs to be forcefully repudiated by other gun owners, as they are liability to our rational defense of the second amendment.
I understand your "two threads in one" point. I do not believe that a gun would make me safer to any meaningful degree - there are unlikely scenarios where I am worse off for having a gun as well as the situations where I am better off for having a gun. None of them are very likely, and for me, the negatives outweigh the positives. Many of the individual unlikely scenarios where a gun would be useful are rendered even less likely by the rapid response times of my local police - and these fine people figure prominently in my equation. I recognize that police coverage is not uniform.
While your gun also doesn't make me, on balance, safer, I am not opposing your right to have it. What makes me happier about your gun is that you had to meet some requirements in order to get it.
So, we are down to guns mean deterrent and guns mean threat. I argue that, for a weapon, deterrence is a subset of threat - there is no plausible occasion of deterrence that is not concurrent with a threat. As you pointed out days ago, this hinges on definitions. Since it is common to talk about impersonal forces or objects as threatening (hurricanes threaten coastlines), I do not believe that a threat has to include some statement. A person only carries those things that might be used (adornments being trivial uses). A person carrying a weapon is acknowledging that the weapon might be used. An observer has no knowledge of the armed persons criteria for use. The presence of the weapon is always a threat, and it is the observer not weapon-holder that judges the severity of the threat. The threat is perhaps an unintended consequence from the perspective of the weapon holder. Guns mean the threat of violence.
Carl, this may not be quite accurate as I own 140. I know one person who owns 300 and he has a friend who owns 500. Just teasing. Statistically that is correct, but in actuallity, maybe not. But your point is well made and I am happy to see your comments. You state that feeling safe doesn't equate to being safe. That is why I carry concealed every place I go, even at work. I am safe because I can defend against criminals who are illegally armed who would do me harm.
Adam, I appreciate and respect your reasoned and polite discourse. If I may, I'll work through some of your comments. Forgive me in advance if I get long-winded.
First regarding your 5th paragraph statement "older interpretation." Among constitutional scholars, the older interpretation is the "standard model" (individual right to arms), which is similar to the majority opinion in Heller. The newer interpretations are called the "collective rights" (similar to the Rakove, Cornell et al. brief)and the even-newer "sophisticated collective rights" (similar to the Brady Center brief) models. Regarding these newer, "sophisticated" interpretations, a statement from Alan Gura's brief (Respondent's brief in Heller) is germane here: "Petitioners plainly disagree with the Framers’ Second Amendment policy choices. Petitioners’ remedy must be found within the Constitution’s Fifth Article, not with linguistic sophistries or an anemic standard of review that would deprive the right of any real force." In other words, if you don't like it, you can repeal it. But you cannot simply make it go away with sophisticated fabrications of the history and intent of the amendment.
Refering to the right to own military small arms as a "grey area" (your 2nd paragraph), I argue that it seems grey today mostly because we have made it so over time. I will get into this more in the next paragraph, but the justification (lawful defense of "good" - self, home, community, and nation) for the framers' protecting the right to arms is the same today as it was then. And the arms they protected then certainly included military small arms. Thus I would argue that the militia purpose of the second amendment (like you, I don't think the two clauses can be decoupled as perfectly as Scalia suggested) makes clear that the arms most precisely protected by the amendment are military small arms.
Getting back to your 5th paragraph, regarding what is to be made of the "well-regulated militia." For one, it is necessary to the security of a free state (state with a small "s"). So the SCOTUS (and many amici) argues that it is necessary to our free state, but then the majority pretty strongly decouples that purpose from the operative clause. That is, even if the militia was not necessary, they argue, the guarantee "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would mean the very same thing. Generally, I agree with this, but personally feel the two cannot be decoupled quite so perfectly. Why? Because the militia IS fundamentally important, and arms are in part what fulfill the militia (and the modern legal mandate of the militia clauses in 10 USCode 311).
I am hard pressed think of any weapon you showed to a continental soldier or framer would be outside his imagination. At the time of the Constitutional Congress, ALL rifles were assault rifles.
The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the civilian populace has the power to overthrow the government. I understand the utility of instant checks to keep powerful weapons from felons and the insane, but who has what should never be in a database. We saw what the Germans did with that information, and we should all be very suspicious of anyone who claims "it can't happen here."
Vigilance is among the smaller costs of freedom.
