Second Amendment Questions

[sourmìlk]

You honestly think that the US military would be willing to raze entire cities on our own soil in a civil war? Something we aren't even willing to do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Of course not, but the second amendment is only necessary in the event that the military sides with a totalitarian government. I've not ran across many dictatorial regimes that care about the lives of their civilians.

Do you think that everyone in the military would even follow orders such as that, if they were given?

Almost certainly not, I think that the military would dissent. In which case we wouldn't need guns because the military would be on our side anyways.

Your point seems to be "the Military has better hardware, ergo, any civilian hardware is ineffective and thus no one but law enforcement and the military should have the guns", and that's a pretty stupid argument.

It's not a stupid argument if you remember that, in the case of the military siding with a totalitarian regime, they almost certainly would not mind murdering civilians.

[Izawwlgood]

I've not ran across many dictatorial regimes that care about the lives of their civilians.

You've also never run across any that are willing to wantonly nuke vast regions of their own country, yet you feel this is an issue preventing citizens ownership of guns.

It's not a stupid argument if you remember that, in the case of the military siding with a totalitarian regime, they almost certainly would not mind murdering civilians.

Murder != using weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, I'm not even sure why I'm debating this with you: show me a real world situation where possession of civilian weaponry would be useless against an oppressive force, and we'll go from there. Simply claiming that military's with superior weapons means that all opposition is futile is a gross, almost deliberate misunderstanding of how conflict works. Given that well funded armies with vastly superior technologies can be brought to their knees in the face of dudes with a couple of guns if the circumstances are right, I'm completely flabbergasted that you would claim such a thing.
Case in point, Blackhawk Down.

If you're going to claim that gun ownership leads to violence, I urge you to look at the inverse correlation between gun ownership laws and crime.

[rat4000]

Besides, what government would want to turn a protest into civil war? Because that's what would happen if you used bombs on a crowd. And then you wouldn't only have your own people to deal with (and they are extremely dangerous, even without guns), you'd also be fighting half of the rest of the well-armed world. See: Libya.

[sourmìlk]

I've not ran across many dictatorial regimes that care about the lives of their civilians.

You've also never run across any that are willing to wantonly nuke vast regions of their own country, yet you feel this is an issue preventing citizens ownership of guns.

Where did I say nuke? Anyways, I've certainly run across a few willing to gas entire cities, for example.

Murder != using weapons of mass destruction.

I never said it did.

Actually, I'm not even sure why I'm debating this with you: show me a real world situation where possession of civilian weaponry would be useless against an oppressive force, and we'll go from there. Simply claiming that military's with superior weapons means that all opposition is futile is a gross, almost deliberate misunderstanding of how conflict works. Given that well funded armies with vastly superior technologies can be brought to their knees in the face of dudes with a couple of guns if the circumstances are right, I'm completely flabbergasted that you would claim such a thing.
Case in point, Blackhawk Down.

We're discussing a hypothetical. I don't happen to have an example in which a second amendment might deter a totalitarian regime because totalitarian regimes generally don't have a second amendment. And armies can be brought down my a few dudes with guns because they aren't willing to go into a city and kill anything that moves.

[Eseell]

We're discussing a hypothetical. I don't happen to have an example in which a second amendment might deter a totalitarian regime because totalitarian regimes generally don't have a second amendment.

Why is a population better off without a protected right to bear arms?

[sourmìlk]

We're discussing a hypothetical. I don't happen to have an example in which a second amendment might deter a totalitarian regime because totalitarian regimes generally don't have a second amendment.

Why is a population better off without a protected right to bear arms?

The USA, one of the only western nations where civilians have the right to bear arms, also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related homicide. The wide availability of guns contributes to this.

Oh, and apparently gun ownership was really common under Sadaam, but that didn't appear to prevent his dictatorship.

[mdyrud]

We're discussing a hypothetical. I don't happen to have an example in which a second amendment might deter a totalitarian regime because totalitarian regimes generally don't have a second amendment.

Why is a population better off without a protected right to bear arms?

The USA, one of the only western nations where civilians have the right to bear arms, also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related homicide. The wide availability of guns contributes to this.

