The second amendment to the Constitution reads, “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.” This one sentence amendment has created quite a bit of consternation in efforts to exact the meaning that our forefathers tried to impart. Unfortunately, in attempting to understand what “the right to bear arms” means, there is a tendency to interpret parts of this sentence instead of the sentence as a whole. Further, the historical context in which this idea was created and the technological advances in “arms” over the years are not always considered when interpreting this American “right.” The truth of the matter is that the second amendment is not about the right of the individual; it is about national security and the importance of citizen involvement in keeping the nation secure. Let me explain…
A quick look back at the history will reveal that this amendment was first added in the 1780’s. This was a time when America had just achieved independence from England. However, the new government was in debt and could not afford to accommodate a large, standing defense force for protection. As such, it was vital for each state to maintain a militia, or local armed force, to aid in protecting the nation. In addition to providing protection for the nation as a whole, states and citizens benefited from this arrangement because the state militias would also serve as a barrier against a federal government seeking to grow too powerful. Finally, as many citizens already owned firearms for the purpose of hunting and protection (remember that America was a wilderness nation without supermarkets or drive through windows), this amendment was a practical method of preventing thousands of people from becoming criminals overnight.
In the 1780’s, this kind of reasoning made perfect sense, both practically and financially, and the technology of firearms was still in its infancy. Single shot rifles and pistols, while potentially deadly, were simply too cumbersome and inaccurate to be a real threat to the general public. Their best use was in hunting game, when one could be patient, or when combined with many similar weapons on the battlefield, where they could repel an invading army through sheer number. The founding fathers could no more imagine multiple shot firearms with precision accuracy over thousands of yards anymore than they could envision television or genetically altered grains. They did not imagine a world filled with dangerous weapons that had the capability to kill dozens of people in the beat of a heart. They simply wanted to assure the citizenry that the common defense of the nation was a shared obligation, and as such, the permission to keep weapons for that purpose was a privilege and a right.
Fast forward a hundred years, and the advances in technology and the growth of the United States reveal a new attitude and interpretation of the second amendment. As America’s territory grew, so did its need for a more permanent defense force. As America grew, its productivity advanced its economic growth. So by the 1880’s we now had a larger national defense force of permanent standing that was supported, outfitted and regulated by the national government. State militias still existed, but their function transformed from being the first line of defense to being the back-up players, assisting state enforcement agencies in times of civil unrest or natural disaster. Modernization of the factory combined with technical advancements in design also occurred in this era, combining to create more powerful, easier to use firearms in greater numbers than ever before. Unfortunately, better firearms meant that their usefulness for criminal activities was greater than in the past, and many outlaws thrived behind the power of a six-shooter. All of a sudden, the right to bear arms had become the right to wield power and the benevolence of the second amendment ceased to exist. No longer did the right to bear arms have anything to do with maintaining national security by means of a citizen defense force. Now the right to bear arms meant that you could have your guns for any reason at all and nobody could tell you otherwise. If they did, well then they just might have a chat with Mr. Colt himself. And I’m not talking about old Samuel.
Another skip forward to today reveals how far removed we are from the time of the creation of the second amendment. Our national defense budget is one of our greatest expenditures. Firearms are more deadly, accurate, and available than ever before. Criminal use of firearms as a choice weapon has become epidemic. Accidental firearm deaths are not uncommon. And the advances in gun technology are not in the area of safety but in the area of efficiency. Efficiency, meaning more deadly. In today’s world, what do you think the writers of our Constitution would have to say about the “right to bear arms?”
I’m sure that by now you have gotten the impression that I am an anti-gun advocate. The truth is that I am nothing of the kind. I have owned guns. I have used guns. I know many people who have and use guns. At times, I really enjoy firing off some rounds at a target. Further, I support the notion that gun ownership is a protected right under our Constitution. But I do not believe that it is an absolute right unto itself. The ability to own and use deadly weapons should carry with it certain obligations. And the manufacturers of deadly weapons should be held to strict guidelines before they can offer their wares to the public or to other nations. In that spirit, I offer the following reforms regarding our national gun policy.
