Worshipping at the National Rifle Assn altar

[Todd]

The young woman who died was apparently a nuclear research scientist.  (There are actually a lot of those in Idaho, believe it or not.)  That doesn't mean she wasn't an "idiot" or "reckless" or whatever other label one wants to slap on her, nor does it mean she was, but it also indicates this may just be another sad story without a whole lot in terms of lessons to be learned.  Her fate certainly doesn't add much value to the gun control debate.  The situation in the US is now, long has been, and pretty much always will be, something non-Americans will never understand, however much they try, however much they posture. 

[Moonfish]

The young woman who died was apparently a nuclear research scientist.  (There are actually a lot of those in Idaho, believe it or not.)  That doesn't mean she wasn't an "idiot" or "reckless" or whatever other label one wants to slap on her, nor does it mean she was, but it also indicates this may just be another sad story without a whole lot in terms of lessons to be learned.  Her fate certainly doesn't add much value to the gun control debate.

  The situation in the US is now, long has been, and pretty much always will be, something non-Americans will never understand, however much they try, however much they posture.

What a pompous statement, Todd! Where is your evidence? Or is your conclusion just anecdotal as usual? Perhaps you should rephrase it so it becomes your favored hypothesis. Or, alternatively, state (in a less pompous manner) that "I think that the situation in the US....".   Now you just have to prove it (not the pompous aspect of your statement as that is already clearly established - just the hypothesis)! Good luck!

[Todd]

What a pompous statement, Todd! Where is your evidence? Or is your conclusion just anecdotal as usual? Perhaps you should rephrase it so it becomes your favored hypothesis. Or, alternatively, state (in a less pompous manner) that "I think that the situation in the US....".   Now you just have to prove it (not the pompous aspect of your statemen as that is already clearly established - just the hypothesis)! Good luck!

Oh, goodness, just look at you!  What a big boy (or girl) you are!  Demanding presumably scientific evidence for something that is inherently unscientific.  And just what is a "statemen"?

Tell you what, you intellectual tough guy, recite the most important second amendment cases prior to 1970, the we can cover this in more detail.

[Jo498]

Gun control seems to work pretty good almost everywhere in the first world. Sure, it will not prevent criminals getting guns nor the occasional school shooting (because there are still plenty of hunter, sport shooters etc. around and even with strict regulations the wrong person might get hold of one). But a toddler shooting his mommy or playdate is exceedingly rare everywhere else.
Of course if hundreds of millions of guns are already in circulation because of almost no control in the past, it is kind of hard to squeeze the toothpaste back. This seems to be the problem in the US without a simple solution.

As for the chart, this is the wrong pool for comparison. I bet the US looks o.k. if plotted against Iran, Somalia, Nigeria...

[snyprrr]

Gun control seems to work pretty good almost everywhere in the first world.

Hitler thought it was the shizzle,... and Mao,... uh,... dictators looove "gun control". Once again, we need fully automatic deterrence against a tyrannical government, who doesn't understand that?

[The new erato]

Hitler thought it was the shizzle,... and Mao,... uh,... dictators looove "gun control". Once again, we need fully automatic deterrence against a tyrannical government, who doesn't understand that?

No you don't. One man, one vote. Not one gun, one vote. I realize that may have been the intention when your constitution was written, but surely you have progressed beyond that?

[kishnevi]

No you don't. One man, one vote. Not one gun, one vote. I realize that may have been the intention when your constitution was written, but surely you have progressed beyond that?

He is referring to the right wing fantasy in which gun owners organize and successfully resist an oppressive government. They think the American Revolution is their precedent.  Never mind that the Revolution succeeded only because the French Navy and Army eventually neutralized the British Army in North America, and that large parts of the British public were more sympathetic to the Americans than their own government.  George Washington's real achievement was simply keeping the American military force, and with it, the rebellion, in being until those other factors came into play.

[The new erato]

I'm aware of that fantasy, but with snyprrr I'm never sure if he is part of a fantasy or for real....

[Jo498]

To have any chance to counter a modern army (if a dictator wanted to take over) one would have to be allowed to privately own tanks, helicopters, anti aircraft missile launchers etc. which is not the case even in the US if I am not mistaken.

[The new erato]

To have any chance to counter a modern army (if a dictator wanted to take over) one would have to be allowed to privately own tanks, helicopters, anti aircraft missile launchers etc. which is not the case even in the US if I am not mistaken.

You should all be happy they weren't invented when your founding fathers wrote the constitution. Though concealed carry would be difficult.

[Moonfish]

Oh, goodness, just look at you!  What a big boy (or girl) you are!  Demanding presumably scientific evidence for something that is inherently unscientific.  And just what is a "statemen"?

Tell you what, you intellectual tough guy, recite the most important second amendment cases prior to 1970, the we can cover this in more detail.

Hmm, yes, that is a very persuasive argument. Let's get back to the initial question here instead of arguing about the letter 't'. Where is the evidence for your pretentious statement? You are such a bigot, Todd!

[Florestan]

The situation in the US is now, long has been, and pretty much always will be, something non-Americans will never understand, however much they try, however much they posture.

Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.

What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.

[Ken B]

Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.

What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.

Old constitutions, pfui.  Down with the Glorious Revolution of 1689.  Burn Magna Carta too!  What we need is a party chairman who can act freely to solve problems.

Game, set, match to Todd. 

[vandermolen]

The accidental shooting was on the news here (UK). I think that it is probably difficult for people in the UK and other countries where there is not a tradition of ordinary citizens owning guns to understand the cultural difference. The fact is that in the US there is such a tradition and presumably a lot of money invested in the manufacture of weapons. This is not a criticism but an awareness of a completely different attitude to gun ownership. There have been terrible gun-related massacres here too (Dunblane/Hungerford) so we are not immune from the tragedies which can occur.

