In many respects, the United States Constitution has served as a model for constitutions throughout the world. Of the 188 nations that have written constitutions, the vast majority have adopted fundamental guarantees that were first fully articulated in the United States Constitution.
According to research by professors David Law and Mila Vertsteeg, 97 percent of all the world's constitutions now protect the freedom of religion; 97 percent protect the freedom of speech and press; 97 percent protect a right of equality; 97 percent protect the right to private property; 95 percent protect the freedom against unreasonable searches; 94 percent protect the right of assembly; 94 percent prohibit arbitrary arrest or detention; 84 percent forbid cruel and unusual punishment; 84 percent protect the right to vote; 80 percent prohibit ex post facto laws; 72 percent protect the right to present a defense; and 70 percent protect the right to counsel. These freedoms, which were first constitutionalized in the United States, are now widely recognized as fundamental to a free, humane and civilized society.
On the other hand, only 1 percent of all the other nations of the world recognize a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Of the 188 nations with written constitutions, only Mexico and Guatemala have followed our example.
Every other nation has rejected the notion that individuals have a constitutional right to own guns. This includes such diverse nations as England, China, Brazil, Iceland, India, Portugal, Turkey, Kenya, Israel, Indonesia, Russia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Germany, Argentina, Vietnam, Canada, Japan, Hondouras, Poland, South Africa, Norway, France -- and 162 others. The idea that individuals have a fundamental right to purchase and possess firearms has been resoundingly rejected by 185 of the world's 188 nations. There are few, if any, questions about which the world's nations are in such universal agreement.
But so what? We are, after all, THE United States, and if other nations don't have the good sense to follow our lead, then that's their misfortune. We are who we are, and we're damned proud of it (mass murders notwithstanding).
These data are interesting not only because they show how peculiar we are in this respect, but also because they shed important light on the meaning of the Second Amendment. What did the Framers have in mind? How could they have had such a peculiar and idiosyncratic notion of individual freedom?
A long-standing puzzle about the Second Amendment is what it actually means. The Amendment provides: "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." What is the meaning of this guarantee?
The puzzle turns on which of two possible interpretations of the text makes more sense. The first possible interpretation construes the text as guaranteeing individuals a constitutional right to purchase and possess guns. The second possible interpretation construes the text as guaranteeing individuals a constitutional right to purchase and possess guns for the purpose of serving in the militia. Now, go back and re-read the text.
In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court, in a sharply-divided 5 to 4 decision, embraced the first of these interpretations. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, argued that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a constitutional right to own guns for any lawful purpose, whether or not their gun ownership is related in any way to serving in the "militia."
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter, reasoned that a plain reading of the text of the Second Amendment makes clear that it was not intended by the Framers to guarantee a personal right of individuals to own guns for any lawful purpose, but to ensure -- at a time when there were no professional police forces, no national guards and no standing armies - that the government would have the capacity to call up an appropriately equipped volunteer militia whenever it was needed to help preserve the peace.
Thus, in the view of the four dissenting justices, the constitutional right to own a gun was not an individual right, analogous to the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech or the right to counsel, but an instrumental right designed for a very specific and now largely obsolete purpose.
The decision of 99 percent of the world's other nations not to guarantee a constitutional right to own guns is a compelling affirmation of the reasoning of the dissenters in Heller. In a world in which there are now organized and well-armed police forces, national guards and standing armies, there is no longer any need for a citizen militia, and such entities no longer exist in the United States or in most other nations of the world. The need for individuals to own a gun in order to serve in the militia, which was critical in the 1790s, is now moot.
All that is left, then, is the question whether there is a fundamental personal right to own a gun for the sake of owning a gun, and on that question the nations of the world are in agreement -- there is no such fundamental right, any more than there is a fundamental constitutional right to grow marijuana, to skydive, to drive 80 miles per hour, or to own a pet lion.
