In Defense of the Freedom to Arms

[KLRANGL]

Switzerland has a relatively high standard of living with a homogeneous population...
DC has a relatively low standard of living, with a non-homogeneous population...

Maybe crime is mainly a function of economics and cultural differences, and not firearm ownership?

Would DC's crime ratedrop suddenly if more extensive firearm ownership was allowed? Other cities, like in Texas for example, seem to show this isn't necessarily true...

 

[CrossfireRacerX]

I would agree crime is also a factor of economic differences, maybe not necessarily social ones (e.g. the projects in Chicago). Crime is a result of many different factors, but to pooh-pooh the effect gun ownership has on the crime rate when there are prime examples like Kennesaw, Georgia would be naive. It has provided a prime example of gun ownership effecting crime rate in a very positive manner. Why can that situation not be extended to the situation of Switzerland, where gun ownership is again very prevalent?

 

[Webleymkv]

The example of Switzerland is really only useful in debunking a correlation between firearms laws and violent crime rates. While Switzerland does have a much lower violent crime rate than the U.S. and much easier access to many types of weapons (though other laws there are much more restrictive such as those regarding concealed carry), this does not necessarily hold true in other countries. The United Kingdom, for example, has much more restrictive gun laws and a much lower violent crime rate than the U.S. while Australia has a violent crime rate remarkably similar to the U.S. while their firearms laws are more restrictive.

While this information shows that access to firearms does not necessarily reduce violent crime, it also shows that neither does restriction to access of firearms. In short, cultural differences between the U.S. and other nations are simply too great to assume that gun-laws in and of themselves will be an accurate predictor of violent crime.

A much more useful argument, IMHO, is comparing the violent crime rates of jurisdictions within the U.S. such as comparing the violent crime rates of Chicago and Indianapolis.

With regards to incorporation, certain rights certainly have been incorporated against the states. Included among these are the right to free speech, freedom of religeon, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and right to trial by jury in criminal cases. SCOTUS has neither affirmed nor denied that the second amendment is incorporated against the states (circuit courts have addressed this, but their rulings are contradictory of each other). The current McDonald case addresses this very issue and by all accounts it seems extremely likely that SCOTUS will affirm that 2A is incorporated against the states.

The next issue that I see is that of to what degree can 2A rights be restricted by both the states and the Feds. Heller left in place the ability of the gov't to restrict "dangerous and unusual weapons" and "carrying of weapons in sensitive places" but neglected to more concretely define such terms. The next battle I see coming is to define exactly what constitutes a "dangerous or unusual weapon" and "a sensitive place".

 

[KLRANGL]

The United Kingdom, for example, has much more restrictive gun laws and a much lower violent crime rate than the U.S.

This might be a nit-picky detail, but everything I have read seems to suggest that the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than the US, with only the firearm related violent crime be lower in the UK than the US...
Maybe I was mistaken... I have always used UK as an example as to why even getting rid of handguns will not reduce overall crime...

Why can that situation not be extended to the situation of Switzerland, where gun ownership is again very prevalent?

Well I still don't buy the fact that gun ownership in Switzerland is prevalent. A fully automatic "assault rifle" in every home is a bit of a moot point when the ammunition needed to go with it cant be kept there as well. Everything I have read and heard about Switzerland leads me to beleive that they are not a very openly gun friendly nation... In some ways maybe more relaxed than the US, but in many ways much more strict...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...to pooh-pooh the effect gun ownership has on the crime rate when there are prime examples like Kennesaw, Georgia would be naive...

But correlation is not the same as causation.

...The United Kingdom, for example, has ... a much lower violent crime rate than the U.S....

Perhaps not. See

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/Cjusew96.pr

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_25_54/ai_95612956/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

But it does appear that the murder rate in the U. K. is lower than in the U. S.

For an excellent study of the rise in violent crime, and the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002). It's well worth reading.

...While this information shows that access to firearms does not necessarily reduce violent crime, it also shows that neither does restriction to access of firearms. In short, cultural differences between the U.S. and other nations are simply too great to assume that gun-laws in and of themselves will be an accurate predictor of violent crime....

I think that's probably a fair statement.

...A much more useful argument, IMHO, is comparing the violent crime rates of jurisdictions within the U.S. such as comparing the violent crime rates of Chicago and Indianapolis....

And I think that's probably a fair statement as well.

 

[JN01]

CrossfireRacerX said:
In order for us to more adequately defend our freedom to arms, we should first all have a common understanding of why this freedom is important to us. Pointing to the Second Amendment is simply an inadequate and inaccurate argument, which ultimately proves nothing for our side. Those proposing the gun-restricting legislature obviously know about the 2nd Amendment, and obviously they have gotten laws passed preventing guns in certain areas (Chicago or California, for example).

