The Right to Bear Arms

[ProVobis]

You have to understand that guns are very much ingrained into the American culture and have been so since long before the US Constitution’s second amendment (e.g., The Right to Bear Arms) When European explorers first arrived in North America in the 16th an 17th centuries they depended very heavily on their firearms; but to hunt for food and for defense against unfriendly natives. When the American colonies fought it war for independence in the late 1700s, virtually all the small arms used to fight were privately owned. In the 1790s when the constitution was adopted there was this special provision included that explicitly gave the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms. This was for two reasons: The newly formed United States and no full-time standing military and still depended on the citizen-soldier for national defense, and more importantly (oddly enough) it was to protect citizens from its own government.

Remember: Americans had just come off 200 years of tyrannical rule under the British Crown. By allowing citizens to arm themselves, it kept in the government in check from also becoming tyrannical; the idea being that the citizens could rise up against the government if necessary.

The ironic thing is that British had gun rights as well. It’s just that their culture didn’t become so obsessed about it.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks James

I have to say, I have read the second amendment, and indeed quote it in my article there, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with personal gun ownership for self defence. It’s about the British invading and being able to raise a militia quickly to defend the States. But that’s just my outside, objective perspective

Gee - I know that American English and British English are different - but surely not THAT different…

The second amendment…
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, *…
Nothing here about Britain or anyone else invading…Rather a more general statement about “security of a free state”…Threats to a free state can be internal or external.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
OK - I admit that this does not say - “own”…hence you can say that it does not have to do with “ownership”…But since I have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms…someone must pay for them…So either the government must buy me a gus or I can buy it myself.
The U.S. opted for the private citizens to buy and use their own.

I hasten to add here that I have no problem with reasonable “regulation of the militia”…but frankly most of the proposals relating to guns have nothing to do with establishing a “well regulated militia” that is in keeping with the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Peace
James

 

[triumphguy]

Gee - I know that American English and British English are different - but surely not THAT different…

The second amendment…
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, *…
Nothing here about Britain or anyone else invading…Rather a more general statement about “security of a free state”…Threats to a free state can be internal or external.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
OK - I admit that this does not say - “own”…hence you can say that it does not have to do with “ownership”…But since I have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms…someone must pay for them…So either the government must buy me a gus or I can buy it myself.
The U.S. opted for the private citizens to buy and use their own.

I hasten to add here that I have no problem with reasonable “regulation of the militia”…but frankly most of the proposals relating to guns have nothing to do with establishing a “well regulated militia” that is in keeping with the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Peace
James

Since people seem willing to answer questions…

I’m sure these questions have been thrashed out in constitutional courts over the years but…

So why does that not mean that Americans should be part of a “well regulated militia” in order to “bear arms”? Which would be very similar to Switzerland’s model.

And does “bear arms” actually mean the right to “own” said arms?

 

[JRKH]

No reduction or elimination of arms can happen without eliminating violence at its root.

Every person “is called to disarm his own heart and be a peacemaker everywhere,” as the pope said. See uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

This is well stated…But here is the kicker…The more we eliminate the root causes of violence…the less need there is to control the guns.
Gun control (= taking guns away from law abiding citizens), does nothing to address the underlying cause of violence. It’s treating the symptom…not the cause.

Peace
James

 

[FightingFat]

This is well stated…But here is the kicker…The more we eliminate the root causes of violence…the less need there is to control the guns.
Gun control (= taking guns away from law abiding citizens), does nothing to address the underlying cause of violence. It’s treating the symptom…not the cause.

Peace
James

Specifically when considering Connecticut, the gun was simply the element that enabled the event. If the mother had no guns, the kid who did it wouldn’t have been able to.

Doesn’t it make sense that a society where you’re less likely to get shot for arguing with someone who jumped a stop light (using American English for your benefit there ) would be better? The evidence is that the more guns there are in society, the more gun violence there is: guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?CMP=twt_gu

 

[JRKH]

Since people seem willing to answer questions…

I’m sure these questions have been thrashed out in constitutional courts over the years but…

So why does that not mean that Americans should be part of a “well regulated militia” in order to “bear arms”? Which would be very similar to Switzerland’s model.

These are good questions and certainly the Swiss model is held up by those who defend gun ownership as not necessarily equaling a violent society.

