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.
The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution might be open to criticism for the shaky syntax of the Second Amendment, but they could hardly have been more clear about its purpose.
In the immediate post-revolutionary environment, facing a continuing existential threat, and in the absence of a standing army or police forces, individual citizens had to be ready to grab their muskets and powder and rush to the defence of their fledgling country if needed.
Somehow, between 1788 and 2013, those words have been tortured beyond recognition to mean something along the lines of:
Disaffected and socially awkward young men, perhaps suffering from undiagnosed and untreated mental illness, with no ties whatsoever to the Army Reserve, the National Guard or any other well regulated defence or security group, shall not have infringed their right to keep and bear large numbers of high-powered, military-style, assault rifles, magazines holding up to 100 rounds of armour-piercing bullets, and semi-automatic pistols.
Not only has the syntax become much worse, but so has the slaughter. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which arose from the assassination attempt on President Reagan that seriously wounded his press secretary James Brady, more than 100,000 Americans are shot or killed with a gun each year.
More than one million people have been killed with guns since the 1968 assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King, whose birthday was celebrated as a public holiday in the US on Monday. Gun homicide is nearly 20 times higher in the US than in other comparable western democracies. The full impact of gun violence is estimated to cost the US about $100 billion a year.
Yet no amount of “wake up calls” — not Columbine, not Aurora, not Virginia Tech, not the shooting of former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords — provided the momentum for any serious reform of American gun ownership laws. It appears, however, that last month’s mass murder at Newtown, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School — literally the slaughter of innocents — has provided the shock, revulsion and political spine to effect needed change.
After the Newtown massacre, President Barack Obama assigned Vice-President Joe Biden to provide him with a set of recommendations for “meaningful gun reform”. 
Following community consultation, the Vice-President delivered as promised, with a package recommending four major legislative reforms and 23 executive actions. President Obama strongly endorsed these recommendations in a national address — after which he immediately implemented some of them by signing a series of Presidential Decrees, witnessed by some of the surviving children from Sandy Hook and their families.
As widely predicted, some of the major proposals involve the President asking Congress to re-introduce and strengthen of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons (which was allowed to lapse in 2004) and limit the size of ammunition magazines to a maximum of ten bullets (New York has just moved to limit these to seven bullets in that state).
In addition, Obama wants to ban armour-piercing bullets, including their possession and transfer (and not merely their manufacture or importation); and allocate $50 million for schools, to be used at their discretion for security, security officers, counsellors and emergency planning.
On his own initiative — despite some Republican and gun lobby howls that he is exceeding his authority — the President signed decrees to require comprehensive background checks for all gun sales through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database, removing the current massive loopholes for internet sales, gun shows and private sales, which account for more than 40% of gun sales in the US.
Other measures improve record-keeping, cooperation, coordination and information-sharing among government agencies holding information relevant to background checks; ensuring background checks include inquiries about the management of any mental illness and the improvement of gun-tracing technology and databases to help police track down gun crime perpetrators and avoid returning weapons to people inappropriately.
Rounding out this comprehensive package of measures, Obama intends to appoint a director for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been leaderless since 2006; and remove the 15 year-old prohibition on the Center for Disease Control from conducting research into gun violence (yes, really).
Besides these legislative and regulatory proposals, there are important initiatives in some parts of the country to have public and quasi-public authorities divest themselves of all investments in the weapons industry.
Former Obama chief-of-staff and now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced that the city’s five major pension funds — holding almost $14 billion in assets — would begin a divestment review. Similarly, the board of one of California’s largest teachers’ pension funds has voted unanimously to divest from the firearms industry.
The pro-gun lobby will fiercely resist even the most modest and sensible reform efforts, of course. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has released a video denouncing President Obama as an “elitist hypocrite” for allowing his two school-age daughters to receive protection from armed Secret Service officers, while denying “ordinary families” armed guards at their schools.
The pressure on Congress from the NRA, the even loopier (yes, it’s possible) Gun Owners of America and other lobby groups will be more intense than ever, since they can see the possibility of reform finally eventuating.
As President Obama correctly stated at the end of his press conference, “I will put everything I’ve got into this, and so will Joe [Biden], but the only way we can change is if the American people demand it … ”
James Wookey
Paramedic
It is very disturbing that the "Gun Lobby" in the US can disagree so strongly with what is a 99% reasonable plan.