By distorting the text and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignoring the common sense judgment of the rest of the civilized world, the five conservative justices in Heller fed into and reinforced the NRA's frenzy about guns in America. And by preventing American citizens from engaging freely in the democratic process to decide for themselves what controls on guns are most sensible, those five justices tragically and needlessly set America apart from the rest of the civilized world -- with predictable consequences.
Perversely, a constitutional provision intended to keep us safe has been twisted by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court into one that endangers us all.
On the contrary. Those things make a citizen militia all that more important.
Part 1
"These extremists are the reason we have guns"? I do not believe that at all, and not all politically "liberal" people dislike guns. I have been an Oregon Democrat for 40 years, which is almost as long as I have owned firearms. I grew up in a working class family in rural Oregon, and we have always owned guns of various types for sport and self-defense. Most hunters and people like my wife and I (who have concealed carry licenses) are not "extremists" in any way. I am an advocate of equal rights for all citizens, which includes the natural human right of self-defense. I have owned guns for 47 years with no injury accidents or crimes. Some people will endanger children and others with irresponsible behavior, no matter how many laws exist. Most gun owners do take great care to store and use their firearms safely, especially in households with children. I do not believe in punishing innocent people for the crimes of others...
Part 2
Again: I do not believe in punishing innocent people for the crimes of others.
Banning firearms and ammunition magazines that responsible non-criminal citizens already own would be both unfair and ineffective at reducing gun crimes and accidents. I believe that the FBI annual uniform crime reports for Oregon's last 2 decades shows a result opposite of what was predicted for allowing more people to legally own and carry guns. We got our concealed carry law in 1990, and the predicted rise in gun crime never materialized-- our gun related crime and accident rates went steadily downward. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" enjoy shooting sports where I live, and we are all concerned about the safety of our families, as well. We are not "extremists" and we will be keeping our firearms.
"set America apart from the rest of the civilized world " ----- Well, I see that now communist countries that would definitely not want their people owning guns, to be part of a millitia or not, because they do not want their people rising up against the gov't, are "the civilized world." They're so darn civilized that people risk death to get out. Allowing the US citizenry to have guns, may help keep our gov't in check and not communist. ------ OOoooohhhhh, yeah, sorry. I forgot that's what the Left wants. Communism, socialism, marxism. That's what makes us great. Uh-huh.
And many of those nations have higher violent crime and murder rates than we do. Russia, Brazil, Kenya, Honduras, and South Africa come to mind.
Meanwhile some of the countries that I'm sure are on that list are pretty free when it comes to gun ownership even though it's not a protected right. Costa Rica and Panama even allow non-citizen ex-pats who establish residency to possess firearms and once permission is granted, the option to carry concealed is automatic.
The 2nd amendment protects the people from being disarmed so that they can form a militia amongst themselves, if necessary.
Reread that sentence several times and see how silly it sounds.
For a bunch of people that do not trust the establisment, they certianly trust the establishment with the one thing that the establishment could use to actually OPPRESS them.
Whatever, man.
Also, I'd remind Professor Stone that the vast majority of the guarantees in the US Constitution are derived from British common law, mainly the 1689 Bill of Rights and Magna Carta. The world owes a debt to Great Britain, not the US.
D.C. was and is a dangerous city and its citizens should have their 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves with firearms regardless of whether the SCOTUS decided it 5 to 4.
Clue: Name-calling does nothing to support your opinion.
"Owning a gun does not make you a bigger man - or woman. Just a fanatic"
I am a working class Oregon Democrat, and I have never been a "nut", "crackpot" or a "fanatic", thank you. Having been harmed by violent crime in our lives, my wife and I choose to be better able to defend ourselves by being armed. I do not believe that makes us "nuts" or anything else. In her case, it makes her "a disabled woman who does not want to be beaten and raped ever again". I see no need to further explain or "justify" anything to anyone. I mention the facts of our situation in life because it does seem relevant to the discussion.