How U.S. gun ownership became a ‘right,’ and why it isn’t

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Unfortunately, gun ownership in the US has reached a point where it my be impossible to institute sensible gun laws. When right-wing militias openly threaten their own government and when a hundred and fifty gun deaths per day is considered normal, gun reform may be almost impossible.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
How U.S. gun ownership became a ‘right,’ and why it isn’t

"That,” we tell ourselves, “is just the way the Americans are.” We say it every time some firearms horror strikes a movie theatre or school or workplace. We say it when the U.S. President, reduced to tears, tries to use his limited powers to make minimal changes to laws that allow almost anyone to purchase and use an assault rifle.

After all, hasn’t it always been this way? Americans have always believed that they have a right to own and carry guns, we think. Strict gun control has never been an American option. That’s just the way they are.

Except that it isn’t. The American gun crisis, and the attitudes and laws that make it possible, are very new. The broad idea of a right to own firearms, along with the phenomenon of mass shootings, did not exist a generation ago; the legal basis for this right did not exist a decade ago.

Until 2002, every U.S. president and government had declared that the Constitution’s Second Amendment did not provide any individual right for ordinary citizens to own firearms. Rather, it meant what its text clearly states: that firearms shall be held by “the People” – a collective, not individual right – insofar as they are in the service of “a well-regulated militia.”

There had not, up to that point, been much ambiguity about this. “For 218 years,” legal scholar Michael Waldman writes in his book The Second Amendment: A Biography, “judges overwhelmingly concluded that the amendment authorized states to form militias, what we now call the National Guard,” and did not contain any individual right to own firearms.

The U.S. Supreme Court had never, until 2008, suggested even once that there was any such right. Warren Burger, the arch-conservative Supreme Court justice appointed by Richard Nixon, in an interview in 1991 described the then-new idea of an individual right to bear arms as “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.”

The individual right to bear arms is only a few years old, and based on nothing; its fall could be as quick as its rise. Once the Supreme Court has two more appointments by Democratic presidents, it will eventually provide a correct interpretation of the amendment, the interpretation Americans knew and respected for 217 years.

The attitude behind it will take longer to erase, but it too can fade. Americans who are horrified outnumber those who want weapons. This era will be remembered, in a generation, as one of those periodic explosions of irrationality in the United States, one with especially tragic results.

How U.S. gun ownership became a ‘right,’ and why it isn’t - The Globe and Mail

Excuse me?

Read the Constitution, the first ten amendments of which are the Bill of Rights.

A bill of rights is, by definition, a limitation on the power of the state over the individual. For some moron to actually argue that the US Bill of Rights actually is an empowerment of the state in giving it the right to bear arms is more than a little disingenuous. (that means REALLY F#*King stupid)

Moreover, the opinion of the government on the matter is irrelevant. It is their power being limited, so they do not have any legitimate say in the matter.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
You're probably wrong, but I just can't be bothered to find out why right now lol