>Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.

A ban on the purchasing of arms would definitely infringe on people's individual right to keep and bear them. Yes, an individual right, which is how 18th-19th century courts and political commentators viewed the 2nd before the 20th century "militia only" narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

This is the problem. When it comes to abortion, there's a notable portion of the populace (including Supreme Court Justices) that say "well it doesn't literally and explicitly call that out in the Consitution so no, it's not a guaranteed right".

... then when it comes to guns... "Well, of course it includes _purchasing_ those arms, even if it doesn't explicitly and literally say so, because it'd be hard to bear them otherwise, so it somehow _must_ guarantee that, too!"

Now go read the listed article ;-)

As far as I can tell the author is just making the tired militia argument while pretending to support an individual right. "Americans have a right to defend their homes". Defend their homes with what exactly? He immediately moves on to hunting weapons and the right to hunt. So according to the author, we have the right to own fudd guns, and the right to self defense (but not with guns, and not outside our home). Yawn!

>Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.

"Voting in elections is a civil right granted by the Bill of Rights. Access to a polling station isn't a civil right."

That's effectively what you're saying. Rights enshrine access. Things like poll taxes, voter ID, etc. have all been declared unconstitutional because they infringe upon your right. Banning purchasing arms falls in the exact same category.

Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation.

The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.

Words change in meaning over time. The second amendment has been hit hard by that. In the time period: "Regulated" means up to a particular standard of strength. This is why British regulars were called "regulars," because they had a particular set of equipment. "Militia" referred to the pool of people who could be called to defend the country. In 1776, that meant men of fighting age (14-60). This is different than the voting population, who were specifically landed men, or the population of citizens. In other words, the second amendment called for a fighting-age male population that was as well-armed as the military.

This is why DC vs Heller was decided in the way it was. The "well-regulated militia" before the comma meant something totally different than its current meaning.

As an aside, I think that most modern military weapons should be banned, but that is actually not what the 2nd amendment calls for. The right solution to the problem is to amend the constitution, not try to pass gun control laws and see what a court will approve.

This is the best layman's explanation I've seen of the text of the second and it's meaning in context, thank you.

I disagree with your policy preferences, but I respect and appreciate that you have a correct understanding of the constitution.

This has been discussed at great length many many times and courts nor anyone serious about this topic agrees with you. The right is not predicated on being part of a militia in any way. Anyone who says this is pretty much immediately ignored by gun owners because they are clearly not serious at all about the topic.

The Bill of Rights didn't "grant" any rights. It merely recognized some of the natural rights held by all free people, and prevented the government from infringing on those rights.

Oh wise HN poster waving away hundreds of years of jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation with one link!

Former Supreme Court justice waving the hands even!

Get five to agree and get back to me ;-)

Got dozens of countries already light years ahead on this and they are operating perfectly fine without loads of gun violence despite similar rates of mental health issues.

Those other countries do not have similar rates of mental health issues, or similar social situations at all.

If you ignore guns entirely, the US still stands out from other countries with an extraordinarily high rate of non-gun violence. It's more accurate to say that the US has a violence problem in general.

If you're truly interested in solving the violence problem, perhaps examine why the US is such a statistical outlier. And also, perhaps, why other countries like Switzerland have such different outcomes while still having extremely high rates of private gun ownership.

Switzerland rules for firearms ownership are a lot more restrictive than the US (background check for everyone, no automatic weapons, etc), and although the percentage of guns per 100 people is higher than other countries, still is about 1/4 of the US where there are roughly 5 firearms every 4 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

Topic today isn't boiling the ocean. Gun violence has two elements, access to guns and motivation. Working on either and both are key.

The data doesn't support these assertions.