This conversation is closed.

Are gun ownership restrictions asking for the wrong thing? the second amendment arguments seem to lack justification on both sides

Two interpretations:

"some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. " LII Cornell

"On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right."

The second amendment -"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."

both arguments seem to be non-sequiturs . It does not matter which is the dependent clause because the logical result is the same. If the people are the subject then well regulated militia is a modifier and the right exists with the modification that it be well-regulated. well-regulated militia has no constraint other than that the people can bear arms so regulation is not limited. if the militia is the subject then the right of the people are the modifier and that right is protected to form a militia. Again there is no constraint on militia so the right cannot be limited therein. the only logical resolution is that there be no infringement on the right as a basis but that the context of the exercise of the right, keeping and bearing, be well-regulated. therefore subject to national safety standards

  • thumb
    Jan 21 2013: I graduated from Sandy Hook Elementary School some 30 years ago, I have friends with children thre today, and one with 5 nieces who were in school the day of the shooting. I assume that this topic is (as on many forums) been brought to life with the terrible killing of all those children. I am a gun owner, and the issue is very close to my heart, what if it had been my guns stolen from me and used for that? I could only pray I was dead like the guns owener was in this case, and yet that only would spare me knowledge, not responsibility. You see most gun owners are not as clear on the responsibility that comes with the right. We must keep everyone safe from our guns if we wish to have them. But how? locks can be defeated, and guns and ammo exist we can no more end them than we can end the reality of the atom bomb. We can make no more guns or ammo today and we still have so much we have made no real change. The issue has tormented me and like many gun owners I have decided that there has to be changes on both sides of the issue. The legal gun owner wants nothing to do with the sort of terrorist act that the evil man visited on those little children. I think that first all new guns should have biometric safeties allowing them to be fired only by the owner or those he enters, the gun manufacturers should offer incentives to trade your old gun for a new bio metric one. People should have to take several months of weekly classes including subtle psych evaluations before being issued concealed carry permits,schools should have one or more trained people who are armed on campus(there were heroes in Newtown who if armed might have saved the children.) and if a gun is used illegally then the user the owner the seller and manufacturer should all suffer consequences. While we are at it why not have a chip to locate guns when owners code is entered to search program? or system that locks the guns action?Plus lets put a fiber optic wireless gun cam in the weapons of all police
  • Jan 21 2013: These so called gun laws were designed to work in a society that no longer exists. That society no longer exists because as humans our nature is to preserve life and as such we have evolved both academically and emotionally. We no longer live in John Wayne's simple life where it was nothing to shoot a man dead. But the longer one lingers on irrelevant legislation that should be museum history, sadly more and more people become a statistic. Yes USA you are living in the dark ages, And yall need to listen to TED's "on being wrong" presentation. You know what they say "careful what you wish for" owning guns what do you wish for ?
    • thumb
      Jan 21 2013: I submit that there are a great number of places where its still "nothing to shoot a man dead" or kick him to death or drag his offensive gay body behind your pick up truck , or to rape a woman or kidnap for vile reasons a child , a world where "civilized people sat in there seats as their planes were taken by men with razor blades who then killed thousands as if it were nothing. I don't think that guns are the solution to all this , but I have to protest that if you are claiming that we have evolved beyond violence then you are not paying attention. At the highest levels of government crimes are committed and go ignored, we live in a land of feudal power lawless, worse than anarchy because we have a structure of inequality and oppression. If we could end the problems by outlawing guns I'd vote for it and gladly surrender mine. The fact is that the guns are out there and so we have t actually solve the problem of violence, which you claim we as a species have already out grown. If we had we wouldn't have an issue even if every home had H bombs.

      It is Violence we must stop, not just Gun Violence.
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2013: Their constitution is fine, it doesn't affect the planet except within the borders it was created for and the people it covers. It's their constitution not the planets, States have been sending lists of involuntary committed people who suffer from a wide range of mental conditions to NICs who have been deemed unfit to obtain a gun license or purchase a firearm since last year or before. It's a start to helping to reduce mental health mass shootings.
    • thumb
      Jan 21 2013: It is unfair to blame the shootings on the mentally ill. Not all of these people have any such problem or certainly no worse than those who by the million don't kill. The issue is more obscure than guns or mental health and it must be investigated.
      • thumb
        Jan 21 2013: Yes, you're right thanks for pointing that out. "The issue is more obscure" There is an element of wtf with today's crimes or have they always been there but have not been reported as much?
  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: I don't think they are asking for the wrong things, they are asking for a limit on the type of weapons that should be available to the general public. I mean honestly do you really need a assult rifle to go duck shooting???? Not much duck left for dinner if you do. No need for an assult rifle in the city either it's highly unlikely you as an indvidual are going to be asked to use it for anything.

