Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

The Right to Bear Arms: A View from Canada

By Tim O'Driscoll, AlterNet. Posted June 4, 2008.


The Second Amendment: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly-placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.
Advertisement

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly-placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.

Being a Toronto-area lawyer, I certainly can't speak for the average Canadian on the subject of the Second Amendment; few of my countrymen, naturally, would have a clue as to its contents or that of its twenty-six siblings. I'd expect, though, that those of the informed few who read of a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision reacted as I did -- by taking off their mythical toques and scratching their heads.

In late June, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller. At issue in the case is D.C.'s handgun ban, the strictest of its kind in America. Struck down by the Appeals Court last year as violating the Second Amendment, the ban will now fly or die based upon the Supreme Court's interpretation and application of these twenty-seven words and three commas: "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."

Opponents in the gun-control debate ascribe very different interpretations to the amendment. To gun-control advocates, it is nothing more than the protection of a state's right to maintain a militia; to the pro-gun gang, it is nothing less than confirmation of an individual's constitutional right to own a gun.

Things certainly are different above the forty-ninth parallel. While we admittedly have our fair share of gun-control issues and controversy in Canada, at least our law-makers aren't faced with an arguable gun-ownership right being inscribed in our constitution in all-but-indelible ink.

Canada's current gun-control legislation -- which the Supreme Court of Canada upheld in 2000 -- contains harsh penalties for crimes involving firearms, and requires licenses to acquire and possess them. All guns must be registered, and handguns can only be owned by police, security officers, and approved target shooters and collectors. As you read this, the mayor of Toronto is waging an internet campaign, entreating Canadians coast-to-coast to sign an on-line petition for an extension of the ban to include the latter two groups.

From time to time north of the border, we, too, hear it argued that the right to bear arms exists, with its supposed provenance being traced all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Fortunately, however, such "right" isn't badly-but-expressly stated in our constitution; its genealogy is fuzzy at best; and, above all, our Supreme Court isn't buying it.

Back stateside, however, the Supremes seem poised to sing a different tune. The Second Amendment was voted on in 1789 and ratified two years later, but not once since then has the Supreme Court used it to strike down a gun-control law. Incredibly, if the questions and comments from the Court during the D.C. vs. Heller hearing last March are any tip-off, that is about to change: The Court appears ready, by a five-to-four margin, to rule that the amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun.

Yes, my toque is off and I'm scratching furiously.

Isn't the amendment's thirteen-word preamble a clear-cut indication of a militia-related purpose?

Shouldn't the social context in which it was passed -- a fledgling nation, having spit the bit of imperial oppression and wary of replacement tyranny -- be examined in interpreting its meaning?

Is it not crucially significant that "to bear arms" is a centuries-old phrase referring to an organized militia, dating back to the medieval writing of 'Beowulf,' and pre-dating the invention of firearms by hundreds of years?

Needn't notice be taken that firearms were already blazing away in 1789, thus the "fire" prefix -- if intended to apply to "arms" -- could have easily been inserted?

Should we really expect the Supreme Court -- whose ruling will be legal and binding from sea to shining sea -- to hang its horse-hair wig on any or all of the above weight-bearing hooks, to act as the voice of reason in an increasingly gun-happy America? No, we shouldn't. America loves its guns, and a majority of the Brethren don't appear eager to spoil the fun. Wild West mentality is apparently here to stay. If a presidential candidate brags of ducking imaginary sniper fire at a Bosnian airport, let the winner dodge real bullets at Dulles.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: 2nd amendment, gun control, d.c. v. heller

Tim O'Driscoll is an attorney from Toronto.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
badly mangled amendment
Posted by: WesternNY on Jun 4, 2008 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree, the 2nd amendment is truly poorly worded and basically does not mean what is says, nor does it say what it means.

I have come to the conclusion that the poor wording is on purpose, as the Founding Fathers also could not come to agreement. To some extent they had some of the same factions arguing on the need of the state versus the individual to have the right to bear arms. And as always in politics, the two sides could only agree on wording that is truly muddled and fudges any clear meaning.

