So, why are guns necessary?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nope. No license needed for the range, no license needed for handgun. Maybe license suggested for carry;concealed or open.

Let me remind you, the 2a is not conditional on the prefatory clause. Read it this way: AS a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The heart is the right of the people. We need to find ways in law to respect the right of the people without infringing or we need to amend/repeal the amendment. This isnt let's make a deal. Australia didn't have a 2a and now people have to get a permit to fire airguns and .22's. I'm not interested in that road as civil code, common law, and natural right support my reading.

[Lemur]

This isnt let's make a deal.

For you and the NRA: clearly. You can't make deals with "enemies" who must be "destroyed."

For the vast majority of Americans, however, making deals is kinda how this democracy thing works.

All of our inalienable rights have boundaries and limitations. All of 'em.

The fact that the panic sisters at the NRA see no limit to a single right speaks more to their monomania than any principled position.

Tell us again how it's great that the background checks bill was defeated. I never get tired of hearing about that.

[Vuk]

The fact that the panic sisters at the NRA

Isn't that a very sexist expression?
That is how democracy works? By 'making deals'? By which you of course mean not getting what you want, but instead settling for lessening the damage to your position. You know, it is a darned good thing that when republicans pushed through emancipation and voting rights laws they were absolutists and did not compromise. If they were Lemurian they would have been like: "Ok, let's make a deal. We will give blacks the right to vote, but they will not be allowed to own property. Sound fair?"

Some times giving a little is not in order. Some times you need to take a hard line on a position. Basic human rights is one of those things. Basic human rights like the right to be able to defend yourself (a key part of which is the right to bear arms). You don't compromise on stuff like that, or you end up like Russia or France.

[Montmorency]

Basic human rights is one of those things. Basic human rights like the right to be able to defend yourself (a key part of which is the right to bear arms).

Ridiculous.

[Lemur]

Irepublicans pushed through emancipation and voting rights laws

I had no idea Republicans were solely (or primarily) responsible for the voting rights act of 1965.

I learn new and counter-factual things every day!

[Husar]

You don't compromise on stuff like that, or you end up like Russia or France.

France sounds okay to me, time to compromise?

Russia is more complicated but how is it comparable to France?

Don't forget that people move from France to Russia because Russia is better.

There are quite a few other countries available for comparison:
Germany
Poland
Botswana
Japan
Belgium
Netherlands
Kazakhstan (very secure cars apparently)
China
Norway

[Papewaio]

Nope. No license needed for the range, no license needed for handgun. Maybe license suggested for carry;concealed or open.

Let me remind you, the 2a is not conditional on the prefatory clause. Read it this way: AS a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The heart is the right of the people. We need to find ways in law to respect the right of the people without infringing or we need to amend/repeal the amendment. This isnt let's make a deal. Australia didn't have a 2a and now people have to get a permit to fire airguns and .22's. I'm not interested in that road as civil code, common law, and natural right support my reading.

I have a ballot box to protect my rights. My country was not formed in its present federation using guns it used the ballot box. Yet we have been able to fight off invaders when required. We have a different geography and a different history. Aussies are quite capable of defending themselves and the facts stand for themselves. Less incarcerations, longer life spans, higher literacy rates etc all quality of life indicators are pretty snazzy and the top ten cities to live in normal feature more then one Aussie city. My life would not be better off one iota by myself carrying a firearm. If I'm having a stressful week I will go for a hike in the national parks surrounding Sydney, or walk on a beach or have a coffee. Thing is every other Aussie has the same access to these and most of them are low cost or free or pretty good quality for what you do pay.

=][=
For the US I would think that removing weapons from the mentally unhealthy and opening up access to those of sound mind would be a positive thing. It should be upto each state to both administer and pay for the tests AND to look after those they find who are going loopy... If you are going to remove the right to bear arms because they are a danger then there is an onus on the state to look after the individual.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, your country was started as a penal colony - mostly political prisoners forced to work by their oppressors who attained freedom due to the distance and neglect of their masters. When you fight a war against your own government (or 2), maybe you will understand what government can be; a monster that needs to be resisted.

Husar can't possibly imagine what a brutal government would require in order to dislodge it. Kittens and hope change

[Papewaio]

Yes, your country was started as a penal colony - mostly political prisoners forced to work by their oppressors who attained freedom due to the distance and neglect of their masters. When you fight a war against your own government (or 2), maybe you will understand what government can be; a monster that needs to be resisted.