    Stronger background checks absolutely close certain loopholes that can be found through State vs Federal firearms legislation.

    I think also as the mental health issue is also to come under scrutiny here that can only be a good thing if it allows for access to proper facilities for help terriffic.

    What people are forgetting is that the Government is not taking away their right to own a firearm just restriciting the type and amount of ammuntion a clip can hold.

    If you need a 30 round clip to hit a target you need glasses, training, or should not be allowed to own a firearm at all.

    The other thing, that is majorly overlooked is that The Constitution is really only a guideline to go by and should be updated as the nation ( and this includes the constitution of any country) grows and circumstances change.

    Nothing is carved in stone and not given by god,

    These outlines were made by the Government of the Day ( and a lot of them are good) by men of the day but remember that if so warranted the Government of the present can revoke them. All that requires is a declaration of a State Of Emergency, Martial Law, and Presidential or Royal decree.

    Americans believe that it is their god given right it isn't its a man given privillage and as with most privillages it can be taken away. It's time to wake up Your kids can't go to school without walking through metal detectors, and it's getting to the stage where you are almost living in a state of constant fear of each other.

    Is that the image of the Greatest Country on Earth you want to convey to the rest of the world
    • Jan 20 2013: could not agree with you more but if the same result can be achieved by rationally side-stepping the entire issue, why not sidestep it. listen what I am saying is to put this into a safety standards area. there are certain types of machines that cannot be used in certain areas so within the context of existing safety standards in other areas gun could be controlled without infringing on second amendment rights, you cannot restrict purchase but you can regulate, "keeping and bearing" based on public safety.
      • thumb
        Jan 21 2013: Yeah a sort of Occupation health and safety Legislation re ownship of firearms interesting concept I would interesting to see what thought on how something like that could be implimented
    • Jan 20 2013: in fact one could argue that while any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional it is equally unconstitutional not to insure they are well regulate. the underlying thing that I do not see a lot of talk about is how the way this conversation is going is completely antithetical to how our government is supposed to work. We are supposed to introduce and pass laws that govern the concerns of the day and then if there is disagreement the courts will decide whether the law was unconstitutional. when did it become to ok have to hash through the constitutionality before any bill was even introduced. talk about preemptive strikes.

      basically it seems to me that this is essentially congress preempting the role of the judiciary
      • thumb
        Jan 21 2013: The biggest problem is a lot of scared uninformed people who have believed the drivel and propaganda of the highly Conservative Far left and rights (depending on whom is spouting the rhetoric of the time) , attempt to make people think they are still living in time of the Revolution and the Civil war and that the circumstances of those times still apply.

        Don't get me wrong I'm sure some do, but you have to move forward and live in the now not the past.

        From what I have seen a lot of these arguments such as aforementioned despotic and tyrannical governments go back to those times when a nation was still young and building.

        The other problem is Constitutional Law is a very interesting Beastie a clever lawyer will be able to use the same instances above and twist them (as we have seen in some criminal matters recently) so it may just be a good thing the Govenment is coming to the forefront in this matter.

        The trick is to step lightly,as change scares people, and a scared mob is a dangerous mob and uninformed and ignorant one is just as bad.
      • Jan 21 2013: Let me get this straight Rob,

        You do not want our elected officials to discuss the potential ramifications to the rights of the people before a law is passed....?

        I cannot say how scary that is... Not wanting to talk about the constitutionality of a bill before it is voted into law horrifies me on a level I can't express on this forum...

        What if a law was created that demanded you pay a tax on children otherwise that child would be stripped from the family and forced into the military?

        • thumb
          Jan 21 2013: If the section of the Constitution under debate is outdated and no longer relevant why should it be considered it has already proved archaic and is in obvious need of amendment so the Constitution has already been found wanting, and there for a bill for amendendment is warranted