Maybe they were hoping that the issue would be settled in the future, when times appeared less "parlous."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: badly mangled amendment Posted by: Woodpecker
The problem...
Posted by: OrlandoNative on Jun 4, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...isn't in the wording. It's that the interpretation and point of view has changed SINCE the second amendment was proposed, written, and ratified.

Back during the Revolutionary War days, NO ONE would have thought twice about any free citizen of the colonies owning a gun. It was pretty much a given that each household would have one or more.

ONE of the factors that initially caused hostilities to break out was an attempt by the British to confiscate some arms owned by local citizens around Boston, as I recall.

The 'founding fathers' knew well that, should a government (at any level - federal, state, or local) want to limit personal freedoms available to the general populace, that the formation of a civilian militia in opposition was the only way to ensure that this *could* be opposed, if the citizenry so desired.

Nothing about the second amendment's reference to 'a free state' is actually tied to the individual states that ended up in the Union. The 'a free state' mentioned there actually refers to the ordinary citizenry taken as a whole. The actual *FORM* of government they pick to rule them is immaterial. While other parts of the Constitution lay out a form of government to be tried; it also puts forth ways to modify such a construct.

However, the *final* check on *any* government was an armed populace; and the founders knew that well, and allowed for it.

If one reads the Federalist Papers, this comes through loud and clear.

While the second amendment may come in second in the list of those ratified, it's really the first as far as a guarantee of *all* of our freedoms are concerned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You greatly over estimate the Military Posted by: Romantic Violence
» RE: The problem... Posted by: tmwright
» RE: The problem... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The problem... Posted by: Knot_Rich
Read the Federalist Papers
Posted by: tomr62262 on Jun 4, 2008 2:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is typical socialist tripe. Read the federalist papers and you'll find the USA's founding fathers clearly meant that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. The US unlike Canada also has a general belief in self reliance, meaning the individual not the government are responsible for their own safety and wellbeing. Hence the vast majority of us believe in and exercise our right to keep and bear arms. I don't think you understand the depth of that belief. In the US if the government outlawed guns they would have to war upon it's own citizens to collect them as they would not be surrendered peaceably.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen Posted by: chaoslegs
» Self-reliance ideology is the uniqueness of the US Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» You want to quote that? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: ead the Federalist Papers Posted by: Desert Wren
» Amen to that. Posted by: Walt K
Box cutters on airplanes
Posted by: fridgepants on Jun 4, 2008 2:30 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you consider the ramifications if box cutters were handed out on each flight? Don't you think that the nutcase who wants to use his knife would be hesitant if he knew that his fellow law-abiding passengers could defend themselves? What kind of idiot would try something stupid like hijacking or taking a hostage if everyone sitting around them was able to slice them down?

So long as there are box cutters in existence, evil people will have them. If I happen to have one too, the ability of evil people to hurt innocent people is drastically reduced. In essence allowing law abiding citizens to own box cutters levels the playing field.

When only one crazy man has a box cutter, he can commit unspeakably evil acts. Even if that crazy guy still has a box cutter, when just one average citizen also has one, suddenly the ability of the crazy guy to go crazy is severely impinged.

When the crazy guy is worried about being cut by a box cutter, he would likely change his tune. He may be far less likely to slice somebody if he knows there is a possibility of getting sliced himself.

It is for this reason that so long as there are guns in existence, private gun ownership should be a basic right of the citizenry.

Call me when there are no more guns; I'll gladly surrender mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Box cutters on airplanes Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Box cutters on airplanes Posted by: Romantic Violence
» RE: Box cutters on airplanes Posted by: helmunator
Two comments
Posted by: mizipi on Jun 5, 2008 2:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. OK, according to the NRA, I do have the individual right to 'keep and bear arms', so I should be able to have the same 'arms' as my government, like tanks, fighter jets, cluster bombs, depleted uranium bombs and bullets - no my government has all of the big guns, and individual citizens are allowed to own only pop-guns and fire-crackers.

2. If any person today wrote something similar to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, that person would be arrested and charged with some secret law and sent to a prison to be tortured. Our Constitution is nothing more than an old piece of paper with no value for the average American citizen. Rights, liberty and justice are all purchased for money in the USA today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two comments Posted by: CUnknown
Author's bias is evident
Posted by: davidhhahn on Jun 5, 2008 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author's bias is evident in the first few sentences when he describes those who support gun control as "advocates," and those who favor the right of gun ownership as a "gang."

