The NRA and the supposed UN Global Gun Ban

[BobHamburger]

So, I'm sitting here watching my son play with his motorized airplane toy (he's four and a half and impossibly cute), when the phone rings. It's a representative for the National Rifle Association, who proceeds to play me a recorded message from Wayne LaPierre, NRA's president, about how the UN is trying to push a global gun ban. We need to stand up, take action, and get out our checkbooks to ensure that keeping and bearing arms, our inalienable 2nd Amendment right, as American as apple pie and the 4th of July (and jingoism and xenophobia), isn't trampled by some foreign folks. Hey, I'm a big advocate of individual freedoms and personal rights; seems like a sound plan of action to me.

Trouble is, it's complete horse manure.

As you can read here, there's no such agenda at the UN. It's a fabrication by the NRA to get people riled up so they'll donate money to the cause. Did it ever occur to the marketing people at the NRA that using outright lies might backfire? The bigger question: why do so many right-wing organizations try to galvanize public support through the dissemination of exaggerations and falsehoods? Are the platform positions so inherently weak that their supporters won't endorse them otherwise?

You know, I used to be a member of the NRA in the 1980s. I neither hunt nor own any guns, but I enjoy target shooting on occasion. I applauded the NRA's advocacy of constitutional rights, but I was compelled to let my membership lapse when I could no longer ignore their increasingly inaccurate and strident tone. This latest ploy really strikes me as a prime example of "shooting yourself in the foot." Ironic, huh?

[jcarmody]

NR-AWOL is more like it!  I stopped giving my money to these gun-control traitors long ago.  I keep getting the magazine, though, I'm a Life Member!

[PaulG.]

I think the UN is up to more evil than just banning guns.

[Yair]

why do so many right-wing organizations try to galvanize public support through the dissemination of exaggerations and falsehoods?

It's probably because you need to exaggerate in order to get the non-enthusiasts to take notice. If you say "Those Europeans say guns are bad" no one cares, but if say "Those bloody French are trying to prevent you from exercising your consitutional right!" you will get attention.

And it's by far not limited to right-wing organizations. Newspapers and reporters do it when they don't report a story accurately, reality TV does it when it edits things to show you only the spicy stuff and yes, even left wing organizations do it (various "human rights" groups come to mind. Some of them mean well, but have no idea what they're talking about and spread things which are simply not true).

[crelf]

Did it ever occur to the marketing people at the NRA that using outright lies might backfire?

Boom boom!

The bigger question: why do so many right-wing organizations try to galvanize public support through the dissemination of exaggerations and falsehoods?

Because, for every sane person in the world that reseraches and thereby recognizes the bunkum, there's at least 2 bogans that are willing to donate to the cause...

[Daklu]

The bigger question: why do so many right-wing organizations try to galvanize public support through the dissemination of exaggerations and falsehoods?

Do you really believe this phenominon is restricted to right-wing organizations?

[Cat]

Do you really believe this phenominon is restricted to right-wing organizations?

Heck yes! Us lefties are pure as the driven snow and would never resort to such low-handed tactics.

Seriously now folks, I think it's because here in the USofA the liberals are *supposedly* in power. The Republican party is being split apart by it's own terrified radical conservative side. People like my SO, who is a Republican (and I love him anyway ) are getting pretty disgusted with the scare-tactics rhetoric that keeps gushing forth from certain parts of the Republican party. Ditto for my best friend (what am I doing hanging out with all these righties?!). All those right-wing radicals are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Phillip Brooks]

[quote name=crelf' date='01 December 2009 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1259704194'

Because, for every sane person in the world that reseraches and thereby recognizes the bunkum, there's at least 2 bogans that are willing to donate to the cause...

Bogan. I learn a new word almost every day on LAVA!

It appears that the 'quote' option is broken. Am I quoting myself? Hmmm... Maybe I'm a bogan... Can't edit; losing patience; WHERE'S MY GUN, Ethel?

Edited December 2, 2009 by Phillip Brooks

[PaulG.]

All those right-wing radicals are shooting themselves in the foot.

Oh, fortheloveofpete. I'm getting pretty fed up with folks claiming the "right-wing" "radicals" are tearing themselves apart when 0bama can't blow his nose without provoking a bunch of left-wing moonbats.

