#1 - most popular article - with 42,12 reads on 26 October 2023
Leader in Private Gun Ownership
"The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average arsenal of 88 guns per 100 people. That puts the US first in the world for gun ownership - even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people". (Quote: The Guardian) Statistics show a US gunshot murder rate of 2.97 per 100.000 citizens. Gunshot murder accounts for 60% of all murders. This totals to 9,146 murders annually. Total gunshot deaths - which include accidents and suicides - are much higher at 10.3 per 100.000, that is 32,163 gun shot deaths annually. The annual numbers show a rising trend, poised to surpass road accident deaths this year or next. Worldwide, the US does not top the charts in gunshot murder rates, this honor goes to 27 other countries, small and large, mostly "less developed" countries in south America, some in Africa. But it is 1st place, global leader, in mass shootings. For total gunshot murder rates, the US ranks in 5th place, in a line-up of countries as violent as Brazil, Columbia, Mexico and Venezuela. In Europe, the closest US rival for gunshot murder is Italy, with 11.9 guns per 100 citizens, 66.7% of all murders by gun and 0.71 gunshot murders per 100.000 citizens - a gun murder rate 4 times lower than the US. Edit 2019: Above are the original 2013 statistics. All US figures have increased: In 2017, the US saw 39,773 persons dying of gunshots. That's 7,610 gunshot deaths more than in 2013. So, these deaths now increase by almost 2,000 every year. And, gun death among children is 36.5 times the overall rate observed in other high-income countries. (Quote: The Guardian, Trace) Statistics: See the first three items under the heading "Sources". So, it doesn't surprise that the US is talking about stricter control of guns and gun ownership. Yet a good number of Americans consider this an infringement of their "freedom". Many cite gun ownership as a right provided by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:
Second Amendment Text
The amendment was adopted 15 December, 1791, adding to the original constitutional text of 17 September, 1787, as part of the Bill of Rights. It's a very short passage: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, that sentence reads a bit odd. The clerk at the congress building probably never heard the old teachers adage about commas, "if in doubt, leave it out". Lets rephrase this into something a bit more modern, but we'll keep the original capitalization: "Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
First Part
Lets clarify the first part of the statement: Militia: a fighting force consisting of citizens, who generally bring in their own arms and supplies to perform a non-permanent civic duty - most citizens who participated factually had to use their own arms, keep them in order, and use them for organized policing or military type work - while arms could also be state-issued and citizens would remain responsible for those arms. Well-regulated: The emphasis is on a controlled, disciplined and capable force with implications for its composition, rights and duties, armament, training, supervision and loyalty. A well-regulated militia was well-trained, well-armed, well-disciplined and well-supervised, and did not depart the scene at the first sign of trouble. We could use the terms "controlled", "structured" and "effective". Being necessary: fixes the causal relationship between the first part (the militia as state security) and the second part (the people's right). Same meaning as "because..." Security: refers to internal and external security. Internal security to keep law and order, peacekeeping /war with American Indians, and in states where slavery of Indians and/or Africans was practiced to prevent insurrections and catch runaways; external security such as defense, and military collaboration with other states. State: an individual state within the union. Not the federal government, which is referred to as Congress. The terminology free State may have aimed at a potential degree of State independence from Congress and the Union. In other words, individual US states found it necessary to have their own, strictly controlled fighting forces composed of armed citizens, and reconfirm this right with a constitutional amendment.