With regards to individual ownership of guns (I know that some of these are already part of the law, but to be as inclusive as possible, I will list them again): Sales of guns should be limited to adult individuals of military service age; all firearms should be registered with the government, including the weapon type, the name of the owner, and the state in which the owner lives; all firearms owners should be registered with a state militia and trained in the defensive uses of firearms; all gun sales, including guns sold on the secondary market, should include an individual criminal background check; no gun should be sold to any individual who has not completed a gun safety course prior to purchase; no felon who was convicted of using a gun in a crime should be allowed to purchase a gun again, and any gun used in a criminal act should be destroyed once its use as evidence has concluded.
With regards to the manufacturing end of the gun issue, advances in technology should be implemented into all firearms to prevent accidental shootings. This “smart technology” should include individual biometric identification that would prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than its registered owner; smart technology should prevent a gun from working until its owner has registered the weapon at a government certification center and had their biometric information encoded into the gun; resold guns should be recoded upon transfer; each gun should have an individual identification number that is registered upon sale; civilian firearms should be limited to a 9 shot magazine and hunting rifles should be limited to a 3 shot magazine, because 9 shots should be ample for defense and if you can’t hit an animal in 3 shots, maybe you shouldn’t be hunting. Finally, all American gun sales to foreign agents must be regulated by the government to insure that weaponry does not fall into the hands of people who would use them against us.
The right to bear and keep arms is also a duty to be a responsible citizen. No one is forced to buy a gun, but everyone who does buy one should be required to follow some simple rules for the common safety. Those who would rail against reforms in gun laws would have you believe that they have the right to unfettered gun access, but that is not true and that concept can’t be logically inferred from the second amendment.
This entry was posted on Sunday, March 13th, 2005 at 7:57 am and is filed under Common Sense, Government, national security, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 13th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
As a non-American I’ve often been a bit bemused by right to bear arms issue. Bemused that to some Americans it seems to be their most cherished ‘right’. I’m glad to have had the opportunity to read your responsible and thoughtful post on the issue. I’m also glad to live in a country where the perception of guns is far less romantic and far more realistic.
March 13th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
As usual, a well thought out, well articulated viewpoint from you. I’ve come to expect no less from you.
The one, major reason I disagree with your proposal for even more restrictions on gun ownership is…
Suppose for example, you have a situation where a person has been threatened by somebody who has vowed to do harm to them and the threatened person fears for their life, right now, TODAY.
Of course, they call the police, go through all legal channels, get a restraining order, etc. BUT the person who made the threat is still free and on the loose.
Now, why shouldn’t that person who was threatened be allowed to purchase a weapon to guard their life and property without all these waiting periods and background checks taking place first?
Forget all the fine print of the Constitution for a moment and consider it’s main objective – that EVERY man and woman has a right to live and let live.
In this example, under your proposal, the threatened person could be killed by some maniac in the middle of the night because the threatened person was unable to secure a firearm to protect themselves.
Either that, or the threatened person must commit a few crimes in order to preserve their life. That is my major problem with your argument.
March 13th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
I like the part about gun owners registering with their states’ militia
Come to think of it, “well regulated” implies registration, training, boot camp… chuckle! But anyway, like you, I believe the technology goes beyond what the founders imagined, along with the societal changes. (No indigenous cultures at war with settlers at this time. Pretty much.)
See, I grew up in Arizona. Large caliber handguns are the preferred baby shower gift, and hunting rifles are a decorative accessory. Carrying guns is legal; you could walk around looking like Pancho Villa if you wanted to.
One of my early jobs in Phoenix was working in a pawn shop, and I saw just about every gun imagineable go through there. The ones I remember best were what I called “crime guns,” these little Italian handguns the store ordered and sold new. If you held one and shook it, it rattled, and it felt as if it would blow up in your hand if you tried to shoot it. It had no discernable purpose except for use in a hold-up. I doubted it’s practicality as a self-defense item.
If I could snap my fingers and make all guns disappear off the face of the earth, I would. But the reality is that they exist and those who want them shall have them. Even if they were not manufactured, they would be produced by skilled craftsmen anyway. So, better to deal with the reality of it, as you describe.
P.S. – a friend of mine who was in the Army in the 80’s, stationed in Germany, said he and his fellow soldiers frequently raided the armory and sold weapons on the German black market. Interesting, no?
March 13th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Awesome article. Linking.
*corrected spelling
March 13th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
I both agree and disagree with your argument.