Oh, and apparently gun ownership was really common under Sadaam, but that didn't appear to prevent his dictatorship.

No offense, but do you have any other sources beside the one posted in the original post? The only info on that page that I could find referencing gun crimes in the US is 5 or so years old. Also, I'm hesitant to look at information put up by the Gun Control Network, just like I'm not going to post any links to the NRA.

[Роберт]

We're discussing a hypothetical. I don't happen to have an example in which a second amendment might deter a totalitarian regime because totalitarian regimes generally don't have a second amendment.

Why is a population better off without a protected right to bear arms?

The USA, one of the only western nations where civilians have the right to bear arms, also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related homicide. The wide availability of guns contributes to this.

Oh, and apparently gun ownership was really common under Sadaam, but that didn't appear to prevent his dictatorship.

...
sourmilk, please. Stop and think for a little bit. Surely you're aware of Switzerland, yes?

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Astonishingly, I agree with sourmilk (to a degree - in terms of picking-up-guns-and-overthrowing-our-gubmint, the second amendment is outdated: certainly the US military can outgun armed groups of citizens (if it feels like it - whether it ever would in modern times is a separate issue and it is impossible to say conclusively either way). Since you don't have access to the same weapons the military does, speaking tactically, you're not gonna be able to like, take the city of Boston again or re-live the Revolution or something like that. However, out of the principle that the government taking away rights it not a good thing, I would object to having it repealed. Also, the THREAT of violence might indeed get the government to listen - I personally don't think this would happen, but concede it is theoretically possible - so in that sense the second amendment is not outdated).

[Роберт]

Astonishingly, I agree with sourmilk (to a degree - in terms of picking-up-guns-and-overthrowing-our-gubmint, the second amendment is outdated: certainly the US military can outgun armed groups of citizens (if it feels like it - whether it ever would in modern times is a separate issue and it is impossible to say conclusively either way). Since you don't have access to the same weapons the military does, speaking tactically, you're not gonna be able to like, take the city of Boston again or re-live the Revolution or something like that. However, out of the principle that the government taking away rights it not a good thing, I would object to having it repealed. Also, the THREAT of violence might indeed get the government to listen - I personally don't think this would happen, but concede it is theoretically possible - so in that sense the second amendment is not outdated).

I don't agree with what I perceive sourmilk to be saying. I perceive that sourmilk is saying that because it's unlikely that we would be able to overthrow the government with military might alone, and because gun crime is high in the U.S., it's therefore obvious that the second amendment is no longer useful and we'd be better of being rid of it.

[mmmcannibalism]

gun crime rate=/=crime rate.

I would be just as dead whether I'm shot or stabbed to death, so the real question is what sort of effect do gun bans have on the rates of violent crimes(specifically the rate of certain kinds of victimization by violent crime).

[sourmìlk]

sourmilk, please. Stop and think for a little bit. Surely you're aware of Switzerland, yes?

Yes, switzerland has very heavy gun control laws. You have to show that you need a gun, you have to be over 18 to carry one, etc.

Astonishingly, I agree with sourmilk

Adding this to my signature.

gun crime rate=/=crime rate.

this is true, but just "crime rate" isn't a particularly useful statistic either. The question is: would eliminating the second amendment reduce homicide? My answer is probably. The vast, vast majority of homicides are committed with guns, and although I recognize that eliminating guns would obviously not eliminate all those homicides, I can't help but think that it would be significantly harder to kill somebody without access to the most commonly used weapons.

[DSenette]

yeah, because the people who commit most of the murders with guns got them legally (yes, some of them did, most of them didn't)

[Eseell]

sourmilk, please. Stop and think for a little bit. Surely you're aware of Switzerland, yes?

Yes, switzerland has very heavy gun control laws. You have to show that you need a gun, you have to be over 18 to carry one, etc.

Every member of the Swiss militia keeps a machine gun and ammunition in their home. Also, you have to be 18 to carry a weapon in the US and in most places you need a permit, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[mdyrud]

sourmilk, please. Stop and think for a little bit. Surely you're aware of Switzerland, yes?

Yes, switzerland has very heavy gun control laws. You have to show that you need a gun, you have to be over 18 to carry one, etc.

