Strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, other gun control issues and specious religious claims

No doubt there have been threads on this topic before, but given recent events, it seems that it bears discussion again. In addition, I am throwing in some discussion of other relevant facts and arguments surrounding the recent shooting in Newton, CT.

The Second Amendment states:

"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."

Nothing specifically about firearms/guns, just arms -- a very general term to describe weapons. So people should have the right to bear machine guns, assault rifles, hand grenades, bazookas, rocket launchers, flame throwers, artillery, land mines, tanks, aircraft, drones, bombs, napalm, cluster munitions, missiles, nerve gas and other poisonous gases, and, naturally, nuclear weapons -- amongst other implements of destruction and death. Yet we aren't allowed these -- with the exception of some forms of assault rifles. Rather the US government only allows its citizens to have hand guns, rifles (along with some forms of assault rifles) and shot guns as well as blades.

Thus the government has already infringed upon US citizens' constitutional rights BIG TIME. As for a well regulated militia, some might claim the National Guard is this, but that is a matter of debate. Militia forces should be for protection of the citizenry at home, yet the National Guard has essentially become a branch of the US military, going overseas to fight. So we have no well-regulated militias for defence. Clearly there are some wildcat militias with no official government sanction; I wouldn't call these well-regulated.

Seems we have deviated from the letter of the law in a number of ways. What keeps the government from regulating weapons even more?

Now, just for the record, I have mixed feelings on gun control, and I must say that some of the gun advocates' arguments after this recent shooting make considerable sense. I'm not sure where I stand on how laws regardings guns should change. But for gun advocates to claim that we have a constitutional right to bear guns seems, given the already existing limitations on bearing arms, seems suspect. Either we should be able to bear all arms or the government has a right to limit the ownership of any and all of them.

One can say, well obviously some weapons are too powerful and dangerous for citizens to keep, thus the full range of them is limited. Then I would counter with: what is the cut-off? No nukes? No nerve gas? No aircraft carriers? No tanks? What exactly then? And if one is completely a strict constructionist and says that all or most of these weapons should be available to citizens, isn't that obviously a nutty proposition?

Perhaps the government has the power to regulate weapons more. Obviously it is left to nine special people to decide what the Constitution means, and clearly they make many a bad and unjust decision, so if they decide more classes of weapons can be restricted to citizens, who's to stop them practically speaking? Sure, you macho gun owners could rise up against it, but good luck with that.

So let's discuss additional gun control possibilities in the context of this recent mass shooting. From what I've heard. The mother of the killer owned the weapons and taught her two sons to shoot at a firing range. So by all rights it would seem gun training was provided. Gun safety was another matter. Evidently mom didn't have the family firearms, which she owned, safely locked away, out of junior's reach. Perhaps something should be done to enforce better gun safety, including household inspections -- spot inspections at that. We have building code inspectors, why not gun inspectors?

While on gun safety, I wanted to mention another case that happened about a week ago in which a father apparently accidentally shot his son with a pistol while in the parking lot of a gun shop. He explanation was that he didn't know that there was a bullet in the chamber -- seriously. And because of such gross negligence/stupidity his 5-year-old son is dead. It really seems like this country must maintain better gun security scrutiny.

If, as some gun advocates suggest, everybody should be allowed to carry firearms on their person, imagine how many more stupid shootings will happen. Or how many people will be held-up at gun-point for their weapons? The American west at some point began regulating gun carrying in towns because of the deadly nuttiness that ensued from complete gun-carrying liberty. What if some teachers were to be armed? What happens when one of these teachers get's jumped by a couple of out-of-control high schoolers? Also, what would keep a teacher from losing his/her control in a crisis situation and using a firearm when it is not warranted. Or for such a teacher suffering extreme stress and/or mental illness going "educational"?

Speaking of mental illness, this recent case and many -- if not all -- of these shootings involve people who are clearly mentally unbalanced. And in this case it apparently wasn't the owner of the weapons who was necessarily unbalanced, but rather one of her sons, who, one way or another, had access to her weapons. Even with background checks, how do we keep weapons away from people with nascent mental issues, i.e. ones who haven't committed crimes? And a lot of these shootings involve young people who wouldn't necessarily have a record that would raise a red flag.

Bottom line: I really don't think the arming of America will help things, and for public safety it seems additional restrictions/regulations of firearms seems necessary.