-James
I agree with you about vigilance and the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment. You give the founders remarkable credit for military imagination. Whatever your definition of assault rifles is, the continental army did not have guns that would be prohibited by the recent assault weapons ban - repeaters were still 50 years away, and even then they wouldn't meet modern criteria.
Why do you want to take my weaponry ?? My conflict is not only with my Represetntatives but also with neighbors like YOU...What are you afraid of from me ,I do not flaunt my gun in your face...I do not use my gun illegally...Why are you so eager to throw away your forefathers experience & knowledge about how government can put you into servitude..Your government just passed a record financial debt on you ,placing you & your children into servitude...Maybe you have a self destructive nature to want us all to become defenceless...I can't help you perpatrate that which I believe to be a fudamental mistake on my part or on societys' part... SORRY...
I have to agree with Vigilance on this one...The common folk had the same weaponry that the governments had other than cannon...Cannons were not an everyday luxury for most citizens..Todays populous hardly has the capabilities the government has...We the people give the government the authority it has, to accumulate its' arsenal...Why is it the government would take my putrid weaponry ???
Sorry Adam, I don't mean to be rude, but since you can't see me or hear me it may come off that way. The simple fact is that your community doesn't have the right or the moral authority to democratically limit the rights of gun owners in your community. I know that you said "constitutionally acceptable", but realistically there are only two limitations that you can place on gun ownership that would fit within that description. Those would be, in a broad sense, the ability to restrict felons and insane persons from owning guns through an instant background check process, and to restrict the use of guns for anything other than their intended purpose (e.g. Self-Defense, target shooting, hunting etc.) Any other restriction, e.g. the type of firearms or restricting the use of guns or the transportation of guns is all unconstitutional. One thing you must ALWAYS keep in mind that the people within the Brady Campaign will NEVER tell you is that only people who are generally law abiding will obey the rules you put in place anyway. That criminals will ALWAYS have guns and will NEVER follow the rules, because they are criminals! Putting restrictions on guns only limits the people who are willing to follow those laws and puts your average American at a distinct disadvantage. By the way, the "national organization" only fights to protect the rights of those in the minority who are being demonized, they do not have an agenda to tell people what they can do, unless they are trying to restrict God given, Constitutionally protected rights. Thank you. Matt
Of course my community gets to govern. The legislative process is there expressly to bridge the gap between the broad (and marvelous) ideals of the constitution and the complex practical details of a functioning society. Where do you derive the authority to restrict the gun ownership of felons? That's not in the Bill of Rights. Your interpretations of the constitution are two things:
One - Yours
Two - Opinions
Also, what is with this 'God given' business? Is the seventh amendment divine as well?
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Is the constitutional right to worship false idols also a God given one?
Adam,
How fast does it take for a police officer to be dispatched to a given location on average?
For most places, it's 3-5 mins.
Most violent crimes take much less time to complete.
Those of us that buy and carry guns for protection are sobered by this fact.
All "pro gun" and "anti gun" folks agree that violent crime is a problem. The big difference being that many anti-gun folks feel that the police are a good enough resource. The fact is, the police are not required to protect you from crime. Look it up, the supreme court has ruled on this fact. While the police are necessary, their role in reality is a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)].
The duty to protect yourself is up to YOU. Now, if you don't like guns, that's fine with me. I happen to think they are a great way for a person to protect themselves. I'd encourage you to try shooting for yourself to see for yourself.
In closing, I'd reverse the question on you and say, why should the government be allowed to forcibly keep me from protecting myself and my loved ones?
I don't like answering questions with other questions, but I think in this case it's appropriate.
"How well has banning illegal drugs helped stem their use?"
I think you see where I'm going with this. When you restrict guns, all you end up doing is giving more power to people to use guns illegally. You strip the power for regular, law-abiding citizens to use them for their own defense.
Nitrogen,
I don't care what you think is the best way to be safe. The point is that the choice is mine to make, not yours. In this democracy, a group of people get to set the rules that govern them, within the limits set by larger jurisdictions.
I disagree with many of the statements that you make:
-Self protection does not equal community protection! You should seriously give that some thought.
-Of course everyone agrees that violent crime is a problem, so is lead poisoning. Where people disagree is on priorities. Violent crime is not high on my list of the most important problems. My children are much more likely to be hurt or killed in some kind of accident or by some disease.
-Now protecting myself is a duty? Get out of my life.
