The 2nd Amendment

[Stavros]

The terrible event in Colorado has inevitably revived the question of gun ownership and control in the USA. I don’t know what other BMs think are
the core issues, it seems to me that the context in which the 2nd Amendment was adopted is crucial to understanding it; that it was adopted at a time when the British remained a very real threat to American democracy; and when the Americans themselves were reluctant to form a Standing Army, preferring that security be provided by militias raised and paid for by each State of the Union.

The context in which the 2nd Amendment was adopted, was provided in the 16th and 17th centuries by the recurring problem of Governments attempting to disarm rebellious citizens –Catholic King James II was so afraid of Protestant rebels (the monarchy had been restored after the collapse of the Commonwealth in 1685) that he banned them from owning firearms (not sure but I believe this also applied to the Colonies); the ban was repealed in the Declaration of Rights passed by Parliament in 1689. The Crown in its American Colonies attempted to dispossess American rebels of their arms, particularly after the Boston Massacre of 1770. But George Washington disbanded the Continental Army because Congress had no power to raise taxes to pay for a Standing Army, and because Congress was wary of such a force, notably due to the Newburgh Incident of 1783. Congress believed States should raise militias not the Federal Government. I believe it was for their own protection in Philadelphia that Congress created the First American Regiment in 1784, consisting of about 700 men.

Perhaps it is forgotten how weak the early Revolutionary government was: the US had no control over the whole of the continent, with Indian nations in conflict with new colonials; the British stayed in the North-West where the fur trade was still booming; and without a Navy, American trade was vulnerable to pirates of the Barbary Coast until they were bought off. But even when Congress created the Department of War in 1785 and incorporated the First American Regiment as the foundation of a Standing Army, the balance of power was deemed to lie with individual States, and as I see it, this is where the meaning of the 2nd Amendment with its reference to an ‘Armed Militia’ must refer to a Collective not an Individual Right.

What has since happened is reactive legislation, common to both the UK and the USA. In the UK, restrictions on the ownership of firearms were introduced after the Napoleonic Wars because so many servicemen returning to the country brought their weapons with them, and because it was believed they were the cause of lawlessness and highway robbery. In the US restrictions were brought in after the Civil War for similar reasons, although there is evidence that in some States the restrictions were aimed at ‘freed slaves’, ie Black people who were seen as a cause of crime and to be feared. That different States have taken different attitudes to the regulation of the purchase of firearms makes it exceedingly difficult to write about.

For me, the key difference between 1791 and 2012 lies in the political landscape, and the technology of firearms. There were not that many firearms in the US among the population in 1791, apparently many were old and didn’t work, and there was a time in the 1780s when the population was sick and tired of war and anti-military. Today, the USA has a standing army and states and cities have police forces, and the National Guard; the instruments of public safety exist, they are paid for from taxes, its officials are accountable; there can be no political or military justification for the individual ownership of firearms.

Yet today weapons that are used on the battlefield can be bought on the high street, they are not rifles comparable to those used in the revolutionary wars; they can and have killed and injured multiple people in minutes. These are the weapons that are now banned in the UK, yet as more incidents in the last 3 years have shown, men entitled to buy guns have gone berserk and killed people at random (and/or members of their own family). I think an entire ban on guns in the UK except for farmers is essential. I recognise that a ban in the US is a non-starter politically. But the US has to come to terms with the firepower that is available and, as it were, bite the bullet on this issue. It is not about rights under the Constitution, it is about the erosion of personal and public security that is posed when battlefield weapons can be purchased with limited control.

A more complex issue is the way in which security has been outsourced to private ‘security companies’. My view is that security should be exclusively a matter for the state and elected, and therefore accountable politicians and officials. If people want to go hunting on a weekend, or take part in the shooting events in the Olympics, there are ways of controlling access to, and using firearms in sport. British Olympians are not allowed to fire their weapons in the UK, a special amendment to the law has been passed for the 2012 Olympics to enable the shooting events to take place. So it is not that difficult. But there has to be something which the USA can offer to families grieving over the loss of their loved ones because a pseudo-commando selected them to become the victims of his distorted fantasy. What could be more valued in the USA than the safety of the family?