As I said in my post, I have no problem with regulations that seek to implement the “well regulated militia” aspect of the amendment. The “gun lobby” will even allude to this idea with slogans like “Gun control means hitting what you aim at”.
Require proper training. Require certification and periodic re-certification. Require proper storage and - even allow for periodic checks of this proper storage by some enforcement agency - local police or National guard…

And does “bear arms” actually mean the right to “own” said arms?

The right is to keep and bear arms. Not just “bear arms” this is an important distinction. Again - I addressed this in my post…The amendment gives me the right to keep arms…now either I can buy it or the government can buy it for me (if I choose to keep arms)…Historically the U.S. has chosen to NOT to buy the guns but allow the people to purchase their own.
But whether it is my money - or government money - the Amendment says I have to be allowed to keep and bear arms.

Peace
James

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

Fascinating. And as demonstrated by the post-election discussion of cessation I suppose?

I wouldn’t dignify what’s going on with the word “discussion” (“cussin’”, perhaps) - but yes.

 

[triumphguy]

These are good questions and certainly the Swiss model is held up by those who defend gun ownership as not necessarily equaling a violent society.

As I said in my post, I have no problem with regulations that seek to implement the “well regulated militia” aspect of the amendment. The “gun lobby” will even allude to this idea with slogans like “Gun control means hitting what you aim at”.
Require proper training. Require certification and periodic re-certification. Require proper storage and - even allow for periodic checks of this proper storage by some enforcement agency - local police or National guard…

The right is to keep and bear arms. Not just “bear arms” this is an important distinction. Again - I addressed this in my post…The amendment gives me the right to keep arms…now either I can buy it or the government can buy it for me (if I choose to keep arms)…Historically the U.S. has chosen to NOT to buy the guns but allow the people to purchase their own.
But whether it is my money - or government money - the Amendment says I have to be allowed to keep and bear arms.

Peace
James

Thanks for clarifying - to go further - so the right to “buy” and “own” arms is not actually constitutional, but more historical or government policy?

 

[Actaeon]

There was no 200 years of tyranny.

(and yes I may have slanted things towards my own viewpoint in order to get my POV across - but I do not and never will believe that people in the American colonies were treated any differently than people in Britain at a time when democracy was a NEW and EMERGING concept - why not just say - we wanted self-government and had to fight for it? In my opinion this whole tyrannical British rule thing and the right to bear arms has fostered an ever present fear of your own people and your own government. I honestly don’t know of another people who seem to fear their government so much - or at least use that “fear” as an excuse to “bear arms.” And I say this not to criticize but out of true interest since I know so many Americans and it seems true of most/many of them. )

What I think you should say is that there was no “tyranny” by modern standards

The problem is that despite the fact that taxes were much lower under the British than they are today, those taxes were levied upon the citizens of the colonies without any allowed representation of the views of those colonies. And yes, the sugar act, the currency act, the quartering act, the stamp act, the townshend act, the tea act, and the “intolerable acts” were actually targeted at the colonies and NOT citizens residing in the UK. They singled out the colonists for special taxes and restrictive treatment.

British subjects fought, rather valiently, for the right to self representation under the establishment of the Magna Carta. Many people died for the right to be represented in a legislative government, and that right was being actively denied to citizens living in the American colonies. The right of the people to enjoin the social contract of the nation of England with equal representation as other citizens was severely infringed.

Furthermore, local representation was given in the form of colonial legislatures. When these representative bodies had their powers curtailed by the crown, that was viewed as an assault on the right of the people to govern themselves locally (and, again, with representation)

THAT was the tyranny of English rule that was so burdonsome

 

[jwinch2]

However, I would like to suggest that the Catholic Church is very solidly, very calmly against gun ownership and that this is very clear and consistent in Catholic teaching. I have written something about it here outlining my argument and providing references and I would invite you to review and please, comment and help me to understand where and if I’ve got this wrong.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=602935
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=696310
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=738048

 

[Actaeon]

Fascinating. And as demonstrated by the post-election discussion of cessation I suppose?

Don’t take any of that seriously. The talk of cessation was overblown hype from the media and the groups that wanted it amount to a drop in the bucket compared to the American population (0.2% of the population by GENEROUS estimate).

There’s an organization in Northern California that’s been talking of cessation from the state to form a new state (called “Jefferson”) for decades now, and nothing has ever come of it.

There is no legitimate cessation movement in place whatsoever.

 

[dshix]

First, I am curious to know where you heard that. When I was an altar boy 40-some years ago, our priest would go deer hunting quite often.

