Is the US constitution still relevent in allowing people to play with guns in this day and age?

Question

Does this 'right' it confers ultimately lead to much more crime and suffering? This kind of came out of an earlier question where people mentioned this right but without considering if it is appropriate now.

Ok - I live a country where guns are not available to civilians and there is very little gun crime. I suggest that the availability of firearms is directly proportional to the amount of gun crime.

Also does any one in their right mind still consider an armed civilian militia (in the US) any match for a modern professional army

Answer 1

I am surprised a worldly man such as yourself, working on the fringe of military markets, needs much in the way of an education on laws, weapons and street violence, and I really do not have the time to educate you. Nevertheless, allow me a cursory response:

1) The US Constitution does not allow people to "play" with guns. 2) The "'right'" conveyed is simply that, and does not require quotation marks to belittle it. 3) You have no way of knowing who considered what before answering your last petty jab at the US and its military delivered in the guise of a question – at the time you conveyed no interest in the relevance of the 2nd Amendment.

You say you live a country where guns are not available to civilians and there is very little gun crime. Have you read Joyce Malcolm, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience"? An English author, she writes:

"With passage of the Firearms Act of 1997, “it was confidently assumed that the new legislation effectively banning handguns would have the direct effect of reducing certain types of violent crime by reducing access to weapons.” The news media promised that the “world’s toughest laws will help to keep weapons off the streets.”

Yet faster than British gun-owners could surrender their handguns for destruction, guns began flooding into Great Britain from the international black market (especially from eastern Europe and from China), driven by the demands of the country’s rapidly developing criminal gun-culture." Even The London Times, bastion of the UK, headlined with: "Killings Rise As 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain" on January 16th, 2000. I doubt little has changed in the last few years.

As for your last comment, regarding an armed civilian militia being no match for a modern professional army – ask your “mates” in Basra how things are going – urban warfare fighting against militias with light/captured weaponry is one of the most difficult things imaginable.

Ultimately, everything about your comments suggests to me that you are the kind of man who would walk into a bar and start mouthing off, simply to get a good fight started. I am sure there are many people who would probably oblige you, but for my part I will simply say, if you are a professional, act like one.

Answer 2

This is particularly for Skip.

The Second Amendment is a very simple sentence. If you parse it by treating the commas as if they were periods, the meaning is absolutely clear. You will have an incomplete sentence, and a complete sentence. When you do this in any compound sentence, you can then identify the Dependent Clause and the Independent Clause. In the Second Amendment, the Independent Clause is "The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

That's an absolute. It is not predicated on or modified by the militia clause. It's beside the point that the National Guard and standing armies are not "militias". There is no question of what the Amendment says.

However, there are some questions one might ask. The first involves determining who is prohibited from violating the Right so enumerated.

The Constitution is the document by which the States created the Federal Government. It does not bind the States from action, it binds the Federal Government, and no one else. States can ban firearms, the Federal Government cannot. It is possible that the Fourteenth Amendment contains such a ban, but no such determination has ever been asked of the USSC, so we do not know. We do know the Federal Government is bound, and absolutely. If you read the case Dredd Scott v Sandford, you can see the sense of the USSC in the past, that it states all citizens have the "right to go about openly armed".

Now, one might wonder why they put that in the Constitution in the first place. I think not understanding this is the basis of the initial question. To answer this, one needs to read the the Declaration of Independence and recognize precisely what occurred between the writing of the two documents, in order to get a full context of what the authors were trying to avoid.

The authors had just successfully fought a war or revolution against a tyrannical government. They realized full well that Freedom was the exception, and that most governments tended to devolve into tyranny over time. To better ensure that what they created stayed within bounds, they recognized that an armed populace was more important than a document.

The Second Amendment isn't about burglars, drug dealers, crime, or deer hunting. It isn't even about making sure that we can defend the borders against invasion. It's about making sure we have the means to resist when the federal government goes too far.

That necessity will never expire.

Answer 3

I though the USA had effectively scrapped the US constitution. The USA PATRIOT act and the Military Commissions act evicerate the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

So much of the establishment and functions of the USA are clearly and blatantly unconstitutional, from how their money is created, to their income tax.

I am surprised that they are allowed to carry guns at all.

As for the question of is it relevent?

Well, there is less gun crime in Switzerland where everyone is armed by law, than in the UK where the law was changed to only allow criminals to carry guns.

OK I know the law doesn't say that if you are a criminal, then you can carry a gun. but the effect of a law that outlaws gun ownership is that law abiding citizens are unarmed, and criminals are armed.

This creates a situation that is exactly the same in effect as passing a law that only allows criminals to carry guns. That IS the logical conclusion of this backwards law.

Then, we have a government here that allows herion on the NHS to criminals in prison, but won't pay for althziemers treatment. That banned Burgers from being advertised, but will allow adverts for vibrators????

This country is Backwards.

I would feel a LOT safer in the UK if gun ownership were allowed.

Also, there are more people killed by prescription errors in the US than by guns, should we ban prescriptions?

The other comment about, are private militias a match for a nation's modern army? The militias in Iraq are kicking the asses of the UK and The US military right now, so yes they probably are.

Answer 4

The Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to play with guns, or even to hunt. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment is protect freedom. An armed citizenry ensures that the government will not become an opressive one. Before taking absolute power Hitler, Stalin, Castro and many other Dictators all banned or heavily restricted civilian firearm ownership.

