Not really a hot-button issue for me, but sounds a bit too much Us v Them mentality. Frankly I believe people kill people not guns necessarily, but don't see how we'd end up in a dictatorship with stronger background checks. Regulations are often seen as a dirty word, but I've worked dangerous jobs where I've heard the horror stories of people losing life and limb before there was OSHA, sadly all preventable. On the other hand, it's hard to have common sense regulations in any sector when you have the foxes guarding the henhouse...

Indeed, but I guess if Frogboy brought it up we have a free pass. 

Today a well regulated militia would need antitank and aircraft missiles if it is to be effective, yet those are mostly illegal and I think most agree that is a good thing. The whole civilian population of the U.S. could have AR-15s, yet if the government has the support of the military it wouldn't matter in the end. Our only defense against any sort of unconstitutional takeover is our military personnel refusing to do anything clearly illegal, not any weapons you'd be able to arm yourself with. All those weapons do is make it easier to kill your fellow citizens with.

Well back then "Freedom for All" in the declaration of independence actually just meant adult white males. I think most would agree it is a good thing we slowly updated it to its modern definition. America today is not the same place it was in 1776 or 1789, and insisting on strictly following the "original intent" of the constitution is a recipe for poor government over 200 years later.

First 2/3rds of the text was brilliant, the last third nutter garbage. It all comes down to this (if I read the text right): people who argue against gun rights ("progressives") want to create a tyranny. I mean... straw man much?

I wouldn't want the same gun rights in my country, but I don't see the US ever getting rid of theirs. Precisely because the deterrent is needed, even if it is not effective (in this modern age of governmental spying on citizens the FBI would shut down any armed rebellion before it got its boots on*). And with guns so easy to get for criminals, the only reasonable self-defence is to carry your own. That's not a problem that can be solved, because you can't take the guns away from the criminals.

*I mean, it was essentially founded to hunt down "anarchists".

That happens.

David Koresh, the freak that he was, wasn't some monster kidnapping children.  They were legal firearms dealers, apocalyptic cult or not.

They were just a bunch of people preparing for the apocalypse, that expected the government to attack them and trigger the end times at some point.  The ATF rolls in with tanks and black helicopters, probably starts shooting first, and kills one poor bastard outside the compound on his way home from work.

Did they intentionally burn them to death at the end?  Not likely, not even the ATF is that corrupt.  They still got them killed for no reason though.  If they hadn't shown up and started fucking with them, the Branch Davidians would still be their kooky selves down on Wacko Texas, some of them legally selling firearms, most working normal jobs in the town, stockpiling food in preparation for the apocalypse while their nutbar leader prophesied doom.

That's hardly the only instance either.  The Weaver family was the same shtick.  Paranoid of the government, expecting the end times.  Randy Weaver misses his trial date for a nonsense charge because his lawyer sends him the wrong date when they change it on him, and the Feds sneaking around on his property kill his dog in front of his 14 year old son.  After that turns into a firefight, they later murder the guy's wife when they spot him outside and start sniping him.  No shots returned.

If you go and hide in a bunker waiting for the fall of civilization, the feds seem to feel a need to dig you out.

Yes, why the guns refered to in the Constitution...those muzzle-loading muskets of black powder and famous inaccuarcy are now interpreted as self-loading assault rifles/machine guns/ 50 cal sniper rifles et al.

Apparently SOME 'modern definitions' are OK ... thanks to the brainwashing of the US populace by the NRA and other vested interests.

Meanwhile....much of the rest of the world gets by quite satisfactorily WITHOUT a mis-interpreted agendafied 'Constitution' and an armed populace scared of their own government.

The saddest thing is...intelligent Americans cannot see how the rest of the world regards the absurdidty that is the 'second amendment'.

It's the most pointless argument/debate known to man.

But...

Re this section and 'Politics'  it is only appropriate that he-who-makes-the-laws-is-empowered-to-break-them ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

If only someone had explained to the Aborigines that there wasn't any reason to fear the government that disarmed them.

Most of human history is the people in power stomping on the ones that aren't.  It's foolish to believe our species has evolved beyond such behavior.  Especially when you live in one of the many countries that have been doing just that in living memory.

Never said there was any issues re favourable views of 'the US, its leadership or its citizens', only that no-one outside of the US can comprehend what mechanism is in place that prevents the US in general from any form of pro-active response to the prevalence of mass-killings.

Now, naturally there will be the mandatory response that 'cars kill people too...ergo ban cars' - also lauded by 'reasonable' debaters who again miss the point of what 'constitutes' [there's that word again] a WEAPON.

America is a great country....tends to get a little over-zealous re policing the planet at times.... loves to protect others from themselves ... but meanwhile defends to the death the right for every citizen to own the SPECIFIC tools to kill people.

It wouldn't be so bad if it were a 'privilege' to be awarded/qualified rather than a RIGHT to all [and clearly also to the lethally deranged].

Now if it's all about not having a reliable/trustworthy police force that thus demands you MUST be able to defend yourself directly...then perhaps it's time to get a better police force - you know... fight the issue head-on.