Here is the full quote: "To gun-control advocates, it is nothing more than the protection of a state's right to maintain a militia; to the pro-gun gang. . . ."

I knew at that point that this would be another shallow essay about the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "well regulated" Posted by: OrlandoNative
» RE: "well regulated" Posted by: Desert Wren
the good old days
Posted by: grmartin on Jun 5, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its easy to argue about on what the 2nd amendment technically says, or what the founding fathers mean't by it at the time. More useful is to look at the role of guns in present society, and I'd say its all bad news. In the past guns were great for eiminatiing wiflelife and native Americans, guarding one's property and feeding the family. Today the only use that might make any sense is as a protective weapon against crime. But a society were people think they need personal weapons because they don't trust the police has big problems. Maybe too a society that allows a small hunting minority to murder animals for fun, might wonder why. Its up to the people to change the way they live, if they want to. This issue, like so many others,is one that make the USA are very conservative place, not so well adapted to change. Get used to it, and live with the consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's not really a question... Posted by: OrlandoNative
» RE: the good old days Posted by: Livemike
Otto .
Posted by: otto on Jun 5, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Canadian American, I say "Great Article"! I just hope that lots of John Wayne fans read it (including members of the Supreme Court)!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Otto . Posted by: ghostmaker2
» RE: Otto . Posted by: Mr. G
» Amerika is full of weak minds Posted by: HoboHomo
What about the Constitution?
Posted by: rugger on Jun 5, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is always left out of this debate is the function of the militia.

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

So the function of the militia was very clear. The militia consisted of a body TRAINED TO ARMS, with officers to be appointed by the states. Without this militia and training as PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS, there is no implicit right of unrestricted personal ownership.

So Scalia, since you see the Constitution as a NON-LIVING document, take that and shove it up your overly abundant ass sideways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Militia Act of 1792 Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Militia Act of 1792 Posted by: rugger
» RE: Militia Act of 1792 Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Militia Act of 1792 Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Militia Act of 1792 Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Militia Act of 1792 Posted by: YogiBear
Canadian View
Posted by: Carl in Chicago on Jun 5, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Tim:

While an academic or intellectual discussion of the US's second amendment would be appropriate at this time, if not educational, I found your piece to be predicated on bigotry and superiority rather than on understanding of the history and intent of the amendment. I also find it passing strange that you, a Toronto lawyer, opine so forcefully upon it yet claim that both past and present Americans don't understand what it means.

I invite you to study the history and intent of the second amendment to the US constitution. There is much scholarly literature, including the writings at the time of the founding. You stand to learn a great deal about this issue. If you are unwilling to do at least that, then I politely request that you hold your pen for two reasons: first because it's inappropriate to write about something you do not understand, and second because you show disrespect for diversity and different way of doing things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Canadian View Posted by: ghostmaker2
ghostmaker
Posted by: ghostmaker2 on Jun 5, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this guy has no ideal of what he is talking about, first of all the "people" has always ment just that in the BOR, our government has always been setup to where the people were suppose to have the power, and the government very little power. Every where in the BOR that says people it me us, so the does not change with the 2nd just because some A-hole wants it to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ghostmaker
Posted by: ghostmaker2 on Jun 5, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To Rugger

you are wrong my friend, the militia would not be here if not for the people with arms, the right of people to have arms came way before the BOR, and even in the BOR the people always means us, so why would it be different in the 2nd?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ghostmaker Posted by: mainspark
» RE: ghostmaker Posted by: rugger
» RE: ghostmaker Posted by: radiomorning
Box Cutter Control
Posted by: BeckyD on Jun 5, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based upon that faulty logic, instead of searching passengers, the airlines may as well hand out free box-cutters with every boarding pass

A criminal with a box cutter is a greater threat to society than a law abiding citizen with an Uzi. The old NRA slogan may be trite, but it's also got an element of truth. The problem is people.