[buttslinger]

couple points-
The US of A is now about the size of all of Europe. Up until 1945 Europe used to have a war every generation. In 1945 the house I live in was a potato field.
This whole deal is a crapshoot, a big experiment 3,000 miles wide.
And for OMK, in 1776 the conservatives were called TORIES. Brown-nosers.

[Queens Guy]

Yet today weapons that are used on the battlefield can be bought on the high street, they are not rifles comparable to those used in the revolutionary wars; they can and have killed and injured multiple people in minutes. These are the weapons that are now banned in the UK, yet as more incidents in the last 3 years have shown, men entitled to buy guns have gone berserk and killed people at random (and/or members of their own family). I think an entire ban on guns in the UK except for farmers is essential. I recognise that a ban in the US is a non-starter politically. But the US has to come to terms with the firepower that is available and, as it were, bite the bullet on this issue. It is not about rights under the Constitution, it is about the erosion of personal and public security that is posed when battlefield weapons can be purchased with limited control.

A more complex issue is the way in which security has been outsourced to private ‘security companies’. My view is that security should be exclusively a matter for the state and elected, and therefore accountable politicians and officials. If people want to go hunting on a weekend, or take part in the shooting events in the Olympics, there are ways of controlling access to, and using firearms in sport. British Olympians are not allowed to fire their weapons in the UK, a special amendment to the law has been passed for the 2012 Olympics to enable the shooting events to take place. So it is not that difficult. But there has to be something which the USA can offer to families grieving over the loss of their loved ones because a pseudo-commando selected them to become the victims of his distorted fantasy. What could be more valued in the USA than the safety of the family?


In a post on another thread, I think the problem is our failure to look at mental health as one of the parts of a background check. No State issues a Gun Permit to somebody who they know is mentally ill. This latest shooter was a student at a Medical School. Certainly there should be a way that the psychiatrists at the Med. School could have helped mark this guy as somebody not suitable to get a Gun Permit. I find it hard to believe that the students and instructors didn't see that something was wrong.

For a lot of us in the U.S. the idea of a 'ban' is indeed a non-starter. And, even a lot of 'gun control' advocates would find the idea that UK Olympic athletes can't practice their sport in the UK to be absurd. They can't even keep the ammunition or the guns locked up at the range in a safe? Or even lock them up in a safe after practice, and hold the safe at a Police facility? There is just an absolute ban? That strikes a lot of Americans, myself included, as unreasonable.

Please note that I say this all in respect. We just feel differently about these things on this side of The Atlantic.

[onmyknees]

couple points-
The US of A is now about the size of all of Europe. Up until 1945 Europe used to have a war every generation. In 1945 the house I live in was a potato field.
This whole deal is a crapshoot, a big experiment 3,000 miles wide.
And for OMK, in 1776 the conservatives were called TORIES. Brown-nosers.

wow...you're quickly becoming one of the most profound progressive thinkers on here. That's deep. Potato fields? Crap Shoots? It must be that expensive education your folks paid for...huh? We're very fortunate to have someone of your intellect on here. Have you thought about an internship at an Ivy League school history department?

[buttslinger]

OMK is very sensitive about his good Christian raisin' and eighth grade education.

Democrats think gun control lost them the election in 2000, just like people are in favor of all the practical parts of Obamacare, but against Obamacare in itself, they say no to hand grenades and machine guns, yet say no to gun control.

The 2nd Amendment was meant to a living Law, one that would grow and transform along with an individual's personal freedom and intellect. It wasn't meant to mean that kids should play with guns.

And just like Jefferson was strapped by the Truth that "you do what you can" I think the Democrats have decided it's better to have a few thousand people shoot each other, than have the Republicans send a few more million Americans into Poverty and a revolving cycle of Despair. The First Rule of the American Experiment: You've got to pull it off.

