Over at World’s Pain, a rather long and detailed discussion related to the Second Amendment (and a few other contentious issues) has been taking place between Dave, a U.S. citizen, and rautakyy, the blog owner and a Finland resident (also an occasional visitor to this blog).
The former is a staunch supporter of gun ownership via the Second Amendment, while rautakyy disagrees and supports his stand through basic reasoning, along with sharing the various gun laws of his home country … AND common sense assertions.
As one might expect, Dave, the antagonist, touts the abbreviated version of the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership in the U.S., along with the various and sundry reasons that many before him have expressed (including individual state laws, various facts and figures on gun-related incidents, etc.).
If this is a topic that interests you, I urge you to spend some time and follow the conversation. In the meantime, I wanted to share this latest (verbatim) entry by rautakyy:
@Dave, as a researcher of history, it appears as quite clear to me what the second amendment means and why it was formulated as it was. It needs to be looked at in the cultural and political context it was written in. That leaves very little interpretation room. The newly founded states needed a military, but did not have stable enough revenue to create one capable of fending off the global empire they had broken from. A nother option would have been draft, but that – just like taxation to build a standing army – reminded too much like the British empire. So, they worded the law to look like voluntary service in a regulated state militia and paying for the necessary equipment by oneself was one of the new freedoms they had given to people. This was a way to ensure also, that the frontiersmen would make less trouble, as it became possible for them to join the society, and be regulated at the same time. Most certainly the newly founded government did not think dudes sitting at home with their muskets would somehow make the government make any better laws. They may have written beatiful propaganda about it, but it is a bit absurd to think, that is how they saw their own social morals – incited to do better out fear for violence.
Here in Finland we are only experimenting on drivers licences for kids under the age of 18 years. The test has brought good and bad results. Neither driving a car, nor owning a gun are basic human rights. They are liberties regulated (well or poorly) and granted by the society to an individual based on an evaluation of that individual being responsible enough to not take exessive risks at the cost of others.
I am well aware this is a super contentious issue among U.S. citizens and more than likely we will never find common ground. Nevertheless, I believe that sharing statistics and laws that exist in other countries is a good thing … and MAYBE an “on-the-fence” person will give it some thought and (possibly) reconsider their position.