Guns at work
 

This scares the hell out of me. There are lots of psychos and sickos in this transient state. I think we're going to see much more violence than we already do.

sun-sentinel.com/news/local/legislature/sfl-0415gunsbill,0,5138666.story

This is why I live in California and not Florida.

Once again: Lawful citizens are now legally enabled and protected. Those who would break the law are already doing such.

Stop being a bunch of gun babies.

jewels, do you think that before this law was written, i.e. when employers could ban guns in their parking lots, that there were zero workplace shootings?

So maybe I should've posted this in Politics?

You've probably never been in traffic and had someone get out of their car at a red light to bang on your window and tell you that you drove to slowly to wait at the red light. :surprised:

1) Shooter opens fire in a workplace
2) Get away from shooter
3) Locate a safe exit and use it
4) Run to your car
5) Get in your car and retrieve your gun
6) Run back to the office
7) Locate a safe entrance and use it
8) Locate the shooter
9) Get in a covered or safe position
10) Open fire on the shooter
... oh wait, in all that time the police caught the guy, arrested him, he had his day in court, and he's already been prosecuted and found guilty.

Don't you think that a law like this enables more people and gives them a ready excuse?

Isn't that making a lot of assumptions? You have your right to bear. I choose not to. I deserve to die because I made this choice?

Besides, what assurance is there that I wouldn't have already been shot?

Logical fallacy GO: "Legal possession of guns cause / inspire additional crime and vigilante heroics."

Funny, I should have committed at least four dozen crimes already.

And your logic doesn't address each and every individual. You're one of the good guys, not a psycho.

Certainly you can concur that many of those that are dangerous just might be more dangerous with easy access.

Once again:

Bad guys would do bad things anyway... regardless of some new legislation. They break the law.

New laws only enable the good guys (guys like me, perhaps) to defend themselves and avoid jail over it.

BTW, gun crime is up in Florida.

I might sorta-kinda concede on that, although the severity might differ with a gun verus without. But I didn't address this type of scenario:

I read this article and decide to go buy a gun. It's in the glovebox. Some guy nearly hits me and then cuts me off on the way to work. I get a call from my kid's school that she's been suspended and my boss says to pack things up, sorry no severance. On the drive home, that same SOB appears and nearly hits me again. Okay ... you get the point.

Average Jo(e) has a real shit day. Something happens and s/he loses control momentarily. If that person chose to begin carrying a gun when this law enabled them to carry, no harm would have come to anyone. But when that person crosses that line of sanity for a brief moment, I would not want to be around that person in possession of a firearm.

That's an interesting point. While cars make effective weapons, and often are used as such by crazy motherfuckers with anger issues, having a gun handy? Having a gun handy to someone with road rage? That is a bit worrisome.

average response time for police is 6 minutes. 6 minutes. so yes, there is time. google joel myrick, pearl mississippi, and luke woodham.

You know who you can't google? The myriad of people who were late to the party, a la my scenario.

so you're saying that because you're a savage psycho with absolutely no temper control, that I should be prevented from having the means of self defense? [/QUOTE]

not sure what you're getting at. do you mean the police in columbine who waited 20 minutes to enter the school? Or do you mean the LAPD who were ordered back out of the riot area for their own safety? Or do you mean the virginia tech police who dodged behind trees, doors, and walls for several minutes while Cho killed 32 kids at leisure? Or maybe you mean the police at NIU university who were 5 minutes away in another building across campus?
do you mean those people late to the party?

I mean the people who take forever to get to their gun. If it's not handy, it makes little sense.

Not at all. But if I'm as good a savage psycho as I'd like to be, you wouldn't have time to reach for your gun. In Florida, the drivers on I-95 that kill others don't shout out warnings.

and i'll ask it again, do you think those same psychos are going to be non-psychos because there's a law against having a gun in their car?

then let us carry all the time. problem solved.

I think that it's assumed that guns are one of if not the most efficient weapons available. Remove such an efficient weapon, and the ability to kill decreases. I mentioned this elsewhere, but can you imagine Columbine with knives and swords instead of guns? They likely would not even have even attempted it. I can't tell you how difficult a drive-by would be without guns.

Those same psychos will be less able to hurt people without having a gun.

