When giving the last instructions to his disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus Christ stated: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36).
This admonishment should never be taken literally, as it has just been a warning about difficult times coming. However, sometimes the statement is used as an evidence to justify the right (if not obligation) for everyone to bear arms. The right to have and to bear arms is often disputed and has different points of approach. In details, there is a discussion on individual and collective right and also on circumstances in which bearing arms is justified. It goes without saying that in different countries the problem is solved in a different way.
Among other reasons, religion is here and there a decisive matter to state these or that rules. The Muslims, for example, generally follow the Sharia law. The Sharia law gives a temporary permission to bear arms in times of civil strife or violence.
Further, legislation is deeply reasoned by the ruling regime. In totalitarian regimes bearing arms is usually forbidden and persecuted by law. Adolph Hitler wrote, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so” (Merkel & Uviller, 2002) The USSR power also didn’t provide their citizens with such a right. The same situation is typical for modern China where there are strict firearm control regulations. Meanwhile, the citizens of the Republic of Cuba are provided with the right “to struggle through all means, including armed struggle” in stipulated cases (Halbrook, 1987).
In democratic states bearing arms is often permitted, but not always. In Finland, for example, you can receive a permission to have (to possess) a firearm, but in public, you are not free to carry it. In Spain, you receive a license from the Civil Guard Authority dependently from the class of weapon and for a limited period of time. In the meantime, in Switzerland, it is not only permitted but also required to keep arms for those who received training in the national armed forces as they are regarded as the potential defenders of the state. The rate of official firearms is the highest in Switzerland, and at the same time, the rate of delinquency is the lowest in the world.
In the USA situation is different from state to state, and the most controversial document the states make a start from is the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, if to be more specific: “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 is much debate on how the statements of the amendment should be interpreted, and the voices thus are divided into three main groups. When the American state was only at the dawn of its existence, it was natural to solve problems with a musket and a rifle. But then the function of defense and public control was passed to police, and thus they can be regarded as exclusive bearers of weapon. Thus, the first group keeps to the point that it is an “individual and personal right for arms only to the extent needed to maintain a well-regulated militia to support the state” (Uviller & Merkel, 2002). Williams (2003) meanwhile pays attention to the point that technically all the legally capable men (if to be more specific, males from 17 to 45) are the members of the unofficial militia and potential defenders of the nation. Hereby, the right to keep and bear arms is approached as a collective one and not an individual. The second group is made up of those who think that the Amendment cannot in any way protect the right for personal arms if they are contradictory to social welfare and don’t depend on the social value of a “regulated organization of armed citizens” (Uviller & Merkel, 2004). But this is a more individual-oriented focus, which is standing for the right of individuals serving in the militia. In this way, the first two models concentrate on the intention of the Amendment, on its preamble. Such an approach is widely criticized. Senator Orrin Hatch, for example, firmly states that the second amendment distinctly protects the right of the people to keep arms; what is more, in his view the Americans were developing as “a nation of armed freemen.” “When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference,” Hatch underlines (Williams, 2003). This is an individual-rights model. Further, Sayoko Blodgett-Ford has written that “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed” (Blodgett-Ford 1995). The matter is, the USA has case law, and therefore the interpretation of the Constitution can change from case to case. Thus, the case District of Columbia v. Heller which was conducted in 2008 resulted in the verdict that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (McAffee and Quinlan, 2010). As Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan (2010) investigate, the right to keep and bear arms was “pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.” Meanwhile, in the same 2008, Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice stated that “the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun prohibitions and regulations” (McAffee and Quinlan, 2010) The radicals have even initiated the new militia movement against the government tyranny and gave birth to the so-called insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment.
In particular, disagreements arise on the ground of terms. On the one hand, the word combination “to bear arms” seems to be taken from the military context and thus doesn’t have anything in common with individual self-defense. In the well-known Oxford English Dictionary the term “to bear arms” is defined as “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” (Blodgett-Ford, 1995). As Gary Wills (2002) notifies, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” On the other hand, even ‘bearing’ and ‘possessing’ are distinguished. And in any way, both words have left the context of military service and received outer, civic usage. At the end of the 20th century, it has become wide-spread to explain the terms of keeping and bearing arms as such referring to private arms intended for self-defense against crime or hunting sphere.
On the whole, the question of the right of bearing arms with the purpose of self-defense has been discussed for ages in various philosophical, political and social writings (including such writers as Aristotle in Greece, Cicero in Rome, Machiavelli, John Locke etc.). Today, the two camps are the opponents and the proponents of gun control. From the most points of view, this right can be associated with the right for self-defense. The latter can be regarded either as one of the fundamental and inalienable rights of a human being or as a privilege of a free citizen in a free state. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes,” Thomas Jefferson once announced. “Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man” (Halbrook, 1987).
It is often claimed that when citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, they are able to keep their state subservient to them. They are the masters and the state is a servant, as it is in the ideal democratic state. “Without the right to bear arms, we would have anarchy in the streets, the criminals would still have guns, and violent crime would escalate,” the opponents of gun control say (Killias, 2001). In Australia, it is testified, public safety has essentially decreased after intensified gun control. It is claimed that “gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens” (Killias, 2001).
