TED Conversations

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


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.