I don't own a gun and I do hate guns, but I'm all for let people carry their guns around freely. If I was to commit a crime, I'd be an idiot if I did it with a registered gun. If I'm a happy trigger psyco mofo and i know that most of the people around me are armed, I'll think it twice before pulling it out 'cause logic dictates that I'll be in dip shit if I do so. Everybody legally armed works a lot like an atomic bomb among countries, nobody use it 'cause you're sure that if you do you'll end up fucked up.

I live in phoenix, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

I see someone exercising their right to open carry (Ie, a holster on your belt) at least once a week, which is legal to do without any permits at all...while they're on motorcycles or in restaurants/stores/parks. Never bothered me any. It always makes me chuckle to think the kind of reaction that would get in other parts of the country.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day! Bravo, good sir!

As far as the original post:

The same type of thing was said when states were considering the first concealed weapon permit bills, by nearly everyone in law enforcement. They said that 4-way intersections were going to turn deadly because people don't know how to control their anger, and if you're angry, shit, why not shoot someone?!

The thing is, in the years that have passed since CCW bills and other such legislation was passed, that hasn't happened. People applying for a CCW are put against a more strict and thorough background check than pretty much any other but those for law enforcement, including the ones to buy weapons. People who go through all this trouble in the legal system are unlikely to commit those crimes that would screw their record up, and have their right to arms revoked permanently. Those that don't care about having their rights taken via legal action are probably already carrying anyway. There is also a significant investigation into mental health history with CCW permit application, one more vigorous than that imposed on the buyers of firearms.

This is also not really in light of the bill just signed into law: those who have a CCW permit (who are the only ones affected by the legislation anyway) are already allowed to carry in their cars, and already (likely) allowed to lock their weapons in their cars if they're on public parking, or spaces without posted policies. The legislation is aiming to remove restrictions put on private property parking by the employers if the person utilizing it is an employee. After all, the employers are allowed to restrict carrying weapons inside their buildings by employees, so if one were to carry until that point, where would the weapon be stowed in the meantime? You could, I would assume, just park your car on the street and not run the risk of getting fired for violating company policy, but it's really just tiptoeing around the issue. The real point of this law is that, before it, employers could keep licensed CCW holders from carrying inside their vehicles en route to work by making storage while at work inconvenient. After the law, employers are no longer allowed to infringe on the RTKABA via inconvenience...

Again, this law only applies to those already carrying concealed weapons within the law, specifically those who are licensed to do so by the state. You, not being a CCW holder, and not having received the training to become such, are exempt. It's still illegal for you to carry in your car, regardless.

Now to clear up another small misconception:
No, it's not that you deserve to die. Nobody really does - some people do as an unintended consequence of actions beyond their control, many more do for many other reasons. It happens.

The thing is, the police do NOT have the responsibility to protect you. It's a falsity partially reinforced by their motto, To Protect and Serve. There is no law stating that the police MUST protect a person in danger - it would require too much manpower to be physically possible and sustainable all the time. You can't assign police officers to protect every single individual, simply for the fact that it would require more police than citizens...

Add into this the amount of response time if the officers do decide to protect you (and there is a decision made by someone, somewhere, each time), and many people come to the conclusion that the responsibility for the safety of oneself can only lie with oneself.

It's not that you deserve to die in the above scenario. Far from it. However, should you be carrying a concealed weapon, you'd at least have the ability to influence whether you died or not, and that's what carrying is all about. People who carry are also trained to be in a constant state of readiness for action, and are more likely to respond to a threat quickly than someone who is unaware of their surroundings. It's a good idea to be in a state of awareness and readiness all the time, but having a hunk of potentially lethal metal strapped just beneath your kidney sure does promote it.

I can imagine the really gruesome deaths that would have occurred had those two maniacs had long swords. Can you imagine being stabbed with a 3 foot blade?

I can't wait to move to phoenix. :thumbsup:

In Arizona, a gun in a glove box is not considered concealed, and thus no permits are needed. Are you speaking to this specific Florida rule, or a more general average of national rules?

I can imagine easily defending myself, actually. Even without knowing martial arts all you'd have to do is... well... run. Or close a door. Or punch the idiot really hard. Swords are no where near as efficient as guns. Saying otherwise stinks of desperation.

Just fall back to your previous position: you can't take guns from bad guys. At least that argument makes sense.

