The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[3point14]

Owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone.

Owning a vial of anthrax doesn't hurt anyone. Should people be allowed it?

 

[Orphia Nay]

It is considered a right because it was listed as a right in the country's founding documents. Second amendment and all that.

The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.

 

[Belz...]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

I don't know. I think there's a case to be made that people should have the ability to defend themselves in their homes, with the deadliest means available to protect their lives. To me, that means shotguns, rifles and probably handguns.

But concealed carry ? No. And since guns are often used for crimes or with negligeance, I'm all for registration and permits with training.

Personally, however, I don't see much of a difference between right and privilege. Both are things that society allows you to do, and might, even though it's more difficult with constitutional ones, remove them depending on the circumstances.

So it's an arbitrary right, not an inherent right?

Inherent right ? How does that work ?

 

[angrysoba]

From another point of view, I think gun ownership has a lot to do with America as a culture. As a nation, our history is young. Our nation was founded in 1776, and any sort of sense of Americans as a separate, distinct culture came into existence only a short time prior to that. Our entire history is built on the accomplishments of heroes and villains wielding firearms.

First came Washington, and the soldiers of the Revolution. Then the pioneers, going out alone to make a living trapping furs, with only their trusty firearms at their side. The old west and the gunfighters, and so on. I mean, almost all our folk heroes carried guns, and were special because of their skill with them. (Crockett, Boone, Jesse James, Hitchock, etc...)

To put it in perspective, the Lady of the Lake didn't give King Arthur a Colt and Robin Hood didn't rob people with a Winchester. I think that firearms have played such a part in American culture that we can't divorce ourselves from them, so we come up with excuses and reasons that they are essential and necessary.

I think this is a mythical rendering of history.

The common law right came before all of those things you referenced in the American history bit, and as for robbery with Winchester rifles, in fact highwaymen in England did rob with pistols.

 

[angrysoba]

There's an interesting review of a book on the subject here, for anyone who is actually interested in the historical background to the argument. I think it is possible to read it for free by logging on for a temporary time.

 

[GlennB]

The SCOTUS has interpreted 'arms' to eliminate certain classes of weapons from common ownership by limiting 'arms' to - very roughly - the types available at the time. It could also interpret 'bear' in a similar fashion. The potential members of a militia would have no need to carry arms around with them on a routine basis, as any need to respond to a military threat would certainly be signalled well in advance. If 'bear' were interpreted to mean 'possess, but keep securely at home' then a great deal of grief could be avoided.

Whichever way you look at it, the 2A is inextricably linked to the formation of a militia and not to self or home defence. That the weapons can be used for personal defence is a consequence of their being owned and not the intent of the 2A.

But I fear that some kind of restriction on ownership, storage and use is the best that can be hoped for. In the words of the tired old joke, when the tourist asked the Irishman the way to Cork, "Cork? Ah, to be sure, you wouldn't want to start from here". The USA is pretty much stuck with what it's got for a long long time.

 

[catsmate]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

Meh, like many things it probably seemed like a Good Idea once, when the US constitution was created, but less so in a modern, very different, society.
That's the problem with building a political system with heavy influence from a historical document.

 

[cullennz]

So is it a bit like the right in England to walk sheep on main streets because the leaders tried to stop it 100s of years ago?

 

[Nessie]

I think it goes without saying that it's considered a right because the populace considers it a right. That's not really contributing anything. The more pertinent question is why the populace of the USA considers something a right that the populace of no other free, liberal, democratic nation considers a right.

It's an interesting question, isn't it? So many of our cultural values in the west are shared between nations, it's fascinating when you come across these characteristics that are unique to one country or another, particularly when the impact on the society in question is so profound.

The first Firearms statutory legislation ever is from the British Bill of Rights 1689

"....the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law"

The British had always had the right to bear arms under common law. That common law is tempered by what is called the common good, referenced in the Bill "as allowed by law". In other words it was never a right that was a free for all and controls were needed. The common good is a reason why the British are more open to gun controls. The US constitution did not bother with the idea of the common good or even the right to life. Hence, the right to bear arms has had a much freer reign in the USA.

I would argue that right to bear arms is present in most if not all countries. If you are a decent law abiding person and you can pass the requirements to get a gun, you get it, it cannot be refused. So, so long as you are not a criminal, nut, angry person or youth, you get your gun.

One of the issues over which the Founders wished to secede was the British governments' confiscation of firearms. The Bill of Rights was in direct response to abuses that the Founders felt should be guarded against for all time.

The British Government passed the British Bill of Rights 1689 as a counter to the Monarchy wanting to confiscate guns when James II tried stopping Protestants from arming themselves, but allowing Catholics to do so. That was made illegal. The new Monarch William of Orange had been invited in with the Glorious Revolution as Parliament finally established its supremacy over the Monarchy.

The Second Amendment came from the Common Law and the Bill of Rights

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

"The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689."

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Anything that does not infringe on another's rights, ought to be a right.


Owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone. Speaking doesn't hurt anyone. Assembling doesn't hurt anyone.

