The first part of that statement is not conditional, but affirmation that the condition exists. It is not said with an "if" as it were. you are misreading it according to not only the SCOTUS, but the founding fathers personal papers in which it is made clear they believe it is required and not to be interpreted as "if a well regulated..." but "because a well regulated..."

@Nigee - I don't even own a gun anymore. Haven't handled one since I was on active duty in the Marines. But our nation, unlike yours, believes in freedoms. We believe in personal responsibility. And we believe your nation is fucked in the head for trying to make us be like them when we fought a revolution and told good ol' King George to go fuck himself.

Are you suggesting that you think knives are as deadly as guns? If it's necessary for me to do some research and get back to you with the percentage of ER knife wounds that end up fatal compared to ER gunshot wounds, I'm happy to do so...

And sure, most of the guns used were probably not legally-owned, but nearly all guns that are not legally owned are guns that were sold legally and then stolen or re-sold on the black market. And Chicago may have strict gun laws, but according to the NRA, the state of Illinois requires no registration for any kind of weapons, making stolen weapons nearly impossible to recover. Moreover, the neighboring states of Indiana and Wisconsin require no licensing of gun owners, no gun registration, no carry permit, and no licensing for gun dealers, making Chicago a haven for cross-state gun trade.

So don't blame Chicago's strict gun laws, blame its laissez faire neighbors.

@ Draughnar
" you are misreading it according to not only the SCOTUS, but the founding fathers personal papers in which it is made clear they believe it is required and not to be interpreted as "if a well regulated..." but "because a well regulated..."

Can you point me to the relevant papers and SCOTUS decision? I've always wanted to understand the basis for the definition of it as affirmative rather than conditional, but haven't known where to look. A reference would, sincerely, be appreciated and I'd be sure to read it.

At the very least though, even assuming your point about the intent, it seems self-evident that, given the existence of a standing professional army (which is, in fact, itself a constititional violation, but that's a discussion for another time), a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state... doesn't it? (Sincere question, that, so let me know if you do think we should have a citizen militia.) And if the assumption of a militia's necessity is no longer accurate, the law may bear re-examination.

Quoting gun death numbers, with no qualifying specific data points concerning the circumstances, is spurious. Who was killed? By whom? With what firearms? Where they legally purchased? When one digs a bit deeper into that Chicago statistic, one finds that a great many of those "gun deaths" are GANG RELATED. The street gangs of Chicago are as organized as the Mafia, and far more violent. Their firearms are almost entirely purchased illegally, or stolen, and the violence they commit us overwhelmingly committed again rival gang member in turf/drug disputes. Yes, sometimes there are innocent bystanders killed, but stricter legislation -- in a city that has some of the strictest gun laws already -- would do nothing to curtail these deaths in the least.

What frustrates me to no end concerning this debate over gun ownership is the unwillingness of the MSM to have an honest debate on the subject. All they do is sensationalize instances in which guns are used against innocents, rationalize when they're used against "enemies," and ignore when they're used in righteous self defense. Since Sandy Hook there have been several cases in which the lives of innocent children have been SAVED by their parents protecting them from assailants, but they get absolutely NO national coverage. If the MSM was actually honest, they'd point these instances out, they'd ask gun grabbers if they think these people SHOULDN'T have the right to defend themselves.

"At the very least though, even assuming your point about the intent, it seems self-evident that, given the existence of a standing professional army (which is, in fact, itself a constititional violation, but that's a discussion for another time), a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state... doesn't it?"

If you think that a standing army - or at least a really large standing army such as we have, which tempts our presidents to use said army in ill-conceived foreign adventures - is part of what is bankrupting our nation, then yes, our standing army actually is a threat to the long-term security of our nation. A return to the founders' intent of a well-regulated militia bolstered by a small standing army would be much, much cheaper. I'm somewhat amazed that my liberal friends don't get on that bandwagon. Sure, they'd have to accept gun rights, but they'd get to cut military spending by 50% or more.

@flemgem
But now you're arguing that a well regulated militia would be beneficial to the finances of a free state, not that it is necessary to the security of a free state, which is a very different argument. So with that in mind, I'll repeat the question: is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state?

@MichiganMan
The numbers may be spurious by your standards, but I stand by them in the use for which I employed them, which was to demonstrate that their possession and use does deprive others of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

@hecks
I'm arguing that a bankrupt state is not a secure state. It's economy is not secure, it loses capacity to provide basic social services, and thus the likelihood of internal disorder is much higher. Furthermore, a state with an executive branch with ever-increasing power and increasingly free reign to use a large standing army at its whim is a danger to free people and a secure state. I believe these are issues the founders had in mind when they wrote the second ammendment.

@hecks - You do not offer *any* evidence, however, that banning guns would bring them down. You do not offer evidence that those same crimes owuld not have been committed but with a different weapon. You offer no evidence that they wouldn't still have been committed with a firearm (stolen, blackmarket, and otherwise illegal firearms are simply more likely to be used in the commission of a violent crime). Nor do you offer any evidence that gun control reduces these incidences. In fact you offer the exact opposite considering Chicago's extremely strict gun control.

As has been pointed out numerous times, automobiles cause a higher rate of death in the population than guns. In the first 7 months of 2012, Illinois had 559 automotive fatalities. Perhaps we should ban cars. And to the point of gun control... Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the US, yet it's death rate is so high.