The last subject I want to touch on is the specious claim by some religionists (a polite term for such folk) that this attack was caused by the lack of prayer and religion in public schools. I just saw a news clip on the shooter and his family; apparently they were church-going folks. Who would'a thunk? So stifle the BS (bad scholarship) about lack of religion being the root of this problem. Guns don't kill, lack of prayer does. *NOT*

The actual problem is multi-part: we already have too many guns and many of them are not well secured and/or are owned by unstable or stupid/careless people; we have a dysfunctional society, for a variety of reasons, and some people can't take the stress and take it out with violence; and perhaps the biggest reason -- US society is immersed in violence. We have an aggressive military waging war across the world and the establishment media and political leaders portray this violence as justified; in addition our culture is immersed in violence -- "literature", movies and video/computer games that glorify violence. Is anyone really surprised then when people take their frustrations out with weapons? Furthermore, this all-prevalent violence in our culture just makes the claim that lack of prayer in schools is causing this sickness that much more ridiculous.

To the people who will say: well I watch violent movies, play video games and own guns, but I don't go on killing sprees -- it's not that these influences will affect everyone, but they will affect more at-risk people, and there lies the problem.

And let's be clear, since this Conn. shooting occurred, several more smaller shootings have also happened throughout the nation. Something needs to be done about it, and prayer in public schools is not going to fix matters. Serious, effectual steps are needed.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I consider this a work of art...

Well, except for the world's ugliest guest sheets. I really need to change those...

You say too many guns, I say not enough people that carry and know how to use them.

I am a believer a few armed teachers could have ended that situation a lot sooner and with a lot less loss of life.

Psychos will find a way to kill people. They always have. Since the dawn of man. I'm not religious, but think Kane and Abel... murders are going to happen.

I would rather have the option to defend myself and the ones I love.

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo


Thanks for the gun-porn pic, and consequently helping to make my point.

Just one question: did you bother to read my entire post? In particular the part that the discusses the possible problems arising from armed teacher, and the part about the fact that the shooter was trained to use firearms at a gun range?

And if you seriously think more guns will end gun violence, then why not flood the market with more street drugs in order to end the illegal drug problem?

Nor did you bother to address the first point in my thread: that any way you cut it, the 2nd Amendment is not being followed; either we should have access to all arms or the government has a right to regulate all arms. The current interpretation is untenable given the language of the clause.

What we need is to implement a secondary military reserve and call it the National Militia, people who want to apply must pass all of the back ground checks and physical and mental tests of the U.S. Army.

People who get accepted will get to purchase automatic assault rifles and other high powered rifles with a limited number of rounds.

People who are not in it, will only be able to purchase a 9mm handgun for personal safety limited to 10 rounds per year

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo

 

Thanks for the gun-porn pic, and consequently helping to make my point.

Just one question: did you bother to read my entire post? In particular the part that the discusses the possible problems arising from armed teacher, and the part about the fact that the shooter was trained to use firearms at a gun range?

And if you seriously think more guns will end gun violence, then why not flood the market with more street drugs in order to end the illegal drug problem?

Nor did you bother to address the first point in my thread: that any way you cut it, the 2nd Amendment is not being followed; either we should have access to all arms or the government has a right to regulate all arms. The current interpretation is untenable given the language of the clause.

As for the gun porn: Glad to oblige.

As for him being trained at a range: They can find no such proof that they ever visited a range together.

As for the kids jumping a teacher: Keep them locked up in fingerprint gun-boxes that are bolted under the desk. There are some very secure gun-safes, people just choose not to use them.

As for the 2nd amendment being violated already, I sort of agree on one level. On another, the phrase "being necessary"... might be the words they use to keep f-22's off of rich kids X-Mas lists... an f-22 isn't really necessary, per se.

As for your topic on drugs, that is #1, comparing apples to oranges as drugs aren't a tool for self-defense against another person with drugs...

But #2, if drugs were regulated instead of outlawed, there *would* be less drug crime.

Any topics I missed?

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo


What if a teacher decides to flip out?

Time to arm the student body?

I don't think you're going to have enough time to get the handgun from under a desk, when a crazy breaks into the class room with body armor and an AR-15

reply to post by muse7

That would get cooped by Obama's call for a Civilian Defense Force "separate but as strong as the military" (the one he toted while running for office the first time). His concept evokes images of the Nazi Brownshirts. Everyone that has student loan debt would probably be required to serve to work off their debt and all in the military and CDF would be required to "take the (micro) chip" to facilitate securing their records, especially medical records (for future required vaccines, etc).

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo

 

What if a teacher decides to flip out?

Time to arm the student body?

I don't think you're going to have enough time to get the handgun from under a desk, when a crazy breaks into the class room with body armor and an AR-15

edit on 12/16/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

If a teacher "decides" to flip out, it's going to happen regardless. And how does one decide to flip out? Wouldn't that be an active decision and therefor not be flipping out?

And there isn't just one teacher in a school, one flips out, another ends the situation.

And the fingerprint gun-boxes take about 2 seconds to retrieve the firearm. You slip your hand in, it reads your fingerprint, gun slips out. You would have plenty of time, given that you are near the desk.

Lastly, time to arm the student body? Apparently you haven't visited an inner-city school recently...

Some of these kids have more guns than I do.

