The Second Amendment

[JackC]

Now that we are in for a renewed debate about gun control in the US, the Second Amendment will again be front and center.

"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."


So -- the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It has alway been amazing to me watch the lengths to which people will go find their favorite "right" to be protected by the Constitution. Some have gone so far as to find that the Constiution protects a women's right to an abortion.

Yet, lots of those same people will look at the Second Amendent and for the life of them just can't seem to understand how anyone might think that it actually protects a person's right to own a gun.

If you want to ban guns, repeal the Second Amendment!!

That won't happen, of course. People who want guns banned won't want to have to go through this difficult hoop. (Just as they would never want to go through the hoop of having a new amendment passed for their favorite "right" that they do want to protect.)

They will want judges to do the dirty work and perform the mental gymnastics necessary so that they can look at whatever gun law is passed and conclude that it doesn't really infringe a person's right to own a gun.

[Harold Tucker]

Which part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

[slofstra]

If Virginia Tech is still a little too fresh, please don't follow this thread.

Which part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. In Switzerland, for example, every able male is required to perform military service, and to keep a serviceable standard firearm in the home. There have been incidents but not as often as in the U.S. even considering the smaller population base. The situation in the U.S. is scary. You need to control who has the guns. Gun control is not a panacea, but much more needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of psychopaths.
Second Amendment is a red herring.

[JackC]

Which part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

WOW, thanks so much. I missed that part!

Sorry, but regardless of the REASONS for protecting that right, which part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't you understand????

But I'm glad to see it confirmed that there are some who can read this language and just not see why anyone but a gun nut could possibly think that it protects any right to the people to have guns.

Come to think of it, maybe what it REALLY means is that the goverment is not permitted to go around amputating people's arms!!

[JackC]

If Virginia Tech is still a little too fresh, please don't follow this thread.

Which part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. In Switzerland, for example, every able male is required to perform military service, and to keep a serviceable standard firearm in the home. There have been incidents but not as often as in the U.S. even considering the smaller population base. The situation in the U.S. is scary. You need to control who has the guns. Gun control is not a panacea, but much more needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of psychopaths.
Second Amendment is a red herring.

A red-herring -- well it SAYS "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"!!! Some red herring!! lol


Maybe we shopuld ban guns in the US. But if that is what is needed then the Second Amendment needs to be repealed. (I'm talking ban here, not reasonable regulation, which is also imposed on free speech)

It really is fun though to see the lengths to which some people will go to deny the obvious.

[Werner]

If "a well-regulated militia" permits a situation where any so-called "law-abiding citizen" can walk into a store and buy a weapon or two which he can then use to commit a not-so-well-regulated massacre, that does not strike me as the original intent of the Founding fathers.

[Harold Tucker]

The question I asked was a rhetorical one aimed at the cosmos in particular and the NRA in general. It is pretty pointless. I would like to see a constitutional amendment that gave me the right not to have my body penetrated by metallic pellets, but I am sure the gun lobby would feel their freedoms would be violated by such a provision.
Apparently this fellow in Virginia had been firing off red flags like crazy that were noticed by fellow students and falculty for quite a while. But there was nothing that could be done to prevent him from acquiring semi-automatic weapons without compromising his precious right to privacy.

[Ted]

First Gun Bought March 13; No 'Spur of the Moment' Crime

April 17, 2007 11:12 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

Cho_gun2_nr Seung-Hui Cho bought his first gun, a Glock 9 mm handgun, on March 13 and his second weapon, a .22 caliber handgun, within the last week, law enforcement officials tell ABCNews.com.

"This was no spur of the moment crime. He's been thinking about this since at least the time he bought the first gun," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant.

Both guns were bought in Virginia, according to the officials.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS

* Blotter Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips
* Blotter 'I Want to Clear My Name'
* Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows

Under Virginia law, state residents can only buy one handgun in any 30 day period, suggesting Cho bought his second weapon after April 13, or sometime over the weekend.

"He clearly spent some time figuring out how he was going to take care of business once classes began on Monday morning," said Garrett.

[JackC]

If "a well-regulated militia" permits a situation where any so-called "law-abiding citizen" can walk into a store and buy a weapon or two which he can then use to commit a not-so-well-regulated massacre, that does not strike me as the original intent of the Founding fathers.

I doubt many gun control advocates give a rat's *s about what the founding fathers believed as to the availablity of guns. And if they did, I suspect that the founding fathers' views on the restrictions that people want to impose on gun owners might dissapoint them.

Of course, I doubt those so wedded to what the founding fathers intended wheh it comes to guns care much about what they thought as to whether a woman had a Constitutional right to an abortion!!

In any event, the history behid the second amendment is complex. There was a lot of concern/bickering betwen the Federalists and the anti-Federalist about the power relationship between a Federal army and state militias. The reasons why the second amendment was enacted are interesting and not simple.