The US crime rate dropped significantly a dozen or so years ago to the lowest in decades. This cannot continue forever. If you base your argument on "we have x number of guns but the crime rate is low", what happens when the inevitable happens and the crime rate goes up?

You are correct that for a long time now, legislators have mischaracterized, ignored, or otherwise abused the 2nd Amendment even though they were aware of its true meaning.

They also are aware of Switzerland, Kennesaw, sporting uses, etc. THEY DON'T CARE. They don't care about logic, they don't care about truth, they don't care about the Constitution. They are elitists that will do what they want to because it makes them feel better.

Recognizing that the 2nd Amendment does not grant, but merely enumerates a pre-existing natural right, should be all the argument needed. NO GOVERNMENT should be allowed to violate basic human rights. This will be the most effective tactic for regaining those rights, much in the way abolition, women's suffrage, and others were.

 

[CrossfireRacerX]

I'm aware the legislators pushing the gun-banning bills don't care. It's the people on the fence VOTING for the legislators who we really need to convince. Roughly 20% of this country supports firearm ownership, while 20% wants to take our guns away. Its the middle 60% that we need to persuade with our arguments.

And the right to bear arms never was considered a "basic human right." It's a right granted to us by our Constitution under our government, but far from inherent to human nature. Basic human rights are more along the lines of those described in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, etc.).

 

[mikejonestkd]

the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, etc.).

The right to life includes the understanding that a person has the right to defend their life, up to and including ending the life of an attacker in order to preserve their life. Common methods employed and allowed for self defense in 1776 included bare hands, knives, swords, and guns....

None of that has changed in 200+ years.

 

[Al Norris]

the right to bear arms never was considered a "basic human right." It's a right granted to us by our Constitution under our government, but far from inherent to human nature. Basic human rights are more along the lines of those described in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, etc.).

Whoa, right there.

The right to keep and bear arms for defense of self is in fact a basic human right. There is no more pre-eminent right than the right to continue to exist. The Court in Heller explicitly acknowledged this.

Further, the constitution does not grant rights. It protects pre-existing rights.

Lastly, before you quote from the Declaration, perhaps you should be reading John Locke. It was from his works that Jefferson lifted much of the opening verbiage of the Declaration.

In fact, you should acquaint yourself with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746), David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), among some few.

These were the men upon which western philosophy, and American idealism itself, were founded upon. The entire concept of Privileges (political rights afforded to free men, within the confines of a particular society) and Immunities (natural rights afforded to humans by the mere fact of being born) were thoroughly discussed by these great thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment era.

Locke, perhaps more than others, was one philosopher that our founders knew and agreed with. Without men like those mentioned above, our concept of republican government would be totally different.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And the right to bear arms never was considered a "basic human right."...

Not at all.

Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Common Law of England, said: "...Self defense therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society..."(1915 abridgment, pg 289, http://books.google.com/books?id=jA...resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false )

And interestingly enough, the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides: "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow...." (paragraph 2264, emphasis added)

BTW, in case you're wondering why I bring in the Common Law of England, it's the basis for out law in the United States.

 

[bblatt11]

CrossfireRacerX

check out:
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 at 180-183

Note in particular that the majority, as Justice McReynold wrote, based their decision on that case on their awareness of what "ordinary military equipment" consisted of. Miller lost because nobody briefed the COurt about the use of trench guns in WWI.

In other words, the Court, in a case which is still upheld as good law, determined that the Federal Constitution, which as you know trumps state law, protects the right "of the citizens to bear MILITARY arms" from being infringed.

Seriously, according to Miller, if the 2A is an individual right, which I believe it to be based on my research and education, than the indivdual has an uninfringed right to those evil black rifles, but NOT pappy'd bolt-action sporting gun.

 

[CrossfireRacerX]

I've read Locke and Hume and am familiar with their works.

Mikejonestkd, there is a world of difference between a sword, a revolutionary war musket, and an AR-15. Which is the most efficient tool in a self defense scenario? Which is the least forgiving? The right to defend your life has not changed, but the available means to do so have, which is why the BATF regards weapons in different classes with different laws regarding each.

But let me play the devil's advocate here (oh lord ) could the argument not be made that we could defend ourselves with less lethal measures, which would both stop the attack and not take another person's life? Wouldn't things such as stun guns essentially render firearms obsolete hazards in terms of self defense?

Which somewhat leads back to my point that firearms are not inherently a basic human right. It can be extrapolated from your explanations that everywhere firearms are not allowed, the people there have been deprived of there right to life. Obviously this is not true, yet it is the logical connection between the statements made above. Firearms are a basic human right because we have the right to life, therefore being deprived of firearms we are deprived of the right to defend our lives. And yet the argument could be made that there are less lethal options available for self defense, which are still legal in those areas preventing the possession of firearms.

