TED Conversations

Rob Freda

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.