[MikeD]

This has been nursing within the head for some time...just wanted to get some feedback...

I think the second amendment is vastly misinterpreted by most people in this country. It's specifically focused on well-regulated militias. My interp. is that it's intended to preserve individual rights by providing state and lower governments the ability to deter oppressive measures by the both the federal government and any internal threats to life and liberty which may arise.

This means 1) military weapons and 2) control/organization by, and loyalty to, a local governmental entity. Even in revolutionary times, there was a sharp distinction between battefield weapons and your average rifle. Smoothbore muskets were relatively useless for individuals...they were inaccurate, but fast loading, and effective only en masse. Not the kind of weapon you needed for hunting or home defense, which would be filled by a rifle (which had very limited military application...), shotgun, or possibly a pistol, depending on needs.

So, basically, I think the second amendment is simply inapplicable to the arguments about gun control in this country. It's got nothing to do with handguns, concealed carry, what weapons citizens can own, etc. It's not a matter of anything but the scope of the amendment...this isn't a critique of Americans and what guns they can or should have. I just don't see it as an issue covered by the scope of the second amendment, leaving it open for regulation by the federal (not the people to regulate it, IMHO) and state/local governments (a more reasonable entity to regulate these issues).

I do think the amendment sets the stage for states and local groups to have some sort of military reserve force, which is most closely filled by the national guard in our current organization. It's not a truly independent state militia, but no state seems to have the desire (or probably the cash) to front such an organization. The fact that the states haven't wanted or created a militia is no reason to misinterpret the 2nd amendment to cover an individual's right to have a gun for any reason other than as a member of a militia (which might or may not, according to its own regulations, allow members to keep military weapons in their homes). In short, the 2nd amendment isn't a catch-all right to have guns. It's a specific right for a specific purpose.

So while I know what I've said is total anathema to the NRA folks, I just wanted to open a discussion in the name of internet tirades. I'm by no means anti-gun; I'm just a stickler with my legal logic. Have at it...

MD

 

[Silver]

Pretty much agree. (Edit: Pretty much? 100%, actually)

Now, for the NRA members out there:

Why can't I have a suitcase nuke? 100 pounds of Semtex in a vest? An RPG in the garage?

 

[BurlyShirley]

The only issue I have is, if the intent of the ammendment was to provide some form of protection for the citizens FROM the government, than it kind of stands to reason that, since the states arent inclined to uphold it, the citizens themself ought to have the right to attempt to...no?
Not saying it would have much effect if the military ever did try to take the country over, but, it's at least a little comforting to know that an Iraq-like insurgency could at least make it costly.

 

[Changleen]

Here you go, a little surrounding law and the 2nd ammendment itself:

Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

Second Amendment: 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.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689).

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818)

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790).

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842).

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.

III. "The Right of the People" in Other Bill of Rights Provisions

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: [Speaking of "the powers . . . of the people" rather than "the right . . . of the people"] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

IV. Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure

Rhode Island Free Press Clause: The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Massachusetts Free Press Clause: The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth.

Massachusetts Speech and Debate Clause: The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation of prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

New Hampshire Venue Clause: In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed.

 

[Changleen]

So it seems different states interpret it differently - Some are more gung ho about it and some are not.

I personally think that it was a bit of a mistake to allow that level of gun ownership in the first place. America would be a much nicer place without so many idiots running round shooting people.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I like TN's definition most.

 

[Tenchiro]

Here is how I see it, the 2nd Ammendment is our insurance policy on the rest of them.

Take that how you will.

 

[Changleen]

I like TN's definition most.

"For their common defence" kinda implies 'not for personal use' to me. Is that where you're coming from?

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

Pretty much agree. (Edit: Pretty much? 100%, actually)

Now, for the NRA members out there:

Why can't I have a suitcase nuke? 100 pounds of Semtex in a vest? An RPG in the garage?

Answer: Look at your signature. HA! Just kiddin.