[Cat]

Oh, fortheloveofpete. I'm getting pretty fed up with folks claiming the "right-wing" "radicals" are tearing themselves apart when 0bama can't blow his nose without provoking a bunch of left-wing moonbats.

FWIW, this wasn't my opinion, it was/is the opinion of a fairly conservative Republican. The radicals aren't tearing themselves apart, but they are disaffecting a lot of fellow Republicans who don't like what the face of their party is looking like today. Much like when wacko leftist radicals make all the rest of us moderate lefties look bad.

And I'll have to say, your Obama comment left me with quite an interesting visual image.

[BobHamburger]

Do you really believe this phenominon is restricted to right-wing organizations?

Not at all; neither side is immune from using rhetoric in their arguments. I don't support PETA or Greenpeace for the same reasons. From my slightly left of center viewpoint, though, it seems that the folks on the right side of the aisle are more consistently flexible with the boundaries of truth. Or maybe I just notice it more.

[Daklu]

Not at all; neither side is immune from using rhetoric in their arguments. I don't support PETA or Greenpeace for the same reasons.

Or in the case of gun control, the Brady Campaign.

From my slightly left of center viewpoint, though, it seems that the folks on the right side of the aisle are more consistently flexible with the boundaries of truth. Or maybe I just notice it more.

I think the right side gets called out on it more, but I'm not convinced they do more of it. Why? This is pure speculation on my part but in general, people with more education tend to drift to the left and in general, they tend to be more politically active. That means more smart people are looking critically at the claims made by conservative organizations.

-----------

Full disclosure: Politically I'm almost dead-nuts in the middle on any of the typical online quizzes. My left-leaning friends think I'm a conservative nut job, my right-leaning family thinks I'm a liberal moonbat. (Love that word ) Over the last 5 presidential elections I've voted for the 'D' twice, the 'R' twice, and the 'I' once. At heart I'm probably mostly libertarian but practically speaking I don't believe there's any way we can there from here.

[Daklu]

Trouble is, it's complete horse manure.

After reading through several documents I'll have to disagree with you. The headline is exagerated, but it's not complete horse manure. The potential clearly exists for gun-ban advocates to use this as a way to implement policies in the US that effectively restrict or eliminate citizens from owning and using guns.

"There is an urgent need for Member States to introduce or update legislation meeting the standards outlined in the Programme of Action."

Hmm... what's the Programme of Action?

II. Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects

1. We, the States participating in this Conference, bearing in mind the different situations, capacities and priorities of States and regions, undertake the following measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects:

At the national level

2. To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients. (Emphasis mine.)

Adequate laws? Who decides what's adequate? Regulating the transit or retransfer of weapons? Do I have to get permission from the government to buy a handgun from my neighbor or have a rifle in my trunk when I drive to a neighboring state?

3. To adopt and implement, in the States that have not already done so, the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offences under their domestic law the illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction, in order to ensure that those engaged in such activities can be prosecuted under appropriate national penal codes.

This is completely circular and makes no sense. By definition the "illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms" is, well... illegal. Suppose in the nation-state of Dakluland there are no laws whatsoever regarding the manufacturing, possession, stockpiling, and trade of small arms. Am I in compliance? This is an open ended clause that can be used to justify any imaginable restriction on gun owners.

9. To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities. (Emphasis mine.)

A national database of all gun owners? No.

I'm sure this comes across as a rabidly right wing stance to take. Up until about a year and a half ago I held the opinion that having that information on record is not harmful. After all, it can help solve crimes and the government isn't going to go around and confiscate all our guns. Then I discovered this. My opinion changed that day.

12. To put in place and implement adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the effective control over the export and transit of small arms and light weapons, including the use of authenticated end-user certificates and effective legal and enforcement measures.

"And we must reach agreement on a realistic and effective approach to end-user certification. Without such certification, any effort to regulate the trade and brokering in small arms and light weapons will be found lacking."

"Authenticated end-user certificates?" What exactly does that mean? I have to be "certified" to own a firearm? If I have to get permission and certified to do something, that doesn't sound like a right.

Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a “global gun ban”, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.

Their wishes aside, the actions they are promoting (increased legislation, more restrictions, etc.) can be used to do just that. Do I believe there's an overriding UN conspiracy with the goal of disarming American citizens? Not really. But most European nations have vastly more restrictive gun laws than the US and personally I'm not interested in conforming to their idea of what's necessary and appropriate.

