2nd Amendment: the poll!

[11B4V]

Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

I'm just a little curious what you think it's original purpose was.

National defence?
Your post confuses me.

An aspect of it. Not all of it.

[Viking]

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

I want him to back that statement up. Next.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

But, you are right 626/13 is not "multiple orders of magnitude" it is merely 1,47 orders of magnitude. Take away the legally justified shooting by police it is 626/10 or 1,51 orders of magnitude.

To put it in terms of US state size bad shootings correspond to the area of Texas, good shootings correspond to the area of Los Angeles County California or Connecticut State.

[The Minsky Moment]

For example, if it's purpose was to provide for the national defense, why include it as a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon, rather than part of Congress' warmaking powers?

Because of the very strong views about the role of state militias vs. federal standing armies.

[11B4V]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

That's what i wanted instead of some washington post article. Thanks

[Viking]

I wouldn't say it's common knowledge that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the national defense.

For example, if it's purpose was to provide for the national defense, why include it as a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon, rather than part of Congress' warmaking powers?

It wasn't provide for national defense. It was to provide for a defense of the freedom of the states. Ultimately it was a right of the states to keep a militia. Since this militia was assembled ad-hoc from scratch when needed this implies an individual right to bear arms.

To be blunt, if you want to push the militia angle then assault weapons should be the last ones to be banned.

[Viking]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

That's what i wanted instead of some washington post article. Thanks

Will this information influence your view on the subject in any way what so ever?

[The Minsky Moment]

It wasn't provide for national defense. It was to provide for a defense of the freedom of the states. Ultimately it was a right of the states to keep a militia. Since this militia was assembled ad-hoc from scratch when needed this implies an individual right to bear arms.

A little more detail . . .
The Constitutional draft was perceived by some to be biased in favor of federal power.  The role of the state militias in national defense was a hotly debated and dispute issues during the Revolution itself and its aftermath.  The Constitutional draft seemed to resolve those questions pretty firmly in favor of federal power - the federal government not only acquired a panoply of war and defense powers, it also via two militia clauses acquired extensive supervisory powers over the state militia, including the power to arm the militia.  But what would happen if Congress, in an effort to make the state militias wither away, refused to exercise their power to arm the militias?  Presumably the states could then act on their own provided of course that Congress did not prohibit them from doing so.  The clause concerned a lot of anti-federalists. 

I want to careful about ascribing clear motivations to the Second Amendment, because the lack of clear contemporaneous statements about its meaning and purpose is notorious.  But clearly an effect of the Second Amendment would be that the federal government would be unable to block citizens from bringing their own weapons for use in militia service, or block the states for providing that members of the militia could or should do so.  It is also clear that an interpretation that views this effect as the principal purpose of the Amendment fits nicely within the simple text, without excising any words or subclauses as mere surplusage.

[Admiral Yi]

The most obvious problem with that argument Joan, if that if you were starting from scratch and wished to guarantee the right of states to form militias, and that right alone, there is no way in hell you would choose that language.  States, not having appendages and opposable digits, can't bear arms.

[11B4V]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

That's what i wanted instead of some washington post article. Thanks

Will this information influence your view on the subject in any way what so ever?

No, but it does thin the gene pool.

[The Minsky Moment]

The most obvious problem with that argument Joan, if that if you were starting from scratch and wished to guarantee the right of states to form militias, and that right alone, there is no way in hell you would choose that language.

Probably not.
But they weren't starting from scratch.  There was already a constitutional text, and the question was what to put into a Bill of Rights that would supplement but not replace that text.  Federalists would never agree to an amendment of the militia clauses but they could agree to accept an individual right as against the federal government that would have the effect of preventing the disarming the militias.

[Admiral Yi]

Would you mind linking or pasting the militia clauses?  I'd frankly never heard of them before.

[The Minsky Moment]

Would you mind linking or pasting the militia clauses?  I'd frankly never heard of them before.

Under Art I, Section 8 (enumerated powers of Congress):

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

[mongers]

Would you mind linking or pasting the militia clauses?  I'd frankly never heard of them before.

Google us consitution text, and search within the document/text, they'll then show up. 

[Admiral Yi]

Google us consitution text, and search within the document/text, they'll then show up. 

Or ask Joan, then he'll do it. 

[mongers]

Google us consitution text, and search within the document/text, they'll then show up. 

Or ask Joan, then he'll do it. 

You're not big on leg work are you, please don't tell me you've an MBA ?