It seems to me that knowing that they were talking about citizen soldiers, with respect to the 2nd Amendment, the Founders meant for it to apply to both the military and to civilians. Thus, I disagree with the argument that later changes ought to redefine the meaning of the 2nd as applying just to the military’s need for arms.
At the other end of the spectrum… I strongly disagree with those who argue that the intent of the 2nd was to give an unimpeded right to own any type of weapon one chooses. The 2nd Amendment only partially modifies the original Constitution. What I mean by that is that the Constitution itself clearly and unequivically differentiates between land forces and naval forces. The 2nd applies strictly to land forces. Thus, it seems self-evident to me that there was never any intention of having the 2nd interpreted as granting an unimpeded right to own any sort of weapon one chooses.
March 13th, 2005 at 11:48 pm
“any gun used for a criminal act should be destroyed once it’s use for evidence is done.”
What would this accomplish? The number of guns used in criminal acts is small compared to the total number of guns on the street. If the gun isn’t the criminals and was actually stolen from someone else, then (s)he’ll just go buy another gun.
-Steve
Games are for Children
March 14th, 2005 at 1:46 am
Any gun used in a criminal act should be destroyed once its use as evidence has concluded? Why?
Did the gun itself kill someone without the help of a person? If not, why destroy a perfectly good weapon, why “punish” the gun? Why not sell it and use the money that is made to support law enforcement?
Note: The natural assumption here is that law enforcement would try to return it to its rightful owner before selling it at auction!
March 14th, 2005 at 5:42 am
Another fine post Ken,
Your question as to what the authors of the Constitution would think were they alive today struck me.
But, I must digress. Gun control won’t work if it terminates with prohibition. Like many other experiments with prohibition, that won’t work. I too have enjoyed shooting. My grandfather had a fair number of rifles – used to gather food in the days of the Great Depression and after.
The one hard lesson I had to learn about guns was when I found a rifle in the utility room in my Grandfathers home. I picked it up, and was pretending to shoot it. You know, having some fun as a kid (I was about 12 or 13). Dry shooting, I thought. It was loaded. The gun went off. Shot a hole through the window. Scared the shit out of me. And luckily, didn’t hit anyone. My Grandfather was actually walking around the outside of the house, just around the corner from where I pulled the trigger. Had he been in the window, and in the wrong place at the wrong time, I might had killed him.
Unfortunately, we are all to familiar with the stories of kids killing their friend showing off their daddy’s gun.
We are all to familiar with the Columbine type school shootings. Localized and domestic terrorists, such as they are.
What I don’t get are the gun enthusiasts who don’t work toward fixing the trouble within the industry. See my prior post:
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/03/do-christians-and-nra-mix-well.html#comments
Let me get back to the question at hand. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the folks who worked on the Constitution would be duely elected to represent the people de jour. Like Education and the school system in America, the Constitution – as good as it is – was written for a different era. Which is why we can amend it, at least theoretically. Baring that we have the courts and their interpretations – which makes political apointment of judicial bench warmers a paramount. Activist Judges can either illucidate or dampen the constitution. Depending on which person apoints them, we may be completely screwed for years beyond the current administration.
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/03/no-shortage-of-rejects-to-recycle.html#comments
Well, I blather on…as it happens at this hour of the evening.
Thanks for another thought provoking post. Blog on brother.
March 14th, 2005 at 5:42 am
(responses)
Marlowe- Thanks for dropping by and sharing some thoughts from a non-American point of view…
Airman- Glad you enjoyed the read. Your point about needing instant protection does not go unheard, although our current laws requiring a background check may make it difficult for a threatened person to procure a gun quickly anyhow.
Instead, how about a combination solution: first, maybe we could make available “loaner protection weapons” that could be temporarily lent by police departments to people who have a verifiable threatening situation; secondly, using smart technology, if a person reports a threat, a quick database check could reveal whether the threatening person owns a gun, and if so, have a remote deactivation mechanism render the gun harmless until the situation could be checked out and resolved. Such technology would have to be carefully administered though, to ensure that an unethical politician or other nefarious person could not “deactivate” all the guns in the public domain for their own reasons.
No rules will cover every conceivable situation though, so for the safety of the general public, and the country in general, we should legislate on the side of common sense and caution.
SheaNC- I’ve lived in Arizona too and know what you mean about the “wild west” mentality with regards to guns. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, but those who are not cause some real havoc. And shame on those servicemen you describe…
Can- Thanks for the link and the compliment. Hope you drop by again.