They may have heavy gun control laws, but they also have some of the most heavily armed citizens. This shows the weapons that the Swiss military uses, and the ones in bold are kept in the home of the soldier.

[sourmìlk]

Every member of the Swiss militia keeps a machine gun and ammunition in their home. Also, you have to be 18 to carry a weapon in the US and in most places you need a permit, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I don't know why I led you to believe that the amount of guns is necessarily the problem: it's who has them. I suppose sufficiently strict gun control laws would satisfy me, but the fact that a guy like Loughner can legally get a gun indicates some serious problems. Also, I'm pretty sure minors can carry guns in the USA.

They may have heavy gun control laws, but they also have some of the most heavily armed citizens.

so?

[Eseell]

I don't know why I led you to believe that the amount of guns is necessarily the problem: it's who has them. I suppose sufficiently strict gun control laws would satisfy me, but the fact that a guy like Loughner can legally get a gun indicates some serious problems. Also, I'm pretty sure minors can carry guns in the USA.

No, they can't.

(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or
otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to
knowingly possess -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

Also, Loughner was a failure of the system. He would have been a prohibited person if his university and Pima County SO had properly handled his case.

[mdyrud]

They may have heavy gun control laws, but they also have some of the most heavily armed citizens.

so?

So, your link in the OP is comparing crime rates to gun ownership. I suppose you might be abandoning that argument to switch to a focus on gun control laws, but I haven't noticed that in your posts. If we're just looking at gun ownership and crime rate you have a pretty noticeable counter-example in Switzerland.

[sourmìlk]

I don't know why I led you to believe that the amount of guns is necessarily the problem: it's who has them. I suppose sufficiently strict gun control laws would satisfy me, but the fact that a guy like Loughner can legally get a gun indicates some serious problems. Also, I'm pretty sure minors can carry guns in the USA.

No, they can't.

(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or
otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to
knowingly possess -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

That covers specifically handguns. Those have more strict regulation than rifles and shotguns and such.

Also, Loughner was a failure of the system. He would have been a prohibited person if his university and Pima County SO had properly handled his case.

Well that's depressing. I suppose that's a poor example. Anyways, do you agree or disagree that gun laws aren't strict enough?

So, your link in the OP is comparing crime rates to gun ownership. I suppose you might be abandoning that argument to switch to a focus on gun control laws, but I haven't noticed that in your posts. If we're just looking at gun ownership and crime rate you have a pretty noticeable counter-example in Switzerland.

I don't believe I said that the amount of gun ownership was the problem, but if I did then that statement is proven wrong by switzerland. The problem is gun control.

[mdyrud]

So, your link in the OP is comparing crime rates to gun ownership. I suppose you might be abandoning that argument to switch to a focus on gun control laws, but I haven't noticed that in your posts. If we're just looking at gun ownership and crime rate you have a pretty noticeable counter-example in Switzerland.

I don't believe I said that the amount of gun ownership was the problem, but if I did then that statement is proven wrong by switzerland. The problem is gun control.

You never said it was a problem, but the only source you've linked did. That's one reason I asked if you had any other sources a while back.

[Izawwlgood]

I don't know why I led you to believe that the amount of guns is necessarily the problem: it's who has them.

I don't know how you can state that and believe that control is the answer; a simple search of crime rates shows an INCREASE in gun related violence in places with tighter gun control.

[sourmìlk]

I don't know why I led you to believe that the amount of guns is necessarily the problem: it's who has them.

I don't know how you can state that and believe that control is the answer; a simple search of crime rates shows an INCREASE in gun related violence in places with tighter gun control.

Can I get a source there?

[Eseell]

That covers specifically handguns. Those have more strict regulation than rifles and shotguns and such.

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.(source)

If you're arguing that guns are a crime problem, rifles and shotguns are not your culprit.

Also, Loughner was a failure of the system. He would have been a prohibited person if his university and Pima County SO had properly handled his case.

Well that's depressing. I suppose that's a poor example. Anyways, do you agree or disagree that gun laws aren't strict enough?

Gun laws are plenty strict enough. Show me a place in the US where strict gun control has reduced crime rates.

[Роберт]

Anyways, do you agree or disagree that gun laws aren't strict enough?

