Can anybody help us understand under this line of logic, which not the only one, clearly:
For driving, which is a dangerous activity, you need to qualify for it and regularly show you can handle the task responsibly, to avoid endangering yourself and/or others, but guns are a right without the need for any qualifications whatsoever? I'm not American, clearly, and I never got my head around this one fact, which I admit could be lowest of the low standard needed in the "I'd like to own a gun" for some reason category.
I am American, ex-military, and I don’t own a gun. I also have not touched a gun in 30 years.
With regards to the second Amendment, you have to remember the US was founded in a rebellion against what it considered a tyranny. The American mythos is encapsulated by John Locke’s social contract theory. Government exists to serve the people and when it does not, the people should overthrow the government by force if necessary.
With that said, there are a lot of good ole boys who can’t put two sentences together and shouldn’t be owning any weapon.
I have shot pistols, rifles etc. The AR-15/M-16 is by far the easiest weapon to shoot. It is incredibly accurate and becoming proficient takes only a few days. Even so , in a war, small arms don’t do much. I would rather tell my FAC to call down an air strike or fire support from the nearest tank or artillery.
Which is really ironic because when you are fighting a foreign aggressor (which was basically what American patriots were doing), what you really don't want is everyone running around on their own with their own guns. You need trained soldiers who can take commands and hold a line. Once you have them, for all your purpose, you can just keep all your guns in a locked armory, and it takes half a day to summon your soldiers and distribute weapons should the need arise.
And if you don't have the training, the best automatic rifles on the world won't help you. If your fighters can't even run to the nearest police station without hopping on a car, forget about it. You think you'll take the interstate to the battlefield when tyranny descends and black helicopters are flying around?
I understand and agree with your intention. I also don’t want to be around an untrained mob with guns. History is a bit more complicated though. During the American revolution, we were an untrained mob and would stand and fight as often as we would run away. Despite losing almost every battle, somehow the founding fathers prevailed. There are various explanations of course. But at the heart of it all was the willingness to fight.
I have to wonder about the sanity of people, who are limited to small arms, thinking that they can overthrow a government that has weapons that can annihilate them without even trying. Quantity can sometimes beat quality but they have neither one.
The thing is that until as recently as the 1960s the 2nd Amendment wasn't widely interpreted to be about anything other than militias. Radiolab has a great episode on how a small but vocal minority shifted the NRA from a sports shooting (think Olympics) group to what it is today. https://radiolab.org/podcast/more-perfect-the-gun-show
The "logic" is "shall not be infringed". The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means what the NRA wants it to mean.
A large percentage of Americans believe that the slightest crack in "shall not be infringed" will open up the door to a complete ban. So you can't be registered; you can't be made to take a test; you can't be inspected.
And they believe that if there is any restriction at all, all of the bad guys will have guns, and they will be at the mercy of a vast crime wave.
I consider this reasoning absurd. And so do a majority of Americans, according to numerous polls. But the way the law is written, it's practically impossible to change.
> The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means what the NRA wants it to mean.
A 2000 law review article on the topic found that between 1887 (when things were first indexed) until 1960, all references were towards a collective right (i.e., in a militia, akin to the current National Guard):
> The majority of the jurisdictions have concluded that both the United States Constitution and the various state constitutions, having a similar provision relating to the right to bear arms, refer to the militia as a whole composed and regulated by the state as it desires. The individual does not have the right to own or bear individual arms, such being a privilege not a right.
So the first mention of an individual right states that that is not how it is interpreted (the author argues for a dual-right, collective and individual).
In 1992:
> Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
> This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word ‘fraud’ – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well-regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18, or any other age, persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated?
Dammit. They're using stolen guns? Figures. Steal our hearts then steal our guns. Who's a widdle scam artist? *tickle tickle BANG* Oh, dang right in the *dies*
For driving, which is a dangerous activity, you need to qualify for it and regularly show you can handle the task responsibly, to avoid endangering yourself and/or others, but guns are a right without the need for any qualifications whatsoever? I'm not American, clearly, and I never got my head around this one fact, which I admit could be lowest of the low standard needed in the "I'd like to own a gun" for some reason category.