Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
A commonly misinterpreted ruling, vehemently pushed forward by the anti gun crowd. In truth, the USSC has only had 5 cases come before it regarding the second amendment and all 5 times have declined to make a decision on individual vs. collective(states) rights. The miller case opinion only rules on whether or not the sawed off shotgun has relevance to a militia weapon, or in other words, is it used by the military. At that time, it was ruled that it did not, but only because miller was not there to present evidence that it did. And how is it a 'so called' right to bear arms when it is plainly stated there?
|
Just so we're clear, I'm only personally anti gun (I won't ever own or even use one), but I am a gun control advocate poltically. I have no want to take your gun. My only concern is doing anything and everything imaginable to make sure that the antagonists that we both so often mention are unable to procure guns. While you see the 'right to bear arms' as a civil liberties issue, I see it as a serious liability for those who want to control gun use, and for those past, present, and future gun victims. Back to the courts...
Quote:
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
So, to summerize: there is a legal, Constitutionally protected right to bear arms, but inly in the case that you belong to a militia. If you do not, there is no such civil liberty.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amte...rces.htm#TOC11
|
I take this to mean that there is supposed to be a civilian counterpart to the federal military, in order to maintain balance of power (bear in mind that the UK had a very strong military and almost no militia at the time of the 13 Colonies). The Second Amendment is quite simply a guerentee by it's creators that the federal government will not overpower the militia, at the risk of breaking it's own rules. If you are a member of the militia, then you have the right to bear arms to the ends of being a second line of defence against exterior threats, and to maintain the balance of power between federal government and civilians. If you own a gun and do not belong to a militia, the right to bear arms ceases to be a legal civil right. It is a privilege.
Just so you know, the quoted statement above is by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School. I am not a lawyer, but he is (and quite a good one at that).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
While the UK may have a low homicide rate (although in 2003, chicago had 599 murders), the rest of violent crime (rapes, robberies, home invasions, and assaults) have risen dramatically, not all committed with guns, but against defenseless citizens none the less.
|
The dramatic rise still pales in comparison with the crime rates in the US. That information cannot be discounted, as it is telling. At a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents with New York suffering 952 homicides in 2000 to London's 189 in 2003.
Also, the citizens of the UK are hardly defenceless. That is an exageration at best, and a lie at worst. They have available to them the same defensive technologies as Americans such as security systems, safety doors and windows, clubs, panic rooms, tasers, defensive aerosols, and the likes. I will say this again for clarity:
a gun is not the only defence against criminals.