I was playing golf with a buddy today and this is exactly what we were talking about. Back in the day of the Red coats our government wanted it's citizens to have guns. How far we've come.

 

Or the First Amendment, or 3rd-10th, or the rest of the 'newer' amendments, or where to find Washington DC on a map, and so on. I hate to sound cynical, but we've got a compound problem of a seriously misapplied educational system, a student body that doesn't care to learn, and adults that don't really care either. The general public has become complacent, oblivious to how ignorant our society has become, and very out of touch with our roots as a nation.

 

As a Canadian I am a fascinated listener to the 2nd amendment discussions which pre-occupy our good friends to the south.

I agree with the sentiment that the founders of the US were insightful & deliberate in their drafting of the constitution. I find it curious however that their 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms within “well organized militias”, or some such wording) came to be interpreted through clever politicking and legal process as an individual right.

The right of citizens to defend themselves from bad government? Yes!
The right of an individual to possess the power to instantaneously take the life of a fellow citizen? Umm, I am not so sure…

Canadian society has been shamelessly romanticised by the Michael Moore types as some sort of gun-less utopia. Far from it, we are also generally ignorant of our history, apathetic to current events, we also suffer from mental illness, and contrary to popular belief we lock our front doors at night!

What is factually different about Canada however, is that we have 1/3 the rate of personal gun ownership AND 1/6 the rate of homicides by firearm. Of course a direct cause/effect correlation cannot necessarily be concluded here, but there is certainly SOME relationship.

While I love visiting the US and meeting the great people down there, I ultimately ‘feel’ personally safer when I get back home, in part because of the lesser presence of guns…

 

Just to add a little to this conversation, Idaho sheriffs are required by law to issue concealed carry permits unless the person is disqualified from issuance based on specific causes.

And interestingly, I can apparently carry concealed without permit while hiking around outside the city:but not in a vehicle:Does on a motorcycle qualify for "in a motor vehicle?" I assume it does.But I can carry a lawfully possessed shotgun or AR15 concealed under my trench coat.

Idaho's statute:
Statutes

 

There was no clever politicking and legal process involved. Well, there was...but that was only later in our history as people opposed to the individuall right cleverly reinterpreted 2A in attempts to restrict the individual right.

2A was always intended as an individual right from the beginning, just as the rest of the Bill of Rights is intended as rights of the people (aka individual citizens).

2A says nothing about "well organized militias." It speaks to the necessity of a "well regulated milita," which has a different meaning than "well organized." Verbatim: 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.

Even under the assumption that only a militia can have guns, federal code defines defines militia such that the militia is made up of essentially all citizens, who would therefore have the right to keep and bear arms. Federal code states:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Again, in the context of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the events of the times, and other writings of the founders, it is very clear that they intended individual citizens to have and know how to use their firearms.

 

I consider myself a moderately educated individual... and even I still believe strongly in gun ownership.

If more people had guns the world would be a safer place (my opinion). Look at all the home invasions rampant in the UK for instance... I will be graduating and relocating soon, and I will also be acquiring my concealed weapons permit as well this year. Really considering the Glock 27 as my first handgun (off topic).

Wasn't going to post, but broke down after a few days of following this thread lol.

 

I'm no stranger to guns, I hunted for years and for 15 years I lived and worked as caretaker on a sportsmen's club where they had the only shooting ranges for miles right in my backyard, everything from archery to hand guns, all the way up to small cannons. Only thing they didn't shoot there was automatic weapons or assault rifles (club rules, even applied to the cops). It was one of my duties as caretaker to check that the people who were using the ranges were (a) members, (b) obeying the range rules, and (c) not doing anything stupid and dangerous.
They had a wide variety of interests there, and I met, and got to know, all kinds of people. Mostly decent normal people, but I met a few nut jobs too. Hunters, target shooters, black powder enthusiasts, kids, doctors, lawyers, conservation officers, cops, narcs, and drug dealers to name a few. It was the last two categories that I raised the most eyebrows at, and of course they always were in the hand gun range. The Black Powder shooters were always the friendliest, and seemed to have the most fun. They use to have their Black Powder Rendezvous there, where they would camp out for a few days dressed in their historic garb and tents. It looked like so much fun I ended up getting myself a flintlock muzzleloader rifle, and often when I had friends visiting I'd take them out to the range and let them load it up and shoot it themselves. For many it was the first time they had ever shot a real muzzleloader. It was a lot of fun, and it's the only gun I still own.

Anyway, I have my own views on guns. I think they have their place, but I wouldn't want to see Canadian laws ever allow it's citizens to run around with hand guns like they do in the states.
I don't buy it for a minute that all those guns protects the freedoms of the average person, especially not from the governments, inside or out. When too many average people start seriously arming themselves, and the government is unwilling, or unable, to intervene, it can go to hell in a hand basket pretty fast, and it's the innocent people who start loosing their freedoms first.
Here's an example of what I mean.

 

Thanks for the clarification Lutz. I certainly don’t have the familiarity with the US constitution to quote it from memory, and a motorcycle forum hardly seems the appropriate place for this discussion, but I find it a fascinating off-topic thread regardless!

Having said that, it’s my understanding that part of the debate surrounding the 2nd amendment is in fact how the word “regulated” is to be interpreted. Is it a synonym for other words such as “organized”, “formalized”, & “trained”?

I still also have some difficulty with the notion that one needs to consult outside references to properly interpret your constitution. Do you think that’s what the authors intended?

Not meaning to offend anyone, just interested in understanding your culture a little better!

 

I once had this discussion with an American friend of mine in a bar in Pflugerville TX. He warned me that Canadians should be careful in trying to understand US gun culture because to understand it would be to accept it, and to accept it would be to make it our problem too

 

gc, on that militia issue, remember that there was an official "Continental Army" in place when that document was written. The term "militia" had a very widespread and liberal connotation as written by the founders for good reason. In much later years there are those who tried to classify any militia personnel as only those who are in the "National Guard" units as we know them today. That concept came much later. And while there's nothing wrong with the NG being classified as such, it does not limit the intent of the founders by any means. As I said earlier, it's of some value to read the many writings of the founders and authors of these documents where they were able to expound on their motives and concerns present in any centralized government. It's an advantage that gives us insight into their frame of mind that you don't often get when trying to parse the written word in a more compact form like the Bill of Rights. Think about it...they wrote the constitution, but then they came back in short order and inserted the Bill of Rights just to make sure that the people really got the message. They would have never allowed a big, powerful, centralized government like we have now, even when they were in charge...which should tell us something of value.