[Odelay]

The gun control issue probably means less to me than most, or almost all liberals. There are so many bigger things that conservatives have effed up in this country compared to their obsessions with guns and legal enshrinement of gun ownership. The environment, wage inequity, reproductive rights, voter ID requirements, no limits on political campaign donations, deregulation of corporations... the list is endless, and all of these things suck bigger than Republicans wacking off on their gun barrels. The Left continues to be totally disorganized in driving a stake through the modern US conservative movement. And I'm sorry to say, but it's far more tragic than 12 dead Colorado.

[robertlouis]

On a lighter note....

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

[thombergeron]

it's far more tragic than 12 dead Colorado.

I get your point, but it's not 12 dead Coloradans. It's 31,000 people in the U.S., every year, year after year.

At this point in the United States, with gun deaths rising and traffic deaths falling, you are just as likely to be shot to death as you are to die in a motor vehicle accident. It's an enormous public safety issue.

[Odelay]

I get your point, but it's not 12 dead Coloradans. It's 31,000 people in the U.S., every year, year after year.

At this point in the United States, with gun deaths rising and traffic deaths falling, you are just as likely to be shot to death as you are to die in a motor vehicle accident. It's an enormous public safety issue.
Point taken.

[NYBURBS]

Sorry, but history is replete with instances of dictatorships and oppressive regimes, and the one thing they usually have in common is that they seek to disarm any potential opposition. Europeans are fond of their gun control laws, but Europe has been the home of some rather vicious dictators and was instrumental in bringing about two world wars, so you'll have to pardon us if we don't necessarily want to emulate you in all respects. The US also has its issues with decaying civil liberties, cheered on by far too many, so the idea that there is a true political check against tyranny is, to me at least, somewhat of a fantasy.

This is not to say that a society can't reach a middle ground, but what we had here before the 2nd Amendment cases were decided were laws that were essentially an all-out ban on the ownership of firearms (especially handguns) in some states, and many of us do not want to see a return to that.

[Ben]

The Amendment states: 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 key word there is regulated. Which, of course, means: control or to exercise restraint or direction over.

That's important to note.
I mean, I'm not opposed to gun ownership. And I'm of the so-called political left.
But the Amendment states again: a "regulated" militia. Meaning: to exercise restraint or direction over.
I guess we can endlessly debate what sort of restraints should the government impose. (I mean, as Obama articulated the other day: we don't have capitalism. Not pure or perfect capitalism. But a sort of state-capitalism. Where the government plays a crucial role. As Obama pointed out: the Internet came out of government ideas, costs, and research. And then handed over to the private sector.) So, the government will play some role in the control of guns.
Again, I'm not opposed to guns. Which sets me apart from my political lefty brethren -- :)

[buttslinger]

The first local modern police department established in the United States was the Boston Police Department in 1838, followed by the New York City Police Department in 1845. Crime is now a bigger threat to citizens than King George. And the National debt is a bigger threat than Iran or N Korea. If the Founding Fathers wanted STUPIDITY to get in the way of our Freedom, they would have let Women vote!!!! BAM!!!

[muh_muh]

Sorry, but history is replete with instances of dictatorships and oppressive regimes, and the one thing they usually have in common is that they seek to disarm any potential opposition.

yes im sure a couple hundred americans with handguns will be able to defeat a dictatorship with full access to the us militarys arsenal

[NYBURBS]

yes im sure a couple hundred americans with handguns will be able to defeat a dictatorship with full access to the us militarys arsenal

Idk, a bunch of Iraqis with AK-47s and roadside bombs brought the largest military in the world to a virtual standstill. The Free Syrian Army isn't comprised of much more than men with rifles. The Taliban consists mainly of mules, rifles, and morters. Just thought someone should point that out to you.

[Stavros]

Sorry, but history is replete with instances of dictatorships and oppressive regimes, and the one thing they usually have in common is that they seek to disarm any potential opposition. Europeans are fond of their gun control laws, but Europe has been the home of some rather vicious dictators and was instrumental in bringing about two world wars, so you'll have to pardon us if we don't necessarily want to emulate you in all respects. The US also has its issues with decaying civil liberties, cheered on by far too many, so the idea that there is a true political check against tyranny is, to me at least, somewhat of a fantasy.

