The Second Amendment 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 debate over this is whether this clause was intended for only the militia or regular citizens as well. Gun right advocates prefer to focus on the second part “right of the people” and ignore the first “well-regulated militia.” The “well-regulated militia” was added for a reason, and I think it was not just a suggestion.
To understand what the amendment meant to convey, we need to look at the historical context that in which it was written. The founding fathers believed that freedom without regulation could only lead to anarchy. They thought if a group of citizens were given guns then they could quickly become a mob and that was not what is considered a well-regulated militia. A law in 1786 even prohibited the storage of any loaded gun in any building in Boston.
Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment. This changed when right-wing think-tanks started an effort to rewrite the amendment’s history. This was not initially well received; former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger called the idea that an individual should be allowed to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” The revisionism did win in 2008 when the Supreme Court broke away from 70 years of established jurisprudence and stated that the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to have guns in their home for self-defense.
I do believe that American citizens should have the right to carry arms. The way the conditions are these days, citizens should have the ability to protect themselves, but it should not be easy to obtain a firearm. There needs to be more gun control enacted by the government to prevent unnecessary deaths.
Guns are one of the leading causes of death by homicide and suicide. Between 2009 and 2013, Guns were the cause of 66.6 percent of all homicides, 52.2 percent of all suicides. Having stricter gun laws would make it harder for people to acquire guns, which may result in the reduction of deaths caused by guns.
Incidents like the Orlando nightclub shooting that happened on June 12, 2016, where 50 people were killed and 53 injured at a gay nightclub by a single shooter. The shooter, Omar Mateen, had been previously investigated for terrorist ties by the Federal Bureau of Investigation but was still able to purchase a gun easily. Incidents like Cedric Anderson who walked into a classroom and open fired, resulting in the death of three people, earlier this year. These events are the reason why it should be more difficult for American citizens to acquire guns.
Studies have shown that gun control does work. The largest study, done by Julian Santaella-Tenorio, Magdalena Cerdá, Andrés Villaveces and Sandro Galea, looks at 130 studies done on gun control in the past year over 10 countries. The study concluded that a major legislative overhaul is needed to make a significant amount of change. It also found that restricting peoples access to guns and their ability to purchase guns is associated with a reduction in deaths caused by firearms.
For example, in Australia, they implemented gun control in 1996 after a mass shooting by one gunman in Tasmania. This has helped bring down the rate of death by guns in Australia. It decreased from 0.54 to 0.15 per 100,000 people. The number of murders has also gone down from 311 to 238 per year even though the population has increased and in this, the rate of death by firearms has decreased from 98 percent to 35 percent. There have also been no mass shootings since the gun control laws have been implemented.
Gun control has worked for other nations, and it is about time America starts applying it. How many incidents like the Orlando night club shooting will it take for us to realize that we need to change our gun laws? How many school shootings will it take for us to realize that there is a problem in the system that needs to be fixed? It should be harder for people to obtain firearms.
"...Reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of deaths, as every other developed country's experience shows...."
The only problem with that statement is that it is another bald-faced lie. Kate's and Mauser showed the truth.
Yet another clueless attempt ton control the sheeple. This is simply WRONG on so many counts, I don't know where to start.
Ever read 10USC 311? It legally defines the militia, and the author is probably a member.
The US Constitution was written as a restriction on the Federal Government, all of which confirm individual rights. The 10th Amendment is yet another misrepresented element of our government.
The Federalist Papers discusses this topic, yet the author thinks this INDIVIDUAL right was created in the 1980s???
The most disappointing part of this propaganda is not that the author believes this trash but that our schools are teaching these lies daily.
Don't forget Dred Scott in 1859
Yet another clueless attempt ton control the sheeple. This is simply WRONG on so many counts, I don't know where to start.
Ever read 10USC 311? It legally defines the militia, and the author is probably a member.
The US Constitution was written as a restriction on the Federal Government, all of which confirm individual rights. The 10th Amendment is yet another misrepresented element of our government.
The Federalist Papers discusses this topic, yet the author thinks this INDIVIDUAL right was created in the 1980s???
The most disappointing part of this propaganda is not that the author believes this trash but that our schools are teaching these lies daily.
Don't forget Dred Scott in 1859
Just to correct a few errors. The rights of individuals was a major part of the debate and passage of the fourth amendment. It was the Second Amendment ratified by the States. The First Amendment was actually the third amendment as passed by Congress.
The right of the individual citizen was recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1859 Dred Scott case. It was not a creation of modern think-tanks.