-I have shot rifles and handguns many times. It is a very enjoyable sport that requires peaceful focus and consistency, like archery, or golf. I dislike the implicit suggestion that my opinions are derived from fear or ignorance of firearms.
-Nobody would ever suggest that "the government be allowed to forcibly keep me from protecting myself and my loved ones." Get over the drama and talk about practical reality. All I suggested is that communities should be allowed to decide for themselves, by democracy, how to best protect themselves. That goes for your community and mine.
-I disagree with you that restrictions on guns only have negative effects, and I am not the only one (there is a debate here on that very topic). Please don't migrate that debate into this thread.
To me, guns rights represent the freedom to threaten terrible violence. Displaying a gun announces to the world that I am powerful, I have the power to quickly and easily take away your life. Owning a gun gives many people a sense of security, but your ownership doesn't help my sense of security. While I would fight and die in defense of our constitution (including the second amendment), I do not think that the laws supported by the Brady Campaign seek to abridge the fundamental right to bear arms to a larger degree than laws against incitement to violence abridge the right to free speech.
I especially believe in the right of communities to govern themselves without the interference of ideologically-driven outsiders. The courts are there to adjudicate the fine line between democracy and the tyranny of the majority - and they have.
That means the majority doesn't get to vote away the essential rights of anyone else. If your community lies within the continental and territorial boundaries of the United States, the Constitution and its first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, applies. Otherwise, if a city decided to reinstitute slavery, a majority vote would be enough to do it. Your neighborhood association could decide it doesn't want "your kind" living there. "Home rule" does not trump constitutional limitations on government power.
Adam,
-I don't trust my community to make decisions about my self defense any more than I trust them to make decisions about how I should raise my kids . And I live in Tennessee, which is a fairly gun friendly state, despite or non gun friendly governor. The community has no right to make decisions that directly affect my personal safety just so they can feel safer.
-Protecting yourself may not be a duty, but I don't see how you could argue that protecting your family is. I, however, consider protecting myself a duty, as I am the provider for my family. But I certainly won't tell you that it is your duty. I'm out of your life. All I'm asking is that you get out of mine.
-You may disagree that gun restrictions only have negative effects, but there is ample evidence that they do NOT have the positive effects that the gun control lobby suggests they will. There is also pretty solid evidence that less restrictions for law -abiding citizens have a positive effect.
---For example, Washington D.C. implemented their gun ban in 1976, and between 1976 and 1991, the homicide rate there rose 200% while the rest of the country saw only a 12% increase.
---In "More Guns, Less Crime" John Lott showed that concealed carry laws accounted for 8.5% decrease in the murder rate, a 5% decrease in rape, and 7% decrease in assaults.
-I really don't see why gun rights represent the freedom to threaten terrible violence. Remember that when we talk about gun rights we are only speaking of those who should have guns in the first place. No organization, pro or anti-gun, advocates more guns in the hands of criminals. That's just ludicrous. It's illegal now, and it will continue to be illegal.
---In addition, if you take a look at statistics, you will find that carry permit holders in the U.S. are among the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S. Very, very rarely do the "display" their guns when in public. The majority of permit holders carry concealed for myriad reasons. Among them is respect for those that are less familiar or scared of guns, to avoid any type of elevated tensions.
---Gun ownership may not help your sense of security, but to be blunt, that's just tough. I'm not asking you to carry a gun, or to even own one and keep it locked in a safe. And the truth of the matter is, if you don't live in one of the two states that completely prohibit you from carrying a gun, you have unknowingly stood in line behind a person carrying a gun. You have sat across from them at a restaurant. You have bumped into them walking down the street. Is it your experience that gun owners just take their guns out and wave them around for everyone to see? Of course not. That's because we take the responsibility of gun ownership very seriously. We, as a whole, are more versed in gun laws than the general population because we have to be constantly aware of where and when we can and cannot carry. We, as a whole, are better trained and more practiced than many (not all, of course) law enforcement agents. And there are PLENTY of quotes from the Brady Campaign that show that they seek to ban all firearms eventually, in a phased approach.
-What about ideologically-driven insiders? As of now, the supreme court has ruled that I have a right to carry a firearm, as long as I am not a convicted criminal, etc. But the state of Illinois says I don't have that right. And they say it because they are ideologically-driven, not fact driven. There are no studies that show a correlation between gun control and a decrease in crime , so what other motivation can they have besides ideology?
