Its been little reported but the US is actually going through one of its periodic, but ineffectual attempts at gun control.
The bear in the woods is the US constitution (as well as the various US state constitutions, where 44 states have constitutional provisions that protect the right to individual gun ownership), which gun owners claim, supports their right to own guns. The Second Amendment which was added in 1791, states: "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."
Now to a European, or an non jurist US citizen, this appears to be simply a law to ensure that US states can set up armed militia's i.e. Armies, and not a call to allow individuals to own semi automatic rifles etc. However US lawyers soon ensured that this is exactly what this amendment has come to mean, and this has remained the case ever since.
Now this has been much debated in the world at large, but oddly not in the US, where the Second Amendment has in fact not been debated in the US Supreme Court since since 1939 (and did not directly address whether the amendment protects individual as opposed to collective rights). There is a case, District of Columbia vs Heller, which is due to come to the Supreme Court this year, in which the meaning of the Second Amendment may be determined again.
Now if the DC ban on hand guns is overturned, then there will be no change in the reality of the current situation, (except, black murder rates in Washington may go up a few dozen), but if the Supreme Court upholds the gun ban in DC as not being against the 2nd Amendment, then the way is open for a larger challenge to the individuals rights to bear arms, except as part of a state organised militia.
Only in the US would this ever have arisen, as its quite obvious what the 2nd Amendment is intended to allow, but in such a litigious country, the commas and fullstops of someone in 1791, when English grammar was still not fully made fast (The Samuel Johnson Dictionary of the English Language & Grammar was published in 1755), have been pored over by jurists ever since, and what was plain language, has been distorted to the point, where this sentence has come to support a raft of legislation.
It will be interesting to see if the US love affair with private weapons has weakened even slightly.
Just for the record surveys suggest that there are now 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US, making it the most heavily-armed nation in the world and according to reports India is the second with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law-enforcement agencies and the military (at four guns per 100 people) and China third, with 40 million privately held guns, (at 3 firearms per 100 people).
On a purely per capita basis, Yemen has the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46 (all males are part of the army), Iraq with 39, and Serbia with at 38 are also high figures.
With 30 guns per 100, France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany are next. Pakistan has 12 per 100 people and Afghanistan is estimated to be about 40 per 100, but Nigeria, which is perceived as a violent country, officially has just one gun per 100 people.
The world is a strange place.
The bear in the woods is the US constitution (as well as the various US state constitutions, where 44 states have constitutional provisions that protect the right to individual gun ownership), which gun owners claim, supports their right to own guns. The Second Amendment which was added in 1791, states: "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."
Now to a European, or an non jurist US citizen, this appears to be simply a law to ensure that US states can set up armed militia's i.e. Armies, and not a call to allow individuals to own semi automatic rifles etc. However US lawyers soon ensured that this is exactly what this amendment has come to mean, and this has remained the case ever since.
Now this has been much debated in the world at large, but oddly not in the US, where the Second Amendment has in fact not been debated in the US Supreme Court since since 1939 (and did not directly address whether the amendment protects individual as opposed to collective rights). There is a case, District of Columbia vs Heller, which is due to come to the Supreme Court this year, in which the meaning of the Second Amendment may be determined again.
Now if the DC ban on hand guns is overturned, then there will be no change in the reality of the current situation, (except, black murder rates in Washington may go up a few dozen), but if the Supreme Court upholds the gun ban in DC as not being against the 2nd Amendment, then the way is open for a larger challenge to the individuals rights to bear arms, except as part of a state organised militia.
Only in the US would this ever have arisen, as its quite obvious what the 2nd Amendment is intended to allow, but in such a litigious country, the commas and fullstops of someone in 1791, when English grammar was still not fully made fast (The Samuel Johnson Dictionary of the English Language & Grammar was published in 1755), have been pored over by jurists ever since, and what was plain language, has been distorted to the point, where this sentence has come to support a raft of legislation.
It will be interesting to see if the US love affair with private weapons has weakened even slightly.
Just for the record surveys suggest that there are now 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US, making it the most heavily-armed nation in the world and according to reports India is the second with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law-enforcement agencies and the military (at four guns per 100 people) and China third, with 40 million privately held guns, (at 3 firearms per 100 people).
On a purely per capita basis, Yemen has the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46 (all males are part of the army), Iraq with 39, and Serbia with at 38 are also high figures.
With 30 guns per 100, France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany are next. Pakistan has 12 per 100 people and Afghanistan is estimated to be about 40 per 100, but Nigeria, which is perceived as a violent country, officially has just one gun per 100 people.
The world is a strange place.
***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views.
if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen.
You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)
"The world is a strange place."
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
I'm no lawyer, thank god, but my belief it that the Second Amendment touches on two separate issues: the formation of a state militia AND the right for citizens to bear arms. Remove either from the declaration and the statement remains true, grammatically speaking.
I, for one, am glad we have so many guns. . .because sadly, one day we will probably need them to defend ourselves from ourselves.
Hi Burnt Toast.
ReplyDeleteHm, I am not sure that 'gun ownership' equates to "defence".
It's a sad fact that largely it is the bad guys who are prepared to kill, and often their victims are in fact killed by their own weapons.
I think its hard to argue that in general it would have been better (certainly for the American Indians) if guns had not proliferated in private ownership in the US.
However, as the US is as it is, and not as it might have been, your probably right and its only the good guys who would suffer if gun ownership restricted now.
But, what about restricting gun ownership to single shot rifles, no shotguns, and no hand guns? Removing hand guns, and semi-automatics etc would surely cut crime, while keeping the 2nd amendment intact.
I do not disagree with more gun control, however, the controls to date have largely been ineffective. Even in Great Britain I'm sure I could purchase a gun if I REALLY wanted. To restrict gun ownership to only single shot rifles and no handguns, etc., would be tantamount to putting the genie back in the bottle.
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to reduce gun violence, many large cities have attempted to cull firearms from the streets with buyback programs. It is no secret that most gun buy-back programs have been abject failures. The people that usually show up are desperate for a few quick dollars and the guns removed from the streets are a veritable Who's Who of "Saturday Night Specials" and defunct long rifles from World War I. No one in their right mind would turn in a $1000 semi-automatic pistol for a couple of hundred dollars.
America has her fair share of social problems (past and present I might add) and much of the gun violence is due to a celebration of violence in certain urban cultures.
The most powerful "weapons" in reducing gun violence are education and opportunity, then taking advantage of both. A man without an education is a fool. An uneducated man with a gun is a dangerous fool.
I'm not sure how to imbed a link, but read this for some insight on gun buybacks:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed073100.cfm
Hi BT
ReplyDeleteI have just read your link - It does look as though the buy back scheme is a bit of a waste of space.
We had something similar a few years ago with a "No questions asked", gun and knife bins outside police stations. They also attracted a collection of 2nd world war relics, as well as a few unexploded bombs that had been used as door stops!
Yes its comparatively easy to get a gun in the UK ... a few years ago, I was offered one in a case with 6 bullets in a Pub £300 ($600), but that may reflect more the kinda pubs I was frequenting in those days!
It has become a fixture in the Afro-Caribean community, that those males who have failed in life by the tender age of 16 can only be men and get "respect" (aka fear) with guns.
This has now spread into the wider culture, and guns are turning up in council estates (I think you call them 'schemes'?) in the hands of kids as young as 15.
This is usually linked in some manner to that most pernicious of evils in our society "Illegal Drugs", the vast profits from which, finance gun ownership and countless other social ills.
Until we solve the 'drug question' in our societies guns and crime will proliferate and profit.