Gun free zone

[myrkul]

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.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

[Brunic]

Is this an argument against the 2nd amendment or radically for?
from Nassim Taleb:

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons? A semi/automatic rifle is too potent for self defense, and too weak against government tyranny"

http://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-talebs-super-simple-argument-for-banning-semi-automatic-and-automatic-weapons-2012-12

Why, indeed?

Because that's insane? All this so you want to be able to overthrow your government? Either you overestimate your own government, either US population have a really low self-esteem.

Go look at how well-equipped the population in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya were last year. They didn't had weapons to overthrow their own government, they just took the streets and kicked their dictators out of their seat. I have a hard time believing that in case of need, Americans are incapable of doing the same without guns.

The way I see it, guns are simply a tax in disguise. You already pay for protection with your taxes, for army and police forces but hey, you're getting stolen right? It's a lot better to pay overpriced metal parts for more protection, because the whole world is there to get you. 

If you really want to contribute to the protection of your community, why don't you just join army or police forces?

[myrkul]

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.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

[myrkul]

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.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

Really? Armies didn't exist? Then who the hell were they fighting? Pretty sure if they wanted a permanent army, they'd have put that in there, instead of relying on the militia, which they stated was "necessary to the security of a free State."

[FirstAscent]

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.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

Really? Armies didn't exist? Then who the hell were they fighting? Pretty sure if they wanted a permanent army, they'd have put that in there, instead of relying on the militia, which they stated was "necessary to the security of a free State."

Give the idiot four stars. He gets it now! He actually gets that the 2nd amendment was because they didn't have armed forces. Congratulations.

[myrkul]

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.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

Really? Armies didn't exist? Then who the hell were they fighting? Pretty sure if they wanted a permanent army, they'd have put that in there, instead of relying on the militia, which they stated was "necessary to the security of a free State."

Give the idiot four stars.

OK, you can have four stars.

The second amendment was because they didn't want armed forces.

[conspirosphere.tk]

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons?

Because that's insane?

It depends on the Megatons.  

I think you are quite deluded if you consider the "Arab spring" s/t real. It seemed to me more like regime change directed from abroad in one way or the other (blatantly in Libya and Syria, more subtly in Egypt and Tunisia) and much more deluded if you believe that police and armed forces are intended for the "protection of the community".

[Brunic]

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons?

Because that's insane?

It depends on the Megatons.  

I think you are quite deluded if you consider the "Arab spring" s/t real. It seemed to me more like regime change directed from abroad in one way or the other (blatantly in Libya and Syria, more subtly in Egypt and Tunisia) and much more deluded if you believe that police and armed forces are intended for the "protection of the community".

"Hey guys, I have an idea to permit atomic weapons to individuals, let's just put a limit on the megatons their bomb can have!"

As for the Arab spring, I have a couple of friends from that part of the world (Tunisia mostly), and that revolution was real. The people was sick of that regime, and they really had nothing to lose. As for the new government taking place, on that, I agree that there is a lot of small politics behind closed doors. But there's never a conspiration for a revolution, people revolt when they had enough, you can fake that.

Deluded about the police and armed forces? It depends on the country, sure, but not in mine, certainly not. Sure, there's always a bunch of bad apples and bad situation, but in general, I'm really satisfied with those forces.

[Axios]

I do argue for private citizenry to own tanks and nukes. What good is a militia if it doesn't have the tools to fight off an invading army?

US vs Iraq or Afganistan
USSR vs Afganistan

While the last one could be argued that Afganistan won, it's hardly a case after a million dead. USSR lost in total about 15k and they didn't have any of latest techs as night vision googles or bullet proofed jackets.

An organized army will always crash a militia. Owning a gun at home wouldn't stop US government from wiping out any resistance.

The recent event prove that private citizens cannot have nukes, you cannot give a nuclear warhead to a sick person.

[TheButterZone]

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

[myrkul]

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

Maybe not self defense, no. But if you have to use it, you're probably fucked anyway.

Of course, they'd be great for asteroid mining.

[Axios]

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

I agree. I am departing from these arguments. Since my believes are that the crime can be prevented with a totalitarian regime and it isnt something I want to deal with it.

While Canada vs USA crime comparison is interesting there are too many variables which aren't comparable:

a) Size, USA is about 10 times larger
b) Ethic, Canada has 80% white people, 2.5% black, 8% asian vs 72% white, 12% black, 5% asian (uh I sound racist, but I am not)
c) Social, Canada has better HDI than USA.

[TheButterZone]

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

Maybe not self defense, no. But if you have to use it, you're probably fucked anyway.

Of course, they'd be great for asteroid mining.

Or maybe planetary defense. I almost hope an asteroid were on a collision course with earth that astrophysicists in every nuclear country could agree upon, so that all the nukes on earth can be retrofitted for space and fired out of the atmosphere all at once at it.

[myrkul]

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

Maybe not self defense, no. But if you have to use it, you're probably fucked anyway.