Just the Florida law that's the subject of the OP. Here in good ol' Colorado, a gun in the glove box is considered concealed, but we also have a law stating that you may concealed carry in your car without a CCW permit. As always, you have to check your state and local ordinances, as carrying concealed without a permit can mean big trouble, and there are differing definitions of "concealed" in different states. There's also an open-carry law, but I don't see anyone walking around with guns on their belts, unfortunately. It'll be a lot harder to exercise that right without harassment once I decide to, but a right unexercised is one given up...

watching &p=1 video and knowing how most people will be more fearful of getting involved/hurt themselves, I see those that have no opportunity to run or are trapped in some serious trouble. I'd rather have the gun, thanks.

caution on the video, it is extremely gruesome and bloody.

I'll give you $10,000 if you can kill someone with a sword from 30 paces.

where in a school/workplace/downtown shopping mall can you find 30 paces of open space between people?

Intentionally obtuse. Fantastic.

How about 10 feet? Have you ever tried to throw a katana?

How about, instead of making rhetorical arguments we can't draw any conclusions from, we make some references to and analyze historical events which have happened in countries with total bans on guns?

Japan, for instance...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/a...n.stabbing.02/

While not entirely relevant, at least 3 of the victims were adults. Why couldn't they pull some ninja shit like Will and defend everyone with not but a plastic straw and 3 wadded up tissues?

Also, for those arguing that melee weapons have no range by definition, take a look at the Tueller Drill....

And, before the thread gets derailed any more, what does throwing a katana have to do with CCW in Florida? :thumbsup:

Psychos tend to not really work within the laws so I'm pretty sure that this law won't change them and their habits.

And yeah, here in Az people can carry in their cars without a permit as long as it's in the trunk or the glove box. It's nice.

I think this law is a good thing, I mean it only changes things for people who have CCWs and these people are rarely the cause of the violence people associate with guns. It's their car, and while it may be on someone else's property I don't think people have the right to ban what a business owner keeps in their locked cars in a parking lot.

How about we look at Japan's crime rate instead of finding some obscure and isolated incident? Oh, right, because they're REALLY low.

LOL, actually i have. I used to do weapons based karate in the marines.

i know, very few people would ever have the experience, but it does happen.

the problem with focusing on that specific issue is that, unlike japan, americans have a right to keep and bear arms. I know of no such right in japan.

So to summarize: Japan has a gun ban and has a substantially lower crime rate.

As long as you remember that correlation does not equal causation :surprised:

As long as you realize that causation is a distinct possibility.

Only if you get me some beer... I'm running out of piss for this thread. :expressionless:

wow... it must be your turn on the "What does that have to do with anything show..."

Oh right, when you do it, it's an example, or your opinion. When others do it....

Please post a reference to your "BTW, gun crime is up in Florida."

I smell a big pile of steaming bullshit.

Depends what you call crime.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/13388/3

I was responding to the ludicrous notion that swords are as dangerous as guns. Guns can easily hit someone from 30 paces. Swords? Knives?
Don't you live in NYC? It's probably a hobo.
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...22/-1/archives

This should be moved to Politics, as it's clear that this is no longer about Weaponry, and that it no longer adheres to the purpose of this subsection.

From the Rules of Tilted Weaponry:

Jinn, this is something to contact the moderators about, not post in the thread.

Did already, thanks.

and it serves as a friendly reminder that's not staff to be mindful of forum rules.

Gun-free areas like the businesses who are planning to fight this are rarely designated as such because the owners honestly believe that it will prevent shootings, they're there because it theoretically transfers legal responsibility for paying medical bills and punitive damages away from the owner and to the person doing the shooting.
If you're out of danger and not an LEO, you have no duty to return and attempt to confront an armed individual, and likely even less of a right to do so. Cut off everything after 3 and you've got the right idea. Carrying a gun is so you have something better than just accepting it if you think you're about to die. The intent of the law is not to let you run to the parking lot, load up, and run back in thinking you're [your favorite action hero's name here]; it's there so that people who wish to be armed in places where they are allowed to be armed can do it without having to worry about being fired for locking a gun in the car and going to work unarmed.

That said, this is an idiotic law. Now, instead of a bunch of people either carrying in violation of company policies or locking a gun in the car in violation of company policy,* there will be large numbers of people who will lock guns in their cars while at work. In one of our most heavily armed states, all criminals in search of guns to steal will have to do is find the places with "no guns" signs and start breaking windows knowing that at least a few cars in any decently-sized lot will have guns in them.


