No.

While the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated under the 14th to be applicable upon the states the citizen's right to keep and bear arms is federally protected from state action simply by the nature of our form of government. The Constitution's promise to forever provide a republican form of government means certain conditions are inseparable components. One of those conditions is the armed citizen standing as reserve militia upon whom the states and the federal government rely for security.

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

Those "sections under review" was part of the Illinois state militia law, "which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, . . . "

I agree. They would be enraged if they could come back and see the daily carnage that we have allowed on our streets, in no small part due to our bizarre obsession with the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

I can almost hear Thomas Jefferson now: It would probably go something like:

"What have you people done?? This is not what we meant!!"

The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms does not depend upon "the wording of the 2nd Amendment." No matter what significance you place upon the words of the 2nd the absolute silence of the Constitution regarding the private arms of the citizen is even more telling regarding the founder's intent. No power was ever conferred to the federal government to act against the private arms of the citizen so none exists.

The 2nd Amendment is a redundancy forbidding the exercise of powers that do not exist.

The reason we have high crime is that we have a peculiar way of dealing with those who attack, injure and kill the responsible members of society . . .we put them back out on the street.

Oh please, not another, "I'm using bold and big fonts because I'm all seeing!" poster.

That's fine. I read your previous discussion on this subject. But even if you're correct, as a practical matter the attitudes in this country toward firearms and the regulation thereof are in large part based on interpretations of the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Do you think it might also have something to do with the peculiar way in which we allow millions of virtually unregulated firearms to float around the nation, immediately available to those who would attack, injure, and kill?

Don't get excited. The big/bold was merely to emphasize the anger I believe Thomas Jefferson would express if he were able to observe the level of gun violence that we tolerate in this country. Nothing to do with "all seeing".

I think it has everything to do with the unregulated firearms, which are owned, traded, sold, bartered, and used by criminals.

Law abiding citizens are not causing crimes - See the inherent enigma with that?

For people to use that argument, "immediately available," assumes a lot about people in general. I have not lived a innocent life, and I don't know anyone I could just go pick up a gun from - unless I was already involved with those kinds of people - meaning the knowledge of how to get one and the necessity to use one become intertwined.

Unless you're planning on stealing. But then, if you're stealing that's a whole other problem.

And people have been attacking, injuring, and killing other people long before guns came out, even before the age of metal. If someone wants to attack, injure and kill someone they're going to, they're not going to let the absence of a gun impede that.

On that, criminals will always be criminals, no matter what you "allow" to be on the street, or in shops, and are always going to take what they want, through force. Guns are a tool, they will use that tool to achieve their objectives.

Why should citizens be disarmed and at a disadvantage because the government is trying to get guns out of the hands of the criminals? Take guns away from the citizens and you enable the criminals.

Most importantly though, disarm the citizens and the government has nothing to fear. Yes, I say that specifically. A government should be wary of it's people, the people should never fear their government.

__________________
Ignorance Empowers The Corrupt

And many, many citizens firmly yet mistakingly believe that we have a democracy as a form of governance. Some think that as far as guns go, if the majority says ban 'em, that's it! Gun nuts gotta turn 'em in!.

People today don't have the same affinity for the precision of language that the founders enjoyed and so obviously celebrated by immersing themselves in it (this thread is a prime example). Words had specific meanings, and two terms like "rights" and "powers" were actually considered antonyms, representing concepts in complete philosophical opposition to each other. Now we constantly hear of "government having the right to . . . "

I blame the schools. . .

I am quite confident that the Supreme Court will continue its unwavering endorsement of the individual right to keep and bear arms and re-right this constitutional ship regarding the 2nd Amendment. I fear quite a few liberals, if they don't have a firm grip on a handrail risk being pitched overboard.
Not really because the overwhelming majority of firearms in private hands are of no risk to anyone. Approximately 3.5 million guns are added to the citizen's arsenal each year; estimates of civilian gun ownership center on about 65-75 million people owning 300 million guns. If more guns equal more murder how do you explain 8000 fewer murders in 2003 than in 1993 when some 30+ million more guns were added to the nation?

Most gun crime is committed by people who have already shown no regard for the rules of society; 75% of murderers have prior histories of violent crime. The money and time wasted watching and worrying about the law-abiding would be better applied watching the law-breakers.

My problem with using this amendment as justification to allow every nut to carry a gun:
What exists now is compeltely unregulated

This seems to indicate some form of group exists, with a command structure. Not some thug or group of thugs shooting anything that moves in the inner city.

It's rather clear that the culture that exists only goes to decrease the security of the state

There are a lot of conditions that come before this statement, or at least there are in the constitution. In practice, there are none.

It's not justifying anything. To justify implies partiality, of which the Constitution does not allow. Your idea of what a nut job is is not defining.

If you want to wrongly use the word justify in line with the Constitution fine, I'll argue that way; It also justifies every man, woman, and child (yes, child) who has picked up and used their gun in self defense over the past 200 years.