 

[Changleen]

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

I hope they go on to make dispensations for young children and criminals...

 

[Changleen]

Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)


Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "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."

The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.

What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.

So I guess it was intended for everyone to get a gun, albeit not for shooting other people, just other armies. That puts the handgun people in a bit of a spot.

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

I hope they go on to make dispensations for young children and criminals...

Which is every pro-gun guy/girls problem with gun control. It doesn't matter what they say about criminals having them. THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS.

As for the constitutionality issue. The constitution leaves room for certain enumerated rights not specifically granted to states and citizens. MikeD brings a valid point however; if the anti-gunners want to get something done, his point/argument alone is the sole argument they have in their arsenal. Effective???? No. So if you want handguns out of the criminals hands.....you can go ask them for them and see how well diplomacy works. Or, you can always be ready for them because prevention works,,, right?

 

[TheMontashu]

So it seems different states interpret it differently - Some are more gung ho about it and some are not.

I personally think that it was a bit of a mistake to allow that level of gun ownership in the first place. America would be a much nicer place without so many idiots running round shooting people.

Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.

you mean moe?

 

[Changleen]

Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.

I don't think that had much to do with taking guns away from the people...

 

[DaveW]

Without guns the government can take controll of the people. The government needs to fear its populas. Look at the 4 greatist murdereds of the 20th century, pol pot, mou, hitler, and stalin. All of them took the guys away from the people.

Actually those govenments probably had the greatest fear of the people of any govenment last century, so I recon that the statement "The government needs to fear its populas" is a false one. If they fear you they will repress you, so if they don't fear you they will be good to you like say the swedish govenment (as a random example).

 

[Changleen]

Which is every pro-gun guy/girls problem with gun control. It doesn't matter what they say about criminals having them. THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS.

As for the constitutionality issue. The constitution leaves room for certain enumerated rights not specifically granted to states and citizens. MikeD brings a valid point however; if the anti-gunners want to get something done, his point/argument alone is the sole argument they have in their arsenal. Effective???? No. So if you want handguns out of the criminals hands.....you can go ask them for them and see how well diplomacy works. Or, you can always be ready for them because prevention works,,, right?

The criminals don't always have to have guns. If the population as a majority decided it wanted to get rid of guns, and the law was behind it, it wouldn't take long for it to practically impossible to carry and use a gun without instantly attracting law enforcement attention. You could own them, but they'd have to be kept hidden, and therefore would be mostly useless. Gun crime would be drastically reduced, and only be in the domain of really serious criminals such as it is in Europe. Only your gun lobby stops this from happening.

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

The criminals don't always have to have guns.

Sure, some criminals don't. They could always knuckle-up against a mob of people.

 

[Changleen]

Sure, some criminals don't. They could always knuckle-up against a mob of people.

Wow, for a moment I thought you might take this thread seriously.

 

[TheMontashu]

The criminals don't always have to have guns. If the population as a majority decided it wanted to get rid of guns, and the law was behind it, it wouldn't take long for it to practically impossible to carry and use a gun without instantly attracting law enforcement attention. You could own them, but they'd have to be kept hidden, and therefore would be mostly useless. Gun crime would be drastically reduced, and only be in the domain of really serious criminals such as it is in Europe. Only your gun lobby stops this from happening.

If criminals want guns they can go to mexico and get one, no problem. Criminals don't look at society sees things THEY ARE CRIMINALS, and knowing that the populas is unarmed will only be opurtunity to tak advantage of an unarmed person.

And the idea that some one cant walk down the street with a gun and not be notices is flat out WRONG, you can carry ALOT without being noticed

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

Wow, for a moment I thought you might take this thread seriously.

I can't be serious when I quote you. Sorry.

 

[Changleen]

If criminals want guns they can go to mexico and get one, no problem. Criminals don't look at society sees things THEY ARE CRIMINALS, and knowing that the populas is unarmed will only be opurtunity to tak advantage of an unarmed person.