Whoops, I thought this thread was about the second amendment, and whether or not it was still relevant. Sorry, carry on with whatever topic this really is...

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

I don't agree with what I perceive sourmilk to be saying. I perceive that sourmilk is saying that because it's unlikely that we would be able to overthrow the government with military might alone, and because gun crime is high in the U.S., it's therefore obvious that the second amendment is no longer useful and we'd be better of being rid of it.

Well, I don't agree with all of it, but part if it (thus the "to a degree" clause ). I don't agree with the second part, that we'd be better off without it. I do agree that it's unlikely we would be able to overpower the government and that gun crime is high; I'm in favor of strict gun control (I could probably be persuaded off supporting gun control given sufficient persuasion, but I simply associate opposition to gun control far too strongly with right-wing nutjobs). I also agree that if you think the second amendment's purpose was to ensure that we could go all George Washington on an oppressive government if we wanted/needed to, and that is its only usefulness, then of course it is obsolete. I actually think the second amendment as intended is obsolete. I think it's clear that we can't overpower the government with guns, and I think it's incredibly incredibly unlikely that we could "overpower" it with threats of using guns. What I don't agree is that the second amendment should be repealed or that we would be better off without it - I think the answer is probably strict(er) regulation, not stripping away rights, because I don't think rights become obsolete.

(And I never have understood the logical leap made from "the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms" to "gun control violates my rights.")

[Izawwlgood]

I don't know why I led you to believe that the amount of guns is necessarily the problem: it's who has them.

I don't know how you can state that and believe that control is the answer; a simple search of crime rates shows an INCREASE in gun related violence in places with tighter gun control.

Can I get a source there?

Two pertinent bits of data actually,
http://www.lcav.org/Gun_Laws_Matter/Gun ... _Chart.pdf
and basically the same thing, but more recent,
http://www.drudge.com/archive/140162/20 ... gun-states
Indicate we were both actually incorrect. According to the recent data, there's not really a correlation between gun violence and gun permissiveness. I'm sure this is skewed by cities; Chicago has very tight gun regulations, and very high rates of gun violence, whereas most of Texas, with very lose gun regulations, has relatively lower gun violence. This is again contrasted to, say, Mississippi, with lax gun laws but higher gun violence. According to the Drudge report, which is perhaps not the most unbiased source out there, but at least he's taking his data from reliably sources:

In fact, among the top 20 states with the strictest gun laws, as rated by the Legal Community Against Violence, seven have death rates from guns worse than the national average.

So, again, if you're trying to argue that restricting firearm access from civilians is a wise idea to prevent violence, either civilian-on-civilian or theoretical oppressive dictator against civilian, I thing you're wrong on both counts, and there's evidence to support it.

[sourmìlk]

So, again, if you're trying to argue that restricting firearm access from civilians is a wise idea to prevent violence, either civilian-on-civilian or theoretical oppressive dictator against civilian, I thing you're wrong on both counts, and there's evidence to support it.

My argument would just be that no gun control laws have gone sufficiently far. Switzerland manages to have an armed populace that, because of it's gun control laws, has a low rate of gun violence.

[Outlander's Engine]

I understand why it was initially created: the British army during the revolutionary war was fought with civilians with guns. Nowadays, the arguments I hear supporting the second amendent are that guns are necessary for self-defense and to deter crime, or that they're protection against a totalitarian government.

That was not the only reason. You are over-simplifying. The wiki entry has a good synopsis that I'll quickly paste here:
deterring undemocratic government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

There are some good arguments for retaining the 2nd amendment. Those listed above are a good start. I, personally, like the natural right of self defense. It's the simplest.


Also, the study you linked does not do a great job of painting the gun itself as the culprit for the US's high gun-crime rate.

[Sero]

What exactly is different about how far Switzerland goes in it's gun control laws as compared to some areas of the United States? Some of the strictest areas, gun control wise, in the US, have the highest gun violence rates. I'm not sure there's a correlation between gun control and gun violence. Or rather, a strong correlation?

I've always felt that attempting to reduce violent crime by imposing controls on the access to dangerous implements is a bit backwards. I'm not arguing it's completely without merit, but:

My argument would just be that no gun control laws have gone sufficiently far. Switzerland manages to have an armed populace that, because of it's gun control laws, has a low rate of gun violence.