Based on the argument above, I'd argue that while the right to bear arms is a right we are fortunate enough to have in this country, it is a privilege and is by no means inherent to human nature.

Furthermore, the vague wording of the second amendment failed to specify WHAT TYPE of arms can not be restricted. Heller has ruled on that, but that goes to show it can again be ruled on in the future. And yet Miller has ruled essentially that only military firearms are protected. So should our sporting rifles be taken away, and should we be issued fully automatic military weapons in their place? This is obviously not what the second amendment stands for... This presents yet another reason why it is important to formulate compelling arguments fighting for why private gun ownership is necessary.

All of the above arguments supporting the second amendment have supported it solely on martial grounds. So as bblatt11 pointed out, our sporting firearms should not be protected under the 2nd amendment while our AR-15s and AK-47s should. I find it ironic that the given the option, the gun-seizing left would prefer us to have the sporting rifles, while those essentially are what are not protected under the second amendment. :/

 

[maestro pistolero]

All right, as I suspected earlier, you have been less than forthcoming about your views and intentions here. But for a moment, I'll play along.

Mikejonestkd, there is a world of difference between a sword, a revolutionary war musket, and an AR-15.

No, there isn't, especially in the context of self defense, One proper blow from any of these is lethal. Genocide was committed in Rwanda in our lifetime, primarily with 99 cent chinese machetes. Your naivete is showing w/ regard to the relative lethality of weapons. They are all deadly weapons. But an AR15 fires a cartridge that is not powerful enough to be considered humane as a deer hunting round in many states. Yet a head shot with a .22 rifle will likely end a life. And almost no bullet wound will cause a mammal to bleed out as fast as a deep wound from a blade. So your distinctions are misguided and meaningless.

Which somewhat leads back to my point that firearms are not inherently a basic human right.

If there is a right to self defense, then there is the right to the neccessary means to effect it, otherwise the right itself has been abrogated. On this planet, at this time, and for the forseeable future, that means a gun.

. . .the argument could be made that there are less lethal options available for self defense, which are still legal in those areas preventing the possession of firearms.

Do you suppose there is a reason that police officers possess a range of options to defend their lives? According to your half-baked theory, cops could all turn in their pistols and be perfectly safe with their tasers. Nonsense.

The nature of a weapon is that to be effective it must be capable of overcoming the adversary, who in the real world will have a gun or a knife. Equal or greater force deployed with greater speed wins the day.

Based on the argument above, I'd argue that while the right to bear arms is a right we are fortunate enough to have in this country, it is a privilege and is by no means inherent to human nature.

Whatever tool may be required to protect one's life is necessarily part and parcel of the preservation of the right to self defense. Attempting to separate the two is nonsensical. If you believe in the right to self defense (and I'm not totally sure you do) then you must accept that the means to accomplish it is part of the right. It is otherwise theoretical, and void.

Furthermore, the vague wording of the second amendment failed to specify WHAT TYPE of arms can not be restricted.

RIGHT.

Heller has ruled on that, but that goes to show it can again be ruled on in the future.

WRONG. There was talk in dicta about protection for weapons in 'common use', which supports my point here, but nothing in the ruling that would bind a future court. Semi-automatic firearms, like AR15s are in very common use.

And yet Miller has ruled essentially that only military firearms are protected. So should our sporting rifles be taken away, and should we be issued fully automatic military weapons in their place? This is obviously not what the second amendment stands for...

That's not the least bit obvious. What exactly should a weapon look like that has prevention of future tyranny as one of it's primary purposes? The preservation of the pre-existing right to self defense protects weapons in common use, and protects keeping and bearing for ANY lawful purpose, be that hunting, target shooting, self-defense, and should the need arise, militia use.

 

[BlueTrain]

One of the things that bothers me a little when you speak of the militia is that here in Virginia, the militia, as referenced above, is defined as individuals between the ages of 16 and 55. I passed that point nearly ten years ago. So the militia is hardly "everyone." Even in Switzerland there are age limits to military service. It is also true, supposedly, that a serviceman may purchase his individual weapon at the end of his term of service (in Switzerland) but it is altered to semi-automatic only. I haven't read much of anything regarding ownership of handguns in Switzerland.

Another thing about this discussion of freedom, firearms and the militia; there is an irony in that people here talk about freedom because the militia is a protected institution, in so many words, yet the militia was not a voluntary, free will based concept at all, no more so than in Switzerland (unless you're female). It is a round about way of saying that you have to be free to own firearms and military equipment in order to satisify your requirement to be a part of the militia, at least so it was in the 1790s. The Swiss generously provide such things to their militia members.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...could the argument not be made that we could defend ourselves with less lethal measures, which would both stop the attack and not take another person's life? Wouldn't things such as stun guns essentially render firearms obsolete hazards in terms of self defense?...