"@Nigee - I don't even own a gun anymore. Haven't handled one since I was on active duty in the Marines. But our nation, unlike yours, believes in freedoms. We believe in personal responsibility."
Is it 'Freedom' when people have to go to such measures to defend themselves.
Surely real Freedom is went you can walk the streets without fear of attack, when you don't need a weapon to defend yourself.
Am I being irresponsible by venturing out of my house without a weapon?
Is it that I don't take personal responsibility or is that just a stoopid thing to say from someone who is losing the argument.
If you don't support guns you don't live in a nation that believes in freedoms full of people that take personal responsibility.
Draug - I don't think you're being honest to yourself, that's the 1st step to making things better, you're not even convincing yourself anymore :-)

"Surely real Freedom is went you can walk the streets without fear of attack, when you don't need a weapon to defend yourself."

Draug just said he doesn't own a gun anymore. Sounds to me like he doesn't fear an attack when he goes outside.

@NigeeBaby - "Surely real Freedom is went you can walk the streets without fear of attack, when you don't need a weapon to defend yourself."

Sure would be nice. Why don't you let us know when you find that world?

@Faerie - I guess you're joking right, unless you happen to live in a particularly dangerous part of the world. I live in Bedfordshire. My two main threats are an airborne contagion, a poisonous water supply or nuclear armageddon. The actual fear or chance of being attacked even verbally where I live is lower than the 3 highlighted above. Bottom line is it doesn't feel dangerous at all.

Sorry that is 3 main threats, I can't count properly

Doesn't feel dangerous where I live, either. Doesn't mean that it isn't-- just because there's only a couple of murders a year doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for the couple of families that lose somebody.

And if it's so safe where you live, why are you so worried about people carrying guns? If it's safe, they must be harmless.

@ Draugnar

Are you suggesting that we treat firearms the same way we treat automobiles? Mandatory licensing with a safety test, annual registration, annual safety inspections, an annual tax, strict guidelines on what models can be manufactured and sold, and federal regulations on what kind of fuel (ammo) can be sold and where, and mandatory insurance paid for by the owner? Very well, I accept.

Oh, and let us not forget an age minimum for operation.

Moreover, I'll grant that local and municipal gun control laws are ineffective, since they do nothing to curb the flow of guns from other municipalities and states. For that, federal controls are much more effective. Let me get back to you later today with statistics on murder rates (gun, knife, or otherwise) in countries with strong federal controls and enforcement.

@darugnar
(sorry for the multiple posts)
Also, please do send me the SCOTUS decision and the references to the founders' papers you referred to. I'm genuinely interested in reading up.

@hecks - work is hectic right now so no time to reaearch web links for the decisions and what not, but I actually would agree to all of the above ideas to treat guns like cars. I believe in reasonable gun control not an outright ban. One thing you shoild realize, however, is makes and models of cars aren't regulated, only minimum standards of safety and overall manafactured vehicle fuel efficiency. So essentially a manufacturer would be allowed to sell anything that met certain guidelines (say nothing with a mag size larger than 30 rounds) and he might even be allowed to sell full auto provided they were less than say 10% of his total sales.

@draugnar
Well, right. They don't say, "You can sell a Volt, but you can't sell a Leaf". That would be silly. But my point is they're able to create standards that makes and models must meet.

With registration (to aid in recovery of stolen weapons), mandatory training and licensing, and a cap on mag size (I'd negotiate you down from 30, but we'd get to a number eventually), I think we have a deal.

And that, Washington, is how it's done. Hecks/Draugnar 2016?

(Oh, and we'd have to talk about full auto. I'm not sure I can sell that to my constituents.)

And no hurry on the references, but if you can find them eventually, you can message them to me. Like I said, this is genuine interest, not a challenge of your citations. A thinking person reads all viewpoints, whether they confirm or challenge his own.

@flemgem
If you're talking about disbanding (most of) the army and replacing it with a citizen militia, would it then would it stand to reason that the "well regulated" part means we'd have registration of firearms? If so, you may be heading toward a model I could see being constitutional, in theory, though it's rather semantic, since you will never get the US to disband its professional army, no matter what section one article eight says.

@Hecks,

Possession if a firearm does NOT deprive another of their right to life -- it may have the potential to, but a gun is not autonomously lethal. You've missed the point. The gun deaths which you stand by are overwhelmingly committed by and against ORGANIZED GANGS OF CRIMINALS. These are not "innocents" being killed, these are drug dealing gangs killing each other over turf, profits, and affiliations. Again, these gangs are NOT buying legal guns, they're stealing them or getting them on the thriving black market. Any law passed, or currently on the books, is meaningless to the gangs.

Why I that hard to understand?!?

@MichiganMan

Were the guns not available for legal sale, they would not be stolen and used illegally. But ceding the point that that's not likely to happen, I don't understand what's so objectionable about mandatory national gun registration and licensing, making it more possible to recover stolen weapons. I can cede the point that, however unnecessary I find firearms, a middle ground must be struck. But the opposition to reasonable licensing, registration, and magazine capacity limitations makes no rational sense to me.

Interestingly, on another note, your point reminds me that the traditional liberal position in favor of gun control (ie, that we should restrict the supply to prevent criminals from getting them) runs contrary to the traditional liberal position on drug legalization (ie, that people who use drugs are going to get them anyway, so the government should legalize it so it can regulate their use and collect taxes on their sale). How do my fellow liberals feel about that seeming contradiction?

@Hecks - OK, here is the SCOTUS you asked for.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

I say win for me because Justice Scalia used the *exact* word I did in writing the majority opinion. So SCOTUS agrees with me that it isn't a conditional "if" but a reason ("because").

Here are some quotes of various people (including the foudning fathers) of the time of the 2nd Amendment's writings.

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

I particularly like:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

And my all time favorite...

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States