You may remember from one of my previous posts that I am a proponent of gun control laws. In my opinion there is definitely a correlation between crime and the weapon used to commit that crime. I wonder how many times people have been shot because emotions, possibly exacerbated by alcohol drug consumption, ran high and a gun happened to be around. A nasty domestic squabble can more easily turn deadly.

Notwithstanding, the 2nd Amendment does exist. One of the problems is that it isn't particularly well written:

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.

Should the two clauses be read together? or separately. The current state of the law interprets gun ownership to be a personal right recognized by the government, but there are those who focus on the 'well-regulated Militia' aspect of the Amendment and who argue that the right should be construed collectively.

Even aside from the 2nd Amendment, we also must consider that the United States declared its independence on the premise that the people are sovereign and possess a 'right of revolution' (essentially the legal justification for severing ties with Great Britain by force): "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." {emphasis supplied}

(The 'right of revolution' is not a 'willy nilly' - let's have a revolution - right - the Declaration gives an example when the right of revolution could be exercised by the people: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,) {emphasis supplied}

At the end of the day, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when individually a man with a muzzle loaded smooth-bore musket wasn't particularly lethal unless he was arrayed in a line of battle firing a collective volley. It is clear from the American Revolution and the American reliance on state based militia units that the Founding Fathers venerated the self-armed militia to be an effective defense against 'Invasion' - a belief that existed until sometime between the Civil War and WWI. It is also clear that the Founding Fathers were concerned about governments disarming the citizenry inasmuch as the people remained the ultimate check (in a system based on checks and balances of power) on government avarice and despotism.

These are difficult questions because while we recognize the historical importance of gun ownership to 18th and 19th century America, it is clear that firearms have become infinitely more lethal than their predecessors in 1776 and impose an annual toll on society.

Also consider that in 1776 a group of militia could theoretically match the firepower of an English regiment whereas today, even assuming that the citizens were armed to the teeth, the military possesses equipment that is so far superior that the 'minutemen' wouldn't come close to the firepower potential of the military (tanks, fighters, helicopter gunships, etc.)

Just some thoughts on it.

__________________