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…..

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.