That being said, I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on the right to own guns - no right is absolute, but the 2nd Amendment says what it says, and in the context of the late 18th century as well as in the context of the other amendments in the BoR, there's no doubt in my mind that the founders were envisioning an individual's right to defend himself against tyranny.

If society has evolved beyond that type of thinking and we want to ban guns, then there is a process in place to repeal the 2nd Amendment, just as we amended the Constitution to ban slavery, give women and young adults the right to vote, etc., in response to societal change. Ignoring a part of the Constitution or interpreting the life out of it just because it doesn't fit our agenda makes us just like the Bush Administration. Either we respect the rule of law (which in the U.S. is based in the Constitution) or we don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Box Cutter Control Posted by: albany_ed
communication in free assembly, not guns
Posted by: Vic Fedorov on Jun 5, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The second amendment is certainly ungrammatical. But I think it is clear our founders intended to encourage militias to protect us and fight for us, and conjure up spirit marching about, and not for arms to protect the house against criminals.

I think our founders intended for local free assemblies where the community could speak about crime and their causes to protect our lives and property from other citizens. They intended for communication among community in free assemblies to remedy local ills.

In San Diego County Gun Club v. Reno, and a case involving "Hickman" the federal court of appeals out of California ruled the second amendment allows regulated militias to bear arms, and not private citizens.

Ironically, it is the police of each town that qualify as well-regulated militias, even though they don't march around conjuring up spirit.

The reason why people resort to guns instead of effective and moral communication with the community to protect themselves, is that that communication is subsumed by local officials and subsequent, many citizens are disapointed and unempowered by the local political process.

The irony is that the tenth amendments' reservation of powers not given to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, are violated when those powers are excercised by local officials who are neither state nor people, being local officials. Our founders intended for free assemblies with voice votes and consensus as the enemation of the government of a locality.

Thus we see how the tyranny of america is local, and not federal. That we don't know the tenth amendment or understand free assembly indicates totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is fought by spirituality. It's illogical to think people could go in this regulated way of life without coming together to discuss the economy locally, or complain about treated en masse and having time regulated by school. Thus their must be some mind controll, a kingdom of God, we must address first, before we have hope of enforcing the tenth amendment, promoting local free assemblies, and ridding towns of the tyrannies of mayors and few deciding for the many. Representative democracy makes sense at a state and federal level, but at a local level, you want proactive people and polity discussing the economy and how their kids are raised, and this is encouraged if not mandated by the constitution.

Though state constitutions enable local officials, federal law always trumps state law.

If there were free assemblies that discussed the economy, instead of the domain of communication being trusted to local officials, there would be much less crime and want for gun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, No, No, NO. If you're going to insist on a creative reading, then...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 5, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I must insist that the people retain the right to keep and bear arms in order to keep the militia well-regulated. It says so right there, if only you apply the correct inflection. And after all, you wouldn't want a bunch of yahoo's running around raping and pillaging, now would you? Would that not indeed jeopardize the security of a free state?

So there: we have the consideration of the militia and the individual right in full alignment.

And you're quite welcome for me solving the author's implied National Comma Crisis. Now, about that little Iraq thing, the national debt, the privatization of military missions, financial industries run amok...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Distinguish long guns from handguns please
Posted by: ozonehole on Jun 5, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Handguns - especially in the city - do pose a threat to public safety. Their concealability makes them the weapons of choice for a criminal.

It's a different issue entirely with long guns, and especially in rural areas. Even the most diehard anti-hunting gun-control advocate in Toronto would (or should) have second thoughts about wandering around in polar bear country without a shotgun or rifle.

Of course, for most people, gun ownership is about defending the home. Again, you don't really need a handgun for that - indeed, a shotgun works better.

The whole issue of handgun vs. long gun didn't really exist back in 1776, when the most formidable weapons were muskets and single-shot pistols. Technology has given us a lot more firepower.

