The Second Amendment doesn't matter.
The debate over gun control has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment - it is fundamentally a disagreement over collectivism vs. individualism, with a focus on the federal government. The argument could easily turn solutions focused, with an emphasis on controls at the State or local level, which would mostly deflate the political Right's concerns about keeping the growth of the Federal government at bay, while allowing those who would defend themselves that option, provided they are trained.
Acknowledging that some can't be trusted with guns is acknowledging that men are fallible.
The federal government HAS usurped power - the political Right are therefore justified in their concern about additional federal government usurpation. As support for this statement: The purpose of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment, was understood for a significant portion of this nations history to limit the federal government - not the states or the people. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, we read: "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." [5]
As appropriate, the State governments CAN and DO make their own laws concerning weapons, speech, court, and numerous other areas.
See http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm Scroll down and look for New Jersey. Take note that the great state of New Jersey offers no protection for bearing arms. Take note of the same for California. Take note of how Texas' Constitution reads. For additional support, see the Constitution for the Common Man.
There was a list of 17 enumerated powers, one of which was the General Welfare clause which has been one of the ways of usurping power. The General Welfare clause was interpreted narrowly within the scope of the 17 enumerated powers for a significant period of our nation's history as 'promised' its founding documents (see the Federalist papers todo: add specific references).
The General Welfare clause was interpreted broadly starting in 1937, which resulted in a massive growth in the Federal government. "Finally, in 1937, a single justice changed his vote and a new majority of the Supreme Court initiated the modem tradition of judicial deference to economic and social welfare legislation." [4] The federal government effectively gave itself more power by granting itself the ability to interpret the terms of its own governing document through the concept called Judicial Review. The federal government uses money gained from the income tax against citizens of the States to keep a leash on the State governments. [todo: add specific references] The interstate commerce clause has been used to FORCE Federal regulation of guns i.e., Background checks, restriction of automatic weapons, etc. The equal protection component of the 14th amendment is what has been used to gradually FORCE the Federal Bill of Rights and various Supreme Court 'decisions' onto the many States Read here: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html, and quoting from the foregoing link: "These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states." (emphasis mine).
The federal government effectively changes the terms of its own 'contract' with the people and the states. For example, the Supreme Court seems to be fickle regarding its "laws" around guns: In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." (emphasis mine)In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home", but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal governmen
Making all the States alike with respect to rights has advantages, but it also undermines competition among the States and therefore reduces incentives for States to cater to the People with laws, find better practices to create good trade-offs that work with local culture and conditions, etc. The equal protection component of the 14th amendment may very well eventually result in an incorporation of the 2nd amendment onto the States, but this has not yet fully occurred
Our government has checks and balances for a reason - because men are fallible. This is a well-covered topic - see Plato's Republic for details.
In the history of mankind, governments ran by fallible mankind have killed MILLIONS, most of which have been in the last century.
Many state governments ALREADY have many basic checks in place that have so far stopped NO mass murders, but have perhaps raised awareness and prevented some accidental deaths.
The weapons that are often slated for banning are exceedingly rare in their criminal use.
Mass shootings occur at places where weapons have been banned.
In order to purchase a firearm, each state may need to adjust their residency/citizenship requirements to include an attestation that citizens will not attempt to harm citizens or residents of the state unless in active self-defense and are qualified, mentally competent, and trained to operate a firearm. State laws can be modified to put exceptions to gun purchase or sale for the following: mentally ill Take note: there are plenty of medicinally-managed mental illnesses, short duration mental illnesses, the definition of mental illness changes OFTEN - e.g., homosexuality was once considered a mental illness - only 2 updates ago of the DSM, there could be a tolerance to meds built-up rendering them ineffective, going off the meds may result in side-effects, seasonal affective disorder for example is real, but may not disqualify gun usage, some soldiers have PTSD, but are highly trained, and the guns make them feel safe, etc. etc. etc. this is a complicated bullet. This would require a database of everyone who has EVER had a mental illness and ONLY if the people sought treatment - resulting in punishing those who have sought or seek help, and potentially eventually resulting in LESS seeking of help that is needed. Be careful! Defining what mental illness is in relation to arguments for controls such as licensing around the acquisition of devices which possess a high degree of destructive capability within a package that can be hand carried (gun control). In secular society, we have the DSM, but even a couple revisions ago, homosexuality was defined as a mental illness in the DSM and now it isn't, so I'm not sure of its reliability. What is mentally 'ill'? Is it simply incomplete reasoning or --perhaps reasoning which although having a kernel of truth or even incomplete, does not factor other mitigating factors, becomes twisted and justified into a state which is unsustainable and will result in where the reasoning would eventually result in a violent encounter not originating from self-defense. If so, by this definition, in many ways, the whole darned world is mad! Maybe a line is drawn somewhere - if there have been or appear to be instances of physical violence not originating from self-defense, then that might be a good line to draw.
While I could disagree with how someone arrived at their opinion on a given topic, I could see their use of reasoning and conclude that it was reason-ABLE, but not necessarily complete. Are all suicide attempts born out of an errant concern for others?
incompetent: lacking ability to hit targets Appeals process with emergency approval Increase gun safety awareness through public service announcements Increase awareness amongst health care professionals and patients on gun safety Encourage community based training where possible Provide exceptions for attestation requirements for: rural, farming peaceful, non-aggressive religious communities who assert their right to self-govern and self-defense on emergency basis for those fearing for their life under attestation It will take years, but create a positive and responsible culture around firearms - see Texas, see Switzerland. Texas moves to open carry in 2016, we'll see how it goes. Considering making background checks AVAILABLE, but not required for the State governments If you want protection that is practical - concealed carry is here and now and training can be required. In the same way that it was demanded that employers cease having their employees work on Thanksgiving, demand that employers provide security: Alongside fire safety, which is well covered by fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, and automatic calls to emergency responders Trained and armed security guards Emergency Taser Shotguns with competent 'sleeper' staff Active shooter drills; or Allow concealed carry in alignment with State law.