I recall the interview with an 'American' couple on Australia Day....when asked why they were becoming Australian Citizens said 'because our [AUS] gun laws made them feel safer'.  Obviously they were derranged and a mere isolated abberation....and everyone in the US is 100% behind the precepts of the NRA.

Clearly the cries of 'Gun Control' the world hears after every mass-shooting is a leftist-pinko generated false-hood whose sole agenda is to wrest those guns from Heston's dead cold hands....

That's a good point.  One of the reasons the later amendments get more interpretation than the others is that they are written a lot more...I dunno, vaguely.  

The first 10 amendments are pretty short and to the point.

You mean the guns referred to in the constitution, which were the same ones used by government forces?  If you don't take that into account you miss the point of the amendment.  To stand against government tyranny.  

If the point is to to enable citizens to fight back against tyranny (and it is the point) then allowing modern citizens black powder muzzle loaders is pretty useless when the various federal SWAT teams come knocking with their Vectors and tear gas.  

And if you think we can't slip back into tyranny in the various western utopias (hah!) you're not paying attention.  We're at most 2 generations removed from honest to god hard tyranny in several western nations and in a ton of other first world or emerging nations. Tyranny exists today in western nations.  It may be soft tyranny, the kind you wouldn't use a rifle to fight back against, but it is tyranny.  It's the first step on a path towards worse things.  Society may never take those extra steps, but can you be sure? 

But even as a practical matter, those who are unarmed are entirely dependent upon the government for protection.  Entirely.  And the stability and peace of modern society is the most fragile of things.  If your police forces were completely unable to respond due to some unexpected event and armed men broke into your home and threatened your family, what would you do?  Grab a kitchen knife?  Is that what your family's safety depends upon? 

Because that was exactly the case in NYC after Sandy and New Orleans after Katrina.  People were having to defend their homes, possessions and families from looters at the barrel of a gun because emergency services were cut off.  Hell, I lived in Baltimore a few years ago during a week where the city was hit with two blizzards several days apart (not nearly as rare or significant as a major hurricane making landfall).  Several people died because emergency services couldn't reach them.  Not that they didn't arrive in time, they simply couldn't get there because the city couldn't keep up with the snow plowing.  Now those were older people who had heart attacks and the like, but it could just have easily been a home robbery or an assault or an rape gone from bad to worse.  

I'm sorry, but I don't trust the clowns in charge (regardless of party) to protect my family in the worst moments of life.  Part of my responsibility as a father and a husband is to provide that last line of protection.  And a phone call to 911 isn't a guaranteed protection.  Especially if the phones are down, a key road is out or the police are busy with bigger problems.  Then your cell phone is a pretty flimsy last line of defense. 

And this: 

is thoughtless bullshit.  You're comments are usually insightful and thought provoking.  Doubly so when you are expressing opinions different than my own.  I look forward to reading your counter points precisely because you express yourself well and because we so often disagree.  The statement above is well below your usual quality.  

But, I'll respond anyway with my thoughts on what the rest of the world thinks of our "absurdity".  The rest of the world can quite simply fuck off.  I have literally zero use for foreign opinions of this particular American "absurdity".  Everyone out there looks down on the fact that I own several guns.. I feel ashamed of myself suddenly and wish I lived in a more Utopian place.  But since I don't, and since such places don't actually exist, I'll cling to my guns and my high quality of life and the peace of mind that I'm doing everything I can to keep my family safe.  

Now, if people want to ask questions about our second amendment or want to debate the need for that amendment, I welcome all comers from all countries to the debate.  But as for the world's opinion on what is absurd or not, meh.  My opinion of the rest of the world is probably lower than the rest of the world's opinion of the second amendment. 

I updated it to remove the overtly political part of den beste's article.

This doesn't necessarily say that the meaning of the words changed.  It can quite simply be that one court is saying that an earlier court got it wrong.  It may be a gray line but there is a line between fixing previous courts' mistakes and judicial activism.  

I have no interest in a 'living constitution', nonesense or otherwise.  I don't care for any of it at all as it has no legal relevance for me.  What worries me, however is WTF didn't its author/authors spell it out absolutely clearly thus preventing ANYONE from agenda-inspired interpretation at some later date?

Like it or not, the US is stuck with it.  Someone has made a rod for their own back.

And yes, the rest of the world IS REQUIRED to 'feel'.... the News networks make certain of that.... death and drama makes good copy.  Outside the US has the same issues as inside after one of these 'events' .... one hopes no-one they know was caught up in it.

It all gets a bit bileous when the News eventually may add 'no [insert non-US nationality here] was injured in the shooting/whatever'.

Of course we FEEL.  there IS humanity OUTSIDE the US too, you know...

But the fundamental reason the court corrected the earlier court was because society, or at least some members there of, came to believe that separate but equal was inherently unequal. It never says that in the amendments, there is no technical reason for why the court was wrong the Plessy V. Furguson. The only thing that changed was people came to believe that it was against the ideas behind those amendments to allow the kind of discrimination that was practiced in the 1950s. When your job is to "interrupt the constitution", in a way I would argue the Supreme Court very much decides what certain words mean and when it changes its mind on such things it in a sense does change what those words mean (in practice at any rate).