In 1939 the Supreme Court also recognized the individual right when they said about the only thing they knew for sure about the right to keep and bear arms was that "when summoned, the militia was expected to appear bearing their private arms" of the type then in current military service. The MILLER case was not decided since there was no evidence presented to the Court since the Federal Judge in Arkansas had dismissed the charges against Miller before the trial when he said the entire 1934 National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. The government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court and was the only party to appear.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to Arkansas for the trial so that evidence would be "within judicial notice" and they could render an opinion. That trial never happened and the government has been enforcing the 1934 without the initial ruling of unconstitutionality being ruled upon.
The Gun Free School Zone Law was found to be unconstitutional in the Lopez case before the Supreme Court. One reason the Court so ruled was because Congress did not show any authority to ban firearms in and near schools. Congress wrote a few unsubstantiated claims about how guns adversely effected schools and education, an area that the federal government was financially supporting.
If the claims inserted into the preamble of Title 18§922(q) as justification are studied today, they would be shown to be false and without merit.
None of these cases should exist, because there is no subject matter jurisdiction over bearing arms. The only time a case should appear in American Jurisprudence is when someone harms someone with a weapon, and that person should be punished according to the law concerning his actions, not his weapon. The courts take jurisdiction through the Interstate Commerce Clause, a clear misconstruction of an unrelated statute.
The Supreme failed to issue an injunction against enforcement when they remanded the case. So the government and the media just pretend that the 1934 law was upheld. The only decision was from the Arkansas Federal Court which ruled the entire 1934 National Firearms Act to be unconstitutional.
Long practice does not make a law constitutional or proper.
Slavery was long standard human practice. That does not make it right.
I hope that the Supreme Court will review all the "gun control" cases and laws going back to Dred Scott, Cruikshank, Presser in light of HELLER and McDonald.
Outlaw bridges and building to control and prevent suicide.
Outlaw bridges and building to control and prevent suicide.
“Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment”
So when was it again that Dred Scott was decided? 1982? 1983?
The 2nd does not grant any rights, individual or collective. The 2nd is a limitation on the federal government. The right to bear arms is secured by not being enumerated or a power granted to regulate it.
“Until the 1980s, there was no such thing as the “individual rights” theory of the Second Amendment”
So when was it again that Dred Scott was decided? 1982? 1983?
The 2nd does not grant any rights, individual or collective. The 2nd is a limitation on the federal government. The right to bear arms is secured by not being enumerated or a power granted to regulate it.
"former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger called the idea that an individual should be allowed to bear arms “one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime"
Good ol Warren Burger.
A SC Justice who never participated in a 2nd Amendment decision nor wrote a law review article about it either.
His claim to fame about it was an article in Parade Magazine from where this quote was taken.
So, the kid that wrote this tripe is in good company when he quotes Burger - neither of them have any idea of what the 2A really means.
You, like so many others, have the idea that the founders wrote the 2nd, and it was to protect militias. You are correct, and yet, not.
Yes, the framers of the Constitution did want to protect militias, but from a federal government who they feared would create something like a National Guard, under federal control, and disband state level militias. But that is the extent of your correctness.
The founders did not write the 2nd, the English did, years before. The Magna Carta, a check on Sovereign Power of the King, was the first time the 2nd was in print as far as I know. There were many editions of this document. But OUR version was penned by the states, and ratification of our Constitution on the state level denied unless it were included into our founding charter.
The People demanded it, the People were not giving up the powers they so clearly won from England. They did not trust the founders, Mason, Madison, Franklin, to protect them from an out of control federal government. The Right to Bear Arms was not protected, enshrined, defined or controlled by the new government, at all, and no provision was granted within the founding charter to control that specific right. The founders wanted to leave it at that, afraid that something like the 2nd could be used against the very people who wrote it.
Madison, when he penned the final version of the Bill of Rights, an addition to the federal charter, he wrote, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The key here is the phrase, " in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." The 2nd was demanded by the states, penned by Madison, and included as the people's check on federal power, but saying that under no circumstances will the Right to Bear Arms be limited, denied, disparaged, replaced, limited, hindered, Infringed, by the government. It was rock solid, written in stone, and the limitation was stomped on just about as soon as the ink was dry. The government does not like being told no, and the beast it becomes based on it's documents requires that good men fight to keep it in line.
So when you read the 2nd as a statute written by the government as a good will gesture toward state militias, somehow corrupted to allow the common man to own weapons, you spit on the rights of every American, you disarm, by force, the victims of many crimes. But when you try to justify the very laws that made the Pulse nightclub shooting possible, you make a mockery of the right, stand on the bodies of the dead to preach your agenda, you show your true colors as an enemy to Freedom and Liberty, and a friend to every murderer who has ever used a gun free zone to do his or her killing.
