NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Now quit whining about it you stupid militia advocates. A great day in the history of the supreme court.

That's an interesting memorandum of opinion, but no matter how learned or esteemed the authors might be, it is not a legally binding interpretation.

So the debate continues....

True, but when combined with the 1982 RBKA report : http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm : and the fact that the supreme court itself has on quite a few occasions referenced it as an individual right it's pretty damned solid.

It's an individual right...

Second Amendment:

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.


US Law: US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


Supreme Court:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

---

Anyone who does not think it's an individual, fundamental right, does not have a legal "leg to stand on", so to speak; in from the perspective of US Case Law, Constitutional Law, and Historical Perspective.

I'd have to say I agree that the second amendment is an individual right.

Oh great, another "I'm an American and I need a gun to be free" thread.

The only advantage of so many guns in America is it increases the chances of American's killing each other.

Oh great, another "I'm an American and I need a gun to be free" thread.

The only advantage of so many guns in America is it increases the chances of American's killing each other.

What's it to you? We don't tell other people how to live their lives - unless they live in Iraq or Afganistan, but those people need it.

Oh great, another "I'm an American and I need a gun to be free" thread.

The only advantage of so many guns in America is it increases the chances of American's killing each other.
well, I don't think anyone has said "I need a gun to be free", just that we all (you too) have a right to own a gun.

The only advantage of so many guns in America is it increases the chances of American's killing each other.

Ding ding ding, and we have a winner.

Ding ding ding, and we have a winner.

The problem is that there is no coorilation between legal firearm ownership and violence. In fact, the opposite is true. Those that obtain firearms through legal channels are far less likely to abuse them that those who obtain firearms illegaly. If all firearms were outlawed than only those who intend to abuse them will own them.

t is interesting to know that since the government began regulating machine guns only one crime has been commited with a registered weapon, and that was a murder commited by a police officer.
The answer isn't restriction, it is a liscensing system much like the system we use to liscense drivers.

I find it hillarious that on a board like this, the right to bear arms as a constitutional given would be debated.
This is, sadly, a case where some have actually overanalyzed the issue to the point of complete nonsense. It happens a lot I've noticed with the constitution.
Strange indeed.

Well America with all of its right to own guns leads most western nations with murders. Glad to see guns are doing a good job protecting them.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/uploads/720191-racoon2.gif

Well America with all of its right to own guns leads most western nations with murders. Glad to see guns are doing a good job protecting them.

That's because of the high poverty rate in in the US. Most muders are commited by the poor. Also, most murders arise from domestic disputes. Generally, the most effective way to lower the murder rate is to take domestic violence seriously. Actually arresting people for dommestic violence has been shown to lower the homocide rate about 90%.
Other Western countries have socialized health care and progressive welfare programs. Some of them even take domestic violence seriously.

Statistics show that areas with less restrictive gun laws have less crime, including murder. Areas with mandatory gun ownership have even less crime.

Of course, it doesn't help that "civilized" societies teach their citizens to be passive. In the event that some random stranger actualy wants to harm you, complying is the stupidist thing anyone can do. It is best to fight to the death, especially if someone tries to take you to another location. Firearm possession is very useful in these sitiations. It can mean the difference between escaping unharmed and being severly injured.

Here is an exerpt for a Bureau of Justice report. Illustrating this fact.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hvfsdaft.htm

Self-defense with firearms

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.


About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92

Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
Attacked Threatened
Total offender offender
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700

With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800

Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200

Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides.

*In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or
their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed
or armed with weapons other than firearms. On average between 1987
and 1992, about 35% (or 22,000 per year) of the violent crime
victims defending themselves with a firearm faced an offender who
also had a firearm. (Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms.
Questionnaire revisions introduced in January 1993 will permit
separate consideration of police and civilian firearm cases.)

Contrary to popular belief, less than 2% of United States-ians actualy own a firearm. Fewer still regulary carry one. Most people can't use a gun to defend themselves because most people don't have guns.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/uploads/720191-racoon2.gif

You know, I've always wondered where the hell that came from :p

The second amendment was written at a time when the most powerful firearm was a musket rifle. Nowadays we've got weapons like the MK-16s. The second amendment needs to be repealed because it is old and worthless.
Besides, if you need something to defend yourself, just carry around a sword or other melee weapon; I trust those more than ranged weapons anyday.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.

I have never heard of any crime committed with a Navy partol-boat-mounted machine cannon. I don't beleive that many people own them.

Anyway, the Second Amerdment isn't just for guns. It protects your right to possess combat knives and swords, as well.

Amendment 1, and 2 are interconnected, all three are the foundational concept of US freedoms... They stand and fall together.... Removal of one, results in the precedent to remove the other two.... As much has been proven, as each one is affected by illegal legislation by our out-of-control federal government, the other two have been effected as well.

The 2nd Amendment is the people's teeth.

The second amendment was written at a time when the most powerful firearm was a musket rifle. Nowadays we've got weapons like the MK-16s. The second amendment needs to be repealed because it is old and worthless.
Besides, if you need something to defend yourself, just carry around a sword or other melee weapon; I trust those more than ranged weapons anyday.
Yeah, and hell, while we're at it, why don't we repeal the rest of the amendments? And why the hell not the Constitution? And what's the point of keeping the Declaration of Independence? Hell, we could become a British colony again!

*Sarcasm Off*

The Second Amendment is an essential right. Without the right to bear arms, a people becomes greatly oppressed. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Brits, the Aussies, etc.

The Second Amendment is an essential right. Without the right to bear arms, a people becomes greatly oppressed. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Brits, the Aussies, etc.

I know this is off topic but....

Damn...you said aussies..now i have an extreme craving for a blooming onion...damn you Evinsia....time to use my 2nd amendmant right...

:sniper:

Yeah, and hell, while we're at it, why don't we repeal the rest of the amendments? And why the hell not the Constitution? And what's the point of keeping the Declaration of Independence? Hell, we could become a British colony again!

*Sarcasm Off*

The Second Amendment is an essential right. Without the right to bear arms, a people becomes greatly oppressed. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Brits, the Aussies, etc.
The Aussies are greatly opressed?
If you mean those damn ciggie and alcohol taxes, then fucking right... other than that, no I don't feel opressed...

The Aussies are greatly opressed?
If you mean those damn ciggie and alcohol taxes, then fucking right... other than that, no I don't feel opressed...
Okey-dokey, then. If I offended you, I'm greatly sorry.

Autocraticama: Damn...you said aussies..now i have an extreme craving for a blooming onion...damn you Evinsia....time to use my 2nd amendmant right...

Sorry. And the 2nd doesn't say you can shoot people. Only the things that you can use to do that.