There are already schools where teachers are allowed to CCW, and guess what... no shootings have occurred there.

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo


How do you know there is no evidence that the shooter's family trained at a range? I'm not saying that they definitely did, only that it has been reported so. How come you are so confident that they didn't?

As for the gun vs drug analogy. Given that guns can also be used for committing crimes and violence, my analogy is more apt than you claim. Besides which, if the government flooded the market with free street drugs, then the profit motive would leave and the violence associated with street drugs would end.

As for teachers with guns, what happens when a teacher with gun clearance flips out? Furthermore, we have enough trouble with trigure-happy cops. Do we also need armed, trigger-happy teachers? What if a couple of high school students overpower a teacher and stiick his/her thumb to the thumb ID pad? Are these guns going to remain in these safeboxes 24/7 or being locked away in a central place after hours, and how secure will these safety boxes be? See, there are a lot of inconvenient logistical problems and unforeseen consequences with your more-gun solution.

Since these shootings happen elsewhere, such as malls, should we start arming department store clerks too? Where does the arming end?

Actually one solution would be to refit and/or replace all current guns for civilian use with GPS receivers and if they come within certain areas, such as schools, hospitals, malls, etc. the firing mechanisms automatically fail to operate. Could also set them up so they won't work in a residential neighborhood outside the confines of a person's home. This perhaps sounds unfeasible, but I think technologically it is so, and it would go a long ways in cutting down on such rage shootings.

reply to post by muse7


I like your limited ammunition notion, although there would be a problem with target practice then. But you could get additional rounds doled out at a gun range I guess, but that still entails a lot of monitoring.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo

 

How do you know there is no evidence that the shooter's family trained at a range? I'm not saying that they definitely did, only that it has been reported so. How come you are so confident that they didn't?

As for the gun vs drug analogy. Given that guns can also be used for committing crimes and violence, my analogy is more apt than you claim. Besides which, if the government flooded the market with free street drugs, then the profit motive would leave and the violence associated with street drugs would end.

As for teachers with guns, what happens when a teacher with gun clearance flips out? Furthermore, we have enough trouble with trigure-happy cops. Do we also need armed, trigger-happy teachers? What if a couple of high school students overpower a teacher and stiick his/her thumb to the thumb ID pad? Are these guns going to remain in these safeboxes 24/7 or being locked away in a central place after hours, and how secure will these safety boxes be? See, there are a lot of inconvenient logistical problems and unforeseen consequences with your more-gun solution.

Since these shootings happen elsewhere, such as malls, should we start arming department store clerks too? Where does the arming end?

Actually one solution would be to refit and/or replace all current guns for civilian use with GPS receivers and if they come within certain areas, such as schools, hospitals, malls, etc. the firing mechanisms automatically fail to operate. Could also set them up so they won't work in a residential neighborhood outside the confines of a person's home. This perhaps sounds unfeasible, but I think technologically it is so, and it would go a long ways in cutting down on such rage shootings.

There is no evidence because they are from a small town. Meaning a small number of ranges. You have to sign an injury waiver when you go to a range. They don't have to get the papers from many ranges, and they would have. No documentation for them means no range practice.

Leave the guns in the safes, that is what they are there for. And like I stated earlier. There are already schools in America where teachers are allowed to carry guns. And they have had 0 shootings.

You are contradicting yourself now with the gun/drugs argument. Might want to re-read the posts you are offering up.

Yes, allow employees with CCW permits to carry at the mall. Awesome idea!

And you would be surprised how many stores you visit have a gun you don't know about behind the counter.

You would be surprised how many people you pass in the street, at the grocery store, and anywhere else that have a firearm on them you don't know about. I guarantee if you leave your house tomorrow and go shopping, you will wind-up within 10 feet of a firearm at least once.

I assume this scares you...

What scares me worse is the possibility of my family being threatened and me not being able to protect them.

Originally posted by muse7
What we need is to implement a secondary military reserve and call it the National Militia, people who want to apply must pass all of the back ground checks and physical and mental tests of the U.S. Army.

People who get accepted will get to purchase automatic assault rifles and other high powered rifles with a limited number of rounds.

People who are not in it, will only be able to purchase a 9mm handgun for personal safety limited to 10 rounds per year

Do you even know who the Militia is?

I'm not American, and from an outside point of view, I think your misinterpretation of this old rule is quite shocking.

The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state" seems to me to be the reason to "bear arms", where the freedom of your state is under threat, the citizens have the right to rise up and bear arms to protect her freedom.

Now as I see it the USA is a free state/states, therefore there is no real reason for every citizen to be armed to the teeth for everyday life.

You seem to have taken this "right" to the extreme, which is the reason your society is so full of gun crime in everyday life.

I believe if your country is under threat, then by all means take up arms, but for going to the shops, or school, guns should be nowhere near anyone.