The right to bear arms is not the 2nd, the 2nd is a limitation on the government, the same government you people use as a club against those who you find objectionable, because you are too much of a coward to come try to take our guns, yourself.
You, like so many others, have the idea that the founders wrote the 2nd, and it was to protect militias. You are correct, and yet, not.
Yes, the framers of the Constitution did want to protect militias, but from a federal government who they feared would create something like a National Guard, under federal control, and disband state level militias. But that is the extent of your correctness.
The founders did not write the 2nd, the English did, years before. The Magna Carta, a check on Sovereign Power of the King, was the first time the 2nd was in print as far as I know. There were many editions of this document. But OUR version was penned by the states, and ratification of our Constitution on the state level denied unless it were included into our founding charter.
The People demanded it, the People were not giving up the powers they so clearly won from England. They did not trust the founders, Mason, Madison, Franklin, to protect them from an out of control federal government. The Right to Bear Arms was not protected, enshrined, defined or controlled by the new government, at all, and no provision was granted within the founding charter to control that specific right. The founders wanted to leave it at that, afraid that something like the 2nd could be used against the very people who wrote it.
Madison, when he penned the final version of the Bill of Rights, an addition to the federal charter, he wrote, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The key here is the phrase, " in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." The 2nd was demanded by the states, penned by Madison, and included as the people's check on federal power, but saying that under no circumstances will the Right to Bear Arms be limited, denied, disparaged, replaced, limited, hindered, Infringed, by the government. It was rock solid, written in stone, and the limitation was stomped on just about as soon as the ink was dry. The government does not like being told no, and the beast it becomes based on it's documents requires that good men fight to keep it in line.
So when you read the 2nd as a statute written by the government as a good will gesture toward state militias, somehow corrupted to allow the common man to own weapons, you spit on the rights of every American, you disarm, by force, the victims of many crimes. But when you try to justify the very laws that made the Pulse nightclub shooting possible, you make a mockery of the right, stand on the bodies of the dead to preach your agenda, you show your true colors as an enemy to Freedom and Liberty, and a friend to every murderer who has ever used a gun free zone to do his or her killing.
The right to bear arms is not the 2nd, the 2nd is a limitation on the government, the same government you people use as a club against those who you find objectionable, because you are too much of a coward to come try to take our guns, yourself.
The right to bear arms was secured when we won the war for our independence. It was never granted to the federal government to regulate, because the founders did not trust the government. The 9th and 10th amendments clearly state that the right belongs to the individual. The 2nd says it is the right of the People. The 9th says that the right was not enumerated so it belongs to the people. The 10th says that the right was retained by The People, and not granted to the government. Open Carry is protected by the 1st, as a show of force, or a freedom of expression. The government is barred from regulating the right under the 2nd, and the 5th protects The People from illegal taking of weapons or rights by our government. There is NO WAY that under our Constitution, the government, from federal level to city courts, can take our rights.
They do it anyway, and try like crazy to justify it.
Not much you can say to an author that is so woefully ignorant of facts and history. There is only one way to interpret the 2nd amendment. I am personally prepared to give my life protecting my right to bear arms. Are you personally prepared to give your life trying to deprive me of that right? If not, then all you are spewing is worthless liberal diatribe.
BTW, I am tired of immigrants over the last 50 years...coming to this country and instead of assimilating, continuously attempt to redefine or rewrite our history. I can remember when it first started...press one for English... press two for...
What absolute garbage. There isn't a single paragraph in this essay that does not contain either a glaring error or an outright lie... in many cases both.
It's not even worth trying to respond to this kind of drivel. Do yourself a favor and get back 30 second of your life and give it a miss. You'll be better off.
What absolute garbage. There isn't a single paragraph in this essay that does not contain either a glaring error or an outright lie... in many cases both.
It's not even worth trying to respond to this kind of drivel. Do yourself a favor and get back 30 second of your life and give it a miss. You'll be better off.
Thanks. That decision is laughable, reading like old, doddering Stevens's dissent in Heller. It uses as its main support "Mr. Bishop['s textbook] on Statutory Crimes", which apparently claims that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies "only to war and possibly also to insurrections...". Seems to me that it would be supremely unwise to have to wait for your right to own a gun to suddenly appear once a war or insurrection has already begun; it completely defeats the idea of having an already-armed unorganized militia. The Court and Mr. Bishop also seem therefore to say that the right of self-defense (rather than common defense) simply does not exist.
The decision's sole (supposedly) supporting case-law is from Massachusetts, where the conviction of a man under a law prohibiting "drill or parade with fire-arms" was upheld, even though "[t]he guns, however, had been intentionally made so defective as to be incapable of being discharged."