Seems to be the norm among proponents, that reductions in violent crime are due to or primarily due to controls on the implements of violence.

I know the argument 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' is trite, but nevertheless, 'a violent person with a gun', the source of the problem lies in 'a violent person', not 'a gun'. The gun makes it worse, but I contend that it is more effective to attempt to understand the causes of violence and reduce them than to restrict access to dangerous implements.

[Izawwlgood]

So, again, if you're trying to argue that restricting firearm access from civilians is a wise idea to prevent violence, either civilian-on-civilian or theoretical oppressive dictator against civilian, I thing you're wrong on both counts, and there's evidence to support it.

My argument would just be that no gun control laws have gone sufficiently far. Switzerland manages to have an armed populace that, because of it's gun control laws, has a low rate of gun violence.

And I would simply say [Citation Needed]. There have been incredibly tight gun control laws in various cities in America, and the only thing it resulted in was an explosion of gun related violence. It's like the war on drugs; increasing regulation simply drives the black market, and means only criminals have it.

[lutzj]

So, again, if you're trying to argue that restricting firearm access from civilians is a wise idea to prevent violence, either civilian-on-civilian or theoretical oppressive dictator against civilian, I thing you're wrong on both counts, and there's evidence to support it.

My argument would just be that no gun control laws have gone sufficiently far. Switzerland manages to have an armed populace that, because of it's gun control laws, has a low rate of gun violence.

You're allowed to take your rifle to the shooting range and back (and you're expected to do so at least annually) and in a few other contexts (if a cop stopped you driving with a gun in your car, you could plausibly say you are meeting the required justifications for transporting a gun), as long as the weapon and magazine(s) are unloaded. I don't know what you are referring to by "gun control laws," but a society where openly carrying assault rifles doesn't bring second looks doesn't seem too restrictive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_gun_laws

[Greyarcher]

Do you think that everyone in the military would even follow orders such as that, if they were given?

Almost certainly not, I think that the military would dissent. In which case we wouldn't need guns because the military would be on our side anyways.

You overlooked the whole "military isn't a hivemind; violent internal conflict is possible" implication in the question. Also, there's the PR element, and any totalitarian slide probably wouldn't jump straight to "bomb the population" instead of "use some ground forces to 'quell unrest'". A regime with totalitarian tendencies has no desire for the civilians to be armed in such a situation: it could just lead to a prolonged violent conflict. That means more negative PR over a longer time, and a potential rallying point for dissent and resistance (either within the government, the military, or the civilian population). Threatening, beating, and shooting people who have no weapons and are afraid to resist is much preferred.

[pizzazz]

It seems to me like this thread should have been spliced into the actual gun control thread instead of the 2nd Amendment one, since that's pretty much what this topic is about now, and this thread was originally about interpreting the amendment.

Anyway, as I pointed out in the other thread, in the US, guns are used far more often defensively than offensively. Citation. In fact I would recommend everyone lead that link, or at least glance through it, before posting more. In addition, while gun control may work for countries like the UK, the US has thousands of miles of wilderness border, much of it with a much poorer, weaker, more crime-ridden neighbor. Controlling the flow of guns into the US would be impossible. So no, the 2nd Amendment is not outdated, at all.

On the side of preventing/ending oppressive government, it might be relevant that Hitler disarmed the Jews before he really began taking away their rights, etc. The Sudanese government did the same thing to the tribes who were later massacred by the janjaweed. Other dictators like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Mussolini also were pro gun-control; they feared And anybody who severely doubts the possibility of Americans fighting their military really underestimates the civilian population. Civilians have rifles, shotguns, automatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, .50 caliber weapons, etc. And there are 200 million civilian owned firearms in America--more than the number of adults, and 100 times the size of the armed forces. Which probably would join any significant uprising against a tyrranical government here anyway.

[LtNOWIS]

Curtailing individual liberty in the name of security is a bad thing. Individual liberty is important.

