Criminal Negligence

[timelets]

NRA designed, lobbied and promoted the current interpretation of the right to bear arms. The design has a fundamental flaw that results in multiple criminal deaths of innocent people. NRA is responsible for the flaw and, consequently, for the deaths.

Comments

[gb0]

"Citizen" being an equivalent of a "free man with a gun" stance predates the United States; the law in some of the original colonies in fact mandated every free man to have a gun and powder/bullets (e.g., the Plymouth colony == Massachusetts) under the the penalty of a fine and some mandatory labor to pay for the fine and the gun. There was nothing "invented" back in the late 18th century by the founding fathers, they simply recorded the status quo, which was (is) the same as the Swiss one. The Swiss, as you may know, were historically a massively armed society; they still have broad masses of people storing fully automatic Sturmgewehrs in their homes. Sort of like the AR-15s, but better. Their murder rate is about 10 times lower than ours, but that has little to do with guns per se.

Neither the Swiss system nor the second amendment (or the legal precedents of the early days of the US) were ever intended to contain safeguards against terrorists or crazy people. The design goals were completely different.

For the record, the most important 2A court cases that really shaped our concept of the armed citizen (and the right to bear arms with no relation to military/militia duty), like Bliss v. Commonwealth(1822) or Dred Scott v Sanford (1856) were ruled prior to the birth of NRA (1871).

[timelets]

The modern interpretation of the second amendment is due to NRA's political lobbying. They should be held accountable.

[gb0]

All the laws passed since 1871 (aka NRA era) that regulate gun circulation in the country make gun ownership harder for we the people, not easier.

Once again, the legal right of every bona fida citizen to keep and bear arms, especially for self-protection, and as permitted by law – goes back to the British Glorious Revolution of the late 17th century and the laws of original colonies (some of which required arms ownership for every free person). They simply wrote down the status quo in 1791, and have explicitly untied the arms bearing right from military or militia service back in 1856. This was all long before the NRA was born.

What exactly aspect of the current interpretation do you mean?

[timelets]

I think you are confused. This is not arbat's journal; therefore, spare me the demagoguery. Thank you.

[gb0]

I sincerely want to read and understand a constitutional amendment, federal law or SCotUS ruling that has anyhow made gun ownership easier given that the NRA has somehow designed, influenced or lobbied that amendment, law or ruling. You are apparently unable or unwilling to point to such an amendment, law or ruling – so yeah, thank you.

[timelets]

If you were sincere and serious you would've acknowledge the existence of the problem: the system has a fundamental flaw that enables mass shootings of unarmed civilians.