Having said that, the reasons the second amendment was enacted are distinct from the right that it was intended to protect. It comes right out and says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Those who don't think that this poses a significant problem from banning gun ownership are simply ignoring this straighforward language.

Gun ownership can be regulated just as speech can be regulated, notwithstanding the first amendment. But the real issue at the heart of this is banning gun ownership, not regulating it.

Again it is amazing to me that people can read this clear language and find that it does NOT protect a person's right to own a gun, yet they manage to find language somwhere in the Constitution that they find DOES protect a women's right to an abortion (almost absolutely in the first trimester, somewaht in the second, but hardly at all in the third trimester). One might even suspect that people are manipulating the constitution to acheive specific results they like!

[JackC]

I would like to see a constitutional amendment that gave me the right not to have my body penetrated by metallic pellets, but I am sure the gun lobby would feel their freedoms would be violated by such a provision.

You DO have a right not to have you body penetrated by metallic pettets. Actually, the Constitution speaks directly and clearly to that issue. - a person can not be deprived of "life, liberty or property" without "due processs of law."

I think the gun lobby has no objection to that part of the Constitution. They just want the other parts to be followed as well.

[Ted]

We all know under what circumstances the 2nd Amendment was conceived: We were ensconced in a war with England and the right to have armed state militias was paramount at the time.
To draw any reference to the US today is ignorance personified.
Once again it’s quite fitting that the same people who scream that the life of a 2 week old fetus is sacrosanct are all for the over counter sale of firearms

[JackC]

We all know under what circumstances the 2nd Amendment was conceived: We were ensconced in a war with England and the right to have armed state militias was paramount at the time.
To draw any reference to the US today is ignorance personified.
Once again it’s quite fitting that the same people who scream that the life of a 2 week old fetus is sacrosanct are all for the over counter sale of firearms
Morons

OOOOOOOOOO ignorance personified!!!! Wow, that's compelling, you should teach con law!! Can you tell me which of the various constitutional amendments have any relevance "to the US today", and those that we can now ignore??

Actually, your wrong about the rational. The war with Enland was over. It ended in 1781 after the British surrendered at Yorktown, or, if you prefer, in 1783, when the Treaty of Paris was signed. At least that's what the history books say. The debate over the Second Amendment, which was approved in 1789 (eight, or six, years AFTER the war) involved a federalist dispute about the relative power between the federal government and the states- going forward into the future (not to fight a war that had already been won)

Oh I forgot -- MORON

[Ted]

I deleted the Moron part Jack, but I think the shoe still fits***

[Werner]

Well, Jack, polemics are no problem for you, even if you find yourself confusing the Founding Fathers, abortion, a rat's ass or any other lovely and convenient figures of speech. Forgetting about abortion, which is another subject and nobody other than you introduced it to confuse the issue, you still insist on the sacred right of an individual to own arms, even if he can walk right in, buy a weapon, and commit the next convenient massacre.

Some law-abiding mentality!

[JackC]

Well, Jack, polemics are no problem for you, even if you find yourself confusing the Founding Fathers, abortion, a rat's ass or any other lovely and convenient figures of speech. Forgetting about abortion, which is another subject and nobody other than you introduced it to confuse the issue, you still insist on the sacred right of an individual to own arms, even if he can walk right in, buy a weapon, and commit the next convenient massacre.

Some law-abiding mentality!

It's not a sacred right, but neither is the right to free speech or freedom of religion. It may even be a terrible idea. But it's in the Constitution. Don't blame me. I didn't put it there. If you want to get rid of it, repeal the amendment. There is a process in law for doing that. It would be fine with me if it was repealed.


The notion that you can just ignore it because you don't think it is particularly relevant to the US today, or maybe even damaging, is essentially saying that you can ignore laws, even constitutional protections, you don't like. I suspect that principle won't get very far with Hollywood, which lives on violence (and I suspect is as much responsible these deaths as are those who but ansd sell guns.). They like the first amendment too much.

I don't much care for the "ignore existing law" approach. Neither do I care for the approach that will be urged. Knowing how hard it is to amend the constitution, people will put pressure on judges to rule that despite what it says, the second amendment does not really provide any protection for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

[Ted]

Unfortunately gun lovers think about their weapons all the time and those of us who are against the free and open exchange of firearms react (for the most part) only when something drastic happens
I am not for taking the long gun away from the hunters but what this guy was able to do is too easy

[Ralph]

There are very many views of the Second Amendment. Not long ago I debated NYU law professor Jim Jacobs on the subject. He's a leading advocate of the right to own weapons. As to Originalism, the intent of the Framers, there is a difference between analyzing the Second Amendment from 1791 and the NATURE of the legal terms, "Equal Protection" and "Due Process," in the Fourteenth Amendment - the basis for substantive rights such as privacy, sexual autonomy and abortion. First-year law students learn that very early on.