This is not to say that a society can't reach a middle ground, but what we had here before the 2nd Amendment cases were decided were laws that were essentially an all-out ban on the ownership of firearms (especially handguns) in some states, and many of us do not want to see a return to that.

A good point, because it was precisely the kind of arrogant, centrally-managed monarchy equivalent to a dictatorship that the Americans wanted to, and indeed, did avoid. Indeed, one of the historically interesting aspects of the American Revolution is the way in which the Americans avoided precisely the kind of dictatorship that other Revolutions 'descended' into -notably the French, the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

The weakness of government after the Treaty of Paris, the lawlessness outside the original states in the Union, the challenge from overseas by the British and by pirates -did not force the US to adopt a 'firm hand' through more central power, Congress retained its belief that power shoould be where the people are, and reside in the states. It was only reluctantly that you re-established an army and a navy after disbanding them; whereas the military element of the French, the Russian and the Chinese revolutions was not just instrumental to the creation of a dictatorship from the centre, they became its guardians.

By contrast, although the armed forces of the US have tended to go with their times -eg, segregation in society, segregation in the forces, when change has been an option, the US military has shown itself to be more professional and willing to liberalise its internal arrangements than, say, the British or French version -the French are probably the most inflexible of NATO forces -not oddly but precisely because of the legacy of Napleon Bonaparte. I can't think of a European armed force which would appoint a black man as its Chief of Staff. In some way, Colin Powell's elevation was not more significant than the election of Obama, but typical of the attitude in the US services. It is a pity that the lower ranks have let the US down so badly; maybe there are issues among the middle ranking officer class with discipline on the battlefield; or maybe its just military incompetence.

The point is that the American Revolution did not go the way of other revolutions; you have managed to avoid a centrally imposed dictatorship since 1776; you did have a civil war, but for economic rather than political reasons; but in spite of the intense arguments about the quality of government at Federal and State level, your experience has been quite different from that of France, Russia and China.

But at some point, when you have an armed population at the level you do, with the kind of weapons that you do, the State no longer has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force -particularly if states introduce 'Stand your ground' law that legitimises violent self-defence. I see this as a critical issue that is rarely addressed, it seems to me to be one of the weakest legacies of the Revolution.

On this issue, I prefer to live in Europe where there are fewer guns and people willing to use them; than in the US.

[muh_muh]

Idk, a bunch of Iraqis with AK-47s and roadside bombs brought the largest military in the world to a virtual standstill. The Free Syrian Army isn't comprised of much more than men with rifles. The Taliban consists mainly of mules, rifles, and morters. Just thought someone should point that out to you.

none of which is comparable
the taliban have training camps and arent a bunch of rednecks living their own john wayne fantasy
the syrian rebels are barely making a dent
afghanistan and iraq are fronting as missions to help the people so it is in no way comparable to a scenario where a us dictator would use the full potential of wmds (see saddam using chemical weapons against his if you dont think thats a realistic scnario under a dictatorship) against his own people

[thombergeron]

But at some point, when you have an armed population at the level you do, with the kind of weapons that you do, the State no longer has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force -particularly if states introduce 'Stand your ground' law that legitimises violent self-defence. I see this as a critical issue that is rarely addressed, it seems to me to be one of the weakest legacies of the Revolution.

No, in the U.S., the State absolutely does enjoy a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. For political reasons, the State generally allows widespread ownership of military-grade weapons, enacts "stand your ground" laws, and tolerates a relatively high level of gun violence among the civilian population. But those weird policy decisions don't detract from the fact that the state decides who is going to be armed with what.

But the U.S. also fields the largest and most sophisticated military on earth, and, despite declining crime rates, has increasingly militarized its federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. If it became politically expedient to, say, reinstitute the assault weapons ban, that's what would happen. No "citizens' militia" is going to say otherwise. Remember Pine Ridge? Ruby Ridge? Waco? When somebody really gets out of hand in this country, if they're actually a threat to the State, they get put down.