* - I'd place a conservative estimate of the number of people who legally carry, are prohibited from doing so by policies but no law, and carry there anyway because they value personal protection more highly than their jobs, at around 75%

I've asked several Fort Lauderdale city cops and they all seem to be in agreement (whether green or veteran) that their only concern about the law is this. The guns in the cars will end up in the street and they'll end up with a lot of paperwork.

Oddly enough, I agree with you here.

Of course, in my perfect world, those with the properly issued concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry their guns into work.

As it has been said, the problem is nutwacks, not concealed permit owners, who have had to shell out a couple of hundred for classes and permits, had an FBI background check, and increasingly a mental health record check.

I actually feel safer with the latter around.

Oddly enough, the UK doesn't agree with you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7331099.stm

Some over there think banning swords isn't enough

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

You know the first murder was committed with a rock. Hmmmm....

I'd consider myself lucky to live in a country where the most dangerous weapon is a sword.

i'm curious how many times you gun owners have had to use your weapon. i'm guessing it's the same number of times as me (and I don't own one)

Interesting how perspective is.

I would consider myself fucked to be living in a country where only the police and military had guns, because I could be living in China, Cuba, North Korea, the (former) USSR, etc.

As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun and I prefer the power to remain with the people.


Thank God, never.

But I personally know three people who could have been seriously fucked up if they hadn't been able to show (not use) one.

and what were the circumstances surrounding those encounters?

Or you could be under the oppressive British or Japanese regimes. I think you need a bit more of this "perspective" you speak of. Crime is relatively low in the UK and quite low in Japan, and they are most certainly not police states. They enjoy similar freedoms to people in the US (without things like domestic spying and being held without trial, like we have here in the US).

The UK and Japan prove conclusively that gun bans are not synonymous with oppressive governments.

If I keep losing sleep because of the noise, I'm going to pop the woodpecker that's been breaking into my house right above my window and call it self-defense.

But seriously, I've been in four situations where I was only a few minutes from being in businesses when they were robbed by an armed attacker. Having spoken to the employees after the fact, I am confident that the only safe course of action for all involved had I been there would have been for me to comply with the robbers' demands to stand back, memorize whatever I could about them, and call the police with a description as soon as they left.

Considering that at least one was by a gang member, and gang-related violence has been on the rise in the area (53 shootings and stabbings last year,) I find it comforting to know that that if a situation turns bad, I have a way to fight back, because at this rate, I am more likely than ever before to find myself in a situation in which I will be in the same room as an armed criminal. Hopefully if it happens, it will be a textbook situation with everyone staying calm, the cashiers or tellers handing over the money, and the local PD arresting the morons ten minutes later.
The difference between domestic spying in the US and the UK is that the UK has the police do it. I wouldn't say they have all the freedoms that we do, for example over there it's a crime to own a TV without a license.

will, when your government charges you with assault and battery for defending yourself, even with fists, then yes, that is an oppressive government.

Is this referencing some obscure occurrence? Or are you describing a situation where someone used excessive force defending him or herself? There is such thing as excessive force in defense, you know.

i'm describing every event of self defense I have ever read about for at least 2 years.

You mean every self defense you've read in the last two years that involves fists? Is that like one? Maybe two?

no, i mean EVERY case of self defense, whether its fists, feet, bottles, sticks, bats, rocks, knives, etc. I've not read a single case where somebody in the UK, who used physical force to defend themselves, were not charged with some sort of crime.

Since I was talking about the UK, the cases with weapons that are illegal (guns and swords) in the UK probably wouldn't count.

so by that stance, in the event of some sort of mass shooting (because criminals fail to follow gun possession laws), if the cop nearest me was killed and i picked up his gun to shoot the bad guy, I should be charged with murder because I constructively possessed a gun that didn't belong to me?

I'm not familiar with mass shootings in the UK since the ban. Perhaps you're projecting problems here in the US onto our friendly neighbors to the north east.

Ad no, that wouldn't be murder. There may be a lesser charge in dealing with discharging a firearm, though. The UK has self defense exemptions in it's laws just like we do.

So MSD... the headline in the paper reads "MSD shoots armed gang member in store holdup". The rest of gang members find a listing for MSD in the phone book... and you still feel safe?

In Canada there are relatively few shootings. The criminals can get guns, because, well, that's the nature of being criminals. They get drugs and steal cars and lots of other stuff.