As to "gun control," the spectrum is broad as is that of those who advocate a substantive fundamental right to "bear arms." Remember that not all that long ago the NRA lost a lot of cops across the nation as members when it took the position that the Second Amendment protected a right to own armor-vest piercing ammo.

My view of the Second Amendment, since I've taught it since 1975 and written about it, is the "collectivist" concept - that the Framers wanted members of society to be able to bear arms not only for the purpose of a well-regulated militia (which hardly exists anymore except in a few states like New York) but to prevent tyranny by the national government.

That is not the only view - it's one among many.

[Harvested Sorrow]

Once again it’s quite fitting that the same people who scream that the life of a 2 week old fetus is sacrosanct are all for the over counter sale of firearms

I personally find it quite ironic that the people who cry for a gun ban are also those who cry loudest about the PATRIOT act and how Bush is evil for removing our freedoms with it.


I suppose our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are okay to mess with as long as it isn't one people happen to favor more than others.

[Kevin R]

Why is the term "right of the people" so hard to understand???

We don't have to engage in speculation about the phrase "well regulated militia." We just need to look at how that term was understood when the Constitution was written. One comment will suffice, George Mason (during Virginia's ratifying Convention): "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."

And I've never really understood the rationale behind the collective right argument.

[pizza]

And I've never really understood the rationale behind the collective right argument.

Neither do those who make it.

[Brendan]

Why is the term "right of the people" so hard to understand???

We don't have to engage in speculation about the phrase "well regulated militia." We just need to look at how that term was understood when the Constitution was written. One comment will suffice, George Mason (during Virginia's ratifying Convention): "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."

And I've never really understood the rationale behind the collective right argument.

For some of us not in the American tradition, the general populace/whole people is hardly the same thing a well regulated militia, and declarations otherwise from perceived authority rather than reasoned argument doesn't help. But it's way too late to argue that one: in the USA "well regulated milita" has come to mean an untrained populace.

America is the way it is, from my point of view, and imagine trying to take all the guns off the streets and away from shooters! In Australia, after the gun control frenzy following the Port Arthur massacre, the authorities had a buy-back on registered weapons.

The numbers of weapons handed in by legal owners that have since been used in violent crime has never been released - and never will be, it is so bad (as told to me by the Fedral Police Commissioner at a BBQ).

[anasazi]

Unfortunately gun lovers think about their weapons all the time and those of us who are against the free and open exchange of firearms react (for the most part) only when something drastic happens
I am not for taking the long gun away from the hunters but what this guy was able to do is too easy

Absolutely! And I am on the verge of being a Grandpa and thinking about that child's future in this very violent world. And although I know that we all already have our talking points ready, then here are mine. It was just a mere 50 years ago (give or take a year or two) when I was in school. I do kind of remember some strange violent young men. But in those days when America was mostly without handguns, this only amounted to a few fistfights on the playground. No girls were hurt, and very few boys too. It requires a bit more bravery to actually puch somebody in the nose than it does to pull a trigger.

But now, thanks in large part to the NRA's lobbying and the constant and daft reminders from the right, that we need to be 'armed', we have nearly saturated our nation with handguns.

Now we read about just the another (ho hum) violent spree, and the word is that students need to be armed? Oh my, what innocence we as a nation have sacrificed just so Smith & Wesson can make a living. All these young folks need to be studying, not playing at security guard (or dying)

Here in Florida, just last year, our esteemed legeslators wanted to pass a law that would prevent private corporations from being able to ban guns on their premises (mostly in their parking lots). The NRA applied a lot of pressue of course. I could nearly envision the dread in the mind of all the security folks at Walt Disney World thinking that 'guests' would all have a revolver in their car.

On Easter Sunday, gamg warfare resulted in a gun battle at a local beach here in Manatee County, nearly right in front of the security guards. And now the county officials are wringing their hands: 'what to do, what to do'. They have a billion dollar tourist industry going, and gun battles on public beaches do not usually make it into their brochures.

Well, I'm not going to change any minds that don't agree with me. I don't expect to. But I have come to some new ideas (for me) and perhaps any that are already like me, feeling helpless and a possible victim, may want to think about it also.

You see, I'm a retiree. I have a mutual fund, and I'm actively looking for a new mutual fund where the capital does not flow to the companies who produce the handguns. This is only a solution for me and likely will have little effect on all of the gun violence, but really, it's about all that I can manage. Voting is mostly worthless. The Republicans laud themselves for their support of firearms. The Democrats are just too scared to challenge them. I will be able to sleep better if I know my investments are not going to companies that I feel are harmful to my country or my family.