------------------------

There's a lot more I found that I haven't posted simply because of time constraints. The measures promoted may not (or may, I don't really know) be intended to be a global ban on guns, but they clearly provide an easy avenue of attack for anti-gun proponents to pursue their agenda. I see the NRA's activities in this matter as a proactive defense.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Daklu

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

...

------------------------

There's a lot more I found that I haven't posted simply because of time constraints. The measures promoted may not (or may, I don't really know) be intended to be a global ban on guns, but they clearly provide an easy avenue of attack for anti-gun proponents to pursue their agenda. I see the NRA's activities in this matter as a proactive defense.

And yet another nice post! Thank you.

In the event anyone was wondering I am one of those "that cling to God and guns..." (Obama 2008 compaign rally) residents of Westrn PA who lives within walking distance of the place where the Whiskey Rebelion started. Speaking only for myself, I view my gun as my last line of defence against an out of control government. Judging by conversations with friends, I am not alone.

Ben

[insert your favorite pro-gun bumper sticker slogan here]

My favorite is "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

[PaulG.]

I view my gun as my last line of defence against an out of control government.

Very prudent. Sometimes it looks like we are heading in that direction. The Tea Parties are symptomatic of how concerned average everyday people are getting with their out-of-control government. The moonbats are spending us into oblivion.

[BobHamburger]

I'm neither a rabid right-wing gun advocate nor left-wing gun control wimp. I have no issues, however, with the prudent control and regulation of the purchase, ownership, and transfer of firearms. I do not believe these concepts abrogate or limit our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The UN's program is entirely focused around the illegal trafficking of firearms, and their statements need to be considered within that context, not some conspiratorial they're-out-to-get-us mindset. I don't see the evil intent that others do.

Let me draw a parallel to illustrate my feelings on the subject: I don't think that owning a gun should be any easier than, say, driving a car. In order to get a driver's license, a person needs to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and proficiency to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. Employed correctly, an automobile or firearm can be put to constructive use in a way that benefits the owner. Incorrect use results in property damage, injury, or death. Right now, it's way easier in most states to buy any kind of gun than it is to get a driver's license, and I think that is wrong.

Let the flaming rage on...

[PaulG.]

[insert your favorite pro-gun bumper sticker slogan here]

"Ted Kennedy killed more people with his car than I have with my gun."

[jcarmody]

 never mind

(I get so emotional, baby.)

[Cat]

never mind

(I get so emotional, baby.)

If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

I'm neither a rabid right-wing gun advocate nor left-wing gun control wimp. I have no issues, however, with the prudent control and regulation of the purchase, ownership, and transfer of firearms. I do not believe these concepts abrogate or limit our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The UN's program is entirely focused around the illegal trafficking of firearms, and their statements need to be considered within that context, not some conspiratorial they're-out-to-get-us mindset. I don't see the evil intent that others do.

Let me draw a parallel to illustrate my feelings on the subject: I don't think that owning a gun should be any easier than, say, driving a car. In order to get a driver's license, a person needs to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and proficiency to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. Employed correctly, an automobile or firearm can be put to constructive use in a way that benefits the owner. Incorrect use results in property damage, injury, or death. Right now, it's way easier in most states to buy any kind of gun than it is to get a driver's license, and I think that is wrong.

Let the flaming rage on...

I don't want to fight but I do enjoy a good discusion. It is importatnt that we share these thoughts.

I could drive any type of vehicle I want as long as I never leave my own property. To drive a car on a public road, I need a license. Roads are a shared resource built and maintained by the community for our mutual benefit. THe community agrees on the rules under which that sharde resource is used. I can't drive a tank on the roads and render them useless for others. Similarly I can't drive on the road with a vehicle that is not inspected. Use of the public road ways is a privledge that is accesable via a license as per the public agreement.

The right to own and bear arms can not be impinged apon. This is right that I received as result of being born a US citizen and has been mine ever since. To place restriction on my access to acquiring guns is in effect determining if I have one that I can bear. I feel that is was no accident that this was ammendment #2 right after the right to free speech. The founding fathers set up the FEDERAL government (not national, the states agreed to associate) in such a way as to limit it powers (the tenth ammendment is currently being threatened). I am glad they explicitly spelled out hte right to own guns.

Thank you for reading and I welcome your thoughts.

Ben

never mind

(I get so emotional, baby.)

That image illustrates what the recent G20 in Pittsburgh looked like from a residents point of view.