Further on, the opponents of gun control often appeal to the experience of totalitarian regimes as a strong argument. As it has been already mentioned above, totalitarian states have a standard doctrine for registration of all the weapons and forbidding it for common citizens. In Nazi Germany some regulations were relaxed, as compared to those of the Weimar Republic; all the weapons were exempted from regulation except handguns, the range of individuals exempted from acquiring the permission was extended, and the age for acquisition of firearms was decreased from 20 to 18. Meanwhile, all the Jews were prohibited from manufacturing the ammunition and firearms.
In fact, there has been special research conducted by Martin Killias in 21 countries of the world as for the gun control. Much data has been collected, but in reality, no true evidence for any causality has been provided. One of the provoking areas is studying of suicide statistics. One the one hand, it is supposed that the more weapons are possessed by common citizens, the higher is the rate of firearm suicide in the state. But on the other hand, “suicidal candidates far from always turn to another means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand” (Killias, 2001). All in all, gun laws do not have any essential effects on suicide statistics.
Then, Gary Cleck, a criminologist from Florida State University, also conducted a study and found out that victims of crimes are less likely to be injured or loose their property when they have firearms to protect themselves (Kleck, 1993). On the other hand, with the guns they typically get into a more dangerous situation as using a gun for self-protection can provoke the criminal to attack. Violent crimes are merely affected by gun laws as well. “Neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s,” Steven Levitt (2004) sums up.
The other problem is of the economic character. It goes without saying that for gun manufacturers it is profitable to have as many clients as possible. That’s why they will be always among the defenders of gun legalization and may be accused of contributing to the spread of violence in the country. Interestingly, John Lott, the economist and the author of the book More Guns, Less Crime justifies permission for law-abiding citizens not only to keep or possess guns but also to carry them in public places. According to Lott, this can reduce crime rates while the criminals will not know for certain who has a gun and who doesn’t, and thus will run risks more seldom (Lott, 1998). Critics of Lott’s theory say he hasn’t shown enough figures to support his view.
All points considered, it seems to be right to defend reasonable regulation in any way, because no right can be absolute and unconditional. As Nadine Strossen, the President of the American Civil Liberties Union, shows, “the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance” (Kleck & DeLone, 1993). It is sound to issue permissions for law-abiding citizens after they are checked for mental stability, the absence of criminal past and going through special training. After all, industry should be under strict control of the government and take all the related responsibilities.
Among other reasons, religion is here and there a decisive matter to state these or that rules. The Muslims, for example, generally follow the Sharia law. The Sharia law gives a temporary permission to bear arms in times of civil strife or violence.
Further, legislation is deeply reasoned by the ruling regime. In totalitarian regimes bearing arms is usually forbidden and persecuted by law. Adolph Hitler wrote, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so” (Merkel & Uviller, 2002) The USSR power also didn’t provide their citizens with such a right. The same situation is typical for modern China where there are strict firearm control regulations. Meanwhile, the citizens of the Republic of Cuba are provided with the right “to struggle through all means, including armed struggle” in stipulated cases (Halbrook, 1987).
In democratic states bearing arms is often permitted, but not always. In Finland, for example, you can receive a permission to have (to possess) a firearm, but in public, you are not free to carry it. In Spain, you receive a license from the Civil Guard Authority dependently from the class of weapon and for a limited period of time. In the meantime, in Switzerland, it is not only permitted but also required to keep arms for those who received training in the national armed forces as they are regarded as the potential defenders of the state. The rate of official firearms is the highest in Switzerland, and at the same time, the rate of delinquency is the lowest in the world.
In the USA situation is different from state to state, and the most controversial document the states make a start from is the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, if to be more specific: “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 is much debate on how the statements of the amendment should be interpreted, and the voices thus are divided into three main groups. When the American state was only at the dawn of its existence, it was natural to solve problems with a musket and a rifle. But then the function of defense and public control was passed to police, and thus they can be regarded as exclusive bearers of weapon. Thus, the first group keeps to the point that it is an “individual and personal right for arms only to the extent needed to maintain a well-regulated militia to support the state” (Uviller & Merkel, 2002). Williams (2003) meanwhile pays attention to the point that technically all the legally capable men (if to be more specific, males from 17 to 45) are the members of the unofficial militia and potential defenders of the nation. Hereby, the right to keep and bear arms is approached as a collective one and not an individual. The second group is made up of those who think that the Amendment cannot in any way protect the right for personal arms if they are contradictory to social welfare and don’t depend on the social value of a “regulated organization of armed citizens” (Uviller & Merkel, 2004). But this is a more individual-oriented focus, which is standing for the right of individuals serving in the militia. In this way, the first two models concentrate on the intention of the Amendment, on its preamble. Such an approach is widely criticized. Senator Orrin Hatch, for example, firmly states that the second amendment distinctly protects the right of the people to keep arms; what is more, in his view the Americans were developing as “a nation of armed freemen.” “When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference,” Hatch underlines (Williams, 2003). This is an individual-rights model. Further, Sayoko Blodgett-Ford has written that “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed” (Blodgett-Ford 1995). The matter is, the USA has case law, and therefore the interpretation of the Constitution can change from case to case. Thus, the case District of Columbia v. Heller which was conducted in 2008 resulted in the verdict that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (McAffee and Quinlan, 2010). As Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan (2010) investigate, the right to keep and bear arms was “pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.” Meanwhile, in the same 2008, Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice stated that “the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun prohibitions and regulations” (McAffee and Quinlan, 2010) The radicals have even initiated the new militia movement against the government tyranny and gave birth to the so-called insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment.