[pizza]

Now we read about just the another (ho hum) violent spree, and the word is that students need to be armed? Oh my, what innocence we as a nation have sacrificed just so Smith & Wesson can make a living. All these young folks need to be studying, not playing at security guard (or dying)

I wonder how you would explain Israel's success in preventing similar episodes where many university students and professors, as well as ordinary citizens go about their daily business armed. They're not working for Smith & Wesson or as security guards, and they do reasonably well at their studies.

If an armed student or instructor at VT had shot the murderer before he could destroy 33 innocent lives, or even one innocent life, would you have objected that he was armed? In retrospect, would the families of those massacred have objected?

Isn't it time that we adapt our own habits to the realities of life? Is it better to be slaughtered at the whim of every madman bent on mass destruction in order to preserve an illusion of "innocence"?

[Ted]

Pizza writes :

Isn't it time that we adapt our own habits to the realities of life? Is it better to be slaughtered at the whim of every madman bent on mass destruction in order to preserve an illusion of "innocence"?

Yea, that’s a great solution Pizza—Instead of making it more difficult to obtain guns you want to hand them out like umbrellas…
Brilliant

[keaggy220]

I've never understood why anti-gun legislation gains support during times of violence.

[Ralph]

Now we read about just the another (ho hum) violent spree, and the word is that students need to be armed? Oh my, what innocence we as a nation have sacrificed just so Smith & Wesson can make a living. All these young folks need to be studying, not playing at security guard (or dying)

I wonder how you would explain Israel's success in preventing similar episodes where many university students and professors, as well as ordinary citizens go about their daily business armed. They're not working for Smith & Wesson or as security guards, and they do reasonably well at their studies.

If an armed student or instructor at VT had shot the murderer before he could destroy 33 innocent lives, or even one innocent life, would you have objected that he was armed? In retrospect, would the families of those massacred have objected?

Isn't it time that we adapt our own habits to the realities of life? Is it better to be slaughtered at the whim of every madman bent on mass destruction in order to preserve an illusion of "innocence"?

*****

Whatever position one takes with regard to firearms I doubt much is relevant in comparing our society to other ones. Israel is a much smaller country and its values and policies have been and are shaped by very different factors than America's.

While I do not interpret the Second Amendment as creating a substantive right of individuals to be armed, I do believe firearms issues are properly part of the political process and if the citizens of a state want a liberal acquisitions policy that is their right. But the Constitution, and especially the Commerce Clause, insures federal supremacy when Congress chooses to act with regard to weapons as it has done with automatic weapons. And the Supreme Court has upheld that power.

[pizza]

Now we read about just the another (ho hum) violent spree, and the word is that students need to be armed? Oh my, what innocence we as a nation have sacrificed just so Smith & Wesson can make a living. All these young folks need to be studying, not playing at security guard (or dying)

I wonder how you would explain Israel's success in preventing similar episodes where many university students and professors, as well as ordinary citizens go about their daily business armed. They're not working for Smith & Wesson or as security guards, and they do reasonably well at their studies.

If an armed student or instructor at VT had shot the murderer before he could destroy 33 innocent lives, or even one innocent life, would you have objected that he was armed? In retrospect, would the families of those massacred have objected?

Isn't it time that we adapt our own habits to the realities of life? Is it better to be slaughtered at the whim of every madman bent on mass destruction in order to preserve an illusion of "innocence"?

*****

Whatever position one takes with regard to firearms I doubt much is relevant in comparing our society to other ones. Israel is a much smaller country and its values and policies have been and are shaped by very different factors than America's.

While I do not interpret the Second Amendment as creating a substantive right of individuals to be armed, I do believe firearms issues are properly part of the political process and if the citizens of a state want a liberal acquisitions policy that is their right. But the Constitution, and especially the Commerce Clause, insures federal supremacy when Congress chooses to act with regard to weapons as it has done with automatic weapons. And the Supreme Court has upheld that power.

The issue I raised has nothing to do with the differences between our societies and the factors that shaped them. I'm talking about practical solutions to real problems. Let's assume that Americans are just as bright as Israelis, are just as capable of learning the proper use of firearms, and are equally motivated to survive an attack. Could the presence of some properly trained, armed students and instructors at VT have made a difference and saved lives? Either it could have or it couldn't have. If you think it couldn't have, say so and tell us why. I assume that if your life was one of those saved in that manner, it wouldn't bother you at all that the same methods of self-defense work in Israel.

[piston]

By the way, isn't the definition of "Arms" always relative to a period's technological development? "Arms" is more synonymous to weapons than to firearms, is it not? What would have been understood as including a bow and arrows, a knife, a hatchet, a musket and a cannon in the late eighteenth century, could now be said to include such "arms" as a grenade, a dirty bomb, a flame thrower, a bazooka, etc., in addition to firearms.