Ben

[Daklu]

Let the flaming rage on...

Guns, abortion, and religion discussions tend to devolve into scorching hot flame fests. I don't hang out in the lounge much but from what I've seen the discussions here are much more civil than most places. I hope my disagreements don't come across as flames--they are not intended to be. My involvement in debates (both political and Labview based) has two goals:

1. Testing my own ideas. By throwing my ideas out for public scrutiny others can challenge them and point out errors. (Maybe my opinions are based on bad data, maybe there's new information to support contrary opinions, maybe there's logical inconsistancies in my arguments, etc.) If the counter argument is strong enough I change my opinion.
2. Digging to the root of others' ideas. By questioning others' ideas (sometimes pointedly, and often taking the role of Devil's advocate) and finding out what drives their opinion I can often uncover addition information or different ways of looking at the issue. Sometimes others change their ideas because of flaws in their argument.

No intended flaming here. (In fact, I suspect you and I are probably fairly closely aligned.)

I have no issues, however, with the prudent control and regulation of the purchase, ownership, and transfer of firearms. I do not believe these concepts abrogate or limit our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I agree with you, and incidentally, so does the Supreme Court. The problem is "prudent" is a very subjective term. There are forces in the US who believe the only "prudent" thing to do is remove all firearms from citizens.

The UN's program is entirely focused around the illegal trafficking of firearms, and their statements need to be considered within that context, not some conspiratorial they're-out-to-get-us mindset. I don't see the evil intent that others do.

Agreed, on all counts. The problem I have with it is the wording. It is too ambiguous. It is worded in a way that those who promote banning guns outright can use it to pursue their goals. There are many cases where laws that were intended for one thing ended up having unexpected side effects or were conciously used in ways that the authors didn't expect or necessarily approve of. If it were worded in a way that clearly prevented its use as a way to impose more restrictions on US citizens, I would support it. I'd prefer not to give the gun ban crowd that avenue of attack.

Let me draw a parallel to illustrate my feelings on the subject: I don't think that owning a gun should be any easier than, say, driving a car.

I have heard this argument before and used to agree with it. The difference, in my mind, is that owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is not. It is (as my driving instructor pointed out many years ago) a privilege.

Pretend there were a large, well-funded, vocal movement with the goal of banning all cars. One of their strategies is to consistently put more and more restrictions on the ability to get a driver's license and purchase cars, all in the name of public safety. After a while you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "no more."

In order to get a driver's license, a person needs to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and proficiency to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others.

From a rights perspective (constitutional, not political) owning a gun is more like being able to vote. There are very few people who promote the idea of a competency test before we are allowed to exercise that right. Neither should we be forced to prove competency before we are allowed to exercise our right to own a firearm.

As an aside, most people who purchase firearms are responsible enough to take some sort of safety training. Proving competency before being allowed to purchase a weapon will not prevent criminals from obtaining weapons and it will not prevent accidental shootings. As far as I can tell it serves no purpose other than to construct another obstacle for those who wish to own a firearm.

Employed correctly, an automobile or firearm can be put to constructive use in a way that benefits the owner. Incorrect use results in property damage, injury, or death. Right now, it's way easier in most states to buy any kind of gun than it is to get a driver's license, and I think that is wrong.

Let me just point out that even though we have a competency test for driving a car, there are still many incompetent drivers on the road. How many auto accidents occur in the US every day? Barring some sort of unforseen mechanical failure, every single one of those is due to a driver who was not operating his vehicle correctly.

Rats... I have to go to work... *sigh*

[BobHamburger]

The right to own and bear arms can not be impinged apon. This is right that I received as result of being born a US citizen and has been mine ever since.

Ben, the government impinges upon your right to own and bear arms all the time. Without all kinds of regulations, limitations, certifications, or permits, the average citizen can't own artillery, fully-automatic weapons, or even a shotgun with less than an 18" barrel.

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.