Second Part
Lets clarify the second part. It matter-of-factly references a prevailing right (and practice) of people to keep and bear arms. The people: as many other passages in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, this refers to all people. At least, in historical sense. At the time, for example, women and slaves were not allowed to vote. "The people" in this amendment were intended as able-bodied men, while in some states free black people and slaves would have been excluded from participating in militia duty. Keep and bear arms: "keep arms", as in maintain, safely store (at home) and assure proper working condition of arms, and to "bear arms", carrying and operating those same arms in militia duty. It was then and remains today a military term, referring to hold, carry and operate arms in training and military operations. The arms could be privately owned or state-issued. Ownership is not the point and is not discussed, while the term and concept of "ownership" was generally well-known and well-used at the time. Arms: musket and bayonet for a foot soldier, two pistols and a sword for a horseman, plus powder and balls (Virginia Militia). The powder needed to be kept dry and safe; dry to keep misfiring at minimum, and safe so that it would not be stolen or explode. Militiamen generally crafted their own cartridges with paper, powder and balls at home, before arriving at militia duty. Powder storage and ammunition crafting was preferably decentralized, that is at militia-men's homes, so that militiamen were immediately ready for duty, and to reduce the risk of large scale theft or armory explosions. Shall not be infringed: the right and the duty to operate (keep and bear) arms must not be interfered with. Style-wise this is a negative statement: it is not actively issuing a right, but is preventing a prevailing, understood practice from being taken away. This presupposes an anxiety that someone might try to do that. To clarify it more, let's make the grammatically passive "shall not be" active. This requires us to name the someone doing the (potential) infringing. We don't know yet who, so we replace it by "nobody shall".
Together
Now let's look at the amendment again, in full text: Nobody shall take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms because a free state needs its own effective fighting force to maintain security. And there you have it. This is really what is meant. Citizens brought either their own, or state-issued, or union-issued guns to do their municipal and state militia duties, so it was deemed crucial for the security of the individual states that militia members' rights, duties and ability to keep and bear arms would not, at any time in the future, be interfered with. Who is that unnamed "nobody" that they were concerned about? Checking history, the constitution had provided that a new, federally controlled, standing army would be set up. The state militias would be placed largely under federal organization, armament and discipline, as far as needed by the union. The individual states retained the right to appoint officers, train and discipline their respective militias. With these constitutional developments, some states appeared concerned that the Union, specifically Congress could theoretically shut down, disarm or otherwise render their state militias ineffective.
The Second Amendment's Original Purpose
The amendment was put forward by the states in order to ensure that Congress would not dismantle their loyal militias by disarming them or the citizens that composed them: - states hesitated to fully depend on a federal standing military that did not exist yet - states were preserving the concept of citizens keeping and bringing arms to militia service rather than having to maintain costly centralized arsenals; such arsenals posed safety risks due to the large amounts of stored powder, and security risks of falling into the hands of enemies during conflict - states where slavery (of either or both American Indians and Africans) was practiced depended on their militias to keep order, reign in runaways and suppress rebellion; their militia's were on full-time, active, internal policing duties at all times. It's possible that the last point may have been a strong driving force for this amendment. In states where slavery was practiced, economic and societal survival depended on armed, loyal militias.
More on The Arms
Musket, bayonet, powder and balls. Control and Effectiveness The adjective "well-regulated" is the amendment's first and foremost adjective: it refers to the arms-bearing militia, that is, firstly the organized armed state body, secondly, the citizens bearing arms participating in that state body, and last but not least the arms carried by those citizens. Laws and Regulations Militiamen and their arms were under strict laws and regulations. Types of arms, how they were kept, who could use them, also the manner of providing arms to poor militiamen were strictly controlled. Regulations even obliged persons who were exempted from militia duty to furnish their privately owned arms to the militia. Those who did not comply were fined the value of a standard set of arms (VA Militia Laws, Nov 1762). "Every person so as aforesaid inlisted [sic] (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) [sic] shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall be furnished with a firelock [musket] well fixed, a bayonet fitted to same, a double cartouch-box [cartridge holder] and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required: And if it shall be certified to the court of any county, by order of the court-martial, that any soldier inlisted [sic] in such company is so poor as not to be able to purchase the arms aforesaid, then such court shall, and they are hereby required, immediately to depute some person to send for the same to Great-Britain by the first opportunity, and levy the charge thereof in the next county levy..." (VA Militia Laws, Nov 1755). That is: Musket loading and firing, Muskets & Flintlocks in 18th Century America. Text link Of Rocks, Trees, Rifles, and Militia - Thoughts on Eighteenth-Century Military Tactics, replacing missing link Taking up arms and joining an 18th century militia (Williamsburg militia) 2016/03. Apparently the site "MakingHistoryNow" is superseded by "ColonialWilliamsburg" with all mention of the term "militia" removed.