In particular, disagreements arise on the ground of terms. On the one hand, the word combination “to bear arms” seems to be taken from the military context and thus doesn’t have anything in common with individual self-defense. In the well-known Oxford English Dictionary the term “to bear arms” is defined as “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” (Blodgett-Ford, 1995). As Gary Wills (2002) notifies, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” On the other hand, even ‘bearing’ and ‘possessing’ are distinguished. And in any way, both words have left the context of military service and received outer, civic usage. At the end of the 20th century, it has become wide-spread to explain the terms of keeping and bearing arms as such referring to private arms intended for self-defense against crime or hunting sphere.
On the whole, the question of the right of bearing arms with the purpose of self-defense has been discussed for ages in various philosophical, political and social writings (including such writers as Aristotle in Greece, Cicero in Rome, Machiavelli, John Locke etc.). Today, the two camps are the opponents and the proponents of gun control. From the most points of view, this right can be associated with the right for self-defense. The latter can be regarded either as one of the fundamental and inalienable rights of a human being or as a privilege of a free citizen in a free state. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes,” Thomas Jefferson once announced. “Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man” (Halbrook, 1987).
It is often claimed that when citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, they are able to keep their state subservient to them. They are the masters and the state is a servant, as it is in the ideal democratic state. “Without the right to bear arms, we would have anarchy in the streets, the criminals would still have guns, and violent crime would escalate,” the opponents of gun control say (Killias, 2001). In Australia, it is testified, public safety has essentially decreased after intensified gun control. It is claimed that “gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens” (Killias, 2001).
Further on, the opponents of gun control often appeal to the experience of totalitarian regimes as a strong argument. As it has been already mentioned above, totalitarian states have a standard doctrine for registration of all the weapons and forbidding it for common citizens. In Nazi Germany some regulations were relaxed, as compared to those of the Weimar Republic; all the weapons were exempted from regulation except handguns, the range of individuals exempted from acquiring the permission was extended, and the age for acquisition of firearms was decreased from 20 to 18. Meanwhile, all the Jews were prohibited from manufacturing the ammunition and firearms.
In fact, there has been special research conducted by Martin Killias in 21 countries of the world as for the gun control. Much data has been collected, but in reality, no true evidence for any causality has been provided. One of the provoking areas is studying of suicide statistics. One the one hand, it is supposed that the more weapons are possessed by common citizens, the higher is the rate of firearm suicide in the state. But on the other hand, “suicidal candidates far from always turn to another means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand” (Killias, 2001). All in all, gun laws do not have any essential effects on suicide statistics.
Then, Gary Cleck, a criminologist from Florida State University, also conducted a study and found out that victims of crimes are less likely to be injured or loose their property when they have firearms to protect themselves (Kleck, 1993). On the other hand, with the guns they typically get into a more dangerous situation as using a gun for self-protection can provoke the criminal to attack. Violent crimes are merely affected by gun laws as well. “Neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s,” Steven Levitt (2004) sums up.
The other problem is of the economic character. It goes without saying that for gun manufacturers it is profitable to have as many clients as possible. That’s why they will be always among the defenders of gun legalization and may be accused of contributing to the spread of violence in the country. Interestingly, John Lott, the economist and the author of the book More Guns, Less Crime justifies permission for law-abiding citizens not only to keep or possess guns but also to carry them in public places. According to Lott, this can reduce crime rates while the criminals will not know for certain who has a gun and who doesn’t, and thus will run risks more seldom (Lott, 1998). Critics of Lott’s theory say he hasn’t shown enough figures to support his view.
All points considered, it seems to be right to defend reasonable regulation in any way, because no right can be absolute and unconditional. As Nadine Strossen, the President of the American Civil Liberties Union, shows, “the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance” (Kleck & DeLone, 1993). It is sound to issue permissions for law-abiding citizens after they are checked for mental stability, the absence of criminal past and going through special training. After all, industry should be under strict control of the government and take all the related responsibilities.
The True Meaning And Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato (429-347 BC)
"FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"
and is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust.
Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy
NEVER FORGET THE SACRIFICES
BY OUR VETERANS Note: We at The Patriot cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability, and accuracy of this information.
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
LibertygroupFreedom 
The Patriot is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to Educate, protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.
WE THE PEOPLE
TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Join The Resistance and Share This Article Now!
TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Help us spread the word about THE PATRIOT Blog we're reaching millions help us reach millions more.
Help us spread the word about THE PATRIOT Blog we're reaching millions help us reach millions more.
No comments:
Post a Comment