I'd personally like to see shotguns and rifles kept legal for individual use, but I have very mixed opinions about handguns. When society is totally disarmed, you won't necessarily be safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Distinguish long guns from handguns please Posted by: Outsidetheboxlookingin
JT
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Jun 5, 2008 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guns should be treated no differently than drivers licenses - responsible for 10 times the number of deaths than guns. Operators should be licensed and well versed in laws restricting use. Operators should be responsible for the safe usage and storage of their tools [potential tools] of destruction. And yes, gun licenses should have one's picture on it and acceptable as personal ID. And it could be suspended or revoked.
The downside is that drivers often drive with suspended licenses - even after multiple DUIs. Why would we expect much different behavior from gun licensees. And many drivers act like maniacal despots terrorizing their fellow drivers and citizenry. And yes, some of them also use guns for intimidation purposes. So don't expect licensing to take care of the really bad actors in our society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JT Posted by: Outsidetheboxlookingin
» RE: JT Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: JT Posted by: Livemike
» RE: JT Posted by: Livemike
History lesson
Posted by: doodles on Jun 5, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a historian, rather than reading the Federalist Papers, I recommend that everyone try reading the history of the Second Constitutional Convention. The Constitution would not have been ratified at all, if the Bill of Rights had not been added. The argument that Jefferson and Adams made was that the Bill of Rights was a necessary addition as the Constitution only spoke of the rights and structure of the government. It did not speak to the "rights of the people." The Bill of Rights enumerates the "rights of the people" as opposed to those of the government. It is that context which is critical to understanding the whole Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment. The Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers explain the attitude that made this Amendment necessary, i.e. not only the right, but the duty of people "to throw off such (despotic) Government and to provide new Guards for their future security. As someone previously pointed out, nothing makes despots or external invaders more nervous than an armed citizenry, which is why the British attempted to confiscate the guns of Americans. The first thing despots do to secure their tyranny is disarm the citizenry. Our Founders intended to prevent that action by our or any other government.

Additionally, it is necessary to a proper historical understanding of the Constitution to have an understanding of the language of the time in which that document was written. Militias were not organized institutions when the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written. There were no armories. All arms were the property of private individuals. If "militia" action was needed, a call was sent out to the "people" and they responded by grabbing their "arms" and horses and riding to a specified location. They did occasionally get together to practice the "arts of war." It was that Practice that the founders meant by the phrase "well regulated militia."

And for those without a proper understanding of American grammar, the first two phrases are dependent clauses which only modify the only part of the 2nd Amendment that can stand alone, grammatically. It is that part which is an actual sentence: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lexington and Concord Posted by: rugger
» RE: Lexington and Concord Posted by: brunowe
» Read my other post Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Check the results from those battles Posted by: ReallyBearish
The Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality, It Does NOT Create Law
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jun 5, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people want to ban guns, create and pass a new constitutional amendment. Do NOT do an end run around the constitutional processes we have in place just because it is easier.


How many on here favor using the INTERstate commerce clause to make drugs illegal?

That is how the Supreme Court justified keeping cannabis illegal in their 2005 ruling.


How many on here favor using the INTERstate commerce clause to allow the limiting of the production of certain food crops you can grow on your own property?

That was a Supreme Court ruling, Wickard v Filburn.


The Interstate Commerce Clause affects commerce between states, it is not supposed to regulate commerce within a state or private personal production and consumption. Because of piss poor unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings like the 2 above our federal government has been allowed to grow into a titan.


If you want to end gun ownership, create a new Amendment. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. If you take the quick and easy path there will be unforeseen consequences down the road and our federal government will grow even more powerful and uncontrollable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real purpose
Posted by: mapthinking on Jun 5, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment are very inspired by Jefferson. Most of our founding fathers were highly suspicious of the possible tyranny of government. I believe that they intended that any move that takes firearms from Citizens was to give the government permission to oppress it's people. Of course our experiment in freedom lasted much longer than Jefferson would have imagined.

200+ years later I struggle with this. I believe mandatory training and licensing are valid gun control steps. I don't expect we as citizens should keep m-60's in our basements. But I would never want to be without the failsafe protection of a firearm to stop an intruder who wants to hurt my family.