[Maraki]

Whenever you read a text that holds a great age, like the Bill of Rights or even an older English translation of a Biblical text, you find that (with minimal research) intent is lost as the meanings of grammar and vocabulary change, and such texts must be looked upon with a more etymological mindset (for lack of better terminology). What the fore fathers meant back in the 18^th century is very likely not going to translate too well through ~300 years - even in 50 years there are words that have changed meaning drastically through connotation and denotation. For instance, gay used to be synonymous with merry, now it means homosexual - and words are given new but co-existing meanings by culture, such as "troll" - I imagine you aren't calling someone a mythical beast when you call them a troll, although that very well could be what you meant. The wording of the second amendment can (and should) be broken down in the same way as other amendment. Let us break down the (rather easy to interpret, in my opinion) first amendment, with a focus on commas and punctuation, with an emphasis on their importance (or lack thereof) -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first comma, while visually separating an idea, does not, in fact, separate an idea, but rather connects a corollary of sorts to an idea (the basic idea being government neutrality on religion, obviously). The semicolon acts (in this style/age of writing) as a way to separate an idea, just like a period, and then the upcoming comma connects the ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of text (as I interpret it, but that is another can of worms). The next semi-colon acts in the same way as the last, as does the next comma. I believe with updated grammar these amendments could be written in a much more concise manner, by simply removing commas and semi-colons, for instance -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Such a revision keeps the intents of the amendment the same, while making it more concise, up to date, and takes a step towards a slightly more colloquial and easier to understand law. But we aren't talking about just the first amendment, but all of them, and the way of writing at the time has been proven through research to give a slightly different meaning to a comma and other punctuation.^[1]

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.

From the previous information, it should be easy to deduce that the 2^nd amendment relates specifically to a militia by and for the people, not two separate ideas.

All this being said, my personal beliefs line up somewhat with the forefathers - before owning a gun you must have relatively rigorous training (perhaps 16-20 (obviously non-consecutive) hours of training by a professional), and then monthly training (for ~2 hours) thereafter.

1. english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

[pizzazz]

Your grammatical fluff is nice, but if you just look at what the founding father's wrote, you'll see that to suggest they did not want to protect the right of everyone to be armed is absurd. Examples. Also, it's not clear at all how you plan on "updating" the second amendment's grammar; I don't see any sensical way to adjust the punctuation that makes it unclear that the amendment gaurantees two separate rights. As I pointed out earlier, it gaurantees
1. The right of state's to have militia's (as opposed to the federal militia, not that said militias have to be recognized by the state or something).
2. The right of people to have firearms.

An interpretation that excludes one of those rights is pretty much ignoring half the wording of the amendment.

[Outlander's Engine]

From the previous information, it should be easy to deduce that the 2^nd amendment relates specifically to a militia by and for the people, not two separate ideas.

All this being said, my personal beliefs line up somewhat with the forefathers - before owning a gun you must have relatively rigorous training (perhaps 16-20 (obviously non-consecutive) hours of training by a professional), and then monthly training (for ~2 hours) thereafter.

1. english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

Except that you are not quite right. And a quick perusal of wikipedia will give some food for thought.

From the wiki entry on the 2nd,

the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[32]

And a bit further down,

Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[69]

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/samuel_adams_quote_b683

[Eseell]

The Supreme Court also settled the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right in DC v. Heller and the question of Second Amendment incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago. The Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms and it is incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. There's really no point in going down this path.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Yep. Since those decisions, there's not really room to debate what the second amendment covers (if you want to assert that the court made the wrong decision, okay; I even sort of agree - but that's not what the discussion is about).

[Czhorat]

Except that you are not quite right. And a quick perusal of wikipedia will give some food for thought.

From the wiki entry on the 2nd,

the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[32]

And a bit further down,

Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[69]

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/sam ... quote_b683

Fair enough, but 18th Century America was a far different place than early twentieth century America. Adams et al, for example, lived in a country that, while physically smaller, took a much longer time to send personnel or information from one end to the other. The fledgling nation was bordered by indigenous people who could be a threat to border communities. There was a credible threat from European powers seeking to regain colonial holdings. There was no standing peacetime army, nor was one envisioned. Warfare was such that irregulars with breech-loading muskets were a credible fighting force.

In other words, the world was SO very different that "what Adams thought" is, at best, irrelevant.