Kevin- I think I mentioned that the 2nd amendment also was enacted to recognize the prevalence of gun ownership, in addition to the uses by and for militias. Also, I don’t believe that any of my ideas actually redefine the 2nd amendment, they just place some common sense responsibilities on gun owners and manufacturers.
At least we can agree on the fact that the Constitution does not grant any kind of blanket gun ownership rights. It remains vague enough to allow for some modern day discretion, this due to the forward thinking men who crafted it. While they could not perceive the future and what it may bring, they did know that time does not stand still and that in order to be lasting, the Constitution needed to be flexible.
Thanks for the comment!
Steve and Theodore- you both grabbed the same point to inquire on, so here is the reasoning behind the need to destroy weapons used in crimes, rather than resell them or return them to an owner.
With the installation of smart technology, a personal gun could only be fired by its registered owner. This would imply that a gun used in a crime was used by its owner. If convicted, they would be stripped of their right to own a gun again. Rather than return the gun to the marketplace, its destruction would underscore society’s disdain for gun crimes and send an albeit subliminal message to others that if you value your gun, and don’t want to lose it, you won’t use it in a crime.
I appreciate your comments and hope you stop by again.
March 14th, 2005 at 5:52 am
(response)
Windspike- As always, your comments and links are appreciated.
I don’t advocate a prohibition on guns, and I’m sorry if I left that impression. Rather, adopting Common Sense reforms to the privilege of gun ownership is my goal.
I too had some interesting encounters with guns growing up, as have many who have grown up around firearms. If you shudder to think of your own experiences, you should be that much more supportive of efforts to prevent accidents for other children, and even adults.
As for appointed activist judges, speaking primarily about the Supreme Court justices,I hope that few retire during this administration and that we get a more responsible, less religiously motivated, more socially responsible administration in place when they finally head off to retirement.
March 14th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
KEN: “maybe we could make available “loaner protection weapons” that could be temporarily lent by police departments to people who have a verifiable threatening situation”
I think I could live with that, Ken. That is a great, well thought out, common sense amendment to your first post.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Well thought out – though I don’t agree with some of what you say.
I personally don’t own a gun, probably never will. I was in the military many years ago and was an expert with the M-16. I have taught my two oldests sons how to shoot (should the need ever arise where they need to know how) – and then discouraged them from ever owning one.
All that being said I am against legislation telling anyone else what to do when it comes to guns. I think there are enough laws on the books as it is – they just need to be enforced.
I look at it like locks on door – they keep honest people honest – thieves are still going to break in. Criminals are still going to get guns – but with legislation against ownership “honest” people won’t be able to.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Nice try but….
Let’s see 9 out of the 10 bill of rights deal with the individual, but the 2nd to the top deals with the government. Sorry doesn’t compute. If the 2nd amendment deals with the government and not the individual why would the founders mention it in the Bill of Rights? If it is a government action then it becomes a group right. And then who chooses the group to hold the weapons?
March 14th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Hi Ken. Thanks for a nice discussion of another difficult topic. As usual you’ve inspired great comments on the debate as well.
There is one additional caveat about gun ownership that is admittedly one that is close to my heart. I wrote about it here.
Essentially, though personal freedom is certainly a concept that we must uphold, there are compelling circumstances that should limit accessibility to firearms. And this is an opinion from someone who should never be permitted to buy one.
March 14th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
In addition to the 2nd Amendment being about INDIVIDUAL rights, Thomas Jefferson believed that the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership was necessary to insure that the government remain a republic and not devolve into a tyranny.
March 15th, 2005 at 2:07 am
Ken,
As many have commented – an intelligent commentary on the issue. And not surprisingly, also has attracted a bit of attack.
I am in the same camp as Marlowe though – a non-American who is bemused by the arguments over this issue.
Aurelius
March 15th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
You always seem to have a well reasoned arguement, however I rarely agree with you. Let me finally respond to one of your articles.
My issues with this article start with a broader issue. Taking the Bill of Rights as a whole, there are 9 amendments that give rights to the individual and the 10th gives rights to the states. These all limit the power of the federal government to keep it in check. Why would the founding fathers give the right to bear arms in order to form militias and not to protect an individual when this would certainly not be in the character if the intent of the rest of the Bill of Rights. Always remember, individuals have rights not governments.