I think we have different ideas of regulation. I feel having to obtain a license and be cleared through background *at least in most states* to purchase most firearms to be a rather typical and strict regulatory measure.

These groups really are supposed to exist, in the ideal world, a militia of non-government men, but of course the military in it's many names and forms has taken the will of self vigilance out of most.

But I'd like you to please give me ANY valid sources of Militia shooting randomly in ANY city.

Clear? To whom, you? Please explain how our culture is responsible for the fall of security in this state? The culture does not make the laws, we are governed by a group of politicians who oversee everything. We can only work with what is given to us. How can you possibly say that culture decreases security?

Name ANY condition that has direct or indirect relation to the 2nd Amendment that in any way takes away from, adds to, or alters the meaning of it's writings.

In practice... what are none?

__________________
Ignorance Empowers The Corrupt

Wrong. The 2nd justifies nuts carrying guns like the 1st Amendment justifies child pornographers. A right to keep and bear arms is only recognizable and protected for lawful and legitimate activities.

Wrong. There are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books but laws only modify the behavior of the law-abiding. Criminals, by their very nature do not obey or abide the law. Using the behavior of the criminal to benchmark the actions of the law-abiding is illegitimate.

The declaratory clause (the first "half" of the Amendment) is not creating conditions or qualifications on the right, it is only telling everyone why the pre-existing right is being secured. Militia in the Revolutionary period were defined as anyone capable of bearing arms and working in concert.

Madison in discussing militia (as set apart from a "standing army" of "regulars") explained the ratios of "whole souls" and 'standing army" and the militia. In a nation of 3 million souls (circa late 1780's) Madison said an army not greater than 30,000 could be maintained. He said that this force would be "opposed" by a half million citizens with arms in their hands.

Those ratios remain spot-on today . . . We have 300 million "total souls," 2.9 million in our armed forces and 65 million citizens with "arms in their hands."

That statement demonstrates your shallow understanding of the general principles at work here.

There are no conditions established by the 2nd. The declaratory clause is not even a sentence. It commands no action, it binds no action, it neither creates or demands any structure be in place . . .

The founders were linguists and were well acquainted with Latin and their writings show this. The construction, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is an absolute phrase (specifically an absolute ablative).

An absolute phrase might explain why what follows happens or perhaps why it may be prudent to take the following action but it does not change or condition or create a dependency on what follows. Let's examine a simple one:

All things considered, it’s not a bad idea.

Whether or not the idea is bad or not does not depend upon if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered or that anything must be considered to in fact decide if the idea is bad or not.

Here, try these on for size; let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions into sentences constructed like the 2nd Amendment with an absolute phrase preceding the actionable phrase . . .

A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.

Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work?
Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "deautoed" because they do not work?
Can the people only drive on a well maintained road system?
Can they only drive on those roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
Are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route be the only one deemed legal?

A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Can only registered voters (the electorate) keep and read books?
Can only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read?
Can only those with an government certified IQ above 100 and deemed "well educated" by the government, keep and read books?

And one just for fun . . .

A pretty blue sky being necessary for the enjoyment of a picnic, the right of the people to keep and eat hams shall not be infringed.

Can the people only eat hams at a picnic?
Can hams only be eaten and picnics only be held under pretty blue skies?

Expecting to fully understand the 2nd with just a simple reading of the words applying modern definitions to the lexicon of the founders leads to the statements I'm rebutting. Jefferson speaks directly to this present state of 2nd Amendment "interpretation."

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Doing that completely extinguishes your points.

From Europe Rick:

For one thing, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted in 1993 and went into effect on February 28, 1994.


Instead of comparing the USA to itself, let's take a look at the rest of the planet:

The following information was extracted from the World Health Organization Report on Violence and Health, 2001 (see the link below).

Annual Homicides by Guns:

• Austria 1999: 17 total/0.0 per 100,000 population
• Australia 1998: 56 total/0.3 per 100,000 population
• Germany 1999: 155 total/0.2 per 100,000 population
• Japan 1997: 22 total/0.0 per 100,000 population
• Sweden 1996: 11 total/0.0 per 100,000 population
• U.K. 1999: 45 total/0.1 per 100,000 population
• USA 1998: 11802 total/4.4 per 100,000 population

This information can be found in Table A.10 beginning on Page 322 of the report.

You'll note that all of the listed countries are wealthy, first-world, industrial democracies. You'll also note that the gun homicide rate in the USA is 20 times that in Germany, 40 times that in the U.K. and 200 times that in Japan. Comparisons with other democracies are similarly unfavorable. How would you explain this apparent anomaly?

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_p...en/full_en.pdf


Most proponents of gun regulation are not concerned with law-abiding gun owners. The idea is to dry up the supply of illegal firearms on the street to get them out of the hands of the law-breakers. Steps could be taken to achieve this objective with minimal inconvenience to legitimate gun owners and without violating their 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry: I mis-spoke: I meant to say "without violating their inherent right since the beginning of time to bear arms."