But as the "Ruger" board has not yet been used, perhaps it would be a good place to continue the discussion ("Ruger" being a well-known manufacturer of handguns [ http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/index... ], though perhaps this has nothing to do with this Mr. Ruger). As <Sneaky> had suggested, such a discussion could become quite long, and since there are many other things to be discussed on Mr. Keene's message board, this might be a better place.

And out of respect to Mr. Ruger's 17 move masterpiece here, we might also spend a bit of time considering it! What do you say?

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

I intend to repost my initial message in response to <wheelchiar bandit>'s question about my opinion of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution below.

I may not be able to respond right away, but if this is a subject that interests you, this hitherto unbusy message board might be the best place to discuss it.

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

Very few subjects will get more adrenaline flowing in the bloodstreams of Americans that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"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."

One could approach this famous sentence in one of two ways: 1) as an imaginary U.S. Supreme Court Justice, interpreting an existing statute intrinsically and in light of over two centuries of juridical precedent, or 2) as a political philosopher about to write a constitution for a new state: "Should I have something like this in my constitution"?

The first approach would be fascinating, but it would involve LOTS of argumentation! So I'll just present a quick response in the second mode: as an imaginary political philosopher drafting a new constitution.

At least four reasons can be adduced in favor of allowing people to own firearms: 1) to protect themselves from dangerous people, such as burglars, madmen, etc., 2) to protect themselves from "powers without": foreign nations or causes that might wish to invade or disrupt (the reason explicitly stated in the Second Amendment), 3) to protect themselves from "powers within": the threat of oppression from the state itself, 4) general freedom of ownership: unless we can provide very good reasons to deny someone ownership rights of anything, we should allow them to own whatever they like.

There are also some reasons we might adduce to deny or limit ownership of firearms: 1) there will always be a certain number of dangerous, chaotic people in a society (criminals, substance abusers, hotheads, etc.), and the easier it is for these people to access firearms, the more firearms tragedies you'll have, 2) there will always be the possibility of firearms accidents, especially with children around, 3) there will always be the possibility that an armed and organized group might try to overthrow a just state or plunge it into perpetual chaos. These are just a few reasons.

All things considered, the practical question is, does the possibility of free and easy ownership of firearms do more harm than good?

My own feeling is that gun ownership in America is too "free and easy", and that with present policies, significantly more harm than good results from this.

I think if I were drafting a constitution for a state, I would likely allow gun ownership as a privilege, not a right: something more like an automobile driver license. One would have to undergo a course of training, would have to demonstrate competence, and would have to renew that license from time to time. Any history of chaotic or dangerous behavior would be sufficient reason to deny the privilege of ownership temporarily or permanently, depending on the behavior. The requirements for such a license would be significant, but well within the reach of stable, responsible citizens.

But I don't approach this subject in a vacuum: I was raised around firearms from my earliest years. (My father is an accomplished marksman -- "Expert" rated in the U.S. Marine Corps, the highest of their three ratings – and by far the “best shot” I’ve ever known. He and I disagree on this issue.) I’ve known of many instances of weapons being used for harm and many (though fewer) of them being used for good.

These musings are not rigorous, but just some quick intuitions about a very challenging subject.

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

Yes, I live in US, no I do not own firearms. But I did have a concealed weapons permit. I only got it to see if I can pass the background check. And at the time, it was only $5.00 application fee. So I figured what the heck...

Where I live (El Salvador, Central America), the society is far too armed for its own good. Since the government is unable to provide adequate protection for its citizens, many people own arms to protect themselves from assaults. While that reasoning is understandable, to many of us, it seems like that cure is worse than the sickness.

Sometimes business owners here who own weapons do sometimes manage to frustrate an assault or even kill or main the criminal; however, statistically, people who defend themselves with a weapon here are about 10 times more likely to be killed themselves than those who do not fight back.

Of course, another issue is crimes of passion where someone who is NOT a criminal but who owns a gun, ends up killing somebody because of jealousy, a dispute over a car accident, or a drunken argument.

Often when violent criminals are captured here, it is discovered that their weapons were legally registered. It is simply far too easy here to buy a gun.

I don't want to impose my reflections of Salvadoran society on the U.S. The second amendment DOES talk of a "right to bear arms." But surely the amendment does not preclude background checks and training for those purchasing arms.

Does this mean every single citizen has an unrestricted right to buy any quantity of any type of arms? I doubt it. So the question becomes, what conditions for possessing arms would be constitutional on one hand and yet be good for society on the other?

There are also 'strange' state laws, for example, when I had my conceal weapons permit, I can carry a gun (this was in South Dakota.) anywhere except in a bar, court, state/federal building. I can't be drunk and carry it.

If I carried the gun and police stops me, my first words better be: "I carry a gun, and have a permit. Let me bring out the permit." Just in case the officers starts shooting at me!

The permit was only good in South Dakota, if you go somewhere else, that permit is not valid.

In South Dakota, if you have a concealed weapons permit, you can buy and walk out with the firearm the same minute. You can't in California, You have to wait (usually 7 business days) before you can take the weapon home.

It needs to be considered in the context of the time in which it was was written. Then the militia "Was" the people and after the war most went back to their farms, shops and trades.

One consideration when drafting the admendment was that a militia, when needed, could not be formed if the "people" were not given the right to bear arms.

Is this the same situation we have today?

What you have observed in El Salvador is so often true in the U.S. as well. It is staggering how often a person who is using a gun for self defense is killed. And the number of gun crimes that are committed in this country in momentary surges of anger or jealousy is heart-rendingly large.

I know of specific cases in which guns owned by citizen have prevented crimes. But frankly, they are relatively few when compared with gun tragedies. (That being said, it is hard to know how many crimes are never even attempted because of the presence of privately-owned weapons: a point that gun enthusiasts are rightly quick to point out.)

As you say, "it seems like that cure is worse than the sickness". So often it does.

One phrase that is often overlooked in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is "well regulated". What we have in America right now is hardly regulated at all. I think both our nations would do well to move in the direction of being "well regulated".

Thank you again for your thoughts, <catlover>.

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)

P.S. I will try to respond to some of the other posts as time permits. Sorry for the delay! I am enjoying the discussion and the many excellent ideas.

http://www.manatarmsbooks.com/trebu...

If you listen to the following (apparently authentic) voicemail message, you may be glad the ladies in question were not armed!

The (apparent) setting: a workman driving to Dallas calls his employer on his cell phone to report that he is running a little late. While on the phone, he witnesses a traffic accident (apparently not severe):

(MP3 audio, est. file size: 2.3 MB):
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/...

(WAV audio, est. file size: 4.3 MB):
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/...

Further evidence, if any was needed, that firearms and hot tempers are not a good mix!!

(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)