Does the Supreme Court invariably associate the Second Amendment as pertaining to "firearms," exclusive of knives, bows and arrows, grenades, etc., and if so, why?

[Ralph]

Now we read about just the another (ho hum) violent spree, and the word is that students need to be armed? Oh my, what innocence we as a nation have sacrificed just so Smith & Wesson can make a living. All these young folks need to be studying, not playing at security guard (or dying)

I wonder how you would explain Israel's success in preventing similar episodes where many university students and professors, as well as ordinary citizens go about their daily business armed. They're not working for Smith & Wesson or as security guards, and they do reasonably well at their studies.

If an armed student or instructor at VT had shot the murderer before he could destroy 33 innocent lives, or even one innocent life, would you have objected that he was armed? In retrospect, would the families of those massacred have objected?

Isn't it time that we adapt our own habits to the realities of life? Is it better to be slaughtered at the whim of every madman bent on mass destruction in order to preserve an illusion of "innocence"?

*****

Whatever position one takes with regard to firearms I doubt much is relevant in comparing our society to other ones. Israel is a much smaller country and its values and policies have been and are shaped by very different factors than America's.

While I do not interpret the Second Amendment as creating a substantive right of individuals to be armed, I do believe firearms issues are properly part of the political process and if the citizens of a state want a liberal acquisitions policy that is their right. But the Constitution, and especially the Commerce Clause, insures federal supremacy when Congress chooses to act with regard to weapons as it has done with automatic weapons. And the Supreme Court has upheld that power.

The issue I raised has nothing to do with the differences between our societies and the factors that shaped them. I'm talking about practical solutions to real problems. Let's assume that Americans are just as bright as Israelis, are just as capable of learning the proper use of firearms, and are equally motivated to survive an attack. Could the presence of some properly trained, armed students and instructors at VT have made a difference and saved lives? Either it could have or it couldn't have. If you think it couldn't have, say so and tell us why. I assume that if your life was one of those saved in that manner, it wouldn't bother you at all that the same methods of self-defense work in Israel.

*****

There is no issue that the fortuitous presence of an armed person can short circuit these homicidal rampages. And as I've made clear I believe the question of gun control should be left as a general matter to the democratic process. Personally, on balance I prefer a restricted approach to the carrying of concealed firearms but that is not the view of all and what may be unacceptable in a large urban area may be viewed very differently elsewhere.

[Ralph]

By the way, isn't the definition of "Arms" always relative to a period's technological development? "Arms" is more synonymous to weapons than to firearms, is it not? What would have been understood as including a bow and arrows, a knife, a hatchet, a musket and a cannon in the late eighteenth century, could now be said to include such "arms" as a grenade, a dirty bomb, a flame thrower, a bazooka, etc., in addition to firearms.

Does the Supreme Court invariably associate the Second Amendment as pertaining to "firearms," exclusive of knives, bows and arrows, grenades, etc., and if so, why?

*****

No scholar questions that the term "arms" is meant to apply to whatever is so denominated in the present.

The Supreme Court, as man y are surprised to learn, has never defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment. All claims as to its meaning are by those on one side or the other of the gun issue. However, in the pre-World War II Miller case the Court upheld Commerce Clause-based legislation, still in effect, that prohibited the interstate shipment of automatic weapons except when authorized, e.g., for law enforcement agencies.

[piston]

By the way, isn't the definition of "Arms" always relative to a period's technological development? "Arms" is more synonymous to weapons than to firearms, is it not? What would have been understood as including a bow and arrows, a knife, a hatchet, a musket and a cannon in the late eighteenth century, could now be said to include such "arms" as a grenade, a dirty bomb, a flame thrower, a bazooka, etc., in addition to firearms.

Does the Supreme Court invariably associate the Second Amendment as pertaining to "firearms," exclusive of knives, bows and arrows, grenades, etc., and if so, why?

*****

No scholar questions that the term "arms" is meant to apply to whatever is so denominated in the present.

The Supreme Court, as man y are surprised to learn, has never defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment. All claims as to its meaning are by those on one side or the other of the gun issue. However, in the pre-World War II Miller case the Court upheld Commerce Clause-based legislation, still in effect, that prohibited the interstate shipment of automatic weapons except when authorized, e.g., for law enforcement agencies.

I did not know that so many states in the nation manufactured automatic weapons! Or is it an instance of illegal weapon immigration? It does not strike me as being very difficult to confiscate automatic weapons from those retailers who operate in states where these items are not manufactured.

[Ralph]

By the way, isn't the definition of "Arms" always relative to a period's technological development? "Arms" is more synonymous to weapons than to firearms, is it not? What would have been understood as including a bow and arrows, a knife, a hatchet, a musket and a cannon in the late eighteenth century, could now be said to include such "arms" as a grenade, a dirty bomb, a flame thrower, a bazooka, etc., in addition to firearms.