You have to understand that guns are very much ingrained into the American culture and have been so since long before the US Constitution’s second amendment (e.g., The Right to Bear Arms) When European explorers first arrived in North America in the 16th an 17th centuries they depended very heavily on their firearms; but to hunt for food and for defense against unfriendly natives. When the American colonies fought it war for independence in the late 1700s, virtually all the small arms used to fight were privately owned. In the 1790s when the constitution was adopted there was this special provision included that explicitly gave the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms. This was for two reasons: The newly formed United States and no full-time standing military and still depended on the citizen-soldier for national defense, and more importantly (oddly enough) it was to protect citizens from its own government.

Remember: Americans had just come off 200 years of tyrannical rule under the British Crown. By allowing citizens to arm themselves, it kept in the government in check from also becoming tyrannical; the idea being that the citizens could rise up against the government if necessary.

As the westward expansion began in the mid-1800s, the settlers also depended on their guns for survival. They would hunt for food, defend themselves against hostile Indians and since there was no law-enforcement in those days, guns were needed for personal defense as well. Guns are part of what defines America and Americans.

The recent school shooting in Connecticut has again brought the gun discussion to the forefront. But the fact is, only about 200 people have died in mass shootings since the Columbine incident. Now I don’t mean detract from the sufferings of people connected to those incidents, but deaths by mass shootings are statistically rare when compared against other unnatural deaths that occurred in the same time period. Where is the outrage against automobile deaths? Where is the outrage against airplane crashes? Obese people die from heart attacks every day, but no one is demanding that all the McDonalds be shut down.

The reason is that mass shootings get the headlines just like plane crashes. You hear about plane crashes all the time but you never hear about the 1000s of planes that take off and land safely every day. So if you relied on the 6:00pm news for your information about airline travel, you might (incorrectly) conclude that airplanes are dangerous and should be banned. So likewise, guns get a bad rap every time someone uses one illegally.

It is not a gun problem; it is a people problem. Banning guns will not solve the problem of people killing other people. It is a sad but true fact that people have been killing each other since Cain killed Abel. People killed with rocks, clubs, spears, swords, arrows etc. long before guns were ever invented. Someday guns may become obsolete and people will kill with laser pistols or light sabers.

The old saw bears repeating: When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. Bad guys are going to get guns one way or the other and taking guns away from law abiding citizens will just mean they will no longer be able to defend themselves. This will mean more gun deaths; not fewer.

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia enacted a law that said the head of every household was required to own a gun and ammunition for it. Despite fears of wanton violence and gun battles in the streets, the crime rate dropped by 89% and has been consistently lower than the national average ever since. By contrast, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois enacted a law banning guns that same year, and its crime increased by 16%.

I would strongly encourage you to read this opinion piece. It is chock-full of unbiased common sense:

kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Beautiful: another person who thinks almost exactly as I do!!

 

[triumphguy]

What I think you should say is that there was no “tyranny” by modern standards

The problem is that despite the fact that taxes were much lower under the British than they are today, those taxes were levied upon the citizens of the colonies without any allowed representation of the views of those colonies. And yes, the sugar act, the currency act, the quartering act, the stamp act, the townshend act, the tea act, and the “intolerable acts” were actually targeted at the colonies and NOT citizens residing in the UK. They singled out the colonists for special taxes and restrictive treatment.

British subjects fought, rather valiently, for the right to self representation under the establishment of the Magna Carta. Many people died for the right to be represented in a legislative government, and that right was being actively denied to citizens living in the American colonies. The right of the people to enjoin the social contract of the nation of England with equal representation as other citizens was severely infringed.

Furthermore, local representation was given in the form of colonial legislatures. When these representative bodies had their powers curtailed by the crown, that was viewed as an assault on the right of the people to govern themselves locally (and, again, with representation)

THAT was the tyranny of English rule that was so burdonsome

That’s how I read it myself - as a “British” people (initially) trying to get some of the freedoms stemming from magna carta rights, and ultimately looking for self rule, rather than an American state being oppressed by a British state. In many ways what the American colonists were seeking was exactly what the citizens of Britain were seeking too -and also found - but within the British state, but with less and less power for the king and more and more for parliament.

 

[JRKH]

Specifically when considering Connecticut, the gun was simply the element that enabled the event. If the mother had no guns, the kid who did it wouldn’t have been able to.

Surely - but one can also make other arguments.

