My name Is Adam, I am very happy to join ATS. I have been reading a lot of threads for the past weeks and the issue of gun control seemed to be of
interest. There is some question I would love to ask you regarding the 2nd amendment.
The U.S. Constitution has been validated and applied since 1789. One may wonder whether the famous second amendment on the carrying of weapons is
still relevant in this country 200 years later. At the time, the United States was under construction geographically, politically and economically.
For American citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms could have been relevant 200 years ago.
Sure I could post pictures of muskets and compare them to Uzis, Preach for self defense or feed you with statistics that validates or invalidates the
right to bear arms. But let me ask you some questions instead.
“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.”(Constitution of the United States Of America, 2nd Amendment)
Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia
with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?
Proponents of the individualistic interpretation hold especially the second part of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed." According to them, citizens have the right to arm themselves in a threefold purpose: to defend their property and their families,
to preserve a possible tyrannical government and participate in the defense of the state against foreign aggression. But the proponents of the
collective right are to make cheap limitation of the clause above. Insofar as there is talk of a militia, that is to say, in the language of the time,
a reserve army, the right of the states to organize such a armed force that is recognized. It was to protect at the time of ratification, was the
opportunity for each State to ensure its own defense without resorting to a professional federal army. And for them this invalidates the theory of the
Second Amendment right to open a vigilante. In addition, the reference to a "free state" and its security does not allow the interpretation that
citizens have the right to arm themselves to resist a government deemed too authoritarian.
Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?
United States v. Miller 1939, the supreme Court took a position that could not be more ambiguous. If it upholds the constitutionality of the federal
law of 1934, it is for a reason that is not likely to set a law: the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the type of weapon
involved in the case considered (a sawed-off shotgun), because it is not part of the usual weapons of a militia.
Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the times we
live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?
What matters is not so strictly legal interpretation of the Second Amendment as its symbolic power. Because it is a valuable lever for those who are
strongly opposed to any restrictions on arms, who build their argument on the quasi-religious devotion that the American society dedicates to the
If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would no doubt be members of a pro-gun group. That statement might sound rather wild ; but really,
if one knows Colonial history, it’s not. Indeed, it is hard to overstate how much our Founding Fathers cherished the firearm.
What America needs is a moral revolution of massive proportions. Changed hearts and the restoration of traditional and stable families, combined
with stricter law enforcement and a reversal of our revolving door justice system, could, over time, bring safety back to our streets.
Twentieth-century Americans have rejected the principles of freedom of their ancestors. Believing that the socialist welfare state would provide
them with a “safety net” of governmental security, they traded the liberty bequeathed to them by their ancestors for the paternalistic state.
Thus, they adopted all the things to which their ancestors had said No: income taxation, welfare, regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
public schooling, and gun control.
It is clear that there is a gulf between the two ideological camps. Some defend a law eternal and intangible, others are alarmed by the social cost of
it all. For some responsibility is individual, and the state must be limited to an arbiter, for others it is collective, and the State is entitled to
implement a preventive policy. Which brings us back to question 1 but this time regarding the State policy.
Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American
The application of the Brady bill, the public outcry against the Columbine tragedy and mourning collective orchestrated by the media that ensued had
some commentators suggest that in this struggle between the individual rights and public health, that the NRA had lost ground. In fact, nothing is
less certain. Because if the NRA has never changed his creed, supporters of arms control had gradually reduce their claims to be closer to the point
where the polls are the political center of gravity. The sympathy that each side can expect from the opinion may be eventually changed, but there is
no evidence that the measures that will result will have the expected impact on gun violence.
Thank you for reading; I am grateful to everyone who took the time to read since it took me over 3 hours to write and prepare a decent thread. And
hopefully, some will answer these questions
I am Glad to join the ATS family.