The wrong person could shoot someone. Some threats and private information can be spoken. A riot can break out at an assembly.

That there are unfortunate events tied to things we consider rights doesn't mean those rights were wrong to begin with.


My philosophy extends to everything. The most ridiculous, disgusting, and questionable acts. If a sign language speaking chimp expresses a desire to have sex with a human and that human engages, then I'm fine with that. It didn't infringe on anyone's rights.


If someone wants to own a gun, I'm fine with that. Because of how easily abused that right is and how severe the consequences may be, I do believe in restrictions placed to make sure that it isn't abused. But I'm certainly not against the right.

This answer best expresses my understanding and opinion on the matter. Non gun owner here.

 

[cullennz]

I disagree.

It has changed in most countries to a semi priviledge. The circumstances have changed from old law.

You are not entitled to a gun unless you prove by testing, a decent criminal record etc

 

[BStrong]

So it's an arbitrary right, not an inherent right? How does that make it equal to the inherent right to (for example) free speech?

I believe that there is an inherent human right of self defense, and so far a firearm has been a tool historically identified with defense of self.

It might be worth noting that the earliest "arms" control laws (pre-Civil War) forbid the carrying of concealed Bowie type knives, not the common single shot pistols of the era.

Firearms were very much an integral part of early American culture, and that history has been ingrained into modern culture as well.

 

[RockNroll]

For some reason (probably the fact that serious threads about this topic have been done to death), I thought the OP was setting up a pun about the right to own a dead bear's arms.

My historical and philosophical precedent as a gun-owning/pro-guns Canadian is that I grew up watching GI Joe and 80s action movies. Also, I was big into punk rock as a teenager (and still am), which gave me a great appreciation for civil liberties.

 

[Xulld]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

Do you have a right to life?

Then you have a right to protect it.

Do you have a right to liberty?

Then you have a right to protect it.

Do you have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

Then you have the right to protect it.

Imagining a world where those in government are special people who can be trusted with the power to protect these things, and they alone can be trusted is a logically fallacious.

So, the counter question is, how do you justify limiting the power of arms to the government alone? What logical justification can you bring to bear?

*So long as arms exist, the question is not why should citizens have them . . . the default position should be why should anyone be restricted from having them, and if this person then why not that person? We all share these essential goals.

Living in Australia, with no right to bear arms, I do not find my right to life, liberty or security infringed.

Arbitrary and anecdotal.

The question should be COULD a situation exist where your life, property or liberty is in joepordy by anyone, not just the government?

The clear and simple answer is that history is full of such examples, and they happen daily on an individual scale. As it happens every murder deprives that person of these things . . .

 

[BStrong]

Owning a vial of anthrax doesn't hurt anyone. Should people be allowed it?

No, because CBNR weapons are not and have never been suitable for individual self defense, or items allowed to be owned or controlled by individuals.

Prior to '34, an individual could walk into a well stocked gun dealer and purchase a 1927 type Thompson Submachine Gun, a Colt Monitor, a Browning 1917 type water-cooled heavy machinegun or a Maxim Silencer.

Depending on state laws in the jurisdiction in question and the ability of an individual to pass the ATF BGC, an individual can still purchase those items or the modern equivalent.

 

[Xulld]

Many parts of the first world play at liberty and freedom, but are really just as classed based and favor the elite as they ever did.

 

[cullennz]

Out of those 3 rights in the modern era, only the first would probably be an excuse to own a gun.

And even that is pushing it.

Do the people mistakenly shot by idiots who would not be trusted with a gun in most other countrie not also have the right to life?

 

[Cleon]

Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

Are you asking why Americans have that perspective, or questioning the merits of it? I'll address the former, because frankly I'm sick and tired of talking about the latter.

Consider that America's history is rather unique in the developed world. The United States, as a country, as a "people" if you will, was formed by an act of rebellion against a colonial power. That act of rebellion features very prominently in the national consciousness. I mean, we call the guy who led the army the "Father of Our Country."

And the people who fought that rebellion were the descendants of people who came to this continent armed to the teeth for the specific purpose of conquering both natives and nature.

Guns built this country, and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

 

[Aepervius]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be a right to bear arms.

Why is arming oneself with a potentially deadly weapon considered something that all Americans have a right to do? I don't see it as anything like the right to freedom of speech or assembly, or religion, or anything outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why in America - as far as I know alone in the developed world - is gun ownership considered a right?

The reality is that your founding father were dyslexic ursophile.

And the rest is history.

 

[Xulld]

The reality is that your funding father were dyslexic ursophile.

And the rest is history.

Ad hom. Par for course.

No care to address the arguments?

NAW.


_____________________________________________________


I am still awaiting any argument which makes clear why some human beings should be afforded the ability to arm themselves, and others should be stripped of that ability? ie the police, the military, and the government, but not the citizens?

All things being equal, what is the argument? Do government officials, police and military have some innate genetic capability to be trusted? Are citizens not confronted with deadly situations? What is the objective argument?