If anything I'd be worried that the plan is in fact so reasonable; it won't survive the "watering down" it will no doubt undergo before it passes into law.
Theo Pertsinidis
Theo Pertsinidis is a Friend of The Conversation.
ALP voter
On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’
Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’
And Vanity comes along and asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’
But Conscience asks the question ‘Is it right?’
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither
safe, nor politic, nor popular, but must do it because Conscience says
it is right.
Is it safe or popular to stand up to the Gun Lobby as a pro 'No Guns' citizen?
This is the challenge facing us.
David Arthur
n/a
Apparently, the NRA is fond of reminding Americans that "guns don't kill people. People kill people."
What they don't say is
"People with no guns kill some people, people with guns kill more people, and people with semi- or fully automatic high-powered guns kill still more people again."
David Clerke
Teacher
Only problem is that the proposed legislation made no difference to the overall murder rates or gun related deaths. Large magazines and "assault rifles" were banned for several years didn't make any difference
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Your confusing different issues - banning citizens from having Nukes hasnt stopped rapists....? its the same logic, its called strawmanning, either deliberately or accidently misunderstanding your oppenents position and then attacking your own mis-understanding
There will always be murders, banning assult weapons isnt meant to stop that and you should probably understand this before commenting.
David Clerke
Teacher
So given that it will not reduce killings what is the point? It is rather like the millions spent on the 96 Gunbuyback, there is no way it could have led to a gradual reduction in gun deaths (given there are now more in Australia than 95) unless you believe that guns kill even after they are destroyed but loose this ability over time. When a firearm is destroyed it does not kill anyone in any future time periods.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
You seem to be jumping all over the show - "When a firearm is destroyed it does not kill anyone in any future time periods." yeah I agree, the less guns the better
Why do you think banning Guns will stop murders - thats rediculous, no one is saying that except you whose argueing against it
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
David, these proposals are not aimed at stopping gun crime and murder. Stop blowing down straw houses.
It is - like it was in Australia - a response to massacres involving a characteristic type of weaponry... small calibre, high capacity, rapid fire "paramilitary" rifles - what I call "crowd killers".
And it works. It worked here. The statistics show it, as the Institute of Criminology study we discussed elsewhere amply demonstrates. We haven't had a massacre since 1996. Given the previous…
Read moreDavid Clerke
Teacher
I would refer you to public statements by Don Weatherburn of the NSW crime statistics unit that there is not a statistically valid sample to show that Buyback saved lives. A more simple example is that there have not been any such shootings in NZ since then either. NZ did not change its legislation and even full automatics are legal there last time I checked.
David Clerke
Teacher
I am glad that you agree with me that a firearm that does not exist cannot kill anyone! Can you please tell that to Andrew Leigh who is unfortunately the Member for N Canberra and Simon Chapman a highly paid academic, who seem to think otherwise?
David Clerke
Teacher
Clarification when I wrote there are more now than then I was talking about firearms, not gun related deaths. DO NOT BELIEVE ME! Check it yourself.
David Clerke
Teacher
"These proposals are not aimed at stopping gun crime and murder" So. errh, umm. These proposals are not aimed at stopping global warming or climate change or ??? I know they are aimed at making the comfortable middle classes feel comfortable with their prosperity?
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
No David, these laws were designed specifically to clamp down on the availability of "crowd-killers" in the community and to stop the string of copy-cat massacres that were occuring with alarming regularity in Australia from the 1980s on. And there have been none since.
Murders and gun crime continues - but only to the the most obtuse or the most mendacious can maintain there was no effect of the 1996 laws.
David Arthur
n/a
Your reference to Don Weatherburn and statistics of murders by firearms in Australia is disingenuous; either that, or you have failed to grasp the basic concept that banning high-powered high-calibre high-rate weapons (ie "military style" weapons) is specifically intended to prevent repeats of random massacres such as were carried out at Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Sandy Hook.
Has this stopped targetted killings in Australia? No, so the statistics for murder by firearm remain approximately unchanged.
Has this stopped random massacres? Yes, so the statistics for random massacres have changed completely.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Good Article, thanks for posting - very amusing breakdown of how the second amendment has been tortured into its new "Meaning"
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I have been deeply disturbed to hear this "consititutional responsibility" argument getting trotted out ... this notion of rising up against an "oppressive" -presumably popularly-elected - government. A democracy out-clause.
