[extropy-chat] [evol-psych] Re: Guns and humans

[Herb Martin]

<<Not being a citizen of this country, you probably do not know that this
point has been widely debated in this country and the courts have
consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment as meaning that citizens have the
right to own guns.  The refe rence to the militia needs to be interpreted in
the context of the time of the drafting of the constitution when all
able-bodied men were considered members of the militia.  George K.
Cunningham>>

Not only is the above true, but the "militia phrase" included in the 2nd
Amendment is NOT a controlling clause in either ordinary English (then
or now) nor in legal interpretations.
 
It is an explanatory element and legal cases and standards of
Constitutional analysis have long held that such are not limiting
to the scope:  The right being guaranteed belongs to the people;
the government has an interest because such is ESSENTIAL to
a free state.  
 
And everywhere in the Constitution where a right is said to belong
to the people confirms this -- there is ZERO chance that "people"
means the states in ONLY the 2nd Amendment but guarantees an
individual right to various freedoms elsewhere.
 
Those who have any doubts on this should first become knowledgeable
by reading at least the following:
 

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman

(Includes an analysis of by an expert in the English language)

<http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html> 

 

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

 

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, 
not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

<http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm> 

 

1982 Senate Report on the RKBA

http://www.pcpages.com/salhq/1982reportrkba.htm

 

 

As to the social benefits, studies almost invariably show that guns save
lives,

especially of the law abiding, while the few which do not show this
typically

show a wash between social value of firearms for protection and detrimental

effects.

 

Using social utility to remove the rights of law abiding citizens is
practically

always a poor plan but doing so when studies are much more likely to show

either no effect or the opposite from those intended are just simply
criminal.

 

We know for a fact that those nations which engaged in strong gun control

were those which in the 20th Century murdered upwards of 100,000,000

(that one HUNDRED MILLION) human beings including a large percentage

of their own citizens (start with the Nazis, Soviet Union, Maoists and work

from there.)

 

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the oldest in terms of

historical recognition by free people, and arguable THE OLDEST right

of a free human being.

 

It is in fact the one right that protects all of the others we hold dear
because

no matter how much be might wish otherwise, there is no freedom without

the protection and enforcement of armed people of good will.

 

 

Self-Defense: A Basic Human Right

 <http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html>
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

 

John R. Lott, Jr. - The Bias Against Guns

http://www.johnlott.org/

 

John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" is also well worth reading.

 

--
Herb Martin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060610/e7f5f11a/attachment.html>