And the idea that some one cant walk down the street with a gun and not be notices is flat out WRONG, you can carry ALOT without being noticed

If you illegalised guns and put some effort into it (say a 10th of the effort you put into Iraq) you could have great border control with Mexico. You may be able to walk along the street with a concealed gun, but if the law abiding population had disarmed, the moment you pulled it you'd have all the cops in the area on your ass. Criminals arn't stupid, they weigh risk vs. reward. If you knew the heat that would come down on you for pulling a gun in a 7/11 robbery for a few bucks was going to be serious, you wouldn't do it.

It is possible to get handguns in Europe and in fact in most of the first world, and some people have them. The thing is they cannot be used with the same sort of freedom that they can in the US because of their illegality, and the support for these laws by the bulk of the population. You'll never have this situation in the US until you have the support of the population, which you'll never get until you can remove the mindset of the NRA.

 

[Changleen]

I can't be serious when I quote you. Sorry.

I think it's just that you're just retarded and can't actually argue for ****, so you have to resort to weak humour when you have no defence.

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

I think it's just that you're just retarded and can't actually argue for ****, so you have to resort to weak humour when you have no defence.

Give me something to argue then. Wait, it's no use to argue here. So I make fun of comments like that. Criminals don't have to have guns??? That's like saying a hamburger doesn't have to actually have hamburger involved. WTF am I supposed to do? Next time, I'll just not say anything and have a good laugh when I head into work.

Good luck

 

[bjanga]

I think that the bottom line is that if someone really wants to, they will find a way to kill people. Tank, RPG, Assault rifle, Cheney's shotgun, handguns, pellet rifles, knives, shifter cable used as a garotte, I would have a hard time saying "no" to one while saying "yes" to another, if only because pellet pistols can look remarkably similar to bona fide handguns.

From another standpoint, I think it is safe to say that we need knives and shifter cables. Do we need pellet guns and shotguns for hunting? Should hunting be legal? Should only "certified hunters" be able to wield firearms? Are there any good uses for firearms besides those involving crime and hunting?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Give me something to argue then. Wait, it's no use to argue here. So I make fun of comments like that. Criminals don't have to have guns??? That's like saying a hamburger doesn't have to actually have hamburger involved. WTF am I supposed to do? Next time, I'll just not say anything and have a good laugh when I head into work.

Good luck

the argument of "criminals will always have guns" doesnt make much sense.

what is the point of customs, if drug dealers will smuggle drugs anyway??
what is the point of traffic laws, if people still die in crashes and always will?
are you getting it?

 

[Changleen]

Give me something to argue then. Wait, it's no use to argue here. So I make fun of comments like that. Criminals don't have to have guns??? That's like saying a hamburger doesn't have to actually have hamburger involved. WTF am I supposed to do? Next time, I'll just not say anything and have a good laugh when I head into work.

Good luck

Well, since you can't understand the proposition of a criminal without a gun, or even what I was actually driving at, that society does not have to allow criminals to have guns (I understand now why you could not understand that subtle distinction based on your more recent comments) and better still you cannot formalate an argument based on your position on the 2nd ammendment, a subject you clearly feel something (to the degree I assume you can feel anyhting) about, I'd say most people are probably laughing at you.

 

[Changleen]

I think that the bottom line is that if someone really wants to, they will find a way to kill people. Tank, RPG, Assault rifle, Cheney's shotgun, handguns, pellet rifles, knives, shifter cable used as a garotte, I would have a hard time saying "no" to one while saying "yes" to another, if only because pellet pistols can look remarkably similar to bona fide handguns.

Yes, I basically agree that if someone really wants to kill someone they will find a way. However looking at the statistics (www.nationmaster.com) it is fairly obvious that in general in the western world, countries that have less access to guns have less gun crime and lower murders in general.