Oppressive against whom - folks with guns? Rich folks? White folks? Who gets the "responsibility" of staging an armed revolt against their elected government?
What would be considered a sufficiently oppressive trigger for insurrection - Obamacare? A black, foreign…
Read moreMichael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
I work with a NRA Nut, he thinks they need semi-auto's so that they can turn them into automatic weapons when needed and then overthrow a military base using these automatic rifles (Gud fn luck) then after they have overthrown a military base they will be able to resist the tyranical government.....Its insane, completely insane and I keep asking him the question you pose - what justifies this? there is no real answer because its more about cowboy fantasies than anything else
Also, Oppressive Regieme's love, absolutely violent militia's - it justifies further oppresion
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
We all share his burden, even if we complained to him after Aurora, Columbine...
In 1994, states Attorneys General gave Pres. Clinton the most effective strategy we could want: use the phone...
a) Call Sec.Def. at DoD and instruct him/her to cancel all new weapons purchases and hold all invoices payments until each such manufacturer recalls any semi- or fully-automatic weapons from their civilian sales streams, including the silly gun 'show' inventories.
New orders and invoices would only…
Read moreStephen John Ralph
carer
As I read the comments I guess the theme is Guns & Murder...........I suppose it little matters to a victim whether he/she is killed by a shotgun or an automatic.
To me the issue is America's obsession with firearms, and the reassurance it seems to bring them.
Thinking further, the issue to me appears to be Guns, Murder & Drugs.
Perhaps they should ban all guns and legalise "drugs".
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Well our 2nd Amendment does say "right to bear arms", so we should be able to have muskets.
Legalizing & taxing drugs would also help the debt -- and we already do that with drugs like alcohol, tobacco, so no big deal. That might help the 25 million unemployed get work or just not be conscious enough to notice.
;]
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
No no Alex - it's all been a terrible typo ... "bare arms"... a plea for tolerance from puritan work attire.
Nah probably not ... but there was something about being part of a well-regulated militia ...
'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."
Can't see anything in there about lunatic fringe ratbag individualists playing Bruce Willis can you? Nor folks conspiring against their own elected government.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Peter, we've a 2-party system. How else could we accommodate the lunatics? They have to vote. Oops, that's not in the Constitution.
;]
Listen, you folks have huge, empty central regions. We have some millions who won't be able to fit into Glen Beck's new right-wing utopia in our desert, so could we start shipping a few million a month down there? They surely could scrabble together a utopia where they bother no one on your or our content.
;]
When the 787 gets fixed, we can start. It'll be like The Ark, with wings! We just need a web promotion like Gregor MacGregor could have had, if he'd had the web.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_MacGregor
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30149559?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101546096973
You folks could just put a tall fence around whatever large lands you don't want and have signs saying "Poyais". Hide th kangaroos though.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I don't think there's time to fix the 787s Alex - we'll jest heff ter traast in the Laaawd...
True we have big spaces but not quite empty... still I'm sure we could take say Arkansas or one of the Carolinas off your hands. But don't you go trying to slip in Utah or Montana as part of the deal... even we Australians aren't that gullible.
And they'd all have to leave the artillery at home.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Leaving the artillery here will likely be a deal breaker, Peter. But you do owe us for selling our farmers eucalyptus in the 1800s as timber, but shipping the twisty kinds!
Stephen John Ralph
carer
Hello Alex
you Americans and your constitution............anyone would think its set in stone.
B.t.w..........................love your idea of a getting rid of the "unwanteds" -
we have quite a few that can be included. Even a few politicians to set up a constituency.
My guess that as Madagascar seems to be ruined ecologically,politically and economically, we could use that. Its certainly large enough AND seperate.
Oh dear - apologies to Madagascans.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Aw, I'd hate to bother the poor Lemurs there with our rats.
;]
Maybe we can get Gingrich to get Beck enthused about doing his thing on the Moon and just launch the bunch?
Rick Estes
logged in via Facebook
I am always amazed how little other societies understand the United States and why we are who we are. Shootings in America are almost always in areas where guns are restricted, where there are gun restrictions. Where guns are freely allowed and kept by the population, that is where the least amount of any kind of violence takes place. The thing that stops an illegal citizen with a gun is a legal citizen with a gun. UK and Australia have much higher, 4 times, the violent crime rate of America…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Rick, you're full of something!
" Where guns are freely allowed and kept by the population, that is where the least amount of any kind of violence takes place."