This is fatuous. Less lethal weapons are not reliably effective against a lethal threat. Police, as standard practice, deploy less lethal weapons only when back-up with lethal force is immediately available.

...as I suspected earlier, you have been less than forthcoming about your views and intentions here.....

I agree.

 

[CrossfireRacerX]

With regards to the comment about swords vs muskets vs ar-15's my point remains. Which is most efficient at doing its job? One must close to engage with a sword, a musket takes a long time to reload. An AR-15 can be used effectively at long ranges with shots made in quick succession. That was all I was trying to say. Genocide is committed on a daily basis with weapons such as machetes, but does that mean its as efficient as any form of bullet? certainly not. Just as effective, yes. efficient, no.

The point made basically about "bringing a knife to a gun fight," I 100% agree. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, a point often overlooked by those who want to take our guns away from us.

My intentions have not changed from those outlined in the first post. I'm just enjoying this thread for what it's worth.

Those arguments I posted earlier as the devil's advocate were the most common anti-gun arguments I've come across.

And my original point still stands. The country is in no means unanimous on firearm ownership. When push comes to shove, I just don't think pointing to our Second Amendment will convince many people that we need our collection of firearms. I DO think many of the arguments above will be more persuasive when the time comes.

I'm sorry if you think I've got a hidden agenda. Hopefully over time you'll eventually realize I have no such thing.

 

[maestro pistolero]

With regards to the comment about swords vs muskets vs ar-15's my point remains. Which is most efficient at doing its job? One must close to engage with a sword, a musket takes a long time to reload. An AR-15 can be used effectively at long ranges with shots made in quick succession.

And my point remains that if a weapon is to have the equalizing force that the second amendment intended, it must be sufficient to oppose the force it's wielder is likely to encounter. A right to travel that only protects rickshaws and horse-drawn carriages is of little use.
The overwhelming majority of Americans do believe we have a right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court is steeply inclined to apply it to the states this year.

 

[bblatt11]

CrossfireRacerX - I think you may be confusing the issue unnecessarily.

Miller does in fact support the idea that possession of military purpose arms is beyond infringment. However, my point about pappy's sporting gun was that textually, the only arms not protected are those ONLY usable for sporting purposes. If your hunting arm can be, or is similar to an arm that was, used for militia purposes, its protected according to Miller. Frankly, recent history and military events demonstrates that almost ANY firearm may be used for a militia-related purpose. If I had to argue the point in Court, I might concede that the only firearms without a militia purpose are the Olympic quality, not really useful in any other context, sub-caliber rifles, or similar, overly-purposed, sporting arms.

And even then, my basis for such an argument is that the military applications of such arms have not been brought to my attention at this time; which is, essentially, the Miller standard.

If you're trying to find some justification for limiting militia arms to some tech period of the past, you aren't going to find it in case law.

 

[Jim March]

CrossfireRacerX: you've missed some subtle details in Heller.

First, yes, the Heller decision absolutely says that Cruikshank currently says states can violate the 2nd Amendment. But Scalia and company then put in two strong warnings that the moment they could dismantle Cruikshank, they were going to. Which in turn is why pundits both pro-gun and anti are saying the McDonald v. Chicago case is going to win incorporation of the 2nd in another five months or so.

The first warning about Cruikshank happened in a footnote mentioning Cruikshank also said it was OK for states to violate the 1st Amendment.

The second is even more explicit if you know what to look for. Towards the end Scalia favorably mentions a book by Charles Lane that had just come out in 2008: "The Day Freedom Died". In it, "the day" in question is the day the Cruikshank decision came out. Lane basically shows the Cruikshank decision to be possibly the most evil ruling in USSC history, one that launched well over 4,000 lynchings and untold other civil rights violations across generations. The Cruikshank decision marked the failed end of an entire civil rights movement in the US, murdered along with real human beings by the Supremes.

Citing to Lane's book marked one of the most blatant criticisms of a past USSC case by the USSC in all of US history. Cruikshank is toast - stick a fork in it, it's done. It's so evil even the most Liberal justices will carve it up like a turkey dinner.

And it's very possible Slaughter-house will get fried right along with it.

 

[CrossfireRacerX]

And my point remains that if a weapon is to have the equalizing force that the second amendment intended, it must be sufficient to oppose the force it's wielder is likely to encounter

I agree completely. Let's just hope everyone else sees it the way we do.

I've agreed more or less with every single point raised here. Except the one where people say pointing to the second amendment as a suitable defense of our arms. Legally, for now, it might be. But the population is divided on gun rights, and it's important to be able to articulate why it is important for us to have them, both legally and common-sense wise, PAST the second amendment.