More on Duties and Rights
The duty and right to keep and bear arms was limited to soldiers in the militia. "For encouragement to every soldier to provide and furnish himself, according to the directions of this act, and his security to keep his arms and ammunition, when provided, Be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That the furniture, arms and ammunition, provided and kept in pursuance of this act, be free and exempted, at all times, from being impressed upon any account whatsoever; and likewise from being seized or taken by any manner of distress, attachment, or writ of execution..." (VA Militia Laws, Nov 1738). [Italics added].
More on the "free State"
The term "free State" has led to (at least) two schools of interpretation. One relates to, as the text says, each State and/or the Union itself, to maintain security. The other relates to, as the text does not say, a "free country", possibly in contrast to a non-free country like a monarchy or dictatorship. Both terms, "state" and "country", were in broad use at the time. The amendment text chose the term "free State", indicating the protection of a state or the Union.
More on The People
The Second Amendment itself, the historic laws and regulations, duties and rights accompanying it, intends to guarantee the people, citizens, specifically able-bodied men, to keep and bear arms to bring to state organized Militia and policing duties.
Summing It Up
The people's right to keep and bear arms is historically and constitutionally tied to the existence of state militia's. The amendment intends to bar Congress from disarming state militias. It does not discuss the right for private citizens to own arms. This Second Amendment is not related to the proliferation or control of private gun ownership in today's US. The Second Amendment does not discuss the ownership of arms.
The US Supreme Court
The 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act created a licensing system for dealers, and highly taxed the private ownership of machine guns (automatic weapons). Supreme Court decision of 1939 unanimously upheld the constitutionality of both laws, confirming that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security....” confirming the Solicitor General's argument that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” Subsequent Supreme Court decisions continued to uphold the firearms acts, until 2007. In 2007 the US Supreme reversed itself. It's new argumentation was that the first part of the sentence (state security and militia) and the second part (the right to bear arms) must be separated. To be more specific, it actually acknowledges that one is the purpose for the other (i.e the "because" is correct) - but it doesn't matter. So, only after the new 2007 Supreme Court interpretation, US citizens have the right to own, keep and carry guns without major restriction, regardless of the second amendment's militia/military requirement. Gun murders, gun deaths, and mass shootings erupted. The bizarre 2007 Supreme court decision also caused confusion concerning the right of individual states to pass their own laws concerning firearms. >> http://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/second-amendment.php
Other Opinions
Armed rebellion
Others argue that the second amendment intends to assure the right of citizens' armed rebellion against the government. The terminology of "free State" does support a possible view that a State, employing its State militia for security, could possibly protect itself against unreasonable actions of other external or higher entities infringing State "freedom". This does not cover citizens arming without participation in State militia, and also not relate to any right for armed civil rebellion against a local, state or federal government entity. While some founding fathers were indeed the rebellious type, they also knew that guaranteeing a right of armed civil rebellion would do the newly forming nation more harm than good. The second amendment is not a free "armed-rebellion" card. The rebels touting this interpretation may be influenced by (dangerous) wishful thinking.
Nutcases
Or this: "Here’s a Big Thought to consider. The evidence is overwhelming that gun ownership deters crime, while gun-control laws promote crime (just look at the spiking crime rates in Chicago, one of the staunchest gun-control regimes in America). [Fox News Opinion 16 August 2016]. The evidence is not provided. Chicago does not have the staunchest gun control regimes in America. In fact, the people can walk around in town with two guns strapped to themselves. With an - even for the US - unusually large preexisting arsenal in the hands of the people, and free out-of-state influx, it may certainly take a while until effects of local gun control are felt.
