The Second Amendment.

[2ndRateMind]

'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'.

1) Is the reference here to a 'well regulated militia' an irrelevance, or does the Second Amendment mean that US Americans have the right to keep and bear arms only within the context of a 'well regulated militia'?

2) If the safeguard of the security of a free state were to be substantially established, (say by social or political or legal progress) would the right of the people to keep and bear arms evaporate?

This thread is in the philosophical topic advisedly; I am hoping for a philosophical, rather than a political, discussion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Note: Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S. ie., you are 51 times more likely to die because some maladjusted idiot has a gun in the US, than in the UK

[2ndRateMind]

How does the average Brit defend themself?!

Actually, knife crime in the UK is somewhat of a red herring to the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US constitution.

Nevertheless to answer your question: 1) since guns are pretty much banned here, and those that aren't (shotguns for pest control and game shooting, target rifles, and hunting rifles, etc) are strictly controlled by licensing laws, the knife and (more recently) the acid attack tend to be the weapons of choice amongst the UK's maladjusted idiots. And, 2) since semi-automatic and automatic assault rifles are force multipliers (you can kill a lot more people, a lot more quickly, at greater range, with them than with a knife), perhaps the dearth of this kind of military grade weaponry in the UK is 'a good thing'.

That's not to say knives aren't controlled, either. 'Combat' knives are outright banned, and the legal limit on carrying is a knife with a folding blade less than 3 inches long.

With that clearly defined situation, the police are able to identify law-breakers quickly and easily, and tend to come down on offenders like a ton of bricks.

As for personal defense; well, I live in inner city Bristol, which has its fair share of maladjusted idiots. So I take sensible precautions; I don't go to 'bad' places, or associate with 'bad' people, and if I am out after dark, I make sure I am reasonably sober, alert to my surroundings, and careful about my route to and from my destination. And since I moved here some fifteen years ago, I have never felt the need to arm myself, and never had a problem.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

OK, with a little bit more pondering over this, it seems to me that the 'original intent', so far as it can be construed from the amendment, runs as follows:

The highest good being protected here is the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is the means to that end. (ie, if the security of the free state can be protected without a well regulated militia, then that militia can be dispensed with).

I'm of the opinion that there can never be enough security so your point about the state being able to provide their own security is your personal assessment.

Of course.

I think the individual state constitutions should factor in as well...

Absolutely. And I am sure these constitutions were composed with the best of the evidence to hand, at the time.

... So it's not just a matter of a "tyrannical government".

So far as I can make out, the only people that think the federal US government a tyranny are certain (far) right-wing persuaded Americans, who have a problem with tax.

There is a long line of state court authority recognizing a right to self-defense — and a right to defend property — under state constitutions. Twenty-one state constitutions expressly secure such rights, often using language such as this:

All men … have certain inalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] acquiring, possessing and protecting property.

Indeed. But this property thing is a distraction from the main theme of the thread. But, as context, you should know I am not against personal property per se, just against accumulating so much wealth that there is not enough left to go round to guarantee everyone else a reasonably dignified standard of living. And that goes just as much on the international scale, as the national.

As for defending life and liberty, I cannot disagree. But I think the enlightened way to achieve this is through the gentle, gradual, moral education and development of the people, rather than the provocative arms race of the wide-scale distribution of personal firearms.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[AgnosticBoy]

How does the average Brit defend themself?!

Actually, knife crime in the UK is somewhat of a red herring to the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US constitution.

In your OP, you were trying to attribute the ban on guns to the low gun crime rate. I just wanted to point out that allowing guns can also exist simultaneously with low gun crime. I'd also add here that the overall focus here should be that of self-defense. Even if the 2nd amendment were repealed or was found to not support the civilian's right to bear arms, then you count on many seeking to add that right to the Constitution!

That's not to say knives aren't controlled, either. 'Combat' knives are outright banned, and the legal limit on carrying is a knife with a folding blade less than 3 inches long.

With that clearly defined situation, the police are able to identify law-breakers quickly and easily, and tend to come down on offenders like a ton of bricks.

Why are people getting "stabbed" if police in your country are able to come on criminals like a "ton of bricks"? If the police were as effective as you're leading on then they'd be able be in place BEFORE a violent crime happens in all cases. But I'm sure you know as well as I do they can't prevent all threats. They don't have the resources, which is one reason it's easier to empower law-abiding citizens with the right and resources to protect themselves. The gun just happens to be a very effective tool, since you can inflict maximal harm (as should occur to CRIMINALS) while minimizing injury to yourself.

As for personal defense; well, I live in inner city Bristol, which has its fair share of maladjusted idiots. So I take sensible precautions; I don't go to 'bad' places, or associate with 'bad' people, and if I am out after dark, I make sure I am reasonably sober, alert to my surroundings, and careful about my route to and from my destination. And since I moved here some fifteen years ago, I have never felt the need to arm myself, and never had a problem.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Your need to arm yourself is your personal decision. That doesn't mean another innocent person won't be confronted by a violent criminal. In my country, crime can happen anywhere, there's really no totally "good'' area.

[2ndRateMind]

In my country, crime can happen anywhere, there's really no totally "good'' area.

Of course, crime can happen randomly. Nevertheless, if the majority of the people love their guns more than they love each other, it should not be so surprising that no one feels safe, anywhere. You all need guns, because you all have guns, because you all need guns, because you all have guns...

Best wishes, 2RM.

[AgnosticBoy]

In my country, crime can happen anywhere, there's really no totally "good'' area.

Of course, crime can happen randomly. Nevertheless, if the majority of the people love their guns more than they love each other, it should not be so surprising that no one feels safe, anywhere. You all need guns, because you all have guns, because you all need guns, because you all have guns...

Best wishes, 2RM.

Your point leads to a false dichotomy. We need both love and self-defense. If the Second Amendment is not about self-defense then by all means we need to repeal it and add a Constitutional amendment that covers self-defense.



You take away guns from BOTH the good and bad, instead of banning it for just the criminals, then that leaves the good people on an equal playing field with the bad people.