So in terms of the 2nd amendment - it was interpreted very differently than today for the first couple centuries of our country.
Interrpeted that way by whom? Certainly not the courts...
It wasn't until the 70s or so (sorry, don't have the reference handy for exact date) when the NRA got taken over by a more militant group of people that the push was on to have the courts interpret it as any gun, any time and have less emphasis on the militia portion.
Yes, see this is one of those examples I mentioned earlier. Sometimes, to a authoritarian leftist, the words "right of the people" means just that. But sometimes, as in this case with the 2A it apparently means "rights of the state, not the people'.
As a side note, in Norway, "To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership." and there are various training requirements and storage laws are strict. A lot of people have guns, but they don't seem to be used in crimes as much as ours are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway
Norway also has a much smaller population distributed over a large area and is almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, as well as having a very relaxed social attitude about drugs. In short it is not a accurate comparison to America in any way, shape, or form. You wouldn't compare their drug crimes rates to ours would you? No, because of a long list of reasons. So to compare any of their other laws to ours is equally wrong
At any rate, would the govt confiscate some guns? As someone mentioned, the govt has done a lot of unsavory things - it was 007 I believe who said:
For starters, I'm Billy. I know you're new and haven't ever actually seen me use such a name, but that's my accepted moniker. And yes the government would CERTAINLY make attempts to violate gun rights just as they have with any other. Hence the rabid, and growing, support of groups like the NRA (who are, as far as gun rights groups go, very moderate and conciliatory)
Absolutely the govt has overstepped the bounds. But, unlike in 1776, a group of citizens with guns will NOT overthrow the govt. As we have seen, when the govt has done those things - even to armed groups - guess what? govt wins.
Woah there, who said anything about overthrowing anything? My point was that it is ridiculous beyond pale to pretend that the government would never violate such rights when it has in the past.
So I put my faith in our country - in the court system, in the legal system, in the power of the vote. I actually think we have a good strong democracy.
Are these the same courts that once said black people aren't people, that holding thousands of people indefinite prisoners without trial is A-OK? I wouldn't put too much faith into them, at least not as a final measure of protection.
I don't know why it seems as though the NRA and its ilk only trust the 2nd amendment and not the rest of the constitution. Granted, they certainly use and abuse representative govt!
Oh? And how might that be?
But the laws at this time allow them to do that.
Would that be the campaign financing laws that the court you just pledged support for upheld? Hmmm....
We have changed the constitution before;
Yes, indeed we have.
the 2nd amendment at this point is a bit of an archaic hangover that the gun rights people have seized on and stretched way further than I think most of us expected. So be it. At this point, it will be hard to change. (Some would probably say the 14th amendment has also been stretched further than anticipated, but I do like that one. )
How, I must ask, is the right to arms archaic? And you'll note that even though you said we've changed the Constitution, no one in Congress has proposed changing it at this time. THAT is my biggest problem. If you wish to make such great limitations to men and their arms, then you must use an amendment, but none has ever (to my knowledge) been proposed.
One of the people on here (I don't remember the name) at least took their argument to the logical conclusion and said basically yes, citizens should have granades and anti-ballistic missiles, etc.
Well yes, it's implicitly stated in the Constitution. Read Article 1, Section 8.
I won't want to live in that kind of world, personally. But that is an honest extension of the "no limits in the 2nd amendment" argument.
You already do. Such arms are beyond the financial means of but a few already.
Then you should find a congressmen that proposes an Amendment
I think there should be limits (like in California).
Within the decade there are going to be a lot of striking down laws in CA. Well, a decade to 15 years.
I think we should study the cause of gun violence.
You mean violence as a whole right? Otherwise you're being deluded into blaming a tool. It'd be akin to saying hammers cause carpentry.
I think we should fund mental health more
Like institutionalization?
and we should finance education and training on safe gun handling
Free firearms training for all citizens? Sure. Just so long as it's free and available to all.
and - very important - safe gun storage.
Safe is a relative term. I have no children. I keep guns loaded and within arms reach. That is 'safe' by the circumstances of my own experience and situation.
I think we should work on technologies that ensure the gun is only used by its owner.
So if I want to sell it I can't? Or if my wife needs to use the gun when I'm not home? Yeah, that's a dumb idea.
None of these will keep people from having guns. None of these will stop all ANY murders.
FTFY
But together, I think they will reduce the number of deaths.
You wanna know what would make the single greatest reduction in gun deaths (or violent deaths over all)? Ending the drug war.