The fact is guns make it easy to kill and seriously injure. They make it an action anyone is capable of in a quarter second's rage. Especially handguns. With the preponderance of guns in the US is it any suprise you have the pointless loss life that is often incurred when people have a second of bad judgement?

The fact is, countries which have harsher attitudes to guns have less gun crime. If America banned handguns, and the public in general would realise it was a good thing, gun crime and deaths would go down. People assume that criminals would suddenly go on some huge killing spree. This might happen for one second. In even the medium short term it would be a better deal for everyone in terms of randomly not getting shot in some random bull****.

 

[MikeD]

And thus dies the hope that this thread might be about the 2nd amendment, and not the way people feel...

MD

 

[DaveW]

Die monster die!!

 

[MikeD]

If you illegalised guns and put some effort into it (say a 10th of the effort you put into Iraq) you could have great border control with Mexico. You may be able to walk along the street with a concealed gun, but if the law abiding population had disarmed, the moment you pulled it you'd have all the cops in the area on your ass. Criminals arn't stupid, they weigh risk vs. reward. If you knew the heat that would come down on you for pulling a gun in a 7/11 robbery for a few bucks was going to be serious, you wouldn't do it.

Are you suggesting the cops would respond differently to an armed robbery if other citizens couldn't carry concealed weapons? I don't get your point on all this. You've implied that openly-carried weapons are the actual problem, and that eliminating concealment would somehow make the police more responsive to armed crime. There's simply not an intersection of the two issues... and criminals generally conceal a weapon until the occasion of use or brandishment, so what's it going to change? Cops aren't going to suddenly have a better ability to spot concealed weapons, or a different reaction to spotting one (or witnessing its removal from a concealed position).

And criminals can be and are often very stupid, especially when it comes to weighing risk/benefit. Additional penalties, death penalties, etc. haven't actually had too much deterrent effect...they've often simply made those inclined to violence that much more desparate if they're considering the penalties at all.

MD

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And thus dies the hope that this thread might be about the 2nd amendment, and not the way people feel...

MD

I'll try to revive the original intent...

Here's a legal question. Should we really be trying to figure out the exact intent of the writers of the second amendment? It seems ambiguous at best to me. I think the founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be a living document as well, so the meaning of the laws change over time. That's why we rely so much on case law in interpreting the Constitution. If we want to parse the second amendment, then I think that your analysis is pretty good. Is anyone knowledgable about the Supreme Court rulings on this issue and how they have changed over the years?

 

[Tenchiro]

There is nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership. Think of it this way, where have all the recent massacres taken place in America in recent history?

Schools and office buildings, places where the guy with the guns knew nobody else would have them. When is the last time something like that happened at an NRA convention, rifle range or gun show?

We don't only need them to protect ourselves from the government.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

There is nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership. Think of it this way, where have all the recent massacres taken place in America in recent history?

Schools and office buildings, places where the guy with the guns knew nobody else would have them. When is the last time something like that happened at an NRA convention, rifle range or gun show?

We don't only need them to protect ourselves from the government.

Wait, so allowing students to arm themselves would have prevented Columbine?

 

[Tenchiro]

Wait, so allowing students to arm themselves would have prevented Columbine?

All I was saying is that people who want to victimize others are going to go where they have the greatest chance of success. And where the least risk to them is.

But do you think that these school shooting would happen if people new the teachers (for example) were armed? (Take note that I in no way endorse this idea)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

All I was saying is that people who want to victimize others are going to go where they have the greatest chance of success. And where the least risk to them is.

But do you think that these school shooting would happen if people new the teachers (for example) were armed? (Take note that I in no way endorse this idea)

Yes, they probably would.

 

[noname]

If you illegalised guns and put some effort into it (say a 10th of the effort you put into Iraq) you could have great border control with Mexico. You may be able to walk along the street with a concealed gun, but if the law abiding population had disarmed, the moment you pulled it you'd have all the cops in the area on your ass. Criminals arn't stupid, they weigh risk vs. reward. If you knew the heat that would come down on you for pulling a gun in a 7/11 robbery for a few bucks was going to be serious, you wouldn't do it.