Does the Supreme Court invariably associate the Second Amendment as pertaining to "firearms," exclusive of knives, bows and arrows, grenades, etc., and if so, why?

*****

No scholar questions that the term "arms" is meant to apply to whatever is so denominated in the present.

The Supreme Court, as man y are surprised to learn, has never defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment. All claims as to its meaning are by those on one side or the other of the gun issue. However, in the pre-World War II Miller case the Court upheld Commerce Clause-based legislation, still in effect, that prohibited the interstate shipment of automatic weapons except when authorized, e.g., for law enforcement agencies.

I did not know that so many states in the nation manufactured automatic weapons! Or is it an instance of illegal weapon immigration? It does not strike me as being very difficult to confiscate automatic weapons from those retailers who operate in states where these items are not manufactured.

*****

I have no idea who manufactures what and where. The federal statute was passed in the 1930s because of the proliferation of "Tommy Guns" and their use by organized crime. The purpose of the statute was to federally criminalize the transportation and use of such weapons.

[Ralph]

18 USCS § 922

§ 922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful--

*****

(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [1986] [26 USCS § 5845]), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;

[slofstra]

It strikes me that the matter of preventing these massacres is primarily a matter of administration rather than legal principle. I would wager that it is more difficult to obtain a passport in the U.S. than a gun. And that use of passports is better enforced than gun licences.

I don't see how instituting any or all of the following prerequisites for gun ownership violate the Second Amendment: safety training, gun proficiency training, intelligence test, character references, criminal history. Then beyond establishing suitable prerequisites there is the question of enforcement and administration which is no doubt lax even in respect of the regulations that exist. Note, I'm not an American. The general view of Americans held by almost all citizens of all other countries is that with respect to guns Americans are at least a little nuts, and in the view of some, a lot nuts. Michael Moore has not helped with the perception. However, these kinds of massacres have occurred in Canada, England, Australia, continental Europe... So, it's now a problem throughout the free world.

Personally, I think the devil is in the details; as the checks on psychotic behaviour that used to exist within local communities dissipate in the modern industrial state, more effective government control measures will be required to protect the public. Restricting the ability of hunters to shoot ducks, which seems to be the effect if not the intent of many proposed gun control measures, won't really help all that much. The measures proposed tend to be too radical; i.e. changing the Second Amendment. I don't see how the Second Amendment guarantees the right of criminals and psychotics to bear arms. Focus on that particular problem should certainly yield more practicable solutions.

[Harvested Sorrow]

The problem is that safety training and gun proficiency training will be used as a loophole to create what amounts to a ban. Will the government pay for all of that training so people could have it for free? Of course not, so we'll have to set a price tag on it. Then what happens? Every time we get a large group of anti-gun folks in congress or one as president (or both) the price for those classes goes up...and up...and up...and pretty soon you have to be rich beyond belief to be able to legally afford a gun. Thus, we get what amounts to a ban without actually having to repeal that ammendment.

[piston]

While I am not a hunter and, as I said before, I don't own any guns, I took the hunting safety class/exam here in Maine with one of my sons who found it easier to get through the whole process with me tagging along. It was a one-week course, a couple of hours every evening, with several instructors/speakers (not all particularly comfortable in their educator role), with a fairly demanding exam at the end. We both were successful and the diploma we received serves as a requirement for the obtention of a hunting licence.

I guess this idea is perfectly sound and valid for hunting but not for the acquisition of "Arms."

[Harvested Sorrow]

It would be perfectly sound and valid if it were not guaranteed to be used as a tool to create a loophole for a ban that would apply unless one lives in a mansion.

[anasazi]

Now we read about just the another (ho hum) violent spree, and the word is that students need to be armed? Oh my, what innocence we as a nation have sacrificed just so Smith & Wesson can make a living. All these young folks need to be studying, not playing at security guard (or dying)

I wonder how you would explain Israel's success in preventing similar episodes where many university students and professors, as well as ordinary citizens go about their daily business armed. They're not working for Smith & Wesson or as security guards, and they do reasonably well at their studies.

If an armed student or instructor at VT had shot the murderer before he could destroy 33 innocent lives, or even one innocent life, would you have objected that he was armed? In retrospect, would the families of those massacred have objected?

Isn't it time that we adapt our own habits to the realities of life? Is it better to be slaughtered at the whim of every madman bent on mass destruction in order to preserve an illusion of "innocence"?

No, we need to make life conform to our safety and pleasure. And I could care less how the Israeli's do it. I'm not an Israeli, I live in the U.S. They are surrounded by enemies, we are not. The arming of America in the last 50 years is one of the most tragic chapters in U.S. history, in my own opinion.