Actually kind of correct but kind is missing the difference between how Australia formed and how its component countries formed. The Commonwealth was a voluntary amalgamation by voting of the people. Which is important in comparing how the US formed vs AU. Note we did have some armed revolution but not how we formed a new federation.

As for some being penal colonies. It just makes us the same as the US, it isn't a factor in modern rights here.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually kind of correct but kind is missing the difference between how Australia formed and how its component countries formed. The Commonwealth was a voluntary amalgamation by voting of the people. Which is important in comparing how the US formed vs AU. Note we did have some armed revolution but not how we formed a new federation.

As for some being penal colonies. It just makes us the same as the US, it isn't a factor in modern rights here.

Nothing against Aussies, I've never gone to war against my government either. The crazy thing is; many of our ancestors have. History isn't over is my point.

[Montmorency]

Absolutely, but people don't have a right to a well regulated militia

They absolutely do. This is the very crux of the Amendment.



The people as a body are the militia, as the militia is no more than the whole body of all armed citizens inasmuch as those armed citizens are united in the purpose of providing for the communal defense. As such, the people, in their capacity as militia - the militia - must be not just permitted to arm but even kept armed so that they may guarantee and participate in the defense of their individual states and localities. Towards this end, however, the people as a body must necessarily be heavily regulated in their ownership and usage of guns, to ensure that the militia remains viable as a defensive force for its stated purpose.

The prefatory clause specifies a goal for the amendment, and the operative clause shows how it is to be executed or maintained. This way, both clauses are given equal weight. The people must have access to arms in order that they have the opportunity to be counted among "the militia", which is "necessary to the security of a free state".

This is pretty much a guaranteed collective right for the existence of the above conception of "the militia", and a guaranteed individual right to be counted as a part of that militia, to individually participate towards the collective security, if one can meet the requirements. The whole point is that this individual right subserves the collective right and the collective right demands the individual right.

Therefore, the 2nd Amendment preserves absolutely no individual right to gun ownership unless the individual is consenting to be counted a part of the militia, with all the attendant burdens, in which case he must be armed or arm himself. From here, it is easy to see that if individuals flout their responsibilities as part of the militia - including whatever regulations may exist - they therefore, for such time as the non-compliance obtains, abjure their right to be a part of the militia, or minimally abjure their actual membership in the militia, and therefore abjure their right to keep and bear arms as part of the militia.

For an individual right to own firearms for whatever conceivable justification (e.g. self-defense, hunting), refer to the 14th Amendment - the 2nd is of no use to you, as your individualism clearly consigns you without the militia. Under the 14th Amendment, you may certainly be disarmed by the state in a large number of circumstances. But fear not - you still enjoy the protections offered by the 2nd Amendment, in that those individuals who are willing and able to carry the responsibilities of the militia are there to protect you and your community, and under no or almost no circumstances can be legitimately disarmed by any level of the state. That latter clause is one of the crucial elements of the amendment; the government (especially the national) is not permitted under normal circumstances to neuter the localized/communal defensive groups. However, it must not be omitted that despite this, the government is allowed to, and indeed required to keep the militia in good order.

Do you understand? It is a self-reinforcing feedback cycle that was intended to guarantee that the state would be committed to upholding strong measures mitigating its own inherent and potential oppressive/tyrannical tendencies.

Sure sounds a lot more reasonable than 'GUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZFREEEEEDOOOOOMGUNZGUNZGUNZGUNZ', doesn't it? It should - this is how statesmen, rather than wild-eyed fanatics, conceive of the world.

TLDR: The 2nd Amendment preserves the right of individuals to organize for the communal defense, towards which purpose they must not just be permitted to own firearms, but must actually own such weapons in fact, and must be regulated in their usage of them.

TLDR 2: In case that was confusing, I'll be even more straightforward. The individual has a right to be a part of a collective; neither the individual nor collective side of the right may be abrogated by the federal government or anyone else. That is the whole of the 2nd Amendment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is not the case. The 9th and 14th amendments also protect the right to bear arms, but the second protects arms both connected and unconnected from militia service.

Let's look at the summary of the Heller decision
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distr...mbia_v._Heller

Decision

The Supreme Court held:^[44]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.^[45]

Your suggestion is that they were flat out wrong. That is fine, but your opinion is flawed and should not be given undo credence. I believe that most of what they put forward is solid. The "dangerous and unusual", however should be judged not just on the arms of the body of the militia, but also on the military. For example, they shouldn't say that ar-15s should be banned because they are in common use and are not affiliated, in spite of ease of acquisition, with higher usage in homicides than say handguns (which are more difficult to obtain AND more numerous.