Get rid of the availability of every Tom, Dick or Harry to buy guns, and you create a safer society. Guns are not fads, toys, fashion statements, and people in most civilized countries live full lives without the threat of gun violence or owning a gun and are perfectly fine. I don't understand how Americans feel "safer" when everyone you pass on the street could kill you in a split second if so desired.......Mind boggles

reply to post by celticniall


Who do you mean "your" in "your interpretation"? I, the OP, or Americans in general?

I agree with you that the constitutional clause is all about protecting the "free" state from external enemies, as well as internal ones who would wish to take control of a non-democratic government. The writers of the constitution thought then that all citizens should be able to bear arms for such contingencies, and that they would wield them in these "well-regulated" militias. It is not about bearing arms for self defense. But strict interpretation is that all arms should be permissible for citizens to bear, yet this has never been borne out.

Part of the point of my post is the fact that private citizens aren't allowed to own every kind of military arm, so why should guns be considered extra special and above regulation/control by the government? If the government can say you can't have a rocket launcher, then it has as much right to say you can't have a rifle or a hand gun if it wants to, or to severely restrict/control them.

I totally agree that the notion that more guns in more citizens' hands will only lead to more violence. That is clearly not the answer. But something more nuanced/less draconian than complete disarmament of the citizenry needs to be the solution.

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo


You say there is no evidence of them being members of some range or having gone to one. Again I'll ask you: what do you base this on? Did you do a search of paperwork at nearby ranges or did you read an article by someone who did so? That is what I am trying to get at. And how do you know that they might not have gone to some range outside of their local? I want to know how you are so confident that they did not have firearm training?

To be clear, I would agree that the mother certainly didn't follow good gun safety in how she stored her guns. That is abundantly clear. But whether or not she had the training, which you say would minimize such "tragedies" as this, still seems to be a debatable point. Gun training is not going to stop all or even most stupid/careless gun handling just as driver's ed. and driving license test don't stop all or even most careless/dangerous driving..

could just always try to start an offical religion(i know there is some kind of process to do it) and say you worship all holy glock or his holyness smith and wesson and after a set ammount of time its a religion and as they are not allowed to infringe upon religious freedom could be just the loophole to insure guns could NEVER be banned

wishfullthinking most likely but hey i guy can dream

edition.cnn.com... hey jedis did it so why cant we do it with the second amendment ?

www.whatidiots.com... just for fun

jimmythejock.hubpages.com...

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Hi MrInquisitive
I was meaning Americans in general.

Americans, particularly the gun rights advocates, interpret this as a right to bear arms at any time, all the time, in every day life.

What I'm saying is that from an outsiders POV, the Amendment seems to read, in the event of a threat to the country or rights of the US citizens, then the citizens themselves have a right to defend the freedom of the state.

In no way is the freedom of the state under any threat from outside nor inside the country, therefore the citizens should not be arming themselves to the teeth.

No threat = No arms

Why does the average American feel the need to carry a gun? ....... because guns are legal and any crazy person can get them.
If guns were not available to everyone, then a lot of these crazies would not own guns and couldn't walk into schools and theaters and murder people.

People owning guns do not stop these atrocities, and to top it all it makes policing very difficult as the cops have to assume EVERYONE has a gun........is no one were allowed guns, then the cops would have no reason to be as heavy handed as they are with the average citizen.

anyway just my 2c

reply to post by celticniall


Thanks for the explanatory reply, celticniall. It sounds like we are fairly much in agreement on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, although to say there is currently no threat externally or internally to the US, so no one needs to have a weapon is a bit extreme. It's impractical, i.e. impossible, to just hand out guns all around just before or as such a threat rears its head, so people need to be able to retain some of their arms, albeit not the deadliest, highest-firepower ones that lend themselves to such massacres. That said, the US is clearly overarmed and a lot of people with guns have no right to have one because they are incapable of securing them or handling them correctly.

Also, I KNOW that ATS's American members are not a representative cross-section of Americans, although there is certainly a substantial minority of Americans who are hyper-zealous with respect to their gun rights. And unfortunately they and the professional gun lobby have an inordinate political influence in this country. It seems, however, with this most recent mass shooting that the formerly silent majority is now speaking out, and I think some changes for the better will occur.

But just reading through the litany of false-equivalency arguments here, you can see that a lot of people will remain in denial. They're absolutists. I am by no means a proponent of complete outlawing of ownership of guns, but have tried to make clear in this thread that new rules and regulations are necessary to combat this epidemic of gun violence. Call me kooky, but some kind of compromise in a change in gun ownership paradigm is needed. The pro-gun absolutists show their extremist attitude by the poor arguments they make in attempt to portray the plethora of guns in US society as not being a problem. Their obvious misreading of the Second Amendment also shows their lack of critical thinking ability. They're dogmatists and the truth be darned.