I still feel safe, there aren't that many criminals around and I don't have to fear my neighbor retaliating in a hail of bullets to my loud exhaust or shooting through the door when I go to take him a letter that the mailman stuck in the wrong mailbox.

If you've seen MSD you know he doesn't need a gun to fight crime.

If memory serves, dude's got a tater-zooka.

Perhaps that's the answer. Let people have spud guns. The trigger happy will still be happy.

this is so typical of peoples attitudes today and I really can't understand it. What is the rationale for believing that criminals are better, saner, and more controlled human beings than your neighbor who you are worried that he might actually mow down half your house in a hail of bullets because you play your music too loud? Somebody please tell me why this is?

See, that's totally on point right there.

Whether you live in a shall-issue CCW state, or work on a college campus that allows CCW, live in Florida with this new ordnance, or any of the several states that allow open carry...

...some psycho motherfucker with a gun is not going to care about the law. He's just going to take his guns(s) inside whatever building it is, and start shooting.

I feel that the Second Amendment (you know, the par that starts with ...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... was never intended to allow Joe Smucatelli citizen to carry a gun whenever or wherever he wanted, concealed or no, regardless of his profession.

That being said, overall I really feel this will make little or no difference in the amount of gun crime overall in Florida, gun thefts out of parked cars, or lucky-ass (and straight-shooting) CCW owners stopping crime.

Makes for some AWESOME news and debate during an election year, though. :thumbsup:

Feel? or know? because if you have some historical proof, like something from the framers of the constitution saying anything about it not being an individual right, several constitutional scholars would love to see it.

"A well regulated Militia" - an organized, armed fighting force
"being necessary to the security of a free State" - not being under government control
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - shall not have their guns taken

Put it all together:
An organized fighting force, separate from the government, shall not have their guns taken away from them.

That is how the amendment reads. To suggest it means anything else is to ignore the very words which were crafted by some of our nation's great leaders and passed both by the infant House and Senate. The actual words above simply must override highly suspect correspondence and notes from the time which are quoted by those who wish to taylor the meaning of the amendment to their own wants. The verbiage is perfectly clear.

Know.

I read it quite literally. I understand how it's also read as an individual right (which I heartily excercise myself), which may or may not be a stretch. But hey, the Tootsie Pop principle applies: the world may never know.

Again, the Florida law won't going to make any dramatic impact either way on gun crime numbers. But the media and political groups will have a field day with it. At least until the next hot topic comes along...

so what you're trying to say is that every constitutional convention, every debate from each state, every document from every founder and framer, and the federalist and anti-federalist papers all declared that all men have the right to keep and bear arms, then when james madison wrote the bill of rights, he snuck in a boondoggle and lied to an entire nation about the 2nd amendment?

i'm pretty sure i would NOT feel comfortable knowing my co-workers were packing heat

would you feel comfortable if it was only you 'packing heat'?

What I'm saying is that the words which were crafted by some of our nation's great leaders, passed by both the House and Senate, and then passed the president's desk are perfectly clear. Are you claiming that somehow they—some of our nation's great leaders, members of both the House and Senate—were all wrong and that some federalists' and anti-federalists' writings, which have not been verified to have even been authored by said federalists and anti-federalists, override the actual wording of the document? That's just silly.

Your impression of the Second would look like this:
"The right for the people to bear arms, being necessary for a free state, shall not be infringed."

That's not how it reads. Members of a well organized militia are guaranteed a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

yes they are, WE have the right to arms.

whats silly is you not clearly understanding that the 'bill of rights' applies to individuals.....every amendment applies to the rights of individuals. to believe that the 2nd applies to a government regulated force of soldiers while the other 9 apply to individuals is silly.

that is not what it reads and you know this. it says 'the right of the people, not 'the right of a well regulated militia'. also, when this amendment was written, WE (that means 'the people', you AND I, were the militia. We are STILL the militia. We are the militia because YOU and I are the soveriegn of the state. WE are necessary for the security of a free state, therefore OUR right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not being a member of a well regulated militia, I don't have that right.
So you're saying some of our nation's great leaders and members of both the House and Senate were "silly" for wording it in a way that you disagree with?
Actually, the amendment starts out with "A well regulated militia". Maybe you've missed it.
This was written when my forefathers were still scattered across Europe and Asia (Russian), so it wasn't referring to me "when this amendment was written". The militia is well regulated. I am not a member of a well regulated militia, you are not a member of a well regulated militia, therefore it's not referring to us.