Lastly, To disarm law abiding citizens will do nothing to stop those who want to get guns for crimes. Whatever your opinion on our border with Mexico we can all agree that very little stops people/drugs from come across. It's very profitable to smuggle into this country. I'm sure weapons come across too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REAL history of the 2nd Amendment
Posted by: navy-vet on Jun 5, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Magna Carta--? No. I'm a long-time student of Medieval history, and know that the 2nd Amendment was based historically on England's Statute of Winchester, 1285. Edward I, one of England's most aggressive imperialist monarchs, was so embroiled in foreign wars he forgot about England's law 'n' order--until reminded by a national crime wave of club-weilding thugs, often led by landless barons and knights.

What to do? Since the Norman invasion the lowest classes had been excluded from keeping military weapons. (Henry I even had a notorious nightmare of a massive peasants' revolt.) But Edward not only gave the peasantry--including the villeins (serfs)--the RIGHT to bear arms, he ORDERED them to do so! Inefficient, slow crossbows were discouraged. Wily Edward I had learned from encounters with the deadly longbowmen of Wales when he conquered that country. Peasants were to make their own longbows and practice arrows, while swords, long knives and leather armor were furnished by the lords to those who couldn't afford them, and all men from 16 to 60 would practice after church every Sunday. (Great way to spend a meditative, religious Sunday, hm?)

Practice was enforced, and not only was it the origin of the people's militia in England, the bowmen got so efficient they beat the iron pants off the French barons and knights at Morlaix, Crecy, Agincourt and elsewhere, their wandering mercenaries became a danger to Continental Europe, and they were the earliest nation in Europe to use cannon in war (about 1346).

Powerful longbows and lead-filled, metal-fletched war arrows remained the weapons of choice until portable fireams were invented in the 15th century, and the English lower class bowmen turned the tables on their own lords in 1381, with a major peasants' revolt that resulted in real wages rising 300% in most laboring jobs, rural and urban, over the next few years. Being grateful for their trained militias is why the leaders of the 1381 revolt chose the Statute of Winchester as the legitimate law of the land--and why it has been celebrated by historians as the ONLY democratic statute in Medieval England.

But was it truly democratic? It greatly enhanced the status of the peasantry and gave them means to fight back, but being forbidden to carry arms and suddenly being ordered to practice military drill were compulsory, not matters of choice, and Edward I's purpose was not democratic. It was to let the peasants take care of "homeland security", freeing up all those land-hungry knights for his wars in Scotland, Gascony, etc. However, despite its obvious flaws, this statute has been restated down through the ages, in the English civil war of the 17th century, our revolution, and our 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, as a necessity for freedom.

Sometimes it has been. The English would have walked all over the rebels without guerrilla American snipers with rifles and blunderbuses (we would have lost anyway without foreign help). Colonial firearms were slow, inaccurate and simple, and as long as most households needed a rifle for food procurement the 2nd amendment made sense--but when did it stop making sense?

In a historical arc of violence that began with cannons, grenades, Gatling guns and repeating rifles, and now offers flame-throwers, plastic explosives, napalm, phosphorous, automatic pistols and rifles, and, yes, nukes, where is the line drawn? The founders of the Constitutions wouldn't have known that these appalling weapons were in the wings. They expected Americans to AMEND the Constitution according to changing times and common sense. It isn't as though we've never rethought an amendment. Remember Prohibition? But where the 2nd Amendment is concerned, common sense meets a closed and bolted iron gate built by those who manufacture and sell firearms, stifling updating of the language of the 2nd Amendment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, well, I have a dream . .
Posted by: pete ess on Jun 5, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One day all the Americans who carry guns and vote for fascists will realise how they have been fooled by the corporations they have given such power to. They will see how the govt and corporations who now own them have lied to them, and made them poor and powerless.
And then they (private citizens and those in uniform) will rise up to kick the bastards out and return power to the people.
That day I am going to be glad they all have guns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sure - a well regulated militia . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 5, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure a "well-regulated militia" is a group of people who have never handled a gun before in their lives. That makes Canadian lawyer sense, all right. Whatever one argues about the meaning of the Second Amendment, let me give the author and the rest of his kind some "intell." When the law says U.S. citizens can't own a firearm and use it for the purpose of self-defense, you are going to see civil disobedience that will make Prohibition violation and the civil rights movement both black and white seem like a fart against a whirlwind. This argument is dead, an exercise in rhetoric, nothing more. It is impossible to disarm the citizenry of the U.S. (our government can't even rid us of illegal aliens, for crying out loud), just as it is impossible to disarm me. Give it up, folks - you're peeing into the wind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's give the gun toters who claim to be for the Constitution a perfect LITMUS test.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 5, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some questions to test the double standard attitude some gun toters have for/against the Constitution:

1. Are you in favor of government continuing to ban Cannabis despite the fact that it's harmless compared to all those petro-manufactured chemicals you ingest through all that junk food and Big Pharma poison pills?