Donald J. Trump
Former President Trump made America great by single-handedly changing the US Constitution, throwing away the second amendment's "well-regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free State", then asserting "this is about self-defense, plain and simple". The Second Amendment is about keeping law and order with a well-regulated state militia. >> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Reality
It is undeniable that muskets, flintlocks and pistols had strong prevalence in America's colonial past particularly as means of individual defense, hunting and militia armament. Yet it's important to realize that the degree of private gun ownership, gun mortality, and gun control measures in the US were thereafter much more in line with other affluent western societies. The major change came about only in 2007, with an unfathomable, bizarre decision by the US Supreme Court. With the final consequence of hundreds of thousands of civilian individuals shot and killed, continuing beyond this day.
Author's opinion
In the bizarre 2007 decision, the US Supreme Court separated individual phrases with a clear and acknowledged cause-effect relationship, as if they were not mentioned in the same sentence. It's as if quoting only the first part of a sentence, ignoring the other half of the sentence that provides important criteria for the first part. "When the light turns green, you can drive through the intersection." Imagine a Supreme Court deciding that, yes there is a light at the intersection, but its color is not relevant, and only the second part counts. We've got everyone for themselves, ignoring the traffic light. This is exactly what the US Supreme Court did. If you take this type of argumentation and generally apply it in society, you will have a real problem. Reality becomes irrelevant. Disingenuous misrepresentation will rule of the day, as if it were fact. The Second Amendment is clear, as fully shown above. The founding fathers clearly related people's rights to bear arms to the State militia. And note very well: follow regulations, store at home, bring to military service, train, and shoot when instructed by a rank superior. The second amendment never talks about gun ownership. Those founding fathers knew what they were doing. They would have used the concept ownership, and separated the arms from the militia if that's what they had intended. They didn't. Anybody who, with a straight face, still argues differently should have their head examined. Recommendation: Vote for Representatives, Senators and Presidential candidates who re-apply proper gun control. They can change the law, and, if needed, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court would have to follow it.
Sources and Related Publications
I did not assign all the above statements to their individual sources. Yet this is the list. It makes for some very interesting reading, if you have the time.
Sources
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/13/us-gun-deaths-levels-cdc-2017 https://www.thetrace.org/2018/12/gun-violence-facts-statistics-2018/ https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965 https://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery https://www.flintriflesmith.com/WritingandResearch/Research/militia_laws.htm https://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/morality-and-the-second-amendment https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-in-america-projected-to-soon-top-car-fatalities-8426644.html https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-3.htm http://williamlkatz.com/africans-indians-only-america https://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html http://volokh.com/posts/1181941233.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#The_Amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#Constitutional_basis
Related Publications
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) appeared next to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) at a Georgia rally Thursday night (May 27, 2021)... The congressman moved on to talk about the Second Amendment. “It’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports,” he said. “The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary.” Are you a MAGA fan? Fine, but do not follow obvious nutcases. Hitler, too was a nutcase, spouting about "Making Germany great again" (he actually shouted it out many times in his speeches), inciting violence in peaceful people, attacking minorities, starting wars and committing genocide... Ask yourself, where does this lead and how will it end... And are you actually willing to be part of where this is going? Better News: Some Laws on Controlling Some Gun Sales 2022-06-25 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/25/joe-biden-signs-gun-control-law List of Mass Shootings in the United States - timeless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States Indianapolis gunman bought rifles despite earlier gun confiscation 2021-04-18 