[mc ukrneal]

Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.

What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.

If you are referring to the US Constitution, you are incorrect. The constitution creates a framework or structure. So it does not create policies per se, which can be changed as often as desired. In addition, the framework itself is not 'eternal' - it can be changed at any time (and has been many times). You may feel that the threshold for doing so is too high, but any of the articles and any part of those articles can be changed, which is opposite of what you were saying. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.

What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.

You proved Todd's point quite nicely.

[Florestan]

Old constitutions, pfui.  Down with the Glorious Revolution of 1689.  Burn Magna Carta too!

Except that the events of 1688 were neither glorious, nor a revolution (incidentally, Tom Paine has a few words about it in "Rights of Man"), while Magna Charta was no Constitution at all, unless by this term one understands the "rights" that an army of barons forced a feeble king to grant them.

Yesterday you seemed to object to my criticizing Burke, today you seem to subscribe to the Whig history myths...

  What we need is a party chairman who can act freely to solve problems.

That you of all people should lay down this insinuation at my door is quite frankly disappointing, to say the least. But I can live with that and we can still be friends.

[Florestan]

If you are referring to the US Constitution, you are incorrect. The constitution creates a framework or structure. So it does not create policies per se, which can be changed as often as desired. In addition, the framework itself is not 'eternal' - it can be changed at any time (and has been many times). You may feel that the threshold for doing so is too high, but any of the articles and any part of those articles can be changed, which is opposite of what you were saying.

I admit that my rhetoric was rather convoluted, but the fact is that I´m not referring to the US Constitution per se, only to the interpretation that some people seem to give it, and more specifically to the Second Amendment.

Now, of course, I am not a Justice of the Supreme Court, not even an American, and this is probably sufficient ground for some to dismiss any qualification of mine to interpret it in my turn --- and I concede that they would have a strong case if, by so doing, were I to recommend to the American people what to do, or to not do. But as I have no such intention, I might be perhaps permitted to express my views, for which I can offer no other qualifications than a serviceable command of the English language, a moderate degree of reading comprehension and a little knowledge of logic.

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.

Now, either the right to bear arms is related to the existence and efficiency of a well-regulated militia, or it is not. Tertium non datur.

If it is not, and the right to bear arms has no relation whatsoever with any militia, well or bad regulated, then one can only ask why the first clause was inserted in the text. I must admit my ignorance as to the answer.

If, on the contrary, the text says exactly what it says, and the right to bear arms is related to the well-regulated militia, then it begs a few questions more:

1. Does this right, which the text implies to be possessed by a citizen in his quality of a member of the well-regulated militia, extends also to times and places when he acts not in that quality? When he is patrolling the streets, or fighting an enemy, as a publicly identifiable member of the militia, he clearly has the right to bear arms, does he retain the right as a civilian too, say at home or when he goes shopping?

The answer depends on yet another issue to be decided, viz. whether the militia membership is limited to active duty only, or extends to all times and places a militia man not on publicly identifiable active duty might find himself in. Personally I believe that it doesn´t, just as a policeman is a policeman only when on publicly identifiable active duty and in any other situation is just an ordinary citizen.

Thus, I think that the right to bear arms is linked to membership of, and limited to the time of active duty in, a well-regulated militia. Absent that militia, or present but badly or not at all regulated, the right ceases.   

2. If the right extends beyond the citizen´s acting as a member of the militia on active duty, what arms fall under this right? Any arms whatsoever, or only those arms that are in use by the militia?

If the former, then it contradicts the well-regulated militia condition, because such a militia will not use battleaxes or spears, for instance.  If the latter, then all types of guns should be allowed, from revolvers to machine-guns to poisonous gas grenades or whatever is presently used by a well-regulated militia to discharge its duties, thus potentially converting every home in an arsenal.

Any way I look at it, it seems to me clear, logical and common-sense that (1) the right to bear arms is limited to the time spent on active duty as a member of the well-regulated militia, and (2) even if it is stretched to times and places beyond that, some limit on the type of the arms must be set.

Now, of course there are a lot of particular cases of owning and bearing arms: hunting, sports, collectibles or people living in remote areas where they are a vital necessity of defense against wild beasts and wild humans, but as they are in no logical way connected to any well-regulated militia, they cannot logically be the object of the amendment and the regulation of their owning, bearing and use should logically be the business of the States, not of the Federal Government.

One final question to which I would like to know the answer and I´m done: is there today in the US such a well-regulated militia?

You proved Todd's point quite nicely.

Not in the least. All I might have proved by being wrong (which I may very well be, after all I am just as human and fallible as everybody else) is that there is at least one Romanian that doesn´t understand the situation in US. Any other conclusion than that is unwarranted. 

[kishnevi]

The text of the Second Amendment is an abridgement of the corresponding section of the Virginia Bill of Rights.  In the Virginia version, the reasoning is more explicit. A militia, meaning the citizens armed and organized for their own defense,  would obviate the need for a standing army, one of the chief bogeymen of that era.  No standing army meant no force available to a government to force its will on the people and no way to engage in foreign adventures.
The 19th century showed the need for a permanent military, but certainly the militarization of the police and the modern use of the military as enforcers of foreign policy would undoubtedly horrify the Founders as examples of standing armies.  Yet ironically the American right supports gun rights and strong military and police at the same time, and the American left is the reverse.
What the BoR does not address is the right of self defense, which is one of the many rights which are unnamed but "reserved to the people".

[Florestan]

No standing army meant no force available to a government to force its will on the people and no way to engage in foreign adventures.

That is more wishful thinking than reality. Prior to the fifteenth century no Western European State had a standing army, yet governmental opression and foreign adventures were the norm rather than the exception.