The idea that "communities should be able to decide"--How far does that go, or does local rule only apply to the second amendment? Was it interference of ideologically-driven outsiders when civil rights organizers came from halfway across the country to try to end racial segregation? Does the city get to forbid a Muslim Mosque?
There is a pretty clear divide between lawful gun owners and criminals. The ones that will be stopped by a law aren't the ones you need worry about--they will obey the existing laws against murder and assault. The ones who will murder and assault aren't going to obey gun laws, either.
I keep seeing statements that the Brady Campaign and their associates won't violate the fundamental right to bear arms, but I have never seen a statement of what guns we would have left, if the Brady Campaign were completely successful. I suspect .22 bolt-action rifles, .410 shotguns and not much else.
All of the following have been proposed as "reasonable restrictions":
The assault weapons ban covered guns that held too much ammo, or looked scary. It covered handguns that were too large and heavy. It regulated bayonet mounts and the way the wood was carved. It forbid handguns that were too large, or that held their magazines in front of the grip, or that were called "Uzi".
The Gun Control Act of 1967 covered imported Saturday Night Specials that working class people could afford. Several localities have extended that restriction to domestically produced guns with the same features and design.
Guns .50 caliber and larger are "too powerful" and "used to bring down airplanes".
A ban on "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating police body armor.
Many people not familiar with the details would think that these are all reasonable restrictions. However:
The Glock models 17 and 22 are the standard full-sized handgun that many police departments issue. They are large enough that many departments issue the slightly smaller models 19 and 23 instead. All of these guns, as carried by tens of thousands of policemen were covered by the now expired assault weapons ban--"too big" for civilians to carry unless you used special reduced capacity magazines. Oddly, they are also covered by the 1967 law--Glock has to put click-adjustable sights on them to get enough "points" so they are not classified as a "Saturday Night Special" or "Junk Gun". The click sighs are generally replaced by the original versions by the importer before sale. If these guns are simultaneously too big and too small, what is left in between?
The "cop killer" rules would ban ALL common rifle ammunition except .22 rimfire. The standard body armor as worn by police is only meant to protect against handguns--in order to protect against rifle with current technology, the armor would need to be far bulkier than it is.
Some of the laws that are promoted as banning the .50BMG also cover revolutionary war flintlock muskets, and all common shotguns except the .410. There is usually an exception for shotguns "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" as decided by some bureaucrat-- But we promise this won't be used to take *your* shotgun, honest. .
Hollow point ammo is "so deadly it is forbidden to be used in warfare", and therefore not suitable. Jacketed ammo is "too military".
To me, gun rights represent freedom and self-reliance rather than subservience. They do not represent the right to use my gun to get my way--If I use a gun or the threat of one to win an argument, I should be prosecuted and go to jail. I already have the power to take life. The gun gives me the power to protect life and liberty.
Wanting to pass laws is not seditious!
I'm not sure what you are responding to. Maybe it would be more productive to find out what restrictions you think are reasonable and constitutional.
Which of the proposed or actual laws I mentioned above are reasonable, and why?
Are any of my facts in error?
Where is the line between a constitutional local law and an unconstitutional infringement?
You asked me what part can be ignored, I responded - None of it!
I am a true fan of lifetime appointments to the judiciary. I was of the opinion that the DC ban should stand, but now that the SCOTUS has struck that down I accept that it crossed the line that you are asking about. I was a supporter of the assault weapons ban, in theory, but when I looked up the definition it seemed kind of arbitrary. It seems like we could arrive at a better definition of the weapons to be proscribed. I do believe that the 2nd does not confer the right to any weapon (weaponized anthrax? surface to air missiles?), so there is another line to be discussed.
Regarding specifics, I am not familiar with many of the regulations that you mention. Banning cop killer ammunition seems like a no brainer. Likewise, I don't think background checks constitute too large an infringement. I think there should be very tight regulation of gun dealers. I think it is stupid to have students on campuses carrying guns. Seeing a gun in a National Park would lower my enjoyment of the park. But I am not trying to change your opinions about these issues. I am not an ideologue. I accept that I might be wrong. Guns are a right, laws get passed, the issues get adjudicated, we move forward.
I get offended when ideologues try to tell me that my community is somehow wrong to pass gun regulations, suggest that they know best how to ensure our safety, or mistakenly believe that our democratically elected government is out of our control.