[pizza]

Now we read about just the another (ho hum) violent spree, and the word is that students need to be armed? Oh my, what innocence we as a nation have sacrificed just so Smith & Wesson can make a living. All these young folks need to be studying, not playing at security guard (or dying)

I wonder how you would explain Israel's success in preventing similar episodes where many university students and professors, as well as ordinary citizens go about their daily business armed. They're not working for Smith & Wesson or as security guards, and they do reasonably well at their studies.

If an armed student or instructor at VT had shot the murderer before he could destroy 33 innocent lives, or even one innocent life, would you have objected that he was armed? In retrospect, would the families of those massacred have objected?

Isn't it time that we adapt our own habits to the realities of life? Is it better to be slaughtered at the whim of every madman bent on mass destruction in order to preserve an illusion of "innocence"?

No, we need to make life conform to our safety and pleasure. And I could care less how the Israeli's do it. I'm not an Israeli, I live in the U.S. They are surrounded by enemies, we are not. The arming of America in the last 50 years is one of the most tragic chapters in U.S. history, in my own opinion.

Israel doesn't permit and encourage its ordinary citizens to learn how to use and carry arms because it is surrounded by enemies. It has an army to deal with that problem. The problem we're talking about here is protection from internal enemies. There's no reason why the same approach shouldn't work for us.

A country that isn't willing to reevaluate its security needs, whether external or internal based upon realities and adapt to whatever best protects its citizens -- regardless of whether others use similar effective means -- will continue to suffer.

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
--George Santayana

[Kevin R]

The arming of America in the last 50 years is one of the most tragic chapters in U.S. history, in my own opinion.

??????

America has always been armed. In fact, gun ownership was more prevalent in 18th century America than it is today.

[RebLem]

Now that we are in for a renewed debate about gun control in the US, the Second Amendment will again be front and center.

"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."

So -- the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yet, lots of those same people will look at the Second Amendent and for the life of them just can't seem to understand how anyone might think that it actually protects a person's right to own a gun.

If you want to ban guns, repeal the Second Amendment!!
.

Tell us, Kevin, of which well-regulated militia was Mr. Cho a member?
Bought any bridges lately, Kevin?

[pizza]

Now that we are in for a renewed debate about gun control in the US, the Second Amendment will again be front and center.

"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."

So -- the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yet, lots of those same people will look at the Second Amendent and for the life of them just can't seem to understand how anyone might think that it actually protects a person's right to own a gun.

If you want to ban guns, repeal the Second Amendment!!
.

Tell us, Kevin, of which well-regulated militia was Mr. Cho a member?
Bought any bridges lately, Kevin?

"Yet, lots of those same people will look at the Second Amendent and for the life of them just can't seem to understand how anyone might think that it actually protects a person's right to own a gun."

Guess who is one of them!

[slofstra]

About 18 months ago, a frightened student at Wilfrid Laurier told a don that his roommate had a gun in his desk drawer. A local tactical team stormed the residence early the next morning. It turned out that the weapon was a pellet gun, an infraction that got the student kicked out of the dorm.(Toronto Globe and Mail, 19 April)

This incident occurred in my home town, Waterloo, Ontario. In case there is any doubt - this was good, not bad. Would this happen in Virginia? I doubt it -too many guns everywhere.
It worries me that so many Americans think that arming the population would prevent killings. Accidental shootings in such a scenario would probably exceed the massacre toll within a week. There's no question that a single armed student could have prevented all or some of the killings at Virginia Tech. But the downside is huge, overall risk of death by shooting across the entire population is going to be even worse. The U.S. gun subculture is largely to blame for this - anybody but an American can see this. There is no way this guy in Virginia should have gotten a gun with his history.
Pizza, I am curious; would this guy have gotten a gun in Israel?

[slofstra]

And to answer my own question after a quick Google search, the answer is no, he would definitely not have obtained a gun in Israel.

http://www.jpfo.org/israel-firearms.htm

[pizza]

A very interesting article re the 2nd Amendment:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE
IDEOLOGY OF SELF-PROTECTION

Don B. Kates, Jr.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/2nd-ideo.html

See also:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/

[anasazi]

The arming of America in the last 50 years is one of the most tragic chapters in U.S. history, in my own opinion.

??????

America has always been armed. In fact, gun ownership was more prevalent in 18th century America than it is today.

I can remember when I was growing up, during the 1950's, 1960's. It was a rural community and a lot of Dads had a shotgun or a hunting rifle (my own father included). Handguns? Those were on TV with John Wayne.
Even then, I knew many families, especially those who lived in town or did not hunt, who owned zero guns. Obviously, gun violence was rampant back then as well.

