I do wonder. If the second ammendment is what Richard Bork says it is, then what part of the constution would allow government to regulate gun ownership at all?

In the US, all rights that have not explicitly been transferred by a constitution to the state, remain with the individual. (Similarly all rights not explicitly transferred by the federal constitution to the federal government remain with the states.)

The way I read the second amendment is that it allows government to regulate ownership of weapons so that it is guaranteed that free citizens can still form a "well regulated" (means "well equipped" in 1800 English) militia.

But if as you say the second amendment merely talks about states' rights, it wouldn't affect individuals at all and ownership of all types of weapons would be legal because there would be nothing in the constitution granting the government any power to interfere with individual weapon ownership.

For example, nuclear weapons are not necessary to form a militia and hence government can prohibit ownership of those. But hand guns are certainly militia weapons.

Compare this to Europe where many more die per year in wars. Perhaps European countries shouldn't be allowed to have armies.

OTOH American gun ownership seems to be pretty safe. The number you quote is less of a tenth of the average number of deaths per year caused by European wars over the last 100 years.

Good point.  But to add an addendum - the statement about militias in the second amendment is a pre-amble. In other words, just an example of why the founders felt the need to put in the constitution the right to carry arms, not the sole justification of it.

Europe?  Stay right here in the US.  There are almost 200k deaths each year from medical malpractice.  By Bahu's logic, we should outlaw doctors.  That would save 200k a year, right?

People like Bahu think just taking guns away from legal citizens will just make theses numbers go away.  Do you think that banning guns from lawful citizens will stop the criminals (ya know people who break the law) from obtaining guns?

[In 2005] There were 6, 420,000 auto accidents.

42,636 people were killed.

About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -

- one death every 13 minutes."

 ~http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

I guess cars should be next...imagine how many lives we could save!!

How many lives are saved by doctors? How many lives are saved by guns?

Is the number of lives saved by doctors - (deaths from malpractice - deaths from malpractice in cases where the patient would have died without medical care anyway) greater or smaller than the number of lives saved by guns - (the number of lives taken by guns - the number of lives taken by guns in self defence saving a life at the same time)?

I would guess maybe the doctors are more useful than the guns.

Cars also save lives (doctors could save very few lives without ambulances) and make our lives a lot easier (guns are less of a factor in a good life).

But the point remains. It would be useful to find a way to reduce the number of deaths caused by car accidents than to support gun control, if this is about lives.

However, there are more people driving than people shooting, I hope, and the number of cars used to kill someone is therefor much smaller than the number of guns used to kill someone, considering how many people run around and use the equipment in question. While more people die in car accidents than get shot in Ireland, I still think that while walking home when there are hundreds of people driving cars outside my company's building alone is perfectly safe, I would think twice about walking home when there are hundreds of people shooting guns outside the building. The fact that very few people die due to gun fire would not take away my caution in that situation.

As I said, people use cars for the convenience. Everybody wants to buy a car because they "need it" to get to work and otherwise.

If I lived in a country where guns have the same status as a tool of convenience, I would move.

There are well over 250 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., including nearly 100 million handguns and tens of millions of “assault weapons”—the types of firearms that gun control supporters have tried the hardest to get banned—and the number of firearms typically rises about 4 million per year. 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

There are 308, 745, 538 people in the US http://www.census.gov/ 

That's roughly 8 out of 10 Americans..... (though this is likely a little less if accounting for people who own more than one gun)

As far as how many lives guns save.  Millions.  Think of all the wars, from Independence Civil, World Wars, right on through the Iraq war....and the guns police carry and use to protect and serve.  It isn't easily measured granted, but there's never been a war won without them.

In which you have not seriously engaged, of course.

Whenever I want to enjoy a little totally-biased, strawman-laden, association-substituted-for-causation, agenda-substituted-for-rational-thought, non-sequitor-substituted-for-logic article, I just scan for a post by Bahu and I'm always rewarded.

I don't mean to pick on you (much), Bahu.  But I'm not the first to point out that there's lies, damned lies and statistics.

I would recommend you read Unintended Consequences by John Ross.  You'd learn a lot (maybe).

well regulated maeans just what it state: regulations as in rules,  Even if we apply the restricted meaning of well equipped there is the whole question of state jurisdiction over arms. The fact that the arms were to be borne in the structure of a well regulated militia suggets that a body of armed citizens were envisioned to prevent the English from reconquering the 13 colonies as was attempted in 1812. The fact that the states choose not to "regulate" does not mean that the constitution gives people the right to carry weapons. In fact there have been attempts to regulate the sale of hand guns but to no avail.

I am not sure I get you on this.

The debate is only on regulating the sale of guns. No one is talking of taking back the Second Ammendment. In fact quite a few Eastern states have rules that restrict the sale of hand guns.

I think the case of accidental deaths in road accidents and deliberate killing by the use of weapons cannot be compared. And in the case of traffic, to use your example, there are rules and regulations. A licence can be got only after a test. Even that minimal level of testing in not there for a purchaser of hand guns.

Is there any other way by which we move form the particular and the finite to alarger universe of generalisation.

Matter of perspective.  If you have a gash in your leg and are suffering from Gangrene, I would agree.  If you are camping in Yellowstone and a grizzly attacks - a doctor is useless.  But a gun sure comes in handy.

As in all things, the tool (doctor or gun) is not the issue - it is the brains behind it.  A gun is more valuable than an incompetent doctor, and an incompetent doctor is more useful than a gun - it all depends upon the circumstances.  Those who wish to ban guns are merely ignorant of what the problem is, and are too stupid to learn.

You do not read or comprehend very well.

And to that last point, I will merely point out Federal Supremacy.  At least TRY to learn about that which you pontificate.

Well regulated militia has to be interpretted in the context of the original intent of the framers of the document. That statute cannot be made to carry the burden of lax, unregulated, promiscuous, ill defined approach to gguns. In fact there are restrictions on guns. In most public places carrying concealed weapons is unlawful. What is required is a set of rules that firmly establish the parameters of gun ownership. Further, there is no 'positive law" that permits guns to be owned and transported. It is only custom that that given such "rights".

The Constitution is not a 'custom'. The Second Amendment is not a 'statute'. Your understanding of the Constitution and its Amendments is, based on this post anyway, nil.  A 'positive law' is not needed.

BAHU writes:

 In saying this, it's clear that Bork holds the revisionist view that emerged back in the 60s.

As I read it, the Second Amendment itself refutes what Bork said.

"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."

So there it is. The law of the land, the Second Amendment itself, protects a private citizen's right to keep and bear arms (guns).

Stephen P. Halbrook has researched and written a book on just this...The Founders' Second Amendment...in it he argues that based on the Founder's statements found in newspapers, debates and letters, the Second Amendment was designed to protect the individual's right to bear arms.

Yup.  It doesn't read 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.  Whoever Richard Bork is, whether he is 'conservative in his judicial pronouncements' or not, on this he's plainly wrong and inventing language which isn't in the Amendment.  And I ain't even a judge.

I nvever said it was, so what is the point.