"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."

Whoever wrote this clearly needed a professional editor. (Yes, I've seen the other drafts.) It is unclear phrasing and should not therefore be read literally. It needs historical and cultural context. It needs reinterpretation. It needs changing. It's about time to amend the amendment. It seems open to widespread abuse.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This? (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
yes, we do. you included.

no, i said YOU were silly for trying to read it as a militia right instead of a right of the people. plain text and all.

not at all. it tells us that a well regulated militia is necessary, therefore our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. see militia code above.

yes it did, yes it does, and yes you most certainly are as well as I am.

yes, some of the most brilliant minds in our history of a nation needed grammar skills. :orly:

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the grammar. It is unclear phrasing.

Some of the most brilliant authors (yes, American authors included) required heavy editing before they were published. They still do. When it comes to something like an amendment to a constitution, it needs to be clear. If it were clear, would you and willravel be having this debate? :orly:

to counter the initial 'unclear phrasing', the 2nd amendment went through several drafts, was debated and voted on by all 13 states, and finally ratified after all of that. Did every single individual who debated and voted on it think it unclear? not only doubtful, but i'd say absolutely not.

the only reason that will and i argue about this all the time is the desire for certain elements of society who feel that the 'people' can no longer be trusted, therefore should be disarmed and be subservient to a government that they think grants them rights, instead of believing that the people should be trusted to ensure their liberty.

"A well regulated militia" clearly excludes the definition you bolded.
I'm silly, but by extension so are those who wrote the words I am clarifying.
They wrote the amendment in a sentence structure taken from Latin instead of English. That means, according to the language the Constitution and BOR were written in, the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

not when you realize that when they ratified it, well regulated meant well trained and maintained. not government run and ruled.

would that not mean then that the entire constitution and BOR is gramatically incorrect, therefore null and void? :confused:

I never said it was government run and ruled at all. Not even close. No, it would have to be separate from the government in order to apply to the wording of the Second Amendment. "Well regulated" and "unorganized" tell two different tales, though. That's perfectly clear.
No, it would mean that one amendment was worded by borrowing sentence structure from a different language.

clear as mud. I'm not in the national guard or naval militia, yet I'm 'well-regulated'. 6 years of USMC training would have me 'well regulated', would it not?

so everyone who had a hand in crafting that one single 27 word amendment all unaminously decided that this particular amendment should be written using latin sentence structure, instead of english like all the others? :confused: :confused:

"A well regulated militia..." The militia is well regulated, not the people.
I'm surprised that someone so well versed in the history of the Second Amendment isn't clear on this. It's even mentioned in the wiki of the Second Amendment, let alone the numerous books and writings by experts on the subject. It borrows some latin sentence structure, which was quite common at the time.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

if wiki is to be taken at face value, then this alone should show that the 2nd amendment is not gramatically incorrect, especially if it's used in a majority of state amendments, would it not?

The militia? or the 'people' in the militia?

The 2nd says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, but it enumerates the right to the people, not any militia.
Better than a headline about a gang member shooting me. Shooting in self defense is a choice between a shitty situation and being dead. It's not something to take lightly, but if it comes down to a decision, I'm going to choose "not dead." Fortunately, if I do end up getting myself into one of those bad situations, I'm statistically likely to end up as one of the 90% or more who draw but don't fire. If I never have to point a gun at something other than a range target or something I'm planning to kill, cook, and eat, I'd be very happy about that.

I'm concerned about a trend that points toward finding myself in a situation where it's better to have a gun than to not have one. It's led to increasing my situational awareness significantly, and I consider myself significantly less likely to end up in a bad situation than before I started paying such close attention. Hopefully that will make any gun I carry unnecessary.

I was saying that even wikipedia (a place known for being over-simplistic at best) notes that the sentence structure is latin.
From one of your posts:
The answer is "members of the militia".

The wording of the amendment gives the right to members of the well regulated militia.

so you mean the 'people', or individuals. right?


again, the people. individuals.

Individuals in the militia. No one outside of said hypothetical militia are guaranteed such a right according to the wording of the Second Amendment.

I have no interest in debating gun control laws with Americans. So long as you keep it to yourselves, I don't really care what you do with your guns. I will, however, debate logic.

willravel's wikipedia quote highlights an important aspect of this statement, which is that it consists of two separate and distinct thoughts that have been amalgamated. The wikipedia article designates these the justification clause and the operative clause, which is quite serviceable.