1. If the guns had been properly secured, he would not have been able to get to them
2. If he was mentally unstable and properly institutionalized…he could not get to guns or the school
3. If people at the School were properly trained in the use of weapons, the rampage might have been much shorter…If people KNOW that others are armed…He might not have gone there in the first place.

Doesn’t it make sense that a society where you’re less likely to get shot for arguing with someone who jumped a stop light (using American English for your benefit there ) would be better?

Sure would - one could also make the case that if you can be reasonably certain that the other fellow is also armed, that you are going to be less likely to pull your weapon.

More importantly - ans speaking to the Church’s desire that the underlying causes be addressed…the violence would not occur if I hold my temper and don’t start yelling at the other guy…It’s the more Christian approach - don’t you agree?

The evidence is that the more guns there are in society, the more gun violence there is: guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?CMP=twt_gu

The evidence is that the more knives there are in society, the more knife violence there is

The evidence is that the more clubs there are in society, the more club violence there is

I make the above statements in order to demonstrate that when one is determining the weapons used in violent acts, the more accessible is a given object, the more likely it will be used in a violent act. This simply does nothing to establish that a society with fewer guns will also have fewer violent acts committed.

Peace
James

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

Thanks for clarifying - to go further - so the right to “buy” and “own” arms is not actually constitutional, but more historical or government policy?

Full disclosure - I am not a member of the Supreme Court, but my take on the intent of the word “keep” is that it is equivalent to something like “An American citizen cannot ever be required to surrender arms that he legally owns, by purchase or other form of acquisition, to any authority which claims any such right of seizure”. As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, gun ownership was just a non-issue for most Americans - they were necessary tools for survival and defense, and that was that. No newly-fangled Federal government could trump that right. “Bear arms” means shoot those bastards if they try.

 

[triumphguy]

Full disclosure - I am not a member of the Supreme Court, but my take on the intent of the word “keep” is that it is equivalent to something like "An American citizen cannot ever be required to surrender arms that he legally owns, by purchase or other form of acquisition, to any authority which claims any such right of seizure". As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, gun ownership was just a non-issue for most Americans - they were necessary tools for survival and defense, and that was that. No newly-fangled Federal government could trump that right. “Bear arms” means shoot those bastards if they try.

OK - so the constitution says, in effect, that an American my keep his/her arms, EVEN if the government says hand them in?

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for clarifying - to go further - so the right to “buy” and “own” arms is not actually constitutional, but more historical or government policy?

More like - “Sacred Tradition” perhaps - - -

The second amendment grew out of a fear at that time of a “standing Army”. The government preferred to rely on “state militias” for national defense. Thus the 2nd Amendment would guarantee a ready…citizen army. As time went on, the need for at least a small standing army was recognized, but state controlled and raised militias continued until well after the civil war. The “National Guard” is an outgrowth of this.

Yet - for all of this institutionalization of the military - militia and regular forces - the Second amendment remains, for Americans the court of last resort against a tyrannical government. This is embodied in our national character - arising out of the declaration of Independence.

Peace
James

 

[Actaeon]

The evidence is that the more guns there are in society, the more gun violence there is: guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?CMP=twt_gu

Sure,

But at the same time, that ignores the plethora of other violent crimes which occur when the means to self-defense are denied to citizens.

For example, in the UK a citizen is 4 times more likely to be assaulted. A woman is 8 times more likely to be raped, and a home is 20 times more likely to be invaded (an invasion occurs when robbers break in while people are present in the home). I don’t have hard statistics on the difference in numbers of stabbing victims, but I think we can safely presume that those statistics are higher in the UK as well.

Furthermore, we should remember that some of the deadliest attacks in America occured without any guns at all (the Oklahoma City bombing and the Bath School Disaster as bombings come to mind). People do not need guns to cause mass murders. What needs to be treated is the sick mindset we have that LEADS to mass murders, not controlling the means of producing weapons of mass murder (which will just shift attackers to other means that are harder to stop)

 

[jwinch2]

Mauser and Kates (2006) Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence. Berkley Press - Legal Repository. pg. 1564-1679

ABSTRACT:
The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, rearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: First, whether widespread rearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to rearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.

law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso

 

[wondrousgnat]

The right to keep and bear arms is within a well-regulated militia. How many gun owners are members of one? But people say that they have a constitutional right. Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton say the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion and this point has been reaffirmed by presidents appointed by gun advocate presidents…