Summations Only

Not today I can't - I'm off to work.However, for the record, nothing whatsoever in my post seems to imply that I am thinking that the answer is that there be no constitution, as you claim. My read of Jefferson's letter is that he is suggesting that a constitution should expire after a period of time (he suggests 19 years), so that a subsequent generation can then determine its own constitution for its own time. To put it in rather colourful terms, that way it's only the living who get to vote in decisions as to how they govern themselves - the dead don't get a vote.

Just as a general point, you'll need to make sure you do both sides of the overall equation. You'll need to factor in the benefits that the taxes buy - for example, people in the UK don't need to take out medical insurance or pay for private healthcare (though many choose to do so) - our taxes pay for a health service which we are all entitled to use, free at the point of use.

Yep, as well as the state pension and a couple of other things.

Oh right.So what is it that gives the people the right to keep and bear arms if not the second amendment ?Edited by vimesey, : Tidying up

So all that I need to demonstrate, to have the right to do something, is that I am able to do it ?

I see how you're looking at it CS, but the problem for me is that to my mind, it makes the term "right" a little trivial to look at it like that.For example, at the moment, I'm allowed to drive on the left hand side of the road in the UK. I'm also allowed to say that David Cameron is an arse.The government could change the laws of the UK, and say that we now have to switch sides of the road to drive on and that we can no longer criticise the government. I would call the latter an infringement of my right to free speech, but I would consider it silly to call the former an infringement of my right to drive on the left hand side of the road.So when ICANT says that the second amendment doesn't create a right to bear arms, then to my mind, he is either making a meaningless point (ie picking up a gun is an action which people are capable of in the absence of prevention), or I want to know why he considers bearing arms to be more than a trivial matter.For what it's worth, I would disagree with ICANT and say that in my view, (because rights are something which I think it is worthwhile distinguishing from the run of the mill actions in day to day life) a right to bear arms in the US is one which exists as a result of the second amendment. Whether that right is something to limit and debate is another question - and one on which I know we disagree

So you are saying that the right was reserved to the people as a result of the ratification of the constitution. How did they have the right before then ? Are you saying that it is some form of natural right ?

You use the phrase "reserved the right". The verb "reserved" means to keep back or retain. For it to have meaning, the thing which is being reserved must be in existence already at the time of its reservation. So what I'm looking to drill down to is what is it that you feel created the right to bear arms, before the constitution reserved it.

So the right to bear arms under the second amendment is sacrosanct, but the right to free speech under the first amendment, not quite so much ?(Ok, I'll accept that you're employing hyperbole, but re-assure me Faith - whilst you disagree strongly with what many of us say here, you would still defend to the death our right to say it, wouldn't you ?)

Presumably though it's ok just to have those opinions - you'd only tar and feather people who openly expressed them ?

At the NRA we're testy,
'Cos the numbers, they look zesty,
When it comes to deaths from guns.But we can promulgate some figures,
That present as small what's bigger,
And we'll hope the falsehood runs.So when we're compiling the statistics,
Of those killed by the ballistics
'Less it's murder it don't count.When we're manipulating numbers,
Gotta hope the reader slumbers,
Or they're gonna call us out.If you lost a little baby,
'Cos you forgot to flick the safety,
Then we're sorry, that don't count.And if you went out hunting white tails,
Killed some tourist on a woods trail,
Then such accidents don't count.

Deeply, deeply scary.But let us not forget, that as a result of the selfless sacrifices of the victims of spectacular fuckwits such as this, and that as a result of the equally selfless sacrifices of the victims of school and other massacres, gun enthusiasts can continue to say "Hey, it's a shame and all that, but I can still own a gun and protect myself in the vanishingly small likelihood that someone will at some point threaten me with deadly violence (and I'll get the drop on them; and I'll actually manage to shoot them before they shoot me; and I won't accidentally kill someone else; and I'll actually be correct about the dead guy's murderous intentions), and (in some cases, I grant you) against my ludicrous delusion that the Federal Government is just waiting for the chance to mobilise the army and come in and take over from....err....the Federal Government."

Don't forget, there is no mountain of innocent bodies too high to clamber over, no lake of innocent blood too wide to cross, in the defence of a gun enthusiast's right to his gun.In the context of that kind of world view, admonishment is sadly a consistent line of thought.

Caricatured, certainly, but nothing I read or hear from the gun lobby leads me to believe otherwise.It would be foolish to suggest that widespread gun ownership does not cause innocent deaths. It demonstrably does.Is there a number which would be too high a price to pay, for a right for people to carry guns ? Or is my caricature in fact correct ?

Come on CS - we're naturally mortal creatures ! You surely can't expect deaths by unnatural causes to exceed (or even come close to exceeding) deaths by natural causes before we begin to wonder if we can try to stop them. It cannot be an acceptable response to a relative of an innocent victim of a gun killing to say "Sorry, your concerns won't register with me until you at least reach the levels of mortality caused by heart disease".