What you're looking at is the power of money, not an armed citizenry. The idea that the only thing standing between the U.S. and dictatorship is an armed populace is just tough-guy talk. We have a heavily armed populace because the NRA and gun manufacturers spend a shitload of money on politics and can rile up a shitload of votes.

Sane and rationale citizens are rightly afraid of armed rednecks, but the State definitely is not.

[thombergeron]

Idk, a bunch of Iraqis with AK-47s and roadside bombs brought the largest military in the world to a virtual standstill.

My distinct recollection is that there were some political issues at play there, as well. Pretty sure nobody's going to be writing any monographs on the strategic brillance of AQI.

[broncofan]

none of which is comparable
the taliban have training camps and arent a bunch of rednecks living their own john wayne fantasy
the syrian rebels are barely making a dent
afghanistan and iraq are fronting as missions to help the people so it is in no way comparable to a scenario where a us dictator would use the full potential of wmds (see saddam using chemical weapons against his if you dont think thats a realistic scnario under a dictatorship) against his own people
I agree. When you don't have to carefully discriminate between who you want to kill and who you don't, guerillas stand little chance against our military machine. We're talking about an oppressive government that wants to wipe out large swaths of its own population. I'm not sure the miniscule chance that guerilla tactics could irritate such a dictatorial regime is worth the risk to public safety that assault weapons present.

[Stavros]

No, in the U.S., the State absolutely does enjoy a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. For political reasons, the State generally allows widespread ownership of military-grade weapons, enacts "stand your ground" laws, and tolerates a relatively high level of gun violence among the civilian population. But those weird policy decisions don't detract from the fact that the state decides who is going to be armed with what.

But the U.S. also fields the largest and most sophisticated military on earth, and, despite declining crime rates, has increasingly militarized its federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. If it became politically expedient to, say, reinstitute the assault weapons ban, that's what would happen. No "citizens' militia" is going to say otherwise. Remember Pine Ridge? Ruby Ridge? Waco? When somebody really gets out of hand in this country, if they're actually a threat to the State, they get put down.

What you're looking at is the power of money, not an armed citizenry. The idea that the only thing standing between the U.S. and dictatorship is an armed populace is just tough-guy talk. We have a heavily armed populace because the NRA and gun manufacturers spend a shitload of money on politics and can rile up a shitload of votes.

Sane and rationale citizens are rightly afraid of armed rednecks, but the State definitely is not.

A good post, and one which clarifies it for me -I can see how it is possible for the Federal and State authorities to concede the right to bear arms to a point, but that if it threatens to become active or live, as with those groups then yes. I would assume we could put the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers with the examples you gave. The only thing I would add, is that were the availability of battlefield weapons not legitimately allowed through the usual channels, the authorities might not have to deal with these 'insurgent' groups...

[muh_muh]

also if there ever was a situation in which the us were ruled by a dictator and if there was a group of freedom fighters (funny how that word quickly changes to terrorist depending on who you ask) that had the organizational structure and military grade training to stand a chance against the military forces of the us a lack of easily available weapons in the country would certainly not be an obstacle in a country with as much impossible to completely patrol border as the us

[buttslinger]

Some animal has been getting into my trash, I think I'll get drunk, invoke my 2nd Amendment rights, and shoot his face off.

[Ben]

Scalia and the right to bear "hand-held rocket launchers?" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYxiCyW8kdQ&feature=plcp)

[Femboyurge]

There is something utterly more stupid than an armed redneck: someone believing that the government wants the good for the people.

[Prospero]

Femboyurge... "the people" is a pretty vague term. The next GOP administration, be it a Romney presidency or after that, will certainly look after the good of the top 0.1 % of the people... the richest in America who'll get tax breaks and all kinds of other goodies while the Middle Class will be hit by spending cuts and the scrapping of Affordable health care (together with the prospect of revived plans to axe medicare and medicaid) will ensure some of the very poorest will die. (Read the profile of Paul Ryan in the latest New Yorker) The Tea Party is being duped and along with it way too many Americans.

If your armed rednecks should be pointing their precious firearms at anyone it is the tea party and those funding them such as the Koch brothers.