|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
agate
Site Admin
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 5694
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject: Supremes & the right to bear arms in DC |
 |
|
The recent Supreme Court decision has given the go-ahead to many gun-rights advocates, unfortunately, but there's been some outrage about it too:
| Quote: |
Public Health Response to Supreme Court’s Heller Decision
Posted On 27th June 2008
(Commentary by David Hemenway, PhD, Professor, Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Hemenway is the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center.)
My field of research is public health, and in particular injury and violence prevention. The scientific evidence is very strong that raising the speed limit increases deaths, as does repealing motor cycle helmet laws. The scientific evidence is also very strong that, all other things equal, more guns in the United States means more death-- more homicide, more suicide, more unintentional gun deaths.
So from a public health standpoint, I was disappointed in the recent Supreme Court decision.
This is the first time in the history of the United States that the Second Amendment was used to overturn a gun control law. The decision appears to overturn some 200 years of jurisprudence.
Federalist James Madison's first draft of the Second Amendment contained three parts, all of which seem to be about the militia. The first part began with “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state…” It was shortened to become “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The majority opinion seems effectively to have erased that phrase.
The second part of the draft remained unchanged. It states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The phrase “keep and bear Arms” was a military phrase. The majority opinion effectively changes it to read “the right of the people to keep Arms and to bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
The final part of the original draft stated: “but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” This phrase was eliminated, but it seems to be about the militia.
The Antifederalists (the minority) had put forward a number of proposed Amendments. Some were accepted—the Second Amendment is almost word-for-word one of their original 14 proposals. Some were not accepted. One of these was “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves...or for the purpose of killing game.” The Federalists could easily have also made this proposed Amendment part of the Bill of Rights. But they did not.
Yet the Supreme Court majority has decided that the Second Amendment is not about the militia, but is about an individual right to protect oneself with a firearm.
And not only any firearm, but the majority says that today that means a handgun-- which is unfortunately the weapon of choice in the United States for suicide, for armed robbery and for murder.
The United State has similar rates of (non-gun) crime and (non-gun) violence as the other 25 industrialized democracies. But we have more guns (particularly handguns), the most permissive gun control laws, and by far the most gun homicides (and thus total homicides). From a public health standpoint, I can only hope that the Supreme Court decision will not lead to a substantial weakening of our already generally permissive gun control laws.
Article printed from Gun Guys: http://www.gunguys.com
URL to article:[url] http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3081[/url]
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