Legislation is part of finding the lines that we agree exist.
You have apparently fallen for many of the anti-gun side's tricks. Not surprising--there is usually a big difference between the headline and the fine print, and it takes at least a hobbyist level of knowledge to reliably spot the real effects.
The specifics matter, a lot. How would you define an assault weapon, so it gets the "bad" guns, but leaves the ones you think are OK? The vast majority of hunting guns are derived from former military weapons, and fully automatic weapons are already tightly regulated. The semi-automatic copies that the assault weapon ban covered usually had less powerful ammunition, but more of it. The rest is just cosmetic--they work just the same as hunting guns, a single trigger pull shoots one bullet.
My view of the second amendment is that it is an individual right, and therefore applies to individual weapons--The types of weapons useful to and operated by a single infantry soldier. Anthrax and SAMs are not individual weapons. Handguns and rifles are protected.
"Banning cop killer ammunition seems like a no brainer." Only without an understanding of the fine print. Almost all the proposals also ban most or all standard rifle ammunition more powerful than .22 rimfire. Do you really support a law that bans all deer rifles?
The problem with background checks isn't with the check, it is with registration and the elimination of private sales that full registration would require. I'm fine with the current system, although I would like a lot more effort to investigate people who fail a background check, and arrest them if appropriate. Less than 1% of failed checks result in an arrest--Either the checks are denying people they shouldn't, or not enough people are being prosecuted for lying on the form.
Several issues with guns in national parks--Some highways go through a national park, and someone who is allowed to carry on both sides of the park is not allowed to pass through. What most of us really want is for the rules in a national park to be the same as the rules elsewhere in that state. I am allowed to carry a handgun in most states, I'd like the same rights within parks in that state. If a person is NOT allowed to carry elsewhere in that state, I have little complaint if he is similarly restricted in a national park in that state.
Many communities try to pass laws that are clearly against state law. This is especially vital to people traveling through, and to people with concealed handgun licenses. I have a concealed handgun license. In my home state there was a time when one of my guns was illegal to carry in Cincinnati, but fine in Columbus. The other was illegal in Columbus, but fine in Cincinnati. Other towns and cities had similar rules, and it really isn't practical to figure out these different rules for every town you will pass through.
You are talking about exactly the details of governing that I am defending. It is no easy matter to write a good law. As long as the debate is over the details of governing we can both be happy. You don't suggest I am un-American for wanting good laws. I don't suggest that you are a bad person for advocating for the constitutional right to bear arms.
I don't really want to get into the actual details (just as a time issue), but since you accused me of being tricked I looked up the cop-killer issue. I can only find propaganda (tricks) linking armor piercing rounds to a hunting rifle ban. Have you actually read the fine print? Many officers are hunters, why would so many police organizations support the ban? Are you suggesting that they are being tricked also?
I'll try to be brief about the history of "cop killer" bullets...
Ballistic vests used by police are meant to stop some handgun rounds. Level IIa vests should stop most common handgun rounds, but not all of them--Jacketed rounds in 9mm and up, hollowpoints in .357 and up can penetrate. Level II is a step up, level III is another step up. Both are stronger but bulkier.
None are rated to stop rifle ammo. Even though IIa is common, and is not rated to stop all handgun ammo, no policeman wearing IIa or above has ever been killed by a handgun round penetrating the vest.
In the 70's a small company was developing ammo for law enforcement to work better against subjects inside cars. They eventually settled on a solid brass bullet, but this damaged guns, so they added a teflon coating to protect the gun. Neither the construction nor the coating were intended to defeat vests, and the ammo was only sold to law enforcement.
The solid core construction had an additional result of being able to penetrate vests. The Teflon coating was a minor contribution at best.
Bills were introduced to ban any ammo capable of defeating a ballistic vest. The result would have been a ban on nearly all rifle ammo, ammo that the vests were never intended to protect against. The NRA worked to change this to a ban on certain construction methods in handgun ammo. These are the laws we have now, passed without any evidence that there is or would have been a genuine problem.
Periodically bills substantially similar to the original versions are introduced--these are the ones I object to. There is no evidence that they are needed, and the side effects would eliminate almost all ammunition for almost all rifles. I think that eliminating rifle ammo is the actual goal, but with "protection of police" (against a nonexistent threat) the justification.