Every freedom granted in the Constitution comes at a price.

The right to bear arms has the unforetunate consequence of giving those with criminal intents access to guns.

Freedom of speach allows racists and Neo-Nazis to say and publish their hate.

The feedom of religon allows people like David Koresh to brain wash people into commiting suicide and joining other dangerous cults.

The 4th-8th Amendments protect citizens from unlawful searches, double jeopardy, jury trials and cruel and unusual punishment. But due to flaws and technicalities allows murderers like OJ Simpson to go free.

Just about all of the freedoms granted by the Constitution have a bad side, but are compensated by having a greater good. It is easy for you to say that there is no need for guns in modern America or the world because you have never been under an oppressive governemnt. Because my country allows me to protect my freedom with arms of my choosing, I never will have to be ruled over. The right to bear arms is what ensures my right to speak freely, worship God, and have a fair trial.

The Second Amendment is just as relevent today as it was 250 years ago, because freedom has always been important to the people of this country.


"Also does any one in their right mind still consider an armed civilian militia (in the US) any match for a modern professional army" - Look at Iraq, The American Military is having trouble defeating UNTRAINED civilian MILITIAS. Imagine what a fight a trained American militia would put up against a Chinese, N. Korean, etc. army. People under occupation have the greatest motivation of all.

Answer 5

Illegal guns are the problem, not LEGALLY owned guns or guns, per sé. The problem is with the criminal element, not the lawful owners of guns.

In the South, here in the US, where children grew up hunting and using guns, kids do not accidentally kill themselves or hurt someone else... they grow up KNOWING how to use guns. There are no such things as accidents with firearms; they is only stupidity!

Insofar as crime, the problem lies with the criminals who would use their illegal guns (as they do now) on the civilians they prey upon because they know that there are no guns in the homes they're breaking into, or the stores they're robbing or with the people they're mugging.

I daresay more people are murdered with knives and other sharp objects, yet I hear no outcry to outlaw knives and sharp objects, or outlawing automobiles... there are far more deaths from automobile accidents and drunk driving than with weapons... should we also outlaw automobiles?

Answer 6

It is not responsible gun owners who are out the streets killing people. Sure you can take away legal ownership but that will not lower the crime rate. Criminals do not care if guns are legal. The Framers believed in the right of citizens to bear arms. If anything with the crime rate today this is even more relevant than ever before. I don't know how many times a month I turn on the TV to hear about another home invasion. The simple fact is that if you break into my house you better get to me before I get to my gun because one of us is going down.

Answer 7

Yes, it's still relevant. But it does need to be balanced with responsibility and accountability on the side of owners and gun makers.

We live in an adversarial world. We need the ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Guns are here, they will always be here because no one can really stop them from being made somewhere on the planet. Saying, "lets just get rid of guns" won't really work. Especially in a country that invented the wild west. Government can't even stop drugs from coming across the borders - they won't stop guns either.

I think every license should include gun ownership and training information. I think owners should be held criminally liable for things that happen with their guns. No lost guns that aren't reported, no "oops my kid took it" or buy one without a serious background check and certified training.

And, gun makers should be coming up with new technology to trace and ID guns that cannot be easily evaded.

I know it's not perfect and their will always be problems, but if America wants its guns, it needs to take as many steps as possible to be sure they are monitored. It should be at least as hard as owning a car.

Answer 8

That's about as dopey a correlation as I've seen, and the term "play with guns" is condecending and trite.
Using your weird type of reasoning, motor vehicles should be banned considering the number of deaths resulting from improper use of them. People who obey the laws and own guns are not the problem, and people who do not obey the laws and own guns are not going to give them up if another law is enacted. Want to put an end to gun-related crime? Put additional penalties on people who use guns in the commission of a crime, and eliminate and possibility of plea bargaining when a gun is involved.

Answer 9

Actually I think it is a deterrent to more crime and suffering.
Now more than ever, the Second Amendment is crucial to the welfare of the people of the United States.
The right to keep and bear arms does not convey the right to use them in crimes, and felons are not allowed to have them. I think the means for felons to obtain illegal arms should be addressed and dealt with; but for a citizen, the ability to defend themselves should never be taken away or modified.

Answer 10

what most people dont think about is what the people were thinking when they wrote the constitution. the american war for independance was basically fought by armed civilians. the british government has gotten to powerful and interfered with the daily lives of the americans. up until that point government had no fear of their people. our founding fathers wanted the new american government to fear its people. if it didnt what was there to prevent if from becoming just like the british government they just replaced?
our government has a system of checks and balances. the three branches can limit the actions of the the other two. this prevents the government from getting out of hand.
and armed civilian population is another one of the checks and balances the founding fathers put into place. they wanted to insure that us as civilians have the power to stop the government if it gets out of hand.
this "right" isnt the right to go out and shoot little fuzzy forest animals. although i do that. it isnt a right to shoot targets, i do that too. it isnt a right to collect antique firearms either, something i also do. but it is a right to have the power to defend yourself or defend your family. that is what the right to keep and bear arms is all about.
and with the arguement of a well regulated militia. the us armed forces are not a well regulated militia. i work of the weapons of F/A-18s. if i get told to load bombs on our aircraft we are going to bomb american civilians, and i dont do it. i can leagally be shot on the spot. i have no choice. i have to do what the government tells me to do. if our government freaks out on the american people. you will not be able to rely on our military to protect you.