Unlike in Kansas, in Massachusetts citizens continue without a meaningful right of the people to keep and bear arms, as mere ownership of firearms requires an arbitrary-criteria, full-discretion-of-the-issuer, "may-issue" license--again, that license is required just for ownership within your home.
Justice Scalia completely debunked the so-called "arguments" of this article in his opinion in Heller v DC of 2008.
And then let's not bother with all the lies perpetrated with half-truths regarding gun control decreasing crimes with guns, but doing nothing against the increase of crimes without guns.
This fallacy is even more visible with the claims of decreases of suicides with guns while ignoring the UNCHANGED total suicide numbers, which clearly show that without guns, people who committed suicide used other means. Ergo removing the guns
a) did not reduce TOTAL suicides
b) proof that guns are NOT the CAUSE of suicides, and eople do not commit suicide because a gun is available
This is a really, really bad gun control propaganda re-hash.
But the principle of the Big Lie is simple
You keep repeating the same lie over and over, and after a time people will start believing it's true, simply because it has been repeated so many times.
Justice Scalia completely debunked the so-called "arguments" of this article in his opinion in Heller v DC of 2008.
And then let's not bother with all the lies perpetrated with half-truths regarding gun control decreasing crimes with guns, but doing nothing against the increase of crimes without guns.
This fallacy is even more visible with the claims of decreases of suicides with guns while ignoring the UNCHANGED total suicide numbers, which clearly show that without guns, people who committed suicide used other means. Ergo removing the guns
a) did not reduce TOTAL suicides
b) proof that guns are NOT the CAUSE of suicides, and eople do not commit suicide because a gun is available
This is a really, really bad gun control propaganda re-hash.
But the principle of the Big Lie is simple
You keep repeating the same lie over and over, and after a time people will start believing it's true, simply because it has been repeated so many times.
As an Australian I can tell you that the author is being very selective regards the crime statistics here.
The only real fall in Australian firearms deaths has been in suicides but the suicide rate itself has not fallen - in fact it has on occasion gone up a little - so the only noticeable/statistical effect of firearms regulation in Australia is that people have been gassing themselves with carbon monoxide in the garage rather than using the .22 rifle.
Additionally, New Zealand had some gun massacres and they fixed the problem by concentrating on ensuring that only sane people without a criminal record had firearms and they did not concern themselves with changing the type of firearms that people owned, and it has given New Zealand a better and safer outcome than in Australia.
The Australian experiment with stricter firearms regulation is a failure but the government and the gun-control nuts cannot bring themselves to admit it so they selectively put out one sided press statements and so-called statistics to prove to themselves that they are never wrong.
Mike,
Is there a site where the data you claim has been put together into a coherent display ?
If not, then do you have cites supporting your position ?
It's very difficult to knock down the claims of the great success of gun control, unless one can show the claims to be false.
As an Australian I can tell you that the author is being very selective regards the crime statistics here.
The only real fall in Australian firearms deaths has been in suicides but the suicide rate itself has not fallen - in fact it has on occasion gone up a little - so the only noticeable/statistical effect of firearms regulation in Australia is that people have been gassing themselves with carbon monoxide in the garage rather than using the .22 rifle.
Additionally, New Zealand had some gun massacres and they fixed the problem by concentrating on ensuring that only sane people without a criminal record had firearms and they did not concern themselves with changing the type of firearms that people owned, and it has given New Zealand a better and safer outcome than in Australia.
The Australian experiment with stricter firearms regulation is a failure but the government and the gun-control nuts cannot bring themselves to admit it so they selectively put out one sided press statements and so-called statistics to prove to themselves that they are never wrong.
Mike,
Is there a site where the data you claim has been put together into a coherent display ?
If not, then do you have cites supporting your position ?
It's very difficult to knock down the claims of the great success of gun control, unless one can show the claims to be false.
Oh yes this argument again but let's please go back and read the older laws were you were required to have a musket was 40 shots to know how to use it. For those of fighting age.
But this is along the same nonsense as the collective right argument I've heard about the Second Amendment.
But if I'm not mistaken don't some states how about now of right to die law?
Oh yes this argument again but let's please go back and read the older laws were you were required to have a musket was 40 shots to know how to use it. For those of fighting age.
But this is along the same nonsense as the collective right argument I've heard about the Second Amendment.
But if I'm not mistaken don't some states how about now of right to die law?
I enjoyed your wonderful blog.
Thank you for the very hard work done.
I enjoyed your wonderful blog.
Thank you for the very hard work done.