2nd Amendment - 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.
There are those who advocate gun control in some form. They use the actual verbage of the the 2nd to imply this is geared toward a "militia" which has grown and been replaced by our present day military. In some respects, that could be true.
However, the truest sense of this amendment is exactly as stated. We are to have an armed militia (military for common defense) for our national security and the individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Granted, arms in the days this was written was a far cry from the arms we have today. Our Bill of Rights resulted from (IMAGINE THIS!) a political dispute. One side was gravely concerned about having a standing army that was not under control of the people, and this amendment addressed both issues.
So, we have the militia (standing army) addressed, and at the same time acknowledging the right of the people to retain a method for exercising control if it were to get out of hand.
As gun control laws are passed in this country, every one of them edges us closer to the point that government will have complete and irrevocable control over us. And yes, if guns are outlawed entirely, the outlaws will have guns. The only real question would remain is how many normally peaceful, law-abiding Americans would be willing to become those "outlaws" for their self-protection and security, not just from the criminal element, but from a potential military-state government?
A note about England. Guns were only banned in 1997, but ownership restrictions had begun following WWI. The "interventionist state" in England increased, and had gradually placed more and more restrictions on ownership during the 1900's. In 1954 there were only a dozen armed robberies. By the 1990s, that number had increased 100 fold.
Amazingly, the increased controls on law abiding citizens accompanied increased leniency on criminals. (Sound familiar America?)
Then came the tragedy of the "Dunblane massacre", which left 16 school children and their teacher dead. 1997. The hysteria and sensationalism of this tragedy spring boarded the growing efforts to band guns entirely to the citizenry.
According to BBC reports, gun-related crimes went UP as much as 40% in the two years following the ban. Gun-related crimes have continued to increase in the years since. In 1997-1998, England (and Wales) had 12,805 firearm offenses. In 2005-2006, that number was 21,521.
In the meantime, the U.S. crime rates have decreased, and national homicide rates in particular have decreased. This is largely due to the many "protection" laws that we have passed. Many states have passed "right to carry" or concealed weapons permit laws. As cited in one of the earlier posts, we even have place(s) in this country where mandating gun ownership and maintenance has virtually eliminated crime, gun-related or otherwise.
Largely because of the Revolution of 1688 in England, the result was their own Bill of Rights and parliamentary democracy. Because of earlier attempts to suppress the Protestant religion partly via gun control, the right to bear arms was addressed for the English people.
Why is it that we humans for get so soon, and fail to learn from history?