Second, the second amendment does not read “because it is necessary to put food on the table, the right to bear arms will not be infringed.” The intent is all about protection, both for the nation and from the nation if need be. By the way this also shoots a hole in the agruement you make regarding the technological advancements in firearms. The militias talked about are both for protection of the nation, and in order to arm an overthrow in case the government becomes too corrupt. It sure would be easy to rule over an unarmed public and not have to worry about a revolution, (ie Iraq, 1930s Germany, and others that slip my mind this early in the day), Even easier if the public was still armed with muzzle loaders.
Thank you for your thoughtful essays on your vision of where our country should be headed. I would love to live in that country, I just don’t think it is realistic due to human nature.
March 15th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
(responses)
I had a feeling this would be a topic for discussion, and it looks like I was right. Here are my responses to the latest batch of comments…
Airman- Nothing wrong with bringing up possible problems with my assumptions. Gives me a chance to think things through even more. I’m glad this solution would work for you.
Scott- I agree that we need to better enforce the current laws, but I also think that some technological adaptations would prevent much of the problems associated with firearm accidents and their use in crimes.
Yes honest people should be able to get their guns, but that isn’t the same thing as unfettered, unregulated access.
JD- While the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Constitutional amendments) do focus primarily on rights of the individual WITH REGARDS TO GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE, many subsequent amendments address specific tasks of the government and/or its structure or deal with the realtionship between federal government and the states. And the interpretation of the first ten is a constantly fluctuating conversation, depending upon the times and those leading the discussion.
Amendments themselves can be amended, either to reflect a different world or to correct issues not already clarified in the Constitution. Many amendments have been written to supercede previous amendments to reflect changing attitudes. That is all I am suggesting should be done here.
Diogenes- Thank for your take on this. Honest citizens sould not have a problem with common sense reform that further limits the accessibility of deadly weapons to criminals.
Conchobar- Thanks for dropping by. In my essay, I did note that the 2nd amendment reflected an effort to ensure that the states and people (through arms and a regulated militia) had sufficient recourse against a federal government out of control. Yes, gun ownership prevents tyrannical governments from oppressing the people…unless the people don’t recognize a tyranny when they see it.
Aurelius- Thanks for dropping by. Aren’t we Americans interesting people?
Hurricane Bob- I think that the Bill of Rights offered protection to the individual from the government’s potential excesses, as you imply. But to say that governments have no rights isn’t really correct. From a geopolitical standpoint, governments recognize the rights of other governments every day. In a democracy, it is the people who grant their governments the right to speak for them on a world stage. But I wander from the point.
The founders gave the right to bear arms to protect the state from the federal government, and by proxy, to protect the individual too. But as you note that the amendment does not mention anything about guns for hunting, neither does it mention their need for personal protection from other citizens. The entire amendment alludes to the protection of the nation and then the protection of the state from the nation. In light of this, why shouldn’t gun owners register with a state militia?
As for the technological changes I advocate, these have little to so with the ability of government to subdue the citizenry, but rather are efforts to control the misuse or accidental misuse of firearms themselves. I have no problems with the advancements of weaponry as long as the rules for their ownership and use reflect the changing technological advancements with regards to public safety, which we all have a right to.
Thanks to all for stopping by.
March 15th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
You ever heard the old saying…”It is useless for the lamb to pass legislation in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolves are of a different opinion?” You can replace the words lambs and wolves, and it can apply to this issue and many. doves and hawks, etc.
March 16th, 2005 at 12:56 am
A good post, as usual.
I’m not sure that I agree with all of what you suggest, but I know that I shrugged at the “registration” idea. For some odd reason I can’t get the Gun Control Act of 1938 (Germany) out of my mind. While it may be the best of intentions, I fear such information in the hands of a “repressive” government.
March 16th, 2005 at 1:34 am
(more responses)
Jay- I am neither lamb nor lion, I am not a dove or a hawk. I simply look for the most reasonable, common sense approach to solving the ills of society. In this case, the proliferation of firearms can and does present a security concern to Americans in our country from criminals and foreign mations (due to American arms sold abroad.) The passage of legislation is useless in any case without broad support and consistent enforcement.
M+ – The German Gun Control Act was primarily aimed at Jews and other conquered people in an effort to quell any uprising from them against the Nazi power base.