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56791321 Yoshihiro Hattori: The door knock that killed a Japanese teenager in US - 2019-10-21 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50063364 Morality and The Second Amendment - 2016-08-02 (No sources given for statistical claims) https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/02/morality-and-second-amendment.html Dallas Police Chief Expresses Worry About Armed Civilians in Texas - 2016-07-11 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-protests-idUSKCN0ZQ0V8 House Democrats Stage Sit-In Protest in Dispute over Gun Control - 2016-06-22 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/house-democrats-stage-sit-in-protest-in-dispute-over-gun-control.html The Enormous Problems with Using the War on Terror as the Basis for Gun Control - 2016-06-20 http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11953254/guns-terror-watch-list Lawmaker Will Give Away AR-15 [Submachine Gun] Rifle at Fundraiser - 2016-06-13 https://politicalwire.com/2016/06/13/lawmaker-will-give-away-a-ar-15-rifle-at-fundraiser Speaking is Difficult - 2016-04-12 https://theintercept.com/fieldofvision/speaking-is-difficult/ Why is America so Hostile to Gun Control? - 2016-01-08 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-hostile-climate-for-gun-control/2016/01/08/eb4dc312-b58b-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html My Brother Was Murdered By A Man With A Gun - 2016-01-07 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-schneps/my-brother-was-murdered-by-a-man-with-a-gun_b_8933086.html U.S. Leads World in Mass Shootings - 2015-10-03 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114th Congress, 1st Session: Amendment: To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists - 2015-12-03 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00319 All Republicans (with one exception): Nay. All Democrats (with one abstention): Yea. Motion REJECTED: Known or dangerous terrorists are allowed to buy firearms and explosives. Lets quote Obelix: "These Romans are crazy". The Five Extra Words that can Fix the Second Amendment - 2014-04-11 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html Meet the 45 Senators Who Blocked Background Checks - 2013-04-17 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/number-senators-voted-against-background-checks-proposal Relating Laws to Gun Deaths http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/ "The larger problem is that the United States effectively stopped doing research on gun laws and violence 15 years ago and now has no evidence that shows causes and effect, he said." 1. Brazil, 2. Columbia, 3. Mexico, 4. Venezuela, 5. United States. Cause: Banana republic. Effect: gun deaths. The Miracle on Guns http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-the-miracle-on-guns/2013/02/24/27f963c8-7d51-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html Update: Comprehensive Study of Mass Shootings by Mayors Against Illegal Guns http://www.demandaplan.org/blog/2013-02-update-comprehensive-study-of-mass-shootings-by-mayo Refreshing the Tree of Liberty http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/19107/lightbox/TMW2013-02-20color.png?1360862969 Tree of Liberty? College girls will carry guns to feel safe on campus http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/19/colorado-lawmaker-issues-apology-rape-comment/#ixzz2LMjhEuQ7 Walmart bans criticism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/walmart-sales-disaster_n_2696883.html#slide=1898108 Militarized schools. Is the NRA purposefully creating a Mad Max scenario for US Smalltown? http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/24/southern-califorina-school-district-gets-high-powered-body-armor-piercing-rifles/ Wayne LaPierre, NRA CEO: NRA dreaming of today's Mad Max world. http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/13/stand-and-fight Hadiya Pendleton Dead: Chicago Teen Who Performed At Inaugural Events Fatally Shot - 2012-01-30 Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/hadiya-pendleton-dead-chi_n_2581309.html "Guns are the great equalizer in a violent confrontation". Because women are weak, every woman should have one, and everyone else too. Karate anyone? No! Just gimme a handgun, a machine gun and a tank - and everyone else, too! Then we can all go out and play war in the house and in the street (sponsored by the zillionaire backed, neoconservative, "free market" Independent Women's Forum) and everyone will be safe. >> http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/30/guns-make-women-safer-says-gayle-trotter-at-senate-hearing
The NRA Enemies List - 2012-09-17 NRA-ILA >> http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2010/national-organizations-with-anti-gun-po.aspx?s=&st=&ps= First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws - 2003-10-01 CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm See the sorry state of US research in firearms violence prevention