Of course, they'd be great for asteroid mining.

Or maybe planetary defense. I almost hope an asteroid were on a collision course with earth that astrophysicists in every nuclear country could agree upon, so that all the nukes on earth can be retrofitted for space and fired out of the atmosphere all at once at it.

Nuking an asteroid on a collision course would be the last thing you want to do. Instead of a bullet that might miss, we'd get a shotgun blast that wouldn't. Better to steer it away, than blow it up.

[jgarzik]

The second amendment was because they didn't want armed forces.

Loose enough wording that I must clarify

The Founding Fathers felt there were many dangers in a standing army, especially those of the type often raised by English kings.  Armies of the English kings were not necessarily comprised of the citizenry, which had often been disarmed... hello 1600s "gun control".

However, America's founders knew the lack of a national army could prove disastrous in a time of war; thus they gave Congress permission to raise one.  This was not supposed to be permanent condition.  i.e. the national army was to be disbanded following a war's conclusion.  Long term, an armed citizenry, a militia that could be raised in emergency situations, was thought to be an effective compromise that would maintain liberty and freedom in the long term, while also providing breathing room, buying time to raise a national army for war.

In addition to this logic regarding standing armies, anti-federalists in particular felt that disarming the citizenry was the most effective way of enslaving a people.  As one example, English kings had in the past raised standing, professional, often mercenary armies while disarming their citizens.  In response to this policy of universal citizen disarmament and resultant oppression, many at the time felt citizens should be universally armed.

Given the march of technology, especially the Cold War arms race, we now have massive weapons systems that render the "disband completely, in times of peace" idea quaint.  No country is willing to be the first country to entirely scrap their carriers, drones and fighter jets, just because, e.g. America is not in an active shooting war with Russia or China.

As originally published in Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, see

     The History of the Second Amendment
     http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

Quite long, but very readable (and skim-able).

[stochastic]

The Osaka School Massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers

This week there was also a school attack in China too. A knife-wielding maniac slashed 22 children at a kindergarten. Not a single child died. Do you really think that upgrading the tools available to killers is a good idea?

I also don't think you want to bring up Japan (Japan has very strict gun control, though not as strict as Singapore). In 2006, there were 2 gun related deaths of any type in Japan, a country of about 130 million. By contrast, in the US, there were 642 fatal firearm accidents in 2006. In addition, there were about 30,000 homicides involving gunshot wounds.

The point is that banning of weapons will not stop these kinds of massacres.  We live in a dangerous world and taking away a person's right to self defense will not make it safer.

I don't see how anyone can tell a victim of a crime that they do not have the right to protect their body's using the most efficient method possible, a firearm.  For example, I don't see how anyone can tell a woman that has been raped that she does not have the right to carry a firearm.

Where do you get your 30,000 homicides from gunshot wounds in 2006?  In 2009 there were only 11,493 firearm homicides according to the CDC.

I like the WSJ's database on homicides in the United States.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata

----- Edit ------

You know Singapore is very interesting.  It has a civilian homicide rate 0.3 per 100,000 people of but a state homicide (execution) rate of 1.4 per 100,000.

Sorry, I was including gun-mediated suicide in cases of homicide which is pretty questionable. There are about twice as many firearm-related suicides as there are firearm-related homicides. Suicide is quite different from homicide. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that suicide has a high failure rate and the use of a firearm vastly increases success probability.

The Singaporean execution rate used to be that high during the 1990s. However, it has dropped a lot in recent years. In the last few years, it has been closer to 0.4 per 100,000. Most of that is just our drug laws. 30 grams of cocaine = swinging from a rope if caught in possession.

I was thinking that you included suicides but I was unsure.  One interesting thing is that men are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than other forms like overdose of medication.  Men also make up about 90% of all gun related homicides.

[caveden]

Now, since this is a gun thread, we need those numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

These numbers don't tell much. It would be more interesting to see a ranking of "gun owners per capita" instead of "guns per capita", although even still I don't believe any strong correlation would be found.
Guns per capita doesn't tell much. You take France, for instance, it's quite high on that ranking, showing more than 0.3 guns per capita. But I'm pretty sure that much less than 30% of French people own guns. What happens is that hunters own many guns each.
Considering the deterring effect on violence, I'd say a homeowner with a pistol and a homeowner with multiple automatic rifles are almost equivalent. But still, you can't put all guns in the same bag either.

It's way too difficult to try to come out with numbers for such things. The approach from John Lott in his book is probably the most reasonable I'm aware of, but even that is far from "scientific".

[Axios]

These numbers don't tell much. It would be more interesting to see a ranking of "gun owners per capita" instead of "guns per capita", although even still I don't believe any strong correlation would be found.

While Swiss may rank high, the freaking machine guns that they got:

Have disabled full auto
Have only 50 bullets sealed in a can
Have an annual inspection of the guns and bullets
Impossible to buy more bullets legally