2. Are you in favor of allowing Big Telco and Government to continue spying and stripping your privacy rights from right under your noses or are you ready to stand up to and abolish the CIA, FBI, FCC, NSA, etc ...?

3. Are you in favor of allowing Big Media/Entertainment slapping frivolous lawsuits because they are afraid P2P is exposing their unethical and even ILLEGAL pricing schemes in desperate attempts to sell their poor quality music and movies which gets piss poorer year after year?

4. Have you finally had enough of losing your wages, jobs, and even your homes and ready to realize that guns and bible aren't the answer? Are you finally ready to stand up to the wealthy elite including the NRA and Big Religion rather than let them hynotize you again by swinging guns and bibles in your faces and making up false alarms that you'll lose them if you don't vote for sellouts?

P.S.:

As a man who survived 4 bullets in his life, I know that being a vigilante is more than being armed with just guns.

PEACE !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gun Toters Toke Too !!!!!! Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Gun Toters Toke Too !!!!!! Posted by: maxpayne
The 2nd Amendment myth
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jun 5, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About gun ownership being an "individual" right. Most folks in 1782 didn't own guns because they were hard to come by and were difficult to use. Most of the folks who showed up when militias were being formed at the time of the revolution expected the state to supply the weapons. Many of the weapons they did have were inappropriate. Hunting rifles were not standard issue for fighting 18th century wars.

Yes, this was the position taken by Michael Bellesiles. A gun nut himself, he postulated that the technology and manufacturing had to improve before firearm ownership could be widespread. He was threated, lost his teaching job at Emory University, and literally run out of the country for saying that. That's how gun freaks debate-- by threats and force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not a myth Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Not a myth Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Rifles were NOT good field weapons Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Strange logic Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Three paragraphs from a 500 page book Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Paragraphs that got caught, Posted by: brunowe
» Yeah right Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Yeah right Posted by: brunowe
» Can you read? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: The 2nd Amendment myth Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: The 2nd Amendment myth Posted by: Livemike
A two nitpicks, something missing, and a loophole
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 5, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tim,

As a Toronto area lawyer, you shouldn't describe your view as being from above the 49th parallel as you are far below it, south of the 44th parallel. I went to University of Toronto, I know.

If you are going to reference Dulles and gunfire in the context of the DC ruling, my understanding is that Dulles, this suburban DC (in Virginia) airport is not the easiest to get to, definitely not by transit from DC, and so Virginia less restrictive laws are more relevant.

Why no mention of the December 6, 1989 massacre at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in shaping Canadians attitudes. I was in first year of University when that happened. The shock on my campus, and throughout Canada was overwhelming. Just as it was on September 11th, 2001 and 3 days later when the nation observed 3 minutes of silence, I was in Toronto during that time. I think this massacre still impacts both the Canadian legislation on gun ownership and the attitudes.

The 2nd amendment mentions security of a free state. Well the DISTRICT of Columbia is not a state, so maybe there is a loophole there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A couple more questions I forgot to add to the LITMUS test I posted earlier.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 5, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
5. Are you ready to cut down on the bloated military budget that has done NOTHING to save America from terrorist attacks all the while killing innocent people which your "lovely" NRA strongly endorses?

6. Are you happy that the NRA and most of the bigger gun lobby groups silently team up with Big Oil and Timber to take away your hunting environment or do you want to fight to get it back?

7. Are you happy that healthcare in America is piss poorer than it was back in 1980 and are you happy that Big Insurance is DEFRAUDING you? If you want to shoot down the frauds and provide us all with honest insurers, I just might salute you, hehe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]