Thanks Toad, that was an informative read.
You haven't quoted the relevant passage of the English Declaration of rights in full which reads:
"have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law ."
(emphasis mine).
But the way I read it, the federal constitution says:
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.
Whereas many state constitutions include explicit rights to bear arms for self defence, defence of the home etc.
Which indicates to me that the purpose of the amendment was not intended (primarily at least) for self defence but defence of the community from external threats - particularly when read with the predicate that a well ordered militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
As I read the wiki entry, rights of self defence were considered seperate to a citizen's obligation (obligation because the conciensious objector exception was struck out during the legislative process) to protect the community.
From a practical point of view, it makes little difference I guess. If you have the right to keep and bear arms and happen to use them in self defence, then you can hardly be prosecuted for it.
Lasz: don't you think that security and freedom go hand in hand? How 'free' is a society that is not secure? That sort of society usually ends up passing legislation based on paranoia which takes away its citizens' freedoms. (The Homeland Security Act is an example of this). You say the difference between men and women is the difference between security and freedom? By which I take it to mean following their genetic programming, women want security and men want freedom. I guess that makes most of the world hermaphrodites in your book for wanting both.
I have no doubt that you are responisble gun owner, and if there was a way to identify 'responsible' gun owners, I'd raise my hand like a shot and say - give them guns. The problem is that by giving everybody (except minors, the insane etc) the right to own a gun means that you're handing firearms to irresponsible people too.
What I find interesting is this (and I have no experience in gun combat, so tell me if I'm wrong). If everybody did carry guns, then wouldn't the element of surprise become an overwhelming advantage to the attacker? So if a criminal wants you car, rather than say, bonking you on the head or threatening you with a knife, if he believes you are carrying a firearm and are prepared to use it, is he not more likely to just shoot you in back rather than make demands with menaces (OK you lose the car but at least you're alive)? And if you were with your family, how would you handle the situation then? What I'm asking is whether you think that the universal ownership of guns would actually make crime more violent. In the example I've seen quoted here earlier, it seems that the criminals were not expecting their victim to be armed and that gave the law abiding victim the drop on the criminal.
Ravs