My proposals do not take the guns out of American’s hands…the just demand more responsible actions from manufacturers and owners.
Thanks, both, for the comments.
March 16th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
The brilliance of the fore-fathers was their timeless documents. You never hear “free speech is outdates” or anything else. Why is it always guns? I know you libs are all afraid of guns, because it will make it that much harder for you to come and confiscate my stuff when you turn this into a communist state. No thanks. Legal or no, I will have a gun to defend my family and my property and THAT is what makes this country free.
March 16th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
(response)
Bubblehead-
It never ceases to amaze me that some poeple, you for instance, insist on misunderstanding what is written in plain English.
AT NO TIME DO I SAY THAT PEOPLE WHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS. (Did you catch that?)
For you to assume that I fear guns, even though I clearly state that I have owned them and enjoy target shooting, just shows how far down you have pulled your own “Conservative” blinders over your eyes.
You want to own a gun, I have no problem with that. You want to be a reckless, irresponsible gun owner, I do have a problem with that.
Try to understand that nobody wants to “come and confiscate my stuff,” since we have plenty of stuff of our own.
Unfortunately, Common Sense seems to be lost on you and your ilk, since you have to frame all conversations in terms of “Lib Commie” or “Patriotic Conservative.” You want to join in a debate on the issues, fine. You want to throw around labels, go back to the schoolyard.
And, Free Speech DOES have its limitations- have you ever heard of slander, libel, and “indecency?”
These are not protected forms of speech, despite the Constitutions “Freedom of Speech” clause. Or how about “Freedom of Religion?” I don’t remember anything about this applying only to Christianity, yet so many of the “Conservatives” in this nation seem to feel that way.
The Constitution is an ever changing document, and rightly so.
March 17th, 2005 at 1:53 am
Don’t have time to devote a proper response to this – but in short :
Gun control does nothing to stop/lessen crime.
The right of a citizen to bear arms is both right and good, within reason – defining what is ‘within reason’ is a bit subjective but with the passing of the odious (and completely useless) Assault Weapons Ban all of the current laws we have fit the our need!
/TJ
… NIF
… The Wide Awakes
PS – I do not own a single firearm, but cherish my right to do so if/when I choose.
March 17th, 2005 at 5:03 am
I own 12. They are a tool and are about as deadly as a car, knife or baseball bat if used improperly. There are no statistics that can prove that regulating firearms, banning or otherwise reducing the number of guns in circulation has saved a single life. But thousands of lives are saved each year because of them. Including my girlfriend’s.
The Justice Department wrote an opinion on the 2nd amendment last year that can be found here. It states that the right to keep and bear arms, as compared to the language at the time does indeed mean individual citizens owning guns is what was intended. It’s a last line of defense against a tyranical government. It’s a bit cliche but without the second, there’s nothing to protect the rest. Thanks for the thought provoking read.
John Martin
http://xtremerightwing.net
March 17th, 2005 at 5:38 am
(more responses)
TJ- The reason that our current fireawms laws, including the recently expired Assault Weapons Ban is because they were constructed to resemble Swiss cheese, meaning they are/were full of holes. Add to that a lack of consistent enforcement measures and of course you end up with “useless gun control attempts.”
Though I keep having to say this, I too support the right to own firearms. I also happen to believe that there should be better constructed and enforced regulations coupled with technological advancements to make society as a whole a safer place. Yes, people kill people, and will probably still do so without guns until we reform our criminal codes, but better law and enforcement will reduce the amount of innocent victims.
Xtreme- Thanks for the link. I checked out the DOJ opinion, and though it interprets the right as pertaining specifically to individuals and not the “quasi-collective” that it defines as a state militia, it does opine that the all “able bodied men of the day” were required (actually, involuntarily enrolled) to be part of that militia and to bring guns to practice drills. How is this opinion different from my own which said that gun owners should register their arms with the state for purposes of service in a militia?
Also, I need to repeat, again, that I concur with the interpretation that state militias- i.e. citizens w/guns- are valid instruments to prevent federal tyranny. Several of these comments are arguing points that I agreed with in my original post. Why does it seem that so many are missing the writing on the screen?
Finally, if you accept that guns in fact save lives, why would you not have support for technology that further increases the safety of guns? Why do so many gun owners and manufacturers oppose any changes that make firearms safer and instead focus on increasing the deadliness of their products? Just curious…..