: It doesn't say the right to own, but the right to bear- basically, you have the right to join your town militia.and the right to bear arms alone too.
: It doesn't mean every individual may have more weapons than you can shake a stick at- technically Nuclear Weapons are arms, do you ahve a right to bear nuclear weapons?
Difficult to consider when cannons were the biggest thing at the time. If you dont have the right, then nor does the militia and nor does the state army - a collective cannot have a right denied to an individual lest that right contradicts itself. To make an objective analysis you would have to show what self defence means and what a free state requires (and thus what freedom is)
: But not own...it no where says own- If I may cite the example of Swiss Citizenship....Here, have you Steyr-Aug Assualt Rifle, look after it.
Who owns them then - the government, the 'village'? If you can own a toothbrush for personal use you can own a gun likewise - you have used this argument before for less scary items - it applies again.
:: [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
: Thats rubbish, thye bit about the militia is a clear subjunctive, and qualification- it explains why the arms are to be kept.
No, its saying the right to keep and bear arms should be unabridged, or you couldnt form a militia anyway. The RKBA is not conditional upon the existence of a militia. Its not a reason why arms are kept, its the other way round. Arms are kept, this should be left alone otherwise militias are impossible.
"Since 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 abridged.'
: I agree with that interpretation, but think it conflicts with the above paragraph.
I think its meaning exactly matches the meaning of the above. Poeple have had more fun with the syntax of this one, not because its hugely ambiguious - but because they have sought to undo the RKBA. It requires the 're-intepration' to lend credibility to enthusiasts of victim disarmament and state run libraries (with blacklisted books ofcourse)
: understanding we'd have to look at reams and reams of drafters comments and early interpretations.
We would, hence lawful wording has to very precise, and that is why the 2nd amendment is as it is. Its intent was very clear, and widely followed, when it was written - but development of language has opened the lever modern politicians want.
I concurr, that is the aim.
And you except that meanwhile higher levels of violence will be present and require greater self defence.
: You would have to explain that.
:Well for one thing, it doesn't allow you to defend yourself, it assumes you know the attacker is coming, that you can reach your weapon, and can use it, it also neglects that your attacker has equal access to similar weaponry, and so could just as likely have a gun- so the odds on self defence are the same.
The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: Offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun. Resistance with a gun is the safest course of action for victims to take.
From extrapolation of reports and research (hotly disputed ofcourse) it is estimated that guns are shown to attackers somewhere up to 1.5 million times a year (US), approximaetly 98% of the time showing is enough, 1% the gun is fired as warning and 1% the gun is fired in the direction of assailant.
The idea that equally armed thug v attacker makes gun ownership futille is very silly. The thug isnt after an equal chance of dying - he wants to have all the advantages - hence the 'gun showing' defence puts a thug off, even if his chances of 'success' were much higher than the nervous victim they still dont want anything short of the best odds. Where gun ownership is wide criminals are at greater risk - it isnt the dynamics of who dies first (which would as you say more likely be the victim when surprised) but the chances of the perpertrator dying - and even a realitvely small chance is enough to put them off trying.
It is no accident that crime went up in Washington when gun controls set in, even though its very difficult to show causality except anecdotally.
: Personally, I think it would be fully within the US constitution to ban Guns, but legalise carrying Swords- I've never yet heard of a drive by stabbing wounding ten people..... ;)
It would be unconstitutional. Thats very weak - banning guns is like banning drugs - you could buy drugs today and you know it, and if you looked into I bet you could buy a gun from a dealer in your city or if you popped over to liverpool or manchester.
The only people are left gun-less after a ban are law abiding people. They are not magicked away by a ban, nor are they made all that much more difficult to get for a criminal intent on using one - and nor does it save more than the occasional life by accidental death - the cause of which is irresponsibility or plain bad luck - so ban sharp things and swimming pools and cars and rich food and concrete steps and matches etc etc.
The one thing you didnt answer was "do you agree that the individual has the right to defend himself against an aggressor?" and as corrolary that such defence may necessitate or result in the death of the assailant and that such defence, to be meaninglful, also means that the individual must have the right to use a tool of self defence whether it be a knife, pool cue or gun.