And I don't necessarily believe that gun ownership was more prevalent in 18th century in American than it is today, not if you include handguns in the mix.

[Kevin R]

The arming of America in the last 50 years is one of the most tragic chapters in U.S. history, in my own opinion.

??????

America has always been armed. In fact, gun ownership was more prevalent in 18th century America than it is today.

I can remember when I was growing up, during the 1950's, 1960's. It was a rural community and a lot of Dads had a shotgun or a hunting rifle (my own father included). Handguns? Those were on TV with John Wayne.
Even then, I knew many families, especially those who lived in town or did not hunt, who owned zero guns. Obviously, gun violence was rampant back then as well.

And I don't necessarily believe that gun ownership was more prevalent in 18th century in American than it is today, not if you include handguns in the mix.

The literature is very clear on this point especially the recent work done in response to the book Arming America by Michael Bellesiles (who claimed that an American "gun culture" did not exist before the Civil War and that guns were very rare in the 18th century). Scholars checked his work to find that he had fabricated material throughout the book. In the debunking process, evidence (from probate records and various government sources) plainly shows that gun ownership was more common at the time. Depending on the location, household gun ownership was anywhere between 40%-80% (the average prior to the Civil War is placed around 60%). Much higher than today.

For some of the evidence in this area see the article by James Lindgren & Justin Heather ("Counting Guns in Early America") in the William and Mary Law Review (Vol. 43, 2002). It may be on the internet.

Evidence also shows that homicide rates were either higher than today or about equal to today prior to the Civil War. And, of course, homicide rates were much higher around 1200 in Europe (not many guns) than in America in 2007.

[Kevin R]

Penn & Teller's "Gun Control is Bullsh*t"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1553&hl=en

[Corlyss_D]

I can remember when I was growing up, during the 1950's, 1960's. It was a rural community and a lot of Dads had a shotgun or a hunting rifle (my own father included). Handguns? Those were on TV with John Wayne. Even then, I knew many families, especially those who lived in town or did not hunt, who owned zero guns. Obviously, gun violence was rampant back then as well.

Pardon me Bill, but on a public policy matter I simply refuse to accept your anecdotal evidence, based on your childhood memories, in place of hard statistical evidence. The statistical evidence exists out there. You ought to be interested in finding out what it is, whether your memories accurately reflect what was happening in a nation of 50 states and 200,000,000 people. I'm not disputing what you remember. How could I? But I am disputing that it represents anything more than your memories. When formulating public policy, you have to know what the facts are or you run the risk of the unforgiveable: establishing the wrong policies to cure an apparent problem while in fact exacerbating the real problem. Mao's Four Pests campaign illustrates what I'm talking about:

Mao Zedong ordered the killing of what he called the country's biggest four evils - rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows?

The late Chinese leader's "four pests" campaign proved the Communist Party's power to mobilise China's millions of peasants but the results were often unfortunate.

Mao Zedong's mass extermination campaign went horribly wrong
The anti-sparrow campaign, for instance, was extremely effective but had tragic results.

Villagers were told to rush out to the fields, banging on pots and pans and screaming at the tops of their voices.

The sparrows took to the air, and as the pandemonium continued, stayed there, too terrified to land, until they dropped dead from exhaustion.

The only trouble was that sparrows are a vital link in the food chain and are particularly fond of locusts. With no sparrows left to eat them, there was a plague of locusts, the crops were ruined and millions of people died in the ensuing famine.

Public policies must be judged on the basis of results, not intentions.

[anasazi]

I can remember when I was growing up, during the 1950's, 1960's. It was a rural community and a lot of Dads had a shotgun or a hunting rifle (my own father included). Handguns? Those were on TV with John Wayne. Even then, I knew many families, especially those who lived in town or did not hunt, who owned zero guns. Obviously, gun violence was rampant back then as well.

Pardon me Bill, but on a public policy matter I simply refuse to accept your anecdotal evidence, based on your childhood memories, in place of hard statistical evidence. The statistical evidence exists out there. You ought to be interested in finding out what it is, whether your memories accurately reflect what was happening in a nation of 50 states and 200,000,000 people. I'm not disputing what you remember. How could I? But I am disputing that it represents anything more than your memories. When formulating public policy, you have to know what the facts are or you run the risk of the unforgiveable: establishing the wrong policies to cure an apparent problem while in fact exacerbating the real problem. Mao's Four Pests campaign illustrates what I'm talking about:

Yes, mine is anecdotal evidence. However, I don't really need anymore information to tell you that those were indeed the days before automatic weapons, of the kind commonly used in the incidents that we see happening more and more. As for handgun ownership in say, 1960.
What hard evidence is there? I suppose the sales records from the gun manufacturers? What else would exist? I would be interested in seeing any real hard statistics that exist however.