Risk Assessment
Threat Vulnerability Risk Likelihood Risk Impact Recommendation Residual Risk if Recommendation Implemented Federal Government Actively Attempting to Commit Genocide Against its own People People forgetting or being poorly trained
Religious War People being Unorganized
Ham Radio, Social Media, Preserving Internet Freedom
Federal Govenrment reducing Liberty of its own People Reinstate the Check and Balance between State and Federal government by revise the 14th amendment such that the equal protection clause can't be used by the Supreme Court to force State governments on political winds.
Your safety and security is ultimately your responsibility. You are accountable with your very life. I suggest not putting it in the hands of others less competent than yourself. Kindly give me the same respect. With all of this said, your odds of dying in a mass shooting are much less than getting bit by a shark, dying in a car accident, or being struck by a bolt of lightning. Maybe you should go buy a State lottery ticket.
Sources
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-massacre-suspects-appear-have-been-radicalized-n473261
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017629/BA-pilot-planned-crash-plane-killing-wife.html
[3] https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013
[4] http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3764&context=flr
[5] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Credits
S. Jones - editing and additional quotes
A work in progress - if something is in error, please tell me
Maybe what we're really all concerned about has a common thread, - accountability for power, just the scale and focus is different. To test this, at what point do those reading say enough is enough. Hypothetically, if I could carry a suitcase nuke, would that count as Arms? Those against the larger capacity guns I think are saying that in the microcosm idiots with lots of unaccountable force can get into trouble. Having seen for myself some of the idiots with guns, I can say that those asking for more accountability are not wrong, but I'm not sure they are right either. Personally, I suspect that much of the energy spent debating may be better placed on improving training programs or in recognizing the signs that someone is about to freaking lose it.
In your case, it appears that you believe your nutcase neighbor is in many ways, making "motions towards war" given his display of weaponry. If you are truly frightened, then I suspect you could go do battle with this individual, but the reality is you have not done battle, therefore you concerns are perhaps inflated - you have assessed the risk though having a high impact as being fairly unlikely otherwise perhaps even stymied by the reality that maybe as crazy as you think your neighbor is, he hasn't shot you yet. Maybe he has some understanding that he can be hauled off to jail if he does.
But, to what I believe is the thread behind your point with its tie in to screaming fire in the movie theater. Let's keep to the idea behind the Bill of Rights. If you were to check the preamble, you would find the it was meant to restrain the Government NOT the people. Got that? Which government and which people is perhaps debatable, but for a significant portion of our nation's history, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit the Federal government. What is the exact legal construct limiting your ability to scream fire in a movie theater? Is it really the 1st amendment?
The second amendment has some history to it - and initially I understand there was actually some debate about how to word it such that those who DIDN'T want to carry guns to defend the country, weren't forced to. Initially, they could have someone stand in their place. Weird, right? But, as time drags on, it seems we forget things. Even the state of Georgia, at one point, seemed to think that the 2nd amendment was sufficiently robust that in its state government it had no need to pass any laws regarding the carrying or storing of arms. They changed that recently. Did the amendment change? Or were they trying to limit when and where black people could carry firearms, perhaps?
The 1st amendment limits .... who? It limits Congress! But I guess, the powers that be saw fit to "Fix" that. Here's the obligatory wikipedia quote:"Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
See https://en.wikipedia.org/.../First_Amendment_to_the...
Perhaps in due time, the 14th amendment will eventually force the whole issue of the second amendment upon the states. California's recent legislative actions may force this challenge.
Accountability over the use of power. In the history of governments ours is a rare gift. There have always been and always will be characters that do horrible things on a small and large scale and there will be corruption. The whole idea behind representative government is to dilute the ability of one man to take control of what could become a large scale killing and enslaving machine.
Don't believe it? I've already mentioned Georgia's change of heart regarding the 2nd amendment (Read animal farm anyone)? Members of our various intelligence agencies have been caught red-handed lying during Congressional inquiries about basically violating the 4th amendment. And if you don't have a problem with that, that is, complete strangers that you know nothing about pouring through your email and personal effects, then by all means, post your email credentials in response.
While the government is not overtly attacking the majority of us, these type of events prove that we must always be on guard. To counter act such a threat I would say requires a level of force at near equivalence to what the military carries. If someone wants a cannon, fine that must be controlled by a town or militia. But, the place to have such laws would be at the state or local level, not the Federal level.
I thought we weren't supposed to have standing armies?
I thought Congress was supposed to declare war?
I thought bombing is an act of war?
I thought never in the history of governments has some megalomaniac convinced the legislative branch to grant him more power and use some crazy emergency powers clause. Right. Never happened. Not here, right?
What happened in the American revolution of 1937 may not have involved bullets, but ....
"Finally, in 1937, a single justice changed his vote and a new majority of the Supreme Court initiated the modem tradition of judicial deference to economic and social welfare legislation."
A single justice changed his mind and thereby changed the lives of hundreds of millions. Anyone see a problem here?