For Carol K.
QOTD: Quote of the Day
“the gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud . . . that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” – William Berger, Chief Justice of SCOTUS, 1969-86, appointed by Richard Nixon
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. – Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
How about a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution as so many on the hard right advocate, such as:
…the right of every minuteman to bear a Brown Bess
Do the following look like “well regulated” militias?
Welcome to Clarence Thomas’ AmeriKa
Global Macro Monitor 
Do you think if a law was passed, in the strict sense of the Second Amendment, forcing every privately held assault style weapon (AR-15 etc) to be swapped for a (new) brown bess and also every privately held pistol to be swapped for an equivalent flintlock pistol – all sponsored, organised, and paid for by the US Federal Government of course – that could be an appropriate course of action that wouldn’t violate the constitution?
Seems to me that mass shootings, probably even single shootings, would be come ‘a thing of the past’ (no pun was intended ). That whole thing with gun nuts posting ‘cool’ selfies with their army grade weapons would at a minimum, probably die off!
Just a thought…
I don’t know, Joe. But the Constitution clearly states that individuals do not have a right to own firearms as a “well regulated militia” does. Local and state laws can confer that right.
Hi Gregor,
So, I looked the topic up a little. The 2nd Amendment was written ambiguously. I see though that The US Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) affirmed the 2nd Amendment as guaranting gun rights for all individuals.
I think the gun and gun violence is so interwoven with US history and its national pysche that I can’t envision the issues created by the 2nd Amendment ( intent versus interpretation) being untangled ever.
Looking from the outside this all seems crazy. We were also a colonial society who overthrew the same colonial oppressors violently and part of that conflict still raged up to 25 years ago. Still our post colonial existence is firmly anti violence and anti gun. Our cops don’t carry guns and are literally called – in Irish – ‘the peaceful police’. Gun violence is very, very occasional any shooting incident get serious attention from society. Thereby, it is rendered unacceptable.
In the case of the US I think violence was more continuous both before since the war of independence. Violence against the ‘First Nations’, Mexicans, British / Canadians, North versus South, Spanish, then internationally on the world stage with two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan not to mention many smaller ‘interventions’. There must have been a great internal fear of slave rebellion, too, before the Civil War. And fear of the ‘new poor and huddled masses’ that were arriving from Europe, ex-slaves and their descendents from the South and most recently people from Latin America all arriving into the USA urban areas.
In short, I think America’s relationship with gun has a lot more going on than 3-4 lines the Constitution. The question might be why ard they so important to you as a nation? What fears do they alleviate?