You clearly have no idea what we Americans who responsibly have guns know and what actually occurs.
In fact, your "freely available" notion is exactly how ~80% of all criminal acts with guns are facilitated -- gun shows, private sales, all that silly NRA-lobbied crap.
Again, foreign agents regularly come to the US to buy here…
Read moreJolyon Parslow
Retired Business Academic, Consultant & Business Person
In reply to Rick Estes, you assert that the violent crime rate in Australia is 4 times the US! What is your source? Your statement appears to be completely false. While comparing crime rates across countries is always problematic due to differences in definition, reliability of stats etc, a search of Google on 'violent crime rates by country' returns various articles which assert the opposite to you. Both the murder rate and the violent crime rate appear to be 4 times higher in the US than Australia. You can criticize Professor Google if you like, but a fair perusal suggests you are probably quoting propaganda not a fair appraisal of the range of statistics out there for all to see.
Stephen John Ralph
carer
Hi Y'all again
Australia (thank goodness) doesn't have an historic gun culture. Perhaps we are too lazy to put in the target practice!
Perhaps America has that "wild west" history and frontierland connection that makles guns appealing.
Why is there the neccesity to own a gun if you are NOT a hunter?
Is it for protection.....security.........cos the constitution says you can.......???
I dont think there seems to be a specific geographicity (my new word) to the usage. The mass shootings at schools seem to be in middle class areas, whilst cities like L.A & Washington appear to have mega amounts of firearm murders. Plus there are all those gun totin' renegades up in the hills of Montana etc
America is so interestin because it is such a connundrum. Almost like a heap of countries rolled into one.
The future will be as always fascinating to watch from a distance.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I'm suspecting we might be watching the past myself Stephen... or the soon to be the past. I think the ground is finally shifting in the USofA on this and a couple of other deeply embedded issues. Let us hope so.
John Harland
bicycle technician
Australia had its Wild West where carrying a gun was normal and gun battles sporadic.
A big difference is that for much of the 20th Century, police did not normally carry guns. We did not have shootouts of police and criminals. Nor did we have obscenities such as the ridiculous shootup of Bonny and Clyde with the entire car perforated with bullets through a purely hooligan lust of shooting.
Stephen John Ralph
carer
Again.....
Being a devotee of world history and the jigsaw of historic events, I have been fascinated by the breakup of empires/civilsations.
From afar it does appear that the American "empire" reached its zenith a while ago and is now on the slide in one form or another. Hopefully this will be a non-violent descent.
Part of this is probably related to the huge and ever-growing debt level and the world implications. Part also because of the political divergences within the society. Whereas…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
From an economical viewpoint - not that this counts for everything - the US zenith coincided with Ronald Reagan - and, most curiously, the collapse of the bipolar Cold War tensions.
Reagan's administrations took the US from being the world's largest lender to being the world's largest borrower. Federal spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. The public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Actually, the boom when Clinton was Pres. and left a budget surplus for W. to eliminate, was our more recent zenith.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Not too sure Alex.
Serious voodoo economics this - born again monetarism - but there's been a curious discussion about this very thing in the ponderous end of the finance press of late.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlwhelan/2012/09/05/did-bill-clintons-budgets-really-destroy-the-american-economy/
Two questions come to mind - the degree to which the Clinton budgets were dependent on the inflation of the US housing market and second, who financed the US government while the country was…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Peter, yes, debt is serious, if GDP can't overwhelm it. Our Chinese relationship isn't sustainable, for sure. A good view of our oddball decisions starts with Clinton agreeing to the de-regulations of the banking system, which led directly to the great blowdown. As a result, some of our banks are now even bigger.
There are people who just want to make $. And we have to protect ourselves from as much of their skullduggery as we can!
Look at how wimpily we've just treated HSBC, while we put…
Read moreStephen John Ralph
carer
Dear Rick
I could retort with "when you leave the rest of the world alone, we'll leave you alone".
But that's a cheap shot.
America interests the world for many and varied reasons. Some I have mentioned in previous emails.
America has sought to influence the world for many many decades, Much of that influence centres on military force or implied military force.
If a country seeks to 'force" (in the nicest possible way" its influence on other countries (in the way that it tries to push DEMOCRACY e.g.) then it must also be open to criticism.
And when that happens, other people begin to detect the whiff of hypocrisy filtering through the dialogues.
kryston jones
security officer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RA3tTGcSY