Your birthright only exists because at the founding of this country there was no standing military. It was the expectation that every able-bodied man would show up equipped with his own gun, ready to fight the Redcoats. Every 2nd Amendment case that has gone before the Supreme Court has ended up being interpreted within this historical context. 230 years later, we have standing armies, and furthermore we don't need to go out and hunt for our meals. One could well make an argument that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

Keep in mind my stance on this: I agree with you that the government should not be able to take away individual ownership of guns (unless you're a convicted felon, which is yet another digression...) But I also believe that rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Our right to keep and bear arms comes with an implicit social responsibility that this will be done in a manner which does not infringe on the next guy's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And so we have laws and regulations which delineate actions for the common good. Watch what happens when I take your statement about cars and change a few words here and there:

I could shoot any type of gun I want as long as bullets never leave my own property. To shoot a gun in a public space, I need a license. Public spaces are a shared resource built and maintained by the community for our mutual benefit. The community agrees on the rules under which that shared resource is used. I can't fire a gun on the public spaces and render them dangerous for others...

I love a good debate, too. Thankfully, this is a forum with polite, educated, and articulate contributors. Ever try this stuff on, say, the Rants and Raves page on Craigslist? Some real whackos there.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Ben, the government impinges upon your right to own and bear arms all the time. Without all kinds of regulations, limitations, certifications, or permits, the average citizen can't own artillery, fully-automatic weapons, or even a shotgun with less than an 18" barrel.

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.

Your birthright only exists because at the founding of this country there was no standing military. It was the expectation that every able-bodied man would show up equipped with his own gun, ready to fight the Redcoats. Every 2nd Amendment case that has gone before the Supreme Court has ended up being interpreted within this historical context. 230 years later, we have standing armies, and furthermore we don't need to go out and hunt for our meals. One could well make an argument that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

Keep in mind my stance on this: I agree with you that the government should not be able to take away individual ownership of guns (unless you're a convicted felon, which is yet another digression...) But I also believe that rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Our right to keep and bear arms comes with an implicit social responsibility that this will be done in a manner which does not infringe on the next guy's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And so we have laws and regulations which delineate actions for the common good. Watch what happens when I take your statement about cars and change a few words here and there:

I could shoot any type of gun I want as long as bullets never leave my own property. To shoot a gun in a public space, I need a license. Public spaces are a shared resource built and maintained by the community for our mutual benefit. The community agrees on the rules under which that shared resource is used. I can't fire a gun on the public spaces and render them dangerous for others...

I love a good debate, too. Thankfully, this is a forum with polite, educated, and articulate contributors. Ever try this stuff on, say, the Rants and Raves page on Craigslist? Some real whackos there.

Thank you!

I agree with most of what you said and I am not a student of the Supreme Court so I can't comment on their historical findings.

RE: Rights and Responsibilities

I also agree that my right end where anothers begins. One of the ushers at my wedding accidently shot and killed his brother when they found their dad's gun (he was a police officer). I am responsible for what I do with my gun and nobody else.

I also see my responsiblity extending beyond judicial use of the gun. I feel I was given a gift from my fore-fathers of the freedom that was built into the US plan. This was part of teh reason I served in the military when I was young since I was taught that it exists only because people where willing to put their lives on the line to defend it. So I raised my hand and swore an oath to defend it from all enemies both forign and domestic. A move to change the system that I swore to defend in such a way that its existiance is threatened is also my responsiblity to defend. Guns in the hands of responsible citizen willing to stand up to enemies that defend that system seems to me to be a wonderful fail-safe to safe-gaurd the system from domestic threats. This idea is not just mine or what my father taught me.

Thomas Jefferson wrote;

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

http://www.davar.net/QUOTES/LIBERTY.HTM

From where I sit (short of a another contituional congress) I see no other way the US government will ever fear us.

Again thank you for the exchange of ideas.

Ben

[Daklu]

Hope you don't mind the late response... been a little pressed for time lately.

Ben, the government impinges upon your right to own and bear arms all the time. Without all kinds of regulations, limitations, certifications, or permits, the average citizen can't own artillery, fully-automatic weapons, or even a shotgun with less than an 18" barrel.

The government restricts our right to own and operate certain kinds of arms, but not arms in general. The government does not, and should not IMO, restrict a citizen's general right to own firearms or force citizens to "prequalify" (via certification) before we are allowed to exercise that right.

Oddly enough, early intent was to allow citizens to own weapons suitable for military service. Now firearms that merely look like military weapons are prime targets for the gun-ban crowd.

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.