It is possible to get handguns in Europe and in fact in most of the first world, and some people have them. The thing is they cannot be used with the same sort of freedom that they can in the US because of their illegality, and the support for these laws by the bulk of the population. You'll never have this situation in the US until you have the support of the population, which you'll never get until you can remove the mindset of the NRA.

the fact that you assume that the "heat" would be onto you almost immediately just because you pulled a gun is incredibly naive. Police only resond to crimes committed, they don't prevent crimes.
Also, no one carries their guns out in the open but law enforcement, so you could actually carry a large caliber firearm anywhere (except airports, courts etc.) and nobody would know.
You could rob a 7/11 at gunpoint, walk out to your car and drive away long before the police ever show.
As far as countries with fewer guns having less crime, Switzerland pretty much kills that assumption. they are far more heavily armed than the U.S. per capita and have a lower murder rate than any country in Europe sans greece.
A lot of it is cultural.
Also, if a country has fewer guns it stands to reason that there may be fewer gun crimes, but what about violent crimes in general? There are many countries out there where private gun ownership is banned, yet the overall per capita rates for violent crimes (robbery, assault, hot burglaries etc.) is higher. (England comes readily to mind).
As far as the Second amendment barring private ownership and use of arms, I don't believe that. I also don't believe in a "living document".
To believe in a living document is to believe that the words mean different things at different times, essencially saying that it means what we want it to mean. try enforcing a contract whos meaning and interpretation change depending on who is reading it.
The founding fathers of this country were pretty clear in their writing that the second amendment applied to private ownership of weapons , and for the most part the courts and states have born that out.
The U.S. constitution is not a set of limitations telling the citizens what they are allowed to do so much as it is a set of parameters telling government what they can/can't do.
I guess ultimately what it comes down to is " you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" ink:

 

[noname]

Yes, they probably would.

I'd have to disagree with that, check your stats on hot burglaries/ and Breaking and entering in states with ccw laws and check them against states without ccw laws, also check the rates in those states before and after ccw laws were implemented, the rates of hot burglaries (people home at time of crime) goes down.
Criminals will avoid armed resistance.
Also, check the towns in the US with the highest level of gun crimes, they are also the cities with the most restrictive gun control measures.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'd have to disagree with that, check your stats on hot burglaries/ and Breaking and entering in states with ccw laws and check them against states without ccw laws, also check the rates in those states before and after ccw laws were implemented, the rates of hot burglaries (people home at time of crime) goes down.
Criminals will avoid armed resistance.
Also, check the towns in the US with the highest level of gun crimes, they are also the cities with the most restrictive gun control measures.

We were speaking of school shootings, not burglaries.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

As far as the Second amendment barring private ownership and use of arms, I don't believe that. I also don't believe in a "living document".
To believe in a living document is to believe that the words mean different things at different times, essencially saying that it means what we want it to mean. try enforcing a contract whos meaning and interpretation change depending on who is reading it.
The founding fathers of this country were pretty clear in their writing that the second amendment applied to private ownership of weapons , and for the most part the courts and states have born that out.
The U.S. constitution is not a set of limitations telling the citizens what they are allowed to do so much as it is a set of parameters telling government what they can/can't do.
I guess ultimately what it comes down to is " you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" ink:

If the Constitution were not meant to be a living document, then why did the founders put in amendments and means to add more amendments? Also, your idea of what case law means is rather limited. It does not mean that you read the original words and just interpret as you see fit. That actually more correctly fits the situation that you are trying to impose, because words, societies, and situations do change. When you try to interpret the exact words of the second amendment with your understanding of the current world, that is when you run into interpretational barriers. If you go back and look at the case history, you can get a feel for how the law has evolved within society.