The justification clause:

The operative clause:

The justification clause exists to explain why the right is necessary, and does not actually enumerate any legal rights itself. It's actually quite superfluous from a strictly logical standpoint, although that isn't to say that it's useless; understanding the reasoning behind a law allows those who follow it to evaluate it independently, rather than following it blindly or ignoring it. Regardless, we can look at is as more of an appendix, a tangential thought related to the right itself. The operative clause is what defines the legal right...


...and makes no distinction based on membership within a militia, prior history or any other factor. Note that this means that the second amendment is not currently being followed to the letter, as I believe there are laws in place restricting ownership of firearms based on age, mental status of for other reasons that are not mentioned within the original amendment.

Intent is insubstantial and ephemeral. Unless it is explicitly stated, attempting to argue the basis of intent is pointless. I agree with Baraka_Guru that the second amendment as it currently exists is poorly structured, but I disagree with his assertion that it's unclear. It seems perfectly clear to me. According to what I've seen, the real problem people have with the second amendment is that it's unrealistic. It places no restrictions whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms, while even the most hardcore gun advocates seem to admit that there do need to be at least some restrictions. No one, for example, advocates maintaining this right for individuals with a history of mental illness, and not very many would advocate maintaining it for ex-convicts.

A more profitable line of inquiry would seem to me to be whether or not the second amendment is still applicable. Can a well regulated militia still be considered necessary to the security of a free state? Indeed, could a well regulated militia still effectively defend that security if necessary?

Not that I expect anybody to seriously consider these questions. It seems to me that both sides of this debate have become too enamoured with their perception and vilification of 'the other side' to really think about any of this in productive terms. Nobody's interested in compromise any more; a grey issue has been polarized into black and white, and neither side is being particularly realistic about it. In all fairness, it's been my experience that this is nearly inevitable when discussing controversial issues with large populations.

right of the people, not right of the militia. simple wording.

It's not simple. I've already addressed this:
"A well regulated Militia" - an organized, armed fighting force
"being necessary to the security of a free State" - not being under government control
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - shall not have their guns taken

Martian: Why would the justification be separated so much from the operative? It seems as if it might as well be an asterisk next to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", instead of it actually being there. But it is there. If people aren't part of the justification (well regulated militia), then how can it apply to them?

Regardless, your question as to relevance directly challenges the very amendment itself. If the justification no longer is applicable, then the operative becomes incorrect.

Here is my take on it:

The "right of the people" is an individual right in the same manner as "the right of the people" in other amendments in the BOR.....(the right of the people to peaceably assemble, the right of the people to be secure in their persons,...)

I think the framers even made that intent clear when they removed the phrase "for the common defense" that was in the original draft of the 2nd amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defense)

The issue for me is if that right is absolute. And I dont believe it is. The government can regulate it.

regulate in which ways? shall not be infringed is pretty definite and clear.

Infringement is not all that clear.

Is a background check an infringement? Is loss of that right as a result of a criminal record an infringement?

Is a limit on the type of arms an infringement? (I tihink its reasonable to assume that the framers were thinking muskets...not automatic weapons or RPGs.)

how are rights contingent?

background check? depends on who sets the 'requirements' to meet eligibility. as far as criminal records goes, I'm torn. Part of me says that if you're a convicted murderer, you lose your rights. Part of me says that if you're released, you've served your debt and deserve your rights back. That same part of me says that convicted murderers should never get out of prison.

the framers were thinking to keep the people as equally armed as the standing military, as evidenced by several framers statements about the fear of standing armies.

If I recall the Federalist Papers (I dont remember which one), the issue of the rights of the people were to protect the people from an oppressive government AND to protect one segment of the people from excesses of another (primarily to protect the rights of the minority from excesses of the majority)

Well while it's fun to pretend that rights are "inalienable", that's a fantasy. The only right that's inalienable is the right you can successfully defend.

As for contingent, that's simple. I'll address this in two ways:
1) 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. If it's not necessary for the security of a free state, then the whole thing falls apart (as Martian basically pointed out). The justification justifies the operative. Without the justification, the operative becomes meaningless.
2) Rights in the BOR all have limits. Shouting fire in a crowded room, religious ritual killings, and fines for printing libel are all limits on freedoms of speech, religion, and press. They're all legal, too.