Grammatically speaking there are several way to interpret this. To paraphrase the arguments:

1. The first phrase (a well regulated milita...) is the necessary precondition for the second phrase (the right to keep and bear arms...) In other words, the first phrase defines all the valid justifications for the right. When the first phrase is no longer applicable the right becomes invalid. This is a very cause-and-effect interpretation and I believe the one Bob espouses.
2. The first phrase describes one, but not all, of the necessary preconditions for the right. Invalidating the first phrase does not invalidate the other (unnamed) justifications for the right, thus it remains intact. However, if it were possible to discover all the necessary preconditions and invalid them, the right becomes invalid.
3. The first phrase does not describe a necessary precondition at all. It merely gives an example of why the right is included. If it were possible to invalidate all the possible examples of why the right is included, the right itself still remains intact. Revoking the right would require an amendment.

My biases show through... interpretation 3 makes the most sense to me. Why? One reason is that, contrary to popular opinion, the second amedment doesn't actually confer citizens with any rights whatsoever. It prevents the government from infringing on a right that has already been presupposed. However, all of the interpretations have supporters and valid explanations for why their interpretation is the correct one. If people way smarter than me can't agree on the correct interpretation I'm fairly certain I don't understand all the nuances involved.

Your birthright only exists because at the founding of this country there was no standing military. It was the expectation that every able-bodied man would show up equipped with his own gun, ready to fight the Redcoats.

I'm not a historian or constitutional scholar, but I don't believe this is correct. The revolutionary war ended in 1783. The bill of right was finalized in 1789 and ratified in 1791. Fighting the redcoats wasn't the issue.

The debate at the time was over the division of power between the federal government and state governments. Some felt there was a need for a national army; others worried about ceeding too much power to the federal government. If you look at the bill of rights as a whole, it addresses specific activities an oppressive government might take in an attempt to control its citizens. It, as a whole, acts as a way to limit the power of the federal government and protect the citizens from oppression. It's not about protecting the nation (which at the time was more of a loose collection of independent states) from foreign invaders.

Every 2nd Amendment case that has gone before the Supreme Court has ended up being interpreted within this historical context.

Not true. I couldn't find any Supreme Court cases which even address the question of whether a militia for the common defense is a necessary precondition for the right until the recent DC v. Heller case. (In which the Supreme Court rejected interpretation #1 above.) Nearly all of the cases addressed the issue of whether the second amendment applies only to the federal government or if the states and individuals could violate another person's second amendment rights. Early cases held that the second amendment restrictions apply only to the federal government and not to states or individuals. (The first amendment was also limited to the federal government; however, the other amendments apparently were deemed to apply to the states as well as the federal government. Odd.) Modern (post 1890) interpretations of incorporation imply all the amendments apply to the states as well as the federal government. The question of incorporating the second amendment has not been specifically addressed yet.

One could well make an argument that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

Not a convincing one. If the second amendment is indeed obsolete and no longer needed, the correct way to address it is by constitutional amendment, not by creating FUD. (I'm looking at the gun ban crowd and the Brady Campaign, not at you.)

But I also believe that rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Our right to keep and bear arms comes with an implicit social responsibility that this will be done in a manner which does not infringe on the next guy's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And so we have laws and regulations which delineate actions for the common good.

I fully agree with you here. Perhaps where we disagree is the point at which my right to own firearms infringes on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that my right to own, operate, and even carry a firearm does not, in and of itself, infringe on your right to happiness. How I use my firearms may infringe on your rights. If I'm in my backyard at 6 am shooting at crows with a shotgun, that infringes on your right. If I'm using a deer rifle to pick squirrels off my back fence without regard to the mall on the other side of the fence, that infringes on your right. If I get angry and shoot you, that infringes on your right. All of those things are already illegal and carry appropriate penalties.

Implementing laws to prevent the possibility of infringing on another's right is a very dangerous game--one that is likely to backfire.

(Incidentally, this is my main issue with the left in general. They seem to espouse legislation to insulate people from having anything "bad" happen to them. They seem to believe that through the proper legislation they can create an idyllic society where everyone is happy all the time. This is, I believe, a huge philosophical fallacy.)

[PaulG.]

(Incidentally, this is my main issue with the left in general. They seem to espouse legislation to insulate people from having anything "bad" happen to them. They seem to believe that through the proper legislation they can create an idyllic society where everyone is happy all the time. This is, I believe, a huge philosophical fallacy.)

Indeed.

"Make love not war, flower power, free love, "free" health care, "green" jobs, "green" cars, "green" energy, no Wal Mart, no guns, tune in, freak out ... and we are going to need your checkbook."